Talk:Global cooling/Archive 2

Requests for comment/SEWilco
I have filed Requests for comment/SEWilco. William M. Connolley 22:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC).

New para removed: why
I took out the new para entirely. Even after SS'ing sane-ising, its still just a rehash of material from GW and temperature record of the past 1000 years and there is no point doing it again. William M. Connolley 15:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

Learning how to use headers
Hey this paragraph:

"Thirty years later, the concern that the cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, can now be observed to have been wrong. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out.

As for the prospects of the end of the current interglacial (again, valid only in the absence of human perturbations) recent analysis of deeply buried ice from Antarctica indicates that the present "interglacial" warm period between periodic ice ages MIGHT last for 28,000 years, instead of the shorter time periods of some other cycles"

Not only is this paragraph untrue. Its self-contradictory. The writer makes his propagandistic point then later implicitly admits he has been speculating with the word MIGHT. This is a massive stretch and really quite fraudulent. I'll give it 24 hours. If I cannot get the evidence for what I consider an inappropriate level of certainty then I'll wipe the paragraph in its entirety.

I have an problem with the article in this sense. It fails to distinguish between "glaciation" and "ice age". We are in an ice age now. And have been for about 38million years. This is a propagandistic switch of the lingo to oversell Global Warming. Its trying to pretend that we are not in an ice age.


