| Revision as of 01:22, 28 September 2007 editRaymond arritt (talk | contribs)13,222 edits →NASA scientist claims CO2 is not a problem: has Ron "gone emeritus"?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:18, 17 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,597 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 12) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=AFD |
|
|algo = old(15d) |
|
|
|
|action1date=09:42, 22 February 2007 |
|
|archive = Talk:Global warming controversy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global warming controversy |
|
|
|action1result=Speedy keep |
|
|
|action1oldid=110034648 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=AFD |
|
|
|action2date=11:49, 12 June 2008 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global warming controversy (2nd nomination) |
|
|
|action2result=Keep |
|
|
|action2oldid=218840209 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Climate change alarmism|Climate change alarmism (2nd nomination)|28 November 2011}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc|brief}} |
|
{{controversy}} |
|
|
{{climate change}} |
|
|
{{oldafdfull|date=] ]|result='''speedy keep'''}} |
|
|
{{notaforum|editors' personal beliefs about global warming}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=22 November 2023|destination=Climate change debates|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1187643212#Requested move 22 November 2023}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=8 December 2023|destination=List of global warming controversies|result=Moved to ]|link=Special:Permalink/1189509928#Requested move 8 December 2023}} |
|
Subpages: |
|
|
*] in the GW controversy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{archives|search=yes|auto=short|index=/Archive index|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|1=<div style="text-align:center">] ]</div>}} |
|
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Global warming controversy/Archive index|mask=Talk:Global warming controversy/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
!align="center"|]<br/>] |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|- |
|
|
|
|counter = 12 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|algo = old(230d) |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive %(counter)d |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
}} |
|
* |
|
|
|
{{Old merge |
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|
|
|
| otherpage = History of climate change policy and politics |
|
|
| date = 7 November 2023 |
|
|
| result = No consensus |
|
|
| talk = Talk:History_of_climate_change_policy_and_politics#Merge_Global_warming_controversy_into_here? |
|
|
| URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:History_of_climate_change_policy_and_politics&oldid=1184483176}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Pageviews}} |
|
== List of... == |
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Possible way forward== |
|
Ron added the good ol' list of sci... . As has been said often before (usually to a chorus of yes-we-know-that) that page can't be used to assess scientific opinion, because it includes people who are clearly no longer scientist, and scientists with no climate expertise at all. Until that page gets cleaned up, leave it out of things like this ] 19:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
There is now another merger discussion to merge this article into ], see here: ]. An alternative option could be to rework this article to become one that just lists past and ongoing ''debates'' (calling it purposefully ''debates'' not ''controversies''). It could then be renamed "climate change debates" and contain quite a few excerpts. It could be a bit like a landing page to point people to the right sub-pages. A bit similar to ] (but longer). Thoughts? ] (]) 16:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:William, I completely disagree. The list is a good list of scientists including many eminent who are "Professor Emeritus" of climate science. To say they are no longer scientists is just bogus. ] 04:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: I am still trying to reach consensus for the way forward. My move proposal below was closed and the result was "not moved". I copy below what RCraig09 wrote on the talk page at: ]. Is that the broad consensus? ] (]) 09:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:: This may be a bit not pc for some, but on the topic of Emeritus professor's views... A friend of mine studies physics and he mentioned that (he read it somewhere) in physics the new 'consensus' tends not to be established because scientists change their minds. It basically happens because all those that believed in the old stuff die. I thought it was funny. ] 04:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: The above arguments that are on-point, favor dismantling the GWControversy article. The issue is that a "controversy" doesn't really exist, so the arguments that don't directly address this issue should not carry weight for consensus. The GWControversy article should be merged out of existence and replaced with a redirect to CCdenial. A ''fraction'' of what's still in the GWControversy article might be moved... somewhere, not necessarily here. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">] (])</span> 23:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:: Ron, I will revert your edit because the article you link to is not primarily about climate scientists. To be more precise, most of them are not either not climate scientists or not engaged in current research. Also, I think there is a thread about this in the archives. ] 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::: I've now moved all content out and have begun to convert the article to a list type article. I think this might work. It's basically just a landing page to show people where they can look for more detail. Does that work for everyone? ] (]) 10:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::Brusegadi, this article is about the controversy regarding the science. It is completely POV to give readers access to the majority view and not give access to skeptical scientists. The list of skeptical scientists includes both climate scientists and other types of geophysical scientists. It is not a list of social scientists or some other unrelated field. Give me the date of the archived discussion and I will read it.] 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ron, just a question -- do you know what "emeritus" means? ] 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Raymond, you really need to stop treating me as if I am uneducated. Maybe I am just in a bad mood tonight, but I am beginning to find your questions offensive. Of course I know what "emeritus" means - not every retired prof is given the status of "emeritus." This is a title of honor and usually means the prof still keeps an office at the university, at least the ones I knew did, even though they do not have any teaching responsibilities. These older gents have tons of wisdom and are often asked to attend meetings with contributors to the university. BTW, instead of insulting me with these silly questions, you ought to start paying me for all the things I have taught you. Without me you would not know about the data archiving policies of AGU - or how the distribution of weather stations could yield a non-warming trend overall but still show a warming trend using the grid cell method. ] 06:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No. The practice varies, but at most universities "emeritus" simply means retired after a certain minimum period of service. It's not usually a "title of honor" as you say. ] 13:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Raymond, that is nonsense. I defy you to name me one university (in the U.S.) that has such a practice. ] 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::If you look under emeritus you will see that it does not say anything about "achievements" and that the title is "customarily awarded" to faculty that is retiring after 15 years of service. You do not have to be a full professor so associates may get it too. Finally, right under "18.4 Retired Faculty" emeritus is used interchangeably with "retired faculty." What I did not know is that it could also be awarded to people doing mostly administrative work. For those of you who like to learn about places other than the United States, has definitions for some slang terms they use; including one that seems right on for this "argument." ] 23:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Regarding your first link, I'm wondering if Ron will accept such a reference to an obscure backwater college. ] 23:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::And Cambridge? Isn't that Europe? Where everybody is a socialist weeny?