Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:29, 16 April 2008

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Environment B‑class Low‑importance

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about editors' personal beliefs about global warming. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about editors' personal beliefs about global warming at the Reference desk.

Subpages:

• /sides in the GW controversy

Archives
February 2003 – December 2004 December 2004 – February 2007 Febraury 2007 – March 2007 /Archive_4 /Archive_5 /Archive_6 /Archive_7

Template:Unsigned -->

Related controversies: nuclear winter?

I've removed Blogjack's added "related controversy" section for nuclear winter because it's mostly unsourced, pasted below:

For a time in the 1980s through the early 1990s there was a scientific consensus that full-scale nuclear war was likely to cause a "nuclear winter" which would cool the globe sufficiently to risk ending all human life on the planet. The consensus included the support of a National Academy of Sciences study and statements from many of the major scientific organizations, while Fred Singer and some other skeptics featured above consistently argued the consensus position was unsupportable and had been exaggerated for political purposes. In this instance the skeptics have prevailed; the original nuclear winter hypothesis is no longer taken seriously."Nuclear Winter: Science and Politics".

There's not enough here to warrant inclusion yet in my opinion. To include this, we'd need:

• Sources for the statement that nuclear winter was a consensus supported by NAS, etc.
• Sources for the statement that the premise is now debunked.
• Sources that Singer, etc were skeptics.
• To avoid a synthesis argument, we probably need sources that link this controversy to global warming.

Also, one source isn't enough here. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The "related controversies" section seemed rather lopsided without it. If you're going to have a "related controversies" section at all, this one is far more closely related to global warming than is passive smoking. The similarity is well described in the link I gave, as is Singer's role. I could give more refs but that paper seemed like a good start - it includes lots of non-web references one could follow up on - and does cover most of the points you list. I realize my text was rough; I didn't have time to flesh it out more fully but figured the spirit of wikipedia was to just stick something in there and let others clean it up.

The chief similarity between the two topics is that some groups of people (Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore, Carl Sagan...) tend to think of the global environment as fragile, easily damaged, prone to positive-feedback loops that produce "tipping points". Others (Fred Singer, Freeman Dyson...) tend to think of it as more robust and prone to stabilizing negative feedbacks. A group of people on the "it's fragile" side came up with some computerized large-scale climate simulations to support their view that dangerous status-quo technology X (nuclear bombs) could cause doom and gloom for humanity unless we stop what we're doing right now. The papers they wrote exaggerated the worst-case scenarios and incorporated assumptions deliberately designed to make those scenarios look plausible. Some of the argument was based on rhetoric more than rigor; a paper's "conclusions" section might include statements that weren't supported in the main text. The "it's not fragile" people pointed out various weaknesses in the arguments being made and were criticized for being outside of the mainstream scientific community and - when they were attacking computer models - for not putting up models of their own in response. Sound familiar yet? --Blogjack (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to flesh things out. Let's start with References on the claim that Singer was also a skeptic of nuclear winter: S. Fred Singer, "Is the 'nuclear winter' real?", Nature, 310, 23 August 1984, page 625; S. Fred Singer, "On a 'nuclear winter'" (letter), Science, 227, 25 January 1985, page 356; and this webbed interview: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/singer_interview.htm (quote: "I always considered "nuclear winter" to be a hoax and scientifically incorrect -- and have said so in my Nightline debate with Carl Sagan. The data from the Kuwait oil fires support this view. Actually, nuclear explosions would create a strong greenhouse effect and cause warming rather than cooling. Let's hope we never have to find out.")--Blogjack (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this section (and the rest of the article) is lopsided against the skeptics. I'm all for evening that out. But there was a big fight when this section was added in the first place (you can dig it up in the archives) and we came to the conclusion that reliable sources needed to link the controversies in question to GW before we could. Therefore, the same criterion needs to be here as well. I'm all for adding this section once we get the references in order. It's also worth noting that if nuclear winter has been "debunked" as you claim, that fact is not reflected in the nuclear winter article at all. I don't know anything about the subject so I can't comment, but I'd work on getting this information there as well if it's indeed accurate. Oren0 (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to mention of NW as related; but clearly anything said must reflect the NW article. The idea that the concept is discredited is simply wrong. As far as I can tell, the ref given (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html) is studiously social-sciencey and avoids taking any side on the science. Besides which, its well out of date; the NW article has refs from 2006 and 7 William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Alan Robock and Gera Stenchikov have published several papers on NW in the past couple of years. The concept isn't discredited by any means. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Erasure of referenced remark

The following was immediately erased after being inserted by someone. The edit line said "rv sock" apparently saying that since it was a sock puppet this cast aspersions on the national academy of science reference? Huh?