 * Before getting carried away, please learn how to use wiki: first, start new talk sections with == header == ; and sign your name with four tilde's. Secondly, making random threats isn't good. Third, you're wrong on the science; the paras you removed are fine, so I've re-inserted them. Your concern about terminology could be resolved by reading ice age. William M. Connolley 08:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No. You are wrong on the science. I'll give you some time to justify this. But then I'll remove them since you are in fact wrong on the science.CO2-Lord Of Creation 10:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. so I've read the section on Ice Age as you suggested. Since we are in an ice age now it reconfirms my concerns with you propagandistic manipulation of the language. This is something that also must be corrected. People ought to know that we are IN AN ICE AGE NOW. And there ought to be no confusion between glaciations and ice ages. You seem to be going out of your way to stooge yourself hereCO2-Lord Of Creation 10:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think William was trying to point out this section: More colloquially, when speaking of the last few million years, ice age is used to refer to colder periods with extensive ice sheets over the North American and Eurasian continents: in this sense, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. This is indeed the much more common use of the term ice age. In the long term geologic sense (as I pointed out elsewhere), we are indeed in an ice age (and have been for 40 million years...), but then most of the evolution since the Dinosaurs has taken place unter ice age conditions (and indeed, all of the evolution of the Genus Homo (genus) has take place under severe ice age conditions). Since in the context of global warming/cooling we are talking of decadal to millenial scale events, this second definition is not applicable, and hence the colloquial sense is not misleading. --Stephan Schulz 11:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears that William is unwilling to provide evidence for his implausible theories I've expedited the deadline I set and edited some of the unscientific propaganda out of the piece.CO2-Lord Of Creation 10:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Lord Of Creation": just precisely who, pray tell, are you to dictate standards or deadlines? You do not set same here (none of us do).  While it may be true that in that part of the non-wiki world in which you feel you have importance or influence you might have such rights, you do not here.  Additionally, you persist in calling items with which your blantant POV does not agree "propaganda" and "Unacceptable lying" and "speculative" and "Implausible" and yet you offer no evidence that your POV is even remotely close to accurate, scientific, plausible, non-propagandistic, non-speculative or veracious.  Additionally, you seem to have ignored the wealth of references with which this article was written, acting instead as the sole possessor of global-cooling/warming knowledge and arbiter of "truth".
 * You may do well to avail yourself of a perusal of the following: WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:CON and WP:NOR.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm...this is a Wiki. William is not the only contributor. Anyways, I'll check your edit and comment then.--Stephan Schulz 11:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Someone has already reverted you, and on the whole I think rightly so. I don't quite get your position. Ice age does indeed have a couple of references that deal with the end of the current interglacial, including the recent Nature publication that suggests a lenghts of 28000 years. As far as I know, none of these hold that we are near the end of it. And I know of no climate researcher who currently holds this position, either. People use words like "might" because long term climate prediction is very hard process and science does not always give us definite answers yet. --Stephan Schulz 12:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. We are in an ice age now. We have been in an ice age for 38 million or so years. An ice age is not to be confused with a glaciation. The article, in order to dishonestly push the global warming fraud foward obscures this for the innocent public. If you cannot make your case for disastrous global warming we can at least expect you not to be dishonest in this way. And if you CAN make your ridiculous case then you don't need to do this. You dishonest people were wrong to change it back. And you are wrong to not show up with the evidence. So I'll give you some time to justify this tendentious dishonest idiotic mixing up of the terms. And if you cannot justify this then you will have to change the terms. I'm sorry fellas. I'm very sorry. I'm so damn sorry. But you've been caught. You've been flat caught out busted trying to mislead the public. Not good enough. CO2-Lord Of Creation 12:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for making your opinion about WP:AGF so abundantly clear. As I have written above, we are not in a ice age in the sense commonly understood by the public and used essentially everywhere outside a narrow glaciaologist/geologic context. So how is the public mislead? We are in an ice age in a much more rarely used sense in that we do have ice caps in polar regions. Since the time scales are very different, there is no risk of confusion. Do you want to make the argument that back in Dinosaur time the earth was much warmer and hence the current warming is harmless? Good luck with that...
