Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 21 February 2009

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Misplaced Pages's Global Warming FAQ. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion. Also bear in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about global warming. Any such messages will be deleted. This page is only to be used for discussing improvements to the Global warming article. Thank you.

	Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 4, 2007 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encylopedic (sic) message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Misplaced Pages". The Denver Post.

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February–August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February–April 2005 April–June 2005 May–October 2005 October–November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January–April 2006 April–May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August–October 2006 October–November 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 February–March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 (2) April 2007 (3) April 2007 (4) April 2007 (5) April 2007 (6)
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

this can be dismissed immediately, of course. Agreed?

I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss The Register Jan. 28, 2009

Dr John Theon, the retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs who supervised James Hansen -- the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention -- has come out as a skeptic about man-made global warming. "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is... http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=10044&m=12472 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Seba5618 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, why? (Original article) Given the man's credentials maybe a little more engagement is called for. Am I missing something? Rd232 15:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Has he published his findings in a peer-reviewed journal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean has he published his findings in a global warmers journal? 88.109.43.47 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "a global warmer's journal". 'Boris' is talking about a peer reviewed scientific journal - you know, the place scientists publish science. Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you track it back further, it boils down to two fairly innocent if slightly sceptical email blown out of proportion by Inhofe's media machine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Was he actually "in charge of NASA" or is that BS? what was he "in charge" of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dissent among scientists is normal. If all other climatologists completely agreed with Hansen (and most do not) then this would be a significant news story. It wouldn't be something to put into this article, but it would be a story. --TS 07:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

However, this isn't a case of disagreement amongst scientists. Theon stopped being a scienitst ages ago, and is retired even from his admin role William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he's no longer publishing research. It's not as if this was somebody with a new dataset or an improved model, just a guy who has "kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles." Incidentally the site in the above link seems to be borked, so here is the original Register article, which I now see simply parrots some nonsense from Senator Inhofe. --TS 12:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So this guy was a scientist but is not now ... was he actually "in charge of NASA" or is that crap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hard to know. Certainly many climate-folk he claims to have been in charge of have never heard of him. I wrote more here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are we linking to an off-site blog and then removing comments related to the post? If the subject matter there is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages why are we linking to it at all? --GoRight (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean... as opposed to an on-site blog? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reliable source and any article that adhered to NPOV would accept points of view from both sides of the argument. 88.109.75.55 (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is apparently in the eye of the beholder. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means a Neutral Point of View. It means what an neutral, unbiased viewer would wish to know about the subject as a whole, not the little bit that a small minority of self-appointed experts have decided that they will allow other people to read. 88.109.75.55 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See the Neutral point of view policy for a complete elaboration of what that policy entails. --TS 23:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of second paragraph of lead

We've been doing some collaborative editing on my sandbox for the lead of this article. I was looking at the article organization, and the physical basis of earth's temperature (Greenhouse effect, but maybe we should include albedo as well?) didn't seem to me to have as much emphasis in the lead as it does in the article. What do you all think of adding a new first sentence to the second paragraph of the lead? Awickert and I have edited it a bit, and I think I like this version, but I'm not so sure I like the grammar of "This Earth's average temperature".

The Earth's global surface temperature is determined by the amount of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth and the retention of that heat by greenhouse gases. This Earth's average temperature has increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.

So, what do you all think about this proposed language? Also, in the current version of the article, IPCC 4's Executive Summary reference includes a quote for of the increase in temperature during the 100 years ending in 2005. I think that that quote is superfluous, and I'd like to have just one reference at the bottom of the page for the IPCC 4 Executive Summary. Again, what do you all think? - Enuja (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead is already too long. We should be looking for ways to make it more concise, rather than adding more stuff. If people really think there is essential info that must be added then it should be compensated by trimming elsewhere in the lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the lead does need to be shorter, I don't think that, in of itself, is an argument that we should start the second paragraph with the change in temperature instead of with an introduction to the basic concepts. - Enuja (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Here is my current sandbox suggestion, including a fair number of cuts. - Enuja (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the figures in the lead make the article off-putting for laypeople. I also think that the IPCC report 4 is so out of date that it's more notable for it's inadequacies than its predictions.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess adding my language is dead, but I did just remove the quote (and therefore the repeated citation of the IPCC 4th Report executive summary). - Enuja (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I call BS on that five year trend line

The latest point on the five year trend line is roughly equal to the yearly average for 2006. If you take a look at the surrounding years, 2004 is moderately below this point, 2005 is moderately above, 2007 is slightly above, and 2008 is *way* below. Obviously the five year trend is not putting proper weight on 2008. 18.111.28.205 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How about looking at the actual data instead of eye-balling it? Its nicely linked on the image page. - be our guest and recalculate the 5 year means yourself. If you find an error, make sure to tell us. :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you find an error, please enroll in a remedial arithmetic course and don't waste our time. -Atmoz (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the rude tone of my previous post. However, there clearly is an error in the chart. I plotted the data (linked from the chart) and the five year trend has a distinct downward tick (of 0.02) between the next-to-last and last points. This does not show up in the chart. It looks to me like the five year trend plotted on the chart stops one year early. Could someone please fix this? (I would do it myself, but don't know how). Thanks 76.19.65.163 (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't it be that the last point represents the average for 2006 and not 2008 as you presume? How did you calculate the five year average for 2007 and 2008? I see no errors...
—Apis (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't calculate anything myself. I just plotted these data (which are supposed to be the basis for the chart) in excel: (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt). The chart in the article is clearly missing the last point. 76.19.65.163 (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All the data is in the figure. Find the point for the year 2000, there are 8 points after that. The end of the 5-year average ends 2 points before that. The problem is that the dependent axis appears to be off by an additive constant. I don't know if that was on purpose or not. But it doesn't really matter. -Atmoz (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The y-axis is shifted to match the definition of 0 used by the IPCC and Hadley Centre. For some reason GISS uses a different zero than everyone else, which seemed silly. Dragons flight (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I figured that, but it should probably be noted in the description. -Atmoz (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition of 0 always has been in the image page description. Dragons flight (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is somewhat complicated. When one wants to draw a curve through a set of points, the simplest thing one can do is connect the dots with line segments. That works but tends to gives a jagged appearance. In many cases it is preferable to instead plot a smooth curve of some sort through the data. In general, I think smooth curves are particularly suitable when the intent is to display some form of average trend. There are many choices for how to generate such a curve. In making the smooth curve in this plot, I used a tapered moving average with an effective width of 5 years. (The concept of the "effective width" has a specific and rigorous statistical meaning that would be a diversion to explain.) This same averaging technique has been used in every version of this figure since its inception four years ago.