• Research by NASA climate scientist James Hansen indicates the 0.75 degree rise in average global temperatures over the last 100 years has been driven mainly by greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/9875

I've edited out the footnote part to avoid confusion. My question is, why was this erased? Student7 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First, because it's been inserted by a sock of a banned user. Secondly, because it is wrong, even in asserting that it is a statement from the National Academy. It goes back to a paper by James Hansen et al, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a respected scientific journal, with independent editorial oversight and peer review process. It is not a statement by the NAS, or even endorsed by it. As for the factual issue, the claim completely misrepresents Hansen et al. They point out that the negative anthropogenic forcing, in particular due to sulfate aerosols, is of about the same magnitude as the positive forcing from CO2 alone, so the remaining net warming corresponds to about the effect of the (anthropogenic) non-CO2 greenhouse gases and black soot. This does not deny the warming due to CO2, nor does it assign the blame elsewhere. It also is only a momentary snapshot, as aerosols are a strong negative forcing, but have a short lifetime, while CO2 is a moderate positive forcing, but has a very long lifetime. Thus the initial cooling after about 1945 (aerosol effects dominate) followed by the later increase (aerosols essentially plateau, but CO2 continues to accumulate). If you want more details, I suggest you read the full paper, which is available in full and nicely written.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Jones et al.

Use this section to make a valid case for deleting the paragraph. 86.160.35.152 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the one arguing for inclusion, bears the burden of convincing others. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing contestations

I came to this article hoping to get some skeptics arguements evualated, but they are simply abesent from the article.

To begin with, if CO2 is only in the hundreds of parts per million in the atmosphere, how can it produce such massive effects?

Isn't water vapor a green house gas? If so, why isn't it being portrayed as a big factor?

Is it possible that the historical correlation between CO2 and global temperature could be explained as being a consequence of global temperature changing CO2 levels, as opposed to visa versa?

These are just few of the arguements forwarded by semi-sophisticated critics, and it would be nice if we got some replies to these allegations. The internet, media, and other main information ways, have not done a good job of explaining science. Frankly, this article should be twice its size. The human mind is more creative than you give it credit for.-Jared

For answers to most of the questions, see Talk:Global warming/FAQ. The CO2/temperature link is also discussed in Global warming controversy#Attribution_to_greenhouse_gases. The other arguments are extremely stupid ("how can a few ounces of lead have such a massive effect on the life of an Elephant"?), and I have not seen them outside internet blogs and similar unreliable sources. That's why we don't have them in the main article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See also here Count Iblis (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of good resources here and here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Global warming wager merged here

I went ahead and merged global warming wager to this page per the talk there. I also tried to remove the use of the neologism "global warming wager" entirely. I don't think the text as-is is great and I wouldn't be opposed to stripping or rewriting some of it. Oren0 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that Pascal died more than a century before Marx was born. How then can Pascal's wager be based on Marxist economics? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I didn't write it. I just didn't like it having its own article so I copied it here. Pick it apart for all I care. Oren0 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I was just wondering if there was something that I missed. Appropriately cleaned up, this material will be useful in the present article. The merge was good -- there are way too many global warming articles floating around here, and a lot of them are of mediocre quality at best. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of long-term climate forecasting is unproven

The section on "Controversy concerning the science" should include a subsection on scientific forecasting and the work of Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong. Most recently a study has been web published by National Center for Policy Analysis by Green and Armstrong claiming "it has yet to be demonstrated that long-term forecasting of climate is possible." Misplaced Pages readers certainly deserve to have access to the audit on global warming performed by Green and Armstrong. RonCram (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Publications by think thanks funded by ExxonMobile do not meet our requirements for reliable sources. Raul654 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but why are publications from the National Center for Policy Analysis less reliable than postings on RealClimate? I missed the part of WP:RS where it said that reliability is determined by the vested interests of the entities funding publication. And it's a bit deceptive to say that a think tank receiving $40k/year from ExxonMobil is really "funded" by them anyway. Oren0 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because RealClimate is written by renown climate scientist and has received positive coverage from reliable scientific sources, while the NCPA is a partisan political organization not known for any reliable scientific statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Armstrong has published these same findings in a peer-reviewed journal, Energy and Environment. I used the link to National Center for Policy Analysis because it was more readable and would be accessible to more Misplaced Pages readers. Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong are leading experts in scientific forecasting, as much or more so than the people at RealClimate are experts in climate science. RonCram (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, we have gone over that over and over again. E&E is not considered a reliable source. It's review process, if any, is "eccentric", to say the least, as even acknowledged by the less fringe sceptics. --Stephan Schulz (talk)