 * Moreover, about the only connection between global warming and global cooling is the (extremely tenous) argument made by GW sceptics that "In the 70th the popular press speculated about an oncoming ice age, therefore the scientific community is all wrong about global warming now"...--Stephan Schulz 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ice age does indeed have a couple of references that deal with the end of the current interglacial, including the recent Nature publication that suggests a lenghts of 28000 years." A single speculative article????????? Surely you are just mucking about. But check out how incredibly flimsy that speculation is. Not based on anything much at all. Just a guess really. A bad guess I would say. But bad guess or good guess still a guess and not to be confused with science. " And I know of no climate researcher who currently holds this position" Well so what? That says something for your social circle. I mean is there a climate researcher this very minute cooking up some vittels in your kitchen? Plenty of climate researchers believe this. Many of the old guys in particular. Try Milt Rosenbergs brother. Try the fellow at Cato. See what David Bellamy thinks. Ask around. The new guys haven't come up with anything substantial. This is more a political then a scientific movement.CO2-Lord Of Creation 12:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, so far it's the word of an anonymous "CO2-Lord of Creation" vs. a peer-reviewed publication in one of the most prestigeous scientific journals. Bellamy has admitted that he got his data wrong, and is not claiming anything about global cooling any more. Moreover, he is not (and never was) a climatologist. I was unable to find a "Milt Rosenberg" (or even "Rosenbergs") who has anything to do with climate research. "That fellow at Cato" is not a reasonable description, but if he is at the Cato Institute, he is unlikely to be a respected climatologist. Anyways, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and not a place for original research. We document the current state of knowledge. And the published scientific literature overwhelmingly says that we are not heading towards a new ice age ("periof of intense glaciation"), but instead are causing global warming by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.--Stephan Schulz 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewing doesn't mean much if all your peers are lunatics also. And anyone who disagrees is branded a crank. But I'm happy with the way the entry stands at the moment since the obvious propagandizing and speculative stuff isn't in it anymore. I will be watching out to see if it creeps back in. I find what you are saying about Bellamy hard to believe. You got a reference for that? The fellow at Cato is Patrick Michaels. Who would have been branded a crank by lunatics already no doubt. CO2 release is the greatest externality the world had yet seen. A warmer earth is an earth with less extreme weather events. A colder earth is a dryer nastier more inhospitable place. But all that being said the article looks now to be in good order.CO2-Lord Of Creation 06:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * CO2-... is a troll; arguing with it is pointless William M. Connolley 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What's a troll? Somone whose not [ personal attacks removed by Guettarda ]? Always remember. You are not a scientist. You are a [ personal attacks removed by Guettarda ] science worker. I can see you are not up to coming up with any evidence for your ridiculous level of certitude in these matters. I thought you people had rules against [ personal attacks removed by Guettarda ] Willian insulting people. You want to get rid of some of your [ personal attacks removed by Guettarda ] CO2-Lord Of Creation 12:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that's fine. I'm happy with that. But why is his personal insult of me still there?CO2-Lord Of Creation 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. Still: Just of the David Bellamy article come the following links: An article on his retraction, his letter to the editor in the Sunday Times describing that he withdraws from the debate, and this article in the guardian that analyses how he probably arrived at his nonsensical claim in the first place (in short, it's a typo (!) of a figure apparently printed in an unattributed Lyndon La Rouche publication, but probably originally invented (and misattributed to a non-existent 16 year old paper in Science ) by Fred Singer's SEPP).--Stephan Schulz 10:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I went to the first link on Bellamy. And its about him being persecuted by lunatics. So you wouldn't wonder that he would be intimidated into a retraction. So its full spectrum lunacy here. Trying to control the Wiki. Intimidating scientists who disagree with you. A major cult movement. Which is not to say that his comments on glaciers weren't way out of date and wrong. If indeed he did make them. What happens is that these leftists will follow people around taking notes of every last thing they say. And then if they make one mistake then that's a hanging offence. Shame on the scientists for giving this fellow such a hard time. This is what science has come to. A Priesthood with its own star chamber. And [ personal attacks removed by Guettarda ] William here declaring Bellamy a non-scientist. The impudenceCO2-Lord Of Creation 12:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As the article stands (this second) I can't bring myself to edit it any further. But its still pushing one way, pretending the evidence is out there that the 38 million year ice age is over (praise be). Well that would be great news if true but the level of certainty sometimes expressed in this direction is quite inappropriate. I would like to see the reasoning behind this with all workings shown. Here is a few scientists you might check for balance:Sallie L. Baliunas, Robert C. Balling Jr, Randall S. Cerveny, John Cristy, Robert E. Davis, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ross Mckitrick, Patrick J Michaels, Eric S Posmentier, Willie Soon.CO2-Lord Of Creation 18:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ross Mckitrick is not a scientist