The problem at the moment is two-fold. First, people read average and immediately assume arithmetic mean, when the two really aren't the same. The filter used in this case was a kind of weighted mean that operates on the same timescale (i.e. 5 years) but smoothly suppresses the high frequency jumps that an arithmetic mean can suffer from when using on a small number of points. The result is a curve that stays very close to the points generated by a moving arithmetic mean, but also can be easily drawn as smoothly varying. However, if the record jumps abruptly the difference between this average and an arithmetic mean may become noticeable. This is especially true if the jump occurs right at the end of the record, which results in a larger apparent difference than at other times. The actual difference of 0.015 C (less than the width of blue dot) is not huge, but apparently it is noticeable. I assume that since there was never a comment like this in prior years, the difference was never enough to matter, but this year someone noticed in a matter of days after posting. That someone noticed suggests the chart should be "fixed" to better conform with people's expectations of what "average" means. (I use "fixed" in quotations, because the tapered average is a perfectly reasonable approach from a statistics point of view, and for many applications is actually a better indicator of trend behavior than an arithmetic mean.) Dragons flight (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be enough to mention that on the image page then?
—Apis (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No filer has been used in the past. Why should we apply a filter now that the five year trend shows a small decline? Why not just plot the data and let people decide for themselves? This "smoothing" looks like an attempt to hide the small decrease in the trend. 76.19.65.163 (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I made the image the last four years, and as I said above, the exact same averaging method was used the whole time. Dragons flight (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• (ec)The plot has always used the raw data (not the arithmetic means provided by NASA) and applied a polynomial(?) filter to obtain the 5 year average plot. You can see that the curve was always smooth, never jagged, in any version of the graph. If you plot the graph without a smoothing filter, any plot of discrete data will look jagged. And you might want to see how well the current plot "hides" the decreases around the early and the late 80s... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess the problem is I don't understand the filtering method. How many years does the temperature have to drop before the polynomial you fit starts to drop? 76.19.65.163 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to looking at ways of doing this that will clip a little less at the end (we are still talking about less than the width of circle though). It is probably best to avoid plotting methods that readily surprise people. Any changes won't be made immediately though. Dragons flight (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Less than the width of a circle? My eyes aren't good enough to pick that up. My opinion—the solution is to label the curves as Annual Temperature and Smoothed Temperature. -Atmoz (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A drop of 0.02 degrees is clearly visible. The problem with the current method is the last point puts more weight on 2005 than on 2008. This makes no sense. 76.19.65.163 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If the drop you write of is part of trend, it will show up in the next five years or so. If it isn't, it'll smooth out. Either way this discussion smacks of recentism. --TS 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to channel my last statistics course, but I think Atmoz is right that it may be more accurate to call the red line a smoothed line rather than a five-year average? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren0 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 February 2009 GMT (UTC)

It might be easiest just to go with a simple 5-year arithmetic mean. Comparing the two side-by-side, its really not that different .Zeke Hausfather (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that we have people accusing us of changing the way we drew the graph, even though we didn't and when this was pointed out, they started to ask us to change the way it is drawn, even though this is precisely the thing they were complaining about earlier and they never complained about it before? Not that I'm saying we shouldn't take a look at whether the graph is the best possible representation of the data Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not alone in appreciating the irony : ). Awickert (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Deniers

I am not really able to devote much time to climate change topics, but I note that edits are being made to the article on The Deniers, by Lawrence Solomon, that appear to be to be broadly promotional in nature. The status of critical and favorable reviewers alike is being obfuscated, and one entire section read like a book blurb, consisting solely of a large block quote from the author. The article would benefit from a little attention that I myself cannot afford to devote to it. --TS 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The article itself is all for global warming with a section called the deniers? As it is a subject that many experts cannot agree on the article itself is very biased. --UnTrooper (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an article about the global warming religion written by the high priests of global warming. You will have as much luck trying to discuss religion with a mormon and discuss climate with a global warmer! 81.170.15.198 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd wording in the lede

As a new account, I don't have permission to edit semi-protected articles, but the first sentence in the last paragraph of the lede has a rather awkward grammatical structure. "Political and public debate continues regarding what, if any, responses to global warming are made." seems like it would read much more smoothly as "Political and public debate continues regarding the optimal responses to global warming." The "if any" seems a tad redundant, as the absence of action is in itself a type of response. If we want to leave "if any" in that sentence, perhaps we should go with "Political and public debate continues regarding the optimal responses, if any, to global warming." -Zeke Hausfather (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to:

Political and public debate continues regarding the appropriate response to global warming.

--TS 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It was reasonably grammatical up until about 28 January; see e.g.,this version. I prefer the wording in the version just linked but it's not a big deal either way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

abrupt climate change in lead

Andrewjlockey's recent edit added a sentence about abrupt climate change into the 4th paragraph of the lead. I don't think that this sentence is important enough to be in the lead of this article (which is already too long). However, if this sentence stays, it absolutely must be referenced. Why is does it internally mention the IPCC? Does this refer to the 4th IPCC report? If so, which chapter? If the insertion of the sentence is not justified, removed by someone else, or improved in the next few hours, I will remove it. - Enuja (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are references if you follow the internal links to the uses of the terms 'climate surprise' and 'abrupt climate change'. This concept manifestly is important enough to add to the lead - as the potential effects are larger then the linear effects.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference. It's section 3.4 FYI. I couldn't find a DOI number so I just used a web link - maybe you can help me with this? I can of course add other refs if you think it necessary. If you don't like it, please MANUALLY revert, as I made some minor readability edits elsewhere in the lead which will be lost if you revert.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You know that having citations in articles that you link to doesn't count as citing a fact in an article. I don't understand your unwillingness to type in citation details in citation templates. Why do you expect other people to be more willing to type in citations than you are? The effects of a nuclear war, a large asteroid impact, and sheer energy pumped out by future fission reactors could all have larger effects on the future climate than CO2. The importance of parts of global warming science for the purposes of inclusion in this article is not the possible magnitude of non-linear effects, but the current importance that the peer-reviewed literature puts to non-linear effects. - Enuja (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(My edit conflicted with Enuja's, so I haven't read what he wrote yet.) Thanks for taking the time to look for a DOI. The IPCC report doesn't have one, because it's not a journal article. There are many other IPCC report citations in this article; you can look at those as a template, and including the section would be nice. However, this is one example where, even if you have to type it manually, a proper citation is very much necessary - every 5 seconds, someone views this article.

