Talk:Climate change/Archive 49

Heat Capacity of Planet Earth
Thi s paper challlenges "the large heat capacity of the oceans and the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[6][7]"http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf --Charlesrkiss (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some questions the paper posed in its conclusion; "Is the effective heat capacity that is coupled to the climate system, as determined from trends in ocean heat content and GMST, too low, or too high? ... Is the relaxation time constant of the climate system determined by autocorrelation analysis the pertinent time constant of the climate system?" It's not clear that this paper is taking a clear stand. What exactly are you suggesting in terms of article improvement? --Skyemoor (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For one, it states pretty explicitly that the CO2 does not have a "long lifetime,... in the atmosphere" that it is rapidly absorbed into the oceans, etc.
 * It doesn't seem that you could have possibly had enough time to read it. That's the problem. Seriously.--CharlesRKiss(talk) 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The points you raised are already well covered; note that warming oceans release more CO2 than they absorb. And which journal did you say this was published in? --Skyemoor (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * JGR - Atmospheres. Awickert (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing two references to the lifetime of CO2, one at p.16, wherein "... because of the long lifetime (ca 100 years) associated with excess atmospheric CO2" and one at p.3 "... because of the long lifetime of excess CO2 in the atmosphere-ocean system". I'm not sure either use justifies any change to the article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Equation (18) leads to the conclusion on page 12, first paragraph; and continues. That's the whole point of the article, how could you miss it! --CharlesRKiss (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All right - I looked at it, and while the paper looks all right, I was afraid that it seemed like an oversimplification. So I checked out the article, and found three comments on it, and a reply. The first comment shows that the proposed results don't seem to line up with other data. The second comment shows a much longer analyzed time-scale than that given by the original article. In the response to the comments, the original author almost doubles his predicted time-scale, and questions the value of "climate sensitivity" as an indicator. A third comment suggests that the premise in both the article and the response is over-simplifed. So with this much batting back and forth, I would like to let the dust settle before adding something like this. Awickert (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. You decied where it should appear, that's fine. To be honest, I haven't fullly read it, analyzed it, I don't live by it, I don't pray to it, I just think that "climatalogical modelling" if it is to make conclusions, a) needs to reveal error, b)needs to be plenty in number.

Frankly, I'm actually afraid of what I think is going on! I'm not a schizophrenic, but this whole mob mentality scared the Jesus out of me, I don't recall ever seeing the one seminal, conclusive experimental proof of this global warming hypothesis. I mean this in a most sincere way! Climatology has a long history, a chart going back to 1880A.D. doesn't work for me... especially if the relaxation time is really about 5yrs., maybe 3yrs. In any case, due to the global economic downturn, we may see a change in C02 levels and changes in mean temperature soon. Now, THAT would be interesting!!--CharlesRKiss (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, then you should read Arrhenius paper on CO2 and temperature from the late 1800's; it's a good intro. You should also read my reply before you start talking about "5 or 3" years again - disproven. Awickert (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Disproven? Interesting comment, considering Anthropenic Global Warming has never been proven. It's foundation is modelling, like Communism, the Atkins Diets, Christianity, Slavery, and other grand principles. People just pick the models that are consistent with their opinions, never the contrary. Do what you want with the article, I'm just bringing it in. --CharlesRKiss

(talk) 02:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I was clear that the "5" that they state (well, 5.1), or "3" as you make up, is what I say is disproven. The original authors make it more like 10 in their reply to their own paper, as I state with a reference above. First you don't read my well-researched comments, and then when I mention it, you throw rhetoric my way. This is unproductive. Awickert (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Look. I'm not able to travel to a library right now. Nor shell out $40 for the articles. I liked the article, and I wanted to share here, that's all. If you don't want to include it, fine; I didn't write the damn thing! As far as I'm concerned, they're probably all wrong.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You could ask nicely, and others would be willing to help you with articles. Or you could read what I write when I say that in their reply, they doubled their estimate. If you think they're all wrong, I suppose there isn't much of a point of us debating this. What I see right now is aggressive defense of an article until someone takes the time to look deeper, and then a quick 180. Later, man - looks like we're just arguing and I don't see how this will improve the article. Awickert (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse you don't. It's already perfect in your opinion. If you're going to include one wrong model, you need to include all of them. As it is, I think this Wikipedia Global Warming article is controlled pseudo-scientific garbage.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You force me to rescind my goodbye to protect my name. You put words in my mouth that are not true, based on what, my belief that the 5-year response time is untrue because its own authors rescinded it? And this seems to be based the fact that I brought up comments on a paper that you started a discussion on. You know next to nothing about my opinion on the topic. Let me give you a hint: I am a sedimentary geologist. What is one thing that sedimentary geologists do? And in spite of not being an expert on climate science, you call this article pseudo-scientific garbage. I simply exist on this talk page to try to bring science and reason to the debates, but I am archiving this section now before the civility degrades further.

Interesting Table
I think this table should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesRKiss (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)  --CharlesRKiss (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These values are already covered in the article's link to Atmospheric gases. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the table is to elucidate, emphasize, the change in unit CO2 over 200 years. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article already states what the table illustrates, that there has been a 33% increase in CO2 in the last century. To put the matter in a larger context, the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is 33% larger than it has ever been in the past hundred thousand years.  The last time the CO2 was at a maximum, much of the United States was under water.  The purpose of your table seems to be to spin this information in the form "only one extra molecule".  But that one extra molecule still represents a 33% increase. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd find this table both confusing and misleading. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean that the point of the table is to mislead? All of those gases except Water vapor and CO2 are completely inert with regards to the greenhouse effect. Its like saying that there is nothing strange about a dinner with 1 extra molecule of strychnine per 10,000. There is hardly any change - so what me worry :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article is long enough already. I see no need to add a table that repeats information that's already clearly stated in the body.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I have a chance to wade through the many possible fallacies one can make during an argument, I'll give you the list of which ones your "Strychnine" argument falls into. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, while you are looking, I can give you yours. It's "Unstated Major Premise". Your premise is that since the concentration of CO2 is low in the atmosphere, its effect will be necessary small. This is a logical fallacy because we know of a lot of substances having a great effect even at very small dosage, as Kim perfectly illustrated. --McSly (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was, "to elucidate, emphasize, the change in unit CO2 over 200 years." Kim's point was, "You mean that the point of the table is to mislead?" [Poisoning of the wells].

Where did I ever make a premise, "Your premise is that since the concentration of CO2 is low in the atmosphere, its effect will be necessary small." ! ! !

I was simply stating the facts in the form of a simple table !!! It's others' work to deduce what it means. But if you're somehow curious of my opinion? It is that Global Warming may be another False God, ie. Jesus H. Christ, Mo, Zues, etc. in the guise of a Secular, Psuedo-Scientific, Materialistic Religiosity. So there. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't make that premise, hence the word "unstated" in the logical fallacy. But anyway, let's not waste time on rhetoric. The article already shows in great details the evolution of the concentration of CO2 and its effect in the atmosphere, so I don't think adding this table would provide anything useful. --McSly (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"The article already shows in great details the evolution of the concentration of CO2 and its effect in the atmosphere," Whoa, okay. Sorry. I missed that part. You mean it's clear.. like E=mc2, clear. or like Maxwell's Laws clear. I'm Thanking the Existence of God for people like Wikipedia Moderators, for controlling all the information that goes into this site in such an unbiased, unopinionated, and rigorously scientific manner.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed this debate, but I suggest if progress is to be made, tempers be checked.
 * I see no reason to not include information on the concentration of variable gases with time in addition to CO2 (which is given), but I'm not sure why relatively unchanging non-greenhouse gases should be included; it seems like it wouldn't be a good use of space, and would be outside the scope of the article. Awickert (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that ridiculous chart, pardon me, has no "zero" (only shows from 310ppm to 380ppm) -perhaps in the legitmate interest of saving space, even though the Wikipedia president makes the claim that all of human information will be here somehow displayed, - so, the chart appears to have measured a multitudinous number of increases in CO2 levels, when in fact the increase is rounded to 30%, with error -also not included.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The axes are labeled, no? Newspapers, stock markets, etc., don't show "0" either. I wouldn't like to have 4x the height of the chart in blank space underneath. Awickert (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know! It just looks so bad, though. There is very little perspective, and less history. It's the same chart the alarmists use. I'm just saying it looks bad, maybe it can be a crop of a larger image somewhere offsite, or reduce the resolution of a larger image with more history and a zero.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to lose resolution; maybe it would help to list in the caption the "to" and "from" concentrations. Awickert (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely why I created the table. It doesn't show a slope, that can be manipulated. Nor does it need a "zero". It's literally a unit change in CO2 relative to other gases. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed article
As regional effects of global warming was such fun, why don't we do historical impacts of climate change? Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think this might overlap with articles like paleoclimatology and the geologic time-periods? I have a feeling that there is an overview of more recent climate change, but can't find it, so if there isn't one, I think there would be a niche for an overview of the last thousand or so years. Awickert (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm thinking maya, greenland, celts in devon, that kind of thing. A bit jared-Diamond-esque.  I can't find anything on WP and it's a cool topic. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah - if you can't find anything, I'd say that you could probably paraphrase the main articles on the topics and create an index to them... or create them if they're not created. Sounds good - Awickert (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like y'all are talking about a something like Brian Fagan's books The Little Ice Age and The Long Summer, about how climate has shaped human history. If that's right...sounds like a great idea.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

worth incorporating?
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_mid_range_abatement_curve_2030.pdf

This is interesting. In the "The Certain Cost of Maybe Reducing Global Warming," section. There should definitely be a place for it. A correspondence between cost and CO2 production reduction. Make a section of this article and throw it in, that's what I think -section on Cap and Trade, Emissions Trading, etc.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to make sure that the use of this particular source doeen't violate copyright, then ten commandments and the highway code? Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Including Relevant Greenhouse Gas Experiments
Could we include publications based on greenhouse experiments? (long wp:SOAPBOX violation removed per wp:TALK) Let's find those publications and include them here.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See Greenhouse effect. -Atmoz (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The most relevant part seems to be "Greenhouses thus work primarily by preventing convection; the atmospheric greenhouse effect however reduces radiation loss, not convection." This suggests to me that such experiments would not work very well.  You keep saying (CRK) that you just don't believe it.  Well, if you're looking for articles you should check the wp:REFDESK.  They love to help people find articles.  This isn't the place to come and say "hi, I don't know of any articles that support my original research, but let's talk about it."  NJGW (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did I write, "hi, I don't know of any articles that support my original research, but let's talk about it."

I was pointing to, by almost enumerating, the gaping holes in research and providing advice. Why don't you just leave it alone and let it stand instead of invoking arbitrary wp. and blockading the flow of information? Or why don't you just go to management and "tell-on-me", and delete my account, because I'm just going to keep pasting this forever as many times as it is deleted -so people can think for themselves about its importance.

Could we include publications based on greenhouse gas experiments?

Perhaps there are papers out there where someone built a greenhouse, and conducted experimnents, and we can include the results here. Maybe someone built a huge one with a geodesic dome over it, like we see in all those 1950's textbooks that tell us what the world would be like in the 21st century. You know the ones. They are like 1/4 mile wide, cost of several hundred million dollars. Or tens of billions of dollars. But were cheaper, and more immediate, in comparison to budget forcasts with respect to CO2 abatement, so it must have been done somewhere. Maybe some experimenters added a lake. Some animal life. Whatever. Measured temperatures, atmospheric gases, etc. And took measurements for a couple years. Can't we add those publications here? What's that place in Arizona, Biosphere(?) where they all started sleeping with each other; didn't they do some global warming experiments?

Maybe they added an additional 100ppm CO2. Measured the temperature increase by a full number of degrees? Maybe that's what got them all hot and bothered, but there should be some data we can include.

It can be included here as an external link.

Okay, I'm familiar with the invocation of feedback mechanisms. That's pretty new. Maybe someone else included feedbacks in their experiments and we can include those papers here, too. If they didn't think the temperature went up enough, they just added a feedback mechanism variable, or so. I think there are experiments with missing feedback mechanisms as sources of discrepancies, right? So certain other experimenters added them in other papers.

Certainly, if computer modeling is so precise and so accurate, how could it be so difficult to just make a greenhouse and conduct real experiments? Oh, it is much more difficult... that's a point. But many universities must've done that anyway, and published articles that we can provide to the public. Even though I'm highly skeptical that an additional 100pm C02 in any greenhouse will either a)last very long, or b)raise temperatures significantly someone must have conducted experiments and published results otherwise! Let's find those publications and include them here.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just press the revert button, please. This whole article can be regarded as a wp:SOAPBOX  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesRKiss (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Charles, if you did a little research you would find answers to most of your questions. There are lots of related papers. What you wrote indicates that you haven't read enough yet. The fact that you are asking someone else to do the research for you justifies removing your comments. For what its worth, greenhouses work by trapping hot air, not by trapping heat. If you increase the CO2 to ten times the current value, there would be no measurable temperature difference. Q Science (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was vigorously brandishing the importance and relative low cost of conducting experiments under controlled condtions, albeit with imperfect individuals and incomplete knowledge. Not communicating the design of any particular experiment, but simply asking that if there are any, it would nice to include them in the article alongside the lavish excess of computer modeling hocus-pocuses and character of their conclusions.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Crystal Ball Paragraph wp:NOT
I propose deleting, or at least modifying, the folowing paragraph:

Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including expansion of subtropical deserts.[8] The continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice is expected, with the Arctic region being particularly affected. Other likely effects include shrinkage of the Amazon rainforest and Boreal forests, increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions and changes in agricultural yields.

As per, Global Warming Discussion Section entitled, "Freeman Dyson quote," paragraph (7)

"Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT),ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)"

This Global Warming article is sooooo bad, please can't it be cleaned up. Moderators can't even obey their own rules!!!

--CharlesRKiss (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read and understand WP:RS. We are not speculating, we are summarizing what reliable sources are saying. There is a not-so-subtle difference between "Obama may close down Guantanamo" and "Obama has set a deadline to close down Guantanamo [Source here]". And there are no "moderators" on Wikipedia, at least not in any official capacity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the page is locked, so your "we" definitely does not include everyone, or me. "Moderators", "Administrators," whatever you want to call the people who control the WP:SEMI should obey the WP:NOT.


