This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 21 April 2009 (→Suffer fools gladly: This is *not* the place). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:28, 21 April 2009 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) (→Suffer fools gladly: This is *not* the place)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| 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.
| |||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
|---|
| Archives |
| Chronological archives |
|
| Topical archives |
Name change?
Scientists seem to use the term 'climate change' to describe what we discuss in the article as 'global warming'. Should WP reflect this?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Scientists do use the term "global warming" so that's not sufficient motivation in itself to call for a title change. I think "global warming" is a little more common in the U.S. and "climate change" is a little more common in Europe, but that's just my perception. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's true that the two terms are often used interchangeably, and this sometimes causes confusion in the public mind. However, "climate change" is a more general term that refers to major changes in the long-term weather patterns of a given region or of the Earth as a whole. As the Earth has gone through numerous climate changes throughout it's history, the term "climate change" can denote either a warming trend or a cooling trend. The term "global warming" is more specific, and is commonly used to refer to the current warming trend (i.e. climate change) that our planet is undergoing. Are people suggesting we change this article's title to Climate change, or redirect searches for "climate change" to this page? That's not feasible, as we already have an excellent article titled Climate change. Both articles link to each other, and both have well written leads that I believe should clear up any confusion anyone has about the two terms.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)~—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs)
- I'm sure this has been discussed to death before, but I think that "climate change" should appear somewhere in the lead, to reflect that this is now very widely used to describe recent and predicted global warming and its effects. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's been re-named to "climate change" because it's not the whole globe warming - it's mostly just the northern hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.137.129 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure this has been discussed to death before, but I think that "climate change" should appear somewhere in the lead, to reflect that this is now very widely used to describe recent and predicted global warming and its effects. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)~—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs)
- Yes, it's true that the two terms are often used interchangeably, and this sometimes causes confusion in the public mind. However, "climate change" is a more general term that refers to major changes in the long-term weather patterns of a given region or of the Earth as a whole. As the Earth has gone through numerous climate changes throughout it's history, the term "climate change" can denote either a warming trend or a cooling trend. The term "global warming" is more specific, and is commonly used to refer to the current warming trend (i.e. climate change) that our planet is undergoing. Are people suggesting we change this article's title to Climate change, or redirect searches for "climate change" to this page? That's not feasible, as we already have an excellent article titled Climate change. Both articles link to each other, and both have well written leads that I believe should clear up any confusion anyone has about the two terms.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
This has a lot of usefule links and needs to be added to external links page with an appropriate title.--Charlesrkiss (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesrkiss (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is a political blog and as such fails WP:RS standards. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- People complain that there is not adequate representation of the dissent, and so I'm `
- I have problems with the treatment of dissent at this article, since it would appear there are good scientists, intimately concerned with this topic (though not specifically qualified in it) who are not being referenced because they're not publishing peer-reviewed articles on the subject and are not being funded to be alarmist. However, that's due to puzzling twists in the use of WP:RS, not a complete abrogation of it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- People complain that there is not adequate representation of the dissent, and so I'm `
- CharlesRKiss - I told you so, I said you would go insane trying to correct the obvious bias in this article. It’s the same half dozen editors’ continually playing word games to redefine the truth of natural cycles. The best summatiom is this article < http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/942 > or as Bill Clinton might say “it’s the Sun stupid”. < Mk > 68.56.128.36 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Inhofe blog post above refers to an article that's nearly two years old, in which Stephen Schwartz tried a certain type of model for climate sensitivity. The model doesn't give a good fit to the actual temperature data -- see RealClimate on this, as well as this published reply. Agathman (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
COP15
AJL has reinserted this into the lead. It's been removed by myself and Stephan Schulz. Soliciting other opinions. -Atmoz (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- For clarity, when I put it in originally, it was a bit geeky and inaccessible. I simplified the languague and did a bad job, so Stephan rightly rmvd it. I re-did it with new wording and banged it back in. Hope y'all like it. If not, I suggest it's put in another section, as it's important. However, I do think that the general reader will be intersted to know the state of play. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ha, the Brit said "y'all". Awickert (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- It may have a place on the Kyoto article, in an article about the UNFCCC or about COP meetings (or all). It certainly doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the political context is important to the general reader. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- For clarity, when I put it in originally, it was a bit geeky and inaccessible. I simplified the languague and did a bad job, so Stephan rightly rmvd it. I re-did it with new wording and banged it back in. Hope y'all like it. If not, I suggest it's put in another section, as it's important. However, I do think that the general reader will be intersted to know the state of play. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I believe it does deserves a place, not in the lead just yet, but in the Economic and political debate section. --Seba5618 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I put into mitigation as that's where Kyoto stuff is. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it should be there. There is, however, a main article developing at 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference; wouldn't it be better to link to that rather than the section redirected from COP15? Secondly, I think most commentators are abbreviating the name to 'Copenhagen' (like 'Kyoto') rather than 'COP15', so wouldn't this serve better in our brief, but important, mention here? --Nigelj (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I put into mitigation as that's where Kyoto stuff is. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
int link in lead
kim and i disagree about the link to scientific opinion on climate change. I did a new version because I think that it needs to be clear whether the link is about the endorsement or about the academies. Despite all my time here i never realised that link was to do with the sci. debate - so I changed the link to make it clearer. What do people think? Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Before it wasn't as descriptive, now it's really long - I go either way. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
new article
clathrate gun and ocean anoxia got stripped out of this article. I suggest therefore we do a new article such as long term effects of global warming. The effects of global warming article is too long already, so it can't go in there. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that the clathrate gun has been proposed with both sea-level rise and sea-level fall, so maybe it should be more general (climate change) or it should just stay at its main article.
- Or... if you mean effects of present-day global warming (which you probably did, I bet I mis-interpreted), maybe you're right and there should be such an article. Awickert (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I meant long term effects of present GW. Maybe we were to quick to strip clathrate gun, this section suggests it's underway already http://en.wikipedia.org/Effects_of_global_warming#Methane_release_from_hydrates Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, for the love of the gun. Well, none of the sources there are peer-reviewed (I believe Geophys. Res. Abs. aren't), and all of the peer-reviewed sources I've read say it's a long-term thing. If you can find a peer-reviewed source that says that yes, there are measurements, we should add it, probably glomming onto the permafrost part. (And was it you who wrote that section of "effects"? It sure looks like your writing.) Awickert (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think I wrote some of it. Feel free to tag and edit it if needed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just to confirm - Geophys Res Abstracts volumes are just compilations of AGU conference abstracts. They aren't peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but I was having a lovely sleepy afternoon, and didn't want to be wrong. Thanks, Boris. Awickert (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've cobbled together the article. I'm not making any claims it's fit for purpose yet, so please feel free to descend on it like a hoard of screaming, bloodthirsty axe-murders. I'm not giving it any love until it's post-evisceration, as I've wasted far too much time doing that before. Please WP:AfD it if you don't like it - don't just redirect/speedy it. I've shouted this out to effects of global warming too.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, for the love of the gun. Well, none of the sources there are peer-reviewed (I believe Geophys. Res. Abs. aren't), and all of the peer-reviewed sources I've read say it's a long-term thing. If you can find a peer-reviewed source that says that yes, there are measurements, we should add it, probably glomming onto the permafrost part. (And was it you who wrote that section of "effects"? It sure looks like your writing.) Awickert (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I meant long term effects of present GW. Maybe we were to quick to strip clathrate gun, this section suggests it's underway already http://en.wikipedia.org/Effects_of_global_warming#Methane_release_from_hydrates Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed most of long term effects of global warming as it read like an undergraduate term paper. -Atmoz (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is/was simply a pov fork of the material that AJL has tried repeatedly to insert all over the place, with all the same problems that have been pointed out repeatedly ... *sigh* --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think it could be a worthwhile article. It's not meant to be a personal soapbox or POV fork. It's under construction, and everyone's help would be greatly appreciated in making it a decent article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is/was simply a pov fork of the material that AJL has tried repeatedly to insert all over the place, with all the same problems that have been pointed out repeatedly ... *sigh* --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:49, 12 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)
- No, I omitted refs because this is only a TP and I can't be bothered. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:36, 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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:
- <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.>>
- 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)
- 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)
- “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)
- 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)
ridiculous reverts
Atmoz rv. this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Global_warming&diff=283284645&oldid=283284296
That revert resulted in grammar mistakes being re-inserted into the article. If people don't like an edit, please can they:
- 1) Revert only the edit they don't like, not loads of other edits that happen to be done by the same editor
- 2) Post a summary that's actually applicable, and gives workable feedback.
- 3) Correct any mistakes in the old version, to prevent the need for the reverted edit to be re-inserted Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm done messing with you. Your edits to the global warming page get reverted on site. If someone else wants them in, they can add them back in. -Atmoz (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Atmoz, your version includes the following errors:
- 1) Greenhouse gas remediation is not limited to carbon sequestration
- 2) Pluralisation mistake
- 3) Erroneous claim that solar radiation management is carried out only by stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)
Further, if you state that you're going to rv. me on site, your rv. edits will therefore count as vandalism and not be subject to 3RR. Please either repair your shoddy work, or re-instate my version. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I should clarify. I'm only going to revert your edits that are POV pushing. By my estimate, that includes approximately 90% of your edits. -Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked you to clarify why correcting your mistakes was POV-pushing. You have not done so. You've reverted to an error-filled version. That's vandalism. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The minor grammar mistakes have been fixed without the reinsertion of more geoengineering stuff. (Not by AJL though.) I assume this thread is resolved now. -Atmoz (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm fine with that. I wasn't meaning to bloat it. I'm happy with the fix. Thanks very much. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The minor grammar mistakes have been fixed without the reinsertion of more geoengineering stuff. (Not by AJL though.) I assume this thread is resolved now. -Atmoz (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked you to clarify why correcting your mistakes was POV-pushing. You have not done so. You've reverted to an error-filled version. That's vandalism. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Say no to edit wars
This is a featured article. The revert wars going on are absolutely insane. Let's follow the instructions on the top and post potentially-controversial edits here before we put them on the article. That way, the talk page will be used for work, not expressions of frustration, and the public will have a stable product to read.
Tips:
- If you think there's a 1/100 chance your edit is controversial for any reason (article length, style, content), mention it here, then wait 12 to 24 hours.
- If editing the article, correct stylistic, grammar, and spelling issues in one edit. Address clear factual errors in another edit. Add material in a completely separate edit, after going to the talk page about it. That way, reverts can be kept from doing collateral damage, as per above.
Thank you. Awickert (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hence my point about stopping bulk reverts - WMC and Atmoz have both done this, and both have openly admitted they are reverting my edits without consideration of their content. I've raised this with both users on their TPs, but they've deleted my comments - in Atmoz case on 3 separate occasions and immediately after posting.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there is that. And there is also your addition of material without consensus. I do not wish to place blame with any one party; I simply wish the edit warring to end. Awickert (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I propose http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Global_warming&diff=283284645&oldid=283284296 , but I will correct the mistakes as soon as my 24hrs expires, just in case I get a 3RR ambushAndrewjlockley (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I oppose. Back in the day when we did this, we talked about this. Geoengineering is subset of proposals to reduce climate change, isn't as prominent as many others, and certainly doesn't deserve its separate section. Awickert (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I second Awickert, a subsection on geoeng is undue weight. Its an interesting concept, but not a sufficiently large topic/subject to be included here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm only proposing fixing the existing section. What do you propose doing about the various mistakes in the current version? Why are you allowing an error-riddled version to persist on a high-traffic version? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- First: Huh - I must have misread the diffs - I thought you were putting the whole section back in. I haven't gone through the article since before geoeng had its own section (and I thought that there was consensus to not give it its own section). Ah, well. I would support the grammar and spelling fixes, but really oppose its existence as a section in its own right, though that's outside the rigid scope of this discussion.
- Second: My concern is that you're not just proposing fixing grammar and style. You're proposing changing a blurb into a larger bullet-point list and adding a one-sentence paragraph to the end of the lede: see my above note on separating material and spellcheck/factcheck.
- I think that you should keep the format as-is for right now, and just change the sentences to read more appropriately with "such as", etc. Awickert (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- All sorted as above. I don't want to war with anyone. Sorry if people thought my fix was rubbish. Only trying to help. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm only proposing fixing the existing section. What do you propose doing about the various mistakes in the current version? Why are you allowing an error-riddled version to persist on a high-traffic version? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hence my point about stopping bulk reverts - WMC and Atmoz have both done this, and both have openly admitted they are reverting my edits without consideration of their content. I've raised this with both users on their TPs, but they've deleted my comments - in Atmoz case on 3 separate occasions and immediately after posting.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Propose geoengineering section merged into mitigation
| (Originator says -> sorry for the mix-up. It is a subsection of mitigation already.) |
|---|
There was a conversation or two a while back about this, in which we talked about what mitigation and adaptation actually meant (see the March archive, section "Logical structure"). I believe that there was more strength to have geoengineering as a paragraph or something under "mitigation" than its own section. I think that this conforms better with WP:WEIGHT and places it thematically with a group of proposals to reduce global temperature rise. One issue was a conflict between definitions in the IPCC glossary and Chapter 11 of the WG III report. See the archived discussion for background on this. Awickert (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- I could definitely see cutting down or outsourcing the responses to GW section.
- Who claims soot is up to 50%? What reliable source?
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- Hmmm? See WP:WEIGHT - single papers are never just "fair game". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:24, 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)
- Obscure? That's pretty insulting. -Atmoz (talk) 10:36, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Is 188 citations enough to establish notability? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- This one? http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.full.pdf Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:38, 19 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)
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)
- Lapse rate? Um William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 19 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)
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)
- OK in your view does that study count as a WP:RS? Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:21, 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)
- I'm suggesting adding an independent opinion survey, not making a preditction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:46, 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)
- "Third-World Stove Soot Is Target in Climate Fight" article by Elizabeth Rosenthal in The New York Times April 15, 2009
- Summary report on Atmospheric Brown Clouds, regional assessment report with focus on Asia, 2008, United Nations Environment Programme
- Part III: Global and Future Implications
- National Research Council (2004). Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks. Panel on Climate Change Feedbacks, Climate Research Committee. National Academies Press. ISBN 0309090725.
- 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) - 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.
- Cess, R.D. (1975). "Global climate change: An investigation of atmospheric feedback mechanisms". Tellus. 27: 193–109.
- 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) - 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) - 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) - 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