Talk:Gillett et al., "Attribution of polar warming to human influence", 2008

Why was this pulled?
I just saw this on the front page yesterday and now it's not there. Can someone tell me why it was removed? I think this is a significant event! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilcoe (talk • contribs) 16:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference of opinion over the wording. See In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates -- Gotyear (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes
I've made some changes. The article appear to be suggesting that people had thought Antartica was unaffected by global warming and that there was no known temperature change before this study. Actually, all the references I've looked at to support the claims don't say anything of the sort. They say there was insufficient data to know but that there was various theories suggesting it was or would happen and that temperature had been rising but that it couldn't be conslusively linked to human activity. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence?

 * "According to Dr. Karpechko, if the ozone layer recovers, it will impact the Antarctic just as it will other areas on Earth (by raising temperatures still further)."

..... if the ozone recovers, temperatures will go up? am I misreading this, or am I missing some key information about the climate change debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.181.136 (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As i understand it, the loss of the ozone layer caused a change in wind patterns, this change made Antarctica colder not hotter. So as the ozone layer is fixed over the next 100 years this change will be reversed. So the antarctic will warm up faster than anywhere because it will have global warming plus this local warming caused by the change in wind patterns. ( Hypnosadist )  12:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"The study, which focused on the link between humanity and polar warming",[5][6] According to a report author, Dr. Alexey Karpechko, "In both cases the accelerations are not consistent with natural forcing, which means that natural forcing alone cannot produce such a warming. So in a sense, we can say conclusively that this [warming trend at the poles] is due to human influence."[5] Both of these were taken straight from the article, saying global warming will in fact warm Antarctica. so now you're saying global warming will make Antarctica colder? WHAT??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.197.121 (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No! 1)Loss of the Ozone layer COOLED antartica. 2)Global warming WARMED antartica but not as much as the loss of the Ozone layer cooled it (so Antarctica is Cooler today than 50 years ago). 3)As the ozone layer is repairing itself this will WARM antartica. 4)This means that antarctica with warm up Faster than anywhere in the world over the next 100 years. ( Hypnosadist )  09:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
I took the liberty of removing a criticism section which cites no sources, makes generalized claims, appears POV, and which I consider scientifically suspect. If it is reinstated, I will make no further efforts to remove it. Teflon Don (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. A claim of that nature requires a basis in the scientific consensus, aka a citation.  Without one, I believe it is both POV and OR.  As such, I will remove it if it reappears without accompanying justification in the form of a citation or at least reasoning on the talk page. Evand (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The criticism section should be sourced, modeling is of questionable value (depends on how good your model is) and this reverse engineeering modeling even more so. There will be sourceable criticism of this in next few weeks. Also some limits of the models reliability should be covered in the peer review. ( Hypnosadist )  12:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As of now there doesn't seem to be real sourced criticism.. although there's plenty of common sense. There's more than solar cycles and volcanos affecting the environment. There's no way that they could have perfectly modeled the atmosphere to know that warming isn't simply an emerging trend out of a complex system. 71.176.167.123 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't work by 'common sense' (i.e. OR). Never has, never will. We do have a problem with groundbreaking stuff since obviously, there's usually not going to be any well sourced criticism initially, but that's hardly exclusive to this article and should be resolved in a few weeks Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I would wait a few weeks: something quotable is bound to appear. The description of the announcement on the front page seems somewhat slanted and superficial, though.  It claims that proof that global warming is the result of human activity is the result of this study.  If I understand the article right, it only claims that no natural cause of which the authors are aware could account for global warming: a somewhat less dramatic claim.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The study was peer-reviewed; any scientist who wishes to review the data can do so, and present specific aspects of the modeling or data collection which would negate the conclusiveness of this study. This will probably happen very soon, as there is a considerable amount of "financial support" awaiting any scientist who is willing to sacrifice their reputation to disavow anthropogenic climate change. At this point, I think any so-called skeptic would do well to present a specific means by which they could be convinced that ACC does exist, since models are pretty much all we have to go by. The Earth itself is our lab for this, and we don't have a lot of room to fuck around if ACC is everything the IPCC says it is. Dg7891 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dg7891, you are right in that the Earth is our lab for this, so if we are going to make drastic changes, we need to be sure we know what we are doing. There are 'Financial Rewards' for scientists who are willing to sacrifice scientific integrity to afirm ACC also.  We can devote lots of resources to 'fix' this problem before we are sure what we are doing, and if we then find out we were wrong, those resources will not be available to fix the real problem.  Jokem (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, people in the IPCC don't get paid for contributing, but the Competitive Enterprise Institute and their ilk are paid by corporations - I think that's a major difference. Most people (and there are thousands) working in the field of ACC are not receiving any more compensation than they would for other scientific endeavors - compare that to the hundreds of thousands of dollars donated to CEI by Ford, Exxon-Mobil, and so on. ACC researchers are generally not in it for the money.


 * More importantly, if the conclusions of the IPCC were correct, then a great deal more resources are being consumed by ACC already due to shifting climate systems - anyone familiar with the theory (not hypothesis) will know that ACC will tend to produce more extremes in temperature and weather, creating a rise in droughts, hurricanes and flooding.


 * Also, ACC creates positive feedback models - shrinking glaciers equals a loss of albedo, which means that less sunlight is reflected, trapping more heat in the water, and the process continues.


 * So... How did we ever recover from the Ice Ace?  The gain of albedo must have been significant there, which means the Earth would end up being a completely frozen ball of ice, unless there is some sort of balancing factor.  My real problem with this is the amount of politics involved in an issue which is so complex.  Yes, I know the fossil fuel companies would deny ACC even if the Earth turned into a flaming ball of fire.  Their opponents would affirm ACC based upon the slightest change.  Since I do not have the resources to do the research myself, I have to trust the scientific integrity of people immersed in a maelstrom of political influence.  Well, I don't.  Jokem (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How much longer are we supposed to wait until it is understood as a problem? Dg7891 (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you, this discussion is going off-topic as it's no longer about improving the article. Nil Einne (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. ITN headlines are always a summary and always have to simplify matters. However this is not an oversimlification since all reliable sources that I noticed in the article, a quote from the author and even the abstract says "and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions". In other words, the authors and other reliable sources are all saying what our ITN headline is saying. That this study provides conclusive evidence that warming in Antartica is cause by human activity and this includes in the opinion of the authors of the study (key point). I'm sure that there will be a few people who disagree eventually, but that's irrelevant. Note that the headline (at least now) doesn't say conclusive evidence was found but that the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia says they did. If there was substanial disagreement about this then we probably should report that (although it wouldn't change the fact the CRU, UoEA says they found conclusive evidence) in the headline but there isn't and it's unlikely there will be (there will be some, but not substanial). Nil Einne (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No Data! No objective evidence from which you can draw conclusions. Just opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.10.142 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chat forum - lets keep discussion focused on improving the content of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the debate here is over the point at which evidence for ACC can be called "conclusive" in an encyclopedia. Therefore some discussion about ACC itself is inevitable. Dg7891 (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a sourced criticism section. I am open to suggestions for improvement. We should be able to rationally discuss the use of the scientific method for model validation. This debate departing the realm of hard science is it's biggest threat. The response that "we don't have time to confirm the models" is not science. Someone stated above that "the Earth is our lab for this". I agree. But implicit in this is the acknowledgment that the Earth is where our experimental and observational data must be gathered. Writing a computer program which uses a hypothesis to generate data is simply an extension of the hypothesis, it is not a real world observation which the scientific method requires. Akwikireader (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See below Akwikireader, wikipedia is not an RS for wikipedia. ( Hypnosadist )  17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE?
based on computer models?

NO.

sorry wikipedia.

i love you, but this is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.154.12 (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The study was peer-reviewed; any scientist who wishes to review the data can do so, and present specific aspects of the modeling or data collection which would negate the conclusiveness of this study. This will probably happen very soon, as there is a considerable amount of "financial support" awaiting any scientist who is willing to sacrifice their reputation to disavow anthropogenic climate change. At this point, I think any so-called skeptic would do well to present a specific means by which they could be convinced that ACC does exist, since models are pretty much all we have to go by. The Earth itself is our lab for this, and we don't have a lot of room to fuck around if ACC is everything the IPCC says it is.

The conclusion should be "in the context of our models, antartica too is warming due to human causes". Since warming has been seen prior to every glacial cycle and we are due for a new cycle we should focus on understanding the physics of cliamte change. The models are obviously wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.61.243 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let's brainstorm. How could conclusive evidence of anthropogenic climate change ever arise without models? Your criticism does not make sense - at least, not in the sense of respectable academic discourse. This "skepticism" is purely motivated by politics, not science. Skepticism is always welcome, but denialists start to sound a lot like creationists when they're backed into a corner.


 * The facts are that (1) greenhouse gases cause climate change, regardless of whether they are natural or anthropogenic; (2) human activity releases greenhouse gases; and (3) the changes that have been observed (such as in Antarctica) are consistent - and only consistent - when anthropogenic sources are taken into account. There's really no other way to be "conclusive" about this. Dg7891 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Conclusive evidence of anthropogenic climate change is impossible, there's no control group to use. There's much more (at least one order of magnitude) going on in the world than we are even aware of, let alone can measure, let alone HAVE measured. It's hubris to think otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing
"in a sense, we can say conclusively"...I suggest the use of both these phrases contradict one another.Zikipeadia (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this wording does not sound very confident! 72.237.94.135 (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What he/she meant was that for academic purposes, the evidence is conclusive. In the political sphere, however, there's always ways to cast doubts on legitimate science when the implications contradict your agenda.Dg7891 (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. "in a sense, we can say conclusively"... is not a very professional way to say anything.  Either it is conclusive or it is not.  Jokem (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Conclusive
According to the details of the study contained in the article the methodology entails removing known natural effects from the observed data and then ASSUMING that what "unaccountable" change remains is anthropogenic.

This approach is deeply flawed for two reasons - firstly, it relies on the accurate modelling of the natural effects included, and secondly it relies on all natural effects being included, whether currently identified or not.

