| Revision as of 22:48, 7 October 2008 editNathan Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers12,381 edits →Proposed lead text: what do the sources actually say?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:48, 4 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA. | ||
| (863 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Low}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Climate change|importance=Mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{archive box collapsible|large=yes| | |||
| {{WikiProject History of Science|importance=Low}} | |||
| ], | |||
| {{WikiProject Globalization|importance=Low}} | |||
| ], | |||
| {{WikiProject Weather |importance=Mid |climate-task-force=yes}} | |||
| ], | |||
| }} | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 7 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Global cooling/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives}} | |||
| == cross reference to Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period == | |||
| The disproportionate coverage in the 1970s isn't well-explained at ]. Eds here may want to look at that. ] (]) 14:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ==link== | |||
| I was wondering if anyone else would like to see a link on here to a site that talks about the future comming of an ice age. iceagenow.com Is this guy for real, i don't know. But he does have alot of information an articles from others experts. I think it is a valid web site and gives something to the talk about global cooling. Please post if you like to see me at the link. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I lived through the 1970s and I can assure you, it wasn't considered conjecture back then. Our science text books in school claimed the earth was cooling into a catastrophic ice age and we would run out of oil by 2010. The only reason Misplaced Pages is trying to downplay it now is because everyone knows it's bunk and remembering what the "experts" said in the 1970s sheds a lot of light on what they are saying now. Remember, only 9 years until the end of the world. - AOC in 2018<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :It's not a ], and its not notable. I don't think we need it here. --] 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I lived through the 1970s and I can assure you that all discussion and article content has to be based on ], not personal anecdotes. Also, sign your posts. . . ], ] 18:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Its junk ] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I personally wouldnt mind to hear both sides of the argument but that wouldnt fit in with the agenda of some users. I suppose you could try but you will be censored.] (]) 22:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, it's totally unfair to dismiss a self-published book written with no editorial oversight that has received zero attention in the mainstream press or scientific community, authored by a person with no training or experience whatsoever in the field. We're wicked that way. ] (]) 23:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Global cooling books will never have mainstream support, because they do not fit in with the current economics of the scientific community. Saying that, I believe books about global cooling should have a place/link in an encyclopedia article entitled "global cooling"! ] (]) 10:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Issue with sentence in lead == | |||
| The statement in the lead is problematic in many ways: | |||
| This web site is not just about a book, but also contains climate data and links to other articles including those in the mainstream press <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{talk quote block|The current scientific consensus on climate change is that the Earth underwent global warming throughout the 20th century and continues to warm.}} | |||
| ==global coolong== | |||
| The article is about a conjecture which has subsequently been rejected. It is quite appropriate for the league to start out with the discussion of the conjecture as it does, and comment on the current view of the conjecture. The sentence included presumably attempts to summarize the present view but it does so very clumsily. | |||
| dr a suliman - told us as a physics teacher: | |||
| global warming - ice caps melt and more liquid water - more of a force need to pull this from the moon - tilt of axis of earth change - therefore global cooling for six months on one half and heat normal on the other side of hemisphere | |||
| The sentence is written as if it is a refutation of something like the following: | |||
| makes sense to me, he publishes it in the new scientist magazine soon, look out and incorportate this with regards to him . <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Global cooling was a conjecture that the earth was cooling throughout the 20th century. | |||
| If that had been the conjecture, the statement (if true) would be an appropriate rejoinder. But that wasn't the conjecture. The conjecture doesn't suggest that there was no warming in the early part of the 20th century. .The conjecture, simply stated, was that recent cooling had been observed and was projected to continue. the facts are that recent cooling had been observed, but the projection that this would continue turned out to be incorrect. Let's structure a sentence that makes that point. | |||
| I haven't checked to see if the sentence used is supportable by the reference, but the references to the 2007 report. Why use that when the 2014 report is available? there might be situations when use of an outdated report is warranted but this is not one of them. | |||
| == Milankovitch Cycles == | |||
| Excuse me. Why did William M. Connolley remove the external reference that pointed to information on Milankovitch Cycles? He said: "rv: there is nothing wrong with it, but its unescessary: we have a perfectly good MF article and its linked". However, 2 points: 1st, what I added was an external reference (to a NOAA article), not an internal link to another Misplaced Pages article; and 2nd, the existing external reference (#24) for Milankovitch Cycles is '''bad''' -- click on it and you get this: "We are sorry - there has been an error processing your request. Please return to the Nature home page." So why the heck is it an issue to add a good, up to date, external reference?????? ] (]) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The sentence as stated claims that global warming occurred throughout the 20th century. The literal meaning of this is that the temperature graph must be strictly increasing at every point. I don't wish to insist on an overly literal interpretation of the word "throughout". An example or two of a temperature decrease or even flat shouldn't be considered a rejection of the broad term. However an examination of the graph in the IPCC report makes it clear that the global temperature in 1975 was lower than it was in 1940 (I'm doing this by casual inspection of the graph, if this becomes an important issue we can track down the underlying data points). A 35 year period of cooling, while it doesn't reject the scientific consensus that the earth in general is warming, does reject the overly broad statement that warming occurred "throughout" 20th century. | |||
| : There is no point in it, as I said. If your link is useful, add it to the MF article which this article links to. We should link within wiki to things we have good articles on, and put ext links to those things in there. We don't put in ext links to GW, or IPCC, or aerosols - for the obvious reason. MF is no different. Re the broken link: thanks for noticing, I did what you could have and looked it up via the DOI and fixed it ] (]) 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It is entirely understandable that scientists observing 35 year period of cooling (recall that many scientists suggest that a 30 year period is an appropriate period of time to draw conclusions) would express concern about whether this trend would continue. It did not, but it should be understandable that such a concern would be expressed. I have no problem with stating that the conjecture is turned out to be false, but let's make that statement using a factual claim that can be supported by a reliable source, not a sloppily written claim.--]] 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Done. ] (]) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I've rephrased it to remove your "throughout" objection. I doubt that 2007 vs 2014 is of any importance (is the ref even needed? It is uncontroversial; the claim is in the lede; and is fully reffed by the linked GW page anyway). I think we need something here; the article should be to some extent self-contained so it needs reality in the lede ] (]) 16:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Neutrality== | |||
| ::{{u|William M. Connolley}}, Sorry, I find that wholly inadequate. It's a step in the right direction, as it removes an inaccurate word, but we are still left with a casual statement that isn't truly responsive to the issue. It is still accompanied by reference to an outdated source. I didn't bother to check to see if the claim is supported by that source because it's not the current scientific view. While we are anticipating a new report next year, the most recent report is the 2014 report (although they may be more recent peer-reviewed relevant articles). If we want to source to the IPCC which makes sense, we I do need to find some exact wording to quote, or put together a sentence that supported by the report that is responsive to the issue. Talking about the entire 20th century is misleading. The proponents of the cooling conjecture were not arguing that the world temperature dropped in the first half of the century, so stating that it didn't is responsive to the conjecture. The conjecture was that the temperature dropped for a substantial period of time and and that cooling was conjectured to continue. There were correct to report the multi-decadal cooling, but there conjecture that it would continue turned out to be false. Surely we can construct a sentence that says that it is supported by scientific literature. The sentence you are pushing to include doesn't do that. ]] 19:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| If the article purports to be neutral I think it has failed. More or less every single line is second-guessed and undercut by its author. It might as well be a piece on medieval folklore, judging by its dismissive tone. | |||
| Since it is obvious that global warming exists - at least when viewed over millennia, I think all can agree on that - then the corollary, global cooling must also exist. Per definition. I think the topic deserves more honesty in writing than the current piece. | |||
| Here is a recent link of interest to those with inquiring minds: | |||
| http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp | |||
| Actually, it might be better to combine both GW and GC under one header called "Global Temperature Cycles" - or something like that, you get the idea. | |||
| ] (]) 12:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hawaii Reporter == | |||
| How could this be worked into the article? --] (] | ]) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No, not really. It has nothing to do with the historical meme, and Marc Morano is a political shill for ], not a remotely useful source. --] (]) 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I recently came across this link: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm | |||
| It's no where to be found in this article. Given that there is cold, hard data that global cooling exists, why is this article still biased in the other direction? ] (]) 14:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I moved your comment here because the Hawaii Reporter article cites this Daily Tech article. --] (] | ]) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The dailytech blog is not a remotely ]. All except the very shortest-term temperature indicators are up. But I find it somewhat ironic that the very same people who used to claim that a century or so of climate data is insufficient to detect a warming signal now see cooling after half a cold winter... --] (]) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::So are you against including the link and the data it references (which is from a reputable source, while the blog may not meet your standard of being a reputable source) because it doesn't mesh with your idea of 'global warming'? From your sentence, that's what it sounds like. ] (]) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm against including it because most of it is plain wrong and in conflict with the ], and because it is almost entirely non-notable. Being unreliable and in conflict with well-established science, there is no reason to include it on its merits. It also is not connected with the particular theory known as "global cooling" (which by now taken on a secondary role as a proper name, not just a descriptive term), so it is also off-topic. --] (]) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As a ] article about the data , "one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades." Assuming just for the sake of argument that the evidence for global warming is exaggerated, exaggerating evidence for global cooling as a response to that makes no sense. ]. ] (]) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is an encyclopedic entry -- viewpoints about 'global cooling' must be included for this to be a complete entry. Since there is scientific data (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html) that shows the earth is currently cooling, it should be included. Whether or not you or I agree on the issue of Global cooling is moot -- what isn't moot is that Misplaced Pages exists to be an expansive encyclopedia, and there is no justice done when data is ignored. ] (]) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That article is a popular press scare piece and quite irrelevant. No, on Misplaced Pages we are not interested in ''data'', but in ''knowledge''. If there really is a persistent cooling trend that is popularly referred to as "global cooling", then we can consider adding this to the article. But we do not add every short-term trend, or we bury the relevant information in mountains of irrelevancies. --] (]) 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == film == | |||
| ''The ceasing of thermohaline circulation in the world's oceans caused the rapid global cooling in the scientifically unfounded film The Day After Tomorrow.'' | |||
| ] is unscientific garbage, as its article notes. Why mention it here at all? ] (]) 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Only because people may have heard of it. I'm ambivalent ] (]) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm in favor of removing it. It would be like mentioning ''']''' in an article about distributed computer systems. ] (]) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==IP disputes article== | |||
| "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Scientific consensus is that the Earth has not cooled, but undergone a period of global warming in recent centuries." | |||
| This is an outrageous statement. It starts with a flat out lie and ends with an attempt to muddy the waters. All extant scientific evidence points towards future cooling. There is no evidence whatsoever that we will continue to warm. Glaciations keep coming back and they last a very long time. The scientific evidence shows that nothing has changed and this cycle will continue. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Here is another outrageous statement: "The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate..." Carbon dioxide has no proven or known effect on climate. Ergo a sensible person would assume that the feedbacks were overwhelmingly negative and that such effect as did exist were very slight indeed. Now come up with some evidence for substantial industrial-CO2-induced warming or change the article. We cannot let this worthy project be compromised by emotional or political committment. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == PDO and AMO == | |||