Global Dimming = Global Cooling?
As I am not a climatologist / enviromentalist (just a chemist by education), I didn't want to edit these topics without getting some clarification from those "in the know". The problem I have is the apparent inconsistancy between these two topics. In the "Global Cooling" WIKI, it sounds as though the theory had mass appeal in the scientific community during the 70s, but has lost steam in modern times. The mechanism of action behind this theory: aerisols and particulates in the atmosphere reflect sunlight from reaching Earth, thereby reducing the amount of heat derived from the sun. In the "Global Dimming" WIKI, this is a relatively new theory that has been gaining popularity in the scientific community. It was first described in the late 80s (1989, according to the WIKI's source) and additional empirical evidence (such as the "down-time" in the airline industry following 9/11) has supported this idea. The mechanism of action: aerisols and particulates in the atmosphere reflect sunlight from reaching Earth, thereby reducing the amount of heat derived from the sun. So am I right in assuming that "Global Dimming" is just another way of saying "Global Cooling"? If so, then both WIKIs need to be changed in order to reflect the dicotomy of how the scientific community reguards these (this) theory. If, on the other hand, there is a distinction between the two theories, I think it would make a good addition to the two pages to have a section describing this distinction. Pyth007 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Global cooling had several proposed mechanisms. It didn't have much support. And "global dimming" occurs during a period of net warming William M. Connolley 09:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So "Global cooling" refers to the net global temperatures whereas "global dimming" refers more to the aerisol mechanism? If correct (or at least along those lines) maybe a brief mention / link to global dimming under the Physical mechanism / Aerisols heading... Pyth007 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * GC is the temperatures. GD is the (direct) radiation, although its linked to a slight cooling tendency William M. Connolley 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thought... Some parts of the global cooling WIKI suggests that the current scientific community discredits this theory completely (sort of like saying "Oh, those foolish scientists of the 70s"), yet the ideas behind this theory are not flawed, but rather the theory failed based on the lack of understanding the complete picture (as the middle part of the WIKI depicts). So in the "The Present Level of Knowledge" section, the first paragraph may need to be altered to reflect this growing understanding of all forces at play. For example "shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out." is incorrect in that the cooling concerns are still in play (in terms of global dimming), but that the overall global temperature concerns have been rectified to reflect other pieces of information, such as the effects of greenhouse gases. Pyth007 15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're wrong (also wrong to be discussing it here!). No-one is worried about *cooling* now. People are worried that the cooling tendency of aerosols may have masked some warming and led us to underpredict future warming; but thats very different to a concern about the possible effects of cooling William M. Connolley 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Actually, it's more like "the foolish popular press of the 70s". Even back then, imminent global cooling was never a mainstream scientific opinion (unless you interprete iminent on a geological time scale). And please: A Wiki (lower case) is the whole (Wikipedia is a Wiki). It is composed of individual articles (or pages). --Stephan Schulz 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (I hope this doesn’t come across as sounding too harsh; I don’t want to start a flame war) 1) “I think you’re wrong”: I’m sorry, but the whole point of this conversation was to clarify a few questions I had. So I’m wrong in having a question?! I was always taught that there’s no such thing as stupid questions! Background: while I was setting up labs for a local community college, a professor mentioned that he wanted to show a video on GD. Since I had never heard of that term before, I looked it up in wikipedia, and what I read sounded vaguely similar to the theory of GC that I had heard of in the 70s. So I looked up GC and sure enough, one of the mechanisms of action were the same. I asked a question and felt that your previous answers had guided me in the right direction (GC = global climate change; GD = mechanism of localized cooling by particulates)(Thank you, BTW, for those answers) If this assumption is wrong, then please clarify what this distinction is or where I am in error… 2) “also wrong to be discussing it here”: If talking about the global cooling page in the discussion section of the global cooling page is the wrong place to have such a discussion, then where the HECK is such a discussion supposed to take place?! I thought it would be more “kosher” to raise questions about the page in the discussion section than to go to the actual article and make changes based on my sole assumptions. 3) “People are worried that the cooling tendency …; but thats very different to a concern about the possible effects of cooling”: I’m trying to understand the logic in this sentence. To me this sounds like a contradiction (perhaps just a confusion as to what you mean by “cooling”). On the one hand, people are concerned about the masking effects that cooling due to GD has on previous predictions of the extent of GW, but on the other hand, there’s no concern about any effects that cooling due to GD has… Or were you referring to the glacian possibilities (and other gross climatic events) that GC suggested as no longer being the concern facing environmentalists (but that GD’s cooling still poses a concern)? 4) Again, (and maybe this is just a problem with semantics) I feel that the first paragraph under “The Present Level of Knowledge” completely undermines the ideas that were going on in the 70s. As evidenced by GD, part of the mechanism of action behind GC was not flawed -- just the end result of that theory. I think it would be more correct to say something like: “More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown that the earlier climate theories to have been too simplistic, and that the dire concerns about possible continuing drops in global temperatures have not borne out.” Similarly, one could say that the “Ideal Gas Law” is simplistic in that it didn’t address all of the forces occurring within a gas. However, it would be wrong to say that the IGL doesn’t bear out (meaning doesn’t hold a shred of truth / knowledge) since certain ideas (eg the inverse relationship between pressure and volume) do indeed bear out. It’s only when considering those other forces (that the simplistic IGL neglects, such as attractions between gas molecules) that a complete understanding of molecular interaction can occur. Likewise, it’s our understanding of all influences that will yield an accurate model of climate change. I think that the earlier part of the article did address this correctly. The paper by Rasool and Schneider and the NAS report sections go into how the overall climate model was in dispute when considering both cooling as well as warming factors, and -- I believe -- were correctly summarized by the “Climate science has improved” section. I’m mainly concerned with how that one small paragraph was phrased. Pyth007 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be discussing it here... Oops, sorry, I forgot which article talk we were on. I thought this was GD.