 * Secondly, in the first sentence, the word "will" expresses no doubt and is deliberately used to describe a future event as a fact. A clear a violation of WP:NOT [Crystal Ball] considering the controversy of the issue is enough to merit its own page: Global warming controversy.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, people with 3 year old accounts have no problem editing semi-protected articles. Secondly, where are your sources?  NJGW (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "...sources" for what?? In this section I'm only expressing two issues I consider failures, and would like to see changes: 1) the complete breaking of the rules, WP:NOT and 2) Complete locking of the page for people with accounts of less than three years WP:SEMI. I'm not interested in the reasons for the failures, I'm sure there are plenty. --Charlesrkiss (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about the three years. You are wrong about WP:NOT, or WP:CRYSTAL. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, the page is LOCKED tight, due to "VANDALISM" -undoubtably the catch phrase for controlling submissions that "administrators", who can obviously predict the future (WP:CRYSTAL), won't agree with.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan

--CharlesRKiss (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The irony is earth-shattering. Oh, and you are wrong about the page being "LOCKED tight" (or even "locked tight") as before. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Charles - 2 things. First, the difference in the above debate is that, while Wikipedia reports peer-reviewed science, it does not report unpublished speculation by individuals: Peer-reviewed journals fall under the use of reliable sources, and qualifiers like "likely" and "expected" are used to show less than 100% certainty, even though they are reliable sources. The issue with the quotes is not expecting statements that aren't in the form of a well-thought-out scientific paper to adequately predict anything. Second, if you continue to conspiracy-theory insult those editors who watch this page, I can assure you that this discussion will go nowhere, and will archive or delete it. If you would like to participate in the evolution of the page, the way to go about it is to bring up reliable sources and talk about what could merit their inclusion; this is what I tried to do with you in the now-archived section above. The way to be sure that there is no change to this article is to carry on as you are: lecturing and conspiracy-theorizing without adding your own reliable sources. Awickert (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I proposed two sources, one table, several edits, all were denied by a small number of individuals, a very tiny fraction of readers. This experience is not new.

I'm somewhat provoked by the premise of this page, the manner in which the information is controlled, the threats of banning, but mostly the flimsy basis upon which such calamitous conclusions are drawn. The reponsibility of its administrators is to exercise rigor and restraint in proportion to the evidence and the claims, and this topic, Global Warming, is sufficiently controversial in its own right, as it is important, to warrant less obstruction and to encourage more voices.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Boring. Get on to the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Page Locked
Can the administrator unlock the main article please. I would like to make some corrections I consider important, but in the upper right hand corner of the main article, there is a icon of a locked lock, and when I put the cursor over it it says, "This article is semi-protected due to vandalism." even though the Home page of Wikipedia says, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Can someone please explain to me why I'm being told I can edit this article, despite all the previous experience I have of being locked out?. Thanks.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Discuss the changes you want to make and perhaps someone in good standing will carry them out for you. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pages are semi-protected to protect against vandalism. It goes against the philosophy, but it is a necessary evil on high-traffic articles. I believe that there is a certain small number of edits (10?) needed to edit these pages in order to deter vandalism-only IP's and accounts; I imagine that you have enough edits to edit the article, though removal of sourced information without consensus or addition of unsourced information will likely be immediately deleted, as this is a hugely-watched area of Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The requirement is 10 edits and 4 days since registration before editing semi-protected pages. Charles fails the second half.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait until your account is 4 days old and you'll be able to edit, when doing so avoid any original research and quote reliable sources please. --Seba5618 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am aware of accounts over two years old, with multiple edits, that still are unable to edit the Global Warming page. That said, if the lock is to prevent vandalism only, then any other edit, not violating WP:NOT should be encouraged, not be forced to ask for permission from administrators who may exercise their own interests, have their own opinions, ie. control information.


 * In addition, I am particularly disturbed that violations such as WP:CRYSTAL can freely exist protected by a lock under the pretense of vandalism while any corrective actions must confront the above, including possible banning.


 * "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ronald Reagan


 * --CharlesRKiss (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to be in possession of the absolute, have you considered a career as a politician, TV evangelist, or lottery winner? And please let us know which "accounts over two years old, with multiple edits [...] are unable to edit the Global Warming page". Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The vandalism lock is universal; I don't see a way to automatically take it down for well-intentioned edits. I don't know what is going on with the over 2-year old accounts - could you tell us which ones they are in case there is some kind of mistake? I tried to politely explain WP:CRYSTAL above; if that explanation isn't sufficiently informative, I would suggest you read over the guidelines on reliable sources, etc. Awickert (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 days old and 10 edits are necesary to edit semi-protected pages, ¿maybe those account can't edit the page for some other reason?. For what is matters, my account is a bit over 2 years old and I'm able to edit. Btw, the mere use of the word "will" does not mean we are doing unverifiable speculation. Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise... is simply stating a consequence of climate change, one that is properly sourced. Of course if you find some reliable sources that says otherwise do share it here. --Seba5618 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what it may seem, I am not "in possession of the absolute truth", though I am certainly knowing of what is not necessarily true that is here being argued as truth: that simple climatological models of complex ecological systems are sufficiently precise to 1 part in 10,000 CO2 to accurately predict outcomes.

As to how increased mean global air temperatures may not increase sea levels, I would allow that to your own imagination of current, and all the other proposed calamaties, not to mention whatever positives may result, also allowed. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum to discuss global warming, there are plenty of other sites to play this game, but not here... --Seba5618 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * CharlesRKiss: Do you know enough chemistry to be aware of just how silly your "one part in 10,000" comment is? Chemists regularly measure ppm (parts per million).  Ten thousand molecules is an absurdly small standard.  A thimblefull of air contains billions of molecules, including billions of CO2 molecules.  What is measured is a large (33%) increase.  To express it in terms of a single molecule is spin, not science. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blimey. CharlesRKiss: Blogger and Wordpress are free and easy to use, and will get you feedback on your original ideas without filling up this talk page, which is for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Global warming article based on verifiable reliable sources. Seriously, get a blog, go nuts. Rd232 talk 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A few points if I may.


 * 1)I wasn't really interested in this GW issue until I came here and realized how crappy the science was, and the writing, all of which based on models as far as the eye can see: the real quality of which is inversely proportional to the control of the information -mostly by people whose careers depend on it, namely modelers.


 * 2)As far as the table is concerned, like I said before, it's a unit increase in CO2, as in "unit vector of change", for whatever use that might be, I just liked it; felt happy to create it, that's all it is.


 * 3)I'm also asking that if there is at least one single article, on any actual physical experiment, conducted in a microcosm, for instance, that could compliment the overwhelming propensity of models, it would be nice to include it here... provided it could get in. Seems the world is already being controlled by programmers.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I finally understand. You think we can change the science here.  Well, sorry to let you know you've been wasting your time (and ours), but the body you should be talking to is the IPCC.  They're the ones who can take your ideas and do something with them.  You can contact them at:  IPCC; Phone: +41-22-730-8208/84; e-mail: IPCC-Sec@wmo.int


 * Now that you know which tree to bark at, it's been fun. Come back and see us when you have some sources to talk about.  NJGW (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NAO caused MWP?
Is there anything we want to update based on this or would it be premature? --Skyemoor (talk)


 * I usually like to give things at least a few months, or even longer, to see if responses or criticisms come in. If you want to put it in somewhere, maybe Medieval Warm Period would be better, with the caveat that it is recent research. This article seems to have a tendency to bulk up very quickly, while some of its linked articles could use some love. Awickert (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course none of this can be included. It goes against the pro-hockey stick party line. Just forget you ever saw it. Kauffner (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, please don't troll. Second, I don't see how it goes for or against either "party line" - I, at least, have always read that the Medieval Warm Period was within the range of natural variability. A second reason that I said the study shouldn't be on this page is that it seems outside the scope - if it were an article that said present-day global warming was a result of natural variation, I would have probably gone for the "let it wait or tag it as recent" reply, but not said that the article was too bulky. Awickert (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Within the range the range of natural variability"....no more need to look at supernatural explanations, I suppose. The article currently denies that there was any "Medieval Warm Period" or "Little Ice Age," except as "possibly regional fluctuations." Of course, this text seems to be contradicted by the chart that appears just to the right of it. "LIA" is used in the Science abstract linked to above as if there was no question that they were real phenomenon. Kauffner (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this summary of the full paper at New Scientist seems to actually reinforce the Hockey Stick - during the MWP, "in the tropical Pacific, the El Niño system was in a negative La Niña mode, meaning it was colder than normal", thus to a certain degree balancing European warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This idea was presented in 2001 by Drew T. Shindell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, et al. Q Science (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tilting of the Earth caused by global warming?
I seem to recall reading a recent paper in Science or Nature indicating that global warming will lead to the breaking off of a large ice shelf at the North Pole, which will then cause the tilt of the Earth to change. It seems like this important fact should be included in this article. Needstime (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I read the article: there's that, and the redistribution of mass by the collapse of one of the ice sheets would cause different patterns of sea-level rise because of the change in the global gravity field. Being a somewhat conservative Wikipedian, I'm letting it marinate for a little while. But gravity calculations are much more straightforward than climate change, and I've seen previous work that the authors have done, and I'm as sure as I can be that they got it right. The big question is then, when will the ice sheet in question collapse? Awickert (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the article, but I don't think it says what you think it says -- the entire mass of water on the Earth is a very tiny fraction of the mass of the earth. A large ice shelf moving north might change the axis of spin by a fraction of a degree, but certainly not by much. Are you sure this paper wasn't published on April first? I remember a paper on a past April 1 that speculated that the accumulation of old National Geographic magazines in American attics would cause the tilt of the Earth to change. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was published a couple of weeks ago, so there's a section in the talk archive about it.
 * I did read the article, and being a geophysicist/geologist, I'm very sure it says what I say, though I summarize it a little better in the linked archive - I'll try to do so here again. It's not about the ice shelf moving - it's about it collapsing and disappearing, and how that could cause different patterns of sea-level rise than expected. The geoid would change because of the loss of the ice sheet mass and because of a 100-km-scale change in the rotation axis (I think they mean true polar wander, as that's what would fit their results). This would cause meter-scale differences (positive or negative anomalies) in the predicted global sea levels. Unfortunately, since it's in Science, it doesn't address anything in detail. Awickert (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Need for realisation that tree is the only way to fight global warming in a meaningful way
Combating global warming has broadly two components:Decreasing the release of green house gases and Sequestering the green house gases, of which CO2 is the component, from atmosphere. Battle has to be fought on both the fronts but it is found that emphasis is only on the former. There is not sufficient emphasis on the later. It must be understood that even with best efforts we can only reduce the emission of greenhouse gas but we cannot eliminate it altogether. So the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere will only increase with time. Hence we need to concentrate on sequestering the green house gases also.When it comes sequestering CO2 there is nothing on the planet, it is repeated nothing, except a growing tree that can do it. The fact that one and only way to sequestrate CO2 is through trees, is a very important fact that must be understood if we want to fight global warming in a realistic way.It is a well known fact that a plant purifies environment but we need to understand how after all a plant does purifies environment. And is there any way to quantify the amount of purification done by various plants? There is nothing magical or unknown about the process. The process which purifies the environment is a well known process ie photosynthesis and there is an unambiguous way to measure the amount of purification done by a plant. Photosynthesis is natural processes that uses CO2, releases O2 and produces various forms of sugar ie C6H12O6.The amount of carbon sequestered by a plant can actually be measured without any ambiguity as explained below. The byproduct of the photosynthesis is cellulose or C6H12O6 or wood. Hence the physical manifestation of the photosynthesis is the increase in volume and weight of the plant. It is possible ie the rate of sequestration of CO2 may differ from plant to plant ,which is also evident from that fact that different tree/plants grow at different rates, but the sum total of the CO2 sequestered has to be proportional to dry biomass ie the biomass from which the water has been removed. In fact empirically it can be said that for every 180 tons of dry wood produced, 264 tons of CO2 is consumed and 192 tons of O2 is given out. Not so evident but another important contribution of a growing tree is that apart from conversion of CO2 to O2 a growing plant also absorbs heat. This is nothing but the sunlight that would have otherwise converted into heat had it not been used for photosynthesis. This is why we feel cooler under a tree. So a tree also helps the global warming by storing heat. Above stated facts can be understood by the reverse logic like as follows. Suppose we cut a tree and burn it. We get mainly two things: CO2 and heat. By simple logic of conservation of energy and chemical constituents it can be safely assumed that this was the amount of heat and CO2 absorbed by the plant while growing. Now the issue comes that if photosynthesis is the key to carbon sequestration then why emphasis on tree only as every plant does photosynthesis. Here it is important to understand that though there are various form of C6H12O6 like sugar, cellulose, carbohydrate, oil (as happens in say pine trees) etc but timber is the only way CO2 remains blocked for a longer period of 5-100 years. In all other forms either it is burnt, consumed or decomposed within a year or so releasing the entire CO2. Hence though all the plants excluding CO2 can sequester CO2 but the form in which it does, the same cannot be stored for long period of more than maximum 5 years and on average 1 year. Inferences that can be drawn from above analysis is as follows: There is nothing on the planet other than a growing tree that can reduce CO2. Meaning thereby that tree has to central to any program of combating global warming. For long term it is much more beneficial to promote use of timer rather than substituting as it is the only meaningful way to store CO2.If an item which is substituting wood consumes less energy during its production than what is produced by burning the equivalent amount of wood, then only it is beneficial to environment else it is more harmful, at least from environmental point. There is a need to promote plywood industry in big way which helps in using even the inferior quality of wood to be used as timber which otherwise would have been used as fuel-wood.A fully grown tree which is not growing in volume may be good for wild life but is doing no good to the environment as the sum total of CO2 taken in and given out almost balances each other. Hence felling of mature tree, using it as timber (not fuel-wood) and planting new trees is the best solution to global warming. But unfortunately this point is not being given its due importance in the CDM mechanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaykrsrivastava (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * tldr. But one comment that struck my eye is There is nothing on the planet other than a growing tree that can reduce CO2 - wrong, wrong wrong, a thousand times wrong. CO2 can be reacted with Magnesium oxide or Calcium oxide, storing the carbon in mineral form and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. This is known as carbon mineralization. Raul654 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's copy and paste from with a little, but insignificant, rework on the prose taking it out of list form. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that phytoplankton in the ocean is a HUGE CO2 sponge. In fact most of the earth's oxygen come from the ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.92.87 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Regional effects of global warming
This page was built at Boris' request for a link-in. It's been gone over with a fine toothed comb several times be several editors. Why, then, are the links to this article being rmv'd from the article by WMC & Skyemoor? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (ignore timestamp, it's from a couple of days earlier than that)


 * The article at its present stage isn't very informative. Once it's in a reasonably stable condition it can be linked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please can you explain on the article's TP what's wrong with it. It's been beaten about a lot, but not so much recently.  It was formerly much longer but it got shredded. I regard it as good enough atm.  Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added some info on polar bears to the "arctic" section. It's meticulously cited, and while I think it currently gives them undue weight, if the goal is to beef up the article, it should be OK. I think that it could do with more material, provided it is well-cited from a variety of sources and says what it has to say concisely. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I understand it, any article in WP can be linked from anywhere - even red links. That way, more people are made aware of the other articles and so their quality will be improved by all the new visitors they get.  There are no minimum quality standards that have to be applied before an article can be linked from any other. --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I generally prefer that not-ready-for-prime-time articles not be given prominence, but making them more visible could lead to others chipping in to improve things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for keeping things tidy, which is why I've waited to link it. Now, it's already been picked over by lots of people and there's little current activity cleaning RGW.  I'm therefore going to re-link it.  If people don't like the article they should TP their comments in the appropriate place, or do some edits on it. (constructive ones, if possible!) Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of aerosol effects influence on mitigation
Please explain why the scientifically supported role of aerosols is being treated as WP:POV when it clearly isn't. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is, too! Your addition to this is a clear example of OR - you're quoting a paper out of context and ignore other aspects (e.g. black carbon) to come to a non-supported conclusion. You have a tendency to ignore the qualifier in (implicit or explicit) "all other aspects being equal, ... "-situations. All other aspects are rarely equal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I get you. Let's bring black carbon into the equation too.  Got any good cites for your comments? Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, let's not further complicate the issue. Emissions, both of soot and of sulphur aerosols, are only weakly coupled to CO2 emissions - Western Europe and I suspect the US manage to create a lot of CO2 with much reduced aerosol emissions compared to 30 years ago. If you want this in, find a reliable source that clearly states what you want to include. I'm not aware of such a source - and indeed, I suspect you cannot find a simple, one-size-fits-all solution. If you close down a modern German coal-fired power plant with full scrubbers, you will reduce CO2, but not significantly reduce aerosols. If you replace a Diesel car with an Electric, you will remove CO2 and black soot, and aerosol reduction depends on the kind of fuel it burned, which usually depends on national regulations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it's too complex to be treated properly in this section. Maybe we should do an article on aerosol global warming or albedo effects of pollution.  Maybe you can think of a better place to put it? Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I put a little on this into the forcings section, hiving off existing text into an albedo section and expending it. I think we need a new article planetary albedo. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be in support of that if you want to make it. Are you thinking an extension of the "terrestrial albedo" section on the main albedo page, but much expanded? Awickert (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now had a good look at the albedo page and it's already pretty focussed and comprehensive. Do you think it's necessary to create another page? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't think you have much more to add, then don't make the new article unless you have big ideas and are willing to spend a lot of time doing background research. You seem to be interested in aerosols; if you know about the effects of at least 3-4 different ones, perhaps creating a page on "Albedo effects of aerosols" or something like that would be good. Awickert (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of runaway climate change
Please explain why the scientifically supported phenomenon of runaway climate change is being treated as WP:POV when it clearly isn't. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I the absence of an explanation I'll re-inserting it shortly. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming Will Cause Sea Levels To Rise.
Please state the source used about that statement. And please, ice melting will not increase the sea level, but in fact the level would stay the same. LEARN PHYSICS PLEASE PEOPLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.203.166 (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. People should learn physics, and how to apply it. Floating ice that melts will not increase ocean levels per se. But a large part of the ice in the arctic and antarctic is not floating, but sits comfortably on land, e.g. Greenland. Also, water expands quite significantly as it warms. This thermal expansion is a major cause of sea level rise. A source is provided in the main article (the IPCC SPM, which itself links to the main report, which links any number of original sources). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Emissions reduction
We need to get across the concept that you can't stop global warming by stopping emissions. I've attempted to include this and it hasn't stuck. I'm not risking any 3RR dramas, so I thought I'd discuss it here. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First, it can't be added at the beginning of a section that doesn't discuss it: it's about writing - topic and body paragraphs - not content. Second, it should be sourced, preferably with a good (e-fold?) residence time in the atmosphere. Then a sentence could probably go in an appropriate section. Awickert (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's about emissions reduction, then surely that's the place? What sources do you like on lifespan of GHGs? Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I meant an appropriate place within the section. I'm guessing an atmospheric chemistry book would have it? Otherwise, if you find a paper or something, send me an email and I'll send it to you; I honestly don't know what the lifetime is (besides long), but figure that having a solid number would make your contribution more useful and give it a source. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search yielded http://greennature.com/article281.html which itself referenced http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php Then there was http://www.moe.gov.lb/ClimateChange/p1_greenhouse_gases_inventory.html There's no need to email each other, this information is everywhere in the public domain - how much proof do you need?? --Nigelj (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you try to source? The atmospheric lifetime of GHGs is only somewhat relevant here. Andrew's claims seems to be wrong on the face of it, or at least it misses an "immediately". If we stop all GHG emissions now, global warming will ("very likely") stop as well, although not this very moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, his contribution didn't need repeatedly deleting as WP:POV and WP:OR, it just needed the word 'immediately' adding to it? Is that correct? Oh, look! His first sentence was 'Emissions reduction cannot immediately stop or reverse global warming.' --Nigelj (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It did need deleting as it was an inserted first paragraph of a section, that didn't relate to the section. It didn't need deleting for what it said. But on controversial wiki featured articles (i.e., this), it should be sourced IMO.
 * I don't get Stephan's comments though - maybe I'm being simplistic - I'd assume it would be important to know over what time-scale CO2 and other GHG concentrations would decrease if all emissions were stopped, so it seems more than "somewhat relevant" to me. Awickert (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, GHG concentrations would probably fall immediately. But we are not in equilibrium yet, i.e. it is too cold for the current GHG concentrations. That's why we would have some warming even if emissions would stop now. But all this should not go into the mitigation section - it already is covered in the forcings section. And lifetimes of GHGs and what they mean are discussed in Global warming potential. Andrews POV is clear: "nothing else helps, we need geoengineering", but I've yet to see a decent source for that claim that does not involve a lot of WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to get across the concept that you can't stop global warming by stopping emissions. Where's your source that says this? Because I bet I can find a source that says we can. Hansen comes to mind. Individual scientist tend to disagree, that's why an encyclopedia should document the consensus, not cherry-pick from individual papers. -Atmoz (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm simply trying to address the fact that a large number of people seem to believe that we can deal with global warming 'once it starts getting bad'. As we all know, that's rubbish - but this section fails to address this common misconception.  Atmoz - the wording I included was based on stuff you actually wrote, so it's a bit ironic that you're slating me.  Once everyone's finished accusing me of being a POV-pusher (and whatever else it is this evening), can we get on with the serious business of improving the section?  I don't want lay readers to think they can leave AGW to their kids to sort out. How do people suggest we clarify the proper place for emissions reduction - i.e. urgent, necessary but not a 'get out of jail free' card. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. Comments like "I don't want lay readers to think" are exactly the sort of thing we should be stopping.  If it's a question of weight to difference responses, that's appropriate but to want an article to suggest a course of action is highly inappropriate.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of WP policies. I'm not trying to advocate a course of action, but rather dispel the erroneous belief among lay readers that global warming will reverse, disperse or in some other fanciful way end quickly after emissions are brought under control.  Please can we stop clouding the issue with 'personal attack of the day' and get on with sorting out the article? I was not attempting to describe my own personal 'blueprint for ending AGW', but rather the one advocated by scientists and promoted (when convenient) by politicians.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anthropogenic Heat
I created a new article. But I'm not sure it isn't already placed somewhere else under another name? Can you guys check it out? I hope you can somehow link this Global Warming page to it, as it must be a factor.

 [personal attacks removed] -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 

Also, I object to the words "increase in the average" in the first sentence. I think it should read "apparent increasse in the mean" as more professional scientific periodicals would.


 * :))--CharlesRKiss (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm reporting you again at AN/I for your insults and use of language. This is not about content: the article looks fine, your behavior is totally unacceptable. Awickert (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed his personal attacks and he has been blocked indefinitely until he learns to act appropriately. I've leave Anthropogenic heat for others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tidied it up a bit. It was complete drivel so I borrowed the axe.  Can someone who specialises in this area go and have a go please. All cites need checking.  Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I've also bannered it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's explained better at Urban heat island, IMHO. Merge or redirect Anthropogenic heat there. -Atmoz (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really the same thing. I did a seealso tho. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Albedo
Changes to albedo result in net forcing of the climate system. Can Stephen pls explain why he's removed this edit? And, for pity's sake, will people stop reverting 37 edits to get rid of one or two words they don't like. It's lazy and creates totally unnecessary work.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit did not say "changes in albedo", it said "albedo". And the whole albedo section further down is redundant with respect to the feedback section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's lazy and creates totally unnecessary work. Irony meter pegs scale and explodes; Boris injured by shards. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stephen, if you read my latest edit (which you reverted), you won't find the offending text. Check it here []  So Stephen, could you kindly offer a reasonable explanation of why you reverted 2.5K of edits?  I am happy to fix mistakes - but not ones that don't exist. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Drat, just spotted it hiding! I will get rid Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AJL, you mostly added topics such as ice-albedo feedback that already are discussed in the article usually in clearer and more concise language than you used. Why say the same thing twice using different words?  Do you actually read the article before you start shoveling things in? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ice-albedo chopped. Thanks for the specific and actionable feedback.  Anything else you want doing? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's me?
But....

...maybe its me ... but it seems to me that hypothermia is a subset of cold related deaths, and that the CLAW hypothesis is a subset of effects that could reduce Ocean uptake. So is it me? Boris? WMC? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is cold related deaths the same as hypothermia?
 * Is the CLAW hypothesis the same as reduced Ocean uptake of CO2?
 * De/re-linked pending resolution. Cheers for the detailed feedback.  Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) Cold related deaths include more illnesses than freezing to death (hypothermia). See e.g., here. Depending on who's counting it can also include things like traffic accidents on icy roadways. (2) The CLAW thing, as I understand it, has to do with ocean production of dimethyl sulfide. DMS is important as a precursor to cloud condensation nuclei.  Changes to the number and character of cloud condensation nuclei could then affect the reflectivity and longevity of clouds through the so-called first and second indirect aerosol effects.  Here is a nice little summary of the overall issue.  To my mind it's distinct from ocean uptake of CO2 with the proviso that in climate, everything is related to everything else... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree which is why I fixed it quick! Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you agree - then why did you change it in the first place? And complain that it got reverted? As far as i can tell from the state of the article right now. Every single one of your edits, have been cut out, and not by an axe - but by individual changes. Perhaps now is the time to consider using the talk-page for edits first? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Loads of my edits have stuck. Little things like wikilinks are totally cumbersome to discuss.  Bigger text insertions I definitely will discuss in future. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clathrate gun
Kim hacked this section - I don't really agree with his edit, but here's my suggested alternative:


 * Clathrate gun hypothesis : Over thousands of years, warmer deep ocean temperatures could release methane from deep ocean deposits of 'frozen' methane clathrate. A further release of methane from shallow cold water clathrates is also expected, and is predicted to be faster "releasing carbon on a timescale of 1 kyr or longer".  Reserves of methane clathrate are vast, and "eventual releases of 2000–4000 {gigatonnes of carbon] in response to a ~2000 Gton C anthropogenic carbon release" are predicted.

Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then please answer this question: What is the timescale of a release of ~2-4 Tt according to A&B? I do not agree with your section, it is undue weight to things happening on a geological timescale. (according to the references - not me!) If you are going to push a CGH - then you will need references that suggest a CGH. You can't just take random papers that talk about large methane releases and do your own original research on it, and call it CGH. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the clathrate gun is that it's inevitable once started, not that it's fast. I've never said it would be fast. If you want a fast runaway effect, watch the permafrost or the Amazon.  Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed answering a couple of questions, and to realize that your personal link of B&A to CGH is original research. As for the speed - perhaps you should read the CGH article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the present article is about "the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and the oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation." Things that may or may not happen 2000 years or more from now aren't on topic. The world will be a very different place by then and our present ideas of the "inevitable" will cease to be relevant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've wanted this section hacked since it appeared. Originally, Andrew added this to many articles without a time-scale. After some work, time-scales were included as a caviat, but never stated right away (unless I edited the articles). At risk of being much more forward than I usually am, Andrew seems to have thought that this was an important feedback from the start, and only scaled back (slightly) after lengthy discussions in which I went through the papers he cited. I think it is important for geology, not for global warming - the uncertainty in what might happen in 1000-10000 years is way, way too big. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. O(1000y) is way to long for the GW article. -Atmoz (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall we put it as a see-also link then, and remove the body copy? Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruddiman and the early anthropocene
The paragraph on Ruddiman in the recent temperature changes section seems out of place in the main GW article. It gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. Besides William Ruddiman, is there a better article where this information can be presented? -Atmoz (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I been bold. Ruddiman's idea is interesting but we just can't include everything. Note his hypothesis already is mentioned in anthropocene. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to remove it later, but I had hoped it could be added elsewhere. But since it's already in Anthropocene... -Atmoz (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, we should link anthropocene from here but at the moment I'm not feeling clever enough to work it in so that it flows with the rest of the text. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Albedo stuff
I'm proposing to re-add:

Albedo effects
new stuff put back The albedo of the Earth is a measure of how much solar energy is reflected and how much is absorbed. Various human activities have changed the Earth's albedo significantly in certain regions. Albedo effects include the creation of black carbon, which may not have been properly considered in some climate models. Additionally, aerosol pollution causes cooling. Efforts to reduce this pollution may have unintended effects on global warming: "Strong aerosol cooling in the past and present would then imply that future global warming may proceed at or even above the upper extreme of the range projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." .	old stuff moved Global dimming, a gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, may have partially counteracted global warming during the period 1960-1990. Human-caused aerosols likely precipitated this effect. Scientists have stated with 66–90% confidence that the effects of human-caused aerosols, along with volcanic activity, have offset some of the warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases.

This has been chopped out - along with other albedo stuff which leaves the article unacceptably skinny on albedo. If anyone thinks it needs thinning or editing, pls let me know asap. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs thinning of order 90-100%. Global warming already is much too long -- to shove more and more stuff into the article moves us in the wrong direction. Here's a challenge:  for every word that you propose to add, balance it with one word that you propose to delete. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like pointless dupl to me William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Atmoz just cut a whole bunch of albedo stuff from elsewhere in the article. Most other sections such as greenhouse effect, are short forms of other articles. I think that's worth putting in as is, but I'll try a shorter version in a bit Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion began 17 hours ago, I haven't cut (or axed or bombed, etc.) anything related to albedo from the article. What I have done is rearrange some of the sections so that it reads better as a whole instead of reading like it was written by someone with ADD (IMO of course). -Atmoz (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Atmoz, your cut was before the albedo debate started. I wasn't having a dig at you, just saying that the necessary word-trimming had been done already. I didn't like all your edits, and I'll be doing a run through them in a bit.  Hope you don't mind.  Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that what readers could be interested in and what is not currently mentioned in the article, is how the energy balance would be affected if all the ice at the North pole is gone and how it would be affected if all the ice in Antarctica is gone. The article includes figures for the forcings due to greenhouse gasses and feedback effects which are of the order of a few W/m^2. Since the Earth receives something of the order of a KW/m^2 from the Sun, you would expect that if a big area like Antractica loses all its ice, that would have a significant effect.