--] 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::He can always say that it is a school for liberal ... :) ] 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Bellamy is no longer a scientist, not because he's emeritus, but because he has switched to PR. But also, the list contains many scientists with no climate expertise, and hence doesn't belong under the heading "sci cons" ] 13:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Pielke and sea ice == |
|
== Requested move 22 November 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
Ron insists on re-inserting an edit that looks barking to me: "arctic sea ice is approaching its record low, but its current level is within natural climate variability". First, Pielke doesn't say "within natural climate variability" or indeed anything very similar to it, AFAICS. Second, Pielkes original post was on the 10th of Aug and can (just about) be excused noticing that the very data he was relying on said it was already a minimum. But now the ice has declined even further, there is no doubt that "is approaching" is simply wrong: it *is* a record low. We don't have to print everything RP says, especially when its obviously false. RP knows precious little about sea ice, as evidenced by his "Antarctic" comments in the same post ] 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 21:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:I second that. If the record low is an outlier then being close to the record does not imply being within natural variability. Including it constitutes ]. Furthermore, if we already have a new record-low inclusion of that paragraph is not correct, as William Connolley points out. Ciao, ] 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Climate change debates}} – I have recently reworked this article to become one that just lists past and ongoing debates (calling it purposefully debates not controversies). I propose to rename it to "climate change debates". It could contain quite a few excerpts and be a bit like a landing page to point people to the right sub-pages. A bit similar to climate change action (but longer). - We also discussed merging it into ] and a few editors have supported this but I think some of its content is not about denial per se but just about past discussions. One of the Wikipedians said "Global warming controversy should be eliminated as "controversy" is a fabrication of deniers.". At a later stage, some of its content could also be moved to ]. ] (]) 18:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::William, Pielke makes clear from his post that he prefers the site you linked to because it is updated daily. Your conclusion that Pielke would write about a daily website without looking at it for two days seems ridiculous to me. There is no question Pielke has read it just prior to his post because he is talking about the news media picking up the story soon. Pielke does indicate that sea ice will continue to shrink since it is still summer and he provides a link to another website which is updated weekly. The NSIDC website says the previous record was set in 2005. If the article says sea ice has reached a record low, it also needs to mention when records began to be kept so readers will know these types of measurements were not made in the 1930s. Pielke's view that sea ice low is due to regional warming and not global warming is a common view among skeptics, including Syun-Ichi Akasofu - the founding director of the ]. I used Pielke's quote because it is more recent and directly applicable to the current situation. ] 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Oppose with every atom of my being''': The concept of "Climate change ''debates''" is not substantively different from "Climate change ''controversy''". Both are a fabrication of denialists undeserving of a Misplaced Pages article, and should be redirected to ]. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">] (])</span> 21:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::: Still makes no sense at all. Pielke is getting data from his preferred site, which says that sea ice has just reached a record low, and you insist he knew that, and he writes a post saying "approaching a record low"? Its obviously wrong. We could perhaps put it on the Pielke page as an example of his errors; but there is no point putting it in here. I notice you haven't troubled to defend your inventing of the stuff about within natural variability ] 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:I too supported the proposal to merge to ], but as you know it has not acheived consensus. So if this proposal is also rejected I think you should make a formal proposal as it seems none of us are happy with the current situation. ] (]) 14:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::No, William, it is not obviously wrong. The data from Cryosphere Today is great data, but the data only goes back a short time. They did not take those measurements in the 1930s when the previous low happened. Pielke is also exactly right about the question of arctic sea ice melt being from regional or global warming. I have referenced the images from Cryosphere Today he used for Southern Hemisphere. In addition, I referenced a Letter to Nature that points out the high natural variability of arctic sea ice and how changes there do not conform to expectations of global warming. Since this article is about the science controversy, it is important these views are made available to readers. ] 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ignoring for a moment your ] regarding 1930 (which neither Pielke nor anyone else but you mention). Where do you get the information that the 1930s should be the "previous low"? (Chapman and Walsh(1993) as well as Vinnikov et al(1999) seem to disagree .... a ''lot''). --] 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Strong oppose''': as far as I can tell, all of the "X debate" sections on this page now are almost entirely fabricated debates that are just denialist smoke blowing. These aren't debates in the scientific literature, and calling them "debates" adds credence to them that they don't deserve. - ] (]) 21:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::::I have not read the Vinnikov paper but I know that 1934 was the warmest year in the U.S. in the 20th century. 1934 was also the warmest year in Europe, if you only count the rural stations. 1934 does not show to be the warmest in Russia, but the Russian temp histories are not reliable. To reach a record low in sea ice melt, you need warm temperatures and you need the arctic to be in a warm period of its 8-10 oscillation. Since the entire decade of the 1930s was warm, one of those years had to be in the warm period of the regional oscillation. I think it is clear from Pielke's writings that he is aware of some measure of sea ice that showed it to be quite low in the 1930s. I do not know what measurement that could be. Obviously, it is not the satellite method currently being used. ] 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: Perfectly stated. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">] (])</span> 21:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I think your view is too simplistic here: As far as I can see there were some valid discussions around various aspects of climate change science and policies. They were often hijacked very quickly by climate change deniers but they were originally valid discussions at the time. For example, the section "Discussions around locations of temperature measurement stations" and "Debates over most effective response to warming". Those debates about mitigation options are now mostly explained in ] but they were and are legitimate discussions and not just "climate change denial stuff". Also, the "Antarctica cooling controversy" started off by a discussion amongst scientists; yes, it got hijacked and distorted by denialists. But originally it was simply a scientific investigation which is worth remembering (OK, another approach would be to move that to ]). - In any case, it feels to me a bit like you are saying any "discussions" around climate change equate to denialism. |