The uncertainty I have with your addition is that you cite rapid climate change as a possibility because of uncertainties in climate modeling; I feel that one could make the same claim for uncertainties in modeling to mean that climate change won't really happen or will revert, and probably find an equally valid citation for that. I think the better route to take could be to take methane release and ice shrinkage mentioned in the previous sentence to state a worry about positive feedbacks, as (as far as I know) I haven't heard of any significant negative feedbacks on that quick of a time-scale.

Awickert (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK we can split the sentence into two parts. Let's get the abrupt/surprise bit in first, and I'll try and do the ref. on a template manually.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The relevant quote from the synthesis report is as follows

3.4 Risk of abrupt or irreversible changes

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change. {WGII 12.6, 19.3, 19.4, SPM}

Abrupt climate change on decadal time scales is normally thought of as involving ocean circulation changes. In addition on longer time scales, ice sheet and ecosystem changes may also play a role. If a large-scale abrupt climate change were to occur, its impact could be quite high (see Topic 5.2). {WGI 8.7, 10.3, 10.7; WGII 4.4, 19.3}

This does not support the wording in you just put in the lead, seeing as it doesn't mention "surprise" climate change at all, and does not blame the possibility of abrupt climate change on "complexities of the climate system and the consequential difficulties of modelling all its intricacies." I know you put the citation before that last clause that I just quoted, but you need a citation for all of the facts, interpretations and causes that you put in the article, not just for the fact that you go on to explain without citation. Also, this particular heading and paragraph do not, by themselves, provide evidence that abrupt climate change is considered important by current literature. You don't need to put the evidence of importance as a reference in the article, but you need to convince the editors here that it is considered important in the current literature. You keep saying that it is important, but, as of yet, you haven't convinced me that the literature agrees with you. - Enuja (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't be satisfied unless I see my questions above answered, specifically, why unspecified complications could have a specific result; otherwise, this approaches the logic of a conspiracy theory, and is something for which I shoot global warming deniers down regularly. Awickert (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry - I thought Andrewjlockley had replied to something else; got my pages screwed up. Please disregard. Awickert (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it out. It was rubbish. First, cl surp and ab cl ch are the same thing, so linking to them both is pointless. Second, the SPM doesn't mention surprise. Third, both cl surp and ab cl ch are rubbish articles. Fourth, the SPM does mention ab cl ch but the only quote about probablility I coud find was Risks of large-scale singularities.26 As discussed in Topic 3.4, during the current century, a large-scale abrupt change in the meridional overturning circulation is very unlikely. This is AJL pushing his POV yet again with rubbish references to prop him up, and my patience with him is exhausted William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your change, so please don't take this wrong. The IPCC does use the word "surprise", it may not have been in the reference, but if you clicked the wiki link, it was there. Q Science (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll revert WMC's edit unless there's consensus that it should stay. The text given clearly shows the IPCC considered the risk. The edit was entirely neutrally worded, and simply stated there was a risk - which there is, as confirmed by the IPCC. Alternative/additional references are welcomed.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't. As I've quoted, IPCC says the risk is very unlikely. That doesn't merit a mention in the lede William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"not in the ref". Well I've rather got used to that with AJL William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give chapter and verse of where the IPCC says it's 'very unlikely'. We must be reading different versions of the same report.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've quoted it, just above. It's in the SPM ref *you* supplied. Use the thing we call a "search button" to find it. Not difficult William M. Connolley (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So Andrew, instead of bickering with William about a dubious reference to a fluff sentence, any thoughts on my idea of how to get the idea across? It won't say death and destrucion and the day after tomorrow, but it will say positive feedback. Awickert (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC does use the word "surprise", it may not have been in the reference, but if you clicked the wiki link, it was there. That's the glossary. It *doesn't* contain an entry for surprise. It does mention it under ab cl ch. Either way, as an attempt to reference "ipcc talks about surprises" its pretty desperate William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The notion of "surprise" should be explicitly in there. It really highlights the uncertainty of the modeling underlying the IPCC conclusions. This is a key point. Let's make sure it is in there. Publixx (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah - not unless it is presented with a valid scientific basis. Awickert (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead currently does not actually say what greenhouse gases are (although it does link to the article), nor does it say that carbon dioxide is the major anthropogenic greenhouse gas. When we're talking about stuff that really, really must be in the lead (both the terms "surprise" and "abrupt" climate change?), we should keep in mind how short the lead is, and how much important information the current consensus argues shouldn't be in the lead. - Enuja (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

More should be devoted the effects of methane, which has a larger GWP. There should be some mention of the IPCC Working Group on methane. Publixx (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Methan should be included, but in the context of a more general mention of feedback effects. The article grossly misrepresents the issue presently, as it does not give proper prominence to runaway climate change. Before I get a ton of abuse, 'Runaway' is used in several climatology papers to describe climate change.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose to add the following to the lead to deal with ACC/RACC 'The ] has warned that global warming "could lead to some effects that are ] or irreversible". Please reply within 24hrs if you don't like itAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. As this topic is not covered in the article, it is inappropriate for the lead. -Atmoz (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's covered under feedback, just using different language.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do an edit if I don't see an objection posted here shortly.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Solomon PNAS article in lead

This edit put the Solomon PNAS article back in the lead, but this time in the 4th instead of the 3rd paragraph. The sentence about long-term effects of carbon dioxide (Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to continue, even in the absence of new emissions, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere.) is still at the end of the 3rd paragraph. It is cited with Archer 2005, Caldeira and Wickett 2005 and a NOAA press release about the Solomon article. Should we add the actual Solomon article to the nest of references for that sentence? Should we just put the NOAA press release and Solomon article into one reference, and use it both in the 3rd paragraph of the lead and where Smith609 put the sentence about the Solomon article in the body of the article? Is the sentence inserted by Smith609 (in the first paragraph of the Environmental subsection) supported by the Solomon article? - Enuja (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's especially objectionable. The tense is wrong - should be "would be" not "are" irreversible. And the needs qualifying with something like "in the absence of geoeng" or something (I presume Solomon does so qualify; I haven't read it) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Might just be best to replace the weakest citation in the sentence at the end of the third paragraph with Soloman et al if we really want to cite it. Having two separate sentences that effectively make the same arguement in the lead seems like a bit of a waste of space. -Zeke Hausfather (talk)