So, I would be in favor of including just a one or two sentences in which these figures are given, so that interested lay people can get a feeling of the order of magnitude of this effect. In the section about greenhouse gasses we also do this by mentioning: "Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.[15][C]". Count Iblis (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These are questions that only a climate scientist can answer. Are any professionals keeping tabs on this?  What does the literature say?  If it isn't in the literature, then is anyone looking for a topic for their Ph.D. dissertation? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to be :-). The question of what happens if all the Ant ice goes isn't very interesting, for the next millenium, because it won't happen. Arctic ice is more interesting, but not as interesting as you might think because (a) at max extent, its winter, and there is very little sun (b) it can be very cloudy in the summer (discount all the gorgeous pictures you see of glorious sun on bright snow; people only take pictures when the sun shines). As to figures, people must have done this (at least for the Arctic). I have a feeling RP Snr did William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After the recent carnage, there's plenty of room to put in the above albedo section. It can be later improved if necessary Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I put it back as per discussion above. Feel free to prune it if needed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You talking to yourself doesn't count for anything. Nobody agreed with you. -Atmoz (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

NASA and pollution laws
This was removed from the article. I haven't had a chance to look yet, but it's probably worth investigating what the article say and how best to represent any notable content in them...


 * In 2009, NASA reported that global warming is caused largely by laws that were passed to reduce pollution and acid rain. refAerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming, NASA, April 8, 2009 /ref refNASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap, The Register, April 9, 2009 ref

ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Register article is a complete misrepresentation, of course. Increased aerosols have masked some of the effect of greenhouse gases. Clean air acts have removed some of that masking. We do discuss the basic mechanism already. It's not particularly new, although the NASA study seems to be more quantitative than the IPCC coverage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The NASA ref specifically addresses arctic warming, casting no new light on global warming. --Nigelj (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) The description is wrong to the point of outright deception. Global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses. Laws limit one type of pollution (sulfates) that happen to mitigate the global warming effects caused by another type of pollution (greenhouse gasses). This does not mean that those laws are causing global warming - the greenhouse gasses are the cause. Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The relevant journal article seems to be Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century. -Atmoz (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the head of NASA at the time, appointed by President George W. Bush, is not a scientist. He was a crony of Bush, who could be trusted to use NASA to report anything the government wanted NASA to report. After the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the investigatory team put the blame squarely on him, and on the other non-scientists at NASA, just as non-scientist Reagan appointees were found responsible for the Challenger disaster. Why anyone believes politicians over scientists, considering their record, has always been hard for me to understand? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

section carnage
Large blocks of text have been removed with little or no discussion. I'm not happy about this, and plan to re-insert them shortly. I understand the need for brevity, but think this is far better achieved by editing secitons down, not by hacking them out completely. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please let us know which sections, and what you plan to write. Re-inserting them will continue an edit war, and will not result in the discussion that the previous deletion lacked. Awickert (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask you to list the sections you've taken out and explain your reasoning for each. Almost like a mini-AfD, but retrospective. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about you try to explain yourself, instead of letting others do your work? Awickert hasn't edited this article for over a month, so your "demand" is rather strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrew, remember that this article is virtually a summary of many other articles. Additions would be appropriate in the main articles of any particular climate subject you wish to provide input on, subject to the all of the other WP policies and the consensus of the editors of those articles. --Skyemoor (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was Atmoz who was responsible for the killing spree. I keep doing that....  Too many people beginning with A. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing up the confusion. As Kim noticed, I exist here more to maintain sanity than to actually make edits. My question still stands, and the sooner the text shows up here or in a sandbox (I assume you can do a pretty easy copy/paste), the sooner things will be handled in a discussion setting rather than an edit-revert setting. Awickert (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Below is the full body count. I fail to believe that all of this stuff is unworthy of inclusion, and I'm amazed that a massacre on this scale has passed without comment.  At the very least a lot of this stuff should be hived off into other articles. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity has caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era and that the observed warming cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural causes alone. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, which is the period when most of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations took place and for which the most complete measurements exist.
 * casualty #1 - GH effect


 * casualty #2 - solar stuff - important for skeptics

Stott and colleagues have suggested that climate models overestimate the relative effect of greenhouse gases compared to solar forcing; they also suggest that the cooling effects of volcanic dust and sulfate aerosols have been underestimated. They nevertheless conclude that even with an enhanced climate sensitivity to solar forcing, most of the warming since the mid-20th century is likely attributable to the increases in greenhouse gases. Another paper suggests that the Sun may have contributed about 45–50 percent of the increase in the average global surface temperature over the period 1900–2000, and about 25–35 percent between 1980 and 2000. In 2006, Peter Foukal and colleagues found no net increase of solar brightness over the last 1,000 years. Solar cycles led to a small increase of 0.07 percent in brightness over the last 30 years. This effect is too small to contribute significantly to global warming. The general view is that the combined effect of the two main sources of natural climate forcing, solar variation and changes in volcanic activity, probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 but a cooling effect since.

The observed trend since at least 1960 has been a cooling of the lower stratosphere. Reduction of stratospheric ozone also has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s. Svensmark and colleagues have proposed another hypothesis related to solar activity, which is that magnetic activity of the sun deflects cosmic rays that may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei and thereby affect the climate. Another paper found no relation between global warming and solar radiation since 1985, whether through variations in solar output or variations in cosmic rays. Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the main proponents of cloud seeding by galactic cosmic rays, disputed this criticism of their hypothesis. A 2007 paper found that in the last 20 years there has been no significant link between changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth and cloudiness and temperature.
 * casualty #3 - solar variation - could be bumped into another article???

The observed trend since at least 1960 has been a cooling of the lower stratosphere. Reduction of stratospheric ozone also has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s.


 * casualty 4 - Temperature changes


 * Recent

Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century, though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have, for the short term, largely offset one another, so that net warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued that human influence on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago with the start of Asian rice irrigation. Ruddiman's interpretation of the historical record, with respect to the methane data, has been disputed.


 * Pre-human climate variations



Earth has experienced warming and cooling many times in the past. The recent Antarctic EPICA ice core spans 800,000 years, including eight glacial periods timed by orbital variations with interglacial warm periods comparable to present temperatures. A rapid buildup of greenhouse gases amplified warming in the early Jurassic period (about 180 million years ago), with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9 °F). Research by the Open University indicates that the warming caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, CO2 levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years. Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the clathrate gun hypothesis) have been hypothesized as both a cause for and an effect of other warming events in the distant past, including the Permian–Triassic extinction event (about 251 million years ago) and the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago).


 * Most of the content you specify has been moved within the article; it has not been removed from the article. -Atmoz (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For clarity, I think we should revert to a version preceding this slaughter and wait till there's general agreement before eviscerating the article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Atmoz, can you mess with the box above so it only contains deleted text, and not text that has been moved? I'm really struggling to follow your work. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Casualty 1: The first sentence is redundant to other material in the article. I have no idea what that second sentence means.
 * Casualty 2: Still in the article. I just reworded it a little.
 * Casualty 3: Ozone stuff kept, the rest is WP:FRINGE.
 * Casualty 4: Recent was discussed above. Paleo was overly detailed for this article. It should probably still be linked though.
 * -Atmoz (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Stylistically, I'm hugely not a fan of X study says Y for encyclopedia articles. What I prefer is "bla bla bla"[cited with respect to what is representative of general consensus in literature]. However the main Solar forcing article is written as X says Y, so that might be a decent place to put the solar material, especially since there still is a section here devoted to it. The solar forcing article also needs love.
 * I also agree with Atmoz on the paleoclimate stuff: to keep the GW article focused, we should link to paleoclimate. Again, you might want to put some of your info there.
 * So my overall thought is that the peripheral articles should be beefed up, and that your info looks like it is in great shape to do that. My reasoning is that the main points are already covered here, while the other articles are not as well-refined. Awickert (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Svensmark stuff (galactic cosmic rays) has been deleted somewhere along the way but I think it should go back in. There have been enough peer-reviewed pubs both pro and con, and enough mentions in the popular press, that we should note that the idea exists. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides Svensmark and the usual suspects, I cannot recall seeing a pro paper. (Don't have time to do a proper lit search right now to verify that though.) I really don't think this is taken seriously by the cloud physics community. I'd say it's a lot like the sunspot correlations of the past. Popular press is fluff. They'd report that GW would cause more earthquakes if it'd sell them 1 more copy. The Iris hypothesis exists, had papers pro and con, and was mentioned in the press. Does this deserve mention on the GW article too? Or the Gaia hypothesis? Any mention in the GW article is giving this hypothesis undue weight. -Atmoz (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to put in fringy stuff, and then show why it's refuted, or not widely believed. Surveys show that a large section of the population doesn't bleive AGW, so I think we should show why it's the paradigm. What say we have a section on 'fringe science'?Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, as per WP:WEIGHT. Fringe and refutations can go in the FAQ - that's what it's for. Perhaps it can go in the global warming controversy. I see your point, and I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but I've seen too many areas on WP turn into battlegrounds for fringers and anti-fringers, and I'm sick of it. We should stick to reliable sources here unless we want this to become a debate of why the "GW isn't happening" crowd is wrong. Awickert (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming
I would like to submit a link request to Scientific American or www.sciam.com on the topic of Global Warming. Scientific American is an established authoritative site with up to date news, research and information on global warming. Scientific American also provides photos, videos, podcasts and a 60 Second Science Blog. Thank you for considering a valuable source to your Global Warming page.

JaramazovicBladerunner27 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A link to specific Scientific American articles would be ok, but not to the whole web page -- it isn't specific enough. Also, Scientific American is a major secondary source, but primary sources are preferred. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

earthquakes
I don't want to cloud the above discussion, but I thought that this merits a mention - I think the phenomenon was said in jest but it's apparently credible http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025531.300-climate-change-tearing-the-earth-apart.html  Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a subscription, so I can't read the whole thing. Any chance you could copy/paste the studies that they cite?
 * Thoughts right now: Climate change will definitely change the hydrologic cycle, which will affect rates of erosion and therefore, quite possibly, tectonic processes. To a first order, I don't see how rising sea levels would result in more underwater landslides: it seems like that's just increasing the hydrostatic stress, which should push it farther from Mohr-Coulomb failure. I'm not so sure about the whole earthquake and volcano thing other than the erosion/convergence deal - but tectonic plate motions are measured to be relatively consistent over recent geologic time, so I'm not sure about that either. Awickert (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Updating the warmest year bit
I just reverted to remove two sections of added text which appeared to be unsupported by the citation. 2007 also tied 1998 as being the second warmest year in recorded history, which is noteworthy because there was a stong La Nina present during the second half of 2007 and not an El Nino which occured in 1998. 2008 was the ninth warmest year according to NASA because of a strong La Nina pattern and reduced solar irradiance. NASA's Goddard Institute states that because of increasing human made greenhouse gases, a record warm year exceeding 2005 can be expected by at least 2012. And The majority of climate models can only simulate the observed warming since the 1970s by increasing greenhouse gases. I would have left them in with fact tags, but I am not sure that an accounting of the ninth warmest year, etc. is necessary, and I am unclear on what the second addition means (increasing above anthropogenic levels, increasing in general, etc.?). Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first section is pretty accurate (except for the bit on "because of a strong" which should be "despite a strong"), and it wouldn't be too difficult to reference it. But it doesn't belong here (imho), but would be more appropriate on Instrumental temperature record (which we summarize here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Name change?
Scientists seem to use the term 'climate change' to describe what we discuss in the article as 'global warming'. Should WP reflect this?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Scientists do use the term "global warming" so that's not sufficient motivation in itself to call for a title change. I think "global warming" is a little more common in the U.S. and "climate change" is a little more common in Europe, but that's just my perception. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's true that the two terms are often used interchangeably, and this sometimes causes confusion in the public mind. However, "climate change" is a more general term that refers to major changes in the long-term weather patterns of a given region or of the Earth as a whole.  As the Earth has gone through numerous climate changes throughout it's history, the term "climate change" can denote either a warming trend or a cooling trend.  The term "global warming" is more specific, and is commonly used to refer to the current warming trend (i.e. climate change) that our planet is undergoing.  Are people suggesting we change this article's title to Climate change, or redirect searches for "climate change" to this page?  That's not feasible, as we already have an excellent article titled Climate change.  Both articles link to each other, and both have well written leads that I believe should clear up any confusion anyone has about the two terms.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sure this has been discussed to death before, but I think that "climate change" should appear somewhere in the lead, to reflect that this is now very widely used to describe recent and predicted global warming and its effects. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been re-named to "climate change" because it's not the whole globe warming - it's mostly just the northern hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.137.129 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

COP15
AJL has reinserted this into the lead. It's been removed by myself and Stephan Schulz. Soliciting other opinions. -Atmoz (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarity, when I put it in originally, it was a bit geeky and inaccessible. I simplified the languague and did a bad job, so Stephan rightly rmvd it.  I re-did it with new wording and banged it back in.  Hope y'all like it.  If not, I suggest it's put in another section, as it's important.  However, I do think that the general reader will be intersted to know the state of play. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, the Brit said "y'all". Awickert (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It may have a place on the Kyoto article, in an article about the UNFCCC or about COP meetings (or all). It certainly doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the political context is important to the general reader. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I believe it does deserves a place, not in the lead just yet, but in the Economic and political debate section. --Seba5618 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I put into mitigation as that's where Kyoto stuff is. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be there. There is, however, a main article developing at 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference; wouldn't it be better to link to that rather than the section redirected from COP15? Secondly, I think most commentators are abbreviating the name to 'Copenhagen' (like 'Kyoto') rather than 'COP15', so wouldn't this serve better in our brief, but important, mention here? --Nigelj (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

int link in lead
kim and i disagree about the link to scientific opinion on climate change. I did a new version because I think that it needs to be clear whether the link is about the endorsement or about the academies. Despite all my time here i never realised that link was to do with the sci. debate - so I changed the link to make it clearer. What do people think? Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Before it wasn't as descriptive, now it's really long - I go either way. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
This has a lot of usefule links and needs to be added to external links page with an appropriate title.--Charlesrkiss (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesrkiss (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a political blog and as such fails WP:RS standards. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * People complain that there is not adequate representation of the dissent, and so I'm `
 * I have problems with the treatment of dissent at this article, since it would appear there are good scientists, intimately concerned with this topic (though not specifically qualified in it) who are not being referenced because they're not publishing peer-reviewed articles on the subject and are not being funded to be alarmist. However, that's due to puzzling twists in the use of WP:RS, not a complete abrogation of it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * CharlesRKiss - I told you so, I said you would go insane trying to correct the obvious bias in this article. It’s the same half dozen editors’ continually playing word games to redefine the truth of natural cycles. The best summatiom is this article < http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/942 > or as Bill Clinton might say “it’s the Sun stupid”.  < Mk > 68.56.128.36 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Inhofe blog post above refers to an article that's nearly two years old, in which Stephen Schwartz tried a certain type of model for climate sensitivity. The model doesn't give a good fit to the actual temperature data -- see RealClimate on this, as well as this published reply.  Agathman (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

new article
clathrate gun and ocean anoxia got stripped out of this article. I suggest therefore we do a new article such as long term effects of global warming. The effects of global warming article is too long already, so it can't go in there. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the clathrate gun has been proposed with both sea-level rise and sea-level fall, so maybe it should be more general (climate change) or it should just stay at its main article.
 * Or... if you mean effects of present-day global warming (which you probably did, I bet I mis-interpreted), maybe you're right and there should be such an article. Awickert (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant long term effects of present GW. Maybe we were to quick to strip clathrate gun, this section suggests it's underway already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Methane_release_from_hydrates Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, for the love of the gun. Well, none of the sources there are peer-reviewed (I believe Geophys. Res. Abs. aren't), and all of the peer-reviewed sources I've read say it's a long-term thing. If you can find a peer-reviewed source that says that yes, there are measurements, we should add it, probably glomming onto the permafrost part. (And was it you who wrote that section of "effects"? It sure looks like your writing.) Awickert (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I wrote some of it. Feel free to tag and edit it if needed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm - Geophys Res Abstracts volumes are just compilations of AGU conference abstracts. They aren't peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but I was having a lovely sleepy afternoon, and didn't want to be wrong. Thanks, Boris. Awickert (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cobbled together the article. I'm not making any claims it's fit for purpose yet, so please feel free to descend on it like a hoard of screaming, bloodthirsty axe-murders.  I'm not giving it any love until it's post-evisceration, as I've wasted far too much time doing that before.  Please WP:AfD it if you don't like it - don't just redirect/speedy it. I've shouted this out to effects of global warming too.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of long term effects of global warming as it read like an undergraduate term paper. -Atmoz (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is/was simply a pov fork of the material that AJL has tried repeatedly to insert all over the place, with all the same problems that have been pointed out repeatedly ... *sigh* --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it could be a worthwhile article. It's not meant to be a personal soapbox or POV fork.  It's under construction, and everyone's help would be greatly appreciated in making it a decent article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ridiculous reverts
Atmoz rv. this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=283284645&oldid=283284296

That revert resulted in grammar mistakes being re-inserted into the article. If people don't like an edit, please can they:
 * 1) Revert only the edit they don't like, not loads of other edits that happen to be done by the same editor
 * 2) Post a summary that's actually applicable, and gives workable feedback.
 * 3) Correct any mistakes in the old version, to prevent the need for the reverted edit to be re-inserted Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done messing with you. Your edits to the global warming page get reverted on site. If someone else wants them in, they can add them back in. -Atmoz (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Atmoz, your version includes the following errors:


 * 1) Greenhouse gas remediation is not limited to carbon sequestration
 * 2) Pluralisation mistake
 * 3) Erroneous claim that solar radiation management is carried out only by stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)

Further, if you state that you're going to rv. me on site, your rv. edits will therefore count as vandalism and not be subject to 3RR. Please either repair your shoddy work, or re-instate my version. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should clarify. I'm only going to revert your edits that are POV pushing. By my estimate, that includes approximately 90% of your edits. -Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked you to clarify why correcting your mistakes was POV-pushing. You have not done so.  You've reverted to an error-filled version.  That's vandalism. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The minor grammar mistakes have been fixed without the reinsertion of more geoengineering stuff. (Not by AJL though.) I assume this thread is resolved now. -Atmoz (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fine with that. I wasn't meaning to bloat it.  I'm happy with the fix.  Thanks very much. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Say no to edit wars
This is a featured article. The revert wars going on are absolutely insane. Let's follow the instructions on the top and post potentially-controversial edits here before we put them on the article. That way, the talk page will be used for work, not expressions of frustration, and the public will have a stable product to read.

Tips:


 * 1) If you think there's a 1/100 chance your edit is controversial for any reason (article length, style, content), mention it here, then wait 12 to 24 hours.
 * 2) If editing the article, correct stylistic, grammar, and spelling issues in one edit. Address clear factual errors in another edit. Add material in a completely separate edit, after going to the talk page about it. That way, reverts can be kept from doing collateral damage, as per above.

Thank you. Awickert (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence my point about stopping bulk reverts - WMC and Atmoz have both done this, and both have openly admitted they are reverting my edits without consideration of their content. I've raised this with both users on their TPs, but they've deleted my comments - in Atmoz case on 3 separate occasions and immediately after posting.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is that. And there is also your addition of material without consensus. I do not wish to place blame with any one party; I simply wish the edit warring to end. Awickert (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=283284645&oldid=283284296, but I will correct the mistakes as soon as my 24hrs expires, just in case I get a 3RR ambushAndrewjlockley (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose. Back in the day when we did this, we talked about this. Geoengineering is subset of proposals to reduce climate change, isn't as prominent as many others, and certainly doesn't deserve its separate section. Awickert (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Awickert, a subsection on geoeng is undue weight. Its an interesting concept, but not a sufficiently large topic/subject to be included here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only proposing fixing the existing section. What do you propose doing about the various mistakes in the current version?  Why are you allowing an error-riddled version to persist on a high-traffic version? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First: Huh - I must have misread the diffs - I thought you were putting the whole section back in. I haven't gone through the article since before geoeng had its own section (and I thought that there was consensus to not give it its own section). Ah, well. I would support the grammar and spelling fixes, but really oppose its existence as a section in its own right, though that's outside the rigid scope of this discussion.
 * Second: My concern is that you're not just proposing fixing grammar and style. You're proposing changing a blurb into a larger bullet-point list and adding a one-sentence paragraph to the end of the lede: see my above note on separating material and spellcheck/factcheck.
 * I think that you should keep the format as-is for right now, and just change the sentences to read more appropriately with "such as", etc. Awickert (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All sorted as above. I don't want to war with anyone.  Sorry if people thought my fix was rubbish.  Only trying to help. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Propose geoengineering section merged into mitigation
Note - collapsing a discussion like this could be dangerous, making important discussions difficult to find in the archive. Please edit the comment above if you disagree with my analysis. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I originated the discussion, it was useless, and I therefore disagree with your analysis. Awickert (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Brick through the AGW window...
Copyright violation removed. < Mk > 68.56.175.27 (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to the censorship run amuck again I see...  This article is really worth a read < http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/a-brick-through-australias-agw-window/#more-7010 > for all of you trying to take part in a BALANCED debate. < Mk > 68.56.175.27 (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop editing every single post because you don't want a balanced debate on this subject matter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.175.27 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, copying whole articles here is a copyright violation. Removing it is not censorship, but good sense. And you want a "balanced" debate? Sorry, but that would require a balance of evidence. Plimer's claims are not new, and most of them are still wrong. And getting an endorsement from a banker turned politician may be typical for the septic crowdlet, but it does little to inspire confidence in the science of the book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the same Ian Plimer who says El Niño is caused by earthquakes? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The rules of this article are simple: if it is pro-warming hysteria, then it is "legitimate", "authoratative", "scientific". If it lays out the lack of any evidence supporting manmade warming it is: "not a credible source". You would have more luck getting catholic bishops to accept that god doesn't exist that convincing global warmers that the natural climate variation is anything other than the "vengeance of ghia on the sins of mankind". 80.176.148.24 (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah.... I have to say that I generally try to keep unsupported alarmism out. If you think any of the statements in the article are unsupported by science, please bring up the specific instances. Awickert (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the second time I've come to this article expecting to find a balanced take on particular issues, only to find it completely missing. The first occasion was after I'd come across Dr Will Happer. See my reasons for considering his sceptical views relevant here, he's published 200 scientific papers (or so we're told!) and he's uninvolved - the very kind of person that someone like me will most trust, delivering peer-review in miniature. Without him (or a link to a discussion of his views elsewhere), this article is deficient.
 * Today I come to this article, having read this in todays New York Times: While carbon dioxide may be the No. 1 contributor to rising global temperatures, scientists say, black carbon has emerged as an important No. 2, with recent studies estimating that it is responsible for 18 percent of the planet’s warming, compared with 40 percent for carbon dioxide. Is this supposedly important factor mentioned? No it isn't. If the NYT carries it, I have to presume it's important and has been much discussed, not finding any reference immediately undermines the authority of this article. After writing the above, immediate action was taken to insert part it, thankyou User:Fred Bauder. Yet even as you did this my request for a record of the RfCs and other dispute resolution processes that have been embarked upon for this topic (along with a message personal to me) has been deleted apparently as an "off topic comment" - can you explain what's going on?
 * Meanwhile, over at Snowball Earth I find the opposite problem, the article depreciates this phenomenon/theory, despite some of the RS treating it as proven.
 * Looking more deeply, there is even some outright censorship going on, eg here, with the entirely civil protest scrubbed here. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See the archives (linked on top of the talk page). As for personal comments - they have nothing to do on an article talk-page (see: WP:TALK, WP:SOAP and in this particular case WP:NPA). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the ABC report is in the archives, and you were pointing me to it, then I would naturally apologise. But I asked for other listings of information, and my request was deleted. This on top of a great deal of other interference that's obviously going on. I thought Wikipedia would be a good place to be cooperative, perhaps becoming accepted enough to be trusted. Instead of which I'm seeing really bad behavior that administrators are presumably incapable of controlling. I'm hardly going to exert myself with good writing in such an atmosphere. If what's going on here were general, Wikipedia would be laughed out of court. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Where in the UN ABC Summary Report did it mention 18%? I can't find it, though perhaps someone else did or it's easily calculated. Just going on the NYT doesn't satisfy scientific sourcing. --Skyemoor (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what you're doing is called original research. If it's in the New York Times, we're supposed to treat it as worth reporting. And I've been along the path of "scientific sourcing" before, I was told that Dr Will Happer isn't it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No we are not "supposed" to report what the NYT says. The requirements for verifiability on science articles is higher than that. The reason being that popular media often gets scientific results wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't mention 18% in Part I of the full report either. What that says is "The BC forcing of 0.9 is much larger than (factor of 2-3) the IPCC-AR4 estimates, but is consistent with the large forcing estimated by Jacobson (2002), Hansen and others (2005) and Chung and Seinfeld (2005). BC plays a major role in atmospheric solar heating and dimming of the surface. BC in soot is the dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon, although distributed globally, are concentrated in the tropics where BC is subject to high solar irradiance. During long-range transport, BC is mixed with other aerosols and become widespread trans-continental ABC plumes that are 3-5 km thick. These three factors combine to make BC the second strongest contributor to global warming, next to carbon dioxide (CO2)." This comes from Ramanathan and Carmichael's 2008 Nature Geoscience paper . No mention of the 18% there either. Mikenorton (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. It's possible that, even though the New York Times says that "Brown Cloud" is 18% of the entire cause of GW it's not firmly based on the 2008 ABC report and shouldn't go into the article. However, what I'm seeing is a very badly edited article, with the 2nd biggest cause of GW (if you're sure about that!?) never mentioned until I brought it up here. Does the phrase "Augean Stables" mean anything to you? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Aerosols are mentioned in the article. That BC should be that big a contribution seems to be something new, as far as i've read so far - the effect is mainly regional (which seems to be what the report is about). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suffer fools gladly
Except for obvious vandalism and name calling, it is generally better to let people have their say on the talk pages, even if what they say is obviously wrong. Talk page comments should only be reverted if they violate the rules of civil discourse. If someone writes "John Doe is a poo poo head," you may safely delete it. Anything that is less obviously vandalism should be left and, in many cases, ignored. (Don't feed the trolls.) Rick Norwood (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was an agreement reached last year that comments posted on the talk page must directly address editing the article, otherwise the comments will be removed. Before this rule, people were having their say on all sorts of topics ranging from conspiracy theories, alleged flawed science behind global warming etc. etc., except suggestions for editing the article. The rare comment about editing the article would be lost in the noise. Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The level of interference with Talk going on at this page is severe, I quickly spotted it yesterday and it's worse today. And it comes on top of other problems that are very obvious even to scientifically trained "believing" readers such as myself.
 * When a major report, with a major conclusion ("18% of GW is due to soot") gets no mention in this article for 5 months (Nov 2008 until today, when this passer-by spots a reference in the NYT) then the present cohort of editors is not even doing a respectable job editing this article. The very topic ("Atmospheric Brown Clouds", surely long recognised as important) seems never to have been mentioned! Are we to believe that "soot" is a concept too difficult for the average reader to understand or science to monitor?
 * I can see lots more in that ABC report that (I would suppose) needs inclusion eg has CO2 been downgraded from the 60% of GW according to the IPCC to 40% in ABC? Shouldn't that be in the article? Oops, no RealClimate.org says the real figure is 9-26%, lets use that instead. I think I have a good record for writing on technical matters, but I'm hardly going to waste my time attempting to do something useful at a page with this level of behavior.
 * That is it precisely. My view, is that the job of an editor is to outline to the reader as much information as can reasonably be contained in a short article on all the views and not just the one view of one group. Obviously there will be debate as to which views should have prominence, but as far as I can see this article simply refuses to accept contributions from anyone except a small group of people who seem to be related to each other in some way - or at least very friendly with each other's views. And in the end all they have done is create an article which no one would want to read as it reads like a party political manifesto for the global warming party.79.79.229.136 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, we can't show "all" views. There simply isn't room. Second you seem to have misunderstood what NPOV means. It means that we show the mainstream views, leave out the fringe opinions, while nodding the hat (ie. mention them, but in accordance with their weight in the literature) towards significant minority views. When contributions are "refused", they are being "refused" because they are either: A) fringe views B) not published in reliable sources C) Not science or are simply D) off-topic. Finally if there is really some "group of people" who act inappropriately according to WP's rules - then take it up on the appropriate forum - WP:ANI would be one. This is not the place. Since both talkpage rules and civility rules disallow this. So please stop. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "First ... then just dismiss everythign I said as if I were some stupid idiot. The first rule of wikipedia is: "assume good faith", that rule is broken by some people on almost every post. This is not an article trying to inform the reader about the subject, it is a group of people trying to ensure that the reader has two choices: read their views or don't bother to read it at all, and I bet 90% of people choose the second option because to be blunt the article is as boring as hell (because it does not reflect the diversity of views) even for someone interested in the subject.79.79.229.136 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll point out once more that such a discussion, and the comments you've just made are inappropriate for an article talk page. If there is such a bias, or such people - then take it up in the WP channels where it is appropriate. Here is one (again): WP:ANI. This is not a forum for discussion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And when even my request to see a listing of dispute resolutions previously undertaken is deleted, perhaps a proper shaking up is in order. Do I have support preparing a list of editors who have interfered with the comments of others without good reason, in preparation for asking those people to leave the room? Could I count on administrative support for such a solution? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A bigger interference to the quality of the article is from the trolls who crowd out the useful discussion here. I too am a passerby, and noticed that in the past month quite a few trolls have popped up and created discussions completely unrelated to the article content (as far as WP content policies are concerned).  If you're trying to do something about the editors here, make sure you treat the cause of reactive deletions rather than any perceived symptoms.  I tried rooting out some of the causes with a sockpuppet investigation, but it was denied.  Use your energy to free up the limited resources of those who are capable of following WP policy, and the article will probably improve as the talk page becomes more useful.  NJGW (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I support expanding the article's treatment of soot, albedo and aerosols. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are aware that your 60, 40 and 9-26 percentages are all about different things, right? And that they aren't compatible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've looked over the ABC SPM, and I cannot find the 18% there, or any such number attributed to soot or brown clouds for global temperature rise. Certainly neither "18" nor "eighteen" occurs in a useful context in the report. Malcolm, can you be more specific about where this claim is being made? There are significant seasonal and regional effects described, but much of the report deals with specific impacts on individual weather systems, on glaciers, food security and health, but there is not very much that I think applies to a general overview article on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking part in any discussion where people will interfere with my comments. 18% appears in the New York Times, if that's not good enough for the article I'm sure you'll explain why. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you link that claim to the UNEP ABC report up 3 or so comments, and complain that it has not been included for 5 months. As far as I can tell, that report does not support the claim. If you know different, please let me know where and how. As for the NYT article: We have long avoided to use popular press articles as sources for scientific issues, as they are more often than not wrong in significant ways. And the NYT article does not, as far as I can see, refer to the UNEP report at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll answer your question. The New York Times is not good enough because it isn't an academic source. Especially on a controversial article like this, we need to stick to academic sources. There is related Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, every newspaper article that says global warming isn't happening or that the oceans are going to rise a meter next year or whatever nonsense become fair game. Also, I agree with Stephan - I've seen way too much misconstrued or outright incorrect statements about science in the newspapers. While NYT is much more reputable, I still don't want to step on that particular slippery slope. Awickert (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to see evidence for an "agreement" to write this article in a non-standard fashion. I want to see the results of all the other article-specific "agreements" properly arrived at by dispute resolution. I cannot be expected to have confidence in a process rife with outright censorship, which I'm most certainly seeing on the TalkPage, and am bound to suspect is a major element in the article.
 * And, while I might easily be (perhaps am) convinced that this trampling of WP:RS is necessary as regards even top newspapers, I'm bound to have the strongest possible objection to then applying the same policy to the likes of Dr Will Happer, who appears to be a really serious scientist, very knowledgable and well-published in matters closely related to GW, but is rejected here because he has no certificate in "Alarmism for the Common Good". Notable sceptics, even if there is no space for their views here, must be listed in the main article so that people like me can arrive, find their mention, and be guided towards their contribution. ("Soot" and "brown clouds" were missing, I needed them to appear somewhere in the text, allowing me to navigate). GW may be rocket-science, writing the article properly is not. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, aerosols were in the article. And according to the latest reliable poll of climate scientists, 97.4% of active climate scientists believe that believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperature, i.e. they support the core of the scientific consensus (and that 2.6 % remaining includes the "unsure" group). Thus to give proper WP:WEIGHT to Happer, you would need to balance his opinion with at least 39 other scientists that support the consensus. And if you look at scientific and learned societies, the debate is equally lop-sided, with not a single one denying AGW. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No trampling of reliable sources. Citing policy from WP:RS, "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." This is very important, as this is a controversial issue, and therefore less rigorous publishing venues are often wrong or have large unstated biases, either towards not-a-big-deal-ism or apocalypse-ism. Awickert (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reluctantly been brought round to the idea that even regular statistics from the New York Times ("18% GW from soot") cannot be trusted. However, their language needs to be reflected (as has now been done). And when outside scientists express their opinions (I'm assuming Dr Will Happer has not had his views distorted the way that the NYT may have done to the ABC, and I presume he's as distinguished as is claimed) there needs to be some linkage here. Burying dissent is not good enough, and editors should know better.
 * In particular, I don't see how reasonable editing can possibly be going on with blatant censorship of TalkPage comments - is that going to continue unpunished? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the semi-rigorous enforcement of WP:TPG, WP:FORUM and WP:NPA? Or do you have anything else in mind? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm, is there any particular publication by Happer that you wish to include in the article? There are a lot of scientists out there, and some have various odd ideas about climate change (some of Stephen Hawking's comments on a runaway greenhouse effect come to mind), but we generally don't include the opinions of an individual, however notable, unless they are summarizing research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably told you what it was before, but I'll never be able to find what tweaked my interest because my contributions are so obviously unwanted that they're deleted. And that's just in discussion! I expected the word "soot" to appear in the article (because the NYT said it contributed to 18% of Global Warming). Another user agreed and put it in on my behalf in a new section. It's been removed - I see there is an attempt at discussion, but I can hardly take it seriously.
 * Similarly, another user has told us that comments should not be deleted unless they're obviously offensive, a rule so obvious it's not been written down. And he's simply been ignored. If you don't know how to run an airline there'll be a bumpy landing, not you personally, but please don't ask me to sit beside you or even in the same row. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That user is unfamiliar with the messy and often nasty history of this talk page. You have yet to provide a scientific and verifiable source for the 18%, and other editors have looked where it should be and it's not there. Awickert (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