| I think maybe there should be a section referencing the ] and the ]. Reason -- recent articles by NASA that the PDO has shifted to its cool phase, and articles including a report in Nature that the AMO has shifted to a cool phase. The convergence of these two together may shift the Northern hemisphere into a cooling cycle for at least the next decade. Comments? ] (]) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Belongs on GW, or Cl Ch, but not here. This is a different page. Beware of grossly misleading interpretation of the current Nature stuff (assuming you mean what I mean ) ] (]) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent Global Cooling == | |||
| Whats up with the recent global cooling? Should this merit a mention or is this junk science? ] (]) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, it's on FoxNews, so its safe to ignore. For some related discussion, see above, in the section strangely enough called "Hawaii Reporter". --] (]) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Try googling russian prediction global cooling. You'll find stuff that hopefully won't be so prejudicially dismissed. ] (]) 05:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If by 2009 temperatures have failed to stop dropping, then we will know that this is not simply a result of the hurricane cycle. In that case, it may represent a permanent change and will therefore warrent a note. In any case, a theory doesn't have to be popular to have merit. ] (]) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Global Cooling History as a Counter-Argument to Global Warming == | |||
| I looked up this article to see if anything was mentioned here about the numerous conservatives who will point to the "global cooling" theories to support their claim that global warming is a farce. I remember one very-convincing guest on Jon Stewart's show hawking his book that lambasted global warming as just the next environmentalist scare tactic, and he (falsely) claimed that "all" of the scientists in the 70's were warning the world about global cooling. Should something be added about global cooling's role in the global warming debate? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : You're right,we should. I'm a bit surprised we don't so far ] (]) 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Predicting something... == | |||
| Article quote: ''" Rasool and Schneider considered global cooling a possible future scenario, but they did not ''predict'' it."'' | |||
| I'm amazed by this quote. Rasool and Schneider said, in simple words, if the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere increases, temperature is very likely to decrease in near future. Currently, the IPCC says, in simple words, if the amount of CO<sub>2</sub> increases, temperature is very likely to increase in near future. Where's the difference? Mankind stoped poluting aerosols and climate did not cool. If mankind stops polluting CO<sub>2</sub> and climate does not warm in the next 50 or 100 years, will the same people who wrote this article right here argue that ''science never predicted global warming'', only considered it a possible scenario? This is ridiculous. | |||
| : Seems fair enough. The IPCC doesn't make predictions either ] (]) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| BTW: There are a couple of "cooling papers" from the 1970s that are, for some reason, not mentioned in this article (like , and ). —] (]) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Your first predicts nothing. 2nd I'm sure we discussed before here; basically its NN. Dunno what 3 says - what quotes from it do you like? ] (]) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm well aware of the fact that very few climate papers (I choose my words carefully) ''predict'' anything, the papers I mentioned included. They detect something and try to explain it, whether be warming or cooling or drying or whatever. However, the very existence of these papers proves there has been a scientific discussion about ''occurring'' global cooling, and thats what its all about. | |||
| ::In ≈1975, climate scientists said (again in simple words), ''people be careful, all that aerosols and sulfur emissions you're poluting are very likely to cause a global cooling, so stop it!'' | |||
| ::In ≈1985, climate scientists said, ''people be careful, all that Chlorofluorocarbon you're poluting is very likely to cause Ozone depletion, so stop it!'' | |||
| ::Since ≈2000, climate scientists say, ''people be careful, all that CO<sub>2</sub> you're poluting is very likely to cause a global warming, so stop it!'' | |||
| ::I don't see any difference between those three cases. —] (]) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Because those aren't the cases. In ~1975, please didn't know what was likely to happen, and said so. As the article documents. By ~1980, warming was fairly firmly established as the consensus; certainly by 1990. BTW, bringing in the ozone hole is a Bad Sign ] (]) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's just wrong. In the 70s, climate scientist did not say "we have no clue about what's going on". They were well aware of the fact that CO<sub>2</sub> has a greenhouse effect and aerosols have a cooling effect. And they ''predicted'' (or ''considered a scenario'') both that climate might warm because of increasing CO<sub>2</sub> or that it might cool because of increasing sulfur emissions. It's just not correct to state they didn't predict anything because they said they don't know nothing. ——] (]) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You're trying to oversimplify a fairly complex situation. Have you read my paper? Try , you might find it interesting ] (]) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I don't care about your paper. I care about the facts. acknowledged the "effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities," and they also prognosticated what would have happend if aerosol content had increased. They did not say "we have no clue what we are talking about, we're blind men trying to describe an elephant" as you might want them to. However, aerosol content did not increase by factor 4, and the ice age never came back. But Rasool and Schneider still said what they said. | |||
| :::::::<small>Incidently Rasool&Schneider(1971) is discussed on page 4 in the paper WMC pointed you at. --] (]) 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::Do you mind explaining me why climatology has to be the only science that never failed? I mean, is there any astronomer ignoring the fact that they did not know the universe is expanding - before Hubble? Is there any physicist denying that there has ever been such things as ]? I don't think so. But still you're trying to sell us gross falsehood about what scienctists claimed in the 1970s, that global cooling "never had significant scientific support". It's ridiculous. —] (]) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You apparently think your opinion to be the correct one. So if you have so much evidence - i suggest that you get the evidence printed in a reliable source. And ''then'' come back and teach us. Misplaced Pages relies on ] not truth. (neither yours nor WMC's). | |||
| :::::::Your personal ] is irrelevant, unless you can provide the ] that promote that particular opinion. And of course show that its more than a ] view. If you want to discuss your own personal views - then find another forum. Misplaced Pages is not your ]. --] (]) 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Did you realize I pointed one a "printed, reliable source" (Rasool/Schneider that is)? This isn't my POV. Actually, WMC is trying to sell us his POV. —] (]) 09:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::One paper does not a scientific opinion make. Try reading the paper that WMC pointed you at. And yes WMC is an expert with a peer-reviewed paper on this particular subject. So i find it rather silly that you are dismissing it out of hand, and are instead going for your own ]. --] (]) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It seems like you are unaware of how this discussion started. I never pointed on Rasool/Schenider for scientific consensus. I pointed on how Rasool/Schneider is interpreted in this article by saying they "considered global cooling a possible future scenario, but they did not ''predict'' it." —] (]) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes? And has been already pointed out - they didn't predict such. Their paper is very specific on saying that its a ''possibility'' not a prediction. And it would require a 4 fold increase in sulfate emissions. Hence a possibility - not a prediction. (they were btw. wrong and acknowledged that in their paper in 1972). --] (]) 14:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Media response == | |||
| We might add , as well as . —] (]) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : There are any number of crap magazine articles about climate at the time. Why pick those? ] (]) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you actually consider Time Mag and NYT "crap magazines"? However, even if you do, those articles deserve to be mentioned just as the Newsweek article, because they are an important part of the media coverage on global cooling. ––] (]) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You have the bracketing wrong; english is like that. I called them "crap magazine articles" not "crap magazine" articles. I don't think we should include more ] (]) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And why? It's not like this article would be too long if we added them. —] (]) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::See ] --] (]) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Huh? This article is about global cooling, and I'm suggesting we should add two news paper/magazine articles to show the media response to that topic. Because, right now, there's ''only one'' media article cited. But there have been a lot more in 1970-1975 (beside these NYT and Time articles, there was also one in Science Digest, another one in the National Geographic, and two more in German newsmag ], to name a few). I just wanted to add two more to give an overview about the massive media coverage of this topic in the mid-70's. —] (]) 09:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Weight is about balance, not existence. Your claim that there was a "massive media coverage" is unsubstantiated - we need secondary sources that say that there was a massive media coverage - not your ] by cherry-pick. If we go 30 years into the future - i can cherry-pick 5 articles from within the last 2 years now, who will show "evidence" that the current period had "massive media coverage" of global cooling by the same merits that you are doing here. --] (]) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ok, I got your point. How about ? —] (]) 10:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Was there actual cooling? == | |||
| <gallery> | |||
| Image:NASA global temperature 1880-2007.png|NASA GISS | |||
| Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.svg|Hadley Centre | |||
| </gallery> | |||
| is suggesting that the apparent cooling in the temperature record between 1940 and 1970 is actually the result of a change in instrumental bias in the sea temperature record. This article claims that the cooling actually happened, and wasn't an artifact of how we were measuring. Should the article be changed to indicate that the apparent cooling was dubious, or should it be changed to indicate that the apparent cooling didn't happen at all? | |||
| ] (]) 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Uhm, does that mean both NASA and the Hadley Centre still don't know how to accurately record temperatures? Because both figures I added above show significant cooling from ≈1940 to ≈1970. —] (]) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the paper says what I think it does, it sounds like both NASA and Hadley may have a modest correction to make.] (]) 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| T08 looks to be jolly good fun. If it turns out to be correct, then a lot of stuff will need updating, starting with the main GW page (not here). But there is no hurry over this: its only just come out. Let it settle ] (]) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The statement isn't supposed to be "responsive"; it is context. As to the ref, I'm not sure why you're so hung up about it; I suggested, above, just removing it and you didn't reply to that idea, so I've tried it. | |||
| ::: ''The conjecture was that'' - I'm doubtful that it was as unified as you suggest. But, if you wish to propose a better sentence, please do ] (]) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|However an examination of the graph in the IPCC report makes it clear that the global temperature in 1975 was lower than it was in 1940}} That is the same rookie way of interpreting curves that has given us the ] bullshit. Drawing conclusions from comparing two data points that have been carefully selected to lead to a specific conclusion is a form of ]. Use 1935-1975 or 1940-1973 instead of 1940-1975 and you get an increase instead. Competent scientists use ], which is far less sensitive to outliers than comparing the endpoints, and they do not pick intervals which "happen to" start at one of the maxima of the curve and "happen to" end at one of the minima. Misplaced Pages uses the published conclusions of those experts, not the far less reliable original research of Misplaced Pages editors. --] (]) 00:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The graph above is inherently misleading. If you look at temperatures over the last 2000 years you can see that temperatures are already beginning to drop again as temperatures change based on a greater cycle not accounted for. (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#research-update) The models used to predict large increases in temperature due to "Global Warming" do not accurately include the effects of what really causes global warming: water vapor. CO2 is a tiny contributor to the greenhouse effect and thus these models have been unable to predict temperature reliably even over the last 10 years. | |||
| :: Ah well careful here. If people actually ''were'' comparing 1940 to 1975, then we should be reporting that, even if it is a rookie error. People have done a lot more staring at temperature time series since then ] (]) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not if those people did not publish that in RS. And not if they did publish it but were not noticed by secondary sources. --] (]) 13:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Hob Gadling}}, You are missing the point. I'm very familiar with the concept of cherry picking. For example, picking 1940-1973 sounds very much like cherry picking. You also seem to misunderstand the whole issue when you talk about picking an interval that just " 'happen to' end at one of the minima". the context is a supposition in the mid-70s so the most recent endpoint was the then current temperature series. Surely you don't suggest that someone in 1975 should use a period from 1940 to 1980. In addition, I'm not arguing that the conjecture was scientifically solid. Almost by definition it wasn't because it turned out not to be true. However, this is an article about the conjecture. It's appropriate to discuss the conjecture, and it is appropriate to add a comment that explains that the conjecture turned out to be false. My sole point is that the sloppy sentence proposed for inclusion doesn't do the job. | |||
| :: | |||
| :Climate models are not capable of giving exact year-to-year predictions. That is not what they are trying to do, either. And of course current models do include water vapour. While water vapour is a major contributor to the ], it is not the original cause of ] - CO2 is. See ] and the links there. --] (]) 11:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would prefer sentence something along the lines of "although the global temperature series suggested that the temperature was decreasing in recent decades (as of mid-70s), as additional data became available through time, the global temperature series demonstrated significant increases over the next decades, which falsified the conjecture." I happily concede that's off the top of the head and casual and could be tightened, but at least it provides context as opposed to the existing sentence which doesn't respond to the conjecture. ]] 17:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course 1973 is cherry-picked, no more or less than 1975. The article says, "On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post reported that "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age"". Surely you don't suggest that someone in 1970 would use a period from 1940 to 1975. So, my alarm sensors went off when I read that "However an examination" sentence. | |||
| Water vapor and clouds account for over 90% of the greenhouse effect and methane and ozone are significant contributors to the greenhouse effect as well. CO2 is not the "original cause" of global warming the sun is. Global warming would not exist without clouds and water vapor. CO2 is a trace gas that exists in very small quantities. Doubling the CO2 level would cause little more than 1 degree F increase in temperature assuming nothing else changes. Unfortunately, the earth is not a static system and feedback mechanisms such as precipitation and cloud cover keep the earth in Radiative balance. If you are suggesting that an increase in CO2 preceeds an increase in global warming that would not be a statement supported by the historical evidence. Ice coring evidence from Antartica indicates that CO2 levels have followed increases in temperature hundreds of years later. | |||
| :::As I said, if the 1940-1975 interval was specifically used in RS, we can use it here. If not, we can't. Since your suggestion does not use that interval, it is fine. --] (]) 06:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Hob Gadling}}, The opening sentence states: "Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s,..." It is my understanding that the global cooling conjecture isn't tied to a specific point in time, but a more general period of time as described by "during the 1970s" so I made the casual selection of the midpoint of the period. However, I trust you understand that if you are looking at an interval whose beginning and end points are both in the past, one has to be careful about cherry picking at both ends, but if you are looking at it interval that ends at the time you are doing the analysis, you typically only have to worry about cherry picking the beginning point (it's a little more complicated than that but roughly speaking). It's also widely stated (but if it's not true we can revisit) that scientists like a 30 year period at least, based on the understandable belief that shorter periods of time may be more noise than signal. That's the reason I picked 1975 as an endpoint in 1945 as a beginning point — I tried to pick a point around the time the controversy was taking place and then backed up 30 years. If you have another alternative, please share. You identified a quote that references 1970. I'm sure you've seen that there are several other dates, so there's nothing magical about 1970. Pick an end date sometime between 1970 and 1975, backup 30 years, and my guess is that the trendline will be negative for most selections. This is what motivated the conjecture. Do you disagree? | |||
| ::::We now know that there were problems with the conjecture. It obviously did not turn out to be valid. We ought to say that in this article, but a statement about warming in the first half of the 20th century is not relevant to the conjecture, so let's say something that's relevant not pick out some facts that happens to be true but has nothing to do with the conjecture. I think your closing statement suggested support for my proposal. Did I misunderstand? ]] 01:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Do we need to mention Bryden et al. (2005)? == | |||
| :::::I had expected my last words {{tq|As I said, if the 1940-1975 interval was specifically used in RS, we can use it here. If not, we can't. Since your suggestion does not use that interval, it is fine}} to put this matter at rest. Nobody wants to use your ] interval, so it stays fine. | |||
| :::::This is a completely pointless blown-out-of-proportion tangent starting from one small objection of mine to one point of reasoning. BTW, 1975 "backed up 30 years" is not 1940. (I hope that last sentence will not turn into another long discussion.) --] (]) 07:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Before ] reverts this page once again, let's try to figure out whether we should mention , including the wide-ranging media response from London to Sydney. I really think we should mention it, and I honestly don't know why Connolley is trying to conceal this study. ––] (]) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :How is a slowing of the THC causing ''global'' cooling? There is nothing to conceal - the study simply does not belong here. Put it into ], although, since it has ben superseded, its relevance is questionable. --] (]) 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::…which means we are trying to conceal the fact that the ''Times'' of London claimed , that the ''Sydney Herald'' reported (they said 'global', you read that?), and that ''National Geographic'' proclaimed that a . Never happened, right? ––] (]) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way: studies and theories aren't irrelevant because they turned out to be wrong. Otherwise we might propose ] and ] for speedy deletion. ––] (]) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Have you read the articles? None of them speaks about global cooling. There are two out-of-context quotes that can be interpreted that way (unfortunately the Sydney Herald title is one, but even they go to "the ocean currents which keep ''Europe'' warm" and finally talk about "devastating effects on socio-economic conditions in the countries bordering the eastern North Atlantic", not about global cooling. Nat-Geo talks writes "western Europe could soon be gripped by a mini ice age" - nothing about "global" there. The Independent talks about Britain only. The Times talks about Western Europe and Britain only. New Scientist has "western Europe its relatively balmy climate" as a topic. In short, your sources do not support the claim about "global cooling" being an issue in 2005. --] (]) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is ridiculous. This whole article is basically media mis-interpreting scientific studies (in the 1970s), yet you're trying to conceal that exactly the same happened less than 3 years ago. Does Misplaced Pages have to be that biased? What about ]? What about ]? I kinda get the feeling that certain people are trying to conceal any indication that some studies turned out to be wrong. ––] (]) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::While the media certainly is misinterpreting scientific studies all the time, in the recent case they have not been interpreting them to predict global cooling, so they don't belong here. We don't discuss E=mc<sup>2</sup> in ], either, --] (]) 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This article is indeed mostly about the 70's, because thats when it happened. Today, we have overwhelmingly GW stories, and every now and again the papers get bored with that and throw in an over-hyped response to something like Bryden et al. I think Stephan is right; but its also about balance. The stuff nowadays is trivial and if added should have correspondingly trivial space. If you could leave out the vast conspiracy theories, that would be nice. If you can't be polite, you may find that people stop talking to you. Leaving out the "proclaimed" might help, too ] (]) 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I came here to answer a ] request but this dispute involves three editors so I'd suggest using ] instead. ] (]) 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Does the claim that "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support" not require a source? == | |||
| Doesn't it? I tried to add a tag requesting a source and it was revered. ] (]) 22:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : The summary of the article doesn't include any references. There isn't any particular reason to single out this statement, particularly since the summary is backed by cited statements in the body of the article. In this particular case, the second sentence of the body of the article backs up the statement with a reference. ] (]) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Good response. ] (]) 00:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Repeated reverts of "Present level of knowledge" == | |||
| People seem to be repeatedly adding and removing the text "More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out. " from the section "Present level of knowledge". The article already includes a , which is derived from an older version , so we know from what is already in the article that the cooling concerns were not borne out. Is there some reason that people find this an insufficient citation? If so, why? ] (]) 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(Just got your message.) I do not have background in this, but my understanding is that, under the hypothesis, global cooling is something that could begin this century, and that what happened in the 20th century is not directly contradictory to the hypothesis. As a very rough analogy, the global warming hypothesis is claimed to be true even though global temperatures have not risen in about a decade despite increasing CO2 concentrations. Perhaps I have misunderstood, though, and the warming from c.1975-2000 refutes the cooling hypothesis, as you say; if so, then the article needs to explain things more (with references). ] (]) 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The statement is not obviously incorrect, so the best thing to do is to tag it by writing <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> which will produce something like this{{cn}}. After a month or two, then the statement can be removed if it is not sourced. ] (]) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::On what bases do you claim that the "statement is not obviously incorrect"? I see no support for this. ] (]) 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I have to agree with what Brusegadi just said -- tagging something to indicate that a citation is needed is definitely the best thing to do, rather than deleting it; particularly when, as you admit, you're not very familiar with the topic. | |||
| ::As to the notion that the earth has been cooling (or not warming) over the past decade, you might want to take a look at the . You'll see that temperature is VERY noisy and somewhat uncertain -- in particular, . So it isn't terribly surprising that we haven't yet seen things warm past the 1998 record -- it looks like the normal short-term variations hiding the long-term rise. | |||
| ::Scientific claims that the earth is headed for cooling are, to put it mildly, exceedingly scarce in the peer-reviewed literature of the past few years -- so much so that the denial industry feels the need to . There are ways we might experience short-term global cooling, such as a major volcanic eruption, a nuclear war, or large meteor impact, but they're not predictable. ] (]) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(ec) (to Alfbit) It does not fit the description of vandalism, and it is not an unflattering statement about a living person, so it gets tagged and it stays. After a month or so, if no one has source it, then we remove it. I think I should be a able to find one when I get back from eating. Perhaps WMC has one handy, he knows a lot about this stuff. Misplaced Pages is not real time, so we should also wait for more editors to take a look at this stuff. I'll be back in a few hours. ] (]) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Smptq, much thanks for the link to desmogblog, about the Heartland Institute; I am genuinely astounded. About the HADCRU graph, I understand your point, but a similar point could (based on my weak understanding) be made by global-cooling advocates; i.e. the recent warming hides a pending cooling. ] (]) 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: AlfBit: There's a problem with that approach, which is that you can apply a statistical significance test to the data to determine whether it is consistent with a particular hypothesis. The data is not consistent with the notion that a long-term cooling has happened, and the short-term temperature record since 1998 does not rise to the level of a statistically significant cooling. If you want to make a credible prediction that the trend will reverse, you need to describe a mechanism by which it would happen, and so far, nobody has found a predictable one (though, as above, there are some non-predictable events which could cause a short-term cooling) ] (]) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You say that the "data is not consistent with the notion that a long-term cooling has happened". The hypothesis is that a long-term cooling ''is happening''. And the statement that the "data is not consistent with the notion that a long-term cooling is happening" is unproven—and would seemt to be difficult to prove (e.g. the residuals of a linear fit are not iid Gaussian). ] (]) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Errrm... but why do you expect us to pay any attention to a hypothesis so manifestly counter to observations, and for which you can provide no references? ] (]) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: And, in other news, while I have no evidence for it, the rest of the world is required to take me seriously when I announce that a robotic spider is on its way to deliver me a winning lottery ticket Real Soon Now. ] (]) 19:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Do you understand the statistics at all? My point was serious. ] (]) 22:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That you can talk about distribution functions doesn't mean you're making a serious point. The notion of "present cooling" vs "past cooling" is simply silly. If you're going to try to show cooling from historical temperature data, it makes sense to look at what you can do from the data. That a large explosive equatorial volcano might have erupted five minutes ago without my yet hearing about it, setting in motion a short-term cooling, is kind of irrelevant to the conversation. If you want to argue that the earth has meaningfully cooled since 1998, or that we're about to see some sort of large-scale cooling for some reason, please cite peer-reviewed research from a reputable journal. ] (]) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::(ec) Your comment seems to suggest that the statistical methodology is somehow confined to a simple OLS. I doubt that is the case. The nice thing here, though, is that we do not have to fiddle with such things, all you need is a reliable source to validate your assertion that some scientists believe that we are in the first stage of a cooling trend. We require a source for this allegation per ], which states that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. ] (]) 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm a bit baffled by what AB wants here. He appears to have confessed to not knowing whats going on, which is a poor stance from which to be hacking the article. I don't know what ''my understanding is that, under the hypothesis, global cooling is something that could begin this century'' is supposed to mean ] (]) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Why are you baffled? I have stated clearly and repeatedly that I want references for the statements. ] (]) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleting a { {cn} } tag == | |||
| I added a cn tag to a statement: "The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) Global Climate Models (GCMs) that include the effect of sulphate aerosol cooling, so it (now) seems likely that this was the dominant cause". My comment noted that research by Doug Hoyt appears to contradict the statement. ] reverted my change. Perhaps someone could explain how this is remotely reasonable. | |||
| (Note: I initially reverted Connolley's change, but then promptly undid my reversion, as I realized the reversion my cause me to violate ].) | |||
| ] (]) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Self-revert was a good idea. I could probably guess which Hoyt you mean, but not which of his work you mean. Please expand ] (]) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps you could first explain why it is reasonable to delete a cn tag. ] (]) 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You seem a teensy bit short on sources. You said that your cn was based on work by Hoyt. Which work? Do please explain, or you risk looking like some skeptic without a clue ] (]) 07:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since AlfBit doesn't seem to be going away, and we've now got an anonymous user + bender235 trying to push the same issue, I think I've got a guess as to what the fellow was actually referring to. There's a blog comment by Doug Hoyt in which he claims that human activity hasn't made a significant difference to atmospheric aerosol concentrations since the early 20th century, and cites some of his older papers to make the argument. (Note: almost nobody else cites those old papers) Given the plethora of other studies showing that human activity has an impact on atmospheric aerosol concentrations, it probably wouldn't hurt to choose an appropriate citation. I nominate . Anybody have a better suggestion? ] (]) 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::More recent would be the AR4 (, Section 2.4, in particular 2.4.4.1). It also cites a large number of relevant papers, e.g. Boucher, O., and D. Tanré, 2000: Estimation of the aerosol perturbation to the Earth's radiative budget over oceans using POLDER satellite aerosol retrievals. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(8), 11031106; Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297302; Boucher, O., and M. Pham, 2002: History of sulfate aerosol radiative forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(9), 2225.; Haywood, J.M., and O. Boucher, 2000: Estimates of the direct and indirect radiative forcing due to tropospheric aerosols: A review. Rev. Geophys., 38, 513543. However, as far as I'm concerned, AR4 itself should be enough. --] (]) 14:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I like your reference better than mine. Lets give it a day or two so that others can chime in, and then find a way to work it into the article. ] (]) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === SEPP/Washington Times reference=== | |||
| Just to make this really clear: According to the document, fringe sources are acceptable as sources of information about fringe groups. On this topic, SEPP clearly qualifies as such, so their Washington Times opinion pieces are acceptable as a source of information on their opinion. ] (]) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Drive-by tagging == | |||
| I reverted the fact tagging stuff. What is the point of the fact tag in ''This statement is correct{{fact|date=July 2008}} (see ]) '' when its immeadiately followed by the reference? Its just pointless ] (]) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : One of those fact tags actually made some sense: if you quote a document, it makes sense to provide enough of a citation that people can easily go find that document. I went and added a citation to the 1972 report to make that easier. ] (]) 22:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : One more thing: the Schlesinger opinion piece, which claims to be quoting a 1974 National Science Board report to Congress, may actually be quoting a report published in 1969 Has anybody actually gone and checked to make sure the 1974 report actually says what he says it does? ] (]) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: A bit more digging seems to indicate that the date on the Google books listing is wrong. The full report 1974 report is online and the quote is indeed from the 1974 report. ] (]) 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The point of the fact tag is that ''someone'' is saying that the statement is correct. ''Who'' is saying this? ''Where'' are they saying this? Or is it the opinion of a Misplaced Pages editor that it is correct? In which case it is ] and ]. Wikilinks to other Misplaced Pages article are also not references because ]. | |||
| :The same point goes for the statement "''This quote is taken quite out of context, however, and is misleading as it stands''" Who has decided that it is out of context? Who has decided that it is misleading? Or is this the interpretation of a Misplaced Pages editor? In which case it is classic case of ]. A Misplaced Pages editor has taken one source (first quote), compared it with a second source (longer quote), and has decided, in their opinion, that ''therefore ''the first is misleading. Refer to ]; ''"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.'' | |||
| :--<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: You're doubting that the global temperature fell between ~1950 and 1974? Isn't this pushing a bit too far? ] (]) 22:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please address the points I have put. My opinion of the article subject matter is irrelevant. What I am trying to apply is ], as you should be. If the opinion piece in the Washington Post is inaccurate then cite who has challenged it. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why not try and express your points differently? At present you aren't making much sense to me at any rate. We don't provide a cite for the date on the homepage after all. We also don't take an opinion piece in a local newspaper as equivalent to a peer reviewed scientific journal. --] ] 06:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed, we do seem to be talking past each other. But I am trying to address your points. You put a cn on the statement that the temperature fell. We *could* put in a direct link to an external temperature record; or any numbers of books or articles that have pointed out this obvious fact. But its more helpful to put in a link to the wiki article on the temperature record. If you're now saying that you don't think that cn is appropriate, and would like to drop that one and talk about a different one, then please say so ] (]) 07:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK. I'll put it a different way. I am not questioning the facts of what the temperatures were. I am asking where the analysis of comparing these temperatures to the cited article came from. ] claimed this was not original research. If it is not original synthesis, then it must have come from somewhere other than a Misplaced Pages editor. If so, then it can be cited. | |||
| :::::I am also not questioning that the quote is only a portion of the full text. I am asking where the analysis that determined that the quote is out of context and misleading came from. This section discusses an opinion piece by the former U.S. Energy Secretary. His interpretation is therefore notable and relevant to the article. Whether it is ''correct'' or not is not for Misplaced Pages editors to determine. Nor is it up to Misplaced Pages editors to determine if it quotes out of context or is misleading. If it has been criticized then cite where and who has criticized it. Otherwise the criticism can only be termed as original synthesis by a Misplaced Pages editor against Misplaced Pages policy. | |||
| :::::Comparing this with the date on the homepage is a red herring. The date is not an interpretation of facts that may be open to question, it is a fact and it is left to the reader to determine its accuracy. What this section needs is to be treated the same way. State the facts (''"The former US Energy Secretary said;"''), cite the cites. Either it is self evidently incorrect (and the reader can determine this), or others will have stated their opinion that it is incorrect and can be cited. Pulling in secondary sources to analyse what was said is clearly original synthesis and not permissible. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 09:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"His interpretation is therefore notable and relevant to the article" seems like a serious stretch to me. An article written by him may be notable but you have to cover WP:UNDUE and the fact that article is on a scientific topic versus a national politician's take on it. You might as well rewrite the article on ] because politicians frequently confuse it with ]. --] ] 11:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Again you are getting tied up in concerns about the ''content'' of the article. The problem with this article has nothing to do with this. It is with the way the article reports it, and the way that original synthesis is being tagged on to refute it. Basically it wouldn't matter if the US Energy Secretary wrote the report said pixies were sprinkling ice-cubes from heaven. ''You don't get to use original research to refute it.'' | |||
| :::::::The article covers "Global Cooling", the section is within ''"Concern in the Middle of the Twentieth Century"''. If you do not believe that "Concern in the Middle of the Twentieth Century" is notable, or if you do not believe that the former US Energy Secretary's article is a valid reflection of notable concern then ''remove them''. The article should cite notable and relevant ''"Concerns"'', whether valid or correct or not, and if there are valid cites that refute the ''"Concerns"'' then by all means put them in too. But what is not acceptable is having them in the article simply to refute them with ]. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 15:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I don't share your lack of interest in the truth, so I'm having a hard time understanding your arguments. But its clear to me that I disagree with your conclusions ] (]) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If you would answer these two points you might better understand. So far you have talked around them. The article says; ''This quote is taken quite out of context, however, and is misleading as it stands''. '''Who''' has decided this quote is misleading? Simple question. Once you have answered that point, please answer this; '''How''' have they determined this?. Now you can see where this is leading; if your answers are, as I suspect, "a Misplaced Pages editor" (whoever they may be) and "By looking at the original quote and evaluating its meaning compared to the abridged quote"; then that is ]. They are sourcing two sources and performing a comparative analysis. It seems quite clear to me. | |||
| ::::::::In addition, your comment "I don't share your lack of interest in the truth" lacks ] and is presumptuous. Do I really need to point this out to an admin? Do I also need to remind you that ]? If these statements cannot be verified with cites then they should not be included. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I dont ''understand'' either. It does not ''look'' like ] to ''me''. ] (]) 21:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As ] is unable, or unwilling, to respond to what would appear to be a straight-forward question, I have gone ahead with modifying this section. I have removed reference to the 2003 opinion piece. The section is about a factual reportage of 1970s concerns, it is not about 2003 opinion piece quoting of 1970s concerns. This has the added advantage of removing original research analysing said opinion piece. I've replaced it with a brief factual account of the two National Science Board reports, which do reflect the scientific concerns and uncertainties of the time. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Media references== | |||
| Using only ] the first hit for ''(a) global cooling'' is Jan 28, 1975 '''Science report Glaciology: Ross ice shelf flow''' and ''(a) global warming'' is Dec 02, 1976; '''Meteorology: Climatic changes''' By Pearce Wright. These articles (and similar upto 1985) are essentially non commital (but nudging towards suspected global warming) ] (]) 13:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Orbital forcing? == | |||
| This section is poorly referenced and I have no idea how anyone can assert that orbital periods will not repeat. Where are the citations to this idea -they are called cycles for a reason! The fundamental in the ice age period looks strong. | |||
| ] (]) 11:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == STOP WIKI from using "scientific consensus" in any debated theory == | |||
| That's bolscevism (majority), not science. Also, how can you write that scientific consensus is on global warming (not true that there is consensus) after writing that they thought there was a cooling. How incoherent.] (]) 13:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Wiki only uses the scientific and media driven information that fits the model they are pushing. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == The Times == | |||
| I guess we're due another tedious edit war over . So... | |||
| : ''] first used the term ''a global cooling'' on 28th January 1975.<ref> '''The Times'''; ''Science report Glaciology: Ross ice shelf flow'' 28th January 1975</ref> In June 1976, in response to press reports predicting a ], the ] issued a warning that ''a very significant ]'' was probable;<ref> ''World's temperature likely to rise''; ]; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A</ref> the actual term ''global warming'' was first used by The Times on 2nd December 1976.<ref>Pearce Wright ''Meteorology: Climatic changes''; '''The Times''' 2nd December 1976</ref> '' | |||
| I haven't verified that the refs are correct; but even if they are, they don't help, because they are simply refs to articles in the Times using those terms. Those articles can't prove the assertion that those were the first uses. Secondlt, even if you can find a source for that assertion, it really doesn't help, because The Times ceased being the paper of record around about 1800 or thereabouts; in other words, its just one paper and not particularly interesting ] (]) 20:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : What I see here is two editors adding the material and just you warring with them to remove it. If you just stop reverting it there won't be an edit war. --] (]) 04:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''1''' I am Happy to email WMC the original articles (although I must add that I have added roughly 800 referenced edits to Wiki and did not realise WMC needs to verify them). '''2''' ] states ''Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as ...'''The Times''' in Britain...''.'''3''' I am replacing an unreferenced statement with a referenced statement. ] (]) 05:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its ] to a specific article, with little to no specific relevance. The Times doesn't get more important by you bold-facing it. Perhaps you should try to expand the original sentence with a citation - instead of removing it? --] (]) 09:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Interestingly enough, the article in the Times that is referenced, doesn't even describe this particular concept. But instead uses "global cooling" in an all together different context: | |||
| ::::<small>"The great sheet of ice that covers the West Antarctic, and becomes the Ross ice shelf where it floats on the sea, is of worldwide importance. If this ice were to melt, sea levels would rise dramatically and many coastal areas would be flooded. If, on the other hand the ice were to spread over a wider area, reflecting back more of the Sun's heat, it could cause a global cooling, even a new ice age."</small> | |||
| :::--] (]) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::ie we have a documented media usage of ''the term'' '''global cooling''' on 28th January 1975. Is there a documented media usage use of ''the term'' global warming before 2nd December 1976? If earlier references can be found, they should be inserted; until then the Times references should stay. ] (]) 11:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::First of all it isn't used in this particular article as a ''term''. And secondly the Times is a rather poor statistical basis for such documentation. And third will you please read our policy on ]. Your original research on when the Times first used the wording (not the term) "global cooling" is not something that can (or should) be included in Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 11:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You will notice that I had already removed the term ''First''. Your attempt to define what ''The Times'' meant when it used the term ''a global cooling'' is original reserach on your part (as is reinserting an unreferenced statement for that matter). ] (]) 11:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, it is not original research to read the article. Its not about global cooling, nor is the usage of the wording used as a term. (as you well know if you have read the article). | |||
