Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 7 September 2007

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

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

v t e Climate change Overview Causes of climate change Effects of climate change Climate change mitigation Climate change adaptation By country and region Causes Overview Climate system Greenhouse effect (Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere) Scientific consensus on climate change Sources Deforestation Fossil fuel Greenhouse gases Greenhouse gas emissions Carbon accounting Carbon footprint Carbon leakage from agriculture from wetlands World energy supply and consumption History History of climate change policy and politics History of climate change science Svante Arrhenius James Hansen Charles David Keeling United Nations Climate Change conferences Years in climate change 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Effects and issues Physical Abrupt climate change Anoxic event Arctic methane emissions Arctic sea ice decline Atlantic meridional overturning circulation Drought Extreme weather Flood Coastal flooding Heat wave Marine Urban heat island Oceans acidification deoxygenation heat content sea surface temperature stratification temperature Ozone depletion Permafrost thaw Retreat of glaciers since 1850 Sea level rise Season creep Tipping points in the climate system Tropical cyclones Water cycle Wildfires Flora and fauna Biomes Mass mortality event Birds Extinction risk Forest dieback Invasive species Marine life Plant biodiversity Social and economic Agriculture Livestock United States Children Cities Civilizational collapse Crime Depopulation of settlements Destruction of cultural heritage Disability Economic impacts U.S. insurance industry Fisheries Gender Health Mental health Human rights Indigenous peoples Infectious diseases Migration Poverty Psychological impacts Security and conflict Urban flooding Water scarcity Water security By country and region Africa Americas Antarctica Arctic Asia Australia Caribbean Europe Middle East and North Africa Small island countries by individual country Mitigation Economics and finance Carbon budget Carbon emission trading Carbon offsets and credits Gold Standard (carbon offset standard) Carbon price Carbon tax Climate debt Climate finance Climate risk insurance Co-benefits of climate change mitigation Economics of climate change mitigation Fossil fuel divestment Green Climate Fund Low-carbon economy Net zero emissions Energy Carbon capture and storage Energy transition Fossil fuel phase-out Nuclear power Renewable energy Sustainable energy Preserving and enhancing carbon sinks Blue carbon Carbon dioxide removal Carbon sequestration Direct air capture Carbon farming Climate-smart agriculture Forest management afforestation forestry for carbon sequestration REDD and REDD+ reforestation Land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF and AFOLU) Nature-based solutions Personal Individual action on climate change Plant-based diet Society and adaptation Society Business action Climate action Climate emergency declaration Climate movement School Strike for Climate Denial Ecological grief Governance Justice Litigation Politics Public opinion Women Adaptation Adaptation strategies on the German coast Adaptive capacity Disaster risk reduction Ecosystem-based adaptation Flood control Loss and damage Managed retreat Nature-based solutions Resilience Risk Vulnerability The Adaptation Fund National Adaptation Programme of Action Communication Climate Change Performance Index Climate crisis (term) Climate spiral Education Media coverage Popular culture depictions art fiction video games Warming stripes International agreements Glasgow Climate Pact Kyoto Protocol Paris Agreement Cooperative Mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement Nationally determined contributions Sustainable Development Goal 13 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Background and theory Measurements Global surface temperature Instrumental temperature record Proxy Satellite temperature measurement Theory Albedo Carbon cycle atmospheric biologic oceanic permafrost Carbon sink Climate sensitivity Climate variability and change Cloud feedback Cloud forcing Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis Cryosphere Earth's energy budget Extreme event attribution Feedbacks Global warming potential Illustrative model of greenhouse effect on climate change Orbital forcing Radiative forcing Research and modelling Climate change scenario Climate model Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Paleoclimatology Representative Concentration Pathway Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Climate change portal Category Glossary Index

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. Comments: "a great primer on the subject"; "Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen"; "pleasantly surprised how the main articles stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy."; "wishes Misplaced Pages offered better links to basic weather science." Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

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

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

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 May 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August – October 2006 October – November 2006 December – February 2007 February – March 2007 March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Callmebc's revert

With regard to the following sentence in the article's introduction: "Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe."

Callmebc, please explain how "climate change" makes more sense "in context" as opposed to "global warming," especially since this article is specifically on Global Warming and not on the more general Climate Change. Diophantus 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Because "global warming" is a less scientific term for what's happening to the world's climate than "climate change." The earth is not warming up uniformly -- some areas are warming up drastically while other areas are actually cooling, and there have been shifts in precipitation patterns as well. And the main article itself has a "Terminology" section that pretty clearly states: The term "global warming" is a specific example of the broader term climate change, which can also refer to global cooling. In common usage the term refers to recent warming and implies a human influence. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes. The term "anthropogenic global warming" is sometimes used when focusing on human-induced changes.

Satisfied? If so, you should do the revert this time. -BC aka Callmebc 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc, no I'm not satisfied.

The fact that some parts of the Earth are cooling is irrelevant, since "global warming" denotes an overall warming trend. The very first sentence of the article says that global warming refers to the "increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." I'm not sure why you even bring this up. My only guess is that you believe that the clause "...and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe" will lead readers to conclude that all regions of the world are warming. I don't think that will be the case.

The terminology you quote supports my point.

It makes no sense to use "climate change", because this term also includes "global cooling," while the article deals specifically with global warming. If you look at the introduction, you'll see that except for this one sentence it only talks about warming. This sentence is inconsistent with the rest of the intro and the article as a whole. And you were saying something about context? Diophantus 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside the U.S., popular use of term "climate change" is essentially synonymous with "global warming." It's more accurate in a way, because it's impossible for the atmosphere to warm without other changes to the climate also occurring. We're approaching how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory here. Raymond Arritt 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What I said about context is exactly that. Your version: Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of global warming expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe. The original version: Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe. The context is that having "scientific" and a reference to "changes" in that sentence makes the orginal "climate change" phrase more appropriate. Justifying it by referencing another part of the article makes little grammatical sense -- you have to look at the context of the sentence first. Also you shouldn't make a change like that without running it by the discussion page first. So are you going to revert it or what? -BC aka Callmebc 03:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you put in the degree symbol

How do you put in the degree symbol? the small little circle? 138.220.67.145 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's listed with other symbols right under the "Save Page" button (not sure if you have to be logged in to see them, though). In any case, you can copy/paste it from here: °

Hope this helps. ~ S0CO 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! A non-POV discussion! --Cheeesemonger 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I LOL'D! Anyway, if you're using Windows, you can also press alt+0176. BeefRendang 10:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New NASA data?

GISS released new data because of a flaw found in their software. Should it be mentioned that this new data now shows 1934 as the warmest year ever and that 4 of the top 10 years are in the 30's? Their revised list is on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007

• Year-Old-New;
• 1934 1.23 1.25,
• 1998 1.24 1.23,
• 1921 1.12 1.15,
• 2006 1.23 1.13,
• 1931 1.08 1.08,
• 1999 0.94 0.93,
• 1953 0.91 0.90,
• 1990 0.88 0.87,
• 1938 0.85 0.86,
• 1939 0.84 0.85,

Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.

• Year-Old-New;
• 1998 1.24 1.23,
• 1934 1.23 1.25,
• 2006 1.23 1.13,
• 1921 1.12 1.15,
• 1931 1.08 1.08,
• 1999 0.94 0.93,
• 1953 0.91 0.90,
• 2001 0.90 0.76,
• 1990 0.88 0.87,
• 1938 0.85 0.86,

Im not very good at formatting, but those are the lists old and new. If this new data is graphed, it shows a much different picture of the current climate change than the old data showed. Just curious in your opinion, thanks.

Jmsseal 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The data is from the "Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States relative to the 1951-1980 mean", it isnt global but United States only. --Carl Szczerski 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that you're not reading things correctly. Those are yearly deviations, and not warming trends, which are long-term, multi-year patterns. The overall trend, as shown on that same NASA site, has been upwards and onwards. -BC aka Callmebc 04:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jmsseal's reading is correct. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt gives the deviations from the mean temperature of the years 1880 to 2006. If 1934 deviates from the mean by 1.25, and 1998 deviates by 1.23, then 1934 was hotter. Perhaps NASA hasn't updated their other graphics yet. Here is someone to back up what I'm saying. Your thoughts? --SirEditALot 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on what mean they use. "Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperatures. The temperature anomaly tells us how much warmer or colder than normal it is at a particular place and point in time, the 'normal temperature' being the mean over many (30) years (same place, same time of year)."from here. If that is so, the hottest year could be any other year. Determining the hottest year will depend on the anomaly for that year and on the background (30 year period) they are using to determine the anomaly. Brusegadi 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Instrumental_temperature_record#Unexplained_adjustments_to_U.S._temperature_record. As of this writing, near the end it states, "According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever in the United States." Should that be removed? Or is that statement correct and your understanding of the NASA data wrong? I'm not an expert so I don't know. --SirEditALot 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you misinterpret me a little bit. I am saying that I think the anomalies are calculated with different means so that by looking at the anomalies alone, you cant deduce which year is hottest because we do not know the means. Thus, by looking just at that, the hottest year could be any year. It could be 34 or 85 or 98. So that sentence can be correct; I just dont think we can deduce it from the above list of numbers. Brusegadi 19:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Any one set of anomalies *should* be calculated from a consistent mean, so the anomalies *can* be compared. However... the difference of 1998 and 1934 is not stat sig, so they should not really be ranked. To quote RC quoting Hansen 2001 The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C. William M. Connolley 19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Will...it's been a couple of years since I've even bothered to waste my time reading through this page and debate with you and others. How's Antartica treating you...? Still there? Wow...all we need is just a tenth of a degree variance? Considering the opening paragraphs for this page states: "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the twentieth century." and "Climate models referenced by the IPCC project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100." and the cute little graph under the "Temperature Changes" section indicating up to a .4° variation in 2004...that apparently these predictions, charts, graphs etc. can't overcome your .1° uncertainty variable. A bit contradictory wouldn't you say? And I don't have a wiki account/user and thus am not now (nor have I ever) "signed" anything so please don't tell me how my opinion is worthless or less meaningfull because I haven't signed up for a wiki user account or whatever. Thanks in advance. --Jbond

Doesn't seem at all contradictory. Of course it is easier to see the signal through the noise with global data rather than a region like the US. crandles 14:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole I can't see the foreset for the trees argument? Still doesn't address my point though. I guess despite the U.S. being, what, the #2 pollutant in the World that our own temperature anomalies are independent of the rest of the non-developed world? We are talking about "global" warming right? Not "Global minus the US warming". I guess since the U.S. represents only 2% of global land mass one could argue that point. Guess I shouldn't point out we only have surface temp reading for approximately 1/2 of the globe, and prio to WWII we only had surface temp data for less then 1/4 of the globe, many of which are suspect and have been show to be wrong. Or are you referencing the data collected, analyzed, predicted from computer models using variables they don't even understand? Are they more accurate now then 5, 10, 20 years ago? Yes. But when the most important factors are the least understood...how does one come up with a hard variable to use in an equation for modelling? Or even a range? --Jbond

My reason for asking, and i did take the time to read things correctly and i do understand charts and graphs exceptionally well, is that due to the changes in GISS's numbers, the following statement in your article is no longer true, "Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998.

I am not arguing global warming, Is it man made, fact or fiction. I find that to be pointless because most people have made their minds up one way or another and you would have better luck changing their religion. I was only trying to remain factually correct in the article. Thanks Jmsseal 00:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the article refers to global mean temperature. The NASA data you gave are for the U.S. The U.S. is not the globe. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The earlier data that showed 1998 as the warmest year in the U.S. temperature record was a the result of a Y2K bug.. In the corrected data, five of the ten warmest years are pre-WWII. Kauffner 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't William M. Connolley 13:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I know you folks were a bit late, but WWII started in 1939 William M. Connolley 13:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, not if you ask the Chinese. Surely they would state the war started several years before 1939.--MONGO 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Four of the top ten warmest years in the U.S. were pre-WWII. One was 1951. Three years were in the 1990s and two years in the 2000s. I think the biggest lesson here, for the U.S., is that the 2000s are cooler than the 1990s and the 1990s are cooler than the 1930s. RonCram 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on looking at I'd say the 2000's are warmer than the '90s and the 30's. A quick calc from the data confirms this. Looks like you need to learn some new lessons. And, of course, to distinguish global and US William M. Connolley 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

William, I clearly wrote of the U.S. temps. I think it is important to know that one of the largest and most reliable weather station networks in the world is not showing any warming trend over the 20th century.RonCram 13:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, rather, "one of the largest and most reliable weather station networks in the world" was possibly affected by the national (and not global) Dust Bowl disaster (off the top of my head, could be completely false). Ben Hocking 14:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley is correct. The mean anomaly for the '30s was 0.5. For the '90s it was 0.424, and the the 2000s it was .653. --SirEditALot 03:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking at 5 year mean vs. annual mean? This is only U.S. data though. East Coast of the U.S. has been slightly cooling so the warming in the U.S. is almost all in the western U.S. Interesting that from the graph, the annual deviation from the 5 year mean seems high in the 1920-1940 time period. Maybe more importably, how did such a simple error in source data evade discovery with all the focus being put on analyzing it? --Tbeatty 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, WWII started in September 18, 1931 with the Mukden Incident leading to the Imperial Japanese invasion of Manchuria that sparked off the Second Sino-Japanese War. With that out of the way, RealClimate states that, after the data correction, "the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC)." Just by eyeballing 'http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif', it appears that the 30s was hotter than the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 90s. For certian, the new rankings for the 10 hottest years are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939 (1st to 10th). Revolutionaryluddite 21:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There's been a long discussion at the talk page for Instrumental temperature record. RealClimate and James Hansen have made statements saying that the data errors were not Y2K bug related. Stephen McIntyre says that the errors were based on a systematic bias in the correction for Urban Heat Island effects on the GISS weather stations. Revolutionaryluddite 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the U.S. temperature record? Until it has actual implications on the global temperature record, this is hardly worth noting. ~ UBeR 01:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it doesn't belong on this page. 72.47.71.160 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Revolutionaryluddite

It depends where global data come from. If they are compiled from data provided by each country, this calculation will change the global average. The global tables are likely compiled from tables like this one. If so, there would be an effect. 69.12.143.197 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It does, and it will, but, surprising as it may be, the US is so small that the minor correction of US data has no significant effect on the global results. In particular, 2005 or 1998 (depending on methodology, and not really separable in a statistically significant way) remain the warmest years on record. --Stephan Schulz 07:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why the sarcasm there was warranted. Yes, the US is about 2% of the surface of the earth, but there will be an effect on the statistics. 171.71.37.29 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. is about 2% of the surface but about 6% of the land surface. Perhaps more importantly, it is among the most densely populated surface station network in the world. Now that people can see that no warming trend exists in the U.S. since World War II, McIntyre is looking for a warming trend in the rest of the world (ROW). He has a series of posts based on "Where's Waldo?" detailing his search for a warming trend. Perhaps information from some of these posts belong in the article? RonCram 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming on Mars

Are you the one deleting this chunk that I've added to the Global Warming article?

While some skeptics of Global Warming declare that Global Warming is a hoax in its entirety, some who admit that the global temperature is rising argue that it is not attributable to man, and that it is a natural phenomenon. One argument for this theory is that a simultaneous phenomenon is happening on the planet Mars, which suggests that Global Warming may not be limited to the only planet where human interaction could have influence.

In addition, while Venus is the token example of an Earth-like planet globally warmed by excessive C0₂ in the atmosphere, there is no man-made industrialism or other sources of greenhouse emissions present on Venus.

I find nothing oppinionated about this entry, and it is cited by a reputable source (National Geographic), and it portrays a valid point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HillChris1234 (talk • contribs)

It's not a valid point. Mars is not Earth and it has issues the Earth doesn't have, most notably global wide dust storms. See also this more recent article. And that National Geographic article is only about the "views" of just one scientist, a Russian named Habibullo Abdussamatov, and that same article mentions that his views "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." So this hardly merits inclusion in the discussion page, never mind the main article. -BC aka Callmebc 21:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved this from TeaDrinker's talk. I thought they were more appropriate here. I also de-linked the subject because it looks better black.Brusegadi 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to be syntheses and undue weight.Brusegadi 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(I hope no one minds that I did a bit of formatting above.) My concern (aside from 3rr and such) was as mentioned, undue weight. The second paragraph (on Venus) may indeed be an improper synthesis as well. Solar effects are already sufficiently covered (there is an entire section on it), that this (over) simplistic view of planetary analogies really would only mislead people. It is also most certainly out of place in terms of article flow as well. I replied in person on my talk page, as well. I should also note HillChris1234 (talk · contribs) is presently blocked for 24 hrs for 3rr problems, so no immediate reply should be expected. --TeaDrinker 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Find a more reliable source that makes a connection between Mars warming and Earth warming and you will have a better argument for including the content. A single NG article that documents the opinion of a single scientist (with multiple critics in the article, to boot) does not support mentioning it in Misplaced Pages's primary GW article. Has there been any research conducted to support the common solar factor? If so, include it! Zoomwsu 21:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The best material on the solar forcing hypothesis already is included in the article (e.g., Solanski's work). I don't know of any published work on the common planetary warming issue. Its main proponent has some rather, um, "novel" ideas about the climate system. Among these are that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, and that different chemical constituents of the troposphere can spontaneously unmix. Raymond Arritt 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is, just because this article's title is "global warming" does not automatically say it's about global warming on Earth, because clearly, Earth is not the only planet where this is happening. There may be some truth to the theories that the sun is causing global warming, but that does not explain all of the observed global warming. The sun being the strongest in a million years does not explain why the north pole was briefly ice-free for the first time in 50 million years. Obviously, people are not saying that global warming is caused completely by humans, so why should this be so controversial? Sure, there are different theories on the things that will happen, but most scientists have clearly said that the sun, volcanoes, and continental drift can not be responsible for all of global warming. They say that humans are invloved because when you add the estimated effects of humans to the numbers, it pretty much adds up. The article should at least have some mention of most of the different theories, including the ones about the sun. Thanks. ~AH1 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion of solar variation in this article. If you read it through you will see that they discuss each relevant forcing on earth. In addition, we should not discuss other planets because it is undue weight.Brusegadi 17:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not undue weight to give one paragraph in an overall article that is based upon scientific conjecture, to ONE of the other conjectures that may explain things differently. It is, in fact, necessary per NPOV. Undue weight would be if it were given the space of half the article. --Blue Tie 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said. Conveniently, the article already has a section on variations in solar output. Brusegadi 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it were a theory that was considered to be reasonably serious by climate scientists, then we could mention it. Remember that this is an article about a scientific theory and it is a fact that outside the realm of peer reviewed journals, there are very few reliable sources. Just today I had a discussion about including a hot news item about relativity in the wiki article about this subject see here.

The same concerns hold in this case too. If there are many unreliable sources out there and we want to use what we read in there for a wiki article, then we must also be permitted to do Original Research to correct mistakes etc.(which is in principle possible because many editors here are experts in the field of climate science). Count Iblis 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand (really I do) that this is a wikipedia policy-free zone. So policies such as WP:NPOV do not apply. However, they are the basis for my comment. Of course if WP:NPOV is not relevant here, my comments do not apply and yours would perhaps pertain better. Notice though, how WP:NPOV states things (they will not be to your liking):

Neutral point of view is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles.

I know... I know... They erred and forgot to add "except for Global Warming".

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

Do you notice that even "flat earth" gets SOME mention?

Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later.

See how National Geographic fits the bill?

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

Note that they do not have to be scientists, just prominent adherents.

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. ... A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. Types of bias include: ... Scientific ... favoring (or disfavoring) a scientist, inventor, or theory for non-scientific reasons.

An example of a non-scientific reason for disfavoring a view would be that only a few scientists hold that view. That might be a cause to consider it a minor perspective, but it is not sufficient to block it entirely. (And again, remember about Flat Earth).

--Blue Tie 00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On flat earth: You may want to ask your self for how long the notion that the earth was flat was held as truth. I think that flat earth is prominent because it was 'truth' for so long. That is why it warrants mention in the earth article. See the difference, the Mars thing you want included has never enjoyed the widespread acceptance that flat earth once did. Brusegadi 01:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That dog don't hunt in these woods. Global Warming is a new concept -- the term is only about 30 years old. So all things in this article are relatively new. But, it is a very weird standard that "how long" something has been known is the main standard. Because the fairly long-term sense of normal temperatures does not agree with global warming. Yet that has not been contemplated in this article. And the instant that we pictured rings around Jupiter, that was a known fact, yet it was brand new in the several thousand year history of our knowledge of that planet. --Blue Tie 05:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

One word...Svante. Look him up. On top of that, you have the additional problem that Global Warming's notability does not come from how old it is; it comes from the overwhelming scientific support it has. Flat earth's notability for inclusion is not from its overwhelming scientific support but from its historical support; it was held as truth for many years. The Mars warming comparison to earth warming has neither historical support nor scientific support (to the degree that would merit inclusion.) To simplify, I have discussed at least two things that may warrant inclusion: 1)Historical 2)Scientific. Mars and Earth warming comparison enjoys neither. Do you see? Brusegadi 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, Blue Tie makes a pretty good point. I'm not exactly sure how it plays out on this page, but it seems pretty clear from the sources he cited that room should always be made in these articles for the minority viewpoint, even if only a few scientists hold such views. Even if certain view are held by a "tiny minority" of scientists, if many more non-scientists would agree, it makes it simply a "minority" viewpoint. I think we need to discuss this point further and develop a better consensus on how to present the AGW-critical viewpoints in a fair way. Zoomwsu 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What sources? The only thing he mentions is the National Geographic. If that is the by now (in)famous article we all have seen, it does not advocate, but only describe the ridiulous position of Abdusamatov. In the second half of the article, it has a number of scientists explaining in the strongest language what hogwash this is. Unfortunately, the article is split onto two web pages, and many only seem to see the first. And of course, solar variation is discussed here (btw, since the "Mars" joke, several new papers have come out that all put fairly low limits on the possible influence of solar variation). --Stephan Schulz 06:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring more broadly than this specific instance. Views critical of the AGW orthodoxy are consistently suppressed on this page, even if they are held by a significant minority of scientists and people in general. I happen to think that the Abdusamatov article is insufficient to warrant mention here, but user:Blue Tie's comment extends more broadly than this specific article. Zoomwsu 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Do you think that Earth should make space for the idiots who think that the Sun orbits the Earth, or that the Earth is flat? 18% of Americans (in 1996) thought that the Sun orbited the Earth (though I rather suspect they're the same people who believe the Earth is 5000 years old, too). If the overwhelming scientific opinion on a subject is X, then the main article about the science of that subject should be X. If there is scientific controversy, it should be included, but if there isn't any real scientific controversy, then it shouldn't be. Very, very few scientists don't think global warming is happening, and the few who don't believe in it/don't believe it is manmade are being paid very handsomely by the oil industry and Detroit.

Your words betray your bias and suggest you're not being fair and rational on this issue. There is clearly still controversy among scientists regarding AGW (see Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming), so the idea that there "isn't any real scientific controversy" is false. Moreover, plenty of the critical scientists cited on that page are not "being paid very handsomely" by the O&G industry. Moreover, even if most think they are wrong, minority viewpoints deserve mention. Please take your bias elsewhere, we strive for neutrality and are committed to following Misplaced Pages policies, as you don't seem to be. Zoomwsu 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There IS a very small amount of scientific controversy over global warming, but I don't think it warrants talking about beyond the space it has already been given. Compare to evolution, where there is absolutely no scientific controversy. Titanium Dragon 11:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Individuals cited, for instance, in Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming would seriously question some of the statements on this page, meaning we should look at doing more to include those minority views here. Moreover, since a significant portion of informed non-experts also questions the theories espoused here, it qualifies AGW-critical arguments for inclusion. All I'm really saying is we need to think about stepping back and considering how well we're including minority viewpoints. Zoomwsu 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz explains perfectly that there is a dispute. I suspect that the intent of the Mars information is to suggest that the understanding of solar loading may be incomplete. Anyway, per wikipedia NPOV Policy alternative views should be included. They do not have to be given undue weight but they should be included. The only problem is that wikipedia policy does not pertain to articles such as Global Warming. I wish that they would put that into the policy instead of the pesky statement saying it applies universally, to all editors and all articles and is not negotiable. --Blue Tie 15:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're brushing aside the provision of WP:NPOV that states Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. The Mars parallel has been proposed by a single scientist in a non-peer-reviewed venue. It's hard to imagine a more "tiny-minority" view than that. (The proponent of this idea has also demonstrated an appalling lack of knowledge of even the most elementary physics of the climate system, though that's not the point here.) Raymond Arritt 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What is more: We do discuss solar variation as a possible contributor to global warming. The Mars issue is an extremely peripheral aspect, irrelevant (because we have better and more direct means to measure solar output) and, moreover, multiply refuted.--Stephan Schulz 16:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not brushed aside the provision governing minority opinions. The problem is that this is a view presented by one scientist but picked up by many other people. It has made its way into discussion in legislatures around the world in the debate on global warming and is considered by a sizable minority of people to at least be interesting in the debate. Note also the words that Jimbo puts to this notion of credibility. Speaking specifically to this point he says: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". There are several prominent adherents, though they are not all scientists. As for solar variation, I personally think it is possible that solar variation has NOTHING to do with the changes on Mars, but the adherents of this view are suggesting that solar variation may not be accounted for or measured appropriately, hence this tidbit is a contra view about something that is already mentioned -- it is NOT additional ancillary detail. It is contra. In short this meets the requirements per NPOV for admission: Prominent adherents who can be named, reliable sources and it balances other elements of the article. But so what? This is an NPOV-free zone! --Blue Tie 17:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

W._Somerset_Maugham once wrote, If forty million people say a foolish thing it does not become a wise one, but the wise man is foolish to give them the lie. Global warming is a matter of science and research and it's not exactly being "NPOV-free" for a responsible encyclopedia, one that is striving to be accurate & informative, to give little or no mention to discredited/fringe theories, ill-informed speculation, weaselly disinformation, and/or out and out crackpot nonsense. It doesn't matter how many right wing/conservative blog sites repeat and pass along whatever is the anti-science du jour, it is still a very foolish thing. The current scientific consensus came from over a century of hard, serious research and it was very gradual, beginning, as is usually the case, with just a few sharp, insightful thinkers. To you "skeptics" out there, I strongly recommend you read this article that covers the long scientific process of discovery that lead to human-generated CO2 being the primary suspect in the current round of global warming. While I'm at it, I should also recommend this excellent New Scientist article, Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. -BC aka Callmebc 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is NPOV-free to fail to mention opposing viewpoints that are reliably sourced. Your view is that if YOU PERSONALLY deem something to be inappropriate, THEN it should not be included EVEN IF it meets wikipedia critiera. That is what I meant by an NPOV zone. That is the view here -- that wikipedia standards should not apply. As an aside, I am not a skeptic. I happen to think the earth is warming. I happen to think that humans may well be responsible. I also happen to not care very much unless the tractor currents change. So, my comments have nothing to do with being skeptical. They have to do with wikipedia policies. And you may have noticed that I did mention that those policies do not apply here, despite what wikipedia claims. --Blue Tie 21:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but a lot of folks have pretty funky ideas about what something like "opposing viewpoints that are reliably sourced" means. Just sorting through this discussion illustrates that. If someone comes to the Misplaced Pages looking for a good intro to the topic of global warming, how helpful really would it be to include space for "opposing viewpoints" that are far, FAR inferior in science content and credibility compared to the main content? That's not science, it's condescending politics, and has nothing at all to do with a true NPOV. -BC aka Callmebc 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, ultimately, this is an article about the scientific theory of global warming. Then, apart from the issues of undue weight raised by others above, one has to give the scientific perspective to anything one includes here. In this case, that would mean that we cannot even say that since Mars is experiencing warming because that hasn't been accepted as a fact or a reasonabe hypothesis by scientists. The fact that many people do believe that is simply irrelevant.