another angle
should we include this (or similar survey) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:CRYSTAL. (and WP:NOT in general)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting adding an independent opinion survey, not making a preditction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyways, not here. This article deals primarily with the science of global warming. It might be more interesting in Politics of global warming or, arguably, Effects of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK in your view does that study count as a WP:RS? Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For which statement? For the sentiment of the polled population, yes. For a general statement about " climate experts", I'd have my doubts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be more about the likely policy responses, and a bit about climate sensitivity. Judging from ''The Guardian contacted all 1,756 people who registered to attend the conference and asked for their opinions on the likely course of global warming. Of 261 experts who responded, 200 were researchers in climate science and related fields.'' it would be hard to claim it as a definitive survey William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone got a better source? If there isn't anything better, would anyone object to it being cited?  I think it's a useful insight into the thinking of scientists, and that's something the general public probably doesn't get enough of through the media lens. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of source, there are other articles dealing with scientific opinion and political climate - as per Stephan Schulz above, this poll material is not directly about the science of global warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a theory is it not?
The title and description should be changed to state that it is a THEORY, not how it is stated like it's a fact. Only politics don't call it a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer0273 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See the FAQ, here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated tha faq - check it out. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this faq entry. There is insignificant scientific evidence to support the claim that the overall temperature is rising. In fact I seem to remember some data supporting the opposite. this article should be presented as theoretical from the beginning so that readers don't get the wrong idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross817 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes the temperature is rising, but it is caused by the number of sunspots on the sun, not by the amount of CO2. Mustanggt5000 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)mustanggt5000
 * Here is an article about sunspots: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Mustanggt5000 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)mustanggt5000

You are mistaken. If you are interested in knowing the truth, read the article. If you are interested in holding onto your mistaken beliefs, read conservative blogs. Could the scientific findings about global warming be wrong? Of course they could. Science is always subject to change, if better data comes along. But right now, what this article says is what the data support, and "I seem to remember some data supporting the opposite" is not a strong reason to believe the opposite. The internet is a fountain of misinformation. You need to learn to discriminate between authoratative sources: refereed journals, college textbooks, encyclopedias and almanacs, on the one hand, and dubious sources: blogs, politicians, talk radio and television, on the other hand. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am simply trying to say that since the data supporting the increase of the average temperature are inconclusive we should present it as such. I believe it is covered under Wikipedia's neutrality page that we should present every opinion equally and I know some people who believe that global warming is a hoax.


 * Oh, here it is: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."


 * I am not sure what would be considered a reliable source at this point but I will cite the following as a source for now:
 * http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521data_trunc_sys.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross817 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not considered a WP:RS. And its a load of nonsense. Here is Peter Doran's (the scientist quoted in your article) comments on the misrepresentation that (amongst others) your article presented.
 * Note btw. that WP:NPOV is not "equal time" - but a presentation according to the relative merit/weight/prominence of each view. The view that the Earth isn't warming (or cooling) is on the extreme fringe, and thus isn't considered. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we add the conservatives' "theory", I propose that we add my religion's theory as well. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

climate models
I think this section needs to be smaller, to fit the new, shorter article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs to inform the reader that the crrent gen. of models are weak on earth system integration, eg. carbon cycle feedbacks (esp. methane) and ice-dymanics. There's a general consensus from senior IPCC scientists that global climate models currently severely underestimate global warming. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No there isn't, which is why you've noticeably failed to include any refs William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I omitted refs because this is only a TP and I can't be bothered. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then no one can be bothered to address your concern. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We should find some way to include the fact that models at the British Antarctic Survey don't necessarily support the position that the warming observed in the twentieth Century was anthropogenic. Here is an excerpt:

"As part of the work undertaken for the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC13, about 20 different climate models were run with historical changes to natural and anthropogenic forcing factors to simulate the climate of the 20th century. The simulated changes in Antarctic surface temperatures over the second half of the 20th century vary greatly from model to model with no single model reproducing exactly the observed pattern of change. However, when results from all models are averaged, the resulting pattern of change bears some resemblance to that observed, with greatest warming in the Peninsula region and little change elsewhere20. This result suggests that some of the observed change may have an anthropogenic origin, but the lack of a clear and consistent response to changed forcing between models also suggests that much of the observed change in temperatures may be due to natural variability. The IPCC model experiments fail to reproduce some of the observed features, notably the rapid warming of the lower atmosphere. These differences between modelled and observed changes could be used to argue against attributing change to anthropogenic forcing but some caution is called for as the models used may not adequately represent all of the complex processes that determine temperatures in the polar regions."

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_views/climate_change.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.242.119 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoted out of context, and taken out of context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, that's a very long quote, and I provided the URL for anyone interested in looking into this. Surely  the BAS is a reputable source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.242.119 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Distribution of climate change is not homogeneous - that means that you can't take a regional conclusion (which Antarctica is (context)) and elevate it to a global conclusion. (which your intro sentence did (out of context)). Next comes another out of context use... Your quoted text states "could be used to argue against" - but the conclusion is: "Taken together, these two results suggest that a significant fraction of the recent observed changes in climate in this part of the Antarctic can be attributed to human activity with a reasonable degree of certainty."  So Stephan is absolutely correct: "Quoted out of context, and taken out of context". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So should we then disregard all temperature data predating satellites, as ‘regional’ land-based data, which excludes the two-thirds of the Earth covered by water? If that is your definition of ‘out of context’, I would like to know what is in context.  By your definition the AGW theory is entirely dependant on data taken out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.242.119 (talk • contribs)
 * This is not a forum for debate. But to address your comment: you are now moving the goal posts. You are assuming that a specific well-defined regional uncertainty can be expanded into a generalized dismissal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Petersen, If the goal posts aren't where you expected to find them, that doesn't mean I moved them. This article fails to inform the reader of the uncertainties inherent in all climate models.  Above there is the suggestion that this section on models be further limited without acknowledging the integral role such models play in the AGW theory, which is why the current federal budget included hundreds of millions of dollars for climate models (so they must be important to somebody).  You obviously want to obscure the fact that such models will never have the capability to forecast climate in any long-term meaningful way.  Even at the regional level, the BAS models all disagree with each other and they all disagree with the actual record when a comparison can be made, and no amount of tweaking them will ever be able to change that fact.  This is why Jim Hanson’s climate forecast of 1988 failed spectacularly (he couldn't model the Earth's climate as he claimed because that's not possible).  If we exclude the 'out of context' data and rely only on the actual global satellite data, we find that there has been no net global warming after James Hansen predicted it, in his testimony before congress in 1988, and please don't try to make us believe that the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) is not a reliable source.  Furthermore, don't accuse me of debating, when I am providing a valid critique of this article, and informing you of a glaring omission on your part.  Frequent readers of the AGW sections at Wikipedia are painfully aware of your pro-AGW point-of-view, which you have always predictably expressed in your argumentative knee-jerk fashion for several years now, just as you have here today.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/ http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/index.html

(outdent) can we get back on topic please? Here's the cite which shows concern over IPCC modelling. Can we please edit this section to show the limitations of models which been highlighted by these comments. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you read your sources? I could find no mentioning of problems with climate modeling. There were statements to the effect that future CO2 emissions may have been underestimated, and that there are potential additional CO2-based feedbacks not well understood yet, but there was no comment on the quality of climate models. You are aware that CO2 levels typically are an assumed input for climate models, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I failed to cite my sources when I indicated that James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988 failed spectacularly due to his inability to model the Earth’s climate accurately. I also noticed that I used the wrong spelling of his name. While noting my own spelling error, I decided not to corrected it, as I can see how error correction can lead to edit wars as indicated in the next section below. Here are the sources showing his failed prediction, which I will now cite: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen20.gif

Please consider publishing these graphs to illustrate to the reader the inherent weakness of relying on computer generated models when making long-term climate forecasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.44.250 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the reliable source stating that Hansen "failed"? Why do you think that a climate projection (not prediction) would be "accurate" on an annual scale? Why end on a La Niña year? etc etc. (hint: its cherry picking). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you compare the data from Hansen published in 1988 (figure (a) on p9347) with the actual data of what really happened from UAH you will see a striking disparity in the amount of warming, which cannot be explained away by differences between annual data and monthly data. If the available data happens to end on a La Niña year, that’s not my fault.  But it does draw attention to the fact that Hansen’s models did not predict any La Niñas or El Niños (now that you have raised that issue), and no one else has ever been able to accurately predict such occurrences in their projections either.  Therefore this section on models is remiss in not illustrating this obvious deficiency.  Your charge of cherry picking is baseless also, as I have provided a continuous series of global satellite data inexplicably missing from these AGW pages that readers should have available to them when evaluating the accuracy of such models.  If you do have models showing when the next La Niña or El Niño will occur, I would be very interested to look at them, and I hope you will add them to this section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.44.250 (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR and WP:V. If you do not have reliable sources that state what you claim, and is relevant for inclusion into the article - then its irrelevant here. This is not a forum for general discussion on global warming (as stated before). Your personal opinions (and mine) are irrelevant for WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * >
 * I did as you said, following the link you provided. But what I found cast doubt on your actions not mine.  I found that I was right to examine the speculative nature of AGW.  The models it is based on are entirely dependant on “unverifiable speculation”, which supports my original point.  Thank you for pointing out this policy:


 * “Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analysis.”


