Talk:Climate variability and change/Archive 2

Recent Rewrite
I took it upon myself to rewrite this article to fulfill the promise of its introduction. In other words, to make this article about climate change of all kinds and on all time scales, rather than a crude microcosm of the global warming debate. I hope it can keep that focus.


 * Fantastic work, three cheers ... let us pray the focus remains —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not the best article, and still has problems, particularly with documentation. Some of it could probably do to be expanded, other parts could still be shrunk. I haven't covered all of the topics covered in the original article, but I believe that most, if not all, of the topics are either here or covered in other articles, particularly global warming articles.

In most of what I have written, I have tried to be brief. There are too many issues to include them all in this article, so I have tried to provide most sections with a decent summary and wikilink all of the major topics. Hopefully people will see this as a good thing.

For the immediate future, I don't think I'll edit this any more. I'd rather other people look at it and have a go. Hopefully, you won't think it is so horrible it needs to go away. :-)

Dragons flight 07:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Developing a schema
Anybody interested in this subject, please see my comment on Talk:global warming. I realise my thought on a possible merger with GW isn't likely to fly (though the amount of overlap should give pause for thought), but how about the rest of what I said, in terms of developing the topic structure? Anybody out there? Rd232 18:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

plate tectonics and climate change
Could we add an external source for this comment in the article:

"More recently, plate motions have been implicated in the intensification of the present ice age when approximately ~3 million years ago, the North and South American plates collided to form the Isthmus of Panama and shut off direct mixing between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans."

Mccready 19:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In other news, see Molnar and England (1990), Late cenezoic uplift of mountain-ranges and global climate change - chicken or egg, Nature 346 (6279): 29-34 JUL 5 1990. An excellent, oft-cited piece of work. Daniel Collins 16:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

WAS's list
User:WAS 4.250 added the following list to the introduction of the article. It isn't really appropriate there as it duplicates much of the table of contents and takes up a lot of space. However it may be appropriate to expand on some of these within the article, so I am moving the list here for discussion. Dragons flight 17:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

These changes come from:
 * internal processes:
 * plate tectonics
 * volcano (heat, ash, greenhouse gases)
 * radioactivity (heat)
 * external processes:
 * sun (heat)
 * meteors (heat, ash, greenhouse gases)
 * surface processes:
 * air and water movement
 * methane clathrate
 * polar ice cap
 * life
 * bacteria
 * plants (largest life effect ever was adding oxygen to the atmosphere)
 * animals
 * human

Wikibooks links
I removed the wikibook link, because the wikibooks pages are currently rubbish. And I don't mean they are overly sketpical, they are just a confused mishmash. There is no point in referring a general reader to them. If editors want to see the link, it here:

William M. Connolley 11:06:47, 2005-09-06 (UTC).

next century?
Under 'Human influences > fossil fuels' it says the CO2 levels are "projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the next century." Of course what this means depends on when it was written. 'The next century' is not a very good wording. Which century is meant here? I suppose that a projection to the year 2200 would go too far and this is copied from a text written in the 20th century. DirkvdM 20:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As if predicting to 2100 is not too far to predict? Imaging someone in 1900 predicting what life would be like today24.75.180.31 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See-also
I removed some see-also's, on the grounds that they are already linked in the article. Nrcprm2026 re-added them, on the grounds that "Hey, I wanted to read those". Well you can't, but this isn't your presonal bookmark space. Global warming and UNFCC are in the text: there is no point in repeating them. Links to IPCC belong on the IPCC page. Links to Palaeo belongs on the palaeo page. http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com is I think just advertising itself: its not important enough to be here. William M. Connolley 15:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC).


 * I doubt that see also lists should be trimmed just for the sake of brevity. I do agree that irrelevant items should be removed, but please consider the first-time reader who gets to the end of an article and then must decide what to read next.  I think it is very appropriate that global warming be on the see also list for climate change, and I don't think a reasonable person could deny that.  The wiki is not your personal research draft; there are plenty of people who have less expertise than you and could use some direction after taking in a long article.