| :::::::As for your removal of "first". If its not the first, then why would it be interesting at all? Misplaced Pages is ''not'' a repository for indiscriminate information (see ]). Why would the Times article even be notable in this context? --] (]) 12:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Btw: | |||
| ::::::::<small>“…J. O. Fletcher, a physical scientist for Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., said that man had ‘Only a few decades to solve the problem of global warming caused by pollution.’”</small> | |||
| :::::::From the NY Times 21 dec. 1969 "“Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution. ”". And this one doesn't go in either - because it would (once more) be original research to claim that this one is notable, or even close to being the first. But we can see (at least) that the Times' usage of global cooling is ''after'' the usage of global warming. Which makes the Times article completely irrelevant (even in your argumentation). --] (]) 12:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I disagree that insertion of The NY Times reference would be original research; but I am happy that an earlier references for global warming has been found. I am inclined to add The NY references to the article - It is after all the reason I posted to the talk page in the first place! ] (]) 12:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Its original research to think that this is the first - or even a notable article. And just to point this out - here's an even older one (Indiana Times Nov 6, 1957): | |||
| ::::::::::<small>Air Pollution One of Biggest Problems Facing America Today ... The conditions which ordinarily would squeeze the moisture from the upper reaches of air are lacking and the vapors move onward, picking up greater quantities until suddenly conditions change and a part of the country is treated to a downpour never recorded before. Now our scientists, particularly those of Southern California are studying the possibility that this continued pouring forth of waste gases may upset the rather delicate carbon dioxide balance in the earth's general atmosphere and that a large scale global warming, with radical climate changes may result. It's a serious problem, friends.</small> | |||
| :::::::::--] (]) 12:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Indeed it would be, if I had done that. And thank you for your fascinating research - It really should be incorporated into the article. ] (]) 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The point is not to find individual articles, or the first use, but an overview of when the term became popular. Having just asked a historian, I now suspect that the relevant overview doesn't exist. Absent that, he recommended looking at the google news timeline view , which is quite instructive; there is a huge peak for "global cooling" for 1975, which turn out to be mostly later references to the 1975 newsweek article, which ironically doesn't mention the phrase at all. | |||
| His conclusion was ''In sum, both terms were introduced prominently in titles of articles in leading scientific journals in 1975 (maybe there were earlier references, of course, but the Science and Nature articles would be the first important ones). However, "global warming" did not become a common term in the scientific literature or US popular press until 1987-1988, and "global cooling" became common only after 2000, almost entirely in a contrarian context.'' | |||
| However, I'm not proposing that the above is usable as a ref - clearly it isn't ] (]) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : My bug here is unhappiness with the sentence | |||
| ::''The term "global cooling" did not become attached to concerns about an impending glacial period until after the term "]" was popularized.{{Fact|date=December 2007}} | |||
| :''attached'' can be wiki-verified by a single reference; ''popularized'' can only be wiki-verified if 'a ] has put a date for ''popularized'' in Print. The point is there remains a need to fiddle with the above statement. My first choice preference would be to add the above UK & US references and let the reader draw their own conclusion. ] (]) 10:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Then we disagree about what it means. To me, "attached" is just a way of avoiding saying "popularised" twice; the uses should be symmetrical. I think the statement is true, but I don't think I can find any refs to support it (when was GW popularised? we don't know). I'd rather delete it entirely ] (]) 20:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == New section on JASON? == | |||
| I'm thinking that Oreskes' reporting on JASON might be discussed here. ] (]) 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : While this earlier article appears reliable, we probably need to be more careful with some of her more recent newspaper articles on the 1979 JASON report. In any case, I'm not at all sure it wouldn't be a better fit in a warming-related page. ] (]) 23:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've thought there should be some kind of "history of climate change science" page it might belong to, but AFAIK that doesn't exist, and it also seems relevant to the scientific non-belief in global cooling in the 70s. ] (]) 00:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: My faith in Oreskes has been somewhat dented by the Nierenberg stuff. But she may be reliable on JASON. I too doubt it belongs here, though. ] is an idea ] (]) 20:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Global cooling prediction 2009, Old Farmer's Almanac == | |||
| I've just been reverted on the grounds that a prediction of global cooling is off topic and irrelevant to an article on global cooling. I'm not quite sure how that's justified so I'm taking it to talk. The truth is that there are a number of people who have recently said that we're due for a spell of global cooling due to Sun inactivity. The Old Farmer's Almanac is just one of them. ] (]) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : OFA is obviously a joke. IF you can find anyone serious, you might have some sort of a case ] (]) 20:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: The whole article is currently structured that there were few real scientists worried about this and that it was a press phenomenon. Well, fine, if that's the consensus to be used here then press accounts including OFA are relevant and should be used. If you're advocating a rewrite so that the press panic of the 1970s is not relevant, well, good luck and I'd like to see your edits. I'm looking for a bit of consistency here. | |||
| == Finding someone serious == | |||
| WMC suggests that if one could "find someone serious" talking about global cooling today, we should put that in. That's fine by me. Links and briefs to follow: | |||
| - George Kukla, micropalentologist and Special Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University | |||
| More to follow ] (]) 15:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. ] (]) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :How is a conservative think tank a "serious" source for whether global cooling is happening today? <span style="font-weight: bold; color:#104E8B">] :)</span> <sup>]</sup> 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please reread the title of the section. It is the scientists who are serious and if I found the mass market stuff and political sites first that does not discredit their professional opinion. At this writing I'm up to 4 scientists with sourcing of various quality. It does not matter for encyclopedic inclusion whether they are right. It matters that it is in the news and their claims should be addressed in an appropriate NPOV way. I believe that it is now demonstrably false that Global Cooling is only a 1970s media phenomenon. It's a 2007-present media phenomenon and there may be some thin scientific backing to it that has not, to this point, been falsified. ] (]) 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Not even Solomon makes Kukla claim imminent change to cooler climate. He carefully weaves 30 year old claims, out-of-context quotes, and very weak current remarks, so there is very little real beef in the article. Deming is not predicting global cooling either, but describes some anecdotal evidence for cold weather during part of one year... --] (]) 15:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. ] (]) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This guy's article talks about a single year, talks about trying to prove that there isn't any warming, and tosses out a whole batch of short-term weather observations. He doesn't predict a long-term cooling trend. ] (]) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] has a relevant pull quote where Deming talks about temperature not rising over the past 9 years (2007). It's now 10 years. Is 9 years (now 10 and the effect is more pronounced) still a weather observation that is short term? ] (]) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Its a propaganda technique, which takes advantage of a weather-related temperature spike in 1998, rather than a serious belief about climate. ] (]) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University. ] (]) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : This fellow does indeed seem to be talking about long-term cooling, but does so on the basis that "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries". However, from what I can tell, the scientists who study the sun more or less agree that we're not seeing anything particularly out of the ordinary. See for example ] (]) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Certainly there is no consensus that we're in a global cooling phase. I'm not trying to say that there is a consensus that we're entering global cooling. I'm trying for something much more modest, that there exists some people who are in the mainstream popular press as well as serious scientists who are modern believers of some theory of global cooling. Granting that much means that we need to rework the article in a few places to recognize that fact. You granted that this guy is talking about long term cooling. You have not said he's disqualified as a serious figure, merely that the solar scientists you are familiar with disagree. That's fair but it's moving the goalposts as to what I want accomplished which is to accurately recognize the number and scope of global cooling believers today. ] (]) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My opinion is that we're in the early phase of something and we would be wise not to get too far behind the reporting. It *could* be true but I don't want global cooling hype to replace global warming hype. (I left these up on my screen prior to the SS response and am popping them back in after an edit conflict) ] (]) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| But wait, there's more: | |||
| '''Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov''' ({{lang-ru|Хабибулло Исмаилович Абдусаматов}}; with initials transliterated either H.I. or K.I.) is the supervisor of the project of the Russian section of the ] and a researcher at the laboratory of ] at the ]-based ] (, ) of the ]. | |||
| This is just after a few minutes of Google fu. I refuse to believe that I'm so good that in maybe 10 minutes of googling snatched between my day job tasks I've got everybody. I think a reasonable section on modern predictions is warranted and perhaps a reworking of the lead that this article is only about the 1970s. I don't think it is justifiable that it should continue to be. ] (]) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, I looked at and didn't find anything to support what you say. Could you quote the bit you mean? ] (]) 18:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : A lot of these seem to talk about weather rather than climate. ] (]) 19:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::<blockquote>Moreover, thanks to new evidence that Dr. Kukla only recently published, he now knows that global warming always precedes an ice age. That makes the current period of global warming a mere blip that constitutes additional indication of the ice age to come.</blockquote> | |||
| ::The referenced research needs to be found. Then we need to have an actual discussion of how imminent a prediction of global cooling needs to be before it should be in the global cooling article. My first thought on that one is, not very. But that's for another day. Right now we're just getting out of denial that there are people in this decade who are claiming global cooling. I think that we're already past that low threshold and should start considering some consensus text of how to deal with their claims. ] (]) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If he published at all, it is somewhere sufficiently obscure that Google Scholar doesn't find it. ] (]) 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ''The referenced research needs to be found'' - well, you certainly need to fnid it before you can use it. The quote there is so vague that its useless... perhaps the blip lasts 1000 years... who knows; geologists do funny things to time scales. ''there are people in this decade who are claiming global cooling'': if you find anyone, do let us know ] (]) 10:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I just did, try rereading the section for comprehension instead of condescension. I listed 4 scientists, you attempt to debunk one and want to put the matter to rest? That's simply a non-starter. This is putting aside the fact that we are dealing with something that is both a press and a scientific phenomena both back in the 1970s and today. I would go along that the press was more important than the science in terms of notability and influence in the 1970s. That seems to be a consensus claim. That means that press accounts today count too and should be mentioned because of their influence regardless of how nailed down their science is. ] (]) 20:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: You seem to be going for quantity rather than quality. I found your first reference wanting, and stopped there. If you're no longer pushing him, or aren't prepared to find this research that you assert needs to be found, OK, we'll put him aside for the moment. Please indicate what your best #2 is ] (]) 20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: (Darned edit conflicts reposting then answering) Regarding Kukla, I think I've chased down what he's going on about and it was a symposium. I take your point on geologists and time scales. The article seems to talk about the same cooling phenomenon happening right now and in 5000 years, though it's unclear whether Kukla is part of the consensus on 5000 years. | |||