Stephan, yes, we have gone over it before. There is at least as much editorial oversight of E&E as there is for NY Times or Washington Post. There is no question regarding the fact both E&E and NCPA are reliably expressing the views of Green and Armstrong, acknowledged experts in scientific forecasting. This is an article about the controversy. There is no reasonable explanation for withholding from Misplaced Pages readers this aspect of the controversy. RonCram (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever on earth said that Green and Armstrong are "acknowledged experts in scientific forecasting"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, when describing why you reverted my edit you wrote: "Whatever Armstrong claims, the IPCC is not forecasting, it is modeling." You make Armstrong's point. The IPCC makes "projections" based on computer models. The word "projections" occurs 33 times in the IPCC report. Armstrong says that computer modeling may inform expert opinion, but it is not the same as a scientific forecast. Armstrong also writes that expert opinion informed by computer models is no better than non-expert opinion. Your comment shows you are beginning to understand the controversy on this issue. Regarding the fact NCPA received funding from ExxonMobil, that is a non-issue. This is an article about the controversy around global warming. Why would anyone raise the issue of WP:RS to keep information out of the article about the controversy around "projections" vs. "scientific forecasts?" Do you really think E&E has misrepresented the views of Green and Armstrong? Do you think NCPA has misrepresented the views of Green and Armstrong? There is no good reason to keep their views on this important issue out of an article on the controversy around global warming. RonCram (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that Green and Armstrong have any idea how climate models work. They seem to think that they're analogous in some way to econometric models and can be similarly evaluated, but the two types of models have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy of whom I speak below would mostly disagree with you... --Childhood's End (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

David Orrell has debunked climate forecasting. The problem is not with "computer power", as you would imagine... The book is all available for quotes. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. A popsci book by that hallmark of academic publishing, HarperCollins. I'm impressed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, you would not have focused your attention on the author rather than on the publisher. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. Even a good scientist can write a coffee table book. This looks like it is aimed at scientifically illiterates, with a lot of comforting stories how "those scientists" also get things wrong (and ignoring that on every step you make a scientific prediction comes true...). Nothing wrong with that, its just not a reliable source. I don't want to malign the author in general, but his publication record is not very stellar, most of his papers are in unrelated field, and the most cited relevant paper has a grand total of three citations - one of which is a self-citation, and one is by an unpublished preprint.. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The book has nine chapters and whereas it would be legitimate to say that the first three are more pop than science (they're really a good candy though), the rest of the book is about modelling. This guy is an expert in complex systems (a concept that strangely seems to elude most of the editors hangning around here) and obviously knows more about climate models than you and me. Your condescension makes little sense imo.