|
|
:: See also related discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climate_change_denial#Merge_global_warming_controversy_into_here? Let me ping in two more people, ] and ] who had commented there. Kim D. Petersen had written there which I thought was interesting: "While denial and conspiracies is a subset of the whole, the controversy also encompasses the political and economic struggle to figure out how to translate the very real problem into action (or inaction). If anything denial and conspiracies stem/arise from the controversy not the other way around." (I had replied there but got no further replies from them) ] (]) 11:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' Although it is not a good title it is better than the one we have now. Supporting this move does not stop anyone editing the article further or proposing another move next year. ] (]) 14:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I agree with you, to think of this as an incremental improvement but not necessary the "final" situation. I think my proposed title (and scope) would certainly be better than the existing status quo. Merging all of it into other articles may or may not work, time will tell (I don't think all of it would fit at ]; also, that article is already way too big and needs to be condensed). |
|
|
:: Looking at ] you can see that it's been in existence since 2002 (21 years!). Most of its content was added in 2007. After that it was slowly growing in size until I came along and slashed it down a lot recently. So deleting this article completely might not be warranted. For now, I think it would be a good compromise to re-focus it (like I have done) and to give it a more neutral name. That is what I am proposing at this stage. ] (]) 08:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:* '''Oppose''' I see no reason to doubt that an average reader, who infamously rarely even makes it past the lead, would approach any article with the proposed title '''exactly''' as we all fear - as the reason to debate the ''existence'' of climate change - rather than as a debate about the higher-level aspects which the supporters of the move want them to see. In that sense, the move would be massively unhelpful. |
|
|
:The main issue is that the current article is '''very''' loosely scoped, as a range of arguments about very different things, and of highly variable validity, are all crammed into a single article. In some ways, it reminds me of ] (now a redirect): that used to have anything and everything from impact on domestic cattle to wild bats and birds, to snails going extinct to the spread of pest insects and pathogens - all because "terrestrial animals" is an inherently loose formulation that covers far too many species which often have very little in common, and me and EMsmile had to spent weeks on moving the content to more appropriately focused articles. |
|
|
:This is what I currently make of the article's subsections: |
|
|
:* "Debates around the...Authority of the IPCC" - '''massive''' issues with ], and not in one, but in two ways. Firstly, it gives undue weight to the perspective of deniers and delayers, based on statements from 2000s, which overlooks that a larger and more recent "debate" has been from the other side of the spectrum - the various figures who have accused the IPCC of being too timid and optimistic about the impacts of climate change, with varying credibility. Secondly, even including "both sides" in even proportion would '''still''' be ] - if you take a look at ], there have been surveys of hundreds of climate scientists which altogether represent a resounding endorsement of the IPCC. On balance, it seems like we should cover these matters on the ] article itself and on one of the "history of climate change" articles (themselves clearly far from ideal.) |
|
|
:* "Emphasizing studies that are regarded as flawed" - the way this is written, I do not see why this does not belong in ]. It clearly has '''no''' role in any article about good-faith debate on any aspect of the matter. |
|
|
:* "Funding for scientists who are skeptics or deniers" - This also seems rather out of place for an article which is ''supposedly'' intended to examine higher-order aspects of the matter? |
|
|
:* "Debates around details in the science" - for me, the '''most''' charitable reading is that this could be used as a basis for something like ]. However, '''a lot''' more material would have to be combined (some more from the "delayer" side, like the iris hypothesis, but the majority from the "alarmist" side - i.e. the debates around climate sensitivity or the thresholds of various tipping points) to justify the existence of something like this than what is currently present in that section (Interestingly, it seems like this article '''did''' mention some of those things earlier, albeit not in the ideal way, before EMsmile culled all of that.) Everything that is left here now can be reworked to fit ]: right now, that article effectively tapers off after 1988, with mere two paragraphs describing "Increased consensus amongst scientists: 1988 to present". That article is still mid-sized (34 kB, ~5.5k words), and it can certainly fit a few more paragraphs describing how some figures tried to use these supposed discrepancies to oppose the consensus, and how the science had moved past that. |
|
|
:* "Debates over most effective response to warming" - the article's defenders suggest that this should be the crux of the article, but right now, it's mostly just an excerpt and there's almost nothing relevant there. At the risk of excessive self-promotion: at the start of the year, I proposed to create an article titled "Secondary impacts of climate change responses", which would describe how climate change mitigation and adaptation can have additional benefits if done right (incorporating Start-class ] in the process) '''and''' how they can have negative impacts, and how to balance those issues. You can see a ''very'' rough draft of this proposal on my userpage ]. |
|
|
:'''TLDR;''' I strongly oppose the new name of this article, and I believe that its remaining material doesn't belong under the same roof and should be moved to other articles, whether existing or newly formed. ] (]) 13:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: If you have time to rework it in that way, I wouldn't stand in your way. I just wanted to make sure that the current status quo does not persists any longer. I think a basic name change for now is better than nothing but I do agree that the article has many flaws in its current format (and that it's loosely scoped). Do you have time to move any content that is worth keeping to either ] or ] in the near-ish future? If yes, go ahead would be my suggestion. ] (]) 15:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Have done your good suggestion and moved subsection →Emphasizing studies that are regarded as flawed - thanks ] (]) 15:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' "Debates" can be seen as ], since the general scientific consensus is that global warming/climate change itself is not a matter of debate. I think this article should be merged into ], as when you remove the FALSEBALANCE aspects of it, it's pretty much the same thing. ] (]) 08:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Yes if you can persuade the people opposing ] that would be wonderful ] (]) 14:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I pretty much reiterated there what I also said here, although keep in mind you aren't allowed to directly ask someone to influence a discussion per ]. Bringing it up in a neutral manner is what should have been done. ] (]) 06:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' I agree with those above who have pointed out that both "debates" and "controversy" can be interpreted as supporting the idea that there is a lack of scientific consensus on climate change. I think that some good suggestions have been made for reorganizing and moving materials to other pages, and if that can be done, I see it as preferable to renaming. ] (]) 19:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose''' - It should be kept as is. ] (]) 08:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Laxon et al. == |
