Talk:Climate forcing

Separate article
A separate article on this is not needed or helpful. Forcings are best discussed within specific contexts, since the choice of what is called forcings is situational. If a model for predicting vulcanism or solar variability is developed, then these are no longer forcings but become internal variability. If a model experiment is run that attempts to see how other variables repond to a change in the assumptions about carbon sinks (because they can't be modeled yet, etc.), then carbon sinks become a forcing. Any non-ab-initio parameterizations within models can be considered forcings. You should step into the fray and try to swim before assuming that what has already been achieved is insufficient.--Silverback 00:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But why can't we just put that explanation on the Climate forcings page? Obviously "non-ab-initio parameterizations within models" could be dumbed down a bit to something like "anything which concurrently effects climate but which acts from outside current climate models," which I gather from the content and context is what you mean, though it still needs elaboration. It's not like "climate forcings" doesn't mean anything or is not used in the science.

And just to add, I even put a section for that in the proposal, the "Differences from Internal factors." That is one of the parts I find confusing, though I think it could be explained easily by someone who knows more about it than I do.--Ben 00:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Scientific Defintion
I added the scientific definition. The source is http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUTQ4/$File/nas_ccsci_01.pdf but Wiki isn't linking to the PDF correctly. I'll find a better way to link it soon. --Ben 22:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am surprised by this definition and wonder if it is outdated and from a time of simpler models, there are lots of climate forcings that would not be covered by watts per sq meter, and I would think greenhouse forcing would be more sophisticated now.--Silverback 00:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You should look at radiative forcing, which contains the IPCC defn. The question to ask is, what is this defn being used for; why has it been called into being? In the case of the IPCC and rad forcing, the answer is, because its a simplifying concept that people have found useful in analysing climate.


 * removed the added definition. if it is actually the definition of radiative forcing it doesn't belong here. Could someone explain the difference between climate forcing and radiative forcing? I gather that radiative forcing describes certain types of climate forcings, like solar variation, but not CO2 sinks, since heat energy is not a part of the forcing itself?


 * (William M. Connolley 09:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)) CO2 is definitely a radiative forcing. The precise IPCC defn on that page should make it clear.


 * Does its impact vary with lattitude and cloud cover? It seems like it should.  I assume mixing is good enough, that there is not much geographical variation because of carbon sinks.--Silverback 13:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed the stub to a science stub, and I also added many links in the See Also section. Maybe the list could give you a better idea of what I think should go on this page? --Ben 10:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cloud forcing (merge suggestion)
I think it would be better to try to keep the more indepth explanations off the page and keep it general. If clouds are generally considered "aerosols," (right?) then cloud forcing should go in the "Aerosols" section and keep its current page. It can be explained in general though underneath "Aerosols" about how aerosols can reflect sunlight and retain heat. Clouds as a forcing would be a really good example of an aerosol forcing seeing as aerosols basically end up being clouds anyway, they just have different sources than natural clouds. This is also because I'm sure clouds as a forcing can be expanded upon. --Ben 08:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And upon further review, it looks as though "Cloud forcing" wouldn't be considered a climate forcing itself, just Clouds would be the forcing involved which then cause what is called "Cloud forcing". Sort of like how greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect. At least that's what I get from it. I think this is the equivalent theory for the effect of aerosols (I was wondering if there was one too). Should be checked out before any merge.--Ben 08:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Upon further reading, clouds are usually treated separately from aerosols. (which makes sense, some aerosols are not always cloud like, are not part of the natural weather system). That being said, I think "Cloud forcing" is a specific theory like the greenhouse effect. I've moved it back so cloud forcing can have it's own article (there's probably more that can go on that page). But it would be good to expand on it here and have a comparison to "aerosol radiative forcing" which is apparently the name for aerosol forcing.--Ben 00:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-radiative indirect effects
"Non-radiative forcings can indirectly affect the total energy within the global climate by redistributing energy or substances in such a way that it affects a radiative forcing."