Adding and that the dire concerns about possible continuing drops in global temperatures have not borne out I would oppose; because it fails to distinguish between the scientific and popular press, which is one of the points of the page.

GD isn't really localised cooling, though it can be. Its more that the *main* effect is a reduction in direct sunlight rather than anything to do with temperature at all. The T stuff is smaller, and only a tendency.

but on the other hand, there’s no concern about any effects that cooling due to GD has Yes. Because those effects are smaller than GW.

William M. Connolley 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"GD isn't localized cooling, though it can be. It's more that the main effect is a reduction in direct sunlight rather than anything to do with temperature at all." Now this is why people are so confused when they attempt to find out the truth about the climate and climate change. A lot of what is passed on as "fact" or "strong theory" .. just makes no sense. A REDUCTION in direct sunlight will most certainly, undoubtedly, effect temp (all else being equal). You don't need to have advanced much further than 5th grade science class to understand this.
 * Well, you're wrong. On a warm, sunny day, go into a black tent. No direkt sunlight will strike you, but I promise you will be very warm! Light coming from the sun and being absorbed by the atmosphere before it strikes the ground still heats up this atmosphere. The energy does not magically vanish.--Stephan Schulz 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not possible that I am wrong. This entire discussion on aerosols and other substances that reflect the suns rays isn't something I'd even heard about before 2 days ago.  Your black tent analogy is irrelevant because if the sun WERE shining directly on the black tent... the tent would be warmer wouldn't it? <--this was my entire point, maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. So Direct sunlight or lack of direct sunlight does cause temperature changes.  Really, this is a funny conversation since you need only look as far as seasonal changes of temp to see that this holds true.     :  So apparently aerosoles reflect sunlight.. and ice reflects sunlight (thus helping to keep the earth cooler in relative terms)... but aerosoles reflecting sunlight don't keep the earth cooler? Cowboy357 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's not possible that you are wrong, we can of course stop this discussion now. Have you considered running for Pope or Dalai Lama when the job comes up again? Otherwise: In the tent analogy, no direct sunlight is striking you, but you will still be warm. Likewise, sunlight that is absorbed on the way from the sun to the ground by the atmosphere will not strike the ground, but still heat the atmosphere. And some aeorosols reflect sunlight and can excert a cooling effect (most famously sulphate aerosols). Some, in particular soot, will absorb sunlight rather greedily. The same holds for gaseous components - they can absorb sunlight in certain frequency bands. --Stephan Schulz 06:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So your black tent analogy is correct after all. The tempurature is not effected by sunlight hitting the tent or not, all else being equal. (sheesh)  Cowboy357 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a major problem... and it continues to be a problem, not just on wiki, but throughout the world when it comes to climate change. Just to give another example... one of the "risks" listed in the GW article is Ice Cap melting... which results in several potential problems.. including "that the ice caps REFLECT sunlight away from the earth and thus assist in keeping the temp DOWN.
 * Yes, this is called a "positive feedback loop". Ice reflects sunlight (i.e. it is not absorbed, the energy bounces back into space). Melt some ice, more dark ground or water exposed, more energ absorbed, it gets warmer, some ice melts...--Stephan Schulz 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, makes no sense. Why would ice reflect sunlight, but not the aerosoles?  I have no idea if aerosoles reflect sunlight, again, the wiki info regarding this is very conflicting and illogical.  But according to Wiki, they DO reflect sunlight, hence Global dimming.  So how is it that Ice reflecting sunlight contributes to keeping the earth cooler, but other things reflecting sunlight, don't? Cowboy357 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, "aerosols" is a term describing any fine particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere. Some kinds of aerosols reflect light, some absorb it (some may do both, depending on wavelength ;-). Reflective ones cool (usually), absorbing ones will be neutral or even have a warming influence (if over a high-albedo ground that would reflect the part that is now absorbed). --Stephan Schulz 15:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There are contradictions all over the place. I'm not a scientist... but you don't have to know much more than basic logic and reading comprehension to see how such a topic causes a lot of people to simply scratch their heads.Cowboy357
 * "Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". This is a reasonably complex topic, and not made easier by people who inject all kind of nonsense into the debate (I've read all of these: "Earth cannot get warmer thanks to the second law of thermodynamics", "there is no such thing as an average temperature, hence it cannot increase", "temperature is a tensor field", "the Earth's magnetic field shields us from sunlight, global warming is due to the 15% reduction in magnetic field strength we had in the last 30 years"...). --Stephan Schulz 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this for the change in that sentence: “More has to be learned about climate, but the growing *data* have shown that the earlier climate theories to have been too simplistic, and that the dire concerns *popularized in the media* about continuing drops in global temperatures have not borne out.” (*'s noting the changes to my previous...) I was also thinking that "records" sound too unscientific. The "Farmer's Alminac" has temperature records; climatologists, however, work with mathematical models and scientific data. Also, what would you think of adding this sentence to the end of the "Physical mechanisms -- Aerosols" section: Although the temperature drops foreseen by this mechanism have now been discarded in light of the warming predictions of modern models, this mechanism forms the basis for the idea of "Global Dimming" -- a phenomenon which may be masking the true nature of Global Warming. Pyth007 12:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the second suggestion. But "t records" is fine... see temperature record William M. Connolley 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarified the first paragraph to reflect that there is some controversy about the cause of global warming. Mrdarklight 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted it back, as there is no scientific controversy about it.--Stephan Schulz 02:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