|
|
|
::This is ]. You are supposed to give reasons. --] (]) 10:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: '''Comment''' - I think it's good to move some of the content to other articles where it fits, like I have just done with a segment on climate change mitigation which I have moved to ]. However, I still think there could be merit in having a form of "landing page" which then sends people to the relevant sub-articles on a range of topics. We could easily use excerpts for this. With "landing page" I mean a page (with an appropriate article title, to be decided) which basically says "this is not about disputing the existence of climate change. This is about past and present discussions about some specific aspects in relationship to how climate change pans out, how it happens, how fast, how we can deal with it, how the research is carried out and so forth". |
|
|
: We cannot claim that each of those past debates was the work of climate change deniers: Some of those debates were real and valid, e.g. about the siting of temperature measurement devices. They usually got hijacked in no time by the climate change deniers but that's a different problem. So a landing page that provides an overview of the difficult topics could still be useful in my opinion. Unless we say it's not the job of Misplaced Pages to provide such a landing page. But isn't ] also a kind of landing page? Or call it a disambiguation page, or a list article. |
|
|
: Maybe the new title should be ] or ] or ]. Or maybe this would make it too broad and it wouldn't work at all? ] (]) 10:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: Note we do have something a bit similar called ]. ] (]) 10:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: "Discussion topics..." (etc.) is definitely too broad. ] serves a valid purpose more succinctly and neutrally. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">] (])</span> 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As far as i can see the insertion of a paper by Laxon et al(2003), is misrepresenting the results of the paper (by cherry-picking a quote):<small> |
|
|
:However, researchers claim computer models predictions poorly represent observed changes in arctic sea ice. |
|
|
:'The observed variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, which shows that the sea ice mass can change by up to 16% within one year, contrasts with the concept of a slowly dwindling ice pack, produced by greenhouse warming.'' <ref>http://www.cpom.org/research/swl-nature.pdf High interannual variability of sea ice thickness in the Arctic region] by Seymour Laxon, Neil Peacock & Doug Smith published by Nature, October 30, 2003</ref></small> |
|
|
This makes us think that Laxon et al are arguing against the previous paragraph, which as far as i can see is entirely wrong. If i read the paper correctly - then Laxon et al. are arguing that the melt is being underestimated by models (corresponding well with the former paragraph) - not that it is being overestimated as the text implies. (i'm btw. a bit confused about what this is doing here - since it seems more appropriate elsewhere - and looks to me to be an "invented" controversy). --] 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Kim, you seem to be confused by many things. If you read the paper in its entirety, you would the authors are convinced the arctic sea ice melt is not related to global warming but to natural climate variability, including sometimes longer summer seasons. They see an eight year oscillation between longer and shorter summer melt seasons and they also see a much greater variability in arctic sea ice on an annual basis than the computer models show. This is further support of Pielke's position that arctic sea ice melt is related to regional warming and not global warming. Pielke's comments continue to be germane to this aspect of the scientific controversy. If you still want to delete this section, I suggest you try ]. ] 14:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Instead, how about a short summary in the style of "However, in light of recent studies and observations made in Antartica, some scientists argue that Arctic ice melting is attributable to regional warming instead of global warming (refs)" ? --] 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That would implicitely accept a broken use of language. Global warming and local warming don't conflict, one is an expression of the other. I could just as well claim that the "arctic sea ice is not melting, just some chunks of ice swimming in the arctic ocean". --] 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You can obviously have ice melting because the region has warmed without it being a consequence of planetary warming.... That does not mean that global warming and regional warming are conflicting. --] 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm confused here, where exactly does the Laxon paper argue against global warming or argue for local variability? It actually does the opposite. Its stating that the circulation issues have little effect - and (again from my reading) that the GCM's are understating the consequences in loss of sea-ice. The actual cherry-picked quote is even further misrepresenting since the current melt is way beyond 16% (annual variation) - since its currently more than 20% below the last record.... --] 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You should read my proposal as "Provided Ron is right"... But at least Pielke seems to make the suggestion no? --] 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
Ron misrepresents the paper; if we could stop to talk about it he might learn but I don't have high hopes. Peilkes views are simply silly in this instance. Things don't belong just because Pielke says them - this article is about the controversy in general. You need more people saying this wacko stuff, *then* it can go in. This is "depresys" Smith, BTW ] 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30#Brownlash}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 8 December 2023 == |
|