The vast majority of people, including many politicians know very little about science. This means that certain things many people believe in can be ruled out a priori if you know about science. They may be upset that wiki articles don't mention the things they like to see mentioned.

Similarly, there exists a significant minority of people (mainly children under five) who believe that Santa Claus lives on the Norh Pole. But why doesn't the wiki article about the North Pole mention this significant minority view? Of course, the answer is that we know that this is false. Now you may think that this is a ridiculous example. But that's only because you also know that Santa doesn't exist. However, Many three year olds do believe in Santa and they would be upset that the wiki article on the North Pole doesn't mention Santa :) Count Iblis 18:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But you see this article is NOT about the scientific theory of global warming. It is about Global Warming. Look at the title. It does not say "Scientific Theory of Global Warming". It says "Global Warming". Certainly much of the information about global warming comes from scientists, but that is not the sole concern of this article. And whether politicians know very little or very much would depend upon the politician. I am not as inclined as you are to lump everyone into inappropriate groups and then declare my point proven. And, Santa Clause is mentioned in the article on the North Pole.

But you seem to be laboring under the impression that you need to defend the situation here. No need to defend it. But it should be labled "Misplaced Pages policies do not apply to this page as they do elsewhere -- even the non-negotiable ones.". --Blue Tie 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The choice of the title is almost always a result of a compromise between concisesness and accuracy. You cannot read too much into it. E.g. the page in Evolution is called "Evolution" and not "Scientific theory of evolution". You need to read the article to see what it is about, and in this case it is primarily about the science of global warming. To use the wiki policies you need to define what the focus of the article should be, what counts as reliable sources etc. In case of this article we have made these decisions and are applying the wiki rules accordingly. Count Iblis 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is not quite true. A concise title that got to the point you are trying to make would be "The Science of Global Warming". But that is not the title. And it was never debated as the title either. So, it is not a compromise between some alternatives that reflect science and some that does not. I have read the article. I see what it is about. It is about Global Warming. However, you have not made all the decisions here by applying wiki rules accordingly. This is a wikirule-free zone. Its ok. No need to defend. I just wish it would have a label. --Blue Tie 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not correct that it hasn't been discussed before - it has been... by you (+sm8900,+the machine) - during mediation and FA (Featured Article) review. On wikipedia rules being followed - i suggest that you take it up higher (AN/I, RfC etc.) - complaining here is simply ranting. Either you believe you have a legitimate gripe, and take it further - or you haven't, and are simply ranting. --Kim D. Petersen 19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As you indicate above, the discussion was not on this page, which is where content -- and the title -- of this page should be discussed. (er...Per wikipedia rules, but not per the rules of this page). And it was not ever actually "discussed". I brought it up. I said that it was not properly named because repeatedly people limit the content that can go into the article contrary to its title and in fact, inconsistently with wikipedia rules and with other content on the page. Inconsistent application of the rule of this page (but since this is not a page that is subject to any real rules, it can go any way it wants). Yet as I recall, no one really responded to discuss it in detail when I brought it up. So it was NOT discussed. It was mentioned. That is all. And in both the cases you mention there was a failure of discussion. The mediation closed as a failure and the FA passed despite not having more than about 50% support as I recall and even the most scientific author of the article had withdrawn support. Yet it passed FA despite a lack of concensus. Which is not per standard wikipedia rules. But this is a page that is not subject to wikipedia rules.

As far as having a legitimate complaint, I do not see where I have complained about this content per se. I have said, however, that this page ought to be labeled "Misplaced Pages-rule-free Zone". Or the NPOV and RS policies ought to be re-written to reflect that things like NPOV are not negotiable and apply to all editors and all articles except Global Warming. That is not a complaint. However, if you think I ought to couch it as a complaint I am open to your suggested wording. --Blue Tie 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the North Pole article does mention Santa Claus. Raymond Arritt 18:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So if the north pole melts, kids will think Santa fell into the ocean? Thanks. ~AH1 19:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see! Now, let's try to mention warming on Mars in this article in a similar way :) Count Iblis 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, so if the Martian polar caps melt, then Santa Claus... oh dear. Raymond Arritt 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your fears -- and children's fears (I am supposing that they are different) are unfounded. Santa Claus is not on Mars nor on ice, but on solid ground. --Blue Tie 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While my opinion may not amount for much, i am apt to give it often. Looking strictly from the encyclopedic point of view, i find the article well written and even overly informative at times. The title of the article is global warming and it utilizes its space describing global warming and the science involved. It would unduely lengthen and confuse the title subject using space to describe what it is not. It is linked to an article titled global warming controversies which by title is the space that should be used for that subject. Also the term global warming is not 30 years old, it was mentioned in the New York Times as early as 1929 and other publications throughout the 30's and 40's immediately following the 1895 articles warning of global cooling and the impending ice age. As i understand it, especially from the loudest critics, the debate isnt whether global warming exsists, the debate is over the cause. Like i said, just my humble opinion. And what is this about no santa? Jmsseal 01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should not discuss what it is not. I have not proposed that. Instead, I have suggested it be about global warming and include alternative views per NPOV. But of course NPOV does not apply here. And as for the critics.... I really do not know what they think so much... if it exists or does not exist or whatever. I do not really read their work that much. However, jumping to a more interesting thing... My source for 30 years was the dictionary where it was described as being from the late 1970's. I am curious about the earlier references (and perhaps dictionary editors should hear about them too -- so much for "reliable sources"). I am interested in any references you have from 1895 , 1929, 1930's and 1940's that use the term "Global Warming". thanks! --Blue Tie 17:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Try for history/references. Btw. WP:NPOV very much applies to this article - but so does WP:WEIGHT,WP:FRINGE and WP:COMMONNAME --Kim D. Petersen 17:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those policies you cited apply to this page. They just don't. For window dressing, once in a while they pretend, but they do not actually apply. That's fine. It should just say that somewhere in the article and in the talk page. But that is less interesting to me than the 30 years thing. I was excited to see the link but the link you gave does not work for the purpose you claimed. It uses the term "Global Warming" but it was written in 2007. I was really hoping for something more than 30 years old to express the term "Global Warming". Do you have another link? Or are you trying to suggest that the phenomenon called "Global Warming" is older than 30 years? I know that I suggested that a few months -- indicating that it had been a phenomenon, along with global cooling for as long as we have had an atmosphere. But other reject that idea. Again... I would really like to see a reference that supports the statements made above: "the term global warming is not 30 years old, it was mentioned in the New York Times as early as 1929 and other publications throughout the 30's and 40's immediately following the 1895 articles warning of global cooling and the impending ice age.". I should ask the original writer -- I think you are not well enough equipped to support someone else's comments. --Blue Tie 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've started to push for a better method for dealing with repetitive and/or weaselly questions and assertions. I had already answered your question about 10 days ago with a link to this excellent article by the AIP that thoroughly covers the history of global warming research in regards to CO2 emissions. And in its first paragraph it states, At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. But here you are today acting like nobody answered your question. I think this illustrates the need for a combination of FAQ & Primer to deal with such pointlessly (well, aside from being weaselly...) repetitive postings. -BC aka Callmebc 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to your "thank you"... you are welcome, even if you meant it snidely. But, I think something has been lost in this discussion. Let's recap.

I said the term global warming is new. About 30 years old. You replied: "the term global warming is not 30 years old, it was mentioned in the New York Times as early as 1929 and other publications throughout the 30's and 40's immediately following the 1895 articles warning of global cooling and the impending ice age.". Ok, THAT was genuninely interesting to me. I said so and gave you my reasons. But when I asked for a source you give me a webpage that is about as old as this morning's coffee -- not sources from 1929 or even 1979. I suggest that when you provide MODERN reinterpretations of old studies that refer to them as "Global Warming" studies (and by people who were not the authors) -- that does NOT really suggest that the term "Global Warming" is older than 30 years. It rather enhances that idea. Or does this logic make no sense to you?

Hmmm...well, for one thing I never wrote "the term global warming is not 30 years old...." bit -- it was Jmmsseal. I had written this instead. That AIP article was pretty darn thorough in naming names and dates, so all you had to do was Google any of those names to get more detailed info. For instance this bio of Svante Arrhenius makes it pretty darn clear that Arrhenius was referring to what we now term "global warming". He used the archaic term Carbonic acid to refer to CO2 when in 1895 he presented a paper titled On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. In that he wrote, A simple calculation shows that the temperature in the arctic regions would rise about 8° to 9°C., if the carbonic acid increased to 2.5 or 3 times its present value. A little later in 1904, Arrhenius wrote the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries. Are you actually calling this a "reinterpretation" to say that Arrhenius was talking about global warming? -BC aka Callmebc 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have suggested previously that Global Warming (as a phenomenon not a term) is hundreds of millions or billions of years old, but that was, oddly, rejected as irrelevant to an article on "Global Warming". (Well not so odd if we realize that this article does not really follow wikipedia rules). So, instead I am now not talking about the phenomenon, but rather the TERM -- as were you (unless you are now being "weaselly" as you put it).

So, I have a reliable source that dates it to 1975 or 1979 (I do not recall which, but I can find the source for you, if you care). Do you have a reliable source that dates it before that time? This is not an unfair question and it is not inappropriate to ask it more than once when it has never been answered before. Well, at least under wikipedia rules... its appropriate to ask about sources. I know... I know... this webpage does not operate on those rules. I sometimes forget.