 * Plus, the things I wanted to read were the external links that you clipped as I was going through them. I hope you didn't take those out again as well.  There's plenty of room to have hyperlinks and annotated footnotes both, don't you agree?  James P. S. 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Extreme weather cost graph


Rd232 removed a version of this graph. I believe the graph has substantial merit, has a NPOV, is not original research, and does not imply anything about the relative proportion of the causes of the variation. I am asking third party climate bloggers to independently comment on it and will report the results back here and to Talk:Global_warming. I intend to replace the graph here after their review, unless any significant issues are raised. James P. S. 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Replaced with requested caption change per various discussions.... -- James S. 20:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal turned attempted contributor
After some heavy vandalism, 72.1.206.14 tried to be constructive. Obvious boundary-testing, but for the time being let him or her have their fairly accurate sentence, perhaps, even though it's kind of out of time-scale context there. --James S. 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Vezier, again
63.218.212.211 has re-inserted  (and I've re-removed):


 * It has been argued (Veizer et al. 1999) that variations in greenhouse gas concentrations over tens of millions of years have not been well correlated to climate change, with perhaps plate tectonics playing a more dominant role. Others have argued that the climate record shows actually shows that carbon dioxide changes lag centuries behind temperature changes (Petit et al., 1999; Fischer et al., 1999; Mudelsee, 2001; Monnin et al., 2001; Caillon et al., 2003; Clarke, 2003). Therefore, they argue that temperature increases drive carbron dioxide increases. The carbon dioxide increases may amplify the warming, but these scientists argue that carbon dioxide increases do not cause the warming.

This text at the very best mixes up piles of timescales - Petit et al is presumably ice cores. Also the pile of refs, which aren't given, is suspicious, and appears to be from this. And I suspect the refs don't support the text, anyway.

She has also re-inserted the tell-tale skeptic Though rising carbon dioxide levels do not explain why temperatures increased until the 1940s and then fell though the 1970s, only to start increase again at the end of the 1970s.. To which the well-known answer is aerosols and natural variation. If that isn't in here somewhere, I suppose it should be.

William M. Connolley 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added some text to the page to try to address the tell-tale skeptic bit. To address an email question if questioning the unknowns of climate change makes that user a "tell-tale skeptic,"...: no, this is a misunderstanding. The point is, this isn't an unknown. Its something that fits well into the existing GHG theory. Pointing it out *as though* it was unknown; attempting to pretend that it doesn't fit into the theory; *that* is tell-tale. William M. Connolley 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

Non-climate factors driving climate
In the section on Greenhouse gases it states:
 * Radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary force causing global warming

Isn't this the main controversy regarding global warming? Few doubt that global warming is taking place or that greenhouse gases cause global warming. What is not universally accepted is that the increase in greenhouse gases is and has been the primary cause. Since this is the case, shouldn't this sentence be slightly less absolute and say something like "it is widely believed" or "most people believe"? –Shoaler (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Arguably its a fair shortest-possible summary, but yes you're right, it could be qualified a bit. global warming or attribution of recent climate change should have some suitable text. William M. Connolley 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC).
 * You are trying to keep this section concise. I put in two images and minimal text on glacier changes.  However, I did not say anything about response times of glaciers to a climate change.  Or look at historically the variations of a specific glacier to many climate changes.  Thus, I am  curious do you want to focus on climate change responses in general or the current one in specific.Peltoms 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, sorry, I'm confused now. Is that in respect of what Shoaler said, or something else? William M. Connolley 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

Green Facts
Hi, I notice that under the external links, the GreenFacts summary is given. Could we remove it, as it is rather under discussion, regarindg it's Sound science claims? Also, The IPCC, aswell as this article, already summarizes the reports, no need to list the 3rd organisation.

Thanx -- 145.99.202.92 13:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I recall looking at it, and I had another look just now. It seems Fair Enough, on a brief scan through. William M. Connolley 14:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I just read there Chernobyl 'study', and it was rather advocative. --12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Newest articles on EPA site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/newsandeventsScienceandPolicyNews.html --Ssilvers 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph
Climate change refers to the variations in the Earth's global climate or regional climates over time. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the climate over time-scales ranging from a few years to millions of years. These changes may come from either internal (natural) processes or be driven by external (artificial) forces.

What exactly does "Climate Change" describe? If the climate changes drastically in a year, is that not climate change also? Why is the average state of the atmosphere the same as average weather? What is the definition of "recently"? Are human or animal or plant activities internal or external? What is the definition of "internal processes"? What is the definition of "external forces"? --Sln3412 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Time scales of less than a few years are more appropriately termed "weather" than "climate". I think things like "el niño" that affect regional weather or climate in cycles of a few years are sort of the borderline, but others may draw it differently.  Similarly, people can differ on exactly where to draw the line between internal and external, depending on what system they are considering.  It's a good question, though, and we should look in some books and see if there's something like a consensus definition. Dicklyon 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

why specify "Earth's global climate" - I've heard the words "Martian climate change" and "Martian global warming" with increasing frequency recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.36.3 (talk)


 * What planet are you from? Seriously, though, if you think that kind of generalization is appropriate, point out a verifiable source for that usage and I'm sure it will be considered. Dicklyon 17:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/jan02/WebExtra0111.html or http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:W_t4rL-UJGoJ:www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1286.pdf+martian+climate+change&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=17


 * That looks good. Probably makes sense to add a section on planetary climate change, and maybe allow a little room for that concept in the lead.  But go cautiously, as you don't want to divert the main meaning of the term too much.  Dicklyon 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b. Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Volcanic eruptions
I added a few sentences on the residence time of dust in the atmosphere, and an external link with more details. KonaScout 18:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ANd how does the irregular pattern pf ice melt affect the disrtibutition of earthquakes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.231.189.229 (talk • contribs).

volcanoes also emitt (not only during eruptions) large quantities of CO2 and other, more potent greenhouse gases, like sulfurcompounds. i am completely missing this here, was it put somewhere else? 88.74.5.26 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - thats because volcanic sources to sulfur and CO2 is neglible compared to antropogenic emissions --Kim D. Petersen 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Global warming
User: 64.201.7.190 has added a merge tag to suggest merging climate change with global warming without any discussion. The merge suggestion also does not seem to be listed at Proposed mergers. I don't think this suggestion has any merrit - one article deals with climate change in general, the other one with the ongoing episode of (mostly) GHG driven global warming. Unless there is significant support, I'm going to remove the tags. --Stephan Schulz 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the tags. There are many anons that make good contributions (I used to be anon) but when I see things like this, I become very skeptic. I call it sophisticated vandalism. Brusegadi 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Climate Change is effectively a synonym of "global warming", and the articles cover the same ground (with several identical headings) - why would a merge NOT be approprate? Artw 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not synonyms, although they are used as such in some contexts. But climate change is a much more general term, while global warming typically only refers to the current episode. While there is some overlap, the articles also cover different ground. --Stephan Schulz 06:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Climate change wiki article seems to be more pure science whilst the other topic seems to be more intertwined with "current events" social and political views. The climate change wiki is objective and offers relevent info whilst the global warming is connected with the political and social perspective... I reject the merger. Science is science NOT Social Science or Political Science or Entertainment tonight. Whether it is the middle ages or now, altering or suppressing information for political, social or religious purposes will occur, but not on my watch. Remember, we can't control the weather!!!

Consistent graph orientation
The "Variations in CO2, temperature and dust", "Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide" and "Carbon Dioxide Variations" graphs have time increasing to the left on their x-axes, in opposition to convention and the rest of the graphs on the page. Could these be replotted? This was also an issue on the Global warming page, which has now been corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dk2 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC).


 * That is the normal orientation for long-term paleo data often used in the scientific community. Dragons flight 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for Climatic Change
The section titled "Evidence for Climatic Change" seems to be a bit out of place. There are many, many tools for climate reconstruction (or more properly, paleoclimate proxies). I could start filling out the list (off the top of my head, a few others are Dimethyl sulfide, Uk37', TEX-86, Ice core, Dendroclimatology, and Speleothem), but I think such a list would be overwhelming in the article. What do other people think of not using a list and just discussing the idea of a paleoclimate proxy, then linking to Proxy (climate) and listing some of the major ones there? It seems like such a random list (including beetles but not ice cores, for instance). Thoughts or other ideas? --TeaDrinker 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Link
Was about to add the link to the article, but the warning on it forced me to place this here. Shyamal 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already being well covered at IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. --Spiffy sperry 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Atomic particles
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change Times Online February 11, 2007 Compilations of weather satellite data by Danish National Space Center scientists indicate that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars, contradicting the theory that the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is due to man-made greenhouse gases. The sun's magnetic field bats away many... http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=6393&m=12472 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.36.207 (talk • contribs).


 * I don't see the contradiction. Dfarrar 14:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

climate change in popular culture
i suggest creating a new category with this name here and then merging global warming in popular culture into that. 88.74.5.26 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * qui tacet consentire videtur, so i acted and moved the text, somebody with an account canfix the links pls. tnx 88.74.5.26 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are established procedures for article deletions and mergers; see Merging and moving pages. I've reverted the merger pending outcome of the appropriate procedure for a merger. Raymond Arritt 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * okay, Ray, i did as you suggested 88.74.5.26 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * merged it. Kgs 19:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * References to climate change in popular culture may better be in the article "Climate change in popular culture", so this article better can focus on climate change in real life. J 1982 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A standalone article "Climate change in popular culture" would be a stub. Other subjects also include the "... in popular culture" oder "... in fiction" as a subcatagory in the main article. Kgs 08:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

External link for discussion
Please add this to external links: http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/climatechangemainpage.html

I submitted an external link to www.exploringtime.org earlier today - the site is full of animations and scientific visualizations detailing climate change over time. You can also view a 2 hour Discovery Science documentary on the site that deals with changes that occur over long and short time scales, like those that precipitate the formation of the universe and the changes in the global climate over time - many prominent modern scientists are featured within it discussing their research on paleoclimatology and glaciation. the site is US-viewable only.


 * Looks like you added it to 12 pages - certainly fits the definition of WP:SPAM, and if you are associated with the site, violates other policies as well. Wikipedia is not a link farm, not even for relevant pages. Add content, not just links. And the "US-viewable only" makes it even less useful.  Cheers Geologyguy 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a suggested external link for discussion: Global Warming & Climate Change - Environmental News Network -- Wavelength 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For consideration ... I'd like to submit a Blog to the external links list ... this Blog collates (ongoing) videos that are online and related to Climate Change k-12 teaching and learning Climate Change - Online Videos
 * Unless the person writing the blog is an acknowledged expert in the field (which doesn't seem to be the case), I don't think it's sufficiently authoritative to merit inclusion here. See WP:EL, WP:SPS etc. Raymond Arritt 05:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link for consideration from a high school level education site by NASA on ocean circulation and it's role in climate change: Ocean and Climate

Another reference
I came across the following while looking up something else in The Times online:

The Times, Tuesday, Dec 09, 1913; pg. 6; Issue 40390; col C "Is The Earth Drying Up?" Dr. Gregory On Changes In Palestine.

Jackiespeel 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links?
''Moved from User_talk:TeaDrinker I would like to add at least one major article on the climate solutions debate that ran in Environmental Finance in November. The journal is fine with it. What do you think?