:William, I resent you saying I am misrepresenting the paper. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of my statements have been accurate. Laxon, Peacock and Smith write: "However, it is unclear from model results whether ice thickness is controlled mainly by changes in thermodynamic (radiative or thermal) forcing5, or by dynamic (ocean and wind stress) forcing7." Thermodynamic forcings may be global but dynamic forcings are more closely related to regional climate. They also write: "The majority of Arctic Ocean models suggest that variability in Arctic ice thickness occurs on decadal timescales5,6,9, and is caused mainly by dynamic forcing6–8." They write: "However, numerical simulations of ice thickness are undermined by uncertainties in the representation of physical processes9, and by differences in methods used to couple the ice, ocean and atmosphere12, resulting in significant discrepancies between model simulations of ice thickness evolution14." Here they admit the models are not very good. They also write: "The lack of continuous large-scale thickness measurements means that conclusions drawn from numerical simulations regarding the variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, and the processes that control it, remain untested3,12." Here they admit that we simply do not have much data about sea ice in the past. Pielke writes that we are "approaching" record lows and he must have a reason for his view. No doubt Pielke has the 1930s in view as the time period of the previous low but satellite records were not kept at that time. To make a big deal out of the current level of sea ice is unscientific. We do not have enough data to make claims about record lows in arctic sea ice. ] 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Resent all you like, it doesn't change your inability to learn, though your ablilty to read Pielkes mind is impressive. But I agree, making a big deal of the current Arctic sea ice is a bad idea - see the current t:GW or indeed http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/09/betting_on_sea_ice.php ] 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::William, you are just being pejorative. You did not attempt to deal with any of the facts I presented so you did not support your claim regarding my "inability to learn." I accurately represented the paper which shows the authors are not convinced the level of sea ice is related to global warming. Your blog link does not really deal with issue of regional vs. global warming. You only project that next year will not set a new record. It seems a safe bet to me. Let me know if you get any takers. ] 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
For more on arctic ice in the 1930s, you can visit the Arctic Warming website that summarizes a number of research papers. See specifically this. It is pretty clear that arctic warming and sea ice melt has considerable natural variability. ] 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
== Energy and Environment journal rejects Schulte's consensus article == |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''Moved to ].''' Per consensus on the alternative proposed title. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 01:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
] 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
== World Conference on Research Integrity to Foster Responsible Research == |
|
|
|
|
|
European Science Foundation has reported on the "World Conference on Research Integrity" which met in Portugal from Sep 16-19. It was organized by the ESF and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity. They discussed two incidents touching on global warming - the misrepresentation of the examination of station history in China and the NASA error found by Steve McIntyre. The misrepresentation regarding Chinese station histories is an issue being pushed by Doug Keenan. Keenan has accused Wang, a co-author of Phil Jones, of unethical behavior. Both of these issues were originally raised by Steve McIntyre. It seems misconduct by climatologists to push an alarmist view of global warming is becoming a more important issue all the time. The article should discuss this. ] 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Happens where ] least expect it. ] 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Brusegadi, climate science is a field with one of the worst reputations regarding unethical behavior by scientists. This is mainly due to their refusal to provide data, methods and code so other researchers can reproduce their work. Almost whenever this info is provided, errors both intentional and unintentional are found. Lindzen is correct to be negative about the state of affairs in climate science. ] 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::<s>That's funny... a few years back it was secondhand-smoke researchers who, we were told, had a horrible reputation for unethically bending the data to support their "alarmist" views on the harms of passive smoking (cf. anything by Steven Milloy). Now it looks like climate scientists have surpassed even ''that'' ethical low point (cf., well, anything by Steven Milloy). It's almost like there's a pattern er something... though I'm sure more study would be needed to establish one. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</s> Never mind... that was probably better kept to myself. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Oh dear, I wish you hadn't done that... now I feel obliged to ask Ron to stop ranting, again. Ron, please see ] and try to use the talk to discuss improvements to the article ] 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Sorry, the substance: why should this article discuss the conf? According to their prog they have nothing to say about climate, but a lot to say about medical. Why not try over there? ] 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::William, if you read the article I linked to, you would see that climate issues were discussed just as I wrote. My earlier comment was a response to Brusegadi since he seemed to think that climate science was a rare place to find unethical behavior. The two fields with these greatest number of these kinds of problems seem to be medicine and climate. My post is all about making the article better. Unethical behavior is a major part of this controversy. ] 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
William, ] specifically pointed to medicine and climate science as fields with ethical issues. I have to agree with him. ] 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Predictions of global warming are not based on scientific forecasting == |
|
|
|
|
|
] has presented on this issue. I just recently found his presentation online. The PowerPoint (in pdf form) is here. Video of him making the presentation is here. Armstrong audited IPCC chapter 8 and found 72 principles of scientific forecasting were violated. I believe this was discussed here before. Why is it not in the article? If there was a reason, I have forgotten. ] 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree this is an extremely important criticism of the IPCC methodology. Further coverage here |
|
|
] 08:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::If I can point to him again, ] makes a similar claim, and few would say he's not an authority in this regard. You can take a glimpse at . --] 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Margaret Thatcher, Miner's Strike, Nuclear Power, Global Warming == |
|
|
|
|
|
Margaret Thatcher's initial interest in Carbon Dioxide emissions (and eventually, Global Warming) was motivated by long-term strategic concerns for British Capitalism - in particular, energy stability following the miner's strike of the mid-1980's - and NOT by concerns for the environment. Stimulating public concerns around atmospheric pollution was seen as the key to her pro-nuclear policies - which was to be promoted as a clean alternative to energy production which was heavily reliant on burning fossil fuels. |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe this important point should be included as context to Margaret Thatcher's 'interest' in global warming mentioned at the beginning of this article.] 07:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sounds good. Given Thatcher's reputation, the above makes sense to me; but for the sake of ] do not forget the sources. Take care, ] 07:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::== Sources == |
|
|
::Global Warming: How it all began |
|
|
::Documentary - The Great Global Warming Swindle (further details pending) |
|
|
::] 08:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Which are both unreliable sources according to ]. --] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::agreed, haven't had time to get to the library yet, school holidays, so late next week I'll track down some of my biblio's ] 06:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Jim Hansen's earlier prediction of coming Ice Age == |