Perhaps it's more a case of it not being enough to give someone a thoroughly researched scientific article for an answer -- you also have to assume that it will only be glanced at without excerpts and additional references to those excerpts presented at the same time. -BC aka Callmebc 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And on that score, if we are noting things about this page, I might suggest that your rude and snide response illustrates the need for a tag at the top of this page and on the article that this is a wikipedia-rule-free zone. For example, WP:Civil and WP:AGF would not be appropriate here based upon your reply. The same tag should also go on your proposed FAQ page. --Blue Tie 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith - a few minutes of search found this quote "...In attempting to identify the ultimate causes of secular climatic variation, it should be ascertained whether this global warming trend has actually leveled..." in J. Murray Mitchell Jr. (1961) RECENT SECULAR CHANGES OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 95 (1), 235–250. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1961.tb50036.x - so are we now going to hear you starting to ask for any reliable source more than 46 years ago? And i really fail to see what the importance of this is. --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or this sentence "...in judging the true global warming or cooling.." in Harry P. Bailey 'A Method of Determining the Warmth and Temperateness of Climate' Geografiska Annaler, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1960), pp. 1-16 doi:10.2307/520173 - which also mentions global cooling ;-) So the 1961 paper wasn't just a fluke.--Kim D. Petersen 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As a veteran of many a battle of science versus disguised-nonsense, some of the tactics of, oh say, the global warming "skeptics" include using circular "logic", re-re-presenting fringe, obsolete, and/or discredited theories over and over and over again in various guises, and/or pretending to have an open mind and are simply wanting hard facts or such and not "theory." If I misjudged you, I apologize for my cynical snideness. -BC aka Callmebc 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that I am not a skeptic. I believe the temperatures are increasing. I do not have a problem that it may be caused by mankind's expenditures... I think that is likely, but I am willing to acknowledge that there could be other causes. But I would not call that skeptical but rather open minded. Though I am not a skeptic I do not consider skeptics to be either stupid or evil, however I believe some people do consider them to be stupid, evil or both. --Blue Tie 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that very few if any people consider the broad majority of skeptics/sceptics to be "stupid, evil or both". It would be incredibly hard to reach a verdict more damming than "misled" i.e. that almost all of them have been led amiss. Personally I do not rule out a much wider range of verdicts including possibly "correct" although it does look very like the tide is going out on that one. --BozMo talk 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of human activity being able to affect the entire Earth's climate was a slow one to be accepted by the scientific community, but with more research came more evidence until now it rightly dominates the scientific position in regards to the current round of global warming. In a sane society with a good, responsible free press, the central question would be what to do about it. But as a Google on "global warming" demonstrates rather nicely, we're apparently not so sane and our press not so responsible: vying for top spot with the Misplaced Pages entry is globalwarming.org, an utterly bogus organization created by one of the Exxon-funded disinformation proxies called the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Check out this 1998 Exxon memo, especially page 4 with the section tellingly titled "Victory Will Be Achieved When" and followed by 5 points that have essentially become the master blueprint for all the subsequent, deliberately dishonest anti-global warming, anti-science nonsense since. That memo and organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute should have been exposed mercilessly for what they are a long time ago, but....like I said, our society is apparently not so sane and our press not so responsible, hence all this endless, time-wasting, mostly clueless wrangling over whether global warming is real and caused by humans instead of trusting the evidence, trusting the research, and just plain trusting science and getting our collective butts in gear. -BC aka Callmebc 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear up the Mars thing, I like New Scientist's explanation best:

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouses gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

172.214.130.253 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Bias

You know, I'm a student of computer science, and I've had several instructors who have assigned papers, and have demanded we do NOT use Misplaced Pages as a source. The reason for this is because Misplaced Pages is a public encyclopedia editable by anyone, and the information contained in Misplaced Pages is not always 100% accurate. I always hated it because I've always found Misplaced Pages a good place to get info on certain topics, but I can understand why.

I tried adding a passage last week that mentioned global warming on other planets. I cited National Geographic as my source of information, and my entry was not intended to be biased in any way. That entry was:

While some skeptics of Global Warming declare that Global Warming is a hoax in its entirety, some who admit that the global temperature is rising argue that it is not attributable to man, and that it is a natural phenomenon. One argument for this theory is that a simultaneous phenomenon is happening on the planet Mars, which suggests that Global Warming may not be limited to the only planet where human interaction could have influence. In addition, while Venus is the token example of an Earth-like planet globally warmed by excessive C0₂ in the atmosphere, there is no man-made industrialism or other sources of greenhouse emissions present on Venus.

If people would like to alter my entry, I welcome that. In some Misplaced Pages guides to editing, Misplaced Pages suggests perhaps altering what a user has entered instead of erasing it completely. After getting in an edit war, I was banned. I then came to the conclusion that the Global Warming article is for those who only want to see a one-sided view of Global Warming, so maybe I should add my epcert to the page on Global Warming Skepticism. When I added it, however, my entry was again deleted. The user who deleted my entry said, "This is a fringe arguement." A fringe arguement? Global Warming believer or not, how could you deny that possible Global Warming existing on other planets is not vital to any science or arguement of Global Warming???

In addition, I highly suggested mentioning in the open sentence that Global Warming is the IDEA of increase, my suggestion was ignored, I tried changing it myself, and someone just reverted it. I then tried revising that in saying that Global Warming references ANY warming on a planetary level, as to suggest that Global Warming could refer to any warming at any time on any planet, but that wasn't good enough either. I feel this wasn't good enough because those who keep a short leash on this article wish to keep this article as a one-sided biased view of Global Warming. Even if Global Warming is happening in our present day, those who closely monitor this article have only reinforced my opinion that the present day arguement that Global Warming exists is a political issue. I believe any warming on Mars should be considered Global Warming, as well as any warming that may have taken place on Earth millions of years ago. However, I feel those who closely monitor this article have fought to keep only the present day idea of Global Warming mentioned in this article because of their political agenda to environmental action. I welcome this kind of bias in an article that mentions environmental action or any article relating to the fight to reduce carbon emissions, but I feel this is a place for non-biased scientific information. Not a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HillChris1234 (talk • contribs)

The problem with

While some skeptics of Global Warming declare that Global Warming is a hoax in its entirety, some who admit that the global temperature is rising argue that it is not attributable to man, and that it is a natural phenomenon. One argument for this theory is that a simultaneous phenomenon is happening on the planet Mars, which suggests that Global Warming may not be limited to the only planet where human interaction could have influence. In addition, while Venus is the token example of an Earth-like planet globally warmed by excessive C02 in the atmosphere, there is no man-made industrialism or other sources of greenhouse emissions present on Venus.

is everything after the . First of all, "Global Warming" is understood to refer to Earth by almost everyone except for those want to make a point about other planets getting warmer. If you replaced "Global Warming" with "planetary warming", that second sentence would be accurate. Finally, that last sentence seems to imply that scientists have argued that only an active source of greenhouse emissions could account for present-day greenhouse gases, which is a faulty implication. One could reword it as "Venus is an excellent example of an Earth-like planet globally warmed by excessive CO2 in the atmosphere," but that wouldn't fit in with the point you seem to be trying to make.

To address your comment about "political" bias in this article: I do not disagree. However, there is also a political bias in the article on September 11, 2001 attacks regarding the conspiracy theories. This bias is meant to reflect the WP:WEIGHT of scientific or other evidence. Also, note my comment in the section immediately preceding this one. Ben Hocking 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So, why doesn't someone just try to alter my entry instead of just booting it? So, would it be acceptable if I said something to the effect of, "...this suggests that Global Warming could just be an instance of simple planetary warming." And maybe added something to the effect of, "...however, while some Global Warming advocates agree that Global Warming could be attributed to natural causes, some feel man-made carbon emissions could be accelerating this natural phenomenon." 11:29, 20 August 2007 (EST)

It's a common problem that I've recently addressed about on my talk page. As a rule of thumb, I think they should have either edited your entry or deleted it and mentioned why it was inappropriate. In this case, in addition to the factual errors, it is more appropriate to include in Global warming controversy than here. Very few scientists have connected the warming on Mars to the warming here on Earth so it qualifies as a bit of a fringe topic. (I.e., it does not suggest "that Global Warming could just be an instance of simple planetary warming." Your other quoted statement is also quite inaccurate.) Therefore, the correct course of action would have been to remove it AND mention on the talk page why it was removed (without you having to ask). Ben Hocking 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your experience is neither the first such experience, nor will it be the last. It's quite unfortunate, really. It's a continual battle to make sure AGW-critical views are presented and I don't think that the current article series on this subject does it as well as it could. Zoomwsu 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that GW is happening across the solar system, or that Mars warming tells us anything useful about the Earth, is so fringe it doesn't deserve mention. There are no scientific papers at all (AFAIK) that connect the two; nor are there any reputable online sources. The Nat Geog can only find Habibullo Abdussamatov to say it, and there is not the tiniest hint that he has actually done any analysis to support this. See-also Climate_of_Mars#Evidence_for_recent_climatic_change William M. Connolley 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The problem is deeper than Ben suggests. "One argument for this theory is that a simultaneous phenomenon is happening on the planet Mars,..." fails WP:WEASEL. It does not state who makes this argument. And in fact, this argument is absent from the scientific literature. It has been offered by Abdusamatov in the popular press, and met with universal ridicule by all scientific commentators. It's been repeated on blogs and in propaganda ad nauseam, but not got any traction among experts. We cannot and should no add every ridiculous fringe theory (and its refutation), otherwise the article would become an unreadable mess. See WP:WEIGHT. If and when this is reported in a reliable source, then we can discuss how to add it here. And the NatGeo, while usually a reliable source, is not reporting the point, but rather Abdusamatov opinion (and its prompt refutation). I don't quite get your point about Venus. It's an example of extreme CO2 induced greenhouse effect, but no-one ever claimed that anthropogenic factors had anything to do with it - just as no-one claims human responsibility for Jupiter's Hydrogen atmosphere, or the unregulated nuclear reactions in the Sun. --Stephan Schulz 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if Earth is warming and Mars is warming, you don't think it even deserves mention that there could be a common denominator here? Forgive me, but that's ridiculous. If all the planets are warming, I think that tells us VOLUMES about the warming of Earth.HillChris1234 11:44, 20 August 2007 (EST)