 * Obviously it is the responsibility of a Wikipedia editor to determine whether AGW speculation can be verified, which is what I was doing when comparing the models’ speculation to the actual climate record as given by a reliable source of satellite temperature data from UAH (which I cited) over that same timeframe. Please follow your own link and read the policy you asked me to read to make sure that you yourself are in compliance Wikipedia guidelines.  These three sources of data must be juxtaposed to be sure the Wikipedia does not become ‘a collection of unverifiable speculation’.  Whether such models can be verified with data from the historical record is entirely germane to this discussion and it is increasing obvious why I have encountered so much defensiveness here at Wikipedia.


 * http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
 * http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen20.gif
 * http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.44.250 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Once more: See WP:FORUM. climateaudit and icecap are not reliable sources sorry. Your personal comparisons and conclusions have *no relevance* at all here. See: WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is only your opinion (which is forbidden here). If you have a reliable source showing that this data, faithfully reproduced from the University of Alabama Huntsville, by Icecap, is in error, you are welcome to provide it here.  Otherwise this source of data is more reliable than your opinion of it.  More importantly you have failed to address Wikipedia’s policy regarding “unverifiable speculation”, which compels us to make sure that these models can be verified, as the AGW theory is dependent on them.  Will you also say that the University of Alabama Huntsville is an unreliable source, knowing as you must that this data was faithfully reproduced from their records, or will you say that it is not?  Here we are discussing facts that are a matter or record, not matters of opinion.  If you believe that Icecap and Climateaudit are not reliable sources, we will need more than just your unsupported assertion.  I have been continually citing my sources, which I now ask you to carefully read before making any more hasty replies.  I will ask you to do the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.44.250 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

still too fat, still doesn't include enough on carbon cycle modelling etc Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Soot
I cut this:


 * Emissions of soot (particularly emissions from primitive cookstoves in Asia and Africa, but including diesel engines and coal plants in the same region), have been reported in the New York Times as accounting for 18% of global warming. Airborne for several days, often settling on glaciers, or on ice in arctic regions, black carbon absorbs heat directly. The influences of aerosols, including black carbon, will be most pronounced in the tropics and sub-tropics, particularly in Asia, while the effects of greenhouse gases will be dominant in the extratropics and southern hemisphere. 

there is probably something to be said about soot, but it needs a better source than the NYT. I think that's what you're talking about above, but there is too much ranting up there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support reinsertion with better source Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This one? http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.full.pdf Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is 188 citations enough to establish notability? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 188 citations is loads for a relatively obscure field of climate science. This is also worth a look.  I remember citing it before, like the study as it correlates with data. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5590/2250 Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obscure? That's pretty insulting. -Atmoz (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying 188 citations is plenty. Some papers get just a handful.  My view is that if it's in a reputable journal it's fair game. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm? See WP:WEIGHT - single papers are never just "fair game". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this article, the more it astonishes me. There's lots of either undue weight or marginal relevance (eg most of | Responses to global warming) but nothing I can see on really important subjects such as "scientific dissent" and no current mention of soot (perhaps claimed to be 50% as important as CO2). Wikipedia's reputation (amongst both specialists and non-specialists) would be better if this article had no central direction and looked rather like a sprawling mess. At least it would be an NPOV sprawling mess! MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I could definitely see cutting down or outsourcing the responses to GW section.
 * Who claims soot is up to 50%? What reliable source?
 * Scientific dissent is virtually nonexistent; it receives mention in the popular press because they like to run a "balanced" story, but per WP:WEIGHT, it gets zilch or next to zero.
 * Your first sentence makes you seem like a WP:TROLL. I don't think it's really necessary for you to insert your own opinion of how horrible this article is into the first sentence of almost every message of yours here, and especially before repeating issues that have already been explained to you, such as the soot and WP:RS and the "scientific dissent"; this adds traffic to this board without actively improving the article. The part of your comment I do see as useful is the responses; I suggest that you bring up chopping that section down in a new section here.
 * Awickert (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BC is part of the IPCC aerosol estimation (ie. the Hansen paper (see date)). The surprise here would be that Black carbon should be 2-4 times as big a forcing as the IPCC suggests, which apparently is what Ramanathan suggests. Perhaps a 1-2 liner summary of BC in the aerosol section? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, that paper, however many citations, doesn't say 18% I suggest not reinserting the above text, and instead inserting something along the lines of what the paper says, and perhaps another couple publications as well. Awickert (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a start, although I've suggested expanding that topic area. Do you want to suggest wording, or base it on the above?  Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the abbreviation BC is no longer specific, as well as "black carbon" it also stands for "brown cloud" as in Atmospheric Brown Cloud (ABC) report Nov 2008. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone please suggest text? I think that others probably understand this area better than me, so I hope they can bring forward a proposal. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted this with a slight change in the first sentence to better reflect the reference(s). -Atmoz (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Awickert (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I linked to albedo, and briefly explained Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? You explained what? You added something that was already said (parenthetically), and changed to heading so it was of the form "Subject and sub-subject" without including the other sub-subject that is included in that section. -Atmoz (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it up a bit, hope you like it Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi
I think we've all got bored with the anon's wurblings, so I've semi'd the page. Dear anons, for the moment if you want to contribute you'll need to get an account William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea... not sure what a wurbling is... but it seems to fit. skip sievert (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest having an unprotected subpage, in case someone wants to deal with them. The autoconfirmed threshold is now quite high (but I understand your reasons). -- lucasbfr  talk 12:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I was acutlaly gonna sugges tthis myself. omg what has happened to my fingers! they no longer type! Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

lapse rate
this subsection needs a rewrite for the general readerAndrewjlockley (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. I've been tweaking it from time to time but it's a tough one.  This particular kind of feedback is hard to explain in a way that is both simple and correct.  Simple and wrong, or complicated and correct, are much easier... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lapse rate? Um William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it has to be longer, or use a picture to explain, then so be it. No point having the text in there if 99pc of readers don't get it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to re-word it. "Lapse rate" isn't in my scientifc vocabulary, and I'm very ignorant of this topic, so I'm doing it here for scrutiny. I think I've got it, though, but I was bold with "troposphere".

Original:

Lapse rate : The atmosphere's temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Since emission of infrared radiation varies with the fourth power of temperature, longwave radiation escaping from the upper atmosphere to space is less than that emitted from the lower atmosphere toward the ground. Thus, the strength of the greenhouse effect depends on the atmosphere's rate of temperature decrease with height. Both theory and climate models indicate that global warming will reduce the rate of temperature decrease with height, producing a negative lapse rate feedback that weakens the greenhouse effect. Measurements of the rate of temperature change with height are very sensitive to small errors in observations, making it difficult to establish whether the models agree with observations.

New:

Lapse rate : The temperature of the troposphere decreases with elevation. Because the emission of radiation varies with the fourth power of temperature (see Stefan-Boltzmann law), less longwave radiation is emitted from the upper atmosphere into space than from the lower atmosphere toward the ground. Therefore, the rate of temperature decrease with elevation determines the amount of heat retained by the Earth system, with larger temperature gradients producing a larger greenhouse effect. Both theory and climate models indicate that global warming will reduce the temperature gradient in the troposphere, producing a negative lapse rate feedback that will weaken the greenhouse effect. However, it is difficult to observe the rate of temperature change with elevation, and this makes it difficult to verify the models.

Awickert (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been expanding the feedbacks section for possible splitting to a new article. This is rough, but here it is... -Atmoz (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have to read it three or more times to really understand it, even with an engineering degree and a reasonable level of knowledge of GW. I suggest it needs expansion/simplification for the general reader.  It also needs explanation of why heat isn't radiated directly to space from lower levels of the atmos.  Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean my minor changes, or Atmoz' bigger ones? Awickert (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Atmoz big section isn't destined for here, I don't think. I think the idea of temperature changing in the atmos comes across quite well, but I don't think that the feedbacks/effects are well explained. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Another crack at it, then:

Lapse rate: The temperature of the troposphere decreases with elevation. Because the emission of radiation varies with the fourth power of temperature (see Stefan-Boltzmann law), less longwave radiation is emitted from the upper atmosphere into space than from the lower atmosphere toward the ground. Because of this, a colder top of the troposphere and warmer bottom of the troposphere will result in less radiation loss to space and more radiation re-radiated back towards the Earth, amplifying the greenhouse effect. Both theory and climate models indicate that global warming will have the converse effect, reducing the temperature gradient across the troposphere and weakening the greenhouse effect in a "negative lapse-rate feedback". However, it is difficult to observe the rate of temperature change with elevation, and this makes it hard to verify the models.

Awickert (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This leaves me wondering:Why does longwave radiation go in different directions from different parts of the atmos?

I'm not sure the following text is correct, but he's my take on this. oops forgot to sign!Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The lowest level of the atmosphere (the troposphere) tends to get colder with increasing altitude (height). This rate of change of temperature with altitude is called the lapse rate.  Models suggest that as global warming takes effect, the upper layers of the troposphere will become warmer, relative to the air below.  Because long wave radiation doesn't pass easily through the atmosphere, the higher air tends to lose more heat directly to space than does air near the ground.  As the upper troposphere warms, it loses heat more rapidly, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.  Therefore, the lapse rate feedback from global warming will tend to result in more heat being lost to space than would otherwise be the case.  It is therefore an example of negative feedback, which acts to control global warming, rather than amplify it.


 * I'm going to sit on this until Boris or someone else who knows what they're doing has a say on our paragraphs. Awickert (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a topical archive index created that updates automatically?
The evolution talk page has this nifty index thingy set up at Talk:Evolution/Archive index (many others have it too, the evo page was just the first one I stumbled upon). I think I could do it so it would be completely automated (unless the automation breaks), but would require changing the way the page is archived and moving the old archived pages around a bit. I think it'd be nice because it'd provide a semi-topical index to past discussions&mdash;as long as the heading was on-topic. The downside to moving archives around is that past links to them will now be broken. The archive index bot could probably be set up to work with the present archiving scheme too, somehow, but it wouldn't be me trying to fuss with it to get it to work.

I like the idea of an index, but as it's not a minor change I thought discussion first would be better than a bold action. Sorry if this has been discussed before. I've never had any luck trying to find things using the search talk archives "feature". -Atmoz (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes. The easier to find something in the archives, the better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blarg. I could do it, but not the way I'd want. That requires the delete button. If any passerbys are interested, the 49 moves are below. -Atmoz (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2009/4 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 49
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2009/3 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 48
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2009/2 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 47
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2009/1 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 46
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/12 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 45
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/11 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 44
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/10 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 43
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/9 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 42
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/8 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 41
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/7 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 40
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/6 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 39
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/5 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 38
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/4 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 37
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/3 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 36
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/2 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 35
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2008/1 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 34
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/12 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 33
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/11 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 32
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/10 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 31
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/9 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 30
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/8 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 29
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/7 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 28
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/6 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 27
 * Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/5 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 26
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 24 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 25
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 23 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 24
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 22 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 23
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 21 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 22
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 20 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 21
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 19 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 20
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 18 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 19
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 17 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 18
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 11 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 17
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 10 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 16
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 9 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 15
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 8 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 14
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 7 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 13
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 6 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 12
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 5 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 11
 * Talk:Global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph → Talk:Global warming/Archive 10
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 4 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 9
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 3 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 8
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 2 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 7
 * Talk:Global warming/Archive 1 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 6
 * Talk:Global warming/OldTalk5 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 5
 * Talk:Global warming/OldTalk4 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 4
 * Talk:Global warming/OldTalk3 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 3
 * Talk:Global warming/OldTalk2 → Talk:Global warming/Archive 2
 * Talk:Global warming/OldTalk → Talk:Global warming/Archive 1

Recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity
According to an article "Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission. Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The 'Register' commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form."

Obviously the report from the Japanese energy commission is a reliable document according to wikipedia policy but the translation is only available as a summary on a site for which I don't know the provenance. Obviously ideally I'd go and read the original japanese but I can't so how should this information about the skepticism from authoratative sources be included in the article? Bugsy (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And if you had taken the time to actually read the article - then you would have noticed Itoh's personal comment on the blog (the Update in blue)... Let me summarize it for you: They are not part or members of JSER, the text represents their personal opinions, and are deliberately written to create debate. So in other words there is no dramatic break with the IPCC, nor is this a report. The Register apparently completely misunderstood it (and that is one of the reasons that such a translation isn't reliable) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Kim, are you seriously trying to suggest that that this article cannot be referred to because Wikipedia does not permit opinions written in authoratative and respected journals? Could you point me to the policy on which you base that so I can read it myself? Bugsy (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Register is not an "authoratative and respected journal", and, as obvious from Itoh's comments, completely misrepresents the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah..., we can not promote pseudo science and represent that as real on an article like this. Bugsy... take a look at this, and I hope you find it interesting http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/ - skip sievert (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, newspapers often report science poorly. Probably the best way to approach this one would be to look at the original published article and its published responses, see if there is consensus between the article and the comments on any major issues, and find out where to put that. Awickert (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

