Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:13, 26 April 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 Archive 96

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives and subpages

• See Talk:Global warming/List of archives

section makeover

I think we should have a pop at this bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/Global_warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects

It's a theory is it not?

The title and description should be changed to state that it is a THEORY, not how it is stated like it's a fact. Only politics don't call it a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer0273 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See the FAQ, here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've updated tha faq - check it out. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this faq entry. There is insignificant scientific evidence to support the claim that the overall temperature is rising. In fact I seem to remember some data supporting the opposite. this article should be presented as theoretical from the beginning so that readers don't get the wrong idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross817 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the temperature is rising, but it is caused by the number of sunspots on the sun, not by the amount of CO2. Mustanggt5000 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)mustanggt5000

Here is an article about sunspots: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Mustanggt5000 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)mustanggt5000

You are mistaken. If you are interested in knowing the truth, read the article. If you are interested in holding onto your mistaken beliefs, read conservative blogs. Could the scientific findings about global warming be wrong? Of course they could. Science is always subject to change, if better data comes along. But right now, what this article says is what the data support, and "I seem to remember some data supporting the opposite" is not a strong reason to believe the opposite. The internet is a fountain of misinformation. You need to learn to discriminate between authoratative sources: refereed journals, college textbooks, encyclopedias and almanacs, on the one hand, and dubious sources: blogs, politicians, talk radio and television, on the other hand. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am simply trying to say that since the data supporting the increase of the average temperature are inconclusive we should present it as such. I believe it is covered under Misplaced Pages's neutrality page that we should present every opinion equally and I know some people who believe that global warming is a hoax.

Oh, here it is: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

I am not sure what would be considered a reliable source at this point but I will cite the following as a source for now:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521data_trunc_sys.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross817 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not considered a WP:RS. And its a load of nonsense. Here is Peter Doran's (the scientist quoted in your article) comments on the misrepresentation that (amongst others) your article presented.

Note btw. that WP:NPOV is not "equal time" - but a presentation according to the relative merit/weight/prominence of each view. The view that the Earth isn't warming (or cooling) is on the extreme fringe, and thus isn't considered. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If we add the conservatives' "theory", I propose that we add my religion's theory as well. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

climate models

I think this section needs to be smaller, to fit the new, shorter article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs to inform the reader that the crrent gen. of models are weak on earth system integration, eg. carbon cycle feedbacks (esp. methane) and ice-dymanics. There's a general consensus from senior IPCC scientists that global climate models currently severely underestimate global warming. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't, which is why you've noticeably failed to include any refs William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I omitted refs because this is only a TP and I can't be bothered. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Then no one can be bothered to address your concern. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We should find some way to include the fact that models at the British Antarctic Survey don't necessarily support the position that the warming observed in the twentieth Century was anthropogenic. Here is an excerpt:

"As part of the work undertaken for the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC13, about 20 different climate models were run with historical changes to natural and anthropogenic forcing factors to simulate the climate of the 20th century. The simulated changes in Antarctic surface temperatures over the second half of the 20th century vary greatly from model to model with no single model reproducing exactly the observed pattern of change. However, when results from all models are averaged, the resulting pattern of change bears some resemblance to that observed, with greatest warming in the Peninsula region and little change elsewhere20. This result suggests that some of the observed change may have an anthropogenic origin, but the lack of a clear and consistent response to changed forcing between models also suggests that much of the observed change in temperatures may be due to natural variability. The IPCC model experiments fail to reproduce some of the observed features, notably the rapid warming of the lower atmosphere. These differences between modelled and observed changes could be used to argue against attributing change to anthropogenic forcing but some caution is called for as the models used may not adequately represent all of the complex processes that determine temperatures in the polar regions."

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_views/climate_change.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.242.119 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoted out of context, and taken out of context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's a very long quote, and I provided the URL for anyone interested in looking into this. Surely the BAS is a reputable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.242.119 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of climate change is not homogeneous - that means that you can't take a regional conclusion (which Antarctica is (context)) and elevate it to a global conclusion. (which your intro sentence did (out of context)). Next comes another out of context use... Your quoted text states "could be used to argue against" - but the conclusion is: "Taken together, these two results suggest that a significant fraction of the recent observed changes in climate in this part of the Antarctic can be attributed to human activity with a reasonable degree of certainty." So Stephan is absolutely correct: "Quoted out of context, and taken out of context". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So should we then disregard all temperature data predating satellites, as ‘regional’ land-based data, which excludes the two-thirds of the Earth covered by water? If that is your definition of ‘out of context’, I would like to know what is in context. By your definition the AGW theory is entirely dependant on data taken out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.242.119 (talk • contribs)

This is not a forum for debate. But to address your comment: you are now moving the goal posts. You are assuming that a specific well-defined regional uncertainty can be expanded into a generalized dismissal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Petersen, If the goal posts aren't where you expected to find them, that doesn't mean I moved them. This article fails to inform the reader of the uncertainties inherent in all climate models. Above there is the suggestion that this section on models be further limited without acknowledging the integral role such models play in the AGW theory, which is why the current federal budget included hundreds of millions of dollars for climate models (so they must be important to somebody). You obviously want to obscure the fact that such models will never have the capability to forecast climate in any long-term meaningful way. Even at the regional level, the BAS models all disagree with each other and they all disagree with the actual record when a comparison can be made, and no amount of tweaking them will ever be able to change that fact. This is why Jim Hanson’s climate forecast of 1988 failed spectacularly (he couldn't model the Earth's climate as he claimed because that's not possible). If we exclude the 'out of context' data and rely only on the actual global satellite data, we find that there has been no net global warming after James Hansen predicted it, in his testimony before congress in 1988, and please don't try to make us believe that the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) is not a reliable source. Furthermore, don't accuse me of debating, when I am providing a valid critique of this article, and informing you of a glaring omission on your part. Frequent readers of the AGW sections at Misplaced Pages are painfully aware of your pro-AGW point-of-view, which you have always predictably expressed in your argumentative knee-jerk fashion for several years now, just as you have here today.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/ http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/index.html

(outdent) can we get back on topic please? Here's the cite which shows concern over IPCC modelling. Can we please edit this section to show the limitations of models which been highlighted by these comments. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you read your sources? I could find no mentioning of problems with climate modeling. There were statements to the effect that future CO2 emissions may have been underestimated, and that there are potential additional CO2-based feedbacks not well understood yet, but there was no comment on the quality of climate models. You are aware that CO2 levels typically are an assumed input for climate models, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I failed to cite my sources when I indicated that James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988 failed spectacularly due to his inability to model the Earth’s climate accurately. I also noticed that I used the wrong spelling of his name. While noting my own spelling error, I decided not to corrected it, as I can see how error correction can lead to edit wars as indicated in the next section below. Here are the sources showing his failed prediction, which I will now cite:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen20.gif

Please consider publishing these graphs to illustrate to the reader the inherent weakness of relying on computer generated models when making long-term climate forecasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.44.250 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source stating that Hansen "failed"? Why do you think that a climate projection (not prediction) would be "accurate" on an annual scale? Why end on a La Niña year? etc etc. (hint: its cherry picking). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you compare the data from Hansen published in 1988 (figure (a) on p9347) with the actual data of what really happened from UAH you will see a striking disparity in the amount of warming, which cannot be explained away by differences between annual data and monthly data. If the available data happens to end on a La Niña year, that’s not my fault. But it does draw attention to the fact that Hansen’s models did not predict any La Niñas or El Niños (now that you have raised that issue), and no one else has ever been able to accurately predict such occurrences in their projections either. Therefore this section on models is remiss in not illustrating this obvious deficiency. Your charge of cherry picking is baseless also, as I have provided a continuous series of global satellite data inexplicably missing from these AGW pages that readers should have available to them when evaluating the accuracy of such models. If you do have models showing when the next La Niña or El Niño will occur, I would be very interested to look at them, and I hope you will add them to this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.44.250 (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:V. If you do not have reliable sources that state what you claim, and is relevant for inclusion into the article - then its irrelevant here. This is not a forum for general discussion on global warming (as stated before). Your personal opinions (and mine) are irrelevant for WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

<comment by 75.36.44.250 cut - see WP:FORUM as for why. And read WP:OR and WP:V as for why your comment is irrelevant.>>

I did as you said, following the link you provided. But what I found cast doubt on your actions not mine. I found that I was right to examine the speculative nature of AGW. The models it is based on are entirely dependant on “unverifiable speculation”, which supports my original point. Thank you for pointing out this policy:

“Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analysis.”

Obviously it is the responsibility of a Misplaced Pages editor to determine whether AGW speculation can be verified, which is what I was doing when comparing the models’ speculation to the actual climate record as given by a reliable source of satellite temperature data from UAH (which I cited) over that same timeframe. Please follow your own link and read the policy you asked me to read to make sure that you yourself are in compliance Misplaced Pages guidelines. These three sources of data must be juxtaposed to be sure the Misplaced Pages does not become ‘a collection of unverifiable speculation’. Whether such models can be verified with data from the historical record is entirely germane to this discussion and it is increasing obvious why I have encountered so much defensiveness here at Misplaced Pages.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen20.gif

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.44.250 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Once more: See WP:FORUM. climateaudit and icecap are not reliable sources sorry. Your personal comparisons and conclusions have *no relevance* at all here. See: WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is only your opinion (which is forbidden here). If you have a reliable source showing that this data, faithfully reproduced from the University of Alabama Huntsville, by Icecap, is in error, you are welcome to provide it here. Otherwise this source of data is more reliable than your opinion of it. More importantly you have failed to address Misplaced Pages’s policy regarding “unverifiable speculation”, which compels us to make sure that these models can be verified, as the AGW theory is dependent on them. Will you also say that the University of Alabama Huntsville is an unreliable source, knowing as you must that this data was faithfully reproduced from their records, or will you say that it is not? Here we are discussing facts that are a matter or record, not matters of opinion. If you believe that Icecap and Climateaudit are not reliable sources, we will need more than just your unsupported assertion. I have been continually citing my sources, which I now ask you to carefully read before making any more hasty replies. I will ask you to do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.44.250 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

still too fat, still doesn't include enough on carbon cycle modelling etc Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Propose geoengineering section merged into mitigation

Note - collapsing a discussion like this could be dangerous, making important discussions difficult to find in the archive. Please edit the comment above if you disagree with my analysis. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I originated the discussion, it was useless, and I therefore disagree with your analysis. Awickert (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Brick through the AGW window...

Copyright violation removed. < Mk > 68.56.175.27 (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the censorship run amuck again I see... This article is really worth a read < http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/a-brick-through-australias-agw-window/#more-7010 > for all of you trying to take part in a BALANCED debate. < Mk > 68.56.175.27 (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop editing every single post because you don't want a balanced debate on this subject matter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.175.27 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, copying whole articles here is a copyright violation. Removing it is not censorship, but good sense. And you want a "balanced" debate? Sorry, but that would require a balance of evidence. Plimer's claims are not new, and most of them are still wrong. And getting an endorsement from a banker turned politician may be typical for the septic crowdlet, but it does little to inspire confidence in the science of the book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same Ian Plimer who says El Niño is caused by earthquakes? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The rules of this article are simple: if it is pro-warming hysteria, then it is "legitimate", "authoratative", "scientific". If it lays out the lack of any evidence supporting manmade warming it is: "not a credible source". You would have more luck getting catholic bishops to accept that god doesn't exist that convincing global warmers that the natural climate variation is anything other than the "vengeance of ghia on the sins of mankind". 80.176.148.24 (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah.... I have to say that I generally try to keep unsupported alarmism out. If you think any of the statements in the article are unsupported by science, please bring up the specific instances. Awickert (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time I've come to this article expecting to find a balanced take on particular issues, only to find it completely missing. The first occasion was after I'd come across Dr Will Happer. See my reasons for considering his sceptical views relevant here, he's published 200 scientific papers (or so we're told!) and he's uninvolved - the very kind of person that someone like me will most trust, delivering peer-review in miniature. Without him (or a link to a discussion of his views elsewhere), this article is deficient.

Today I come to this article, having read this in todays New York Times: While carbon dioxide may be the No. 1 contributor to rising global temperatures, scientists say, black carbon has emerged as an important No. 2, with recent studies estimating that it is responsible for 18 percent of the planet’s warming, compared with 40 percent for carbon dioxide. Is this supposedly important factor mentioned? No it isn't. If the NYT carries it, I have to presume it's important and has been much discussed, not finding any reference immediately undermines the authority of this article. After writing the above, immediate action was taken to insert part it, thankyou User:Fred Bauder. Yet even as you did this my request for a record of the RfCs and other dispute resolution processes that have been embarked upon for this topic (along with a message personal to me) has been deleted apparently as an "off topic comment" - can you explain what's going on?

Meanwhile, over at Snowball Earth I find the opposite problem, the article depreciates this phenomenon/theory, despite some of the RS treating it as proven.

Looking more deeply, there is even some outright censorship going on, eg here, with the entirely civil protest scrubbed here. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See the archives (linked on top of the talk page). As for personal comments - they have nothing to do on an article talk-page (see: WP:TALK, WP:SOAP and in this particular case WP:NPA). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If the ABC report is in the archives, and you were pointing me to it, then I would naturally apologise. But I asked for other listings of information, and my request was deleted. This on top of a great deal of other interference that's obviously going on. I thought Misplaced Pages would be a good place to be cooperative, perhaps becoming accepted enough to be trusted. Instead of which I'm seeing really bad behavior that administrators are presumably incapable of controlling. I'm hardly going to exert myself with good writing in such an atmosphere. If what's going on here were general, Misplaced Pages would be laughed out of court. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Where in the UN ABC Summary Report did it mention 18%? I can't find it, though perhaps someone else did or it's easily calculated. Just going on the NYT doesn't satisfy scientific sourcing. --Skyemoor (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're doing is called original research. If it's in the New York Times, we're supposed to treat it as worth reporting. And I've been along the path of "scientific sourcing" before, I was told that Dr Will Happer isn't it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No we are not "supposed" to report what the NYT says. The requirements for verifiability on science articles is higher than that. The reason being that popular media often gets scientific results wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mention 18% in Part I of the full report either. What that says is "The BC forcing of 0.9 is much larger than (factor of 2-3) the IPCC-AR4 estimates, but is consistent with the large forcing estimated by Jacobson (2002), Hansen and others (2005) and Chung and Seinfeld (2005). BC plays a major role in atmospheric solar heating and dimming of the surface. BC in soot is the dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon, although distributed globally, are concentrated in the tropics where BC is subject to high solar irradiance. During long-range transport, BC is mixed with other aerosols and become widespread trans-continental ABC plumes that are 3-5 km thick. These three factors combine to make BC the second strongest contributor to global warming, next to carbon dioxide (CO2)." This comes from Ramanathan and Carmichael's 2008 Nature Geoscience paper . No mention of the 18% there either. Mikenorton (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. It's possible that, even though the New York Times says that "Brown Cloud" is 18% of the entire cause of GW it's not firmly based on the 2008 ABC report and shouldn't go into the article. However, what I'm seeing is a very badly edited article, with the 2nd biggest cause of GW (if you're sure about that!?) never mentioned until I brought it up here. Does the phrase "Augean Stables" mean anything to you? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Aerosols are mentioned in the article. That BC should be that big a contribution seems to be something new, as far as i've read so far - the effect is mainly regional (which seems to be what the report is about). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suffer fools gladly

Except for obvious vandalism and name calling, it is generally better to let people have their say on the talk pages, even if what they say is obviously wrong. Talk page comments should only be reverted if they violate the rules of civil discourse. If someone writes "John Doe is a poo poo head," you may safely delete it. Anything that is less obviously vandalism should be left and, in many cases, ignored. (Don't feed the trolls.) Rick Norwood (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There was an agreement reached last year that comments posted on the talk page must directly address editing the article, otherwise the comments will be removed. Before this rule, people were having their say on all sorts of topics ranging from conspiracy theories, alleged flawed science behind global warming etc. etc., except suggestions for editing the article. The rare comment about editing the article would be lost in the noise. Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The level of interference with Talk going on at this page is severe, I quickly spotted it yesterday and it's worse today. And it comes on top of other problems that are very obvious even to scientifically trained "believing" readers such as myself.

When a major report, with a major conclusion ("18% of GW is due to soot") gets no mention in this article for 5 months (Nov 2008 until today, when this passer-by spots a reference in the NYT) then the present cohort of editors is not even doing a respectable job editing this article. The very topic ("Atmospheric Brown Clouds", surely long recognised as important) seems never to have been mentioned! Are we to believe that "soot" is a concept too difficult for the average reader to understand or science to monitor?

I can see lots more in that ABC report that (I would suppose) needs inclusion eg has CO2 been downgraded from the 60% of GW according to the IPCC to 40% in ABC? Shouldn't that be in the article? Oops, no RealClimate.org says the real figure is 9-26%, lets use that instead. I think I have a good record for writing on technical matters, but I'm hardly going to waste my time attempting to do something useful at a page with this level of behavior.

That is it precisely. My view, is that the job of an editor is to outline to the reader as much information as can reasonably be contained in a short article on all the views and not just the one view of one group. Obviously there will be debate as to which views should have prominence, but as far as I can see this article simply refuses to accept contributions from anyone except a small group of people who seem to be related to each other in some way - or at least very friendly with each other's views. And in the end all they have done is create an article which no one would want to read as it reads like a party political manifesto for the global warming party.79.79.229.136 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we can't show "all" views. There simply isn't room. Second you seem to have misunderstood what NPOV means. It means that we show the mainstream views, leave out the fringe opinions, while nodding the hat (ie. mention them, but in accordance with their weight in the literature) towards significant minority views. When contributions are "refused", they are being "refused" because they are either: A) fringe views B) not published in reliable sources C) Not science or are simply D) off-topic. Finally if there is really some "group of people" who act inappropriately according to WP's rules - then take it up on the appropriate forum - WP:ANI would be one. This is not the place. Since both talkpage rules and civility rules disallow this. So please stop. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"First ... then just dismiss everythign I said as if I were some stupid idiot. The first rule of wikipedia is: "assume good faith", that rule is broken by some people on almost every post. This is not an article trying to inform the reader about the subject, it is a group of people trying to ensure that the reader has two choices: read their views or don't bother to read it at all, and I bet 90% of people choose the second option because to be blunt the article is as boring as hell (because it does not reflect the diversity of views) even for someone interested in the subject.79.79.229.136 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll point out once more that such a discussion, and the comments you've just made are inappropriate for an article talk page. If there is such a bias, or such people - then take it up in the WP channels where it is appropriate. Here is one (again): WP:ANI. This is not a forum for discussion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And when even my request to see a listing of dispute resolutions previously undertaken is deleted, perhaps a proper shaking up is in order. Do I have support preparing a list of editors who have interfered with the comments of others without good reason, in preparation for asking those people to leave the room? Could I count on administrative support for such a solution? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A bigger interference to the quality of the article is from the trolls who crowd out the useful discussion here. I too am a passerby, and noticed that in the past month quite a few trolls have popped up and created discussions completely unrelated to the article content (as far as WP content policies are concerned). If you're trying to do something about the editors here, make sure you treat the cause of reactive deletions rather than any perceived symptoms. I tried rooting out some of the causes with a sockpuppet investigation, but it was denied. Use your energy to free up the limited resources of those who are capable of following WP policy, and the article will probably improve as the talk page becomes more useful. NJGW (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I support expanding the article's treatment of soot, albedo and aerosols. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that your 60, 40 and 9-26 percentages are all about different things, right? And that they aren't compatible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've looked over the ABC SPM, and I cannot find the 18% there, or any such number attributed to soot or brown clouds for global temperature rise. Certainly neither "18" nor "eighteen" occurs in a useful context in the report. Malcolm, can you be more specific about where this claim is being made? There are significant seasonal and regional effects described, but much of the report deals with specific impacts on individual weather systems, on glaciers, food security and health, but there is not very much that I think applies to a general overview article on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking part in any discussion where people will interfere with my comments. 18% appears in the New York Times, if that's not good enough for the article I'm sure you'll explain why. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you link that claim to the UNEP ABC report up 3 or so comments, and complain that it has not been included for 5 months. As far as I can tell, that report does not support the claim. If you know different, please let me know where and how. As for the NYT article: We have long avoided to use popular press articles as sources for scientific issues, as they are more often than not wrong in significant ways. And the NYT article does not, as far as I can see, refer to the UNEP report at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer your question. The New York Times is not good enough because it isn't an academic source. Especially on a controversial article like this, we need to stick to academic sources. There is related Misplaced Pages policy. Otherwise, every newspaper article that says global warming isn't happening or that the oceans are going to rise a meter next year or whatever nonsense become fair game. Also, I agree with Stephan - I've seen way too much misconstrued or outright incorrect statements about science in the newspapers. While NYT is much more reputable, I still don't want to step on that particular slippery slope. Awickert (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to see evidence for an "agreement" to write this article in a non-standard fashion. I want to see the results of all the other article-specific "agreements" properly arrived at by dispute resolution. I cannot be expected to have confidence in a process rife with outright censorship, which I'm most certainly seeing on the TalkPage, and am bound to suspect is a major element in the article.

And, while I might easily be (perhaps am) convinced that this trampling of WP:RS is necessary as regards even top newspapers, I'm bound to have the strongest possible objection to then applying the same policy to the likes of Dr Will Happer, who appears to be a really serious scientist, very knowledgable and well-published in matters closely related to GW, but is rejected here because he has no certificate in "Alarmism for the Common Good". Notable sceptics, even if there is no space for their views here, must be listed in the main article so that people like me can arrive, find their mention, and be guided towards their contribution. ("Soot" and "brown clouds" were missing, I needed them to appear somewhere in the text, allowing me to navigate). GW may be rocket-science, writing the article properly is not. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, aerosols were in the article. And according to the latest reliable poll of climate scientists, 97.4% of active climate scientists believe that believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperature, i.e. they support the core of the scientific consensus (and that 2.6 % remaining includes the "unsure" group). Thus to give proper WP:WEIGHT to Happer, you would need to balance his opinion with at least 39 other scientists that support the consensus. And if you look at scientific and learned societies, the debate is equally lop-sided, with not a single one denying AGW. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No trampling of reliable sources. Citing policy from WP:RS, "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." This is very important, as this is a controversial issue, and therefore less rigorous publishing venues are often wrong or have large unstated biases, either towards not-a-big-deal-ism or apocalypse-ism. Awickert (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reluctantly been brought round to the idea that even regular statistics from the New York Times ("18% GW from soot") cannot be trusted. However, their language needs to be reflected (as has now been done). And when outside scientists express their opinions (I'm assuming Dr Will Happer has not had his views distorted the way that the NYT may have done to the ABC, and I presume he's as distinguished as is claimed) there needs to be some linkage here. Burying dissent is not good enough, and editors should know better.

In particular, I don't see how reasonable editing can possibly be going on with blatant censorship of TalkPage comments - is that going to continue unpunished? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the semi-rigorous enforcement of WP:TPG, WP:FORUM and WP:NPA? Or do you have anything else in mind? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, is there any particular publication by Happer that you wish to include in the article? There are a lot of scientists out there, and some have various odd ideas about climate change (some of Stephen Hawking's comments on a runaway greenhouse effect come to mind), but we generally don't include the opinions of an individual, however notable, unless they are summarizing research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I probably told you what it was before, but I'll never be able to find what tweaked my interest because my contributions are so obviously unwanted that they're deleted. And that's just in discussion! I expected the word "soot" to appear in the article (because the NYT said it contributed to 18% of Global Warming). Another user agreed and put it in on my behalf in a new section. It's been removed - I see there is an attempt at discussion, but I can hardly take it seriously.

Similarly, another user has told us that comments should not be deleted unless they're obviously offensive, a rule so obvious it's not been written down. And he's simply been ignored. If you don't know how to run an airline there'll be a bumpy landing, not you personally, but please don't ask me to sit beside you or even in the same row. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That user is unfamiliar with the messy and often nasty history of this talk page. You have yet to provide a scientific and verifiable source for the 18%, and other editors have looked where it should be and it's not there. Awickert (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Soot

I cut this:

Emissions of soot (particularly emissions from primitive cookstoves in Asia and Africa, but including diesel engines and coal plants in the same region), have been reported in the New York Times as accounting for 18% of global warming. Airborne for several days, often settling on glaciers, or on ice in arctic regions, black carbon absorbs heat directly. The influences of aerosols, including black carbon, will be most pronounced in the tropics and sub-tropics, particularly in Asia, while the effects of greenhouse gases will be dominant in the extratropics and southern hemisphere.

there is probably something to be said about soot, but it needs a better source than the NYT. I think that's what you're talking about above, but there is too much ranting up there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Support reinsertion with better source Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This one? http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.full.pdf Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is 188 citations enough to establish notability? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

188 citations is loads for a relatively obscure field of climate science. This is also worth a look. I remember citing it before, like the study as it correlates with data. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5590/2250 Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Obscure? That's pretty insulting. -Atmoz (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying 188 citations is plenty. Some papers get just a handful. My view is that if it's in a reputable journal it's fair game. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm? See WP:WEIGHT - single papers are never just "fair game". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more it astonishes me. There's lots of either undue weight or marginal relevance (eg most of Responses to global warming) but nothing I can see on really important subjects such as "scientific dissent" and no current mention of soot (perhaps claimed to be 50% as important as CO2). Misplaced Pages's reputation (amongst both specialists and non-specialists) would be better if this article had no central direction and looked rather like a sprawling mess. At least it would be an NPOV sprawling mess! MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I could definitely see cutting down or outsourcing the responses to GW section.
2. Who claims soot is up to 50%? What reliable source?
3. Scientific dissent is virtually nonexistent; it receives mention in the popular press because they like to run a "balanced" story, but per WP:WEIGHT, it gets zilch or next to zero.
4. Your first sentence makes you seem like a WP:TROLL. I don't think it's really necessary for you to insert your own opinion of how horrible this article is into the first sentence of almost every message of yours here, and especially before repeating issues that have already been explained to you, such as the soot and WP:RS and the "scientific dissent"; this adds traffic to this board without actively improving the article. The part of your comment I do see as useful is the responses; I suggest that you bring up chopping that section down in a new section here.

Awickert (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BC is part of the IPCC aerosol estimation (ie. the Hansen paper (see date)). The surprise here would be that Black carbon should be 2-4 times as big a forcing as the IPCC suggests, which apparently is what Ramanathan suggests. Perhaps a 1-2 liner summary of BC in the aerosol section? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, that paper, however many citations, doesn't say 18% I suggest not reinserting the above text, and instead inserting something along the lines of what the paper says, and perhaps another couple publications as well. Awickert (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a start, although I've suggested expanding that topic area. Do you want to suggest wording, or base it on the above? Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the abbreviation BC is no longer specific, as well as "black carbon" it also stands for "brown cloud" as in Atmospheric Brown Cloud (ABC) report Nov 2008. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please suggest text? I think that others probably understand this area better than me, so I hope they can bring forward a proposal. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted this with a slight change in the first sentence to better reflect the reference(s). -Atmoz (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Awickert (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I linked to albedo, and briefly explained Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You explained what? You added something that was already said (parenthetically), and changed to heading so it was of the form "Subject and sub-subject" without including the other sub-subject that is included in that section. -Atmoz (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it up a bit, hope you like it Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

lapse rate

this subsection needs a rewrite for the general readerAndrewjlockley (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I've been tweaking it from time to time but it's a tough one. This particular kind of feedback is hard to explain in a way that is both simple and correct. Simple and wrong, or complicated and correct, are much easier... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lapse rate? Um William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If it has to be longer, or use a picture to explain, then so be it. No point having the text in there if 99pc of readers don't get it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to re-word it. "Lapse rate" isn't in my scientifc vocabulary, and I'm very ignorant of this topic, so I'm doing it here for scrutiny. I think I've got it, though, but I was bold with "troposphere".

Original:

Lapse rate : The atmosphere's temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Since emission of infrared radiation varies with the fourth power of temperature, longwave radiation escaping from the upper atmosphere to space is less than that emitted from the lower atmosphere toward the ground. Thus, the strength of the greenhouse effect depends on the atmosphere's rate of temperature decrease with height. Both theory and climate models indicate that global warming will reduce the rate of temperature decrease with height, producing a negative lapse rate feedback that weakens the greenhouse effect. Measurements of the rate of temperature change with height are very sensitive to small errors in observations, making it difficult to establish whether the models agree with observations.

New:

Lapse rate : The temperature of the troposphere decreases with elevation. Because the emission of radiation varies with the fourth power of temperature (see Stefan-Boltzmann law), less longwave radiation is emitted from the upper atmosphere into space than from the lower atmosphere toward the ground. Therefore, the rate of temperature decrease with elevation determines the amount of heat retained by the Earth system, with larger temperature gradients producing a larger greenhouse effect. Both theory and climate models indicate that global warming will reduce the temperature gradient in the troposphere, producing a negative lapse rate feedback that will weaken the greenhouse effect. However, it is difficult to observe the rate of temperature change with elevation, and this makes it difficult to verify the models.

Awickert (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been expanding the feedbacks section for possible splitting to a new article. This is rough, but here it is... -Atmoz (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lapse rate feedback The atmospheric lapse rate refers to the decrease in temperature above the surface of the Earth. The numerical value is a function of convective, radiative, and large-scale dynamical processes. Convection and dynamics generally transport heat from the surface upwards to space, while radiation warms the surface and cools the atmosphere. The lapse rate in the tropics is observed to be near the moist adiabatic lapse rate due to the high moisture content. This is the rate that saturated parcels will cool when lifted adiabatically. Models and observations show that with an increased surface temperature, the moist adiabatic lapse rate will decrease. By itself, theory says the lapse rate feedback is negative in the tropics.

It has been shown that if the relative humidity remains constant in a warming atmosphere, then the lapse rate feedback and the water vapor feedback partially cancel each other. The changes in vertical temperature structure are one of the tools that climate scientists use to attribute climate change to greenhouse forcing or natural variability. Climate models which model convection and radiation generally produce the observed lapse rate changes. Temperatures in the upper atmosphere are difficult to accurately measure, and there have been minor inconsistencies between observations and the models. The radiosonde data has been shown to contain biases that are difficult to remove.

The United States National Research Council has recommended that radiosonde observations must be sustained and improved with the objective to remove biases that will allow them to be used for the monitoring of long-term climate.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

I still have to read it three or more times to really understand it, even with an engineering degree and a reasonable level of knowledge of GW. I suggest it needs expansion/simplification for the general reader. It also needs explanation of why heat isn't radiated directly to space from lower levels of the atmos. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean my minor changes, or Atmoz' bigger ones? Awickert (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz big section isn't destined for here, I don't think. I think the idea of temperature changing in the atmos comes across quite well, but I don't think that the feedbacks/effects are well explained. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Another crack at it, then:

Lapse rate: The temperature of the troposphere decreases with elevation. Because the emission of radiation varies with the fourth power of temperature (see Stefan-Boltzmann law), less longwave radiation is emitted from the upper atmosphere into space than from the lower atmosphere toward the ground. Because of this, a colder top of the troposphere and warmer bottom of the troposphere will result in less radiation loss to space and more radiation re-radiated back towards the Earth, amplifying the greenhouse effect. Both theory and climate models indicate that global warming will have the converse effect, reducing the temperature gradient across the troposphere and weakening the greenhouse effect in a "negative lapse-rate feedback". However, it is difficult to observe the rate of temperature change with elevation, and this makes it hard to verify the models.

Awickert (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This leaves me wondering:Why does longwave radiation go in different directions from different parts of the atmos?

I'm not sure the following text is correct, but he's my take on this.

• The lowest level of the atmosphere (the troposphere) tends to get colder with increasing altitude (height). This rate of change of temperature with altitude is called the lapse rate. Models suggest that as global warming takes effect, the upper layers of the troposphere will become warmer, relative to the air below. Because long wave radiation doesn't pass easily through the atmosphere, the higher air tends to lose more heat directly to space than does air near the ground. As the upper troposphere warms, it loses heat more rapidly, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Therefore, the lapse rate feedback from global warming will tend to result in more heat being lost to space than would otherwise be the case. It is therefore an example of negative feedback, which acts to control global warming, rather than amplify it.

oops forgot to sign!Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to sit on this until Boris or someone else who knows what they're doing has a say on our paragraphs. Awickert (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

another angle

should we include this (or similar survey) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No. See WP:CRYSTAL. (and WP:NOT in general)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting adding an independent opinion survey, not making a preditction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, not here. This article deals primarily with the science of global warming. It might be more interesting in Politics of global warming or, arguably, Effects of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OK in your view does that study count as a WP:RS? Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For which statement? For the sentiment of the polled population, yes. For a general statement about " climate experts", I'd have my doubts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be more about the likely policy responses, and a bit about climate sensitivity. Judging from The Guardian contacted all 1,756 people who registered to attend the conference and asked for their opinions on the likely course of global warming. Of 261 experts who responded, 200 were researchers in climate science and related fields. it would be hard to claim it as a definitive survey William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone got a better source? If there isn't anything better, would anyone object to it being cited? I think it's a useful insight into the thinking of scientists, and that's something the general public probably doesn't get enough of through the media lens. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of source, there are other articles dealing with scientific opinion and political climate - as per Stephan Schulz above, this poll material is not directly about the science of global warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a topical archive index created that updates automatically?

The evolution talk page has this nifty index thingy set up at Talk:Evolution/Archive index (many others have it too, the evo page was just the first one I stumbled upon). I think I could do it so it would be completely automated (unless the automation breaks), but would require changing the way the page is archived and moving the old archived pages around a bit. I think it'd be nice because it'd provide a semi-topical index to past discussions—as long as the heading was on-topic. The downside to moving archives around is that past links to them will now be broken. The archive index bot could probably be set up to work with the present archiving scheme too, somehow, but it wouldn't be me trying to fuss with it to get it to work.

I like the idea of an index, but as it's not a minor change I thought discussion first would be better than a bold action. Sorry if this has been discussed before. I've never had any luck trying to find things using the search talk archives "feature". -Atmoz (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes. The easier to find something in the archives, the better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Blarg. I could do it, but not the way I'd want. That requires the delete button. If any passerbys are interested, the 49 moves are below. -Atmoz (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi

I think we've all got bored with the anon's wurblings, so I've semi'd the page. Dear anons, for the moment if you want to contribute you'll need to get an account William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea... not sure what a wurbling is... but it seems to fit. skip sievert (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest having an unprotected subpage, in case someone wants to deal with them. The autoconfirmed threshold is now quite high (but I understand your reasons). -- lucasbfr 12:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - I was acutlaly gonna sugges tthis myself. omg what has happened to my fingers! they no longer type! Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity

According to an article "Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission. Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The 'Register' commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form."

Obviously the report from the Japanese energy commission is a reliable document according to wikipedia policy but the translation is only available as a summary on a site for which I don't know the provenance. Obviously ideally I'd go and read the original japanese but I can't so how should this information about the skepticism from authoratative sources be included in the article? Bugsy (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you had taken the time to actually read the article - then you would have noticed Itoh's personal comment on the blog (the Update in blue)... Let me summarize it for you: They are not part or members of JSER, the text represents their personal opinions, and are deliberately written to create debate. So in other words there is no dramatic break with the IPCC, nor is this a report. The Register apparently completely misunderstood it (and that is one of the reasons that such a translation isn't reliable) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kim, are you seriously trying to suggest that that this article cannot be referred to because Misplaced Pages does not permit opinions written in authoratative and respected journals? Could you point me to the policy on which you base that so I can read it myself? Bugsy (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Register is not an "authoratative and respected journal", and, as obvious from Itoh's comments, completely misrepresents the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah..., we can not promote pseudo science and represent that as real on an article like this. Bugsy... take a look at this, and I hope you find it interesting http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/ - skip sievert (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, newspapers often report science poorly. Probably the best way to approach this one would be to look at the original published article and its published responses, see if there is consensus between the article and the comments on any major issues, and find out where to put that. Awickert (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

• "Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate" article by Andrew C. Revkin in The New York Times April 23, 2009 I would put this into further reading. Fred Talk 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems more appropriate for Global warming controversy or Politics of global warming --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I certainly think this should go into further reading because I think people will be very interested to know about the $1.3million being given to this key anti-global warming lobby group, because it really does highlight the disparity of funding between the two sides. Bugsy (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't go here. This article has been decided to be "about the science". Oren0 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto: what OrenO and Kim D.Petersen said. Besides, there's already 29 entries in the further reading section.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Opressive mindset at work

Only one sided arguments are presented here. There are many articles in the media and literature by reputable scientists and sources who discredit this unverifiable theory, but editors choose to ignore this altogether. You give 100% credit to IPCC. That kind of information bias is characteristic for dictatorships, not for free societies. Remember Y2K "science" induced hysteria? Global warming article should have a clear warning on top that it is a SPECULATIVE THEORY. There is an article about Global warming controversy, but it is not mentioned here. The distinction is that in the controversy article you have some arguments pro et contra, and here the expressed view is unequivocaly biased. If someone allows me, I'd be glad to provide references that put this theory in its rightful place. Jaksap (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

1. "Third-World Stove Soot Is Target in Climate Fight" article by Elizabeth Rosenthal in The New York Times April 15, 2009
2. Summary report on Atmospheric Brown Clouds, regional assessment report with focus on Asia, 2008, United Nations Environment Programme
3. Part III: Global and Future Implications
4. National Research Council (2004). Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks. Panel on Climate Change Feedbacks, Climate Research Committee. National Academies Press. ISBN 0309090725.
5. Hansen, J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, J. Lerner, and R. Ruedy (1984). J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi (ed.). Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. Washington D.C.: American Geophysical Union. pp. 130–163.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
6. Weatherald, R.T. and S. Manabe (1986). "An investigation of cloud cover change in response to thermal forcing". Clim. Change. 8: 5–23. doi:10.1007/BF00158967.
7. Cess, R.D. (1975). "Global climate change: An investigation of atmospheric feedback mechanisms". Tellus. 27: 193–109.
8. Tett, S.F.B., G.S. Jones, P.A. Stott, D.C. Hill, J.F.B. Mitchell, M.R. Allen, W.J. Ingram, T.C. Johns, C.E. Johnson, A. Jones, D.L. Roberts, D.M.H. Sexton, and M.J. Woodage (2002). "Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change". J. Geophys. Res. 107 (D16): 4306. doi:10.1029/2000JD000028.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
9. Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, D.J. Gaffen, L. Bengtsson, C. Doutriaux, J.S. Boyle, M. Esch, J.J Hnilo, P.D. Jones, G.A. Meehl, E. Roeckner, K.E. Taylor, and M. Wehner (2000). "Interpreting differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere". Science. 287 (5456): 1227–1232. doi:10.1126/science.287.5456.1227.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
10. Lanzante, J.R., S.A. Klein, and D.J. Seidel (2003). "Temporal Homogenization of Monthly Radiosonde Temperature Data. Part II: Trends, Sensitivities, and MSU Comparison". J. Climate. 16: 241–262. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<0241:THOMRT>2.0.CO;2.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
11. Gettelman, A., D.J. Seidel, M.C. Wheeler, and R.J. Ross (2002). "Multidecadal trends in tropical convective available potential energy". J. Geophys. Res. 107 (D21): 4606. doi:10.1029/2001JD001082.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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