Come on, where've you read that "all the planets are warming"? That's just nonsense. I suggest you look at http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/ , for example. Nils Simon 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If one of us makes this claim, its WP:OR. If Abdussamatov makes this claim in the popular press, its an extreme fringe view. Reliable sources do not even claim that the Martian global climate is warming. A lot of reliable sources do show that the common cause proposed by Abdussamatov (increased solar activity) cannot be a major factor (and, by the way, that his knowledge about thermodynamics is abysmal). --Stephan Schulz 15:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If all the planets were warming, that would be very interesting. Of course, that's not known to be the case, is it? Keep in mind, that if there's no connection, you'd expect about half of the 7 other planets to be warming and half to be cooling. Obviously, for planets that take more than 10 years to orbit the sun, you're going to have to wait a long time to determine what's going on. That leaves us with 3 "other" planets: Mercury, Venus, and Mars. Mars has shown evidence of recent warming — what about Mercury and Venus? (And, would getting 3 heads in a row prove a coin was biased?) Ben Hocking 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say all the planets are warming. It was argued that if it is happening "across the solar system" what does it say about Earth, and I argue it would speak volumes. As far as Venus is concerned, Venus' atmosphere is about 85% CO2, proving that what is being considered as Global Warming on Earth has already happened to Venus, which proves to us that this Global Warming could happen without human interaction. I'm sorry, but I believe that speaks VOLUMES about what could be happening to Earth. As far as the guy above who replied; I sourced National Geographic, and he sourced a website called BadAstronomy. I just don't understand how we can ignore the FACT that other planets MAY be going through the same thing!(talk) 12:04, 20 August 2007 (EST)

Sorry, but I suggest you step back a while, read all the discussion, catch your breath, and then tell us what we should do about the FACT that you MAY already have killed 22 innocent victims! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

BadAstronomy has a lot of good astronomy information. He wasn't suggesting it be used for the article, but that it be used by you. Also, you used the word "planets" again where you mean "Mars". (And why would you stress the word "FACT" and "MAY" in the same sentence?) It would be intereseting if all the planets are warming. It would also be interesting if most of them were cooling. It'd be really, really interesting if most of them were losing mass or spiraling into the sun.

As for Venus, no one disputes the fact that global warming could happen without human interaction, so your comment appears to be irrelevant. I could die without getting shot, but that doesn't mean that getting shot isn't going to increase my chances of dying. Ben Hocking 16:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope neither of you are trying to compare the planetary climate mechanisms of Venus with that of Earth's. Moreover, about three of the seven planets could be said to be undergoing a "global warming" (that's quite debatable though), none of which seem to have a common source. ~ UBeR 16:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm... The sun? Is hot not hot on Venus? Do they have a different kind of CO2? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 16:27, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I've gotta say... I believe Global Warming is a scientific issue whether it exists or not. At the same time, nobody can deny that it IS a political issue! Politicians are constantly arguing as to what to do about it, whether it exists or not, and there are lobbyists in Washington arguing for both sides of the argument. Climatologists who have worked for the IPCC have come out claiming to have been fired for being critical of Global Warming, and there are still a large amount of scientists and others who just don't believe Global Warming is real. Whether we agree or not, we should be presenting this as a hypothesis or theory as opposed to "this is the way it is, no questions asked!" I really don't want to turn this forum into arguments for or against Global Warming, but even if Global Warming is strictly a scientific issue and we wish to keep this article to a scientific level, science is dependent on skepticism, and we should take those opinions and scientific arguments seriously. We shouldn't just be cutting it dry because of a so-called "consensus." I mean, there's a consensus that God exists, but where's the science? HillChris1234 11:44, 20 August 2007 (EST)

Sorry, but apparently you have been lied to, and have fallen for it. The IPCC cannot fire scientists, because it does not employ them in the first place. There is not "a large amount of scientists" opposed to the IPCC positions, although no doubt any scientist is opposed to "this is the way it is, no questions asked!". However, few of the skeptics pose valid questions. Abdussamatov is one of the more obviously ridiculous examples, but Tim Ball is little better. This article has been the subject of extremely heavy discussion and massive attempts at POV-pushing. Very many topics have been discussed. Unless you have a good understanding of the actual science, you should be somewhat careful. We have extensive archives of old discussion. Catchy soundbites by "sceptics", even if they sound plausible at first view, very often are not. --Stephan Schulz 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem, HillChris1234, is that you shouldn't be using any tertiary sources, like any encyclopedia, for papers. If you instructor demanded you not use Misplaced Pages, they were correct in doing so. One big reason is that it is at the whims of the public, but, more importantly, historiographical sources such as encyclopedias are not desireable for research. ~ UBeR 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point is that wikipedia is not just this article on Global Warming. Each article has its own focus. If real world facts, such as the comments made by Habibullo Abdussamatov, are notable then they can be included somewhere in wikipedia. However it may not be suitable to be included in this article. There is an entire wiki article devoted to: "global ewarming controversy", but this article focusses on the scientific perspective on global warming. Habibullo Abdussamatov research is not notable in the scientific community. It may be notable outside of the scientific realm.

Similarly, there are wikipedia articles on homeopathy, astrology, creationism etc. etc. An experiment involving extreme dilutions done by someone suggesting that "water has a memory" cannot be included in the wiki chemistry article, because that is not notable in the chemistry community, but it can be included in the article on homeopathy. Count Iblis 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. But, we're talking about scientific debate, and all I see here is agenda. I'm sorry. Science must contain DEBATE, and any conclusion that it shouldn't is folly. In addition, any attempt to hide arguments for or against an aspect of science is only to rob the world of healthy debate and accurate depictions of what is really going on!~ talk 12:07, 20 August 2007 (EST)

But the scientific debate is not ours. That would be original research. The scientific debate is alive and healthy, but the core issues are indeed settled. See scientific opinion on climate change for an, as far a I know, unprecedented list of statements by influential and recognized scientific bodies on the topic. --Stephan Schulz 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There already is debate on this page, similar to the debate you'll find on nuclear fusion, general relativity, or quantum mechanics. And, as with those other articles, the debate is given the weight it deserves. Ben Hocking 16:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. Mars is warming, Venus has warmed, Jupiter may be warming, and Earth is warming. But, Earth warming has nothing to do with any other planet warming. It's not possible for Earth to be warming for the same reason as other planets who are warming. That's a fringe argument that doesn't deserve mention at all. In fact, this isn't an encyclopedia that's intended to educate people, it's intended to tell us what we've already been told.

I even tried to put my entry under Global Warming Controversy, and it was still deleted. Absolutely ridiculous. Obviously, this article is being watched by Global Warming advocates with a political agenda who are interested in keeping opposing points of view out because they're one-sided.

Perhaps you actually don't understand how utterly unhelpful your attempted "contributions" have been so far. Let's take this little list of links for example:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

A National Geographic piece about the contrarian views of a lone Russian scientist named Habibullo Abdussamatov -- views that the same article says "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." In other words, a crackpot.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

A rehash of Abdussamatov's discredited view by a rather dubious Canadian columnist.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

An old, now mostly obsolete 2003 piece discussing the possibility of Mars coming out of an ice age, with absolutely no reference to how this relates to Earth.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/warming.htm

A web page linking global warming to a government conspiracy and something called "Hyperdimensional Physics" that I do believe is not exactly part of mainstream or even branchstream physics.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm

Yet more of the Abdussamatov along with a recycling of the nearly as dubious theories of Danish Scientist Henrik Svensmark.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Some random posting by what looks to be a computer geek -- hardly a climate scientist.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

A 2006 article about a big storm on Jupiter that "could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe." This is like Mars's global wide dust storms -- Jupiter's issues are completely alien to Earth's issues.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=140587

A right-wing blog site linking to this not-exactly-scientific article.

yep... looks pretty fringe to me...(talk) 12:36, 20 August 2007 (EST)

Maybe because this nonsense is pretty fringe, which is why your posts to the main article get removed. What would be useful is an explanation for how this anti-science nutcase stuff became embraced by not just right-wingers, but otherwise seemingly rational (enough) conservatives. Curious people and those tired of having to revert endless attempts to insert crackpot "alternative POV's" in the main global warming wiki would like to know. -BC aka Callmebc 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mars is warming, Venus has warmed, Jupiter may be warming, and Earth is warming." Now, that sounds a lot like disinformation, although I'm trying to assume good faith. Mars has shown recent signs of warming over a very short time period. True. Venus has warmed (in the very distant past). True, but this says nothing at all about your primary conjecture, does it? Jupiter may be warming. Anything "might" be warming, mightn't it? Also, note that it takes Jupiter 11 years to go around the Sun. It takes a lot more than 2 solar orbits before you get to talk about warming, I'm afraid. Earth is warming. True, and of course this is not in debate. So, boiling your original sentence down to the points that support your argument: "Mars is warming ... and Earth is warming". Ben Hocking 16:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure if you realize it, but your sources back up your fringe statement quite well. You'll notice that in all of the somewhat reliable articles that "support" your Mars claim, it's always the same scientist that's quoted (about the connection to global warming, that is). Ben Hocking 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. To those of you who think anyone who disagrees with the Global Warming "consensus" is a right wing nut job who doesn't know anything... What's in it for you for Global Warming to be real? Why are you all rooting for the Earth to burn up and we all die? Are you trying to revert us back to the stone age? I mean, it seems like you all like the idea that the world is getting warmer and we're all gonna die.

Are you a sockpuppeting? I mean this looks very much like this. Be careful, it can get you blocked. Brusegadi 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, an explanation of the Mars and Pluto warming:

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouses gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

172.214.130.253 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The real global warming POV problem

I'm surprised by your selection of which thread to delete. There is an ongoing misunderstanding of the concept of weight on this page (and other climate related pages). I tried to express the difference between equal textual attention and appropriately weighing the distribution of space in an entry. This seems to me to be an important conversation, not a lack of discipline.Benzocane 14:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason this "same old tired stuff" keeps coming up is that a significant portion of the editors on this page are unsatisfied with the so-called "consensus" of how to present GW. Doesn't the fact that editor after editor gets their hard work deleted over and over indicate that there is a problem with this article? Zoomwsu 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

More likely there is a problem with these "editors" -- their "hard work" is usually discredited, misunderstood, irrelevant and/or nonsensical stuff that has not only been beaten to death over and over, but given a funeral and buried, over and over.... It might help if perhaps a teeny bit of research was done before trying to post, like, oh say...reading up on the subject first. This New Scientist article addresses most of the misconceptions shown by posters here, and this piece from the American Institute of Physics has a great history of the research, especially this summary, that has gone into developing the current climate models. Of course, if you really prefer to get your science knowledge from non-scientific sources, you can always find plenty of sites like this. -BC aka Callmebc 13:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176975,00.html

The above is a Time magazine poll that suggests that while 85 percent of their readers feel Global Warming is happening, only 31 percent of those 85 percent agree that it is caused by man.

So, what's the consensus? Is it that the Earth is Warming or is it that it's caused by man? I think the watchdogs of this article have basically turned it into a caused-by-man thing, so I'm wondering if 31 percent is the kind of consesus we're looking for...HillChris1234 19:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaking popular opinion for science. This is about science William M. Connolley 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you'll notice that only 19% did not think that it was at least partly caused by man. Most of the remaining 49% have no doubt been confused by attempts at WP:NPOV in the media that have ignored WP:WEIGHT. Ben Hocking 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the poll is from last year, and in the US this is changing fast. We could also see something more up to date here. Finally, the sample for the poll comes from the readers of the magazine. They are not scientist so that poll does not count in this article. Brusegadi 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

HillChris1234, magazine reader opinion ≠ public opinion, and public opinion ≠ scientific opinion. Can you please stop brining up ridiculous appeals and rants, and instead try to focus on something more specific you'd like to change about the article? ~ UBeR 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, ≠ is not transitive here... Brusegadi 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While in general ≠ is not transitive, it is true that magazine reader opinion ≠ scientific opinion. I suppose it'd be better if we had an unambiguous symbol for "is worth less", because that would be transitive. Ben Hocking 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Math is always general! I know what Uber meant. I made my comment as a joke to lighten up after catching up on so much commentary that took place while I slept. I particularly loved it when the word 'political' was written instead of scientific so another edit was made to 'correct' the 'Freudian slip.' Oh, and by the looks of it, it seems like we will be needing that 'is worth less than' symbol ;) Brusegadi 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just seems that consensus is only derived from sources of climatologists whose careers depend on the existence of Global Warming, and nobody else matters. I think there is a huge case to be made that explains that Global Warming is not real or is not man made, and I don't think these points are taken into consideration in this article. 12.26.68.146 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't. Sorry! Just look at the data. The data shows global warming is happening, pure and simple. This is completely incontrovertible. You have to actually completely throw out all data to claim that global warming is not happening.

As for being man-made, it is also demonstrably man-made. We increase the amount of various gases in the atmosphere, particularly CO2, but other gases as well. These gases are better at trapping heat (which is demonstrable). You can easily put 2 and 2 together and get 4. No other factor we've found links up with global warming the way human introduced pollutants do. Titanium Dragon 08:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that means, then, that before man there were never periods of warming and periods of cooling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 21:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense. The fact that the earth's temperature has changed in the past doesn't add weight to the reasons for it changing now. You may as well try to disprove a paternity test by claiming other people have had children in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.24.155 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Al Gore the reason everybody became "aware" of the modern Global Warming situation?

If so, that should probably be mentioned.--24.162.154.176 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. He has been a popularizer in the US, but has had next to no influence in Europe, and probably little in the rest of the world. Also, this article primarily discusses the science. I wonder if there is a better article for the public perception - indeed, Public perception of climate change might be a useful and less contentious title than global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It's just some more right-wing "wackiness" in this country to try to tie Al Gore to global warming in yet another attempt to politicize it. His documentary An Inconvenient Truth probably stirred up the discussion more than actually making people more "aware" of global warming than what they already were -- it was already a hot topic, so to speak, at the time. -BC aka Callmebc 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Disinfo Alert: Daily Tech Report of a "New" Survey

The latest "Global Warming is a Scam" nonsense making its way through the right wing blogosphere is an alleged, and not quite yet published, survey of peer-reviewed journals that purportedly shows that "less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory." This survey report originates with this Daily Tech blog, which also says that the survey is authored by a medical doctor named Klaus-Martin Schulte and has supposedly been submitted to a journal called "Energy and Environment." The editor of that journal is a "Reader in Geography" named Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.

This pre-publication survey is represented by the Daily Tech blogger, Michael Asher (who has an anti-global warming history), as being an update to this 2004 survey by Naomi Oreskes.

So we have a right wing blogger reporting on a unpublished survey submitted to an obscure journal of unknown scientific credibility -- what are the odds of this being taken seriously by logical, well-informed, responsible people, especially by those in government? Yeah, well.... FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Update -- I suppose that it's no surprise that Brit Hume of Fox News gave this a mention as well, and of course leaving off one or two minor, little, piddly details.... -BC aka Callmebc 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading at history professor Naomi Oreskes in the first sentence. Naomi Oreskes is a history of science professor, which is an entirely different discipline from a history professor. Similar name, but not even in the same ballpark in terms of substance. To paraphrase the Simpsons, it's clear whoever writes this blog doesn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground. Raul654 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How does this matter to the article? Blogs are not reliable sources. Are you just venting some frustration or something? --Blue Tie 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

'Tis a bit annoying, though, to see how that highly dubious blog post was featured on both a Senate office site, even if it was James Inhofe's, as well as Fox News (of course). If you didn't know any better.... By the way, Oreskes has posted a response to this new, um, report. -BC aka Callmebc 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oreskes refutation is nothing short of devastating. In fact, point 7 just about sums this whole endeavor up: Contrarians have been trying to refute my work for three years. A previous claim, also circulated and cited by Marc Morano, was subsequently retracted by its author. Evidently it has taken them three years to find some one foolish enough to try again. Raul654 02:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting back Resources for "Skeptics"?

I wasn't thrilled this was deleted so casually and without a discussion -- it was kind of time consuming to put together. But I'm just visiting here, more or less, and will behave. An issue I see is that the way this talk page is organized makes it very easy to miss the referred to "FAQ", especially since it's not actually called that -- it's written out as "frequently asked questions" -- and it's poorly located in an easy to miss section below all the banners. Since it's in normal text with no highlighting or anything else to make it conspicuous, as well as not being in the index, it looks very much like it's not going to be seen by most posters. Also the FAQ itself is not as complete as some of the other similar FAQ's out there, so I do believe something more complete is necessary to deal with the "skeptics" both real and not so genuine, along with their inevitable questions and/or weasel comments. While the main page has tons of links, it has...tons of links, and can be overwhelming for someone genuinely trying figure out what's what. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember discussing this before (as I had also missed the FAQ page and mistakenly suggested that one be created). I went ahead and put the FAQ link info inside a box similar to that found on the evolution article's talk page (link to Talk:Evolution). Hope that's OK with everyone. R. Baley 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be easy to miss it. So, making it more obvious might help. Have a big box (bigger than the one already there) at the top that says FAQ and only FAQ, with alarming headlines that will make most yellow journalism green with envy. I do not think anyone would mind if you gave that a try. The thing is that with the non-genuine skeptics the problem will always exist because they can always simply adapt their questions. Thats why the best way to go about this is to tighten the enforcement of WP:SOAP. Of course that, for the few genuine ones, the big box might help. Adding something on the index might be problematic if we have automatic archiving. Brusegadi 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is much more prominent and better positioned. The lack of a prominent index is still a little bothersome, though, and not just in terms of the FAQ, but also in regards to other pertinent Misplaced Pages articles involving Global Warming in some key aspect. Note above William M. Connolley's responses to As the Glorious Weep: he refers to the Mauna Loa Observatory; the Keeling curve; Urban heat island; the Temperature record of the past 1000 years; and Attribution of recent climate change -- all separate Wiki articles. And this doesn't even include Climate change, the Global warming controversy, the Kyoto Protocol, Scientific opinion on climate change, the Hockey stick controversy, Paleoclimatology, Climate change denial, the IPCC, Summary for policymakers, the UNFCCC, and so on and so forth.