Credibility of statement

"A 2001 report by the IPCC suggests that glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as that of the Larsen Ice Shelf, sea level rise, changes in rainfall patterns, and increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events are attributable in part to global warming." I think the last part of this is downright wrong. In short because there HASN'T been any increase in extreme weather events. The number of hurricanes (both small and large) has been going down over the past many years. It is true that the number of OBSERVED hurricanes has been going up but this is only because of the recent development of weather satellites. If you narrow the data to just analyzing hurricanes that have made landfall (which there are accurate long-term records of) then you see that the number of hurricanes making landfall has decreased a noticeable amount. The only thing I don't have is a source for this yet, besides a lecture by Professor Muller from University of California Berkeley and although I haven't looked through the whole report yet, the IPCC I think says this same thing, so saying that they are saying the opposite is downright wrong. Ergzay (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe "extreme weather events" in this case is a reference to droughts, floods, heat waves, and the like, and not specifically to tropical cyclones. You are right that the records related to cyclones are in many ways problematic (observational biases) and/or ambiguous (unclear trends). Dragons flight (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Social and economic effects of global warming may be exacerbated by growing population densities in affected areas. Temperate regions are projected to experience some benefits, such as fewer deaths due to cold exposure. A summary of probable effects and recent understanding can be found in the report made for the IPCC Third Assessment Report by Working Group II. The newer IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summary reports that there is observational evidence for an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Ocean since about 1970, in correlation with the increase in sea surface temperature (see Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), but that the detection of long-term trends is complicated by the quality of records prior to routine satellite observations. The summary also states that there is no clear trend in the annual worldwide number of tropical cyclones." I should add this paragraph is full of cherry-picking of data. Hurricanes increasing in JUST the north atlantic is not evidence, especcially when it says, "The summary also states that there is no clear trend in the annual worldwide number of tropical cyclones." In short this means that the hurricane activity in the rest of the world has decreased during this same period to account for the worldwide number not increasing.Ergzay (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The point you may be missing is that we report what credible sources say. If the article is misrepresenting IPCC, then it should be re-written. If all that is wrong is that you disagree with what IPCC wrote, then tough William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The point you may be missing is that the reason for an encyclopedic entry on the issue is not to merely parrot political reports like the IPCC but to provide a layman's introduction with references. Under the circumstances, scientific reports are being questioned for dodgy reasons and political postures are being promoted for dodgier reasons, imho. DDB (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Contribution of livestock flatulence to global warming

Since there is no real discussion in the article, I have added a section highlighting the role of livestock flatulence to global warming:

A recent UN report indicates livestock generate more greenhouse gases on a global scale than the entire transportation sector. A senior UN official and co-author of the report Henning Steinfeld said "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems."

Recent NASA research has confirmed the vital role of livestock flatulence in global warming. "We understand that other greenhouse gases apart from carbon dioxide are important for climate change today," said Gavin Schmidt, the lead author of the study and a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY and Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research.

President of the National Academy of Sciences Ralph Cicerone (an atmospheric scientist), has indicated the contribution of methane by livestock flatulence and eructation to global warming is a “serious topic.” Cicerone states “Methane is the second-most-important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere now. The population of beef cattle and dairy cattle has grown so much that methane from cows now is big. This is not a trivial issue." Approximately 5% of the methane is released via the flatus, whereas the other 95% is released via eructation. Vaccines are under development to reduce the amount introduced through eructation. Publixx (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693&Itemid=587
2. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
3. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011210/
4. http://www.physsci.uci.edu/psnews/?id=96
5. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6431

Not about the content, but for the references: please look at the other references in the article and format them accordingly. See Misplaced Pages:Citation templates for details. Also, for verifiability on a high-profile article, it is important to have the original source of the information; press releases can be included as useful digests.

What you have is well-written: my worry is that it uses quotes as support for the initial statement; I think more quantitative information would be preferred here.

Awickert (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all up for adding something about this. It's an oft-overlooked contribution. I think we should talk about farting and burping, so people actually understand it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is scibaby come again William M. Connolley (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to address the merit of the contribution in addition to addressing the suspected identity of the contributor. We currently have a little bit about livestock and greenhouse gases in Attribution of recent climate change, although the current source has a broken link. I think it makes sense to add more sources and more information to that section of that article, but I think it would be highly inappropriate to have an entire section about livestock and greenhouse gases on this top-level article. - Enuja (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK maybe we can come up with something a bit shorter?

Straight from the horse's mouth

There's been an ongoing struggle to get the truth about expected GW into this article. There's been a gross over-reliance on the widely-discredited IPCC 4th report. Now a senior IPCC scientist has gone on record and basically said what's been patently obvious all along: the 4th report was dangerously complacent. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/su-ccl021009.php We can no longer pretend that the current article represents anything like current scientific consensus. I hope very much that people can now agree that the time has come to get this article into line with the science, both in the lead and generally. I'll start adding the edits soon. If people dislike them, I hope they could improve rather than revert them.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you would rely more on peer-reviewed science and not on press-releases. Chris Field has not left the consensus position, he just pointed out that the emission scenarios have been overoptimistic. The actual science is the same, but the social and economical predictions seem to be off. I agree that we might want to mention this if we find a better source than the popular press. But we should mention it in the appropriate manner, not by dumping a lot of unrelated issues blindly into the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to use peer reviewed science to back up all the points made. However, there's been a pattern of 'stripping' from this article of anything that doesn't repeat IPCC mantrasAndrewjlockley (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The PR was cited as it had a direct quote from a lead IPCC scientist. I didn't make any scientific claims in my edit, and it was not included as news. Why was it stripped?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. The source is a press release, which is rarely a good source. As far as I can see, the press release is not by Chris Field, although you claim it is. The press release does not say what you wrote. It does not even say that Field expects future IPCC report "to show that 'climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with' than previously thought". And it represents only a single unreviewed opinion (though a plausible one). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It quoted Chris Field, and it was given as an expectation of the IPCC position, not as a scientific fact. I'll take the alternative route of including the papers directly79.65.169.132 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There may well be a number of peer reviewed papers post-AR4 that address the match of SRES scenarios to projections. Perhaps it might be worth including more discussion regarding SRES and post-SRES scenarios, the debate about their accuracy, and the ongoing work to revise them in preparation for the AR5. That said, uncertainty within socioeconomic projections doesn't necessarily mean that warming will be "worse than projected". After all, few people realistically expects that warming will exceed the upper bound A1F scenario. On an unrelated note, it is interesting to see someone complaining that the article is too conservative (though Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia, is inherently conservative) -Zeke Hausfather (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AR4 is twaddle, it doesn't include the biggest feedbacks, and it underestimated emissions growth. Please let me know any links and studies you'd like to include in stating the truth, Zeke.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of finding studies that state the truth, we get the truth from studies. I reverted your edit. It was out of place (the emissions scenario paragraph is the next paragraph) and there is already uncertainty mentioned in that next paragraph. If you'd like to suggest an edit to that paragraph or that sentence (not adding a new sentence, but editing what we've got now, to increase accuracy without increasing length or losing organization), please suggest that edit here. - Enuja (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was clear what I meant (above). I've done that edit the way you asked, but it didn't work without a new sentence. Feel free to edit if you can find a better way of writing it. You might want to clarify whether the current emissions exceed ALL of the ranges used in the models of the earlier sentence. That's why I originally put this info in the p/graph above.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Emissions

Not to encourage Andrew, but he does have a good source in . Of course, it does not quite say what he writes (it actually says "The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s"). The emissions themselves seem to be barely within or insignificantly above the A1Fl scenario, depending on the data source. Of course, this is only a very short-term snapshot, and I suspect the effects of the financial crisis will drop us down a bit again in the next year or two. But still, should we mention this paper? Where? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is what I wrote. I specifically mentioned growth. I will undo WMC's most recent gung-ho reversion, and add the word 'rate' to ensure that there's no ambiguity.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the sentence you inserted to fit better in the paragraph. I really wish we could come up with a shorter way to say it, but I haven't found one. If anyone can get the idea in more concisely and clearly, that would be great. Also, if other people think that this should be covered in the article text but not in the lead, please remove the sentence: we don't have a clear consensus yet about whether this should be in the lead. I don't have a strong opinion about whether this should be in the lead, but I do think more important things are still out of the lead for length considerations. - Enuja (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the source actually says "IPCC" and because some models use much higher rates, I think you should fix your edit. However, I agree that there is too much information in the lead and that this should be elsewhere. Q Science (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence isn't currently in the article, but ... This isn't generally about the IPCC: it's about the emissions scenarios from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios which is linked as "estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions" in the second sentence of that paragraph. Therefore, alluding to those specific emissions scenarios is more useful and specific than saying "IPCC". - Enuja (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Hopefully we won't suffer another arbitrary revert again. Could someone check if the range of scenarios given were the IPCC AR4 ranges? This is not clear in the lead, and should be.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

IPCC 4th report still used the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios devised for the third report, which the IPCC 4th report, this Misplaced Pages article and the wikipedia article on the special report on emissions scenarios all state. Comprehending this is a necessary prerequisite to editing these facts. The reverts are not arbitrary: so far you (Andrewjlockley) are the only person who clearly stated that Raupach et al 2007 should be mentioned in the lead. Stephan Schulz wanted conversation about where we should put it, Q Science thinks that it should be in the body and not in the lead, I think it might be good in the lead but am leaning towards just putting it in the body, and William M. Connolley (reverts are stating opinions) thinks that it should not be in the lead, and has not addressed an opinion about putting it in the body. Removing the sentence is certainly more consistent with apparent opinions on this issue than putting the sentence in. Personally, I think that reverts in either direction at this point are unproductive edit warring, and that we should discuss it here and come to consensus before reverting in either direction. Obviously, my opinion is patently non-binding towards Andrewjlockley and William M. Connolley's behavior. - Enuja (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

About 40 articles have cited the Raupach et al 2007 article that Andrewjlockley put in this Misplaced Pages article. I found one editorial (van Vuuren and Riahi, 2008) I particularly like, and am willing to email it to anyone who wants to study it. Even if it doesn't end up going into any of the articles, it has some good references and some editorializing that useful for someone like me, who is not an expert in this field. The take-home message for me is that we should not have a "current emissions growth is outside of SRES envelope" sentence in the lead. I'm going to edit Special Report on Emissions Scenarios with at least a citation or two, but I'm not convinced that the information even makes sense to put on this article page, much less in the lead. - Enuja (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

van Vurren, Detlef P. and Riahi, Keywan. 2008. Do recent emission trends imply higher emissions forever? Climatic Change 91:237-248. DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9485-y

I don't want to edit war, but I think this info is REALLY important. It shows we are on a trend which is 'worse than worst case'. We cannot omit peer reviewed evidence that states something that important from the lead and still have an accurate article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but just like the deniers cannot validly extrapolate from 2 years of "cooling", we cannot validly claim "worse than the worst case" based on a 2 or 3 year trend. Data in Raupach et al. goes up to 2004/2005, depending on the source. Emissions in 2004/2005 are essentially the same as in the A1Fl scenario. Accumulated emissions are probably below A1Fl, since we were below A1Fl around 2000 and have only now caught on. This is not good, but it does not put us outside the IPCC prediction envelope. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrewjlockley, there are two Raupach et al. articles in the same PNAS issue in 2007. The one you put in the article (Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions) has, according to ISI Web of science, been cited 61 times, the other (Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks) has been cited 48 times, and four papers cited one or the other with a typo or two. To say that your interpretation of this one article MUST go in the lead is not really being beholden to the peer reviewed literature. Honestly, the right way to do this is to carefully read at least half of those articles (making sure you read the abstracts of all of them), pick out ones that other papers are mentioning positively and that fit with the general consensus from the literature, and then add that to the appropriate sub-articles, then the appropriate section in this article, and THEN bring it up here on the talk page and see if others agree with you that it should go on the lead. I've done a half-assed version of those best practices, by glancing over four papers (three plus the one you cited) and adding a section to Special Report on Emissions Scenarios and a sentence to the Climate models section of this article, both cited to an editorial from "Climatic Change". Yes, the IPCC is a conservative institution, and so is Misplaced Pages (being an encyclopedia, meaning a tertiary source, so, even though it can be updated quickly, unlike other encyclopedias, someone else has to say what some fact before we can), and if you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages or doing any writing for public consumption about global warming (which will inevitably include the IPCC as a source). Also, the Raupach et al 2007 article does not include the phrase "worst case" (I searched) so it seems a bit unrepresentative to insist on using the phrase "worse than worst case" in this wikipedia article, based on this source. - Enuja (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "worse than worst case" is not used in the article currently, so that point is redundant. I could expand the current point to explain the carbon intensity of energy and several other sources etc etc. but I don't think the lead is the right place for that. I'm certainly not averse to seeing something in the main article. However, unless anyone can find a source which CONTRADICTS the statement made in the lead at present, then I suggest it stands as a valid comment on worrying current emissions trends. It's based on a well-cited article published in a gold-standard journal, and makes a very pertinent point. We can expand the body shortly. In future I'll try and get the body done first.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have put the current emissions into the main body of the article, while actually making that section shorter. We need to avoid expanding the body of the article. Update it, yes. Expand it, no. Feel free to edit the section (or sections: the SRES is mentioned in two places: the "Greenhouse effect" section and the "Climate models" section, and I only put the recent emissions vs. SRES into the "Climate models" section).