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting opinion piece in the Investor's Business Daily based on a story in the Washington Post in 1971. Recently, global warming alarmists have tried to distance themselves from the prediction of a coming Ice Age back in the 70s. But it is hard to distance your camp when one of the leaders of the current alarmism was a leader of the Ice Age alarmism. I think this deserves to be in the article. ] 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:See ] and try to centralize the discussion in one place, please. --] 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Stephan, I do not see the point in that. This is relevant to both articles. Different editors are involved in the two articles. Everyone should be involved in the discussion. ] 14:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And they can now all go over to ] so that we do not need to copy and paste the same arguments all over the place. --] 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Like I said, Stephan, your request is nonsensical. Arguments (reasons for inclusion or exclusion) will differ depending on the article. Each article has its own discussion page for a reason. ] 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That is sound reasoning in general. In this particular case, however, the source you cite is simply wrong, as explained at ]. An unreliable source has no place in either article. --] 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::If the argument was about weight or relevance, you'd have a point Ron. However, that article is inaccurate as the talk page on James Hansen's page shows. There's no point in having two separate discussions about the accuracy of the claim. It's either accurate or it's not (it's not), irrespective of which article we're talking about. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, so your real argument (for both Stephan and Benhocking) is that this published (and reliable) source is wrong and you do not want to have to explain this on both pages. At least now you have explained your reasoning. But your reasoning is still not valid because it has to be explained to two separate groups of editors. After a quick glance through the Talk page on James Hansen, I am not convinced the published source is wrong. It may be possible to convince me, but it has not happened yet. ] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Both sets of editors can go read it ]. Surprisingly, you don't need a permit to read other than your normal pages on Misplaced Pages. And I suggest you take more than a "quick glance" over there and read how your obviously unreliable (why am I even discussing this? It's an ''editorial'' by someone who has not an inkling of science) fourth-hand source mangles the third-hand source (a recent ) until it is unrecognizable. You can than see how the third-hand source misrepresents the second hand source in various ways, but in particular by omitting that Hansen's program was not a climate program, but a program that simulated how aerosols shatter sunlight (and developed for the analysis of clouds on Venus). The second-hand source, this describes this reasonably well, but of course oversimplifies the first-hand ] paper. --] 23:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Stephan, okay so now you are saying you do not want Hansen's name mentioned in relation to this article? Even if I agreed with you, and I do not yet, that still would not preclude these articles from mention in this article on global warming controversy. I think it is important that fossil fuel burning has been the predicted cause of both global cooling and global warming. First, scientists claim fossil fuels cause aerosols that will cause an Ice Age. Then, they claim fossil fuels cause greenhouse gases that will overheat the Earth. And you do not think that is important to this debate? ] 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|List of global warming controversies}} – This article has now been reworked to be a list article. It's basically a landing page to show people where they can look for this kind of content. Most of the previous content has been moved to ]. I think it is important to change it to plural (i.e. controversies, not controversy). My previous proposal to change it to "climate change debates" achieved no consensus. Setting this up as a basic list article is a good compromise solution, I think. ] (]) 11:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::Stephan, I did a little research on Rasool. He was a colleague of Robert Jastrow with whom he co-wrote a book on the atmosphere of Venus. Venus must have been an important topic of study at the time because Hansen wrote his computer program with its initial application on Venus. It seems to me to be a complete jump in your logic to assume that Hansen was not involved in the application of his computer program to Earth's atmosphere. Hansen was working with Rasool on the atmosphere of Venus and when Rasool decided to look into Earth's atmosphere, one would naturally believe Hansen was involved in the application to Earth. The importance of Hansen's contribution is seen by the fact Rasool went out of his way to comment on Hansen's contribution. ] 12:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Support''' - Thanks for all your cleanup work. I think this is in a much better state now, and that rename makes sense. - ] (]) 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::Yes, Hansen was main developer of the software. Judging from the time period, I would guess that IBM wrote the compiler. So IBM was responsible the global cooling scare too, right? ] 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Support'''. The proposed title is appropriate given that the article is now mainly a list of links to more specific subjects. ] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 18:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::::You are talking nonsense, Raymond. Was IBM a physicist working on atmospheric issues involving aerosols? No, I didn't think so. I cannot imagine Rasool publishing a result involving Hansen's software without asking Hansen to look over this new application of his software and see if any errors were made in the new application. And you cannot imagine it either. ] 13:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You may very well be right, Ron. However, do you have any reliable sources beyond pure conjecture that make this point? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
::Per VQuakr below, ] seems preferable, since it's the form used by all the listed articles. ] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 11:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' great work! ] (]) 18:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::::::Ben, I do not think the article needs to make this "point." The article only needs to state that NASA scientists published a prediction of global cooling and they credited James Hansen for developing the software that made their prediction possible. That is a clear statement of the facts. Nothing more is warranted. ] 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::But {{re|EMsmile}} why not ]? All the listed items seem to be in the form of the latter. ] (]) 18:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::::::This is covered in much more depth on the ] page. If you read the discussion there, you'll note that what you said isn't exactly correct. It's definitely not germane to this article. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 19:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* '''Comment''': Yes, I agree, ] would actually be much better. My original thought was to stick closer to the current title but actually ] would work better. Glad to see the supportive responses. Thanks! ] (]) 16:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