Climate, economics and health are not independant systems, and to make a long-term forecast of one, you need to integrate all three. Models for each try to reproduce non-linear, dynamical systems with innumerable positive and negative feedback loops. Initial conditions are subject to uncertainty, and so are measurements. Parametrization comes into play for the processes that are less understood or that lack equations. Then model error at the initial time grows in a cumulative and dynamic manner for all these models. Now that's my short summary, but please either read what the author says and refute it, or do not address it at all. Opinions about the publisher or about publication records really are sophisms, beside the fact that they're... opinions. --Childhood's End (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate is still far simpler to describe starting from fundamental laws of physics than economics or health. Now, I'm not an expert in climate science, but I've read that climate is not chaotic on time scales of decades. Then the fact that some phenomena have to be desribed using effective equations that cannot be derived from first principles is not anything different from what engineers who design aircraft, powerplants, etc. do every day. The flow of water inside pipes of heat exchangers in powerplants is chaotic. A first principles computation of the heat transfer coefficient would necessarily involve simulating how the water flows throught the heat exchangers. But the engineers do not need to perform such computations. And, needless to say, the powerplants do not behave chaotically. Count Iblis (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this input. I'd be willing to read more about this, but just to touch on a few points you make, climate, health and economics all are complex systems, and that's what make them unpredictable through modelling. The explanation is scientific really, only it has not reached these specific fields so far, notably because there's a market for forecasts in each (they still make economic predictions for a reason...). Powerplant parts are quite different. Once they work and are set, they're consistent. Initial error (if there is any) does not add up over a time scale. I would also suppose that for such parts, there are no significant unknown unknowns. --Childhood's End (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find it a bit strange the criteria that you guys use to evaluate inclusion. So far the arguments are: 1. The NCPA is funded by oil (dubious and irrelevant), 2. E&E isn't reliable (which is true, but irrelevant since the same info is also published by the NCPA), 3. "I've seen no evidence that Green and Armstrong have any idea how climate models work" (as if the standard for inclusion is convincing editors of their expertise), and 4. You're unimpressed by the publisher. These arguments about reliability are meaningless because it's clear that these articles represent the opinions of these individuals, which is what they're presented as. The only real discussion to be had here is one of WP:WEIGHT, which is a reasonable discussion to be had. However, there seems to be a large portion of the climate community who doesn't believe strongly in these models (I read a study recently, I could dig it up, saying that something like 35% of climate scientists agree that models can accurately predict climate, while some 47% disagree). So it's not clear to me that these guys are presenting such a fringe view when they say these models are unproven or unreliable. Oren0 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue against the inclusion of A+G on the grounds that they don't know what they are talking about. Nor is their self-promotion sufficiently notable to be included, nor published in a useful venue. This article isn't here to reproduce the opinions of clueless individuals William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

William, whether you understand A&G or not, they do make sense. They clearly known exactly what they are talking about. It is the climate scientists who do not know anything about scientific forecasting. Just as Michael Mann tried to innovate new statistical methods without checking with statisticians, the climate modelers have tried to innovate "projections" without checking with the scientists who do scientific forecasts. The work of these climate modelers is downright shoddy. We have already talked about Orrin Pilkey's book "Useless Arithmetic" in which he discusses how the computer models for the coastline are never accurate. Besides, William, arguing to exclude an argument from one side of the controversy because "they don't know what they are talking about" is purely POV. It is the policy of Misplaced Pages to allow both sides of a controversy to present their case. There is no reasonable excuse to preclude A&G from the controversy. RonCram (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. They have no expertise whatsoever in the field at hand, as is plainly apparent from reading their work. Raymond Arritt (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, the field at hand is scientific forecasting and they are experts in it. I was just reading from the website of David Orrell on other books on the science of prediction. Orell approvingly quotes from "Useless Arithmetic" this passage: "The problem is not the math itself, but the blind acceptance and even idolatry we have applied to the quantitative models." It appears David Orrell, Orrin Pilkey and A&G all have similar views that the models are not trustworthy. I cannot see any reason to keep this out of the article. RonCram (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, Orrell lists another book on the science of prediction, "Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature," and one of the editors and contributors is Roger A. Pielke. It appears Pielke agrees that the science of prediction can be applied to climate forecasts. Perhaps we can find some usable quotes from this text as well. RonCram (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A+G aren't competent to make remarks on climate prediction simply because you insist that they are (see "proof by repeated assertion"). Orrell and Pilkey are more worthy of being taken seriously. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, your claim A&G are not competent is unsupported. Scientific forecasting is not limited to any one field, like economics. A&G study economics, marketing, politics and other fields. They conduct audits of projections by other experts to determine if these people followed proper protocols. When they audited the projections of climate scientists, they were found wanting. Their research into the problems with IPCC projections deserves a place in this article. Your repeating the claim they are not competent is not valid and you know it. RonCram (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Be it Orrell, Pilkey, Pielke, Tennekes, Armstrong/Green, Zichichi, Christy, or whoever else worthy of note, a section about this issue is legitimate. I would also echo OrenO and add that William's and Raymond's opinions about who understands or not the field are completely irrelevant (especially when one of them thinks that climate models and economic models have nothing to do whatsoever with each other). Misplaced Pages has inclusion rules, and editors' pov are no part of it. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class Environment articles
• Low-importance Environment articles