Most importantly: does anyone reading this think that this sentence "The recent emissions growth rate exceeds the highest estimate used in the IPCC's modelling.", which is currently in the lead, belongs in the lead? So far, only Andrewjlockley supports putting this sentence in the lead. If no-one else supports having this sentence in the lead, we should delete this sentence. I will not do it myself because I have a personal one-revert rule and I've already deleted one version of this sentence: I suggest that Andrewjlockley remove the sentence if he cannot convince other people that it is at the appropriate level of detail for the lead. - Enuja (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet again WMC has removed it without waiting for consensus, claiming it's 'misleading' without giving any reason. I think it's important: it shows that, should current trends continue, warming will likely be towards or beyond the upper end of the IPCC's projections.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you've been the only person to insert this language into the lead, several different people have reverted you, and no-one has yet agreed on this talk page that this language should be in the lead does not suggest that a consensus for putting this language into the article is likely to occur. In other words: if someone is acting against consensus, it's you. Even the language I put in the body of the article has now been removed (by Stephan Shulz), so, right, now, the current view of editors here appears to be that this shouldn't be mentioned at all in this article. - Enuja (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen actually endorsed the source - it's the first discussion on this thread. Maybe he can suggest how he'd like it included. I am happy to go with consensus, but I'm not happy with editors ignoring the ongoing TP discussion.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the source is good. The problem is if what it says is significant enough. If it would say "warming is above IPCC predictions", that would be worth mentioning. But it does not say that. It does not say CO2 is above IPCC A1Fl, it does not even say CO2 emissions are above A1Fl. What it does say is that the slope of emission growths has been steeper (for a few years) than the A1Fl scenario. And, as Enuja has shown, there are equally reliable sources that take this to be an abnormal short-term effect, and not indicative for the future. That's why it boiled down to the "may/may not" sentence that I found a) very ugly and b) essentially without useful information. I think as long as actual CO2 is within the SRES envelope, discussing every bit of detail in this article is too much. I don't think its possible to transport the basic idea without giving it a lot of space (see how long this is ;-). Instead, we could have something in the SRES article directly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I put a section in the SRES article. I also put citations for four sources I looked over on the SRES talk page, and I'm willing to email those articles to anyone who wants them. Anyone who is interested in this subject: please go over there and improve the article! - Enuja (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK it's a bit anorak for the lead, shall we put it in the body?Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

As none of the global warming sources are reliable and are unproven, is it safe to give another view on this article. I can provide many sources which throw out the global warming theory and are as reliable as the ones that show it as real. Sources such as Earth is not meant to have polar icecaps and only does when in an ice age and coming out of one, the majority of the earths life has had no icecaps. Don't want to edit without discussing it first, anymore warning and I won't be able to edit at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnTrooper (talk • contribs) 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, by definition the only sources that are reliable are those which support the theory. I know it's a bit like only accepting views from catholics on the pope, but those are the rules! 81.170.15.198 (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I doubt that you have any such sources. Yes, over geological periods climate changes significantly, and there have been hothouse modes of the climate where the polar regions were ice-free. But that has nothing to do with the current episode of global warming - time scales and mechanisms are very different. If you can find a reliable source that claims otherwise, I'd be interested to see it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so much that the globe isnt getting warmer because it is, however there is alot of evidence to contradict our impact on the matter, alot does say we have increased the rate but it would have happened regardless.--UnTrooper (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"As none of the global warming sources are reliable and unproven", well, I'm sorry you don't think that they're reliable, but at least you believe more than I do that they're proven!

I don't see why it would have happened without us; we're in the middle of a rapidly-repeating period of glacials and interglacials; geologically speaking, it should be getting colder in the next tens of thousands of years.

Awickert (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

there was an iceage only 10,000 years ago we're coming out of that, a whole climate cycle is around 250,000 years, its reasonable to say the earth should be getting warmer, but I guess we can't really be certain, relying on bubbles in ice does not sit well with me.--UnTrooper (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, we are in an ice age. Glaciation cycles in the recent 400000 years seem to repeat about every 125000 years, not every 250000 years, and we currently are in an (unusually long) interglacial. But all this is somewhat moot. Your or mine opinion are not really relevant. If you have reliable sources, bring them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Prose

Not be an contentious, in the lead it states "While a small minority have voiced disagreement with these findings, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions." Are the modifiers "small" and "overwhelming" necessary? These two words lack the precise nature of the remainder of the article, and dropping them reduces padding (small and minority are essentially synonymous, and majority is simple enough). So far only one of the reliable sources uses this language, that is the Royal Society—since they appear to be the one interested in using this rather loaded language, we should accredit it to them than providing it as a simple fact. In short, I'm raising two separate arguments: the first is a leaning the prose, and the second parallels npov from which we accredit our opinions. What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at length quite a few times, and resolved in it's present state. Have a look over the archives and the debates there. If you've got new arguments or new evidence, then you're welcome to have a go at changing it, but otherwise I think the consensus is pretty strongly against it. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the article shouldn't just add in words to support one POV. The other obvious question is how many of those who stated, or were co-opted into this consensus would now support the same view given all the recent evidence contrary to the theory of manmade global warming. 81.170.15.198 (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, the anon would need to provide peer-reviewed evidence to support their assertion. Second, I support what MostlyHarmless stated. --Skyemoor (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be OK with deleting the sentence, as long as it's the whole sentence and not just the first or last part. The preceding sentence about the academies of science is enough to tell the reader what the scientific community thinks about the issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I, too, would be happy if we deleted the whole sentence, but I'm skeptical that that would stand. However, I think it's important to add that the consensus from this talk page was that the first phrase being objected to here ("small minority") that is used a link to List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming was "individual scientists". It was recently altered by one user and no-one altered it back or discussed the change. - Enuja (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been through the past discussions. The essential arguments where the sense the sense of weasel words, my argumnnts are not. We have a fairly long lead, and the preceding sentence is enough to make the point about the scientific consensus. For example, being endorsed by "all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" would imply that the opposing minority would essentially be small. Emphasizing a second time isn't necessary, and moving it to the body reduces the burden on the lead. There's also no information loss. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I removed it. If it's a capital offense they know where to track me down. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Where I live it is no longer called "global warming" but "climate change". —Mattisse (Talk) 04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've added it to the discussion so that we'll remember not to forget it. In my second edit I believe I need a peer review on. These three statements: (1) global temperature increase, (2) due to human activity, and (3) past changes in had a cooling effect in 1950—are from the IPCC with the exception of National Academy of Sciences in the fourth citation. So when we assert in the last sentence that "these basic conclusions are..."—they are not as ambiguous as to what or whose conclusions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Minority can mean 49.9%. That word is therefore not representative of the current situation. It's not currently a balance of views, it's an overwhelming scientific consensus with a few renegades, crackpots and wingnuts on the opposition. We need to reflect that in the article. As I've been tirelessly pointing out in the article, the main problems with the consensus is that it is too conservative to nail its colours to the mast on runaway effects, not that it has exaggerated the current threat of AGW.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the article? The sentence has just been removed by Boris... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the deletion is good, there's no need to debate the fringe deniers in the lead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In the second clause of the third sentence is states that "as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950", "probably" was taken from Ammann, Caspar et al. Similarly, the preceding sentence which states 'is "very likely" due to the increase in' "very likely" was taken from Summary for policymakers. I believe we should enclose the "probably" in quotations for two reasons: (1) "very likely" was enclosed in quotations because the language conveys something around >95% probability and is used directly from the source, (2) "probably" should receive similar treatment as it too conveys a specific probability and is directly used in the source. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, suggest you amend the edit, but ONLY if it's exactly the same source. See discussion elsewhere on creating a notes section for this issue. Can you assist with this?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I strenuously object to the quotes around very likely for the same reason that I strenuously object to the quotes around probably. Citations should support the facts we use, but the wording should be in our own words, crafted to communicate clearly, and not aping a source's words. However, I've been in the distinct minority with my objection, so I've given up fighting the battle about "very likely", but I'll continue to try to convince people not to add more of what look like scare quotes to the novice reader. If we think that the actual probabilities are important enough to put in the lead (which acts as a brief overview for novice readers as well as a summary of the article), we should put the probabilities in the lead, not code words that stand in for specific probabilities for people in the know. Personally, I think probabilities are out of place in the lead. - Enuja (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that IPCC probabilities are well worth putting in the lead, and I'd avoid using 'own words' when very specific meanings are attributed to the IPCC wordings.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But since the vast majority of the people reading the article don't know the specific meanings for IPCC wordings, what good do those specific words do? - Enuja (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