GLOBAL DIMMING is actually a good definition. Astronomy magazine mentioned some years ago that the earth was receiving more solar energy - voila we got warmer. When we get less solar energy - voila we get cooler. Seems complex but it really isn't. A professor on maybe ) CSPAN recently said that climate prediction is no better than weather forecasting - he said beyond 24 hours the guess is not very good and beyond 1 week you could safely ignore the weatherguy. Thousands of years from now it is going to be a 100% chance of warmer or cooler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 September 2006

Disagreement with SEPP
Cut from article:


 * This appears to be a clear rebuttal of those, such as SEPP who think that "the NAS

"experts" exhibited ... hysterical fears" in the 1975 report.

Whose point of view is it, that this is a "clear rebuttal of ... SEPP"? Please attach a name to this POV and then put the sentence back into the article. --Uncle Ed 20:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need a named source. Ed, please stop being silly. The assertion by SEPP about hysteria is rebutted by the tone of the report... yes? Your editing here and elsewhere is getting pretty close to vandlaism William M. Connolley 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Artificial Global Cooling
A known fact is that the eruption of Tambora volcano sending tons and tons of debris into the atmosphere caused a "year without a summer" in 1816. A way to control light from the sun is to block it as the volcano eruption did.

There has been a ground swell to cut CO2 emissions. Why not go the other way and block the sunlight.

We need to do a study as to how many tons of aerosol particles would be needed at an altitude of five miles or so to start a global cooling. There are not many items on blocking sunlight. Global warming may be countered with artificial global cooling. We then would have control over how much particle material to seed the atmosphere. By controlling the blockage of the sun's light we would have a thermostat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.234.50.217 (talk • contribs).
 * Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with this. Apart from the fact that I'd rather not experiment any more with the planet while still living on it, injecting aerosols into the atmosphere has a number on undesireable side effect. For sulphate aerosols, believed to be responsible for both the pre-1970s cooling trend and volcanic cooling, among these is acid rain.--Stephan Schulz 06:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I added a note to indicate that it's a bit too biased towards the global warming theory, which currently has as much scientific basis as the very subject that this article is written about. If anyone wants to debate this, post in this thread.

Note: This is NOT a thread to debate the legitimacy of global warming vs. global cooling, one theory over the other, this is a thread bringing into question the neutrality of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.224.118 (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


 * The article here is entirely consistent in its description of GW with the GW article. So what exactly is the problem? Please be more specific William M. Connolley 09:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, Mr. Connolley that you deleted my comment about "many scientists" believing in global warming as opposed to the "Earth is not cooling but warming statement". I believe my 'quibbling' as you put it more adequately expresses the real debate behind the science of global warming rather than your dogmatic and shameless espousal of its validity as shown by Ross McKitrick, William Gray et al. 206.188.135.130 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can sign your commens with ~ - its more polite. Better still, get an account. That the world actually *is* warming is undoubted, even by McK and Gray... William M. Connolley 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 A quote in the article states: "Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998."

Climate change supporters use time-series data from 100 years ago that mean global temperatures have increased by 1F (a margin of error probably attributable to poorer climate measuring technology) but skeptics note that the scientific community do NOT claim that the Earth has been warming since '98, inferring that warming *IS NOT* taking place. And Gray alleges that the Earth will enter a period of global cooling in 6-8 years.

