Talk:Climate change/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Met Office

• Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes

Not sure if this is new or covers anything not already covered but it's a potential data point. --TS 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Its in the Torygraph too. However, I'd like to see the underlying Met Office report rather than the newspapers spin on it. "could" be 4 oC by 2060 is nothing new (though very unlikely), since we already know there is a spread of possible outcomes William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, specifically I was hoping the report in question was already in the public domain so we could determine its significance. --TS 17:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[1] is more useful. 4 oC by 2060 is clearly a worst-case based on A1F1 and weakened sinks and who knows what else. [2] is the press release. Notably absent is any proper publication. We shouldn't touch this until it has been published William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yamal etc

Interested in Yamal / the latest McI / Hockey sticks? Then Talk:Hockey stick controversy#.22Hockey_Stick.22 now proven not to exist is where you should be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming in Japan

Anyone interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming in Japan? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yamal etc

Interested in Yamal / the latest McI / Hockey sticks? Then Talk:Hockey stick controversy#.22Hockey_Stick.22 now proven not to exist is where you should be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming in Japan

Anyone interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming in Japan? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on cherry picking of data underpinning global warming should be here!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These issues are all covered in the FAQ

---

I can understand why certain editors would wish to hide away the recent revelations regarding the whole basis of exceptional global warming to a side article, but this [3] article makes specific allegations about the failure of the whole climate "science" community to adequately peer review their papers and so calls into question not only papers regarding the hockey stick, but all papers reviewed using the same general process. Furthermore, how can this controversy be adequately covered when it has been hitherto stated that nothing gets into the article without being peer reviewed - when that very peer review process has been called into question. When it appears you can't trust the sources that we are told are the only reliable sources for material for this article, this creates a bit of a problem and to be honest I'd like to hear other editors ideas as to how to proceed. 85.210.112.144 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources except for the opinion of their authors. I'll take the scientific peer review process over one guys opinion any time. If McK's comment becomes notable, take it to Hockey stick controversy. If it becomes notable for global warming in general, take it to Global warming controversy. According to McK, the peer review has been to lenient, and bad papers have been published. That should make it easier for him to get his work published in a proper venue, not harder.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I presume McK = McIntyre (for anyone else that was wondering). Just to help me out, can anyone point to the wikipedia policy and what it says about "peer review" as a requirement particularly when applied to a subject of such a high profile political nature as global warming? 85.210.112.144 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You presume wrong. Did you read your source? It's by economist Ross McKitrick. The policy you are looking for is WP:CONSENSUS - it has long been the consensus that this article is about the science of global warming and that we base the article only on the best available sources, not on Greenpeace statements or Exxon shills. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase that question. How, in what you tell me is supposed to be a scientific article do we cover the numerous suggestions of the misuse of the scientific process as details in articles such as this [4]. To be blunt, how do we address the criticisms that a small group of people have failed to appropriately apply the peer review process, when there are some editors here that are insisting that only material from those same "peers" - the one who are being criticised can be included in the article. There is inherently a conflict of interest here and we need to find a way around it! 85.210.112.144 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a huge number of scientists, there are many scientific journals. Scientific fraud is dealt with effectively within the scientific community, see e.g. here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

To add to CI's post above, the scientific method isn't perfect and isn't perfectly followed, but it sure beats any alternative. Climatology is nowhere near the only area which has problems with data sharing. Just look at physical anthropology - their findings almost always rely on access to artifacts or fossils, which is often difficult to get because the people that have them want to no competition - they want to be the expert on that specific topic. That goes against the spirit of the scientific method, and those involved in that sort of behavior should be reprimanded. However, I don't believe for a minute that the findings of climatologists are based on fraud or conspiracy, just that their peer review could be improved upon, like in almost all areas of science. Ignignot (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Painting roofs white as geoengineering

There were not many good examples of geoengineering (the other "Responses to Global Warming" sections have more examples), so I have added this key example forwarded by Nobel Prize winning scientist and U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu to "paint roofs white". Natra Yan (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Scibaby sock

This will reduce the acidification of the oceans how? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/arctic-seas-turn-to-acid --Nigelj (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It wont, at least not directly. In fact, since cold water can store more CO2, it will (slightly) increase acidity because it will slightly reduce temperatures compared to the default. But the greater effect, especially for buildings, is indirect. It will reduce the energy for air conditioning, since buildings will absorb less heat from direct sun exposure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought we were going to try to make up for the reflectivity lost due to melting ice-sheets by painting as much of the rest of the earth white as we could, while burning the other half of the earth's oil as quick we like. Compared to the huge reductions in CO2 emissions that we need worldwide to stay below 4 deg C, I think this will be about as minimal in effect, though. Consider the roof/not-roof ratios of buildings, the difference in reflectivity of old and dirty white paint to other materials, that a dark roof would absorb winter sun better and so reduce heating requirements for the other 6 months, that most of the world's population doesn't have air-con anyway etc. What about recommending loft insulation?! It reminds me a little of government advice to close all curtains and sit under the kitchen table to survive a nuclear attack. I think if we can just unplug all our mobile phone chargers, it'd be OK to keep driving everywhere and heating our pools for ever. See http://www.withouthotair.com/ --Nigelj (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that in many climates this is a cheap and even cost-effective measure - that, BTW, has been used in the Mediterranean for a long time simply for increased comfort. No one method will solve this problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How do we know it is caused by human activity?

I came to this article with one objective: What is the evidence that observed global warming is caused by humans? I have had a really difficult time trying to find the answer to that question from this article. I supposed one could say I should go read the sources that are referenced. But shouldn't this article contain at least a summary of the evidence that answers such a basic question? This is, after all, the main argument of the global warming nay-sayers: fluctuations in world temperature are normal and not man-caused. It seems to me that by evading this question in the article, we are actually giving support to the global warming nay-sayers. So where is a Wikipedia article that summarizes the evidence? Is it one of the articles referenced within this article? If so which one? I must say that this is difficult to figure out by reading the article. It makes one wonder if global warming really is caused by human activity. --Westwind273 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've found Attribution of recent climate change. Perhaps we should make it easier to find? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I now see that "caused" in the first sentence links to Attribution of recent climate change - that seems good enough. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't know. It kind of looks like the link is to a article about what deforestation caused. I think it would be best to separate the two wikilinks like this:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but I like it, Awickert (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Water vapor is by far most important greenhouse gas, perhaps over 90% of the effect. A slight in humidity trumps all the man-made CO2 ever produced. It's hard to see a mechanism by which anthropogenic emissions have any measurable impact. Kauffner (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But the residence time for water vaopr in the atmosphere is very short - evaporation, clouds, rain, etc. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is therefore a function of global temperature. The idea is that an increase in say CO_2 (which has a long residence time) will result in an increase in temp., and that increase in temp will lead to an increase in water vapor, ergo much more temp. change than just with CO2. So water vapor basically amplifies the signal of any warming or cooling, Awickert (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also see the FAQ Q14. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner said "Water vapor is by far most important greenhouse gas, perhaps over 90% of the effect. A slight in humidity trumps all the man-made CO2 ever produced." This comment ignores that increased CO2 acts as a trigger to slightly warm the atmosphere, which in turn increases water evaporation, producing a feedback loop that amplifies the resulting warming far beyond what CO2 alone does. In addition, water vapor suddenly stops being a greenhouse gas and becomes a cooling agent instead when it forms clouds, which block sunlight. Seeker alpha806 —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

Note cyclical variations which lead to recent cooling trends

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Another thread started by a scibaby sock. Let's stay focused on science.

---

It is important to note up front the source of recent cooling trends. An excellent reliable source for this is: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.htm?_r=1