% probabilities

I think we should add the % probability to 'very likely' in the lead. I think it's about 95%, from memory.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

From the source: "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%". See footnote 6, page 3 of . I think the approximate terms are fine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

would that info merit a new stub article?Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. WP isn't the IPCC's glossary. -Atmoz (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall I stick in (>90% probability) or (>90%) next to its first use then?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've seen some people create a "Notes" section, which holds explanatory notes explaining the information in better specifics. The best example I can think of is Jane Austen, however Reston ebolavirus (one that I'm more familiar with) uses this system as well. Another method I've seen used is a short of definitions list to the side when the language can be potentially confusing, Introduction to viruses is perhaps the best example I can think of. I'm a bit opposed to doing it inline, it's large and distracts the reader from catching on to the main point (I don't think we got across the point that the IPCC's conclusions are rather conservative); furthermore I don't think we can sufficiently explain a confidence intervals in so few words—their confidence intervals right? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the predicted range is not something so simple as confidence intervals. The system of having notes and references separate is new. In the past, editors here have objected to having a separate notes section, because they didn't want this article to have any notes. Right now, it has notes and references all mixed up. I, for one, would be perfectly happy to see separate notes and references sections, assuming we aren't going to be able to rid of the notes, and that you're willing to make the two separate sections. - Enuja (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It doens't seem a bad idea to have notes. It keeps the text smooth for general readers and satisfies us anoraks too :-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If we concede on this, I'm thinking of having the same method used in Mary Shelley, so that the notes system would be automated (it would be a serious hassle to do it manually). I don't think the system of having a separate list of references and a separate list of explanatory notes to be new, there were proposals in the village pump's persistent proposal page some time ago to have a new tag in addition to <references /> to contain explanatory notes, however they decided to use the "group" attribute instead. It's not condemned in WP:LAYOUT or any other guideline that I know of (it's sort of promoted with "Notes, Footnotes, and References"). So it would comes down to us. If there are already a number of notes in addition to references in the "Notes and references" section, then separating then would help add to the distinction between what's used for verification and what's used for explanation or expansion (into relevant topics that would seem awkward in the prose). I was guessing on confidence intervals (Statistical power, Type II error, whatever), do we have an article on this? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"1,000 years" versus "continue"

Andrewjlockley essentially reverted an edit I made on February 4th with the edit summary "emergency repair to nonsensical sentence, new citation added to split down sentences." Essentially, Adrewjlockley modified the sentence that was designed to replace the 1,000 years sentence, and also added the 1,000 years sentence back in. The edit Andrewjlockley modified was based on this talk section discussion, where I suggested language, waited a day, and then made the edit. Since I don't see how this is an emergency, I've edited the sentence back, adding a few additional words in order to possibly address what Andrewjlockley thought didn't make sense, and replacing the NOAA press release about the PNAS 1,000 years article with Andrewjlockley's citation of the actual PNAS article (which was suggested, but not done, in linked talk section). Below I've put the language as I've just edited it: please discuss it here or make grammar related edits on the lead section. - Enuja (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to continue after 2100, even in the absence of new emissions, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'd remove the entire sentence. It's too detailed for the lead. -Atmoz (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you'd like to remove that sentence, and not put this sentence "Most studies focus on the period up to 2100, but the warming effects of current emissions will persist for at least 1,000 years." in either, right? No mention of continued warming at all in the lead. - Enuja (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. However, I really think that entire paragraph is too detailed, and should be substantially trimmed. Everything but the first sentence is unnecessary. And the first sentence is a perfect lead-in to the first sentence in the next paragraph. The final single paragraph would be:

Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century. Increasing global temperature is expected to cause sea levels to rise, an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events, and significant changes to the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including an expanse of the subtropical desert regions.. Other expected effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, mass species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

IMO, this puts more emphasis on the points that are highlighted in the body of the article. -Atmoz (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I really like it. I think we should add in a sentence about the greenhouse effect and a sentence about what forcing and feedbacks are (these are whole sections currently absent from the lead), and that drastic cut makes this more possible. Because of a huge amount of individual insertions into the lead and subsequent back and forth about those insertions, the lead is quite focused on caveats and details instead of giving a clear, concise introduction and summary useful for a completely unfamiliar lay public. - Enuja (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's VITAL that we are clear between FURTHER warming, and PERSISTENCE of warming. The current version is muddled and doesn't make this clear. I will put the ref. back and tidy, but not include the 1000 year claim - I don't want to be controversial.

