Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 7 January 2010

Template:Community article probation Thanks for starting this, guys. I'll contribute a bit as time permits. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight and BLP problems

I've removed, for now, the reference to the CRU hacking. This is an article on science, not a gossip column. The context-free quote of a statement by Phil Jones raises serious biographies of living persons (BLP) problems, as the same form of words anywhere else on Misplaced Pages would. --TS 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, this is a direct quote from Phil Jones and his university. You're not going to get more authoritative, and less gossipy, than that. Please spell out your BLP concerns more clearly. And this is the most news the divergence problem is ever likely to get, and is of significant encyclopedic & public interest. So the topic certainly meets any WP:Weight concerns. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again. This is just... not very sensible. This article is about the *science* of the divergence problem. Why do you feel the need to drag the politics into this article? It adds nothing to our understanding, and just muddies the waters. We already do the politics to death elsewhere. I have a question for you: do you have any interest in the science, and can you point me at your last edit to climate-related science that isn't tinged with politics? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. --TS 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sargasso inappropriate

This is also wrong .

Specifically, tree ring data was used to suggest that the current warming is much more than what occurred during the Medieval Warm Period.

Needs citation: who is supposed to have said this. What does "much more" mean?

Sorry, I thought that tree rings were the evidence for the Mann hockey stick graph. I would be happy to add a reference. Q Science (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Using sediment cores (another temperature proxy), there is evidence that the current CO2 induced warming is significantly less than normal climate variability.

but is then backed up by a ref to just one region (the Sargasso). We *know* already that temperatures vary by region - see the MWP article itself. Nor does the ref support "there is evidence that the current CO2 induced warming is significantly less than normal climate variability" - what it actually says is the very differnent "at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation".

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Sargasso is a bad example, maybe not. The existing paragraph states that ice cores indicate that the temperature is doing what the IPCC says, and I was just trying to add some balance. The Vostok ice core data for the MWP indicates that it was 1.33C warmer than today, which agrees with the Sargasso value of 1.0C. Therefore, I am not convinced that the Sargasso example is any worse than a Vostok ice core. (Actually, the Vostok dates are a little weird, the high was about 400 years ago in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It also shows strong global warming over the last 2,000 years.)

At any rate, my point was that if there is a divergence problem in the present, then perhaps there was also one in the past. If that is even possible, then the Importance of the problem is that it suggests that tree ring proxies are not a valid reason to erase the Medieval Warm Period. The current text simply says that the divergence problem is a non-issue and should be ignored. Sorry, but that is just simply a whitewash. In light of climategate (which you also will not allow to be mentioned here), the divergence indicates the strong possibility of fraud. However, I tried to word my paragraph in a neutral way, simply indicating that more research is necessary. Q Science (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)