Staceff 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The links in question, I believe, were those added here. The first appears to be about states indepedently adopting greenhouse gas emission standards, while the second is an examination of the costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol in light of increasing fuel-use efficiency.  Both are about two pages, and appear to be primarily tagreted toward a popular audience in my estimation.  My feeling is that they are not significant in the literature on climate change, either from a scientific, policy, or pedogogic view.  While not bad themselves, they don't to me represent the best resources which can be linked to.  For myself, I would leave them out (and have reverted their addition to bring it here for more discussion, as per the hidden note on the article).  --TeaDrinker 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, what about adding http://www.pewclimate.org/? It looks like a solid set of resources and is certainly middle of the road politically. Benzocane 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a link, "The seldom heard counter arguement" to the (British) Channel 4 website, specifically the page describing a documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which provides an entirely different school of thought on the subject of climate change. It seems that any reading on the subject is set on spreading the word that carbon emissions are solely responible for our appartently impending doom. This documentary opened my eyes, not necessarily to say that everything we have come to believe is untrue, but that this story, like every story, has two sides. How a person can make a informed decision without seeing all the evidence is unknown to me, and I suggest, that everybody who has an opinion on the topic of climate change, should research the ideas raised in this documentary (if you haven't already!)

I appreciate that the website is not presented in a formal scientific style, however, the link is provided as a starting point for further research and/or discussion. Tezp 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And i've reverted it - POV argumentation/links doesn't belong here - there is already an article about The Great Global Warming Swindle. --Kim D. Petersen 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate that comment, though I would like to suggest that the article itself is a point of view, essentially, one of many possible conclusions drawn from the evidence gained. My reasoning for adding the link was to keep the article discurive. Tezp 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A larger problem with TGGWS is that much of the data they used was faked. See for example where the scientist who produced the data used for one of the program's main arguments says "We have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless." Raymond Arritt 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote reads "a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless," suggesting, in fact, that data used in 'the Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years,' was faked, not the data used in TGGWS. I'm not attempting to prove or disprove either theory, as Kim pointed out POVs are not particularly relevant, all I am attempting to suggest is that Climate Change as presented in this article is a theory and that alternative viewpoints are possible. Tezp 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Re-read again - they are talking about the version of the graph in TGGWS only. Similarly, the original temperature graph they used was faked adapted by the graphics team to a version that accidentally supported the argument of the movie. --Stephan Schulz 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * and, from what I have heard, the POV of the programme reflected the political party views of the producer, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which decrys Environmental Science in its entirety. www.realclimate.com has a usefull discussion on programme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esthameian (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 May 2007
 * Unfortunately, discussion forums and blogs are not reliable sources, and POV isn't balanced by adding the extreme alternate view. Realclimate are already infamous for deleting legitimate questions that are inconvenient to their political position - I could point you to usenet discussions to prove it. :-) --Athol Mullen 06:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can always rely on usenet discussions to prove things. ;-) Raymond Arritt 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't realise you all felt so strongly about it. Tezp 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I added Introduction to Climate Change: Lecture Notes for Meteorologists (WMO publication #926) to the external links. It's a very good source of information on the climate system, basically a compact textbook that is freely available. Evolauxia 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I received this note from Brusegadi:

"I noticed that you have been trying to add a link to Climate change. I do not mean to annoy you, but we try to be rigorous as to the links we add, and it seems to be that that link does not meet the guidelines for external links. Thanks, Brusegadi 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)"

This is my reply since I do not know how to reply directly to Brusegadi:

Thank you for this note - I carefully read the link guidelines before adding the link (www.ceqamap.com) and strongly believe this link is valid, not only that, vital. The database is specifically designed for experts utilizing current climate change analysis in real time environmental impact studies. The database is a component of a widespread effort in California to encourage the recognition of impact mitigation in the entitlement and permitting process. If not here, where would you suggest the link be more appropriately located?

Thanks. Rubychan 03:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly in an article about California's environmental policies. A database for one U.S. state is far too narrow a focus for an article with as broad a perspective as this one. Raymond Arritt 05:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What about contributions by agriculture in general?
From direct - for example, rice farming is a big contributor of methane to the atmosphere - to indirect - fresh fruit & vegetables are often imported using less than good emissions practices.

Singling out livestock as a contributor makes it look like that all other diets are always better even that's not the case: For example, biogas extracted from manure can be used to run cars or heat buildings even during winters, while that orange, tomato or mango you ate has to be transported near you from far away using fossil fuels - Maybe even as air freight. - G3, 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First Sentence
"Climate change is a Jewish Conspiracy ..."? Really? How fast can THAT bit of nonsense be removed?

Questionable Reference
In the "Greenhouse Gases" section under "Non-climate factors driving climate change" the sentence and reference (3rd paragraph) to Arthur B. Robinson's lecture is very dodgy. 1. It is placed immediately after the sentence stating atmospheric concentration of CO2, suggesting that he is disputing measured CO2 concentrations, which he is not. 2. In the lecture he says that it's based on referenced, peer-reviewed science, but then goes on to make many value judgements which cannot be backed up by any peer-reviewed data. For an example, see Figure 9 in the presentation, which he says himself has no figures, is an approximation, and therefore holds no scientific merit until a full study is conducted to assess the credibility of the claims. I'd like to call for this sentence to be removed on the grounds that it pits one persons value judgement-based arguments against the whole IPCC process of scientific literature review. EH 09:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, so I've removed him (and Clark). This isn't the place for a re-hash of the climate, it just needs a quick ref to the major theory and links William M. Connolley 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, but I'm not sure about Le Chat - is this the place for it? William M. Connolley 09:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the actual wording removed may have been flawed, I am quite concerned that, by removing all reference to dissent here, you have removed a POV balance. Hence, in the absence of any mention of dissent of the theory that CO2 drives temperatures, the article is no longer NPOV. I'm also concerned that the IPCC's probability statement is omitted here and it is instead stated as if they consider it to be absolute fact, which they don't. --Athol Mullen 11:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy if you added some probabilistic qualifier, and perhaps a link to global warming controversy for dissent William M. Connolley 11:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph must be wrong in defining climate change?
Its defined as a variable atmosphere, yet the first topics discussed are: 1.1.1 Glaciation 1.1.2 Ocean variability

Perhaps I am ignorant of something, but that is why I came to the article. The good news is that the paragraph under climate change factors is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karbinski (talk • contribs)

Also in the introduction can somone try to define climate change more clearly- is it a man made phenomena or a natural one. It depends on what context you are looking at it. IF you are looking at it from a recent modern veiwpoint it refers to man made climate change, wheras if you are looking at it from a historiv viewpoint, it refers to natural climate change. Both are very different. regards -anon124.168.115.172 23:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Current atmospheric CO2 levels
I can't add this in the main article, because my only source is a talk given by Tim Flannery on 27 September 2007. Tim mentioned that only the day before he had received the most recent results for atmospheric CO2 levels, and it was already up to 455 ppm! He also said that scientists had reviewed their estimate of CO2 in the atmosphere that would probably be the tipping point to (at human time scales) irreversible climate change - and they put it at 450 ppm. I wish womeone could prove both those wrong. Rolf Schmidt 04:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect you misunderstood Flannery. 455 ppm is impossibly wrong for a present-day background value, and Flannery isn't an idiot. Maybe he was referring to values at a specific place or time rather than the background concentration. As for the "tipping point" business there are lots of different speculations. Raymond Arritt 04:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if you take equivalent CO2 from all the other GHGs you could get to 455 CO2(e). That ignores the -ve forcing from aerosols of course William M. Connolley 14:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, CO2-equivalent would make a lot more sense. Raymond Arritt 14:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)