As you cannot prove that there *is* evidence believed by ALL scientists, you should reinsert the "many scientists believe" quote and I will accept the article as NPOV. - 206.188.135.130 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article seems to show some signs of POV. I've removed a few choice words from this section:"However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped; it formed the basis of the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow."I don't like to cast aspersions on the public mind :) I've changed "scientifically inaccurate film" to "hollywood film" - any debate about the film will be there for people who click the link. Please can we keep this as neutral as possible - let's aim for the reader who doesn't know anything and wants to find out more... --Dilaudid 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you've removed useful info. The idea *does* intrigue the public mind and that is the main reason for its survival; and the film is hopelessly inaccurate (this is consistent with DAT page). I took out the ACC story because its different... but actually I'll add it back William M. Connolley 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I *didn't* add it back: that section is ab out THC so it doesn't belong. And I couldn't see where it does belong though it would be nice to have it somewhere William M. Connolley 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is definitely POV - it reads like a defense of Global Warming rather than an explanation of what Global Cooling was.JBPostma 18:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can make it, its an accurate description of the (minor) theory of GC and its over-emphasis by the press. Could you perhaps be a bit more specific? William M. Connolley 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It does appear biased to me as well, mainly because it's littered with "it was not true" type statements and references to global warming. Perhaps a reorganization would help, separating the theory itself from the debunkings, and a separate article on "Global Cooling in the media" and public perceptions, etc.  76.208.141.251


 * The theory consists of aerosols and orbital forcings. It is helpful to have the response next to the theory. The article is not long, so a separate article on "media" is inappropriate William M. Connolley 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with 76.208.141.251. This reads like an attack on the theory, rather than an explanation of it. I can hardly see the theory as a whole because it is so littered with that. Please change it in the way this user stated. Other articles are covered in that way, and both the ideas and the rebutal of the ideas are clear in that form. This page is an attack, not an encyclopedia article. Very non-wiki. I suggest you fix it. I don't think I should give it a try, since I don't know much about such subjects (thus I'm looking here). I agree that the theroy and the opposing facts should be seperated. Also, you are right, no need for another article just for the media information. A section will do. Seperating it just gives the topic a favor towards looking true. SadanYagci 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree with 76.208.141.251. I am trying to research GW/GC/GD and this article is more about defending GW and discrediting GC than explaining the theory behind GC. I would expect the article to be more "GC is a theory, first proposed in the 1960's..." and "GC says that aerosol materials are cooling..." and "GC has not been substantiated as of this writing...". Less of the "highly inaccurate" or "media hyped" or "someone says" type of inflammatory adjectives. Let's keep opinion and bias out and just describe the theory. And, if the GW entry is the same, maybe it should be changed, too. (Account to be added soon... thanks for listening) Fuzzalot 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * GC doesn't/didn't really exist as a scientific theory; you can't disentangle it from the media, where most of it occurred (unlike GW). The article contains a "physical mechanisms" section which explains what it was about. If you want to improve it, you could help by being more specific: "highly inaccurate" does not occur, though sci inacc does, as an (accurate) prefix to TDAT. Nor does media hyped. William M. Connolley 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * GC was published in circulated scientific papers so I think it would qualify as a theory. In regards to the rest I was attempting to illustrate concepts not quote passages from the article. In that light, though, one sentence I disagree with is "However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped; it formed the basis of the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow." I think it would be better said as:"'The film The Day After Tomorrow was based on an extreme application of this idea to draw viewers, public attention and earn money in theaters. It must be noted this film is fiction and not based on fact.'"Another example is "In the late 1970s there were several popular (and melodramatic) books on the topic" where melodramatic is the authors opinion, not fact, and should be removed. In this passage melodramatic is used as to denegrate the publication, not describe. Many scientific papers contain melodramatic passages to gain interest and make their point. Probably the same for this particular publication, especially one published for general sale.

I do not have an account yet so I won't make changes. If you feel these have merit, please make the changes. Fuzzalot 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)