 * "Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate" article by Andrew C. Revkin in The New York Times April 23, 2009 I would put this into further reading. Fred Talk 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems more appropriate for Global warming controversy or Politics of global warming --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I certainly think this should go into further reading because I think people will be very interested to know about the $1.3million being given to this key anti-global warming lobby group, because it really does highlight the disparity of funding between the two sides. Bugsy (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't go here. This article has been decided to be "about the science". Oren0 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto: what OrenO and Kim D.Petersen said. Besides, there's already 29 entries in the further reading section.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there scope to strengthen one of these sentences under Economic and political debate and cite the article?
 * "Business-centered organizations, conservative commentators, and companies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil have downplayed IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[108][109][110][111]"
 * "Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,[112] or called for policies to reduce global warming.[113]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 11:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppressive mindset at work
Only one sided arguments are presented here. There are many articles in the media and literature by reputable scientists and sources who discredit this unverifiable theory, but editors choose to ignore this altogether. You give 100% credit to IPCC. That kind of information bias is characteristic for dictatorships, not for free societies. Remember Y2K "science" induced hysteria? Global warming article should have a clear warning on top that it is a SPECULATIVE THEORY. There is an article about Global warming controversy, but it is not mentioned here. The distinction is that in the controversy article you have some arguments pro et contra, and here the expressed view is unequivocaly biased. If someone allows me, I'd be glad to provide references that put this theory in its rightful place. Jaksap (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong even about the trivial factlets. However, this is a Wiki, please feel free to contribute. Please make sure you understand WP:RS, especially the interpretation for science-related articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can add new references daily. Saying that climate prediction is much more reliable than lottery number guessing is unscientific. I heard an accurate comparison recently - it is like medieval astrology. Jaksap (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, IF you're going to add a section on scientific dissent from the consensus view (though note that the article cites _many_ other sources of dissent, so I don't personally think you should), then it ought to be prefaced by something like "As on nearly every topic of current research, there are those who hold a minority, dissenting view." Just because it's possible to find a handful of smart people who disagree and can make a convincing argument, doesn't mean that there are two "sides" to a question which suddenly have (anything approaching) near-equal weight.  Unlike in political debates, science will often come to consensus views which are, by definition, "one sided".  This article does an excellent job (in my view) of presenting the rationale for that consensus view, and it's worth reading all the well-discussed responses to the challenges by those denying anthropogenic climate change _before_ making major edits to this page. LeoTrottier (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits were not major, they were rather discrete and measured. We are talking about an area of science that is very feeble in the results it can produce. The consensus in this field is achieved through PR and lobbying rather than any verified or verifiable results. Take a look at Y2K problem article. Back then, there was also broad consensus that there is a huge problem, which turned out to be completely bogus. Plese abstain from removing my referenced contributions. Add some of yours that dispute mine, if possible. Jaksap (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As a programmer who worked 60-80 hours a week for the eighteen months leading up to Y2K, and then fixing many of the things that still broke for another 6 weeks after that, I am amused to hear that the massive, global, effort went unnoticed. That means that me, and my entire industry, did their jobs right. Right now we're working on the 2038 issue (using Y2K lessons), which is pretty bad as well Year_2038_problem, and hopefully, you won't notice any changes or disruptions then, as well.... and, in the sphere of this article, maybe the massive effort being thrown into dealing with climate change will be similar, as 100 years from now, our current efforts will yield critics who can say "the sky didn't fall, so the problem didn't exist".
 * Of course, such an argument hinges on the preposition that if a problem is fixed, the problem never existed, which is a bit... odd.Ronabop (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is obvious why you are grateful to "scientists" who came up with Y2K problem. I have a couple of friends myself who made a good income by working on this issue. However, the fact that countries (Italy, China, Russia, Thailand) and companies who didn't invest much to tackle Y2K experienced absolutely no problems proves that this was a fabricated issue. What further proof should there be? "end-of-the-world cult and the hoax of the century" may be an overstatement since we have Global warming now.Jaksap (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If it's true (and I would want to see some sources for this), they still benefited from all the effort spend on fixing off-the-shelf software. They may also have started computerization so late that they did not have significant amounts of software that relied on a two-digit year. And of course you must avoid to confuse the most hysterical "predictions" (nuclear power plants exploding, planes crashing into them) with the actual consensus (if nothing is done, some programs, especially older Cobol-based mainframe applications, will work incorrectly or not at all). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for explaining (in rather good, convincing detail) why this particular take on the Y2K business is quite a poor analogy. User:Jaksap goes down in my estimation as a consequence, while your credibility rating is enhanced by your response. But his comparison is not utterly and completely and ludicrously mad - a 1999 wiki-article on Y2K work might have become hi-jacked by alarmists and profiteers, making it near-impossible to write an NPOV article on the real risks. If it were bad enough, it might even become impossible to write the article adequate enough to mislead the non-specialist reader into thinking it was NPOV. But of course that couldn't happen with a Global Warming article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who have/had a personal benefit form Y2K or Global warming theories will find a way to support them. If we go back on the science turf we have to ask reasonable questions: climate change theory cannot be verified within a reasonable lifetime; climate change theory would become likely if there was a relatively accurate prediction system that says so. Quote: "We've reached the end of the road of being able to improve models significantly so we can provide the sort of information that policymakers and business require" There is no accurate prediction system, and those systems fail when applied to climate past statistics (if they weren't based on those statistics in the first place). If there is no verification mechanism, this theory is only a belief. Jaksap (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To paraphrase: Those who have/had a personal benefit from denial of Y2K or Global warming theories will find a way to support them. It's quite profitable, apparently. Climate_change_denial Ronabop (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, while I see your views on the panic-$$$-conspiracy-theory, conspiracy theories won't fly here. Moving on to the "science turf": Newspapers are unfortunately lousy for science. In addition to that, you seem to be making the assumption that because someone thinks that climate models can't be made better (and let's assume for the sake of argument that they are right), you can extrapolate that to say that they are useless. As I read it, the quote could have been saying: "they are reasonably accurate and can't be made any better" or "they are perfect and can't be made any better". I think the "perfect" example of an extrapolation is just as wild as your "they are useless". From reading the newspaper article, I would say that the middle road is most likely correct. I have not personally worked on climate models, so I can't speak for a model reproducing observed climate change, though that seems like a good verifiability mechanism. Awickert (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Climate models of today are so marginally accurate that they are close to lottery prediction. Jaksap (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I saw your peer-reviewed paper on that in Science - or was it the Geophysical Research Letters? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A statement like that makes it seem that you have no appreciation or understanding of climate models, which are in fact quite a bit better than lottery predictions. If this is the source of the argument, I don't think it is tenable based on current data, and seems more like a statement of your point of view while you ignore my previous discussion of the quote you use in which I attempted to be productive. If this is your goal here, to say that climate models are worthless because you say so, it's probably time to close this discussion. If you have a good paper that says so, then that is important. Awickert (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote: "At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..." Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us. From: No consensus on IPCC's level of ignoranceJaksap (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Umyeah. Chrstie is quoting his old physics teacher to make a rhetorical point. It's not a statement about climate models. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical figure as a summary of his opinion on climate modelling. The article is illustrative of how easilly scientific method can be abused.Jaksap (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not really going anywhere productive, at least regarding improvements to the article. Jaksap, if you have any changes you want to make, find reliable sources to support your position and propose changes to the article here on the talk page. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The only change I can propose, and realistically hope that may be accepted, is the addition of a link to Global warming controversy in the further reading section. The references I suggested for additon were dismissed as "crap". Jaksap (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already there at the head of the 'Economic and political debate' section. Mikenorton (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and it's linked in the lede, and it's in the global warming infobox. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the 'Opinion and Controversy' infobox subsection should be promoted to a section, rather than buried under causes. The controversy and ethics etc are not just about causes, but also about whether it's real, and what the right response should be.  I don't have a clue how to do this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * [] is where to discuss changes to the template, which appears on many articles. Ronabop (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW, why is it in "economic and political" section? "See also" is a better place for it. Jaksap (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, Global warming controversy doesn't belong to ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL section. This categorization is politicization in itself. There are talibans in-waiting who reverted this edit of mine as soon as I made the change. Jaksap (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason beyond "because I say so and call you names"? The controversy is nearly exclusively political. And you don't need a link in "see also", because it already is a) linked in the article and b) linked from the infobox at the bottom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If article on Evolution contains section on Social and cultural responses (where Creationism is clearly and respectfully mentioned - although NO scientific references exist to support this view), what does it mean to demote Global warming controversy in Global warming article? It all relates to my initial observation: There are people here who cannot stand an opinion they disagree with. Jaksap (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Global warming controversy is not a POLITICAL issue, because it involves both sides. Promoting the Global warming alarmist theory only is POLITICAL. Why doesn't the front page mention that this is a controversial topic? Jaksap (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Limited Time Offer: This thread has degenerated into SHOUTING and personal attacks. Anyone who can explain to my satisfaction why it should continue wins a shiny new tricycle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Entertainment value? -Atmoz (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It should continue since there is no excuse for your refusal to even acknowledge existence of opinions that are different than yours. I repeat, if Creationists get an honourable mention in article on Evolution, there has to be an overview of all points of view in discussion on Global warming (without brandig them as political when they are not). I perfer using vehicles which produce carbon emissions, so I'll pass on the tricycle offer.Jaksap (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jaksap. I took a look at your contributions. This is unfortunately a difficult page to which to contribute, largely because it tries to be very broad and apply appropriate WP:WEIGHT to particular facets of the topic, while being concise at the same time. Out of the thousands working on climate research, individual researchers' results are insignificant; as such, the Wikipedia article tries to express the mainstream opinion which is held by the vast majority of climate scientists. If there becomes a significant group of scientists who deviate from the opinion that global warming is happening and is anthropogenic, I would see fit to include that. Right now, that is not what I see. I do see room in the article for concerns about the cost of the response to global warming. The Brazil example is regional; once again, it would require a large number of studies to obtain some kind of global picture that this article requires. Finally, as to the evolution article, the creationism issue is in the "social and cultural responses" section, where it should be. While there are much more scientific grounds for skepticism about global warming than there are for the geologic time-scale, I'm not sure how much of the science part of the text here should be devoted to this small minority: my feeling is very little, for due weight to the arguments. The huge majority of the debate that I have seen (next to all) is political in nature. I hope this helps. Awickert (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion we are witnesing here abuse of "science". For a science to be credible, there needs to be a verifiable test. Economy is a science in the sense that it uses scientific methodology, but its predictions were pitiful in relation to economic crisis. In the same way Climatologists provide a large number of projections and predictions about climate, all based on scientific method. Where are verifiable results that may attribute credibility to this theory (or weight, as you called it)? I read related articles that claim to provide this proof. They are not convincing at all. Honest climatologists admit that climate is terribly difficult to model, even with all the amazing computing power (those whose research grants depend on spreding alarm, don't). At the current stage of thinking, it seems more acceptable to claim that the Earth was created several thousand years ago, or to deny Holocaust, than it is to put in a reasonable argument which doubts Global warming theories and predictions.Jaksap (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By weight, I meant that the vast majority of scientific publications on the topic seem to show that it is a problem; that's the way that Wikipedia works: it distills the general consensus. As to the issues with the science, I would argue that a verifiable, though definitely less-than-perfect, test is available in the historical temperature and atmospheric composition records. It seems like you have a lot of cynicism over the climate modeling process. Here on Wikipedia we are reporting what the scientists say, and not doing the science itself, so the best way for you to work with this would be to find a paper or more that critically review climate models.
 * As an aside, I think you're going for hyperbole, but it is much less reasonable to argue for young creationism based on science than it is to argue against global warming. Even if it seems so to you, it is definitely not supported by the scientific literature, where there are a small minority of non-anthropogenic-global-warming studies, but absolutely no young Earth studies. Awickert (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to be an evangelical preacher. I can predict doom and gloom and get attention in the media. What I say is all based on voluminous literature by numerous wise men who have reached a consensus. It is a prediction, so only future can disprove it. Results available in 2100. See you then. (now, substitute "evangelical preacher" with "climatologist")Jaksap (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck in your career choice. I know that faith is valuable there - but knowledge never hurts. You are aware, I assume, that climate models make a lot of predictions that can be checked today, of course, and that many of these have been checked? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Faith is an essential ingredient in all predictions, from astrology to climatology. I read some results that are heralded as verifications of climate models. They apply to very limited time and space. As you like to point out, the fact that Greenland was green is irrelevant. Considering the large number of these models, statistics does help, at least in short term.Jaksap (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Greenland was never green. Read the Grænlendinga saga and/or Eirik's saga. Unlike faith, models have a physical basis, and are therefore ablte to make predictions without absolute faith. As an example of very certain models, I believe that orbital mechanical models are likely correct for many, many millions of years in the future because of the physics that they embody. Since this isn't a general discussion form, I suggest you bring up some specific criticisms with the scientific sources so that they cna be added here, or to the article on climate models. Awickert (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sagas as scientific proof? Try: Medieval Warm Period. Comparing orbital predictions and climate predictions is deeply flawed. It is like equating an exact science with statistical projection. (In a recently published article astronomers admitted they weren't sure why solar activity is low. Climatologists immediately responded that they KNOW this won't affect global warming trend . Sounds like science vs. zeal to me)Jaksap (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The isotopic evidence of the Medieval warm period doesn't tell us anything about what happened specifically in Greenland. If you won't accept the only primary historical evidence, I don't know what to say. The archaeological evidence also shows that the only settled areas are those that were ice-free across climate variations. The orbital mechanics statement was to refute your "faith" statement. I never compared them to climate studies: please don't twist my words. As to the article, news sources are generally poor scientific sources, as I said before, and in any case it doesn't support your claim about climatologists. Finally, this is the second time you have attempted to continue the debate without putting forward ways to improve this article. Please give specific examples and sources of what you choose to do, or I will archive this discussion as unproductive. Awickert (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sagas are sagas, and historic evidence is different. For evidence of flourishing Greenland argiculture, see: A Prehistory of the North: Human Settlement of the Higher Latitudes by John F. Hoffecker ("In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day..."). By the way, this is an example where incresed temperatures led to a clear benefit for flora, fauna, and human society. Opposite example is yet to be found, although it is assumed and projected as invariable part of GW predictions.
 * This article contains references from Newsweek, BBC, New York Times and other similar sources, i.e. news sources seem to be acceptable.
 * Suggestions for the article: 1. clearly state that climate prediction models, and conclusions of what future consequences of GW may be, are speculative. Data on how temperature changed in the past is not in question. 2. climate change controversy doesn't need to be explained here, but it deserves a respectable mention (in the See also section, at least). If you have a theory, some critics who oppose it, and no way to definitely prove it, you don't just shun the critics under the carpet using "consensus" as a pretext. It is not consensus, it is a majority opinion at most. Why are GW theory advocates in panic mode when someone puts their views to the test? Jaksap (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this has gone on long enough. It seems we aren't getting anywhere. The current argumentation about Greenland being "greener" is even covered in the FAQ, and no historical evidence supports it (sorry). This particular section has degraded into a WP:FORUM, and while i find that the attempt at dialogue was admirable - its time to close it. in my opinion if more discussion is needed - take it to your own talk pages. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC) DNA evidence: Jaksap
 * Really cool evidence, but has nothing to do with the Medieval Warm Period. The Hoffecker quote is cherry-picked, by the way. Greenland was largely glaciated at the time, with small areas that were settled, just like today. Yes, that warming was beneficial to the Norse society there. We can take it to one of our talk pages.
 * The news articles aren't used for science. If they are, please point it out. For your points: I don't know enough to deal with (1), though other editors do - you should read some review papers and stick something in to qualify the predictive capacity of climate models. For (2), the manual of style has "see also" items be only those not linked in the text, so no-can-do.
 * So regarding Kim's statement on finishing this up: I think the best thing to do would be for Jaksap to find academic publications that critique climate models, find a good consensus, and suggest it here. I personally think that the "climate models section" is adequately critical, but again, I'm no expert here. Awickert (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough of pulling my leg. This article contains references from Newsweek, BBC, New York Times and other similar sources, i.e. news sources seem to be acceptable (as long as they confirm GW alarmist theory). I provided references from scientists about many of the points I made on the talk page, which is not usual at all. Referenced research results should immediately go in the article. The mindset of GW alarmists is such that it absolutely refutes all opinions that contradict their belief, even if they are science based. DNA evidence is as good proof as it gets, for you, however, it is "cool", but irrelevant.Jaksap (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell us if news sources actually report science on this page; they will be removed. The DNA evidence is irrelevant to the Medieval warm period - what's the problem with that? It says in the article that it was about an earlier warm period; if you can't bother to read your sources I can't bother to read your comments. I'm archiving this. Open a new thread if you want; removing newspaper refs that pretend to be science would be a good start. 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)