I made a note of this in the introduction. This will help avoid confusion with the topic at hand, since the observed trends in the first figure indicate cooling. Abu Triale (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Abu Triale's edit was reverted by an editor who did not, unfortunately, join the discussion here. Is the information contained in that NYTimes article contained in the article? Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on Abu's talk page. The New York Times article does not say what Abu claims it does. He does not seem to understand the difference between "The plateau in temperatures" (e.g, a flat line) and a cooling trend (e.g, a downward line) Raul654 (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, threats were left at my page, and the above editor violated WP:AGF. I will go ahead and change the language to reflect the plateau effect (even though the real effect is cooling, per the data in the top figure). Abu Triale (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Making edits that claim one thing and citing a source that says something entirely different makes it rather hard to assume good faith. Raul654 (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the earlier edit, to reflect the halt in rising temperatures due to cyclical variations. It still seems very odd, however, since the overall 9 year trend is cooling. Abu Triale (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If the trend is cooling over the past 9 years, I certainly don't see it and it can't be very strong. I see a cooling trend over the past 4 years, but of a small amplitude. What is this cooling trend you speak of? Awickert (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to tell due to the strange presentation of the data, but it seems to my eye as though the data point for 2009 is slightly lower than for the 2000 time frame, thus the overall (net) trend would be cooling. This is the trend I speak of. Abu Triale (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thou shalt not make trends of two points. :) 2 points define a line, but a trend is usually some kind of regression that uses all the data; from my eyeballing of the data points in question, it seems that any such regression would have a very weak slope for the time frame you have indicated, and almost certainly not outside of error of "no change in mean annual temperature with time". Awickert (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Raul is right, Abu Triale, the NYTimes article states that, "global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." It doesn't say that cooling has been happening. If your edits match what the sources say, then there isn't a problem. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is a problem... we still do not source science from popular media, and weight is still an issue.. especially on the main article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Boy (and ladies), this is a new spin on an old friend. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but I think the NYTimes article should be mentioned in the text, which I've just done. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to take it out again. It's really a non-information ("it seem, but is not"), and thus certainly not important enough for the lede. It's also very much dependent on the time of writing. Moreover, we have for a long time tried to only use high-quality scientific sources, not the popular press (not even it it is the NYT). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the lede, it's in the section on temperature. The NYTimes article quotes a number of scientists and climate organizations. If the British Met Office finds that temperatures have generally been stable since 1999, that a fairly significant and relevant finding, in my opinion. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• We do not source science to the NYTimes. Popular media (no matter if they quote scientists) get things wrong too often. And i'm sorry your personal opinion on what is significant is irrelevant (thats why we have WP:WEIGHT). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Point taken about the lede, sorry, I misread that. Maybe we can find better sources. The MetOffice statement is here. They reference "recent research by Jeff Knight" - I think this press release is more apropos, and I think this is a preprint (although it seems to miss the references section). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• We can add that source also. By the way, someone just reverted the information, so I've asked for a second opinion at the RS noticeboard. Cla68 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Kim Dabelstein Petersen that we don't source science to newspapers. In particular, the edit that I reverted gives a misleading impression of the prevailing trend in global temperatures and indeed could almost have been carefully crafted in order to do just that. --TS 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editors at the RS Noticeboard appear to disagree with you. Cla68 (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is going to help. This article is (primarily) about the science and needs sources as such William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, uninvolved editors disagree with you. The RS noticeboard regulars are familiar with the use of reliable sources in all areas of the project. Is this article in a special category that I haven't heard of until now? Cla68 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is something on WP policy that says that scientific sources are better, and we try to limit ourselves to those here because of the large amount of controversy on the issue. I bet there is some scientific source that talks about the same thing as the NY Times article though I haven't looked; the NY times article would be very appropriate for the Global warming controversy page IMO in that it highlights the "it's fake" vs. "it's natural cyclicity" argument that's been popping up in recent years. Awickert (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding the second Met. Office press release and retaining the New York Times reference, I have reworded as follows:

The decade 1999-2009 marked what the Met Office called "very small global temperature rises" but this is in line with expectations of climate scientists during warming trends.

The NYT reference doesn't seem too much out of place in that context. --TS 16:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for protection

I have asked for the article to be protected for now because of the apparently escalating edit war over recently added content.

Cla68 has said that some uninvolved parties say that New York Times is okay to use as a source. That's true as far as it goes; it would be adequate as a source if we didn't have better sources--and we have much, much better sources on the science. Although I tried to integrate the addition by reference to the scientific context, I don't think I did a particularly good job. nor could I have done because--and I regret that I persisted although I was conscious of this fact--the statement isn't really telling the whole story. What the Met Office calls "very small global temperature rises" are small in the context of the two preceding decades, and in particular the 1990s. What we have now is a large, persisting and growing temperature anomaly, and climate scientists attribute recent behavior to internal cyclical variation. We should perhaps cover that in the section in question, but not in the way I tried to do. It needs good scientific sources. --TS 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect that the NYTimes article will produce additional commentary on the issue, because I would think that the recent findings that temperatures have only slightly increased over the last 10 years is rather significant. It troubles me that newspaper reports are being completely shut out from the this article. I personally have had a newspaper subscription and been an almost daily reader of various newspapers for about 15 years. I use newspapers often in the articles that I edit. WP policy does not make exceptions for the use of major newspapers from articles on any topic, except BLPs in some cases. If the WP community feels that newspapers should not be used in science articles, then they need to change the policy. As of right now, policy supports using this NYTimes report in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't make blanket statements like this. Per WP:V, The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. It's nice that you read newspapers; indeed, more people should. But that's not relevant to the present discussion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an article about science. not about the opinions of people who read or write newspapers, no matter how long their subscriptions may be.