The consequence of these flaws is that the study is NOT conclusive and the article should be edited to reflect this. For example "conclusively known" is an exaggeration and should be changed.

Paulybear1 (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything about "removing known natural effects." Can you please quote from the article?


 * Also, the models use statistics based on the predicted extent to which anthropogenic forcing would affect polar temperatures; the statistics are based on collected data which designates the amount of green-house gases created by human activity.


 * Finally, the idea that there is some other factor undiscovered by science which releases similarly massive quantities of green-house gases is amusing; the idea that these factors exist but were excluded from the study reveals a deep lack of faith in the peer-review process. That's understandable, but not solely in the context of ACC; that reeks of an agenda discrete from the pursuit of science and its applications to everyday life. Dg7891 (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dg7891, are you saying lack of faith in the peer-reviewed process reek of an unscientific approach? Jokem (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that the peer-review process makes it unlikely that a known natural element contributing to climate change was deliberately excluded from the computer models.Dg7891 (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article on Ignaz Semmelweiss? How about the article on Piltdown man?  Was peer review a factor there?  Jokem (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Question re citation
The article states: "The study was the first[9] to provide strong evidence[4] that Antarctica is also being affected by global anthropogenic climate change.[7]"

The question relates to the "provides strong evidence [4]" statement, attributed to a Reuters article on the research. Two things: first, I could not find in the article an assessment of the strength of the evidence (it appears the citation to Reuters is specifically for "to provide strong evidence"); second, even if the Reuters reporter did write that the evidence is strong (maybe I missed such a statement), is it usual to cite a news article about the research on a point like that? Why not cite to the research letter itself, which is publicly available? I cannot find in the research letter itself any assessment of the strength of their evidence--they merely state their results, eg, "We find that anthropogenic influence on Arctic temperature is detectable and distinguishable from the influence of natural forcings." Thanks. 167.4.1.42 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If data indicates that ACC is "detectable and distinguishable" from non-anthropogenic climate change, that would obviously be conclusive evidence for its existence. Dg7891 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is confusion here between the findings and the strength of the findings. (Again, I am not trying to join into the "conclusive" debate, only making a technical point about the citation.) There is a methodology to determine the uncertainty of a measurement, or the accuracy of models used, etc. The researchers may have done such methodology, but the Reuters article does not cite anything like it, and the letter published in Nature Geoscience does not describe any such analysis. (It is only a summary of their research.) As is, the wiki points to a Reuters article to support a statement that the evidence is "strong" when the Reuters article simply doesn't say that. I think the wiki could instead point to interviews with the scientists where they characterize the strength of their findings instead--that would improve quality. Currently, the Reuters cite seems inaccurate. That is my only point. 167.4.1.42 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Research articles can be considered partiallyu primary sources. They should be used with care since they require a level of expert understanding and intepretation from the reader. For this reason, it is usually better to use multiple reliable secondary sources which are written for the lay-person and where the writer has already done (hopefully with the help of experienced people) the intepretation. (This doesn't mean we shouldn't link to the article at all, we should and do, but we shouldn't use it too much either) Also, as I mentioned above I think this article is pretty definite since even the abstracts says they found strong evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see them characterize the strength of their findings in the abstract either, where are you reading that? Your statement also doesn't address the main question I raise--why the Reuters article is cited for something it does not state. Not trying to join in the argument for "conclusive" evidence, only trying to clarify that the citation to Reuters article does not support the statement for which it is cited. I do not see anywhere in the research letter itself or the Reuters article any assessment of the strength of their findings. Personally I think the article is evidence of ACC, but this particular citation seems sloppy. Maybe the citation could instead go to one of the interviews with the researchers where they characterize the strength of their findings? 167.4.1.42 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it ultimately depends on whether an editor believes that the data obtained by the study is evidence of ACC. By that, I mean that saying that the study presents "strong evidence" is either 1. a legitimate summary of a primary source or 2. original research. Dg7891 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I removed it as wikipedia is not an RS for wikipedia. ( Hypnosadist ) 16:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Title
I think this thing should die but it's clear I'm not going to get my wish, so we need to think of the title. The original title was stupid, the new one (sorry!) isn't really very good either. There were lots of polar warming studies in 2008. This is an article about one paper, I can't see any alternative but to title it from the paper, possibly shortened William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly like the current title, but can't think of anything better. -Atmoz (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead
I also don't like first sentence of the lead. Is this really necessary?
 * (in full: Gillett, Nathan P.; Stone, Dáithí A.; Stott, Peter A.; Nozawa, Toru; Karpechko, Alexey Yu.; Hegerl, Gabriele C.; Wehner, Michael F.; Jones, Philip D. (2008-10-30). "Attribution of polar warming to human influence". Nature Geoscience (Nature Publishing Group) 1. doi:10.1038/ngeo338)

It's kind of an eyesore. -Atmoz (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm being a teensy bit pointy, but given that the article is about just this one paper (and nothing else) I think that the full citation and authors should be fairly high up William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If an actor goes by a stage name and we have an article under the stage name, the lede always includes the actors full real name. I am not sure if that approach applies to articles about publications. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)