| ::::::: If one forwards two sources and one is debunked one cannot just stop there while being NPOV. Would one moonbat in favor of global warming discredit everybody else who is advocating the theory more responsibly? Obviously not, each scientist, theory, press account all need to be evaluated individually so long as you don't have a recycling of the same arguments previously discussed. And Kukla himself presents something of an unusual situation as he seems to be saying that the process for global cooling is starting now and we'll be in a full on ice age in 5000 years. So does that mean that he's pro or contra global cooling? ] (]) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: No hurry. When you've abandoned #1, and settled on your #2, let us know ] (]) 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Sorry, if you're not going to address #2-6 at this point (the last article has a number of global cooling enthusiasts in it) within a reasonable time frame, they're going to go into the article. If you can't be bothered to address something, that does not constitute reasonable grounds for its exclusion from an article. ] (]) 02:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Tossing out a huge number of weakly researched references in the hopes that others won't have time to check them all is NOT an ok approach. Pick your strongest one, tell us which one it is, and why, and people will check it. ] (]) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: 6 != huge and if you aren't looking at them, isn't it a bit premature to characterize them? Either you're looking at them or not. You can't have things both ways. I'm not negotiating with you either individually or as a clique. The contention is that nobody serious believes this stuff. I've come up with 6 (more really if you dig through the last article but I wasn't going to get pedantic about it) somebodies and that's a reasonable first cut IMO to demonstrate that 'nobody' says so is simply false and the narrative that global cooling is a 1970s only thing is simply not supportable. I will continue to be patient in hopes of either you or WMC coming to your senses and actually being constructive or other editors chiming in. Absent that, I'll go forward with edits as best I can. What I'm not doing at the present moment is adding more sourcing (yes I've found more) because of my perception that it would just exacerbate problems. There seems to be published paper out there talking about the disappearance of sunspots around 2015 and how bad things would be if present trends continue. ] (]) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Aaand here's two more, http://deltafarmpress.com/news/robinson-column-0825/ Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev who actually have a $10,000 bet running on the question. Is this not worth mentioning? ] (]) 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : As an indication of the reliability of your sources, your above article says that they actually made a bet, but the article it cites as a source says that no bet was agreed upon. In any case, the proposed (but not agreed upon) terms of the bet make it clear that the proposed bet was on short-term temperatures (eg: weather) rather than climate. ] (]) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could you please undent if you're talking about the deltafarmpress.com article? Your current style is confusing. The finalization of the bet is irrelevant to their opinion that the globe is cooling. Can we focus here please on the task at hand? We're talking about whether people notable enough for inclusion in the article believe in current or coming global cooling. We're talking about whether the current message of the article, that global cooling is just a 1970s failed theory that has no adherents today is accurate or should be reworked. This page is not a mere debating shop (though that can be fun) but working toward consensus on edits in the article. If you admit that the bet (and from your link it's turning into multiple bets, I hadn't realized Lindzen was playing the same game) was offered and carried in press reports, this is something that could be included in the article. | |||
| ::If the argument is that x guy isn't predicting global cooling, that's a legitimate ground for exclusion (and WMC is taking that tack with Dr Kukla and he might be right). If the global cooling advocate is essentially the crank at the corner bar, that's also legitimate grounds for not including them. But not including an event because the bet wasn't accepted? That's not kosher. ] (]) 02:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are two problems here. The first is that you're choosing to cite authors who appear to lack basic reading comprehension. This means that we can't use them as a reference, and therefore can't include your suggestions as proposed. | |||
| :::The second problem is that the reputed terms of the proposed bet indicate two things: that it was essentially a bet about weather, rather than about climate, and that the apparent cooling forecast is not one which the Russians who are making it have a high degree of confidence in. We wouldn't include a mention of whether two people think there's a 51% chance that it will be colder on Thursday than it was on Tuesday, and this makes about that much sense. ] (]) 03:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd be more than willing to start up a search for suitable references in a sandbox subpage or here on this page with proposed consensus text if you and others would agree to work on removing the false idea that nobody currently thinks the globe is cooling and collaborate in improving the article by adding rock solid sourcing for those who do think that global cooling is going on today. | |||
| ::::As for the specific objection to the bet, I've no problem in striking any one or two of the 6+ people I've got so far (and the further ones I'd be able to list if I fire up Google again) if I could get serious engagement and admission that some of the others are good. Abdusamatov, for instance, has garnered no criticism that he isn't actually holding this position but nobody's come out and commented that they would support his inclusion as a modern day believer in global cooling either. The only reasonable response is to wait a decent interval and just edit the article, taking silence in the face of requested comments as acquiescence. ] (]) 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think that the reason for their not being objected to yet is that nobody has bothered looking at most of them. Let us know when you've abandoned your #1 above, and maybe somebody will actually take a look at your #2. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::::It was nonsense on stilts when WMC said the same thing and it's just as bad when you do it too. If you choose not to bother addressing my points, that is not a valid reason for non-inclusion in the article. After a decent interval, the ones not objected to will be included. ] (]) 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The problem is that you're starting from unreliable sources on this topic (eg: the Financial Post, Washington Times, and UPI) which appear to be engaged in a propaganda campaign. The only one from your list who seems to actually make a global cooling climate prediction is who comes across as not merely a propagandist, but a total nut as well. ] (]) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Nice to know that Newsweek is a reliable source (as it's in the article already @ 3.7) for this article but the Financial Post is not. Did you really mean to assert that? I just want to make sure that I'm being fair before I react to the statement. For my own position I don't think that the Financial Post, the Washington Times, or any other general circulation publication should have any more prominence than Newseek in 3.7 and some should have less. But they should have some mention because the articles are there and they are influential in certain segments of public opinion and denying them their place in this article is POV pushing. ] (]) 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Newsweek isn't a RS, except about itself; nor is it presented as such. But it is notable. The FP isn't ] (]) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: A number of your suggested articles contain writing which is sufficiently incoherent that they fail to rise to the level of being reliable sources as to the opinions of the author. Newsweek, whatever its other failings, contains material which is sufficiently well written that it is clear what the author is trying to say. ] (]) 02:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Here we have that bastion of the right wing press, stating: | |||
| * A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted. | |||
| So is the BBC incoherent, not big enough, too politically biased, or are we done with these games? The right wing might have been the first to notice it but the meme has certainly gotten beyond them. ] (]) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sunspots meme == | |||
| Do we want to have a mention of the ~2006-2008 "sunspots will cause an ice age real soon now" meme? | |||
| From what I can tell, it was started by ], and subsequently picked up by the English-language right-wing press. As time went on, articles dropped his name, presented his views as if they were widely held by scientists, and often so completely mangled things so that you can't particularly tell whether they're making a prediction or not. As of 2008, repetition of the meme reached the point where folks at NASA felt it necessary to issue a press release indicating that they hadn't seen anything out of the ordinary going on with the sunspot cycle and ] to include a calculation in one of his letters showing how a long-term disappearance of sunspots would only offset about 7 years worth of human CO2 emissions. | |||
| ] (]) 14:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : If its become notable, then I suppose so. As long as we base it around the NASA science, it should be OK ] (]) 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm of two minds on the notability. The actual sources are not generally notable, but there do seem to be a lot of people repeating mangled versions of the sunspots meme, enough so that we've seen responses from notable institutions and individuals. ] (]) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::And the problem of private notability standards rises again. Newsweek's an ok source (circ, 2.xM) but the Old Farmer's Almanac (circ ~4M) is not. The article is currently set up as examing both media and scientific threads. ] (]) 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The Farmer's Almanac didn't make sense because they make regional weather predictions, not global climate predictions. The basis of the predictions doesn't change the fact that they're regional weather predictions. The weather predictions (which they make every year) are also well-known to be no better than chance, and are therefore not notable. ] (]) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually, the publisher stated in at least one interview that we're entering into a period of global cooling. Just because they only publish for the US and Canada doesn't mean that they don't privately calculate for the globe nor that they never say anything about non-US, non-Canada weather. I guess I'm going to have to actually find a copy of the thing and see if the global prediction is really in the 2009 edition. ] (]) 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There are three big problems here. First, the area of the predictions isn't global, even if the author has personal beliefs to that effect. Second, the time scale of the predictions is a single year (eg: they're about weather, rather than climate). Third, they're so widely known to be unreliable that their readers are no more likely to believe the predictions in the OFA than readers of The Onion are to believe The Onion's quotes of various public figures. This lack of trust is why you don't see people citing the OFA as a source, and is why it isn't notable. ] (]) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Not quite sure its worth talking, if you don't bother reading, but I'll repeat what I said before ''Newsweek isn't a RS, except about itself; nor is it presented as such.'' ] (]) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yet isn't exactly that sort of treatment what I was looking for regarding the Old Farmer's Almanac? If you thought I wanted anything different than equivalent to Newsweek treatment, you were mistaken. ] (]) 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Newsweek is frequently cited and quoted in debates of this kind. OFA isn't ] (]) 21:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Since the Newsweek article is from the 1970s and the OFA ref is for the 2009 edition, I think that this would be the expected result, no? There hasn't been time for anybody to cite the thing other than some quick moving blogs. That's not relevant to its cultural impact and cultural impact in the popular imagination is what's relevant to the inclusion of mainstream press accounts. ] (]) 00:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed lead text == | |||
| For the end of the first paragraph: | |||
| A small downward trend in global temperatures using 1998 through the present has renewed some popular interest in the theory. | |||
| Are we ok with this modest addition or am I going to have to cite HADCRUT after the word present and put in the FP, WT, and OFA references after theory? ] (]) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Theory is far too strong a word, and the language used improperly leaves the impression that the temperature fluctuations since 1998 are indicative of a statistically significant cooling. How about something more like: | |||
| ::A 1998 temperature spike has been used to advance the hypothesis that the earth is cooling. | |||
| : Mind you, this doesn't mean we've reached the point of agreeing that the metions of cooling are in fact notable yet. ] (]) 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your proposed text is not factually consistent to what the advocates are saying. The people advancing the hypothesis are not just using the 1998 temp spike but also the subsequent pause in warming and the 2007-2008 (to present) downward deviation. My proposed text includes all three phenomena, yours doesn't. I'd be willing to sub in idea for theory at the last word, better? ] (]) 00:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't like including a one-year drop, since that's not notable, and highly likely to require future revision. We're far better off not mentioning it. Similarly, the alleged "pause" is not in any way notable. ] (]) 04:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The NY Times stating "the episode is even playing into the global warming debate". Furthermore, Misplaced Pages even has tags alerting that events may be on the move and that an article or section might be outdated or overcome by subsequent events. I'd have no problem in including such a tag. That a real phenomenon might pass sometime later after half a year of its existence is not reason to ignore the present existence of the phenomenon, especially when it is starting to gain further mainstream press notice. I'm ok with treating this as a media phenom and adopting a clear wait and see on the science. Why aren't you? ] (]) 20:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Revised proposed text (for 10/6 or later inclusion): A small downward trend in global temperatures using 1998 through the present has renewed some popular interest in the idea | |||
| I think that a 2 week period is sufficient debate for a modest addition. ] (]) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I think we need to treat it not as a media phenomenon, but as a right-wing rhetorical phenomenon. Claims to the effect that we are in a cooling period or to the effect that the sun is about to cause global cooling are not generalized across the press. Instead, we're largely seeing such claims in right-wing opinion outlets. ] (]) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you for signing on board to the idea that global cooling is not just a 1970s phenomena. I look forward to your proposed edits correcting the present text. ] (]) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I've agreed that there is a phenomenon of people talking about cooling, but its a rhetorical one largely confined to right-wing opinion pages, and essentially consists of repeating (often without attribution, and often in highly mangled form) Abdusamatov's claims. It is not a generalized "media phenomonon", and it isn't clear that it is in fact notable, since the folks who are repeating Abdusamatov's claims tend to be so untrusted that their own readers don't believe what they're saying. ] (]) 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: The idea that the readers of Hot Air or National Review or Little Green Footballs have any more credibility problems than the readers of Newsweek is not inherently obvious. You're going to need to demonstrate that. In fact, I would suspect that these days it is quite the reverse. People read Newsweek much more for the salacious gossip and fashion tips and give it less credibility than your average right-wing opinion mag reader gives his title about serious issues like global climate. ] (]) 13:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : There are several problems, mentioned above. There is also the problem that, as I understand it, there isn't a downward trend, even starting from 1998. Do you have an RS that says there is? ] (]) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: You've got it very much right. It isn't even a question of unsettled science -- solar variation makes almost no difference to the earth's climate during the instrumental era. Its a question of there being a whole lot of rhetoric. ] (]) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You seem to be adopting the idea that this is a science article and that's all. It is not as presently constructed, but rather one that handles both the popular press and the scientific issue. I've been patiently working for edits on the popular press side of things, not the science side, that will come later as more data comes in. ] (]) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The problem here is that because the science is settled, the only folks who even say anything about cooling are right-wing opinion pages, and sources which are so unreliable that their readers don't believe them. As such, its a bunch of rhetoric. Its kind of hard to argue that mere rhetoric is notable -- you need to have it be claims that the people reading and hearing are apt to believe. I'm not at all clear we've crossed that threshold. ] (]) 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That's actually not true that this is a right wing only phenomenon, as the mentions in the BBC and the NY Times demonstrate. Right now we've got something of a negative deviation from the previous trend line. That's settled. We've got the AGW theorists who state in pretty unequivocal terms that this is just a random blip and nothing's changed. We've also got a small number, mostly of solar scientists, saying that something seems to have changed and they've got a couple of theories regarding solar variability and cosmic rays. The balance of opinion in the scientific community handily favors the AGW advocates but that does not mean that the science is settled. The proper discussion is regarding ] and how minor a mention to make of the current uptick in global cooling reports and theories. ] (]) 13:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ] is important. And I'd argue that the ''current uptick in global cooling reports'' deserves no mention in this article. ''If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not...'' Also, regarding the magnitude of the 1998-present trend, it depends upon which source you use. They are: +0.010, -0.001, -0.0051, -0.0070, and +0.0074 (all C/year) for GISS, Hadley, UAH, RSS, and NCDC respectively. ] and ] are also relevant here. - ] (]) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: 5 guys in an office would be an 'extremely small (or vastly limited) minority)' but I would submit that once the BBC and the NY Times have got around to mentioning it, we've long passed that hurdle because they're not going to be leaders but rather followers due to their own biases against any resurgence in global cooling talk. HADCRUT3 is a high quality source, unless you're going into fringe land yourself. You're reaching here. As noted in ] just one mention in a major publication is enough to get it beyond the hurdle, whether or not they're debunking the idea. Look at the nutshell description. | |||
| ::::::: But I take your point that I should be more precise. ] (]) 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Your nutshell argument makes no sense - both the BBC and the NYT do ''not'' mention it extensively - but rather do it in passing, and reference it as being a fringe position. Try to actually read the text of the "in a nutshell". Try finding an article in a respectable rs that actually does cover it extensively.--] (]) 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| SP reworked the sentence per his suggestion; I've very lightly re-worked that. There's a slight subtlety that my version hints at: the temperature series available then were not just shorter, they were of much lower quality; more recent series show much less cooling over the period they were looking at ] (]) 20:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The NYTimes articles mentions temperature once: ''From the middle of the 17th century to the early 18th, a period known as the Maunder Minimum, sunspots were extremely rare, and the reduced activity coincided with lower temperatures in what is known as the Little Ice Age.'' No mention is related to the "recent cooling". The BBC says that ''Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific...'' and ''...the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record''. Neither source supports the text you wish to insert. - ] (]) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|William M. Connolley}}, Works for me. ]] 20:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Misleading lede == | |||
| ::WMC - I'm sorry, what is the trend then? For the soucing, reread the last sentence of my original entry in this section. ] (]) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| In the beginning of this article: | |||
| ::: What is the trend rather depends on exactly when you calculate it over. But if you want to assert its negative, then *you* need to provide a RS (and thats before we even argue about notability). Your original entry is ''A small downward trend in global temperatures using 1998 through the present has renewed some popular interest in the theory.'' so you don't mean that. What do you mean? ] (]) 20:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '' Although the global temperature series available at the time suggested that the temperature had decreased for several decades up to the mid-70s, as additional data became available through time, the global temperature series demonstrated significant increases over the next decades, which falsified the conjecture. | |||
| :::: Citations are only supposed to be used in matters of controversy. You're supposed to be working in the field. Are you really stating that it's controversial that there's a tiny negative trend out of the HADCRUT numbers if you start your graphs at the 1998 raw numbers peak and that a statement noting that must be sourced/documented with a RS citation? | |||
| '' | |||
| This paragraph simultaneously claims that several decades of data confirmed (suggested) the global cooling conjecture, AND then several decades "falsified" it. | |||
| ::::: And this is clearly controversial. You said ''For the soucing, reread the last sentence of my original entry in this section'' which appears to offer sources. Please provide them, or withdraw your offer ] (]) 07:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You cannot have both. Either several decades of global temperature series are enough to settle the claim, in which case both "accept" AND "falsify" are true – clearly a contradiction. Or they're not enough to settle the claim – in which case the conjecture is open. | |||
| :::::: Please explain what you mean by the word *this*. I don't think you mean that it is controversial that the raw monthly HADCRUT3 numbers from their 1998 peak to today have a negative slope when you graph them because if you do mean that, you've departed from reality. So what *do* you mean when you say that *this* is clearly controversial? ] (]) 04:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: You have no sources. Please provide one ] (]) 09:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I mean, maybe the global cooling conjecture has been falsified. I'd assume it has. But the reason given in the lede immediately stand out as nonsense. | |||
| :::::::: You have no controversy. Please provide one or stop manufacturing one. What, exactly, are you protesting regarding the HADCRUT3 numbers? Be clear so I can address the controversy if it actually exists. ] (]) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Can anyone with knowledge in the field rewrite it, clarify its logic? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::::::: Stop wasting our time. You can't say ''A small downward trend in global temperatures using 1998 through the present'' without a source for it ] (]) 15:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Yeah, it is poor. There was a better earlier version but unfortunately removed it, and I guess someone else replaced it badly. | |||
| :::::::::: Is it really so hard to say, "I'm saying that there is no downward trend in HADCRUT in the relevant time period, that's the controversy"? You're working awfully hard at *not* saying it, wasting lots of electrons and HD space at Misplaced Pages *not* saying it. I'm asserting that it's noncontroversial that from the late 90s peak to today there is a negative slope in HADCRUT3's raw data and that's all that the sentence is referring to, the existence of the negative slope and the use that some have put that fact to. You're saying it needs sourcing but you've never actually identified the controversy. So what is the controversy? You have to identify a controversy before you can legitimately demand RS. Identify it or stop wasting *my* time. ] (]) 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : What it is trying to say is that (a) in the 70s, the T series were (1) short and (2) new, and (3) showing cooling, but that (b) T series to now show unambiguous warming; and (c) modern series have revised the series that people looked at then, and show less cooling than was then though to be seen ] (]) 13:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : I've reworked it ] (]) 15:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The monthly anomalies over the last ten years have a trend of -0.0021 +/- 0.0033 °C/year, which is marginally negative, though I suspect most researchers would describe that as "negligible" or "consistent with zero" rather than saying negative. ] (]) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
:: It's worth noting, on talk at least, that analysis of the record-as-we-now-have-it shows that the "cooling" period probably wasn't even statistically significant; see https://tamino.wordpress.com/2021/10/16/an-honest-appraisal-of-the-global-temperature-trend/. That's a blog post, but by an expert, so might be an RS ] (]) 20:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::: No. - ] (]) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thank you for sharing Atmoz, would you like to explain why? ] (]) 02:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Because the data is cherry-picked. 1998 was a large positive deviation in ENSO. There was a recent large negative deviation in ENSO. It is not surprising that if one chooses those time-frames as the start and end dates respectively that the OLS trend will be less than the overall long-term trend. Choose a different starting date +/- a year or two from 1998, how do the trends change? I bet they are now positive. What does this say about the robustness of the trend from 1998? - ] (]) 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: You might not have been paying attention but I already conceded that, several times in fact. It still is significant because it's the data that's being used to justify the revived discussion in global cooling, you know, the article that we're discussing how to improve? Take it as given that global cooling is bullshit and you still need to document it in the global cooling article in an NPOV manner. You really ought to click the link I cited above on graphs. If you had, you would have know that you actually have to go as far back as 4/1997 to today to even get a flat slope out of the HADCRUT numbers as of 9/2008. If you pick 5/1997, you still have a negative slope. The trend lately has been to lengthen out how far before the peak you have to get before the negative slope goes away. A significant chunk of the 1970s concerns were the popular press cherry picking and taking out of context sober scientific treatments. It would not be out of bounds to note the problem of cherry picking but what is out of bounds is the current state of the article which significantly underweights post-1970s global cooling advocacy/theory. ] (]) 04:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Actually, I did click that link. And a few others on the site . I did find on . I thought it best just to ignore it the first go around. Thanks for the laugh though. You still haven't provided a RS. - ] (]) 05:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Researchers too cold to check temps at station == | |||
| ::::::::: Ah, who's cherry picking now? First of all, let me make it clear that I was offering to create a graphic that is similar to most of the stuff that Global Warming Art has been providing to Misplaced Pages, publicly available data set up in as similar a manner as possible, with the only difference being the start point. Demanding that I provide reliable sources before it's fit for Misplaced Pages is pretty similar to trying to invalidate the Global Warming Art stuff since it would be derived in the same manner from exactly the same sources. Do you really want to go down that road? | |||
| Lack of accurate temp data from cold research station ] (]) 04:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: The blog I'm about to discuss was never proposed as a source for the graphics but merely as a ready made "this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about" site. You are fundamentally barking up the wrong tree by your hit on our pseudonymous author above. The attack's still unwarranted though. | |||
| :Source? ] (]) 09:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :]. This has nothing to do with the article, let alone with improving the article (which is the goal of this page). --] (]) 09:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Global cooling was in fact a scientific consensus. == | |||
| ::::::::: The site is a blog by an actuary who has a sense of humor (refreshing actually). You might have gone one article back from your cherry picked jpeg to for a reasonable examination of the issue. The site is done by a professional actuary which generally means that it should be good for backward looking charts and not that bad for forward looking stuff within the timeline that is reasonable for normal actuary work. Perhaps you can explain why we shouldn't be using ] (as the chart you dismiss does) but that's hardly a laughing matter that deserves no actual discussion. (oops, forgot to sign) ] (]) 16:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Quit with the revisionism. Every one of the major news outlets at the time from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times to Time Magazine to NPR...even Leonard Nimoy made hysterical claims about the 'coming Ice Age'. All these outlets cited as sources the contemporary 'scientific consensus'. ] (]) 23:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| New proposed text as per Atmoz's criticism on sourcing: | |||
| A small downward trend in global temperatures using HADCRUT3's 1998 peak through the present has renewed some popular interest in the idea. <br> | |||
| Unless WMC comes back with an actual controversy, this is going to be it. ] (]) 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:48, 4 March 2024
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
cross reference to Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period
The disproportionate coverage in the 1970s isn't well-explained at Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period. Eds here may want to look at that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- I lived through the 1970s and I can assure you, it wasn't considered conjecture back then. Our science text books in school claimed the earth was cooling into a catastrophic ice age and we would run out of oil by 2010. The only reason Misplaced Pages is trying to downplay it now is because everyone knows it's bunk and remembering what the "experts" said in the 1970s sheds a lot of light on what they are saying now. Remember, only 9 years until the end of the world. - AOC in 2018— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.135.1.223 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I lived through the 1970s and I can assure you that all discussion and article content has to be based on published reliable sources, not personal anecdotes. Also, sign your posts. . . dave souza, talk 18:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Issue with sentence in lead
The statement in the lead is problematic in many ways:
The current scientific consensus on climate change is that the Earth underwent global warming throughout the 20th century and continues to warm.
The article is about a conjecture which has subsequently been rejected. It is quite appropriate for the league to start out with the discussion of the conjecture as it does, and comment on the current view of the conjecture. The sentence included presumably attempts to summarize the present view but it does so very clumsily.
The sentence is written as if it is a refutation of something like the following:
Global cooling was a conjecture that the earth was cooling throughout the 20th century.
If that had been the conjecture, the statement (if true) would be an appropriate rejoinder. But that wasn't the conjecture. The conjecture doesn't suggest that there was no warming in the early part of the 20th century. .The conjecture, simply stated, was that recent cooling had been observed and was projected to continue. the facts are that recent cooling had been observed, but the projection that this would continue turned out to be incorrect. Let's structure a sentence that makes that point.
I haven't checked to see if the sentence used is supportable by the reference, but the references to the 2007 report. Why use that when the 2014 report is available? there might be situations when use of an outdated report is warranted but this is not one of them.
The sentence as stated claims that global warming occurred throughout the 20th century. The literal meaning of this is that the temperature graph must be strictly increasing at every point. I don't wish to insist on an overly literal interpretation of the word "throughout". An example or two of a temperature decrease or even flat shouldn't be considered a rejection of the broad term. However an examination of the graph in the IPCC report makes it clear that the global temperature in 1975 was lower than it was in 1940 (I'm doing this by casual inspection of the graph, if this becomes an important issue we can track down the underlying data points). A 35 year period of cooling, while it doesn't reject the scientific consensus that the earth in general is warming, does reject the overly broad statement that warming occurred "throughout" 20th century.
It is entirely understandable that scientists observing 35 year period of cooling (recall that many scientists suggest that a 30 year period is an appropriate period of time to draw conclusions) would express concern about whether this trend would continue. It did not, but it should be understandable that such a concern would be expressed. I have no problem with stating that the conjecture is turned out to be false, but let's make that statement using a factual claim that can be supported by a reliable source, not a sloppily written claim.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've rephrased it to remove your "throughout" objection. I doubt that 2007 vs 2014 is of any importance (is the ref even needed? It is uncontroversial; the claim is in the lede; and is fully reffed by the linked GW page anyway). I think we need something here; the article should be to some extent self-contained so it needs reality in the lede William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley, Sorry, I find that wholly inadequate. It's a step in the right direction, as it removes an inaccurate word, but we are still left with a casual statement that isn't truly responsive to the issue. It is still accompanied by reference to an outdated source. I didn't bother to check to see if the claim is supported by that source because it's not the current scientific view. While we are anticipating a new report next year, the most recent report is the 2014 report (although they may be more recent peer-reviewed relevant articles). If we want to source to the IPCC which makes sense, we I do need to find some exact wording to quote, or put together a sentence that supported by the report that is responsive to the issue. Talking about the entire 20th century is misleading. The proponents of the cooling conjecture were not arguing that the world temperature dropped in the first half of the century, so stating that it didn't is responsive to the conjecture. The conjecture was that the temperature dropped for a substantial period of time and and that cooling was conjectured to continue. There were correct to report the multi-decadal cooling, but there conjecture that it would continue turned out to be false. Surely we can construct a sentence that says that it is supported by scientific literature. The sentence you are pushing to include doesn't do that. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- The statement isn't supposed to be "responsive"; it is context. As to the ref, I'm not sure why you're so hung up about it; I suggested, above, just removing it and you didn't reply to that idea, so I've tried it.
- The conjecture was that - I'm doubtful that it was as unified as you suggest. But, if you wish to propose a better sentence, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
However an examination of the graph in the IPCC report makes it clear that the global temperature in 1975 was lower than it was in 1940
That is the same rookie way of interpreting curves that has given us the Global warming hiatus bullshit. Drawing conclusions from comparing two data points that have been carefully selected to lead to a specific conclusion is a form of cherry picking. Use 1935-1975 or 1940-1973 instead of 1940-1975 and you get an increase instead. Competent scientists use linear regression, which is far less sensitive to outliers than comparing the endpoints, and they do not pick intervals which "happen to" start at one of the maxima of the curve and "happen to" end at one of the minima. Misplaced Pages uses the published conclusions of those experts, not the far less reliable original research of Misplaced Pages editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)- Ah well careful here. If people actually were comparing 1940 to 1975, then we should be reporting that, even if it is a rookie error. People have done a lot more staring at temperature time series since then William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not if those people did not publish that in RS. And not if they did publish it but were not noticed by secondary sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling, You are missing the point. I'm very familiar with the concept of cherry picking. For example, picking 1940-1973 sounds very much like cherry picking. You also seem to misunderstand the whole issue when you talk about picking an interval that just " 'happen to' end at one of the minima". the context is a supposition in the mid-70s so the most recent endpoint was the then current temperature series. Surely you don't suggest that someone in 1975 should use a period from 1940 to 1980. In addition, I'm not arguing that the conjecture was scientifically solid. Almost by definition it wasn't because it turned out not to be true. However, this is an article about the conjecture. It's appropriate to discuss the conjecture, and it is appropriate to add a comment that explains that the conjecture turned out to be false. My sole point is that the sloppy sentence proposed for inclusion doesn't do the job.
- I would prefer sentence something along the lines of "although the global temperature series suggested that the temperature was decreasing in recent decades (as of mid-70s), as additional data became available through time, the global temperature series demonstrated significant increases over the next decades, which falsified the conjecture." I happily concede that's off the top of the head and casual and could be tightened, but at least it provides context as opposed to the existing sentence which doesn't respond to the conjecture. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Of course 1973 is cherry-picked, no more or less than 1975. The article says, "On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post reported that "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age"". Surely you don't suggest that someone in 1970 would use a period from 1940 to 1975. So, my alarm sensors went off when I read that "However an examination" sentence.
- As I said, if the 1940-1975 interval was specifically used in RS, we can use it here. If not, we can't. Since your suggestion does not use that interval, it is fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling, The opening sentence states: "Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s,..." It is my understanding that the global cooling conjecture isn't tied to a specific point in time, but a more general period of time as described by "during the 1970s" so I made the casual selection of the midpoint of the period. However, I trust you understand that if you are looking at an interval whose beginning and end points are both in the past, one has to be careful about cherry picking at both ends, but if you are looking at it interval that ends at the time you are doing the analysis, you typically only have to worry about cherry picking the beginning point (it's a little more complicated than that but roughly speaking). It's also widely stated (but if it's not true we can revisit) that scientists like a 30 year period at least, based on the understandable belief that shorter periods of time may be more noise than signal. That's the reason I picked 1975 as an endpoint in 1945 as a beginning point — I tried to pick a point around the time the controversy was taking place and then backed up 30 years. If you have another alternative, please share. You identified a quote that references 1970. I'm sure you've seen that there are several other dates, so there's nothing magical about 1970. Pick an end date sometime between 1970 and 1975, backup 30 years, and my guess is that the trendline will be negative for most selections. This is what motivated the conjecture. Do you disagree?
- We now know that there were problems with the conjecture. It obviously did not turn out to be valid. We ought to say that in this article, but a statement about warming in the first half of the 20th century is not relevant to the conjecture, so let's say something that's relevant not pick out some facts that happens to be true but has nothing to do with the conjecture. I think your closing statement suggested support for my proposal. Did I misunderstand? S Philbrick(Talk) 01:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I had expected my last words
As I said, if the 1940-1975 interval was specifically used in RS, we can use it here. If not, we can't. Since your suggestion does not use that interval, it is fine
to put this matter at rest. Nobody wants to use your WP:OR interval, so it stays fine. - This is a completely pointless blown-out-of-proportion tangent starting from one small objection of mine to one point of reasoning. BTW, 1975 "backed up 30 years" is not 1940. (I hope that last sentence will not turn into another long discussion.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I had expected my last words
- Ah well careful here. If people actually were comparing 1940 to 1975, then we should be reporting that, even if it is a rookie error. People have done a lot more staring at temperature time series since then William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
SP reworked the sentence per his suggestion; I've very lightly re-worked that. There's a slight subtlety that my version hints at: the temperature series available then were not just shorter, they were of much lower quality; more recent series show much less cooling over the period they were looking at William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley, Works for me. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Misleading lede
In the beginning of this article:
Although the global temperature series available at the time suggested that the temperature had decreased for several decades up to the mid-70s, as additional data became available through time, the global temperature series demonstrated significant increases over the next decades, which falsified the conjecture.
This paragraph simultaneously claims that several decades of data confirmed (suggested) the global cooling conjecture, AND then several decades "falsified" it.
You cannot have both. Either several decades of global temperature series are enough to settle the claim, in which case both "accept" AND "falsify" are true – clearly a contradiction. Or they're not enough to settle the claim – in which case the conjecture is open.
I mean, maybe the global cooling conjecture has been falsified. I'd assume it has. But the reason given in the lede immediately stand out as nonsense.
Can anyone with knowledge in the field rewrite it, clarify its logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8308:900A:BB00:DC3D:A32B:6B4E:72B5 (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is poor. There was a better earlier version but unfortunately this removed it, and I guess someone else replaced it badly.
- What it is trying to say is that (a) in the 70s, the T series were (1) short and (2) new, and (3) showing cooling, but that (b) T series to now show unambiguous warming; and (c) modern series have revised the series that people looked at then, and show less cooling than was then though to be seen William M. Connolley (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've reworked it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's worth noting, on talk at least, that analysis of the record-as-we-now-have-it shows that the "cooling" period probably wasn't even statistically significant; see https://tamino.wordpress.com/2021/10/16/an-honest-appraisal-of-the-global-temperature-trend/. That's a blog post, but by an expert, so might be an RS William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Researchers too cold to check temps at station
Lack of accurate temp data from cold research station 66.74.187.181 (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Source? Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM. This has nothing to do with the article, let alone with improving the article (which is the goal of this page). --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Global cooling was in fact a scientific consensus.
Quit with the revisionism. Every one of the major news outlets at the time from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times to Time Magazine to NPR...even Leonard Nimoy made hysterical claims about the 'coming Ice Age'. All these outlets cited as sources the contemporary 'scientific consensus'. 2603:8001:C200:1637:C095:D281:DBB8:516C (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class Environment articles
- Low-importance Environment articles
- B-Class Climate change articles
- Mid-importance Climate change articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class history of science articles
- Low-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- B-Class Globalization articles
- Low-importance Globalization articles
- B-Class Weather articles
- Mid-importance Weather articles
- B-Class Climate articles
- Mid-importance Climate articles
- WikiProject Weather articles