Talk:Climate cycle

NCPA Political Opinion POV VERSUS Peer Reviewed Science NPOV
The link to NCPA was removed (again).

The NCPA link was to an opinion article, a POINT OF VIEW, and not to a peer reviewed science article, a NON-POINT OF VIEW.

The NCPA POV article CONTRADICTS peer reviewed science.

The NCPA POV links severely damage Wikipedia's credibility, which may be the point of the person that keeps pushing the NCPA website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.162.63 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge?
Some of this should probably be merged, but I'm not sure where exactly, yet. Particularly, we should clearly differentiate between political views of global warming, such as that given by the NCPA, from scientific views. Also note that the existence of natural, long cycles does not tell us anything about what effect humans may or may not be having- we should avoid implying that it does. Friday (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you propose to distinguish between political and scientific views? And why do you regard the NCPA view as "political"?


 * The National Center for Policy Analysis? Nope, nothing political about that.  ;-)  Dragons flight 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for that (other than DF's ironic smiley)? If so, please add it. I'm always happy to "argue for the enemy" (so to speak) and would be happy to help track down a published source who dismisses all NCPA-related science as "politically-motivated".


 * Their own materials make it abundently clear that they aim to shape public policy, which makes them political almost by definition. A political organization can (at least in theory) be non-partisan, but the organizations goals would still appear to be political rather than scientific.  Have you looked at their about statement?  Dragons flight 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also found some "political" statements by top scientist Richard Lindzen, who accuses various scientific organizations, institutes and publications of bias.


 * Meanwhile, I've added this about the controversy. I'd like to see a balanced article on climate cycles, not one which endorses or opposes the view that natural causes predominate in global warming. Can we work together on this? --Uncle Ed 18:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, one could probably write a perfectly interesting article on climate cycles without even mentioning global warming, but once you start to tie climate cycles to global warming, one inevitably starts in on what's the case pro/con, whether or not it is reasonable, and who supports it (a few) vs. who opposes it (many). Dragons flight 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I for one, would like to keep the controversy in as few articles as possible. I think it'll get more eyeballs and (in theory) more neutral treatment that way.  Friday (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How could one possible separate climate cycles from global warming, unless scientists were first to prove that natural variation has nothing to do with air temperature? Or is less of a factor than greenhouse gas emissions?

By the way, should I mention sunspots here too? --Uncle Ed 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well most climate cycles (ice ages, el nino, NAO, QBO, etc) occur on very different timescales and have very little to do with global warming, and if you beleive the IPCC, global warming has very little to do with climate cycles, so I'd say it is quite easy to seperate the two. More to the point, natural climate variability can still occur even the face of anthropogenic global warming, so in some sense the two are orthogonal.  Man-made forcings happening in addition to natural variations could easily make the situation worse (or better?).  To answer your question, many scientists do beleive that natural factors have been less important to recent warming than greenhouse gases.


 * Feel free to mention solar variation, we already have a pretty good article on that. Dragons flight 20:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect
I'm sure that at some point there might be something useful to add to this page. But at the moment it just seems to be (yet another) a proxy for Ed to attack GW with. Its only content is a pile of stuff about the 1,500 y cycle (2/3 of which are links for Fred Singers junk), which is not a very good example - the ice age cycles are a far more obvious example. But wait, we have a page on that already... William M. Connolley 12:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * None of these are good reasons for a redirect. I know you personally dislike Singer's ideas. But as an admin, you should know that 'opposing POV' should not be deleted. (Using a redirect to hide it, is the same as deletion.)


 * So I'm undoing the redirect. Maybe other natural cycles should be added to this article, instead of redirecting to Temperature record, which isn't that well written anyway. The latter should be about how records are kept, maintained, or reconstructed. Each natural cycle deserves its own article, and there should be a main article about climate cycles.


 * If you as a 'notable author' deny that there are natural cycles, that's just your POV. --Uncle Ed 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is just a POV fork, as I've said above. It has nothing worthwhile on it and is badly biased William M. Connolley 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not shown that it's a POV fork, and both Friday and DF seem to find it worthwhile. Please stop changing it to a redirect until others besides just you are satisfied that the info it contains has been properly merged. --Uncle Ed 13:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alive again
Hmm, this got un-redirected at some point, I missed that. But the article is still rubbish :-( If it doesn't get improved, I think it should become a redirect again William M. Connolley 09:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those above who say that we need an article on this subject. I heard on the radio something about a 1100-year climate cycle, and wanted to know more about it, so I typed "Climate cycle" into Wikipedia. I got redirected to Temperature record, which didn't really mention climate cycles. So I'm going to try to improve this article and undo the redirect.EricK 08:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

For instance, we are now in a period of global warming that seems...
We're not in a period of global warming and haven't been for at least a decade. With sunspots at a minimum it's going to get even cooler. This article is riddled with errors of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.129.201 (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)