PS If anyone's interested in doing a paper on methane remediation, can you get back on my TP pls?Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrewjlockley, Atmoz has suggested taking out three entire sentences, which would make your comments completely moot. Your reply above does not appear to be at all related to Atmoz's comment. What is your reaction to removing those three sentences? - Enuja (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SOrry, it didn't display correctly on my screen so I missed it. I think that we should concentrate on getting agreement on a fuller lead before we trim it down. It's already 'dumbed down' enough to be utterly misleading IMO. I'm just about to correct a howler (further/persisting confusion)Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I will never be happy with the lead unless it clearly mentions the issue of abrupt/runaway climate change.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we add, after Atmoz' edit: Warming effects from historic emissions will initially increase, and then will persist for centuries. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for suggesting the wording here! That's a really important detail, and a good, concise way to put it. However, I really see both sides about whether that's a big enough idea (not really a detail after all) to put in the lead or not, therefore I don't have an opinion about whether or not this idea should be in the lead. If others agree that it should be in the lead, that wording is at least more concise than what we've recently had. One thing I think could be improved with that wording is "historic". Maybe "past emissions"? On the other hand, does "warming effects ... will ... increase" make sense to the average novice reader? - Enuja (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As an alternative: Even if emissions stopped immediately, temperatures would still increase further, and would remain high for centuries. (add refs here)Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Atmoz' deletion of the above sentence, as it was done without discussion.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Kim;s jsut reverted it again, citing the word 'unnatural' I'm guessing that that's because there's an ambiguity between 'unnatural in current times' and 'unprecedented'. I therefore suggest Even if man-made emissions stopped immediately, temperatures would still continue to increase, and would remain elevated for centuries. I will bang this up in a bit if no-one objects.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "unnatural" is a good word to avoid. In the absence of a clear objection to the wording or insertion here, it's not edit warring to insert the new sentence. However, since you've been repeatedly reverted when adding simliar sentences to this one, I would suggest that you wait for specific agreement with inserting that sentence. - Enuja (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't do it just yet, but I will re-insert unless there's an explained objection soon.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the lead, it is supposed to be a summary of the article. With due weight given to the individual sections in the article, while at the same time comprehensively explain the content. This particular addition is something for Effects of global warming and the summary of that here - not something for the lead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I approve of Atmoz's shortened version (which I just reverted the article back to, simply to signal my approval). What do other people think? I'm assuming that Kim D. Petersen likes the shorter version (from the above comment), and that Andrewjlockey wants all that and more information in the lead, but this may not actually be true. Please discuss and state your reaction to the shorter version. - Enuja (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream News Reports Bias In This Article

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Should this be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E tac (talk • contribs)

404 --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the broken URL. -Atmoz (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha. So it really is Solomon. It's not "mainstream", and it's not "reports". It's fringe, and an opinion piece. It also is not about global warming. So no. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain please.--E tac (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The linked article is an opinion piece written my Lawrence Solomon for the National Review Online about his personal problems with two editors on Misplaced Pages and with this article. That opinion piece has no role in this article (although it has been mentioned on this talk page before). People complaining about bias in this article is not important. What is important is to address any actual bias in this article. If you see a part of this article that does not accurately reflect the current state of the peer reviewed literature, please suggest improvements, cited to peer reviewed articles as sources, here on the talk page. It doesn't matter what Solomon says is the peer reviewed literature, it matters what is actually in the peer reviewed literature. - Enuja (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a mainstream news source though is it not? That is what I was looking for an explanation for.--E tac (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not news, it's opinion. It only represents the authors opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to include Solomon's rant here. This article documents the scientific community's opinion on AGW. It's not about people's opinion of Misplaced Pages. The Solomon piece would be more appropriate in Criticism of Misplaced Pages.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Modelling

I propose weadd 'IPCC' before 'climate models' in the 2nd lead para. My understanding is that that was the IPCC AR4 range, but other models predict other ranges. (especially abrupt climate change ones). I think we should mention any ACC separately to IPCC ones.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

external link suggestion

I am unsure where to suggest the addition of the following external link Palliative Care on a Dying Planet http://pastthetippingpoint.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.108.248 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but that site does not satisfy the requirements of being a reliable source. -Atmoz (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find journal sources that make similar points?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Failure to address refuting studies

I nominated this page for a NPOV discussion because I believe that it fails to address the fact that there have been many studies done that refute claims of global warming. Feedback and comments on how best to address this would be appreciated.--Roar888 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't tag this article, it receives over 15K hits everyday, and there are enough people in the discussions to address your concerns. Tags are mainly used as a reminder to attract other readers to your concerns. To my understanding this article is specifically about Global warming, and not so much the Global warming controversy. Because of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV and WP:SIZE, we barely haven enough space to cover main stream concept let alone the dissenting ones. Maybe what you're looking for is adding to the see also at the beginning of the article, such as the link leading to paleoclimatology—however I can't think for you, but there would be merit in it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, have any of the "refuting studies" been published in reliable sources? If yes, bring them on. We are very much trying to adequately represent all notable and reliable opinions. But someone's blog or a publication of, say, the Heartland Institute, does not meet the bar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We could link to global warming controversy, either via and embedded to headline link but if we do then I'm gonna go and check that real carefully to make sure it's every bit as well researched and ref'd as this one is! A form of words w could use is: Despite earlier ] the IPCCs main......Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We are linking to it, twice. Once from "public debate" in the lede, and once from the infobox at the end. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That link is in the wrong place, as it's about RESPONSES. I'm gonna remove it unless any1 objects. The correct form of words I meant to suggest is: Despite earlier ], these basic conclusions have been....Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a good choice of words. The scientific debate about the core results is long over, but the public debate continues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, why do you say that the debate is over? It appears to me that it is intensifying. More to the point, NASA is getting money for new satellites ($400 million for climate change research) and new data always leads to new theories and new debates. Q Science (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't like that link, and I will break it in the absence of objections.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You just got an objection by Stephan (and i concur) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is vital to link to Global warming controversy in the lead section, and the current linking words (public debate) are very good ones. I strongly support the current linking words. - Enuja (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

1. "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change". Royal Society. 2005. Retrieved 2007-11-18. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science. 2004. Retrieved 2008-01-04. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
3. "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007-02-05. Retrieved 2009-02-03.
4. ^ Caldeira, Ken; Wickett, Michael E. (2005). "Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research. 110 (C9): C09S04.1–C09S04.12. doi:10.1029/2004JC002671. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
5. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1073/pnas.0812721106, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1073/pnas.0812721106 instead.
6. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1073/pnas.0812721106, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1073/pnas.0812721106 instead.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press