I'm thinking that there needs to be something akin to a combination of FAQ/primer/road map of manageable size, maybe along the lines of a Top 10 list, as a basic guide for the curious and misinformed, and be included in at least the Talk pages of all the main global warming related articles for consistency. Any thoughts on this? -BC aka Callmebc 12:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Global warming}} ~ UBeR 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's at the bottom of the main Wiki page. I think it would need to be simplified and include primers to be truly useful as an introductory guide. It's really just a partial topic list as is. -BC aka Callmebc 14:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean up talk page

I think we need to start moving previous discussions to their appropriate archive. I was going to label each section to be moved, but unless there are objections, I am going to just copy and paste each thread ending before Aug 7 to the archive of the month in which the discussion was started. I plan to begin in about 24 hours, any help is appreciated. Comments/thoughts? R. Baley 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Also, can we get a bot to start doing this at a regular interval? R. Baley 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean the place up. Good idea William M. Connolley 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. Ben Hocking 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mizrabot should already do this - how about just setting the interval (currently 30 days) shorter? --Kim D. Petersen 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - seems that the unsigned (or something like that) are making Mizrabot confused... --Kim D. Petersen 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a signUser:SineBot or something like that as well? R. Baley 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Maybe this bot eliminates that problem? I dont know how long it's been in use. Also, a link to the Misza archiving bot, in case anyone wants a look. I thinking once a thread is stale for 15 days. . .well that's plenty.

hmmm, thought that sinebot thing was supposed to have worked by now, trying again. R.baley

Looks like we can will be linked to Sinebot's high priority pages list, as per this discussion (link). Hopefully that will eliminate problems with the Miszabot and we can set that up soon reduce to 15 days? R. Baley 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for taking care of all this. Raymond Arritt 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reducing archival interval to 15 days

I've been assured by the Miszabot's operator that reducing the archival interval to 15 days shouldn't introduce any technical problems (in the short-term was my concern). I'm going to go ahead and change it from 30 to 15, unless there is a compelling argument not to (looking at the above thread I think people will like this idea). Looking at the talk page as a whole, a good deal of it looks to be archived soon and once that happens, I will go through and manually archive any stale threads that are hanging around due to lack of signature/time stamps. I am open to reducing the archive interval further if this page stays above levels (in size) considered useful by everyone for improving the article. R. Baley 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Precipitation

Hello, Karbinski - I disagree with the fact tag you inserted, as both the sub-article Effects of global warming and the summary paragraph in this article seem to contain information concerning changes in precipitation, cf statement "A 2001 report by the IPCC suggests that glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as the Larsen Ice Shelf, sea level rise, changes in rainfall patterns, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, are being attributed in part to global warming," and the sections Effects_of_global_warming#More_extreme_weather and Effects_of_global_warming#Increased_evaporation. Thanks,Hal peridol 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is there, but you really have to look for it. References serve the user in more ways than just verifiability. Perhaps, the link to percipitation (meteorology), although its a valid article in its own right, should not be linked within the context of the paragraph (other linked sub-articles mention global warming effects, but percipitation does not).Karbinski 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Climate models capabilities

A change was made some time ago which seem to have been reverted at some point. The section about climate models says that

• Climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate

The last part implies that models will simulate all aspects of climate someday, which is an unsupportable claim. I suggest that this sentence is qualified with "at least for now" at the end, or that "yet" is removed. --Childhood's End 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence with the "yet" is open-ended. The sentence without it is an absolute statement that indeed is not supportable. What if we restrict it to current climate models and drop the speculation about what they can? "Current climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate". --Stephan Schulz 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between "but cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate" and "but cannot simulate all aspects of climate, at least for now". Don't they both imply that it might happen in the future, but that we can't do it right now? I don't see that either one suggests that it will happen in the future. That said, for the sake of consensus, I have no objections with the second version as I see them being equivalent statements. If anything, the version you're proposing sounds to me like it is more likely that it will happen in the future than the current version sounds. Ben Hocking 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Stephen's version resolves it all as it indeed contains no speculative claim. @Ben, the difference between the current wording (with 'yet') and the one I contemplated (with 'at least for now') is that the former suggests it will for sure, while the latter only suggests it might happen (which was also speculative in fact, so I think that the version proposed by Stephan is even better). --Childhood's End 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this conversation is very logical. Scientific models are approximations of real life processes with varying degrees of accuracy. Sometimes the model exists because the theory is incomplete, sometimes a model is used because of limitations in computing power in dealing with all possible variables, and sometimes a model is used just for convenience to better visualize the otherwise not-so-easily comprehensible, like the idea that atoms can somehow resemble tiny solar systems. In the case of global warming, a key element is the very clear correspondence of atmospheric C02 levels to global temps. Raise the CO2 levels and the temperature goes up. That makes even the simplest climate model inherently predictive. "Speculation" has little to do with any of this. -BC aka Callmebc 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but CE's point is that there's no reason to believe that any model will ever "simulate all aspects of climate". I disagree with his assertion of the meaning of "yet", but that disagreement is purely academic as I agree with the current version. Even if you do believe that we may one day be able to "simulate all aspects of climate" (which I doubt you do), unless we have a reliable source stating that we shouldn't imply that in the article. (Again, I don't think that "yet" does imply that in this context, but I have no problem leaving the word out, either.) Ben Hocking 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll never be able to simulate all aspects of climate because we'll never know all aspects of climate (or any other nontrivial natural phenomenon, for that matter). I don't see the point of the statement, whether "yet" is included or not. Raymond Arritt 16:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

His point was that the use of the word "yet" makes it seem otherwise. Since no one seems to object to the removal of that word, it doesn't really matter whether we agree with him on his interpretation of the word. Others might also interpret it the same way, and removing the word does no harm to how I (and presumably you) interpret it, so it's all good. Ben Hocking 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory

There may be evidence for and against global warming - the global climate is an incredibly complex system which we are yet to understand fully (i would say we are a long way off this!) Thus global warming is a THEORY. It is yet to be proved true or false, and i think the article should reflect this. "Global warming is the theory that..." rather than "global warming refers to..." The rest is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.215.11 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As usual, the term global warming is overloaded. But the actual warming is a fact. The explanation for it is a scientific theory. Science does not do "proof" anyways - a theory is the best you can get. There is a longish discussion of this somewhere in the archives. --Stephan Schulz 13:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendums to the FAQ recommendation

I see that William Connolley removed the rest of this discussion for essentially being redundant. I'm not so sure that was the best move: a lot of the anti-global warming sentiment revolves around very confused notions of what exactly a "theory" is in scientific terms. I think when a discussion like this forms, especially if it's a recurring one, a FAQ on it should be created as the first response to address the underlying concern, and have that added to the main article FAQ as a matter of course. And only when this is in place, then delete the bulk of the discussion, but with a reference to the FAQ added. Even though there is already a "Theory" wiki article, it would still be helpful to at least reference that with how this applies to the current global warming/general climate models. As it now stands, there is no "Global warming is only a theory" section in the current FAQ. This would seem a more logical and thorough method to address recurring confusion and build up a more complete and useful "Frequently Asked Questions" page. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I may have been too severe. The boundary where it had become junk was unclear. Adding to the FAQ is a good idea William M. Connolley 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Artic Ice leaves experts stunned

Recent comments by some of the scientists contributing to the IPCC report evidence their concern that what they are observing now is outside the range of all the scenarios being considered. Global warming is not a theory, its an observation. What's theoretical is how fast its accelerating, and how much the observed acceleration is outside the modeled range on which the consensus of scientists was agreed even a few years ago.

The rate of loss accelerating

The Arctic has now lost about a third of its ice since satellite measurements began thirty years ago, and the rate of loss has accelerated sharply since 2002. Dr Serreze said: "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our childrens' lifetimes."

Rktect 11:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been reverted three times here. Really? When? William M. Connolley 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Map in Economics section

Hello, Vinny Burgoo - you have inserted a map of CO2 responsibility 1950-2000 into the Economic effects and impacts section of the article. I don't think it belongs there, and in addition, that section is a summary of the Economics of global warming article. If you think that there is necessary information within the map, it should be described in that article first. Thanks, Hal peridol 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, UBeR, sorry for the misspelling in my edit summary.Hal peridol 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're out of date, Hal peridol. The first map I snuckstuck in was of CO2 responsibility (it's still up there somewhere); the one you have just deleted was of GHG Intensity - a measure of doom per dollar or bang per buck or something, and thus totally at home in the Economics section. I'll leave it deleted for now, though. The Economics text perhaps needs to catch up with the map. (I am still wondering why UBeR told me to make a 280px image the same width as other 280px images, though. Odd.) Vinny Burgoo 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I said the two first images should be consistent with all the other ones, which is what I did. Watch your diffs carefully. ~ UBeR 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I get it now. Sorry, UBer. Vinny Burgoo 01:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that I was looking at the wrong map caption - my apologies. I'm still not sure that the deleted map belongs in the section it was in, though - the Economics section (currently) is concerned with the effects of global warming on the global/local economy, rather than vice versa. This could be changed, but some restructuring would be necessary first, I think. Hal peridol 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Mars Hints at Solar, not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientists Say, by Kate Ravilious, 2/28/07, National Geographic via nationalgeographic.com.
2. Mars Hints at Solar, not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientists Say, by Kate Ravilious, 2/28/07, National Geographic via nationalgeographic.com.

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles by The Denver Post
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics