Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:58, 24 June 2008

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Michael Booth (April 30 2007). "Grading Misplaced Pages". The Denver Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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.

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

What, no "Criticism" section?

This is the first Misplaced Pages article I've read all day that doesn't have a "Criticisms" section. Given that this is still such a (socially and politically, if not scientifically) controversial issue, I would think you should have something. _{Preceding unsigned comment by user:153.2.246.33}

You need to get out more. Maybe read rainforest or perhaps pencil or even doorstop William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to equate the global warming controversy to the global pencil and global doorstop controversies? Bjquinn (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He is saying that you need to "get out more" by staying home and reading novels and religious books.Wsulek (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just heard about this 15-year-old girl who has a web page debunking, at least human-caused global warming, called PonderTheMaunder.com, I think. She collects all the articles and stories she can find to debunk the idea that we are causing climate change. She says that all her friends believe in human caused global warming, but they can't tell her why -- it just social dogma. This girl doesn't believe it and she *can* tell you why.

My co-worker this morning argued that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens pumped more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution -- it's a nice story, is there any truth to that at all?

(because they are also 15 year old girls and they don't do regular research on the topic) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.112.116.69 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC).

No, its b*ll*cks. If you pause for a moment, you can work out how you could have realised this for yourself: that the graph of CO2 level in the atmos is smooth, and has no huge spikes corresponding to volcanoes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The graph has been "smoothed" so naturally spikes from Mount St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo would not show up. What about bark beetles in British Columbia. Their destruction of forest has released more CO2 than the last five years of human caused emissions in Canada.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Keeling Curve. You can very well see the 5 ppm seasonal variation and even month-to-month changes. So any substantial volcano impact would have shown up as well. I'd like to see a source about the "bark beetles" before I comment on that. But whatever the details are, the ecosystem is, in the medium term, very closely balanced with respect to CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And the same applies to you (see below). You are assuming that the output from one volcano (or from man, for that matter) is perceptible on a 5ppm variation on a global atmospheric scale. Hogwash. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, your assertion is hogwash. It doesn't really serve as a valid way of answering the question (i.e. comparing the volcano's impact to man's impact) because it assumes that the level of gas emitted by one volcano (or by man, for that matter) would even HAVE a perceptible level change on a global atmospheric scale. I recommend you read up on Affirming the Consequent, a well known logical fallacy. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your indentation is a bit confusing here - are both of these supposed to be answers to me? Well, surprisingly, we know how much CO2 man creates - it amounts to about 3ppm per year. Currently, about half of this is eaten by sinks. But it's no problem to see 1.5 ppm on the scale of the plot. The argument I replied to, as you can easily see, was " that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens pumped more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution", i.e. it was talking about a single volcanic eruption. As you rightly see, this eruption is not visible on the graph, and hence the effect is obviously much smaller than man's emissions. The seasonal variation is also visible, hence the graph is not smoothed to a degree that would make a much bigger short-term spike invisible, so that claim is bogus.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Volcanos don't pump out only C02. Another major gas that is pumped out of any erupting volcano is Sulfur Dioxide (S02) which creates a LOWERING of global temperatures. With a significant sized eruption, such as Pinatubo or Krakatoa, large enough S02 emissions will effectively lower global temperatures (such as the Year Without a Summer).71.210.21.44 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And let's not forget Michael Chrichton's speech "Space Aliens Cause Global Warming", arguing that the "science" behing global warming is on no more firm footing that the speculation that there *must* be life on other planets.

I'm sure there's a good joke in there somewhere, but nothing else William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, I expect more from Misplaced Pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.33 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, and what do we make of this comment by Bottle:

Bottle says:

9:32 AM

Hey, can we stay on topic? Which is, "Global warming is caused by the cosmological constant."

Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic here? 153.2.246.33 has a good point, but Mr. Connolley bites the newcomer and makes him feel like an idiot. First, please be WP:CIVIL. Nearly every post you have made in this section, Mr. Connolley, could be seen as uncivil and counterproductive. First, you bite him, then when others come to assist him you point the discussion in another direction so that the main issue cannot be brought up.

Why don't we have a criticism section? - ђαίгснгм 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? This article reports peer reviewed research and the conclusions of scientists based on that research. Much of the "criticism" is politically or commercially motivated, without a scientific base. We also have the article Global warming controversy. Anyway, personally I dislike "criticism" sections. They are often one dimensional responses to complex issues, and break up the logical flow of articles. IMHO they are lazy and amateurish editing tools. Better to handle criticism by integrating it into the appropriate sections of the article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that "Global warming controversy" article is very much the sort of thing I was looking for. Perhaps it should be listed here under "See also:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.32 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is already linked thrice: once from "public debate" in the lede, once from the infobox in the heading, and once from the collapsible topic overview at the bottom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's because Misplaced Pages is biased and only has criticism sections in articles that aren't liberal. This definitely isn't the only article that's this way. BTW I tried adding a well-written and researched criticism section with several *cited* quotes from actual scientists and my edit/hard work got undone. Way to go Misplaced Pages! Mentalhead (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your "sources" were two articles from Newsmax and a WP:SPS book sponsored by a right-wing think tank. Try the peer-reviewed scientific literature... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very biased. You should have found reliable sources if that seemed to be a problem. If everyone was unbiased Misplaced Pages would be much better and a lot more professional. Mentalhead (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to allow personal beliefs to interfere with our editing, but I'll make an exemption here to help move things along. I'll be among to the first to admit that I am skeptical of global warming (at least of its anthropogenic influences). But Stephan, William, et al are correct in the stances they are taking here. Misplaced Pages is built on the foundation of reliable sources, and rooted in verifiability, not truth. Agree with it or not, but this is what is most widely accepted by the scientific community; thus, it is what Misplaced Pages is supposed to document here.

Unlike most Misplaced Pages contributors (myself included), Stephan and William are actual scientists, and we cannot underestimate or belittle the contributions of members with such qualifications who take this project seriously enough to spend their time here. If it seems that they are biting the newcomers, it may be because they are addressing issues which have been raised here countless times, and have on many occasions faced personal attacks or worse along the way simply for having the animosity to disagree. Misplaced Pages tells us to assume good faith in our fellow editors, and not to assume "bias" in those we disagree with. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion here, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote it. As a collaborative project, anyone is encouraged to contribute. But as a general rule, one can expect to receive the degree of respect and civility that they display to their fellow editors. It makes for a more pleasant editing experience for everyone. ~ S0CO 05:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate them trying to help but since they have such strong stances on the issue I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for them to be in charge of the article. Unless of course we had someone who believes the other way with just as much power over the article. Mentalhead (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, nobody is "in charge" of this or any other article, or at least should not be. On Misplaced Pages, contributors are free to edit whatever they want, and are typically drawn to articles on subjects in which they are interested or those which fall within their area of expertise. People may disagree with their beliefs, but they are simply applying Misplaced Pages's established policies to the article. ~ S0CO 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not asking this to mean anything, but what do you mean when you say that William and Stephan are actual scientists?

To answer your question, I mean that they are Misplaced Pages contributors who happen to be scientists in real life whose work is concerned with the subject at hand. I do not fit this description, and doubt there are many contributors here who do. ~ S0CO 15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very confusing for me (who gets to be considered a scientist in this and who doesnt) but I suppose it's not important. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to avoid a misunderstanding: I'm a scientist (see ), but not a climate scientist. William is a climate scientist. Our other resident climate scientist is Raymond. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, whereas I agree with your description of how material has to be included in WP, I take exception with Michael Johnson's comment above. There are several authoritative scientists who disagree with the mainstream of peer-reviewed papers. The reason why they're not in so far is essentially decided on an interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. As with any rule interpretation, it is liable to be 'soft' and subjective, and this is this interpretation that, good or wrong, has so far been 'applied' by a group of editors.

So, there could be a criticism section in this article per WP's rules. Gravity has one. It all comes to how WP:WEIGHT is interpreted, and who interprets it. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are alternative models of gravity that have been and are published in leading peer reviewed journals. The article on gravity like this article on global warming does not mention some crticism that do not make it into the peer reviewed journals. So, MOND is mentioned (ther are many peer reviewed publications about this topic) but not a theory by Yilmaz (who was unable to get his theory published because it was seen to have a fatal flaw by most physicists). Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find the article is fully referenced to reliable sources. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a definite need for a criticsm section. The fact that one editor is a scientist and administrator all the more should give it weight. Any editor/administrator could feasibly serve his own interests by wiping out different points of view. Perhaps one who is so clearly biased should not be considered an "authority" and all relative verifiable facts be presented whether pro or con. As it stands, this article is very biased to the point of religious ferver.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "criticism" section. Alternative explanations such as solar variation are woven into the narrative as they should be. In fact they are over-represented in the article compared to their presence in the academic literature, contrary to the provisions of WP:WEIGHT. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just echoing the original comment about no 'criticism' section. It could be called something else though (doesn't have to be called that). Something that at least gives the other side a fare shake. I for one haven't seen enough evidence to believe that global warming is occurring on a grand scale that is caused by the burning of fuels and being able to read the thoughts from both sides would be helpful for me. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but we don't pretend that there are two equal sides to every issue. This article presents the evidence, and the evidence is compellingly one sided. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I will retract my statement above in the general sense that such section doesn't exist. Reading the first couple comments in the next section "AEB (criticism section)" shows that such articles/sections do exist on Misplaced Pages. So now my general complaint is from what I can tell none of these are referenced very clearly in the opening of the article nor clearly marked in the TOC. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I support adding this to the end of the intro of the article (this isn't perfect but I'm trying a state at it, improve by all means).

Controversy still surrounds the global warming debate. There are a number of articles that cover this topic.

Strawberry Island (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are links to both Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming in the last sentence of the lead. The rest of the articles are linked in appropriate places throughout the article. Adding an addendum to the lead isn't a very organized way to link to related articles. We've tried having links on the right-hand side up on the top, but it was simply too cluttered and awkard. Personally, I think links throughout the article and the link template down at the bottom take care of the situation in the best way possible. However, I think the template at the bottom of the article should be default-shown instead of a default-hidden. - Enuja (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds very reasonable, there is nothing following the template so I don't see why not? I went ahead and expanded it.
— Apis (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

AEB (criticism section)

A Criticism section IS needed, I am willing to work on the section myself, but am requesting help from other members, and am here and now asking other Wiki contributors who disagree to pledge that they will not vandalize the new section, but take complaints and concerns to the talk section. Almost every article on Wiki (that garners criticism) HAS a criticism section, global warming should be no different. Creating a page on the controversy is needed, but it does not replace a well-researched and appropriate criticism section.

By the way, labeling all scientists that disagree with the whole global warming propoganda "oil company lackeys" is both incorrect and libelous. For example, this from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Professor Easterbrook disputed Mr Gore's claim that "our civilisation has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this". Nonsense, Professor Easterbrook said. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century".

Getting personal, he mocked Mr Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Professor Easterbrook said.

"And I'm not a Republican."

So, who is willing to help with the Criticism section? Supertheman (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out before, special criticism sections are discourages. See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Article_structure and Misplaced Pages:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. In this article, we describe all scientifically viable viewpoints with sufficient weight and reliable sources directly in the main prose. By long-standing consensus, we we restrict this article to the science. For the political debate, see global warming controversy. We also rely on what is considered the most reliable set of sources, peer-reviewed scientific publications and consensus reports. Your example is thus doubly missing the point - first, the unpublished (in the scientific sense) opinion of Professor Easterbrock as reported by the popular press is not a good source, and, since we do not even mention Gore or use him as a source, the criticism would be a straw man, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly NOT straw man:

1. Professor Easterbrook (not brock) provided *factual evidence* about climate shift - research that has been published (long before the article here on global warming was, in point of fact).

2. Gore *is* mentioned on this talk page, and frequently, so your assertion that criticism of Gore is straw man (here on the talk page) is false.

3. We are not talking about "political controversy", we are talking about peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and plain, climate data.

4. While your citation of the Misplaced Pages:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section is germane, the fact remains that this is not worth the hard drive it is stored on as it pertains to that actuality of Misplaced Pages articles. Criticism sections are rife in almost every (controversial) article, which sets forth a defacto standard, expected by Wiki readers. Also, while Criticism sections might be "discouraged", they are in fact necessary because of the habit of a few, dedicated contributors to erase, edit and otherwise maneuver content they find distasteful out of existence. Point being, while criticism sections are "discouraged", they are not disallowed and a significant minority of contributors desire such a section on the page, and it is not the providence of the majority to squelch such an effort.Supertheman (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whomever is or isn't mentioned on the Talk page is immaterial, I'd like to say. I could mention Hitler all I want here, and that doesn't make him referenced in the article itself. That's really all besides the point, though. This article does need a criticism section, if only due to the fact that there IS a large amount of criticism and controvery surrounding global warming. That is noteworthy, just as it should also be noted that both the validity and neutrality of much of this criticism is in question. How about instead of bickering back and forth like this, you actually propose a draft of a criticism section here in the talk page. That way it can easily be viewed, edited and discussed before being inserted into the article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is Scientific evidence against Global warming, we aren't just posting a section on political debate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratanuva66 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it would hurt anyone if we post evidence both supporting and against global warming. Mentalhead (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We do. The leading contender is solar variation theory, which is discussed in the article. In fact it's over-represented here compared to its weight in the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a link should be placed linking to the Global Warming Controversy page. Somewhere noticeably visible rather then in the bottom of the page with all the references and the See Also section. Where, I'm unsure, but it's an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.67.7 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a link in the lede, anchored on public debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

US Army research office says sun is behind global warming

more proof that the sun is behind global warming http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html

and now NASA stating that they marginalised climate data http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,362023,00.html

please make a separate article on global warming on other planets.it got deleted as it was thought to be base less but now when the US military says that the sun is behind Gw it must be highlighted.So called green campaign like imposing carbon tax,carbon credits which is a joke and restricting freedom through environmentalism.

here are other articles sating other planets are heating up

• http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69
• http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/guides/planets.html
• http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
• http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
• http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
• http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070404/sc_space/duststormsfuelglobalwarmingonmars;_ylt=AiVxN.mGF7G8fZ3EHMojv.3MWM0F
• http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
• http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
• http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read what you cite? And have you read this article? NASA says they have downplayed global warming due to political pressure. And the scientific opinion has been that there are several sources of the current warming, with the predominant (not exclusive) one being the increase in greenhouse gases. This is what this article says, it's what Attribution of recent climate change says, and it is even what your Army scientist concedes ("up to 70% man-made"). For the alleged warming on other planets, see Talk:Global warming/FAQ#Pluto_is_warming.2C_too_.28so_it.27s_the_sun.21.29 and the following topics in the FAQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your heading refers to the work Bruce West, of Scafetta and West, who's work is already referenced prominently in the article. Dragons flight (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

what i have come to relaize that wiki is also in the debunking bandwagon.the proof is everywhere.Why are you guys del the global warming on other planets article? here the the graph of solar irradience http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1396 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you guys del the global warming on other planets article?

For the same reason as why your article 2007 invasion of Iran was deleted :) Count Iblis (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, seriously, why would you object to having an article on global warming on other planets? What's the objection? --GoRight (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters, because it doesn't exist except in the minds of global warming deniers. Raul654 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I personally don't object to having such an article. It was deleted, however, because it was essentially devoid of content, containing nothing but some external links. If an extraterrestrial warming article can be properly written, I doubt anybody would object. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Need to include negative feedbacks for accuracy

This article needs to include negative feedbacks, not cherry-picked positive feedbacks, if it is intended to be balanced at all. 1) First and foremost, the rate of increase in temperature with the concentration of greenhouse gases is sublinear. If you had an infinite amount of any gas, it would only absorb a certain fraction of incoming radiation; only that which matches its absorption window. This is basic optical physics. This maximum amount of absorbed energy is the asymptotic maximum. Or in plainer language, if you had an infinite amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would directly increase the earth's temperature by a finite amount, because it only absorbs certain frequencies of infrared radiation. The net impact of this is that doubling the concentration of CO2 will not double the radiative forcing, it'll increase it by a small amount. This reality (sublinear forcing with concentration) needs to be recognized in the article.

2) Increased evaporation causes an increase in water vapor concentration, and water vapor is a GHG, but evaporation also causes evaporative cooling, whereby the energy of the water vapor is moved up into the atmosphere, where it is more readily released to space when the water condenses into a cloud. Thus increased evaporation due to increased temperature may cause net cooling, and definitely will cause net cooling if the water vapor concentration is high enough to be near the asymptotic maximum absorption rate. This is a powerful negative feedback, which any accurate climate model would have to include.Evaporative_cooling

3) The IPCC models noted substantial disagreements on clouds. This article shows extreme bias in suggesting that clouds may warm the earth, where the IPCC couldn't agree on it (read their summary article), and where it's pretty obvious that if you block out the sun's visible and UV rays, the earth will cool, regardless of blocking out many (but not all) IR escape windows. Convective cooling is still operational when radiative cooling diminishes due to clouds. Anybody who is outside during the day when a cloud goes over notices the cooling as the sunshine goes away, and that cloudy days are significantly cooler on average; why should we pretend that the partial IR absorption of clouds (which if powerful enough, would eventually break up the cloud and cause convective cooling) dominates the far more potent sunlight reflection? My suggestion: don't speculate, just mention that the impact of clouds is uncertain.

To summarize, I don't dispute that radiative forcing from GHGs raise the atmospheric temperature, but I do dispute the assumption that all feedbacks are positive, which is the assumption needed to calculate catastrophic global warming. There are negative feedbacks, and there have to be, or else the ocean would have burnt off long ago.

I also recommend this site, for those who wish to learn about how our atmosphere really works: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Cuberoot31 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• That T increases with log(CO2) isn't a negative feedback. The primary negative feedback is R ~ T^4 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) JunkScience is indeed a site that lives up to its name. I suggest you don't trust anything you find there, except maybe the name of the author. The site may be right about some things, but only by accident. As to your points: The temperature reaction to CO2 is indeed sublinear -it's approximately logarithmic, that's why climate sensitivity is given as fixed increase per doubling of CO2. This is reasonably explained in this and the associated articles. Your number 2 is not something that models "have to include", its something that models simulate very well from basic atmospheric physics. This is one of the reasons why models predict increased tropospheric warming. The negative feedback is in this article, about half-way down Global warming#Feedbacks. As for clouds, the article describes exactly the uncertainty you mention. And if we talk about anecdotal evidence, everybody who goes out at night knows that clear nights are a lot colder than cloudy ones... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're handwaving on some things that I don't agree with either here. Climate sensitivity does not address the question here. I find, instead, Greenhouse_gas#Natural_and_anthropogenic to be a watered down half-answer to the current questions. It sounds very reasonable that an average value (W/m^2) can be given for the additional radiative forcing of CO2 in the atmosphere. The first poster here was right saying that the differential increase decreases with each bit of CO2 addition, but it's not exactly a decaying exponential, it's a LOT of decaying exponentials added up (meaning that the curvature is still negative but behavior is more elusive).

There is nothing that should preclude Misplaced Pages from providing the internals of the foundation calculations, which are NOT horrendously complicated as some people would like you to believe, except for the fact that no one will do the work. Things like Climate sensitivity go straight to the conclusions, which is one part of the coverage. The other parts should be the exact greenhouse radiative forcing effect of the compounds in the atmosphere. -Theanphibian 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, you didn't respond to my objections, and I'm not just basing my physics arguments on some website; I have a detailed knowledge of optical physics; my master's project was a computer program that calculated various optoelectric properties of thin films. The Feedbacks section only mentions lowered temperature differentials as a negative feedback, while picking every possible positive feedback, and spinning clouds (which have a net negative feedback during the day, when it is hottest) as having a net positive feedback; it should go no further than saying the impact of clouds is disputed. What it does say about clouds is not NPOV; it's biased speculation. The sublinear marginal impact of increased concentrations of carbon dioxide on radiative forcing is highly relevant to the impact of increased concentrations on global temperature, and it is not mentioned at all in the article. The only reason I can see for excluding the nonlinear impact of increased CO2 concentration on radiative forcing is to push a particular Point Of View. The Feedback section should explicitly mention evaporative cooling, which is a powerful negative feedback. Models used by the IPCC may or may not include evaporative cooling, but if they don't, their results are wrong (garbage in -> garbage out), and if they do, the impact would show a strong negative feedback from evaporative cooling when the H2O absorption window is nearly saturated. There is tremendous energy involved in evaporative cooling. One more thing about the source I mentioned; just because you don't like what JunkScience says , doesn't mean their math or physics are wrong, and I consider it unbecoming of a contributor to Misplaced Pages to reject a source that way, or else their contributions may become "right about some things, but only by accident". If their math or physics were demonstrably wrong, they could be rejected, but just ignoring them because they cause cognitive dissonance is unacceptable.Cuberoot31 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The criticism needs to be referenced from a peer reviewed source. If climate scientists have ignored evaporative cooling and if this is indeed a huge effect as you mention, then that's a new result which is publishable in Nature. So, we have to wait until it is published in Nature or some other high quality peer reviewed journal (but not on JunkScience). Count Iblis (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Evap cooling is in all the GCMs, if that makes you happy. Junk science is junk; using it as a source labels you; best not to do it. If they have, accidentally, got something correct then they've copied it from somewhere else, and you're better off using that as a source. Its sweet that you're able to decide, just off the top of your head, that increases in cloud cover must obviously cool the earth, but sadly we can't use that as a source for the article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If Evaporative Cooling is in the GCMs, why is it excluded from the feedbacks section? Why is sublinear increase of radiative forcing completely excluded from the article, when it is highly relevant? Why does the article get into speculating that clouds are a net positive feedback, when even the IPCC isn't willing to say that? That's pure POV-pushing that isn't backed by any solid science. Remove the speculation, and leave clouds as disputed; that's what I'm asking for. This article cherry-picks positive feedbacks, ignoring most negative feedbacks, apparently to push a POV. I don't see how using real scientific arguments labels me as anything other than a scientist, as opposed to a POV-pusher. I'm quite happy to read and consider all arguments, including ones I disagree with. Have you actually read their discussion on climate and refuted any of their arguments?Cuberoot31 (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain it again. "Evaporative cooling" is not added to models as an arbitrary feedback, but is an emergent feature of the basic physics employed. It's also a misnomer, as the water of course recondenses, so no heat is lost from the system directly. Heat transport by evaporation/condensation and convection is one of the major reasons why the mid troposphere is warming stronger than the ground, i.e. it leads to a decreased lapse rate, which leads to more heat loss, and hence is a negative feedback and described in the Feedback section. This is not a separate effect, it is one of the mechanisms of the effect we already describe. We might go into more detail, but then this article is a high-level overview. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thats cool. Am I getting it wrong or do the models actually reproduce the feed-back? Sounds similar to "endogenous variables" in econ models. If my above words form a correct statement, then, at least, I learned something today :) Brusegadi (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Evaporative cooling cools the surface, which transfers heat higher into the atmosphere, causing convective cooling and also increasing radiation from higher up in the atmosphere (when the heat is released during condensation). This lowers the surface temperature, causing decreased lapsed rate as you mention, and is a negative feedback. It's a fact of basic physics, but it's also clearly a negative feedback that decreases the impact of CO2. If you're going to mention the IR absorbed by water vapor, you should also mention that the water vapor is carrying substantial heat up from the surface by evaporative cooling. One is a positive feedback (IR absorption) the other negative (Evaporative Cooling). Heat is lost in the transfer of thermal energy up the atmosphere by evaporated water, as the Greenhouse Effect (which this article is based on) is the slowing of heat transfer up the atmosphere. As evaporative cooling is a major effect (meteorologists regularly measure "wet-bulb" temperatures), it shouldn't be lumped in with decreased lapse rate due to atmospheric warming from increased absorption of IR. With regards to the unsubstantiated speculation that clouds are a net positive feedback, just eliminate it. It's a clear violation of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, as even the IPCC isn't willing to go that far. I still have yet to see a reason why decreased marginal radiative forcing with concentration of CO2 is completely left out of the article, when the article is based mostly on radiative forcing from CO2.Cuberoot31 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As to evap cooling, what you're looking for (guv) is a nice WP:RS discussing it as a negative feedback. Then it may or may not belong. As to why the exact shape of the CO2-rf curve should be in here, I don't know. You're not still under the mistaken impression that its a -ve feedback, are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I need a RS that steam rises? Evaporative cooling is basic weather physics. How about Evaporative Cooling or Anti-Greenhouse_Effect. It's the same effect, whether sublimation on Pluto or evaporation on Earth. As you acknowledged in your past comment, it's in the GCMs; it does impact climate.

Regardless of what you want to call it, negative feedback or reduced marginal impact, the sublinear impact of increasing CO2 concentrations on radiative forcing is known and based upon the fact that there is only a finite amount of radiation to absorb in any particular absorption band; it is highly relevant to any discussion of CO2 and the greenhouse effect. And don't forget to remove the cloud speculation.Cuberoot31 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The sublinear effect of increasing CO2 is a fact, but that it is based "upon the fact that there is only a finite amount of radiation to absorb in any particular absorption band" is a common misunderstanding. The increasing optical thickness of the atmosphere makes it harder for radiation to escape the atmosphere. Neither of your "sources" (Misplaced Pages articles are not good sources) is useful in this discussion. In particular, Anti-greenhouse effect is completely irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The increased absorption only impacts particular bands; radiation in the other bands passes right through the atmosphere and out to space, so only a slight increase in temperature will be necessary to raise the T^4 radiative output through the unblocked bands (and convective cooling) sufficiently. CO2's bands are narrow, so even if its concentration was 100% the net impact would be less than that of water vapor over the ocean (which is most of the planet). Optical "thickness" is a bad analogy; what you have is a bunch of resistances in parallel, and you're increasing the resistance on only one of them; the other resistors will increase current to compensate with only a slight voltage increase (especially since radiative thermal flux is proportional to T^4). Pluto's "Anti-greenhouse effect" is sublimation cooling, which is equivalent to evaporative cooling (solid to gas vs. liquid to gas), and powerful enough to cool Pluto by multiple degrees Celsius. I'm still surprised that you're asking for a reference for the fact that steam rises. Here's a reference from a government site that mentions in passing the obvious fact of evaporative cooling Forests. It's hard to find references that state in detail such obvious facts.Cuberoot31 (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SYN. You need to find a source that makes the particular argument, not one that supports a basic assumption from which you reason. And you might want too look e.g. at Image:Atmospheric_Transmission.png. Earth is radiating over a wide spectrum, a small shift in peak energy frequency density will not have much of an effect on CO2 and get us into more trouble with other Greenhouse gases.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Found a modern source: Evaporative Cooling that quotes NASA: "Evaporation of water is the source of atmospheric moisture that carries heat energy away from Earth’s surface." and describes evaporative cooling. Evaporative cooling is a major cooling effect, as said web page explains in detail. As an example of how obvious and how well-known this fact is, I found a mention of it from an encyclopedia written in 1802: . About Carbon Dioxide: you are correct, the earth radiates over a wide band, so even if CO2's bands are completely saturated with an infinite amount of CO2, it will only warm the earth a finite amount by trapping a small subset of the radiation. That is why the CO2 effect is sublinear; every climate model that isn't laughably inaccurate acknowledges the sublinear forcing effect. Here's a citation of the (roughly) logarithmic dependence from a UN web article that explains global warming: "It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band’s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.". The same article mentions that understanding of clouds is limited; please remove speculation about clouds having a net positive effect, and leave it as disputed. I have cited solid references for all of my claims. Please fix the article.Cuberoot31 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your initial discussion points said in part: "Thus increased evaporation due to increased temperature may cause net cooling...". Though I think we agree on the nature of evaporative cooling, as of right now you seem to have offered no reference for the impact of evaporation taken as a whole. My impression has always been that in all the models the greenhouse effect of increased water vapor dominates and that evaporation is a net positive feedback. If that is the case, it would seem strange to build any significant discussion of evaporative cooling. Strictly speaking, there is also another part that appears to be missing. The greenhouse effect of water vapor depends on its absolute abundance in the atmosphere, which we expect to increase in a warming world. Evaporative cooling depends on the rate of transfer of water from the surface to the air. Though it is seems likely that the rate of water exchange in a warmer world also increases, it is not self-evident and would also need to be justified. Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Evaporation as a whole (assuming you had no vapor in the air to start with) has a net positive feedback; the Earth would probably be an iceball like Mars if we didn't have water vapor providing the primary greenhouse effect. You are also correct that Evaporative cooling is based upon the rate of evaporation, where IR absorption is based upon (roughly the log of) the concentration of water vapor. As the evaporation rate (and hence also concentration) goes up exponentially with temperature, you get a three-part graph of net temperature feedback vs. temperature over the ocean: Initially, positive feedback rises rapidly due to slight evaporation greatly increasing the greenhouse effect. Evaporative cooling is minor at this stage. This probably is at temperatures below or near the freezing point of water (earth average temperature is around 14C higher). In the second stage, the evaporation rate rises rapidly, and the marginal greenhouse warming impact diminishes as it becomes saturated, so the net (marginal) temperature impact starts to flatten out.In the third stage, the H20 greenhouse effect is nearly saturated, and large amounts of evaporation occur, so there is a net negative feedback. I would venture that this net (marginal) negative feedback happens at the temperatures in the tropics (30C+), as my previously mentioned link on the impact of forests on evaporative cooling suggests.So, it's complicated. I think the simplest accurate statement would be to say that evaporation increases greenhouse warming due to IR absorption, but it also causes evaporative cooling, cooling the earth's surface. Which dominates depends on temperature, ground water levels, and wind speed. Clearly both happen, and they are both powerful forces, so if you mention one, you should mention the other. The sublinear marginal impact of greenhouse gas concentrations on radiative forcing is critical to understanding how the Earth's temperature stays in balance, and why the Earth hasn't become an iceball or boiled off its oceans.Cuberoot31 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is where it would be useful for you to provide sources rather than speculating. For example Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 put the global budget for energy transfer between the atmosphere and surface via evapotranspiration at only 22% of the energy transfer via greenhouse gas absorption. Given that, it is easy to imagine that the effect of marginal changes in water vapor content are still dominated by the greenhouse effect, though we'd need significantly more detail to say with confidence. Do you have any evidence that the cooling effect of increased evaporation offsets more than say 50% of the warming effect due to an increased greenhouse effect? Dragons flight (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It's relatively simple to understand the evaporative cooling has an impact, and that there is a temperature above which it will dominate marginal IR absorption. The (NASA) reference I previously cited on forests said that increase evaporation from tropical rain forests causes net cooling. I believe that should be all that is necessary to mention it as a negative feedback. That said, here's a reference of significant cooling over the ocean due to an increased rate of evaporative cooling: Wind Cooling. Here's another NASA article saying that evaporative cooling dominates marginal IR absorption increase in the tropics:

"Large-scale effects on the regulation of tropical sea surface temperature" By Hartmann, Dennis L.; Michelsen, Marc L., 11; 14; 6; ISSN 0894-8755; Journal of Climate; p. 2049-2062; United States. That's a Google cache link; this might be more stable: Direct LinkCuberoot31 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A relevant quote from the NASA article just cited: "For fixed exchange coefficient and relative humidity, the dependence of evaporative cooling on surface temperature is strongly stabilizing, and this estimate would indicate that it is large enough in magnitude to overcome the destabilizing effect of surface longwave cooling." They calculate a forcing of 7.2W m K at 300K, which is quite significant, and substantially greater than their peak IR absorption gradient of about 3Wm K between 300K and 310K (read from a graph). It's also significant relative to the roughly 4W m forcing calculated for doubling the CO2 concentration. Note that these results are for tropical ocean, which is warm and has plenty of water to evaporate.Cuberoot31 (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Clouds

The article currently states:

Feedback effects due to clouds are an area of ongoing research. Seen from below, clouds emit infrared radiation back to the surface, and so exert a warming effect; seen from above, clouds reflect sunlight and emit infrared radiation to space, and so exert a cooling effect. Whether the net effect is warming or cooling depends on details such as the type and altitude of the cloud. These details are difficult to represent in climate models, in part because clouds are much smaller than the spacing between points on the computational grids of climate models. Nevertheless, cloud feedback is second only to water vapor feedback and is positive in all the models that were used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Referenced to:

Soden, Brian J. (2005-11-01). "An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models" (PDF). Journal of Climate. 19 (14): 3354–3360. doi:10.1175/JCLI3799.1. Retrieved 2007-04-21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

That article appears to say exactly what it is purported to say, namely that cloud cover changes are a positive feedback in all IPCC models (specifically for the A1B scenario). The problem with this is that the IPCC (WGI report, Chapter 10, Section 10.3.2.2 18MB PDF) apparently comes to a different conclusion. They state specifically that the models disagree on the sign of the cloud radiative forcing response. In particular, see figure 10.11. I am somewhat loath to remove the Soden & Held reference outright, but I agree with Cuberoot31 that the coverage of this point is unbalanced at the moment. Dragons flight (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably wrong - but as i read both Soden&Held and the AR4, the cloud feedback is positive in all models (ie. increased cloud cover) but the radiative feedback is roughly equally divided between showing negative and positive radiative forcing. So the text is misleading not the paper or the AR4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Soden & Held are talking about radiative forcing, not abundance. See for example their Figure 1 which is labeled dimensionally as W/m^2/K which are the dimensions of radiative forcing. Dragons flight (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 8 says cloud feedbacks "amplifies the basic response by ... 10 to 50%"; and see fig 8.14 . But it all seems rather complex (section 8.6.3.2.2) and 8.6.3.2.4 Conclusion on cloud feedbacks is vague William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cloud feedback is disputed, even within the IPCC. The article cited (Soden&Held) is a study of studies that excludes some studies and attempts to extract information that wasn't explicitly made available from the studies it examines. I doesn't seem to delve much into the underlying physics for why it should be one way or another, and the resulting "standard deviation" it comes up with (between studies, which is a bad way to compare) for cloud feedback is extremely large; which seems to be clear enough evidence that cloud physics isn't well understood or agreed upon. I don't think studies of studies are generally good science, and this one isn't worth using as a source for Misplaced Pages, especially since it disagrees with the IPCC conclusion that cloud feedback is still disputed. What if more than half the studies have an error in their calculations or just a bad or too sparse grid layout? I've seen studies of studies for physical properties of materials that averaged out lots of bad results for people that didn't purify their material enough, where all the good results (which a decade later everybody obtained consistent results for) were all in agreement within a small margin of error over a span of decades, but most of the results were wrong, skewing the results low (the purer, the higher the result). What is wrong with saying that the sign of net cloud feedback is disputed within the scientific community, and citing the IPCC where it says so?Cuberoot31 (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Put some criticism, please

Or stop calling this stuff a 💕. You are FULL of criticisms, yet none passed on the main page. Oh yes, now please wrote pages of bla bla bla.83.103.38.68 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What encyclopedia would allow nonsense quoted from blogs to be given equal weight to peer reviewed scientific publications? Count Iblis (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In your entry concerning global warming, under the heading "causes", the last sentence says "Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) would still occur". The statement cites the 2005 article by Meehl, Gerald et al in the 3/18/05 edition of Science entitled "How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise".

I wonder what Mr. Meehl (PhD?) would have to say about the 0.2 degrees F global cooling which has supposedly occurred over the latest ten years? Given the ocean's known heat capacitance, there seems to be a major cooling trend occurring as you read this... and it isn't caused by decreased greenhouse gases; indeed, if it weren't for the increase in greenhouse gases, the world of today might be in the beginnings of another ice age, as was the "scientific concensus" of decades ago.

"Consensus" of scientists does not equate to good science. Just ask Christopher Columbus... the world was flat by consensus in his day.

The geophysicist (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Dr. Meehl would say that warming is not predicted to be monotonic and choosing only ten years to claim something about a long-term climate trend is not good practice. (If you disagree, please point to a reliable source stating otherwise.) Moreover, there was never a consensus about global cooling in the 70's, as seen in the published work of scientists . And please do ask Christopher Columbus about the consensus of the Earth's shape in his time. Jason Patton (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

please add this chart in the solar variation article

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1396

here is the chart http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/database/1212569190.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 07:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Read WP:RS. Brusegadi (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

2006 & 2007 temperatures?

I was reading through the Global Warming articles and several related articles, and I could find no mention of the 2006 & 2007 global average temperature. Is that data not yet available? I would think the most recent data would be important given the predictions for over 1 degree C increase over the next hundred years.

I am also curious: how does our current temperature stack up against past temperature models such as the ones charted in the "Climate models" section? For instance, is the current temperature about .07-.08 degrees warmer than it was in 2000, using measurements comparable to that chart? While I look at the chart, I am wondering: is it plotting global average land temperature, ocean temperature, atmospheric temperature, or what? --Coopercmu (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Errrm, well it says "global", and if you click on the pic and read the text it says "This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set HadCRUT3 was used. HadCRUT3 is a record of surface temperatures collected from land and ocean-based stations". I've bolded the bit you missed. All the rest is the traditioanl weather-vs-climate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about 2006/2007 temps? How does our current temperature compare to the climate model predictions shown in the chart? --Coopercmu (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are confused by the difference between weather and climate. Climate models don't make predictions for individual years (and indeed, if you're thinking of the IPCC, they make projections, not predictions) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there an actual reason to pick to 2005 as the end date? You can fiddle with start and end dates and conclude that the Earth warming or cooling -- pretty much anything you want. Kauffner (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Or maybe Gore sent a memo and I missed it :) Anyways, I think it does not really matter, two observations will not change the trend. If you want to and can update it, go for it. Brusegadi (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't be so hasty. The year 2005 is given because it is the year for which the most recent IPCC report gives values. Since the IPCC reports are going to be the most comprehensive they'll be the preferred source. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I am confused because there are multiple references to 2005 "weather" data in the article. See the Temperature Changes / Recent section. Either this "weather" information about the year 2005 should be removed, or it should be updated to the latest year available. Additionally, I wonder how one would validate the accuracy of a "climate" model "projections"? Perhaps one would examine the data from several years up to and including the most recent date. Or maybe it's just over my head and I will get confused again. :) --Coopercmu (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all the pictures need to be updated with current information. Seems the graphs all stop at some point a few years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.63.144.242 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Some questions, and does the article (or subtopic articles) have this information?

Hi. I have not yet read the entire article but am reading a book (Six Degrees) about it, and have read many other books. Is El Nino's effects mentioned? El Nino causes rainfall over the Acatama Desert. Some studies suggest that El Nino may become intense or even permanent, but the agreement is not universal. However, could that undry the Acatama? Any mention about that? What about the effects on the lower stratosphere? The possible collapse of the Amazon once temperatures get past two degrees? The so-called "weak underbellies" of the Antarctic sheets, Pine Island Bay in west Antarctica, and the Totten and Cook glaciers in East Antarctica (source: With Speed and Violence)? What about economical and agricultural impacts? Have any studies been done for global warming in 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years? What about extinction risk suring that time? Might the negative feedbacks start a new ice age (suggested by The Coming Global Superstorm)? When, if ever, is the Arctic Ice cap predicted to melt in the Winter as well? Does saltwater hinder its formation? Paleoclimatic studies? Temperature comparisons to the Cretaceous era, and might temperatures exceed that? If melted freshwater piles over, say, 30 metres of the current ocean, what does that do to the ocean currents? One thing about the Atlantic Conveyor halting theory always confuses me: are the implications worldwide, or just in the Atlantic? Do the worldwide currents slow down or stop as well? Might the warm currents disconnect from the cold currents? Have any studies been done on that? Might El Ninos weaken Atlantic hurricanes? Is it possible for ocean currents to seperate warm and cold, but still function? If ocean currents weaken, what does that do to monsoons? Coastal deserts? What are its effects on lakes such as the Great Lakes system? Might Lake Erie drop low enough to weaken Niagara Falls? The Caspian Sea? Any studies on how water might flood into the area with a ~25m sea level rise? Sorry if this all sounds like speculation, but I'm pretty sure most of this information can be supported by credible sources. Or, should I ask on the reference desk? I'm in no way critisizing the amount of information in the article, I haven't even read most of it, plus it's featured! It's just that global warming as a whole is a huge topic, and I just wanted to make sure that Misplaced Pages has sufficient coverage of all the main subtopics. Thanks. ~AH1 02:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby's return

Does this edit seem familiar to anyone? It should: sock. Is this enough for an immediate block (identical edit and summary)? Oren0 (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the discussions we had in WP:ANI after Raul protected pages (basically, strong blocking in this set of pages, instead of full protection) I would block now if I had the tools. Brusegadi (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And in case we didn't have enough evidence, see this latest edit compared to this confirmed sock edit. I too would block were I an admin. Enough watch this page that I'm sure he'll be blocked before long. Oren0 (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nacor is now blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Empire Strikes Back? Count Iblis (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope it was obvious to you guys that Xjet (who popped into this page immediately after you blocked Nacor) is another Scibaby sockpuppet. And, you should make a habit of checking the log. Using one logged-in account to register another is tactic used by Scibaby (and nobody else). It also tells you what other accounts he has lying around. And last, tagging a sockpuppet but not blocking him (e.g, as Kim did with User:Stenge) is not suffecient. Raul654 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and lastly - I suggest you guys start a long-term RFCU page, get all the checkusers to watchlist it, and start bringing these cases there. Specifically, every time Scibaby pops up, you need to get a checkuser to block any IPs he's used for one year (a full block - no account creation, no anons, no logged in users), and then check the range and issue a range block (/24 at least, full block or anon-only depending on whether or not there are innocents in the range). Raul654 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Who the heck is Scibaby and why was he blocked? I am just curious. Is there a place to go to find out the details? --GoRight (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there is but I don't know where. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revert

Just reverted some amends which inter alia fail to distingush spot temperature from climatic (longer term) averages. Otherwise the weather reverses the effect of global warming every winter of course. --BozMo talk 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Potential effects" vs. "expected effects"

The reason I changed the wording here is that some of the effects listed here are fairly dubious. Both the "trade route" and "disease vector" effects are listed as things that "may" happen over at effects of global warming, so it seems reasonable that they'd be "potential" rather than "expected." Oren0 (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think most things would fall better under the expected category as opposed to the potential category, specially since they are so broadly defined and, in a way, many of them are already documented to some minor extent. I really would not like to discuss this too much, so if you disagree with me just revert and if no one else has a problem I'll be ok. Brusegadi (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ocean heat

Of interest, though it needs to settle: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=572

Link to the original abstract here. I'd prefer that (and RC, of course), to Mac's ENN report, although that one, apart from the title, is not too bad either. The big news is not the increase of the increase, I think, but the much improved fit of models and data, and the much better correlation of the data to known external forcings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Data to 2005

Why does the data on this page stop at 2005? Where are the most current graphics showing what happened to global temperatures in 2006 and 2007? By the way, in 2007 all climate research shows global temperatures dropped enough to wipe out almost all of the warming of the last 100 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve0999 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not. The graph is up to 2006, as far as I can make out. You can compare the original HadCrut graph, which is current up unto the last months here. I don't think it tells a different story. The 2005 cut-off date in the lede is because it's based on the IPCC report, which had a cut-off date in 2005. If you have a reliable source that is more up to date, bring it on. I don't know who lied about you on the 2007 issue. Apart from the fact that a single year temperature has no statistical significance, even on the face of it the statement is plain wrong. See the HadCrut data set here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

US gov't (NOAA leading) finally expresses an opinion on storm strength

Good news, everyone! Well, good news that the bad news finally has the NOAA imprimatur. It only took seven years since Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-554) authorized it, but now the wait is over: The National Assessment of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program was published Thursday, June 19. Rejoice!

It's called: Karl, T.R., et al., eds. (June 2008) "Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate -- Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands" Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3, U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, 164 pp. 10 MB PDF; statement size brochure summary, 4 pp.) What an exhilarating title! It gives me goosebumps just typing it, and cramps.

We last heard from these fine folks in 2000 when they were authorized and appropriated under an entirely different set of laws, and called the subtly different U.S. Global Change Research Program. But back then, they weren't willing to tell us much about storm strength save for a passing aside about higher storm surge in a buried paragraph on rising sea levels. Hallelujah, this important topic is no longer relegated to the redacting Sharpie of the White House Office of Science Policy. Yay!

Enough of the exuberances, let's get to the meat. Quoth the NOAA:

And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have it, the premier weather forecasting agency of the government of the United States of America.

Are there any peer reviewed publications in literal agreement with these "very likely" and "likely" assessments in the last column of the last three rows? 75.61.106.191 (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Should it be added already? Brusegadi (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading graph

I tagged this graph with a "graph is misleading" tag because its Y origin should be at 0 in order to avoid sensationalizing the data trend. See Misplaced Pages:Don't draw misleading graphs. Whoever drew this graph instead put the Y origin just below the low point, which causes the upward curve to be greatly exaggerated, which misleads the reader. The Y origin ought to be at 0. Certainly a less exciting data slope, but less misleading.

The temperature graphs, by contrast, don't have this obvious error, since 0 degrees is an arbitrary number. Parts per million, though, ought to have its origin at 0. There is an argument that 0 is silly - what if the planet has never had 0 parts per million? That argument fails here because the rise in parts per million is about 20%, whereas the graph visually states that there's about a 1300% rise. Tempshill (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, you are doing OR, since its your take versus published material. Google Keeling curve. I think those are the years for which the measurments were taken. Also, its relative, I have never seen business cycles graphed in the context of hundreds of years, you would lose what you are trying to observe.Brusegadi (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Brusegadi - I'm pretty sure the Keeling curve is never plotted from 0. Raul654 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting essay there. From Misplaced Pages:Don't draw misleading graphs: "However, one should also avoid insisting on a misleading '0'. For example, when plotting the temperature history of Boston, it makes no sense to start the plot at 0 K, since 0 K is far removed from physically obtainable values and will only obscure the actual range of variation." Seems this issue is already covered in the essay Tempshill cited. MastCell  20:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

These are all interesting inferences, however, from a geological standpoint, this is a vanishingly small period of time. Given the earth is 4.5 billion years old, this graph could qualify as statistically useless. There's no context. What if this CO2 level is still lower than what existed at the height of any glacial maximum? The graph gives a gnat's breath amount of data in the lifespan of the planet. I'm hardly a global warming denialist, but this graph, from a scientific point of view, is kind of useless. OrangeMarlin 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't (and frankly can't) expect every plot to be complete in itself. Presumably if you are showing such data you are also discussing its context. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemarlin. I also recognize the point being made by MastCell. So why not set the temperature scale to the known historical limits. I am not suggesting that we use this exact graph, but here is a graph showing the limits (http://biocab.org/CO2-Geological_Timescale.jpg) as being 280ppm up to >5000ppm. Surely on a known scale that large this graph must be considered misleading since it clearly exaggerates the level of increase as compared to historical knowns. --GoRight (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You have an interesting definition of "history". CO2 has been extremely stable during historical times up until 1850 or so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, mine seems to agree with the opening sentence of the Misplaced Pages entry on history, specifically "History is the study of the past, particularly the written record of the human race, but more generally including scientific and archaeological discoveries about the past." Regardless of the term you wish to describe it by, do you dispute scientific legitimacy of the levels cited as having actually been attained throughout the history of the planet? --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• The context of the graph is what is important. In addition to the fact that it was done by Keeling. Finally, I gather that the magnitude of the change is not as important as the lags of the series. The last time CO₂ spiked up so fast, bad things happened. Orangemarlin's point is good, but it boils down to how ergodic the series is. When we forecast economic downturns we hardly care about what went on 50, 20, 10 years ago. So, despite the fact that the earth is "old", to statistically judge if something 'weird' is happening, the 50 most recent observations may suffice. Brusegadi (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Oh, I have no more than the usual scepticism about these past CO2 limits (which means I accept them provisionally while keeping in mind the error bars - our own Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png is quite good). I dispute the scientific legitimacy of including them in a diagram that shows the anthropogenic CO2 increase, which happens on a completely different time scale. If you talk about millions and billions of year, the complete biology and geology of the planet changes - indeed, even the sun evolves significantly over those time scales. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can accept the argument about the context of the graph being AGW specific, so time scales outside of human existence wouldn't apply. I don't think that this graph is actually misleading to anyone smart enough to actually interpret the graph, which would no doubt include most of the contributors to this article, I am less confident of that fact with respect to the general readership of Misplaced Pages.

So, if the intent of the graph is to show the CO2 increases due to human activities, is the reader intended to assume that this graph is showing increases solely attributable to human causes? If so, is that in fact what the graph shows or should it also provide a separate line showing the human caused effects for comparison purposes? --GoRight (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you roughly double the increase shown you get the human-casued component. Do you have a point? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My point, actually the original commenter's point, is that the graph is misleading. I should have thought that obvious.

Stephan asserts that the purpose of the graph, or at least the context of the graph, is AGW specific. So, is it your contention that the curve shown in this graph represents solely human caused increases (i.e. that no portion of the curve shown is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes to cite one example)?

If this curve represents the cumulative effect of both natural causes AND human causes this should be made clear, and if possible the relative proportions should be called out. It would seem relevant to a discussion of overall CO2 increases that we understand the human caused increases in relation to the natural ones, would it not, given a stated context of AGW? Based on your comment it appears that you are assuming that humans are responsible for 100% of the increase shown. Is that correct? If so, I assume that you have some evidence to back that up? --GoRight (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Crickets, Mr. Connolley? --GoRight (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in the US a decent education does not come for free. The graph makes no claim about the source of the increase, so there is no onus to provide a reference there. But the topic is entirely uncontroversial, and references are easily available, some only two clicks away. So please stop wasting our time with trivialities and do your own research. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the links to GHG, and the section natural and anthro, you'll find the assertion that the inc is anthro, and a ref thereunto. As I said, humans are responsible for 200% of the increase, not 100%. We could make all this more explicit, but Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases seems fairly explicit already. I'm unsure as to whether you are ignorant of all this, and would like to learn, or igrnorant, and would like to push your ignorance into the article. Your recent edits suggest the latter William M. Connolley (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU is over there. If you want a private conversation, may I suggest you use a private medium? Your contributions here are free for all to comment on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. If WP:RFCU had any chance of being effective you would have been exposed long ago I am sure. WP:RFCU would be easy enough for a knowledgable user to evade. There are only so many ways that two accounts can be correlated, all of which are easily defeated. IMHO WP:MEAT (minus any derogatory implications) is a much more likely scenario, although I am certainly not accusing you of actually being such (in case there was any doubt).  :) --GoRight (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea when it was removed, but the chart shown at right used to also appear in this article, and could provide additional context. Dragons flight (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere has most of the info you are looking for GoRight. As William said, there is no real debate over the origins of atmospheric CO2 emissions, as its easily confirmed by isotope ratios. 68.175.102.199 (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this graph.

1. The axes are properly labelled and chosen. The data starts in 1960, so it should start there; the concentration starts at around 300, so the Y-axis starting around there is not unreasonable, given that it only goes up. You could also present it as % increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration WRT 1960s level and get a graph which looks the same.
2. The graph covers a relevant time period.
3. That other graph shows CO2 over a very long time span, and thus doesn't really show the increase in modern times well at all because of how short modern times are from a geological standpoint. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming Causes Earthquakes

You guys sound so skeptical.  :)

• Look, MSNBC is even reporting it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25222766/. Don't let the fact that CBS News and the AP have backtracked stop you. MSNBC is considered a credible news source, is it not?
• Here is another paper from the same scientist: http://nujournal.net/core.pdf where we learn that the Earth might actually explode because of global warming. Who knew?

Even so, my addition is sourced according to Misplaced Pages standards (see WP:RS). I think you should let it stand.

--GoRight (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's "Scientist", and no and WP:POINT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad on the capitalization, no offense intended. I'll have to remember to put the double quotes around it, though, when discussing Global Warming "Scientists". Thanks for the recommendation.  :) Even so, my addition does meet Misplaced Pages standards, WP:RS, so it seems unfair to impugn my intentions as being WP:POINT. I am just being WP:BOLD and you should be WP:AGF.

See the section "Scholarship" of RS:

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Reliable_sources

Many Misplaced Pages articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. Misplaced Pages articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
• Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.
• The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.
• In science, single studies are usually considered tentative evidence that can change in the light of further scientific research. How reliable a single study is considered depends on the field, with studies relating to very complex and not entirely-understood fields, such as medicine, being less definitive. If single studies in such fields are used, care should be taken to respect their limits, and not to give undue weight to their results. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which combine the results of multiple studies, are preferred (where they exist).

Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we have "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." MSNBC is a respected mainstream publication, is it not? --GoRight (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we had to decide for this and many other wiki articles on scientific topics that non-academic sources are notoriously unreliable when they make statements about science, particularly when there are very few peer reviewed sources that confirm such statements. And, as you should know, Global Warming is a special case. The Wall Street Journal is a very reliable source on almost everything, except on Global Warming. :)

This is an example of me keeping a newspaper article out of the special relativity article

For a start, the newspaper account on the research as completely flawed. Including the preprint of the research article would have been possible, but then we needed to discuss the actual physics in the article and violate the usual rules on Original Research.

So, in general (not just in case of this global warming article), I don't think we should allow non-peer reviewed sources when they report on a new scientific result that as of yet has very few peer reviewed sources. Count Iblis (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll let this drop at this point so as not to disrupt the article needlessly. It is not like this was a major point in the whole debate, but it certainly is relevant, if true. --GoRight (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt if the Nu journal could ever be considered a reliable source. Frankly i'm surprised that any newspaper would publish such a thing, but i guess it was a slow newsday. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I obviously agree and I, personally, remain skeptical of the purported causal effects presented in the paper. But given the alarmist nature of the AGW proponents a claim of AGW causing earthquakes seemed like it would be uncontroversial, and indeed welcomed. So when I saw the article was reported in a respected mainstream publication I immediately thought of the more prominent group of AGW contributors here at Misplaced Pages. Just trying to help. :) --GoRight (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on WP:DE, and WP:SOAP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would you suggest that? Regardless of my motives it was a legitimate entry on this page sourced from a WP:RS. I was clearly adhering to Misplaced Pages standards when I made the entry. The fact that I have decided not to continue a futile fight with the Connolley Gang doesn't diminish that in any way. I simply don't have the numbers required to over-rule your group's coordinated censorship of the GW pages because of WP:3RR. --GoRight (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only speculate on your motives. But if you seriously try to push this MSNBC and "NuJournal" articles as reliable sources, you are terminally stupid. If not, you are violating WP:POINT. Either way, stop it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already dropped it above, something I am sure you are completely aware of. You are the one who seems bent on continuing this conversation. Either way, please don't misrepresent my position. I have never asserted that the "NuJournal" was WP:RS, I only asserted that MSNBC is WP:RS and it is, regardless of your self-serving opinion. --GoRight (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a regular participant here, but I can't see why global warming can't cause earthquakes. Melting shifts the ice, such as with the glacial rebound, and can stretch the Earth's crust. Are there any scientific publications about this, though? Thanks. ~AH1 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It does cause seismic activity on Greenland, so called ice or glacial quakes . But i doubt if there is enough ice-melt to have any significant impact on the crust yet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC is little better than Fox News these days, its just Fox for moderates. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no basis for excluding credible reliable sources like MSNBC or the Wall St Journal, regardless of whther they are academically peer-revewed or not. Doing so will greatly harm this article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That it appeared in MSNBC or the WSJ isn't the reason that its being removed. It's because it raises the red flag, and that subsequent examination of the source (the "scientist") shows us, that it is indeed fringe view appearing in a non-reliable "scientific journal". And that apparently the MSNBC brought the article, because it was a really slow news-day (i hope ;). May i suggest that you check the talk-page, and the discussions before reverting, and repeating an argument? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this material is fringe. Do the editors trying to add this really believe that it's serious or are they trying to make a point? Oren0 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, GoRight tried to make a point by trying to edit this into this article. And perhaps it isn't that bad that he tried to do that. He genuinly believes that the scientific consensus on global warming is not a result of good science, that critics are systematically ignored and that this consensus is driven by alarmism combined with the desire to implement left wing liberal policies.

So, he thought some fringe article about earthquakes would easily make it into this article because of the alarmist conclusions. But he failed and perhaps he will now reconsider his ideas about climate science. Count Iblis (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You hardly know me so don't try to represent my positions, please. I still maintain that my addition met wikipedia standards and thus is, in fact, a legitimate edit. I simply lack the incentive to actually waste time fighting the Connolley gang over it. I knew that they would object despite it being properly sourced, as is evident from the commentary above. I am well aware that Misplaced Pages standards mean very little when the material supports a POV other than their own.

As for my views on climate change regarding the validity of the science being espoused by the alarmists, it is not the raw data that I question ... only their conclusions and the obvious political motivations that drive them. When it is all said and done the temperature will do whatever it is going to do and then the story will be told. --GoRight (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I still maintain that my addition met wikipedia standards and thus is, in fact, a legitimate edit. - Reality disagrees Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in your alt-reality but in the real world the edit met the standards. --GoRight (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom says that for scientific articles (read: this one) sources should be textbooks or peer reviewed articles. Your edit included a hypothesis pushed by one fringe scientist published in a non-peer reviewed source. So no matter how many times you say your edits have abided by Misplaced Pages policy, it doesn't make it so. If you continue to push this nonsense, the next stop is going to be the administators' noticeboard. Have a nice day. Raul654 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. If this is true (the arcom bit) it hasn't made its way into the officially documented policies, as we have seen above ... no matter how many times you repeat it. And what am I pushing? I have already agreed to drop it as you no doubt know. All I am doing now is keeping the record straight against the continuing onslaught of false accusations such as yours. --GoRight (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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