This sounds reasonable to me, but it would be good to have a real-life example. It sounds a bit too academic (not the writing, just the theory). I have doubts about what exactly could accomplish this seeing as we're talking about a closed system here. If you could move/transform the energy from being "trapped" in the system to an energy outlet where it could be released, yes it sounds reasonable, but whether that can be affected is just a theory without observation.--Ben 08:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It occurs in a variety of documented ways. For an example, see greenhouse effect, where a paragraph states:
 * When present, convection does contribute to cooling of a greenhouse, just as it contributes to the cooling of the Earth, by redistributing thermal energy. In the absence of convection to the global greenhouse effect, average temperatures would be 72 C, rather than the current temperature 15 C, which is actually closer to the blackbody temperature of the Earth, -18 C, which would occur in the absence of any global greenhouse effect. This difference in temperatures is because convection facilitates redistribution of heat energy, sometimes raising hot air above much of the greenhouse gases in the same way that convection through a window of a greenhouse would move heat energy outside of the IR absorbant surface of the greenhouse.
 * &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 10:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Convection" is not generally considered a "forcing" of any kind, it is a variable which responds to temperature differences. Vulcanic releases of aerosols, which are input to models rather than derived or predicted variables. --Silverback 15:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Atmospheric circulation" and "oceanic circulation" are both "convection" by the definition of convection .    &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the issue here is forcings?--Silverback 18:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Those two are both listed on this article as forcings. Do you think that's incorrect??     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 01:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In general yes that is incorrect, however, if an atmospheric model does not simulate ocean circulation and temperatures and allow changes in ocean temperatures and circulation, then ocean circulation would be used as a forcing in that model. It is difficult to imagine a respectible atmospheric model, that just imposed atmospheric circulation as a forcing rather than model it. If it did it would not be allowing for or be able to predict any changes in circulation.  In a fuller, more physically accurate simulation both the ocean and the atmospheric circulations would be modeled, from some selected initial conditions.  Neither would be a forcing.  Of course, in most weather modeling, the ocean temperatures are a forcing and ocean circulation is not considered, but longer term climate simulations over periods of decades, in a context one considers to be changing, should model both.--Silverback 10:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * So would it be correct to say something like "Natural atmospheric circulation can result in heat loss or retention. For example, through the process of convection, warm air can move above the greenhouse gases which normally retain heat. The heat from the warm air which would normally be kept by the greenhouse effect can then be lost to space. This movement is not considered a climate forcing as it is simply the natural physical process of radiation which many climate forcings interact with." I don't know if that characterization is correct, but maybe it's something to work with. --Ben 23:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is more accurate, of course, you are not talking about a model here, but a natural process by which energy is trasported to higher levels in the atmosphere where it is more easily radiated, with less dimunition by the greenhouse effect. A "forcing" is something being applied to or imposed upon a system that is being modeled or analyzed.  Necessity requires that models be simplified, which usually requires that less of the physics be modeled and more forcings being used.  Human behavior is used as a forcing in climate models, usually simplified to greenhouse gasses.  It would be too difficult to model the possible feedback of climate changes on human behavior, although sometimes the impact of hypothesized future changes in human behavior such as treaties that are complied with are forcings in a model.--Silverback 10:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Climate Forcings and Climate Forces
When I changed the intro a bit to reflect some stuff that I read, it seems to me that maybe some of the usage of "climate forcings" should be changed to simply "climate forces." Forces is simpler and there is less confusion I think. For example, we'd have "Non-radiative forces" rather than "Non-radiative forcings." Comments?--Ben 00:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That was a bad example, I think "Non-radiative forcings" is ok. I think the difference is "Deforestation" is a "Climate Force" while "Greenhouse gas forcing" is the forcing. So it can be said that "deforestation" is a climate force which forces climate via the theory of "greenhouse gas forcing" which is a type of "climate forcing."--Ben 00:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I edited it, I hope its clear. I think this is how it is usually discussed. Someone may want to change the "Some of the forces involved in this type of forcing are:" to something like "Examples of phenomena which cause this kind of forcing" (actually I like that better, so if noone steps up then I'll change it to this or something like that later)--Ben 06:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Move
I suggest moving the article to climate forcing and having this page redirect there (right now climate forcing redirects here. When I first created the page I figured "climate forcings" was the same as "climate forces" (they're talked about that way it seems, that should probably be mentioned). But it seems to me that they aren't, rather "climate forcing" is the name for the theory of forcing climates. I won't do it for a while, or if anyone objects, maybe my current interpretation is wrong too :P.--Ben 06:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * A quick google search shows respectable people using both "climate forcings" and "climate forcing", but the one without the "s" seems to dominate by a factor of five. So I would say go ahead with the move.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 07:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Categories
New Category:Climate forcing and Category:Climate forcing agents --Ben 22:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Notice
CC: from Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley

I withdraw my proposal for mediation. WMC you "win" if that's what you'd rather have than discussion. Someone else can deal with you. I will cease discussing or arguing with you. I also will cease working on climate forcing and any and all related climate articles. WMC you might as well just erase climate forcing, since you never wanted it and never edit it,


 * (William M. Connolley 23:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Not true - see the RFC to avoid duplication
 * I think I, not WMC, was the one who never wanted the article, it is a poorly defined concept.--Silverback 15:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and you have declared yourself comptroller of these pages. I, for one, don't have time for this (I don't know how you do WMC, but whatever) nor do I have time for continuing the argument. You are the "winner" of global warming. Nobody seems to care about the state the articles are in, nor do outsiders notice your tendency to incite and enflame contributors, nor do they notice your tendency to force the issue through rhetoric rather than science. This is, of course, due to an emotional reaction to skeptics (witness those who claim I am a skeptic simply based on my support of this RFC) rather than science, but that's hardly surprising.

Down the road, I'd like to see articles where the reader creates his or her own argument with the methodology of climatology and the NPOV facts discovered. The reader is free to challenge the methods and the facts without having to pick apart rhetoric calculated to exclude their ideas from the article. The argument is not forced upon them, the methods and facts used are provided so they may discover for themselves, whatever their opinions may be. I also would like to see the politics dealt with separately from the science. I hope that this will happen soon, considering the ever-increasing urgency in educating people about the science of climate change, but I fear it will not be due to the style of writing and the personalities involved.

Good luck Corontin. I may not be on your "side" when it comes to the validity of the science, but I'm still on your "side" when it comes to the way these articles are written (and WMC's conduct of course). I for one, have no need to exclude skeptics like you from the argument, since I believe the science can speak for itself--if only WMC would let it. And hey, maybe it can't. Considering WMC's vicegrip he's obviously worried about something, either the science, or the power and control. Just so you know, I think it's the latter. --Ben 22:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
Copied here from Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin      by William M. Connolley      Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sub standard
Hi - I just saw this article and for several reasons it is really, well, let me call it "sub-standard". I think it should be totally removed and perhaps replaced by a short and simple mathematical discussion of short- and long wave radiation balances. Common stuff for Geo science and Astronomy students (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahlungsbilanz). Further concepts could be explored under climate modeling. I think lobby talk and ideological aspects should be kept out of these articles. The "scientific definitions" (how about: findings? Research results?) are readily available in countless widely used standard textbooks. Maybe I shall quote Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which doesn't go away, when you stop believing in it." But I shall not meddle in here. Greetings from Europe, Stefan


 * Hi Stefan (is that The Stefan or A Stefan?). Anyway, I agree. Any article that starts Note: This Wikipedia article is a work in progress. Some terms may be misrepresented. and has nonetheless not seen any progress at all for months is in trouble. This article was the creation of Ben. For various reasons he never improved it. No one else seems to want it. I'm going to redirect it, again. William M. Connolley 14:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC).