Talk:Causes of climate change/Archive 3

Where is the science?

Please please could someone knowledgeable about the real science of this add the real equations and models so that interested readers can follow them for themselves rather than relying on "scientific opinion" etc? I really want to believe in human caused climate change but as a scientist (in another field) I can only do that by seeing the evidence and models first-hand, not via hearsay or authority. I was expecting to find at least some basic equations here showing how many tonnes of carbon are emitted into the air each year, and how much each tonne contributes to temperate, with explanations of the assumptions about temperate and pressure and reabsorbtion by plants and everything. This is THE big controversial topic of our time, so possibly the single most important article on the whole of Wikipedia, and no-one is likely to shift their beliefs based on arguments from authority deferring to either 1000 left wing scientists or 1000 right wing business people. They are only going to shift if they can follow the data, models, equations, and assumptions for themselves. It's not "too complicated, leave it to the experts" as there are very detailed and unpatronising explanations of other hard science topics such as quantum field theory on here already. Come on wikipedia, surely we can do better than this? What would David MacKay write to help people follow the logic for themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎92.26.235.227 (talk • contribs)

I think the data, equations and explanations you'd like are available at the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report website, hope that meets your desires. If you'd like to improve the article, please propose concise wording and sources on this talk page. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

archiving

I hate the archive templates and they hate me. Could someone please make auto archiving work again? We have a lot of stale threads here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation errors

Why are there so many missing title errors in the ref section? Can someone please fix? Ratel (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"PDF " / Probability density function

Please add probability density function to define "PDF". 69.58.42.90 (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you are from Kalamazoo. Weren't you banned? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem aside, he wasn’t wrong. WP:JARGON should be explained, particularly when it coincides with much more well-known homographs, and explanations should not rely on wikilinks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, "probability density function" is now written out in full. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Link to Self

After "(see also the later section" a link to the same document follows. The internal label after # is not in the/this document. 2A02:A448:89F4:1:3855:D0D2:3FA3:72AE (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Attribution of global warming.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

... but only because some bozo was more zealous than thinking William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

The German version of this page lists several References, which we don't list here. My suggestion would be to include them here somehow, because they were published in leading journals such as Nature Climate. 194.62.169.86 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Call for expert

I am a retired scientist well versed in the use of model-derived predictions in scientific inquiry, and in the way that results from such models, and their associated statistics, should be reported in secondary literature, as well as in tertiary and popular forms. Without going into great detail, I would say that it is likely that this article repeatedly confounds aspects of the real science in several ways, including mucking up the meaning of the confidence intervals about reported model-predicted parameter values, mistaking the model for the data that drives it, and analysis and interpretation for the data (akin to the mucking together of results and discussion in primary reports).

When writing about complicated subjects about which one is non-expert, it is often best to state precisely in ones paraphrase what the source actually states, and not allow too much in the way of personal interpretation. Especially in statistical matters, conceptual mistakes are often made when non-experts try to rewrite the technical language of primary and secondary reports. For a clear case of this, compare the last sentence of the lead (first paragraph) to the source, and then, if possible to the foundational work cited therein. In trying to simplify and generslise, the article simply does not get right the actual precise point being made by the source, and what it is that the science is giving us confidence in concluding.

Do you have a PhD-level research meteorologist on call at these article? I would ping them and ask for a going-over of all interpretive content here, to make sure WP does not err conceptually, and goes no further than the source authors, in the statements this article makes. Cheers from this anthropogenic climate change ’’believer’’, but scientific purist (retired). 2601:246:C700:9B0:7021:61F4:9DEF:940F (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not an expert myself but it is likely that experts will be around next week. Perhaps you could tag the citations which might be wrong with "". Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"ENTIRELY caused?"

First paragraph: "The best estimate is that observed warming since 1951 has been entirely human caused.[4]"

The source cited simply does NOT say this. It makes it clear that it is only "extremely likely", which is mentioned in the previous sentence before the one quoted above. So I don't understand what the purpose is of keeping this inaccurate sentence. It should surely be removed. Shame on the person who made this dishonest edit. comment added by 110.142.94.82 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

So you think that "best estimate" is a bad rewording of "extremely likely"? Well, the wording in the source signifies a near-100% certainty, and the wording in the article is more weasely. You may be right. How about "the best estimate by far"? --Hob Gadling (talk)

I personally observed the contract solicitation for many of the research projects that form the basis of the "ENTIRELY caused" claim back in the Obama years. Many of the solicitations (published in the Commerce Business Daily) http://cbd-net.com/ required that the research produce evidence that man caused global warming rather than finding the cause of global warming. This is not science, this is political activism. We need to be honest about the fact that the things that affect global warming are extremely complex; too complex to attribute it to carbon or anything simply by comparing timelines and trends of factors that COULD cause it. John (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Natural factors have had a net cooling effect (trending slightly cooler for about 10,000 years) that has been more than overcome by anthropogenic drivers in the industrial era (see File:2000+ year global temperature including Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age - Ed Hawkins.svg. Though it's a loose-language oversimplification to say that humans cause "more than 100%" of global warming, human drivers do swamp natural factors in affecting global average temperatures. Quantitatively, see File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg and File:2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3 - single-panel version.png. I'm not diving into wording minutiae here, but I hope any edits are made with these realizations in mind. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit was properly reverted because it was sourced to a Huffington Post "contributor" who was formerly "columnist with the National Post, was formerly a columnist with the Globe and Mail". No, not a reliable source. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What is your rationale for considering this source not reliable? John (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

What is your rationale for proposing Lawrence Solomon, whose book The Deniers based on a series of columns he wrote for Canada's National Post has been criticized for misquoting the scientists it featured, executive director of Energy Probe where he's claimed that climate science is "corrupt" and the "greatest scientific fraud of the century", policy expert for the Heartland Institute? What weight should he be given on a scientific topic? . . dave souza, talk 08:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and it says at the top "The Blog" which would rule it out as a reliable source. A 2013 post, wonder how his global cooling predictions have done ......... dave souza, talk 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dave souza: I mentioned the rationale above. There are critical technical issues with some of the references used herein. John (talk)

@JA.Davidson: Wikipedia works by including content from reliable sources. If you, or a non-reliable source like Solomon, simply disagrees with the reliable sources (for example, underlying the scientific consensus on climate change), or thinks a reliable source is unreliable, it is the established, reliable sources that prevail here, not fringe thinkers and conspiracy theorists. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the general idea, and my 18:04 18 May explanation, below, for more details. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dave souza: It seems naive to assume sometimes that what we call "reliable sources" are not. Robust discussion sometimes reveals a "consensus" driven by unscientific objectives. Consider the so-called conspiracy theory "consensus" put together on COVID-19 and revealed by recent open discussion. https://n.neurology.org/article927341 We need to be less defensive and more open to challenges and be more careful about accusing people of conspiracy theory. That is how real science works. This 'conspiracy theory' is one that could very well eventually be validated. John (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JA.Davidson:. Hoodoo you think you're fooling? As Paul Simon almost sang. Robust discussion takes place in scientific literature, not WP talk pages, and a Reflections piece in the Humanities section of Neurology has no relevance to climatology. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JA.Davidson: Here, reliable sources would be: official publications of scientific institutions, (NASA, NOAA, IPCC), and peer-reviewed scientific papers (preferably peer-reviewed scientific survey papers). A Huff Post blogger/columnist who promotes fringe theories contrary to consensus of reliable sources? No. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Please change "estimates of natural variability" to add this link after "estimates of natural variability" https://www.nature.com/articles/382039a0 Avacannon (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done The paper was extensively quoted, but the citation to the paper was missing. Thank you! -- M.boli (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Link change

Consider changing Ravillious (2007) quoted two scientists who disagreed with Abdussamatov: Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, in the US, and Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at Oxford University in the UK. According to Wilson, "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era" (see also orbital forcing)

Ravillious (2007) quoted two scientists who disagreed with Abdussamatov: Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, in the US, and Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at the University of Oxford in the UK. According to Wilson, "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era" (see also orbital forcing)

 Not done The request is to change Oxford University to University of Oxford. Which seems reasonable because University of Oxford is the Wikipedia page, and the current Oxford University links to a redirect. However in English Wikipedia O.U. occurs 7 times as frequently as U. of O., so I left O.U. in place as the preferred stile. But I fixed the redirect -- M.boli (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Geography

Causes of global warming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.116.85.71 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)