Ben, what did I say that is not correct? I read through the Hansen Talk page and I saw arguments that claimed Hansen's contribution was not significant. I saw ridiculous analogies comparing Hansen's software to Microsoft software, but the authors did not credit any other software for making the study possible. They credited Hansen's software. On what basis do you think this is not germane to this article? ] 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I was specifically referring to . Hansen wrote an algorithm that they modified for their use. Here's what Hansen said about this:{{cquote|What was that program? It was a ‘Mie scattering’ code I had written to calculate light scattering by spherical particles. Indeed, it was useful for Venus studies, as it helped determine the size and refractive index of the particles in the clouds that veil the surface of Venus. I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols. But Mie scattering functions, although more complex, are like sine and cosine mathematical functions, simply a useful tool for many problems. Allowing this scattering function to be used by other people does not in any way make me responsible for a climate theory.}} |
|
|
:Hence, the IBM analogy made earlier was quite apt. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ben, the analogy is not apt. The code Hansen wrote was written specifically for atmospheric studies. It was specialized software and no reasonable person would question the fact R and S talked to Hansen about their application of it. However, I agree that Hansen is not responsible for the theory since his name is not on the article as co-author. Above I wrote: "The article only needs to state that NASA scientists published a prediction of global cooling and they credited James Hansen for developing the software that made their prediction possible." I still do not see anything wrong with that statement. ] 00:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::But the thing is, he didn't write the software, he wrote one component that was used by it. That's what I mean when I said you're not exactly correct. Regardless, that he wrote that component is definitely not notable here, is it? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:* '''Comment''': I still retain concerns that an article with such a title may be misinterpreted, and that we could see attempts to add denialist talking points into such an article, but I cannot currently think of a better alternative, so I will not formally oppose this. |
|
==NASA scientist claims CO2 is not a problem== |
|
|
|
:I should also note if the move happens, as it seems like it will, we would likely need to reintegrate the mention (in the form of links, I suppose) of some of the things which got cut out of this article earlier, such as the ] or arguments that the IPCC/mainstream science is too conservative. ] (]) 19:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
I just read the abstract of the S.I. Rasool article in Science discussed above. It is interesting because the abstract makes the same claim regarding CO2 that many skeptics of global warming also make. Here's the quote: |
|
|
|
:: Yes, we'd have to watch this new list article to ensure it stays as a '''list''' and no substantial new content, especially not denialism stuff, (other than links) get added. Regarding the two points that you mentioned they are already included with links in the article: |
|
:'' It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.'' |
|
|
|
* ] (in here you will find the info about the ], amongst others (to be built up in future) |
|
Most skeptics believe that whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened. It is interesting that Rasool also agrees that CO2 is not a problem. ] 12:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] (this contains the criticism about the IPCC processes) ] (]) 08:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: You have a tense problem. That was from 1971. This is all on ] anyway ] 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
:Also, this is not news. The effect of adding CO<sub>2</sub> on forcing ''is'' logarithmic, IIRC. (William will correct me if I'm wrong.) ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 12:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
== Request for comment regarding related articles == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that there are several users who have been quite active in discussions on this talk page, even though I do not usually see them participate in ]. According to ], it is perfectly acceptable to request comments on talk pages of related articles, so I would like to do that right now for two articles. |
|
::William, I am well aware it was from 1971. However, I have never seen any science to refute this finding and I know a good many skeptics who continue to hold this position. Ben, thank you for pointing out that it is not news. The article should have included this information long ago. I added it. ] 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ron, the logarithmic effect of CO2 was known to Arrhenius in 1899, has been known since, and it is part of the IPCC consensus. What this has to do with " whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened" is unclear, though. CO2 has "only" increased a bit more than 30% compared to pre-industrial times. It's projeced to go much higher. And of course we are not in temperature equilibrium with respect to current forcing, either. --] 13:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Stephan, if Arrhenius knew of the logarithmic effect in 1899, that only confirms that this should be discussed in this controversy. The controversial part may be the "whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened," but it is clear that Rasool did not see CO2 as a problem in the future. There is no reason the logarithmic nature of CO2 should be left out of an article on the controversy about global warming. Please explain that to Kim. ] 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Sorry, but the logarithmic nature is not controversial at all. That's why climate sensitivity is given in degrees Celsius (or whatever unit of temperature) per CO2 doubling. CO2 grows exponentially - temperature grows linearly. Or, equivalently, linear increase of CO2 causes logarithmic increase in (equilibrium) temperature. And your summary of the abstract is almost entirely wrong. At least the abstract does not say that "CO2 is not a problem", it contrasts the logarithmic influence of CO2 with the different behavior of areosols. --] 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] - a highly related article. I voiced several suggestions on the talk page there two weeks ago, yet nobody had commented on them yet in one way or another. |
|
Sigh. The model used by R+S in 1971 is very primitive; its not a GCM, its a 1-d RC model. It was "refuted" a long time ago. In fact its self-refuting: as they say in the paper, the model is only suitable for studying small perturbations, but they use it for large ones. I recommend reading note 3 to the article. As everyone has pointd out to you, the logarithmic nature is well known; its in all the current GCMs; the results you refuse to believe incorporate it; it is not in dispute ] 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] - a controversial topic, and there has been a long-running merge discussion there (in addition to some other proposals) which hasn't really gone anywhere. Perhaps input from editors active here could help to resolve the question. |
|
:Stephan and William, your comments show that you are either unfamiliar with the arguments of the skeptics or you are being intellectually dishonest. The fact the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics can be seen here. Now, if you already knew of these arguments, you are being intellectually dishonest in saying this is not part of the controversy. You may disagree with Motl and Junk Science, but you do not have the right to say their arguments do not exist. ] 13:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 19:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
::Ron, you are confused. Neither of us said that the claim of logarithmic increase is not "part of the controversy". We said that the fact is not ''controversial''. Everybody with a modicum of knowledge agrees (that, interestingly, seems to exclude Lubos, who uses an self-invented oversimplified model which results not in logarithmic increase, but in a hard asymptotic cap) about this. The fact that skeptics tout this well-known fact, fully accounted for in current models, as a big flaw in the theory, should tell you something about intellectual (dis-)honesty. But back to the topic: What does the Rasool&Schneider paper have to do with this? --] 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Stephan, I am not confused. The difference between "controversial" and "part of the controversy" is too fine a distinction for an honest man. Let us put away distinctions between synonyms. Regarding current models, they are worthless - as ], ] and many others attest. In addition, current models do not model the negative feedback found by ]. Perhaps most importantly, the models are checked against global surface temp series by CRU or NOAA. Now, due to the work of ], ] and ], we know these global temp series probably greatly exaggerate the amount of warming in the 20th century. This preliminary indication is in accordance with the much lower climate sensitivity published by ]. Like many things in climate science, I do not think most climate scientists understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2 well. I think Rasool understood the issue better in 1971 than most climate scientists do today. ] 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"Like many things in climate science, I do not think most climate scientists understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2 well." That's either astonishingly ill-informed, or astonishingly arrogant, or both. Ron, your tendency to give condescending lectures to others, while at the same time making it clear that you are unable to grasp even the simplest quantitative concepts, is wearing thin. ] 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Raymond, it is possible I am both ill-informed and arrogant but my opinion of climate scientists stands. When I began my study of climate, I did not have this opinion. It has been formed only after reading about their poor quality science and their antics to cover it up. However, this discussion really is not furthering the article. I suggest we go back to the discussing the article and making certain the views of both sides of the controversy are presented. ] 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Indeed. I'd like Ron to find one — just one — climate scientist who he thinks doesn't understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>. Since he claims that "most" don't, this should be easy for him to find. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Benhocking, I would say any climate scientist who thinks CO2 is a major problem does not understand the issue clearly. Am I able to explain their error quantitatively? No. But their results do not make sense. More to the point, as a Misplaced Pages editor, I do not have to explain this. Misplaced Pages has to represent both sides of the controversy. The proper response here is to find a citation for readers to go to that would explain the error the skeptics are making. That is how we provide a service to readers, not by trying to censor out arguments if you don't like them. ] 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Just to be clear, I'm not for censoring this information, but I am in favor of providing it accurately. Unlike you, I believe this will make the critics who make this argument look uninformed. I won't argue why the climate scientists "get it", as I don't expect it'll do much good. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
(dedent) Ron, if you are not confused, I am confused. Above, you claim that the fact that "the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics" makes the logarithmic influence of CO2 on temperature part of the controversy. By doing so, you are using an inclusive definition of "part of the controversy", assuming that anything said by either side is part of the controversy, even if it is not in dispute. But by my understanding, to be actually ''controversial'', a statement must be in dispute between the parties. The logarithmic effect of CO2 is not in dispute. |
|
|
Do you understand the point that I tried to make above? The very definition of ] as the temperature reaction to a ''doubling'' of CO2 implies a logarithmic response. Every scientist who accepts this definition (and that includes everyone in rough agreement with the IPCC) is aware of this fact. --] 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Correction, the logarithmic influence of CO2 on long-wave emissivity isn't accepted just by those "in rough agreement with the IPCC" but by anyone working in the field whether they are pro- or con-IPCC. It's simply a basic fact, measurable in the laboratory and derivable from theory, like water having a dipole moment. ] 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Stephan, perhaps I did not write clearly enough for you. I should have written "the effect resulting from the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics." Please excuse the ellipsis. I assumed it was clear from the context. The fact atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic is not disputed. What is disputed (and therefore part of the controversy) is whether this logarithmic effect will prevent a doubling of CO2 from having a major effect on climate. Each new molecule of CO2 in the air has a decreasing effect. This is well established. Motl, Junk Science and Rasool all argue that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a problem because of this. Rather, Rasool feared a coming Ice Age. A large minority among the skeptics also fear global cooling - which if you look at the history of the planet would appear to be the more reasonable possibility. ] 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::For this wiki article, the old article by Rasool is not relevant anyway. We have to focus on the controversy as it exists today. The current article does mention that some dispute the consensus figure for climate senisivity. New input by skeptics today about this issue can be mentioned. ] 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I disagree that Rasool is not relevant. His analysis was once the majority opinion and many of the older climatologists still think this is correct. ] 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::When was it every a majority opinion? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::In the reality-based community, never. ] 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Ben, it was the majority opinion throughout the 1970s. I remember the first time I heard a news story on global warming in 1979. It was very much a minority opinion among climate scientists at that time. Many of them were still fearing global cooling. Check out the opinions of the retired climatology profs. It is difficult to find some of them but the more honored professors, the "Professor Emeritus of Climatology" are easier to find. Almost all of them still hold to the opinion that CO2 is not a big problem. Check out these guys: ], ], ] and ].] 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:When are you going to stop equating "emeritus" with "honored"? In most cases it just means "retired after X years of service." Five years of service and retiring at age sixty or older is enough at this two-bit liberal arts college, while an obscure tech school just says "a professor who retires becomes professor emeritus." |
|
I noticed that there are several users who have been quite active in discussions on this talk page, even though I do not usually see them participate in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Climate change. According to WP:CAN, it is perfectly acceptable to request comments on talk pages of related articles, so I would like to do that right now for two articles.
The redirect Brownlash has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30 § Brownlash until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)