Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nigelj (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 7 February 2010 (→Another exaggerated report: collaboration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

There is a request, submitted by AaThinker, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "This is a long-time featured article about a vital topic covering several prominent Misplaced Pages projects.".

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

faq page Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the for references at the bottom of the FAQ. Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change? A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by over 99% of publishing climate scientists. See also: Scientific consensus on climate change Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place? A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)." Q3: Can't the increase of CO2 be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans? A3: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics, including academically trained ones, they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives: Current human emissions of CO2 are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. This is easily seen in a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels. Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels. If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or in other words, less basic). Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it? A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum. Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated? A5: Two reasons: There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like the Global Warming Map, are static, meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly. However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get", meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations. Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import. Q6: Isn't climate change "just a theory"? A6: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess, but a scientific theory, roughly speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven, but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense), but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess. Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO2? A7: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years), so when methane emissions are reduced the concentration in the atmosphere soon falls, whereas CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles. See also: Clathrate gun hypothesis and Arctic methane release Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled? A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change. This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change. Q9: Did climate change end in 1998? A9: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998. More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out; thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement? A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name." Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD. While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice sheet, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference: A map of the Eastern Settlement A satellite image of that area today A map of the Western Settlement A satellite image of that area today A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists? A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and it has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years? A12: Measurements show that it has not. Claims that global sea ice amounts have stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice amounts. Arctic sea ice cover is declining strongly; Antarctic sea ice cover has had some much smaller increases, though it may or may not be thinning, and the Southern Ocean is warming. The net global ice-cover trend is clearly downwards. See also: Arctic sea ice decline See also: Antarctic sea ice § Recent trends and climate change Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming? A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming. The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, such as a short nine-paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975. (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.) The author of that article has repudiated the idea that it should be used to deny global warming. Q14: Doesn't water vapour cause 98% of the greenhouse effect? A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO2 or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms, any excess water vapour is removed by rainfall, and any deficit of water vapour is replenished by evaporation from the Earth's surface, which literally has oceans of water. Thus water vapour cannot act as a driver of climate change. Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will however allow the atmosphere to hold more vapour. This will lead to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, whereas water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends. See also: Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)? A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming. A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "'His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,' said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that 'the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.'" There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change. This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices. Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates. Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit – it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Misplaced Pages's own article. See also: Climate of Mars and Extraterrestrial atmosphere Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money? A16: No, Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses. Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work. There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming. Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data. Scientists could get paid to study climate even if global warming did not exist. Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity? A17: It does, but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction. Q18: Should we include the view that climate change will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe? A18: This page is about the science of climate change. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying. Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) important? A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world, which include most large cities. Earth's climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e. the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the higher absolute temperature but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate and the related effects on human societies. The IPCC AR6 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change. Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is/was Scibaby? A20: Scibaby is/was a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,027 confirmed sock puppets, another 167 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them. Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer-reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...? A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:IINFO) of the What Misplaced Pages is not policy. Q22: Why does the article define "climate change" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before? A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "climate change" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. The article Climate variability and change deals with the more general concept. Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that climate change is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays? A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment: Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires: Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation, These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN), The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and Cloud cover on Earth must be declining. Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step." Q24: I read that something can't fix climate change. Is this true? A24: Yes, this is true for all plausible single things including: "electric cars", "planting trees", "low-carbon technology", "renewable energy", "Australia", "capitalism", "the doom & gloom approach", "a Ph.D. in thermodynamics". Note that it is problematic to use the word "fix" regarding climate change, as returning the climate to its pre-industrial state currently appears to be feasible only over a timeframe of thousands of years. Current efforts are instead aimed at mitigating (meaning limiting) climate change. Mitigation is strived for through the combination of many different things. See Climate change mitigation for details. References ^ Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020. ^ "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020. Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help) Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009. Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009. "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007. Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467. The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012. "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009. Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017. The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða. "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009. Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64. Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek. Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008. Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes. Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN. "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011. Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Weather Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment: Climate change This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Geology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arctic High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Misplaced Pages". The Denver Post. (none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

Template:Weather-selected

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Historic Low of sub-400 ppm CO2 Levels

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that at 380 ppm today, we are at an historic low of CO2 concentrations when we look back at past CO2 levels? The only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous some 300 million years ago, but at all other times CO2 has been above 400 ppm. The graph here shows CO2 levels with a black line, and temperature is the blue line. In fact it's been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was so favorable to life that it resulted in the famous Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. This seems to contradict the predictions that our 380 ppm level will result in dire consequences for life. It's a basic crime of omission by leaving these facts out. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The concentrations in prehistoric and prehuman times are relevant to paleoclimatology, but of only contingent relevance to the current warming. The current warming is not predicted to have effects such as mass extinctions and the like; rather, it's likely to cause changes that we'd rather, as humans, avoid. Costly changes lasting many human lifetimes.. --TS 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you could say that humans originated and evolved in a special niche in which CO2 concentrations were extraordinarily low. That's to say that one can speculate either way, so it probably shouldn't be included here. Awickert (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's also say that "historic" usually refers to written history. CO2 is at an all-time high for at least 100 times longer than written history, and possibly for 2000 times longer than written history. The 20 million years currently most likely is about 10 times the average life time of a species. And Tony, global warming is predicted to cause mass extinction, although it will be hard to separate it from the holocene extinction event that's ongoing anyways. An extinction event does not require every third animal species to drop dead and rot away immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption about "Historic" is erroneous - just convenient for your argument.Dikstr (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that this "historic low" is really relevant. However, it is yet another example of an issue that people should find if they search the article. Having found it, readers should be diverted to another article that (maybe) gives this feature the attention it deserves.

The list of missing key-words may not include "historic low", it most certainly does include words such as "Antarctic", "desertification", "Amazon" and many others which are currently missing from the article. Two of those in my short-list above were removed immediately when I put them in. (Comments on "advocacy" of this kind by me to my TalkPage, please). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the resistance you're encountering here is because most other editors don't share your view of what this article should contain. You can't just stand around and say "X is missing", "Y is missing", and so on. You have to persuade by presenting evidence that a significant aspect of global warming is omitted. --TS 12:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann believes a discussion of this "historic low" needs inclusion, I've told him that a mention would indeed be valuable, but i couldn't support the whole nine yards. I trust others to contribute in a similarly balanced and article improving fashion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, isn't it worth noting in the article that historically CO2 bottoms out at about the 400 ppm level. If you look at the Tertiary period in that graph it clearly shows CO2 levels starting at about 1000 ppm, then leveling out far before industrial production began. They have no where to go but up, at least it appears that way from past behavior of the planet. This just seems like relevant information that people reading up on Global Warming would want to know. JettaMann (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tell us the "key-words" that help guide people to find out about this feature, and I'd support including them. But there is said to be a problem with article-bloat, so the discussion presumably needs to go somewhere else. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Jetta, that is not true. CO2 levels during the last half million years (i.e. "historic period"*100) or so have been between 200ppm and 300ppm (during the warmest periods of interglacials). Our best current estimates are that CO2 has not been as high as it was today in the last 20 million years. Assuming you talk about the graph labeled "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" at , that graph is intended to show, in broad strokes, CO2 and temperature over half a billion years. It simply does not have the resolution to show details on the million year scale. The uncertainty for the last 20 million years in that graph goes from about 0 ppm to approxiately 350 ppm. shows the last 400000 years in some detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes that's true, we are at another low point in CO2 concentrations. As I said, the current period started at around 1000 and decreased gradually then *leveled off* far before industrial inputs, leaving no where to go but up. Likely if we had more accurate records the Carboniferous would also show levels bottoming out at a similar number (you can see the error bars in the graph go to about 0). On examination of the micro level it was probably spiking up and down as we see today. But my main point here is that it is important to give data in context. You can look at smaller periods of time such as the transition from winter to summer and predict a massive trend in warming, or 1940 to 1970 and predict a massive decline in temperature, etc... up to all different time scales and periods. Without context, it can make people panic unnecessarily. The context here that is important for people to know is that: 1) the earth is at historic lows of CO2 2) It's been as high as 7000 ppm 3) Life thrived during the warmer periods 4) CO2 levels have gone down and up without any industrial activity in the past. This is important information for the average Misplaced Pages reader to know. JettaMann (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. First, you write "the only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous (sic)" - i.e. you talk about hundreds of millions of years. Then you talk about the Tertiary, i.e. about time spans of 10s of millions of years (and CO2 was below 400 ppm for large parts of the Tertiary). Now you talk about a thousand years? Or a 1000 ppm? Anyways, no, the Earth is not at "historic lows of CO2". It is likely at unprecedented heights during the current geological age. Going back even 20 million years, you are talking about a different planet. The Mediterranean dried up about 6 million years ago. Both the Tethys Seaway and the Isthmus of Panama closed up during the last 20 million years. Sure, life "thrived" during higher CO2 concentration. But "life" the last time we had 3000 ppm was the dinosaurs, not humans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - JettaMann - the details of what you're talking about are not important for the reasons you've been told. No matter how good things may have been all those years ago, the re-imposition of those CO2 levels will likely be catastrophic to our way of life and possibly to our species.

However, it is an interesting and perhaps significant discussion. Rather than try to argue the details of these 'historic lows', we need to provide readers with a) a signpost they'll be able to spot amongst the forest of other signposts and b) a proper discussion of this effect. The latter will almost certainly have to be on a sub-page because it cannot be fitted in here at the moment (though later it might come to be more important and be fetched back). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@JettaMann Can you give us a statement, boiled down to one sentence, with a ref so we can see it. I don't think the addition of one sentence will damage the page. We can point to the relative sub-article with a wikilink. Mytwocents (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a simple statement that's more-or-less consistent with the designated scope of this article: "The current rise in CO2 levels is unprecedented since the appearance of homo sapiens on the earth approximately 200,000 years ago." Don't have time to provide a citation right now, but there are secondary RSs out there for this. The last time CO2 levels were 1000ppm, dinosaurs and ferns dominated the Earth. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple statement C&P direct from Atmospheric_CO2 "Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." How that adds up to 'historic low' is beyond me, but a statement that says something like "Even though ancient pre-historical atmospheric CO2 levels may have been higher, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." (with the same cite as that article) might be a useful addition? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, per "These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago." already included. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is that we just present the data to the readers of Misplaced Pages, unvarnished. It seems to me like some of the people above are trying to interpret the data for people, which strikes me as problematic. Malcolm McDonald's statements above are bordering on original research and Kenosis' statement would be repeating what is already said in the article. The proposed addition would be something like, "In the geologic scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered." The reference for this is provided above in my first statement.JettaMann (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What's "unvarnished" about "CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity"? Moreover, why do you feel this data should be included? I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claims that conditions during the Cambrian or Carboniferous are in any way comparable to conditions today. Continents are configured differently, the biosphere is completely changed, heck, even the sun was significantly fainter back then. There also is no serious scientist who claims that the current increase is some kind of natural recovery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

^^^ That ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AEB

The statement above is not interpretation of any kind. It is a fact that CO2 was at 7000 ppm and the Cambrian explosion followed. There is zero interpretation there. Whereas the claim that CO2 levels today are unnatural and deadly is controversial to say the least, as you are well aware. That claim is not an observation, it is an interpretation. So I'm saying let's just put these facts in the article, which are not interpretations, which put current CO2 levels in proper context to the earth's past, and which put the interpretations of AGW scientists in context as well. I'm also not sure why you are saying scientists don't think the earth's past is comparable to today. In many ways it is comparable, and in some ways it is not comparable. For you to say it is in no way comparable is your interpretation and sounds like original research to me. JettaMann (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I thought we're discussing an article on global warming not an article on historic (or even current) levels of carbon dioxide. If the current or historic levels of CO2 are relevant to this article, as established by reliable sources then it should obviously be included in a relevant context but otherwise it doesn't matter whether it's 'a fact'. It's also a fact that Venus has an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide by volume and has a surface tempeature of 740 K; and evidentally that "Republicans have received 75 percent of the oil and gas industry's $245 million in political contributions during the past 20 years" and evidentally, at least as of 2005 that "Bush, who has received more from the oil and gas industry than any other politician" (in the US); and that in 2006 the US had the highest per capita emissions of CO2 of any country with a population over ~6 million; but in all cases again, not something that particularly belongs in the article unless there's some established relevance Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• That the current CO2 level is unnatural is a fact, not an opinion. We don't claim that it is "deadly" in the article, so that's a straw man. If CO2 levels were 7000ppm in the Cambrian explosion is uncertain - look at the error bars. However, this is picking nits. The main problem is that you wrote "resulted", suggesting a causal link for which you have provided no evidence, let alone reliable sources. But that still misses the point. The "explosion" took some 70-80 million years. The dinosaurs left us 65 million years ago, leading to an explosion in the diversity of mammals. Does that make a major asteroid strike desirable? Granting you your nit, yes, the precambrian Earth was in "some" ways comparable to today's Earth. However, you cannot usefully compare the climate system. The sun was about 6% less luminous than today, equivalent to a forcing of approximately 20W/m, or more than 6 doublings of CO2 compared to preindustrial modern levels. The continents were configured very differently. Oxygen content started at 3% and rose to 15% or so - something that might be much more reasonably be connected to the Cambrian explosion. In short, it's a different system, and trying to frame parameters as "normal" because they are within boundaries experienced within the deep geological past is fallacious. For that concept of "normal", an Earth without humans is normal, as is one without mammals, as, indeed, is one without multicellular life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying "resulted in" we could say "was followed by", which contains no interpretation. You mention above that it "is a fact" that the current 382 PPM level is unnaturally high. Could I ask you how unnaturally high it is? In other words, how much ppm higher than what it is supposed to be today? This seems like a difficult thing to answer without a significant amount of interpretation because the history of CO2 levels is that it is bumping up and down all the time without any industrial or man made input. Sometimes it bumped up to as high as 7000 ppm, sometimes it was under 400 ppm, and all without industrial pollution in the past. So to me this seems like a very relevant thing to mention in an article that talks about CO2 levels with the earth today. You need to put in perspective what the earth has done in the past. You've kind of argued against your own case in my opinion by talking about what is "normal". Is it up to you to decide some arbitrary cutoff point in which "modern conditions" exist? You can't just arbitrarily select a narrow date range that Misplaced Pages readers are allowed to see data from. Like I said before, if you select the date range from June to December, it looks like massive global cooling! Yet it would be wrong to just focus on one small slice of data to try and convince people of a trend. JettaMann (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate 'slice' for this article is the one which includes where there most recently seemed to be a natural (non-human affected, for the sake of debate) balance or steady-state in CO2 levels for an extended period of time. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The currently proposed statement is something like, "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally." JettaMann (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I regret encouraging you. Yes, it would be nice to have some "key-words" (eg historic low) that led the reader to some kind of explanation of this argument. (Even though I'm pretty sure it's a straw-man of the deniers). But you seem to want a discussion on the page, and that would be completely WP:UNDUE. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this paragraph as being more discussion than any other part of the article, but what specifically do you see as being discussion? Perhaps we can examine this paragraph in parts to identify which is discussion adn which is not. 1. "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity." Do you consider anything in this first part discussion? "The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally." Does this second part contain discussion? JettaMann (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Statements like "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally" smack of "discussion" (as in "explanation of detail") that is excessive (even in a 100Kb article). Call it WP:UNDUE. The solution is a sentence that only includes the key-words, such as "historic low" + Cambrian + Carboniferous, with a link to the "discussion" (as in "explanation of detail") at another article. Maximum informative potential without article bloat. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of non-human biodiversity. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well I agree we want this succinct and without bloat. And if we do have the ability to link to other Misplaced Pages articles (Cambrian Explosion, Carboniferous) that do explain these concepts then that sounds reasonable. Part of me thinks the problems we have in this article are that we are trying to explain two different things in one article: 1) Global Warming/Climate Change (which has happened frequently in the past naturally) and Anthropomorphic Global Warming, which is a theory that mankind plays a dominant role in temperature changes that are occurring at present. It's too muddy the way things currently are organized. JettaMann (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong assumption. This article is not about arbitrary climate change, but about the recent warming and its causes. That's what the term "global warming" most often refers to, and that's the topic of the article. And that's why your 500000000 year old data is completely irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the point that you are missing here is that past behavior of the earth is entirely relevant when talking about recent climate change. JettaMann (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Past behavior" - yes, sure. But not all past behavior, and not behavior that is so far back that not only the continents, the biosphere, and the chemistry of the Earth, but even the Sun have changed significantly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, this interpretation of yours strikes me as original research in which you are trying to say that the earth is just 100% different now compared to all other periods past 100,000 years ago (or whatever time period you want to focus on). If we take the Carboniferous period, for example, researchers believe present day earth is remarkably similar to the Carboniferous, more-so than any other period, even though it was in the distant past. JettaMann (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Who and in what context? I'm very certain that yesterdays Earth, for example, is much more like present day Earth than the Carbon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new first paragraph for the Global Warming article

I would like to propose editing the first paragraph of the article to include information about the latest developments and climate observations that are available from reputable sources. Please do not delete my suggestion without allowing debate to happen.

• • • • Begin Paragraph ****

Global warming is a scientific theory that became popular in the 1980s to explain the observed increase in global temperature. The theory was proposed as a human-caused phenomenon, and is often referred to as Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW). Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. However, the most recent decade has seen temperature declines in North America, Australia, and Europe. As a result, the controversy over human-caused global warming has increased. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The University of East Anglia, the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other education and governmental institutions have recently come under increased scrutiny as revelations of missing source data and allegations of fraud revealed in the "Climategate" scandal have called some of the fundamental assumptions made by leading AGW scientists into doubt.

• • • • End Paragraph ****

Sources to cite:

• Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing N. American temperatures over the last decade:

 -	 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

• Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing European temperatures over the last 8 years (Compare Seasonal Averages):

 -	 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2001/winter/averages.html
 -	 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2009/winter/averages.html

• Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing Australian temperatures over the last decade:

 -	 http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=nt&station=015135&dtype=raw&period=winter&ave_yr=3

• Sources to substantiate the fact of increasing public scrutiny:

 -	 Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1945175,00.html
 -	 The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404511.html?hpid=topnews
 -	 The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

• Source to cite to substantiate the initiation of fraud investigations:

 -	 United Kingdom Parliament: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm
 -	 Penn State press release regarding an investigation into Michael Mann: http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf
 -	 Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/universities-take-action-on-climategate/

• Source to cite to substantiate the fact of the Climategate scandal:

 -	 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=803

Mcoers (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.

Hello Mcoers, your proposition looks to me to be a very nice exercice of spin. From the use of the word "theory" in the first sentence, as a general rule, it seems that only deniers of evolution or Global warning want to use that word. Everybody else understands what theory means in a scientific context. To the expression "became popular in the 1980s" implying that it is recent and fashionable whereas it is actualy a cut and dry scientific question that has been studied for decades.

You assertion that temperatures have declined in the last decade is factually wrong. In fact the last decade was the warmest on record and there is not statistical decrease over the last few years. Incidentally, nice exercise of cherry picking your data. Because, if instead of picking just Winter like you did, we choose the whole year; and instead of Europe and Australia like you did we choose the whole world, it turns out, the results are exactly the opposite of yours.

Including the so called "Climategate" in the lede is a clear case of undue weight.

Last but not least, you conclusion that "some of the fundamental assumptions made by leading AGW scientists into doubt" is, and I'm trying to put this delicately, a statement that is laughable on its face. So, I would vote for not changing the first paragraph. --McSly (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mcsly, calling my modification "laughable" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Furthermore if you have access to a publicly available data set that shows actual global temperatures, then I would like to see it (IOW, please cite your source). I don't believe that there is a "global" data set that we can go look at that is similar to those available from the governments of Australia, U.S., and U.K. One of the problems is that most of the pretty charts we see regarding "global temperature data" are manipulated the data with "tricks" and other procedures in an undocumented way. The data sets that I found are indicative of global temperatures in the sense that they represent the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western hemispheres. I chose these sets because they are on English websites. I can't very well investigate Chinese websites since I don't speak Chinese - even more importantly, neither do the visitors to the English version of this website.

Even better, these data sets are far more democratic for users since everyone can run their own numbers. I'm not cherry-picking data. You can run the numbers however you wish. Some monthly comparisons will show increases in temperature, some will show decreases. But if you average out the temperatures and develop trailing averages you will inevitably come to the same conclusion as I have that global temperatures are not going up. I could post those comparisons on my website, but the problem I have with doing so is that you guys will nix my results because that would probably be nit picked as originial research. Mcoers (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.

No need to post anything on your website, that would indeed be OR. We have good RS about the temperature for the last decade and you were right to insist that I need to provide sources. The temperature index from GISS is one and I don't think there is any suspicion over this data. Again from GISS, I quote "2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880 ". Also, there was no cooling trend in the last few years (Statisticians Reject Global Cooling). --McSly (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mcsly, you should know better than to use the term Denier it is not really WP:CIVIL is it? AGW is a theory, as is evolution (hence Darwins theory of evolution) to say AGW is not a theory is just pointless and unscientific. The assertion of temp decline is well documented, remember the now infamous e-mail, we can`t account for the lack of temp rise and that`s a travesty? And i seem to recall someone saying, yes temps have dropped but the heat is in the pipeline and will come back in twenty years or so? Your assertion that the term climategate in the lede is WP:UNDUE is obviously flawed, that term is not linked to global warming for eternity, and given the amount of press coverage weight is not an issue with it`s use. And that entire scandal has cast a shadow over the theory of AGW, many people who believed now doubt, those who just doubted now no longer believe. I would vote for changing the first paragraph to reflect reality. mark nutley (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If my remark came across as uncivil, I apologize, that wasn't my intent and it wasn't directed at Mcoers. My point was, and we seem to agree, that yes, these are all theories, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the theory of global warming, the theory of quantum physics. It's a _good thing_, it means that these are well understood phenomenons supported by numerous underlying facts. The only reason to include that term, generally in the first sentence, would be to try to confuse the reader who would know its colloquial meaning but not its scientific meaning. --McSly (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The full quote "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate".

Teneberth refers to that fact that only the top few hundred meters of water is monitored and he believes that there is storage of heat in deeper waters (In relation to the total energy budget, since there is some missing, a travesty of water warming not the near surface air!). Ie...that there is an inability to account for energy flow....A paper that came out after Teneberth's http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml supported his notion of deeper water storage of energy (heat).

I also dont believe WP:UNDUE in relation to climategate is flawed, as it stands the scientific basis and understanding has yet to change. Unless you can demonstrate that there is a change in the climatic publications being released, the issuing of major corrections to the scientific understanding et al...then the science is saying what it was saying before...I see no change do you?

I don't believe the change to the lead is convincing based on the links provided, as per McSly's comments--Snowman frosty (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that there is a change in the climatic publications being released, What Like his you mean? The planet has cooled over the last 11 odd years, why would you deny this? And if this is the case but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate Then how in hell can they present their work as fact not theory? Riddle me that. With regards to he believes that there is storage of heat in deeper waters yes he believes, hence another theory with no factual evidence to back it up as yet. --mark nutley (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Energy & Environment..in about 50% of the listed papers says it all, which does not say much...alas, other great climate related journals like The Electricity Journal, Iron & Steel Technology, Civil Engineering, Chemical Innovation highlight important reliable climate science I am sure...course the ones that are actually reliable are already given their due weight in the current article. Re cooling...It hasnt,

I also believe you have missed or failed to understand what Teneberth was referring to. He was talking about the oceanic temperature of the top ~900 meters depth not the entire globe or the near surface temperatures and that deep water measurements were inadequate Also did you read the paper I linked that confirmed Tenebreth hypothesis (not a theory) of deeper heat storage. Also if you go though the energy budget you can see what Teneberth was referring to, and to why the lack of heat in the top 900 m was an issue. I believe your last comment does not make sense. Since I referenced a paper that supported Teneberths thoughts on where the heat was...the linked confirmed this....mystery solved... --Snowman frosty (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mystery not solved, NODC revises ocean heat content data – it’s now dropping slightly Looks like trenberth will have to rework his theory --mark nutley (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think you are having trouble understanding...if you look at the data link you posted you can read the NODC numbers refer to the upper 700 m depth of water. So this again confirms that the heat in the ocean is present somewhere else. I again refer you back to the paper linked above, above heat storage in deep water as per Teneberths suggestion. I am not sure what else to say, nothing else here is contstructive to the current article, and it seems clear you are not understanding the difference between oceanic depths. I'll leave you the last word.--Snowman frosty (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Say what now? You do realize heat rises right? If the top 700m of water are cooling then the heat below has already moved up. That`s basic physic`s. However i`m sure the reefs in the florida keys are cheered by trenberths theory Coral in Florida Keys suffers lethal hit from coldI thank you for the last word, it`s nice to see the mindset of those who are AGW adherents. --mark nutley (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The science of climate change is well understood. Those who wish to deny climate change often misunderstand the difference between climate and weather. Look at the data. The weather goes up and down, the climate is getting warmer. A cold snap is weather, not climate. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rick, if you can show how my edit to the first paragraph is looking at weather instead of climate, please be more specific. This blanket rebuttal you have copy/pasted is rhetorical and condescending. Mcoers (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.

Dear editors, I have provided you with sourced information that is NEW in the sense that it is using the latest available information. This information is much more reliable given the current circumstances surrounding the unreliability of information being released by the IPCC (think about Glaciergate, Climategate, etc) and others. Giving the public access to the base data is, in this respect, a far more honest way to run this site than any other right now. At least until we can verify the veracity (or lack thereof) of information coming from the likes of people like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al.

Really, I'm going to have to insist that you become more inclusive and open up your "good ol boys" network to allow competing ideas into this process. If you don't like my paragraph, then let's see how you would improve it. I mean, that is the philosophy of Misplaced Pages, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcoers (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't. The article is under probation and it's a good idea to seek consensus here first before making major changes to the article. And everyone please sign your posts with ~~~~ Thank you. SPLETTE :] 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@ McSly: to the point, global warming is factually a theory: the general disregard for that point on this page I put down either to willful ignorance or to poor secondary school education.

@ everyone else (more or less): sarcasm is not normally considered a valid move in rational discourse, and certainly doesn't qualify when it is the entirety of the given argument. just an FYI. --Ludwigs2 09:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the general disregard you point out, I invite you to this quote from a wikipedian, yourself, in with respect to that disregard: "yes, I understand, there's a resistance to calling it a theory because there's a fear that identifying it as a theory will open the door anti-GW people who want to pov-push other theories in"

I ask that you consider this prior understanding now, as opposed to the assumption of bad faith or poor education. This is, it should be said, not meant to be taken sardonically. I didn't take your above statement to literally decry all of wikipedian editors that have related concerns, here or elsewhere, as either biased or ignorant. Nor am I trying to single out the statement on your talk page as some kind of proof that you were speaking dishonestly when you made your frustrations known here. I only want to highlight that it seemed, unless I'm mistaken, that you would argue that such a reason is not enough. If I am correct then I find myself wondering, can the perception of words be the foundation for a meritous argument against inclusion?

In other words, what if it isn't a 'don't give an inch, because if you do they'll take a mile' situation, but in fact an issue of trying to avoid framing the perception of a viewpoint in a non neutral way. Trying to avoid strengthening the chance of that view was being ignored for the wrong reasons (wrong in the eyes of wikipedia, I understand there is doubt for some, certainty for others). Let us say, for example, that someone went to the article on atheism and insisted that instead of the first sentence being 'Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities', we should write "Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the assumption that there are no deities." and the people hoping to get the wording changed repeated that it is factually true, with regards to their wording.

The facts are there, surely. But what if that is not the whole of the argument, is the new wording also neutral, was the old wording factually incorrect or biased in such a way that it would require a change? Does either benefit a point of view unduly? I can understand the arguments, I remember seeing heated talk regarding creationism in schools, where 'it's only a theory' was repeated with passion. Now, the contention for me lies elsewhere, and you may agree.

This is an article about the science. As such, I think that strengthens the case for adding such wording. I dislike using the word "theory" as a stand alone phrase, however. It has a colloquial meaning that, I don't believe, matches with the tone of the article. I am fine with the phrase "scientific theory", as I feel that is more precise. That said, I am unsure it is necessary, but then again I have been here hardly longer than two shakes of a lambs tail. By the way, I came here to check on another conversation for one quick moment, I may not return in a timely manner if at all. I hope, however, that I was able to make my stance clear enough for everyone to consider.72.192.46.9 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right that I should have been a bit gentler in my phrasing (though I will point out that the kind of resistance I suggested above is a form of willful ignorance). You'e also correct that articles often need to be framed carefully to preserve NPOV. but framing of this sort does not extend to actual spin-doctoring. what's happened on this page (as far as I can see) is that editors have tried to frame the scientific language to exclude a political argument. that puts the article in a strange Shrödingerean state: if it is a science article it's neutral but incorrect; if it is a political article it's underdeveloped and violates NPOV. and of course talk page discussions are such that no one ever acknowledges this tension, so it can never be resolved; pure tendentious obfuscation. To my mind, either this article should be exclusively scientific (which would require discussing the matter as a scientific theory) or it should be more overtly political (which would require discussing GW as a theory in the political realm). Nothing good comes from warping the science into a sub rosa political statement (and yes, I know that all sides do that on this issue, and this side is not the worst offender by far, but I don't fid that a convincing argument for continuing to do it). --Ludwigs2 16:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"if it is a science article it's neutral but incorrect" This quote, for me, would be the meat of the argument, it's one thing to be framed and avoid using certain wording, it's another thing to be demonstrably wrong. There are other thoughts, though. "talk page discussions are such that no one ever acknowledges this tension, so it can never be resolved" If I understand the sides here, it's not that one side is denying tension to keep the article in limbo, it's that the tension is because of earnest disagreements regarding how to best word the article. I invite it may even go deeper than that, I think there is real and legitimate difference as to what editors feel the intention of this article should be. I don't think I witnessed anyone trying to assert that no one disagrees. For those that feel that way though, I do clearly disagree with those that don't agree that people disagree.

You also mention a need to discuss the topic AS a scientific theory if the article were to be about the science. It seems to describe the elements of the scientific theory, are you saying they should mention or link to the wiki page on scientific theory, or something else? Regarding the concern for secretive statements and discussing the scientific theory in the political realm, I would would invite this thought. The wikipedia article on horses makes no overt mention of unicorns, it is entirely seated in the biological perspective, rather than in the magical perspective. However if we try to 'discuss unicorns as a biological entity from a magical perspective' as you want to discuss GW as a theory in the political realm, we might have trouble as they are not directly compatible.

This is not to discount any side as believing in the irrational, or anything else that might be inferred except that the science and the politics are separate entities. We can discuss the political climate, we can discuss the science, however those two 'realms' are separate, and cannot be discussed as if the politics is a facet of the science, or the science is a facet of politics. That may not be what you meant, but I did want to mention that in case because of the 'sub rosa' comment. Do you believe that the article considering skepticism as a fringe scientific perspective is a political statement? If so would that be the forefront of your concerns regarding neutrality? 72.192.46.9 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mcoers, there are several editor who believe that there is not enough about scepticism in this article. I think there is support for adding well sourced material on this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nature

Just a note that this month a series of articles on this subject, including this, appeared in Nature. If someone can get access to them, they look like useful sources. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sent it to you, please email me or drop a note on my talk if you (pl.) see this and also want a copy. Awickert (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

dab GWC

Don't like this . GWC isn't currently a sane page (under prot; and that isn't the worst of it). We should not be giving priority to a link to it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if GWC being anti-sane is a good reason, but it is already a dab in "Debate and skepticism," don't need duplicates. Removed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming Controversy is poor because of constant non-policy and POV interference. An undocumented policy is in place for this main GW article viz no newspapers, which may be fair enough. But it's absurd to apply it to the controversy article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your first sentence, with the exception of "constant", which a glance at the edit history refutes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stratospheric cooling

This is now hidden in the solar variation section. I think we could mention this in a section in which all the nontrivial observed signatures of global warming are summarized, just like this section summarizes the independent pieces of observational evidence for the Big Bang theory. Count Iblis (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean like Climate change#Physical evidence for climatic change? We might want to get Boris and Awickert on board. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea and would be willing to help once I clear my current to-do list, though I have no particular expertise in modern climate (beyond being able to read and mostly understand the journal articles), Awickert (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed "steady or" from there, because I think it is wrong. Nontrivial observed sigs belong in attribution of recent climate change probably... not that they are. But they should really go there first before being summarised here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet more scaremongering

Yet more scaremongering by a bunch of commie pinkos . Send in the marines, I say. I mean: Climate change will affect ... in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. - has no-one told these people that Wattsup and Joe d'Aleo have conclusively refuted global warming? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What specific improvement to the article are you suggesting? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks to me like soapboxing specifically the part about Wattsupwiththat and Joe D`aleo, WMC would you please remove those parts --mark nutley (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Or "advocacy". It's not even clear the defense.gov document is accurate - some extreme weather events we were assured were increasing by the IPCC seem not to be increasing. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you using to assess it's accuracy? The IPCC report? Something else? Are you asserting the DoD doc isn't a RS? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the DoD is now an expert on climate change? Sounds to me like they are following the lead of the current administration - conformism does not equal expertise. In a few years we'll all (most of us) look back and laugh at the silliness of it all.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like to suggest we include this CIA report, from 1974, about the horrors of global cooling. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TGL - the CIA report in pdf is fascinating - but why is there no text version of it anywhere? Spiked did a pretty devastating indictment of GW based on what they claim they found, it's here. But without being able to search for the specific phrases they've picked up and commented on, it's worthless. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting article, I'd love to see wikipedia mention that people and organizations were claiming scientific consensus back in the 70's over their global cooling theory. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We have it on best authority, WMC and his pals, that the scientific consensus, even back then, was in favour of Global Warming (maybe AGW, not sure). The CIA document doesn't really undermine what the owners claim and the fact that nobody has turned it into text makes it practically irrelevant. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, there is a peer-reviewed scientific paper on this very subject that you might be interested in William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think most of us are aware of your and the IPCC's peer-reviewed work :). I'd read some interesting debunking of that link though - perhaps they were funded by the fossil fuel industry? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you all talking about the report that says "blablabla...working paper for internal planning purposes views should not be taken to represent official position...blablabla" on the title page? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We can also include this report from the Australian defense force - they don't seem terribly concerned about climate change. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, global warming or global cooling, we have you covered. Jeff K. Halle (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This reference could be added, titled "UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters"... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece Jeff K. Halle (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming specific "climate skeptics"

Three names are given in the article -- "Prominent global warming skeptics include Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels."

I've never heard of any of these people, nor do I see what makes them special compared to scores of other climate skeptics across the globe. Not to mention -- why is an individual's opinion considered encyclopedic in the first place? Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be a political debate board, and it seems to me this content is completely irrelevant. Since it's also an unsourced statement, I'd normally remove this as irrelevant, but given the "article probation" threat, I dare not change the article. So I figured I'd post to the talk page instead, requesting opinions. -Stian (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there already a wiki dedicated to Sceptics? --DuKu (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreedment with you on this one. I posted back on a previous thread that there isnt a reason to list specific people. Who decides which? Why one and not another? etc, just remove the names leave the rest is my opinion on that one --Snowman frosty (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be a link to a list to the denial campaigners. --DuKu (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there also be a page for global warming alarmists? Such as the ones claiming the glaciers will melt away in 5 years? Jeff K. Halle (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to remove the link to the 3 specific names listed under "climate skeptics" section but was reverted. I agree with Stian for the most part. We have them listed in the list of scientists link within that section. Why do these 3 get listed and not every one the list, or 10, or 5, why those 3? Are there any editors that can explain why these 3 names are listed, why they are so, because I must be missing something? --Snowman frosty (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the consensus was to remove all names but put in a link to the list off sceptics page mark nutley (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but add those names to the other wiki. Snowman i just saw your post on my user site, i remove it now. --DuKu (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please be clearer? A wiki is a system for collaborative editing, or a concrete instance of it. Do you mean another wiki or another page on Misplaced Pages? Lindzen, Singer and Michaels have been on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming since time immemorial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Schulz, yes the link from the relative paragraph. Or do you imply there are more such listings? (If so please provide the link) I just had a quick look and the names are there. As long the link is inside the gw wiki i think it is not necassary to add those 3 names. --DuKu (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes stephen, it was agreed to remove the names and put in a link to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming with a line like, Tot everyone believes AGW is caused by man, or something along those lines mark nutley (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted back to last legit version from snowman. --DuKu (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stian - there are big advantages to inserting the names of some skeptics into the article. 10s of 1,000s of people are (almost certainly) flocking to hear Lord Monckton touring Australia right now and arguing that, amongst other things, the costs of mitigation far exceed the gains and few of the Copenhagen countries have even notified the IPCC of the CO2 target they set themselves, as they promised to do last December. Millions of people are hearing about Monckton's arguments and might expect the on-line encyclopedia of record to have mention of the arguments and of him. And yet, the key-word "Monckton" isn't in the article and I don't think any of the other key-words one might search on would lead you to answers to any of the questions such a person might have! I don't know what the answer is, it's obviously very difficult to help people find what they want. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a big fallacy. The aim of this article is not to counter Monckton or any of his or other fallacious arguments. It is to give a decent and correct overview of the topic. Monckton is one click off Monckton, feel free to add a discussion of his claims and counterclaims there. Likewise, Lindzen is, surprisingly, at Lindzen, and COP15 has its own article. Note how Evolution does not cater to each creationist fallacy, and how Earth does not contain a list of Flatland arguments and their refutation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The aim of this article should be to inform, perhaps to "settle arguments". It fails completely. Anyone hearing of Monckton's tour or his radio interviews needs to be able to dial in "Global Warming" and click on the Misplaced Pages article with confidence that it will cover the major points of interest eg do a search on the article for "Monckton".

My first experience of this was coming across an article on the views of Dr Will Happer, I naturally expected to check Global Warming and burrow down until I discovered whether Happer was a kook or not, or whether the really credible things he claims about GW were worth investigating further.

My comment to Stian is that a few "names of skeptics" definitely belong in the article, such names function as key-words that enable readers to find out what's going on. The problem is that it's the wrong names that are included. Happer and Monckton get excluded, just as Amazon and Antarctica and rain-forest and desertification are excluded. Perhaps I should re-start a section I wanted earlier, what the bloody hell is this article for? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"to inform" is a non-statement. The question is to inform about what? And the answer is: About global warming - what it is, what causes it, what effects it will have. The article is not here to inform about every politico's or pundit's or think tank's propaganda. If we had an unlimited capacity for information and unlimited bandwidth into the brain, we would not need Misplaced Pages - people could just read all of the internet. Since that is not the case, we need to select what goes into this article. There is a trade-off - and I strongly maintain that we preferably put in relevant and supported information, not irrelevant and refuted arguments. In particular, we do not write articles that will become obsolete in half a year when Monckton's tour is over. Information we include should have a good chance of standing the test of time, both in correctness and in relevance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the arguments of Monckton (and numerous others) are refuted somewhere in WP. But I've not come across anything like that. In fact, if you arrive at this article expecting it to answer any questions you have about Monckton, I think you'll go away convinced that wP is not informative. None of the key-words I tried led anywhere, and his name (surely the first thing such people will try) isn't there either. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that if you arrive with questions about internal combustion at Swan Lake, you will have a similar experience. I would expect people with questions about Monckton to go to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, where I'm sure his personal claims, properly attributed and contextualized, could lead a useful life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple clarification, please!

My understanding of the article is that solar radiation hits the surface of the earth, which is absorbed and re-emitted, then "trapped" in the atmosphere by the greenhouse gases. What I'd like to know (and the article doesn't explain) is why the incoming solar radiation isn't absorbed by the greenhouse gases before it hits the earth. Norman21 (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the linked wiki article, corresponding to your question. Main articles: Greenhouse effect and Radiative forcing --DuKu (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You want GHE, not radiative forcing. User_talk:William_M._Connolley#More_thermals may help William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Norman21, I'm guessing you arrived as a regular visitor/seeker after "truth", with only slight Wiki-familiarity. You've arrived at one of the most informative articles (indeed, entire topic) in the whole of Misplaced Pages, but I'm not convinced you checked the article carefully enough before giving up and asking us for help. You should really have done a search in the article for some key-word that particularly interested you. I chose to do a test-search on the word "radiation" and quickly found this. While that overview section of another article doesn't explain the answer to your particular question, as others have told you it does point to Greenhouse effect and Radiative forcing. The former begins with a section called Basic Mechanism which I think does an acceptable job of explanation.

You'll be interested to know this is almost the first "information test" I've done that the article has passed. If you'd come here wanting to know if Monckton is lying about the economic cost of adaptation compared with the costs of mitigation I don't think you'd have got to the answer. Ditto if you were looking for the savannahification (or desertification) of the Amazon or other rain-forests, or if you wanted to check on Antarctica and the melting of the ice-shelves.

When others have had a chance to read this, I suggest this whole section be taken and left at your (talk). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, Greenhouse gases (generally) don't absorb light, some of the light is absorbed by the planet and the emitted as heat and some of that heat is absorbed by gases like H20 and CO2 and re-emitted, occasionally back towards the planet in order to cause the greenhouse effect. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your rapid and informative responses. The following answers my question (I think): "The Earth receives energy from the Sun mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths. About 50% of the sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface, the rest is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The absorbed energy warms the surface." (from Basic Mechanism). I was probably trying to derive too much information from the diagram. Norman21 (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the explanation could be better. The important thing is that energy comes in on wavelengths that are somewhat transparent to greenhouse gases but exits (or tries to exit) on wavelengths that are somewhat opaque to the same gases. If you're satisfied then the explanation currently in place scores a hit, and that's as much as can be expected.

But what I'm trying to do is examine the processes people use or could use once they'd arrived at this main GW article which was, in your case and presumably many others, the first point of call. For your particular inquiry I'd suggest the system worked almost as well as it could have done. Do you agree, or could the article have pointed you to the answer without asking at the discussion page? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting question. If your simple explanation (energy comes in on wavelengths that are somewhat transparent to greenhouse gases but exits (or tries to exit) on wavelengths that are somewhat opaque to the same gases) had appeared early on in the article, together with a link to more explanation, my question would have been answered. However, I wouldn't want my limited experience to influence policy! Norman21 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with small improvements (like the one I've offered) than the structure that allows visitors to navigate. If you were to come from a different tack (eg wanting to know what Lord Monckton or Dr Will Happer were really saying) and try to find answers I think you'd be stumped. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that is OK, because the implicit answer is "nothing of interest", and that is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User AbbaIkea2010 adds new categorys

See his contribution and talk page. Category:Scientific controversies Category:Globalism Category:Political controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:AbbaIkea2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/AbbaIkea2010 --DuKu (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#AbbaIkea2010_and_DuKu William M. Connolley (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Settled Science" Takes Another Hit

The Dutch point out yet more sloppy work by IPCC: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d6e5773c60565dfc6e882b0a8dcbf18.4e1&show_article=1

The IPCC reports are becoming pretty fragile things upon which to build this article. 75.119.247.37 (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Always interesting how all these "errors" seem to exaggerate the danger. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? Its a 938 page report and there is two errors, neither of which actually effect the science itself used to measure climate change. Hitthat (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the lead author on the glacier section said there were 5 "glaring" errors in the glacier section alone. And there are far more out there that have come to light recently. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Always interesting how all these "reliable sources" seem to fail to realise IPCC isn't one report William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its irrelevant whether the IPCC is 1 or 100 reports. Taken together its being exposed as an inaccurate publication constructed in a slipshod fashion. But what else would we expect from one of the world's worst bureaucracies?Dikstr (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IPCC AR4 is one report. If our intention is to persuade the paying public that we're presenting the state of the science in an NPOV fashion then we really need to look at the latest opinion poll that was on the BBC tonight. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, no. It is several reports. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AR4 refers to "The Fourth Assessment Report". While it has subreports, they combine to make one bigger report; the AR4. It's like Captain Planet. Macai (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that we were talking about a 930+ pages report, and that the WG2 Report alone has about 930+ pages, I'd say that in this context either they are several reports, or the time-space continuum has bent the Natural Numbers all out of shape... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One report, ten reports? Who cares? We all know what we are talking about. Can we now get back to the content and the errors in it/them please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a greater respect for accuaracy would be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with William that the problems with the IPCC's report and its eggregious lack of accuracy is highly problematic and should be noted. The 300 year error and the other problems with the report expose a level of shoddy unscientific work that is a big deal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, none of the True Believers address the IPCC reports' sloppiness and dubious science. Connelley pulls out yet another striped rabbit argument to say there's more than one report (a fact not lost on the original IP that posted the Dutch link). These are not "errors". Errors are using "it's" when you should use "its". Claiming the glaciers that supply water to 40% of the world are going to be gone in 25 years when, in fact, they won't be is no "error". Neither is saying a country is more than 50 per cent below sea level when, in fact, it's about 25%, a simple thing that could be checked by anyone who cared about accuracy instead of politics. It was all supposed to be unassailable science. Now the air is leaking out of the balloon. The hockey stick graph has been laughed out of science, Mann and the CRU are fighting to save their careers as their "science" is scrutinized, but there's nothing to see here, so just move along, folks.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking of accuracy whilst being unable to spell my name is someone ironic, no? As for the rest... you may want to read temperature record of the past 1000 years William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That redlink speaks volumes. As far as your name goes, the short form Will would be much easier for people to spell. I would recommend going with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it certainly does speak volumes: it is saying, you don't have the knowledge to fix it. Fortunately, I do William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Connolley, when you actually deal with an argument straight on, we'll worry about the spelling of your name. Right now, I, too, will make note of the useless link without even bothering to mention how the tree ring studies have been discredited by Russian scientists who say the data -- and the trees themselves -- were cherry-picked to include only those that fit with the AGW theory. Now, where did that pesky Medieval Warming Period go? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Dutch criticism of IPCC's work should be included in this articleSpoonkymonkey (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Settled science is challenged and overturned by peer-reviewed publications. If you have some of these, then let's see the refs here. What you guys seem to have is a "let's all shout together" idea that settled science is overturned in Misplaced Pages, or in op-eds, or by politicians. I haven't seen any evidence of a single important peer reviewed research paper's conclusions on AGW getting overturned. Have you got one? (hint: AR4 is not a peer reviewed research paper, it's just a summary for politicians and others to try to understand stuff that's harder than they're used to reading) --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

500 peer-reviewed papers challenging the AGW hypothesis. Get cracken'. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. That should keep 'em busy for a while. By the way, I'm still waiting for proof that Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards have changed from "verifiable" to "peer-reviewed" publication.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is a re-tread of the "450 papers" of a while ago, it looks just as broken since people disclaim it . And I notice they are sweetly pretending that E&E is a proper journal, not that anyone will believe them. Ooooooh, and they've got Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission (Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008) - G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin - I can't call it laughably wrong because Lar will get upset, but really it is too silly to waste any insults on, so I won't bother. Oops William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes, it is so laughable you had to mount a defense, that being of mockery (Rules for Radicals?), in order to curb any growing doubts people might have. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that list certainly has an uncanny number of papers in E&E, plus a couple that definitely support the IPCC consensus (e.g. Knorr on the airborne fraction or a 1993 (!) paper on the difficulties of attribution, fitting between the 1990 and 1995 IPCC positions - like a transitional fossil). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And as the climategate emails show, certain influential scientists got together to bad mouth and blacklist journals that published articles they didn't like. So please, forgive me for taking your opinion of scientific journals and papers with a grain of salt. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they do not show anything like that. And how would that excuse misrepresenting papers that clearly do support the IPCC consensus position? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems my archiving was undone, so no new section was made to continue the discussion with a change tone, and as a result (or perhaps just concidentally) the conversation is still far from suggesting improvements to the article... carry on if you like, but I highly suggest that specific papers are picked and specific points are attacked. Otherwise this will just continue to be another bludgeoning match in the history of this sad page. Awickert (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I restarted the discussion below in the section entitled, 'Possible errors in IPCC report - restarted discussion as suggested'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I don't necessarily have anything to contribute, but hopefully something will get done this time around. Awickert (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

India is now discounting the IPCC

There seems to be yet more IPCC fallout. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

Now India is discounting IPCC findings. Should this be addressed in the global warming page, or elsewhere? Jeff K. Halle (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant sir. India once supported them, that's what matters. Criticism can go to a new article called Indian concerns about global warming with full context of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.168.199.238 (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the quickly changed Torygraph story – see here for the gory details, and note that India's "PM Manmohan Singh said India had 'full confidence' in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its chairman, Dr Pachauri." As good sceptics we know that spin in newspapers has to be checked carefully. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not quite that rosy for the IPCC. The story also indicates "But the support came after Mr Pachauri agreed to accommodate an Indian scientist from the environment ministry in the IPCC Bureau as the chair’s nominee while preparing the panel’s fifth assessment report." It is clear the IPCC is losing its stature among world governments, and this should be reflected in the article, since so much of the page cites IPCC reports. Chris Vanderpump (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Snow storms

Possible errors in IPCC report - restarted discussion as suggested.

This report appears to say that there are errors in the latest IPCC report: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d6e5773c60565dfc6e882b0a8dcbf18.4e1&show_article=1. TheGoodLocust, has said that 'The lead author on the glacier section said there were 5 "glaring" errors in the glacier section alone. And there are far more out there that have come to light recently'. Is there a reduction in confidence in the IPCC and why? Editors should remain civil and stick to the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of economic impacts

I wasn't happy with the previous revision:

• The social cost of carbon cannot be easily explained in a few sentences. No confidence level was given for the estimates.
• The description of the Stern Review wasn't particularly helpful, nor is the Review representative of the literature. Having to cite which economists support/dislike the Review was unnecessary.
• Terry Barker's letter to the FT: Why not quote the opinions of any other economist in this field?
• The stuff based on the UNEP source was not consistent with a literature review by Schneider et al. (2007), and was far too certain of itself:

"Developing countries dependent upon agriculture will be particularly harmed by global warming."

"Will be" suggests 100% certainty. This is wrong.

A summary of the changes I've made:

• I've replaced the social cost of carbon estimates with impact estimates based on the possible future changes in global mean temperature. I think this is much easier to understand than social cost of carbon estimates.
• I've based my revision on a literature review by Smith et al. (2001), the conclusions of which are supported in another review by Schneider et al. (2007). I believe that this source is more representative of literature than the Stern Review.
• I've put in more detail about the distribution of climate change impacts.
• I've trimmed down the description of the Stern Review.

Enescot (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Without regard to the rest, *a small increase in global mean temperature (2 °C by 2100... a medium (2-3 °C) to high level of warming is odd. How is 2 0C small, but also medium? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's up to 2 deg C = small, and 2-3 deg C = medium (Smith et al., 2001:957). Enescot (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the citations, switch some of it to WP:LDR, compacted the section. Some style notes. Climate Change 2007 is actually (three) books, {{Cite book}} works a lot better. :) I understand that they want us to cite the reports a certain way, and correct me if I'm wrong, but adding a "104 pp." to the Synthesis Report seems just strange. Article's not using parenthetical references, that's what the "pages=" parameter is for, see doc. Include all the lead coordinating and lead authors in the references at the end (up to around six or eleven). The above three author to "et al." is actually for the parenthetical inline references. Article messed up on this part.

It looks good Enescot, nice job on Economics of global warming and here. Right now I'm wondering if there's a better way of describing "medium" and "high" confidence. Hmmm... In AR4 they're confidence intervals, but in AR3 it looks like they're using a hypothesis test, statistical power (page 24). Per WMC, think we can cut their groupings of projected increases in temperature and just say "at 2°C and above would..." The groups (I think) are to ease the math, sort of like discrete groups in a histogram, rather than continuous integrals in a probability distribution function. This is bi-variate though, I'm not that good at bi-variate statistics. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Global warming stopped

There are various reports highlighting the fact there has been no "global warming" for at least 10 yers (e.g., http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html). Why not mention this in the lede? Chris Vanderpump (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top, it has some information on that claim. Hitthat (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And the FAQ spouts a lot of nonsensical gobbledygook before stating "10 years isn't enough time to show that!" The fact of the matter is that the PDO has gone into its cool phase and the AMO isn't that far down the line. We're in for cooling. The graphs do not show a constant increase in heat - they show sharp jumps which indicate measurement error/change and/or the the various oceanic oscillations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to discuss that on the talkpage of the relevant FAQ. Count Iblis (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another exaggerated report

This time, the reports' claims about drought in North Africa haven been found to have been invented and the "science" was not peer-reviewed. The British scientist who used to lead IPCC wants a mucking-out: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a serious couple of issues intertwined, along with the usual exaggerated editorialising. More detail is needed about the Africa info, which was in WGII and didn't have to be peer reviewed. There are also various calls for improvements to IPPC procedures. These points belong in other articles. . . dave souza, talk 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is largely an appeal to the authority of the IPCC and the IPCC is cited throughout the article. If their reliability is now in question, then that question should be acknowledged in some way more than a single sentence at the end of a paragraph on debate. --B (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC remains a solid resource for the science of global warming, it's come unstuck in one or more instances of its WGII report on the impacts of climage change. Perhaps we should indeed review that sentence, taking into account Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. By all means use the Independent material, but let's open the door to the connection between the True Believers and the carbon credit hucksters. I don't like corrupt science, and it seems almost all of this mess is being bankrolled by people who stand to make or lose a lot of money, whether it's on abatement, carbon credits or research grants. AGW may be real, but the science on both sides is so corrupt, petty and conflicted that its difficult to see what's really going on.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm aghast that, mixed into the so-called "settled science" is incredibly sensationalist material that, in Dave Desouza's words, "didn't have to be peer reviewed" but is being used by Ban and others to push the AGW agenda and scare well-meaning people who have not been given a score card to tell the "settled science" from speculation that, to be kind, appears to have been pulled out of thin air by a Moroccan bureaucrat who now peddles carbon credits for a living. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't collaborate with talk like that, to improve an encyclopedia article. Please suggest a referenced change to the text of the article, if you have one. --Nigelj (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
• 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
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• FA-Class Weather articles
• Top-importance Weather articles
• Unsorted weather articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• Unassessed Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• FA-Class Environment articles
• FA-Class Geology articles
• High-importance Geology articles
• High-importance FA-Class Geology articles
• WikiProject Geology articles
• FA-Class Arctic articles
• High-importance Arctic articles
• WikiProject Arctic articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press