I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by "WP policy does not make exceptions for the use of major newspapers from articles on any topic, except BLPs in some cases." The inclusion of any information or any source in an article is at the discretion and subject to the consensus of the editors. Wikipedia does not, as you seem to imply, mandate the reporting of whatever the New York Times, the Guardian or Le Figaro might have to say on a matter on any given day. As of right now, and as ever, Wikipedia policy supports decision-making by consensus based on the neutral point of view and the use of the best available sources. --TS 01:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular press seems related. -Atmoz (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion regarding the use of newspapers as reliable sources in science related articles. It seems this standard should apply doubly to blogs, which are not vetted or peer reviewed in any way. It seems therefore that references to Realclimate in various global warming articles will need to go to. CrenshawB (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it would be wrong to use RealClimate as a sole source for a description of a scientific matter--if we had to do so it would tend to indicate that the subject matter was too obscure for Wikipedia. As it happens we source Gavin Schmidt on his RealClimate blog just once in this particular article, and it is a second source, the first source being an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

It's not so much that the New York Times or any other newspaper is unacceptable, rather that the subject in question is covered better in other, more reliable sources and the way in which the information was presented is not very accurate. Rejecting this particular citation to the New York Times does not imply blanket rejection of all New York Times articles, nor does it imply that we have to ditch the blogs. --TS 04:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree slightly with Tony when he says "Rejecting this particular citation to the New York Times does not imply blanket rejection of all New York Times articles". I think it does imply blanket rejection of all news articles as sole sources, but the article under discussion is just as good as another may be as a secondary and probably more approachable source. Awickert (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really disagree. For instance if a newspaper comes up with some nonsense that misrepresents scientific opinion or makes it up out of whole cloth--and I know we can all give many examples of either--then it isn't going to go into this article. And I agree that a newspaper should never be the most significant source, for this and other reasons. --TS 06:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(I realize that this doesn't solve the question of acceptable source material, but perhaps that needs a different forum than here? This might solve the immediate issue of edit warring.) Is it acceptable to sidestep this current argument re acceptability or not of newspaper articles and get the article unprotected by referencing the source article? To wit: ‘Do Global Temperature Trends Over the Last Decade Falsify Climate Predictions’ by J. Knight, J.J. Kenney, C. Folland, G. Harris, G.S. Jones, M. Palmer, D. Parker, A. Scaife, and P. Stott in a supplement to the August issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (PDF available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf ) And also the more readable summary from the UK met office: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html Lissajous (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you doing the legwork to find this link, I think Mr. Schulz and TS also mentioned it above. The NYTimes article mentions more opinions than just the Met Office study, but if that's unacceptable to the regulars here, then I think this Met Office report will have to do. Cla68 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the reasonable answer to the edit conflict. It isn't that the NYT is unacceptable as a source for the global warming article, but if a better source is available on a topic it should be used instead, and there are very few issues where a newspaper would be a better source. The whole article is at a very high standard.Ignignot (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And we still need to address the weight problem. This seems quite a bit more appropriate in Instrumental temperature record, where there is also room to expand on this... and if significant enough, it will be reflected here in the summary section of that article (via Temperature record). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The single sentence that was added helped the reader understand how the issue is reported, and being brief, it certainly did not give undue weight. Jonathunder (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Compared to all the other important things that could be included, it certainly is a very minor issue, both in relevance and temporal interest (we're not the news you know). And to describe how this issue is "reported" is not within the topic of this article. That is something that is relevant on one of the many sub-articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a very minor issue. Indeed scientifically it isn't clear that it is an issue at all. Kim is right; this is better off introduced into Itr (I know, its boring over there, not nearly so many people get to watch your exciting edits, but never mind) especially this page is (regrettably) locked William M. Connolley (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for the article to be protected for now because of the apparently escalating edit war over recently added content. - just to note: I would prefer the article to be unprotected William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've created an updated copy of the article with what I think (hope?) might be an acceptable change, incorporating the new references at User:Lissajous/Global_warming. I've also moved the para up one or two places to be adjacent to the discussion of temperature variation, and changed the wording to match the changed references (although I hope it captures the original intent). If any interested parties could check this out to make sure it isn't too far from some consensus version of the truth in a non Phillip_K_Dick way I'd appreciate it. (I saw the comment above on moving it to the temperature record section, and that seems fine to me too, but I've run out of time just now - if someone cares enough they're welcome to edit away). I'll also ask Kevin to remove the protection. Of course, he might just say wait a week. Lissajous (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. But sorry, I don't like the result. It sits awkwardly were it is now, obviously gives too much weight to a single paper, and skirts the issue. Can we go with a stronger, declarative sentence? "Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. This is believed to explain the relatively mild warming in the decade from 1999 to 2009.[ref here]"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure - feel free to make the edit (I've run out of cycles just for a while). Lissajous (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Had more cycles free than I thought. I've updated to match with Stephan Schulz's suggestion. Is the current suggestion broadly acceptable? Any fundamental problems? Lissajous (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So if I gather what you're proposing correctly, it's the addition of the following statement, using as references a paper published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and a press release from the Met Office.

Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. This is believed to explain the relative stability in temperature from 1999 to 2009.

This seems okay to me if I understand you correctly. If there are no further objections I think we can probably unprotect. --TS 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks reasonably good. I like the stability bit. But just to nitpick my own suggestion: "This is believed" is weasely. May I offer another simple statement: "The relative stability in temperature from 1999 to 2009 is consistent with such such an episode.", which also more closely follows the source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With the protect removed, I've copied over my cache, but it's slightly out of sync with the last few suggestions - will chase it now. Lissajous (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Find a decent source for it first. I've removed it as science by press release. -Atmoz (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you check both sources? One was published as a BAMS supplement, the other was the human-friendly press release. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A BAMS supplement? What does it supplement? I can't find anything related in any recent BAMS article or pre-prints, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. In any case, you should be citing the actual article and not the supplements. Press releases don't count for squat. I can't believe you're trying to defend using them as a source. -Atmoz (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got a query in with the UK Met office to clarify the publication date - are you ok to let the article stand for 24 hours until they've had time to get back? (I don't want the war to start again ... but I undid your undo when I thought it was a simple misunderstanding, i.e. before I saw your frank response above). Lissajous (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find the article it actually supplements I will not be happy. However, I won't revert again (at least for the next 24hr on this article...) -Atmoz (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect it will be at least 24 hrs to hear from the Met. In the interim, I suspect that it's a supplement to Peterson, T.C., and M.O. Baringer, 2009: State of the Climate in 2008. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, S1–S196. Lissajous (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok - a bit more digging and ... it's pretty much as I cited in the article (pre-deletion) - it's part of the Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Metereological Society Vol 90, No. 8, August 2009 - "State of the Climate in 2008". If you want me to mail you the 60Mbyte PDF of the 200 page supplement (no, it's not your average advertising supplement to the local paper), tell me. Or you can contact the AMS and ask them for it. If that's sufficient, can you revert your deletion? Lissajous (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have access to BAMS, and... What a thoroughly useless document. They produce one of these things every year? Waste of paper. 270 coauthors. They should each only get to put it on their CV 1/n where n is the total number of citations this thing ever gets. (Rounds nicely to zero.) Looking at past editions: Citations for "State of the Climate" in 2007: 3 times, 2006: 3 times, 2005: 4 times, 2004: 11 times, 2003: 17 times, 2002: 6 times. Compared to IPCC 2007 cited already > 450 times. State of the Climate 2008 hasn't been cited yet (no surprise). This is still too new (anything after ~2007 is too new). Judging from past editions, these are low impact documents that are generally ignored, which is also what we should do. But if you want to add it, cite it correctly so those interested can find it. See page 4 for proper citation. -Atmoz (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. FWIW, I share some of your concerns, but it was a means to break a deadlock on citing the NYT vs citing the underlying science. Either way, I'm done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lissajous (talk • contribs)

I propose, based on the development of the discussion herein, that we codify these findings in a new Wikipedia rule: WP:NNPAOBASFWPSA...."No Newspaper Articles Or Blogs As Sources For Wikipedia Science Articles." I will post this on this noticeboards, and see what develops. CrenshawB (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In your posts you probably should link to the related discussions here and on the Reliable Sources noticeboard or else other Wikipedians aren't going to understand why someone would feel the need to make such a proposal. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What happened to global warming?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This section has become a target for banned trolls who continually misinterpret the facts. The science is well covered in the article.

---

The following BBC report was removed from this dissusion page: [5]. In summary, it discusses the same topic in the NYTimes a couple of weeks ago that global temperatures have been steady over the last 10 years. Please discuss the impact of this below. Cla68 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See FAQ Question 7. Note the BBC article is shaky; e.g., it calls Piers Corbyn a "solar scientist." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just read FAQ Q7. This is an old chestnut. I fully support the (admittedly unofficial) policy of keeping this article purely based on mainstream published science and discussing the non-scientific public's reactions and opinions elsewhere. And that includes the scribblings and utterances of ill- and partially-informed news reporters and all other media people, celebrities and personalities. --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict with SBHB above)

Also note that we did add the original MetOffice result to the article already. See section Global warming#Temperature changes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(following moved from duplicate discussion)

The BBC [6] have produced an article giving a reasonably fair appraisal of the evidence that is not found in this article about the many reasons some experts believe global warming will stop. Is has been repeatedly stated that only information from reputable sources can be included. Is the BBC a reputable source and if so can we now start including the fact that global warming has stopped? 88.110.65.93 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your erroneous link but presumably you are referring to their weather blog [7]? In which cass as far as I can see it is not a substantial review, just at best and editorial. --BozMo talk 08:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bozmo, the link is the BBC NEWS reporting on the BBC. It is not just "blog" as you try to dismiss it. It is a reputable news service (or is it ... that's the question I'm asking). Also mentioned by the telegraph[8] and here [9], here[10] and daily mail [11]. 88.110.65.93 (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Even the Wall Street Journal [12] think that the BBC are a credible source, but apparently not wikipedia which still maintains that anyone who is anyone believes that the world is still getting warmer. 88.110.65.93 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the link you left and I was replying to was [13]--BozMo talk 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I will look for a link soon. But I did some research on this phenomena last spring while doing a mock trial between France and Bangladesh in relation to compensations for global warming on the basis of the European Court for Human Rights. I found, in a peer reviewed study of empirical evidence, that global warming has stalled (since the early 2000s because of a global cooling cycle we are now experiencing). It however, has not lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the scientific community, though there are significant theories in marginal areas of the scientific community that would indicate human activities may have some negative causal relationships with global warming, though not apparently strong enough to outweigh the positive causal relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRunyan (talk • contribs) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems the trouble is not whether or not the BBC is a reliable source, but that some of you think you've found something new and credible that means you can now say, "What happened to global warming?" and "global warming will stop". The evidence these reporters are stumbling across has been well known to all serious climate scientists for years or decades; it is built into their models; it is part of this article's FAQs; it is not news. You don't have to be a scientist to understand it: we've burnt fossil fuels big-time for a few hundred years and released all the CO₂ that took millions of years to get locked up into them. That CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and is absolutely certain to warm the earth by the greenhouse effect. This isn't going to go away, no matter how you cut it. Stop clutching at straws. The only things left to debate is how soon, how much and how bad. Oh, and how are you going to cut your CO₂ emissions by 50 - 80%. --Nigelj (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nigelj, fortunately the BBC has a legal duty of NPOV. That means that even when its staff would like to support one or other viewpoint it cannot because of its charter. You cannot just dismiss the BBC article as "we all knew about it ... ", because there has been a cynical campaign to ensure it is not in the article. It really does beggar belief and credibility for anyone to now suggest the article has a NPOV, when the BBC which is notoriously pro-environment, has decided that its legal duty requires it to voice the view of the "sceptics". To my mind the position of those resisting a NPOV is now indefensible and it is time the article abided by the wikipedia policy of NPOV and informed the reader of the full range of views (i.e. sceptics). For a start, lets tell the reader what every media from teh BBC to wallstreet journal are currently telling their readers: GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED (i.e. global temperatures have not risen this century). Unless you admit this simple inescapable truth, how on earth do you expect anyone to believe any of the rest? And to be honest, with as far as I can see every other media outlet (except perhaps the guardian) admitting that global warming is on hold, wikipedia really is looking more and more like the mouthpiece of environmental fanatics rather than the measured NEUTRAL view of authority. 88.110.65.93 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC

You misread the BBC article and you misunderstand the science. This is not new, global warming has not stopped, the temporary slowdown in temperature rise is already in the article, blogs are not reliable sources and your claims about the BBC are complete fantasy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Schulz, yet again you try to pretend that the BBC is some kind of blog. The fact is that the BBC charter covers all output from the BBC and it must maintain a neutral position (the same neutral position of wikipedia). Anyone that knows the BBC, knows that this article will have been gone through with a fine tooth comb (and given the horrific response of nature I can see why!). The BBC have not said that manmade global warming has stopped, what they have said is that there has not been an increase in global temperature. They have explained in a neutral way to their readers (as is the objective of wikipedia) why some experts think that this indicates that there will not be manmade global warming in the future. These are the hallmarks of a professional media outlet which prides itself on accuracy - this is what is called "Neutral Point of View", you might not like it, but there it is! 88.110.65.93 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pretending that the BBC is a blog, but several of the other sources you linked to are, e.g. [14] and, surprise, even [15]. As I already said, we cover the short-term effect of variability already, with good, scientific sources. Sorry, a off-the-cuff remark is a popular press article does not have enough weight for this article. If you can find decent scientific sources, we can certainly include them. As a comparison, the IPCC AR4 WG1 report has about 1000 pages. 2 sentences by (unqualified) standard sceptics in a popular press article does not meet WP:WEIGHT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion, and this is my conclusion. Warming has not occurred in 11 years, and this is a fact reported by reliable media, culled from various technical sources. It is difficult to address earlier concerns noted here, since there is not a specific "journal article" with the subject "No warming in 11 years"...this is not the way science works. Likely, articles of this type will emerge as this current stable period continues (both research type and reviews of other studies), but in the interim, the best we have is a reporting of the facts, by reliable sources. And the fact is warming appears to have stopped, and there are some emerging explanations for this. Thus, the BBC article should be included in the global warming article. I'm not sure why there is such fear of reporting facts. James T. Greely (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Scibaby sock

Sigh. As repeated many times, we do report on the fact, and with better sourcing (a MetOffice/BAMS publication). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This notion that "global temperatures have not risen this century" is of course very misleading. The past decade has seen global average temperatures consistently at levels higher than almost any year ever before recorded. This is not a pattern consistent with "global cooling" or any of the other nonsense some editors are trying to push. --TS 07:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"No warming" and "cooling" are two different things. Please do not distort the dicussion. James T. Greely (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Scibaby sock

I was referring to MarkRunyan's claim above that "global warming has stalled (since the early 2000s because of a global cooling cycle we are now experiencing)." --TS 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion: semiprotection for the talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thanks for the responses. I'm setting this suggestion to one side as it obviously has little or no support. --TS 14:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I don't normally hold with semiprotection of talk pages, but it's pretty obvious that most IP and non-autoconfirmed edits on this talk page are by a single user who typically takes 12-24 hours to get found out and blocked. In the meantime we waste time humoring the fellow and waiting for him to betray his identity. This is also encouraging some long term wikipedians who should know better to indulge scibaby for reasons they have apparent proudly announced on troll websites.

There are more productive uses for this page, which is for discussion about a science article, not a pop group or a funny video showing beautiful ladies forced by reduced circumstanaces to forego clothing and sharing a single cup. By keeping this page open to that troll we are simply providing him with free entertainment and wasting a quite large amount of our own time that would be better spent elsewhere.

I propose that, for a month at least, we experiment with semiprotection of this page. I have no objection to the creation of an overspill sub-page that can be used by people with a genuine point to make. This would have the advantage that those of us who choose to watch the article would be able to remain focused on the science using this talk page for that purpose, while those of a more generous disposition could watch the subpage.

This would, I propose, put an end to scibaby's attempts to monopolize discussion on this talk page, which is to the detriment of its primary purpose: improvement of our coverage of science. --TS 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:DENY. He's obnoxious, but can usually be identified within 2-3 edits. The fact that people respond to his trolling is another matter altogether. Block and ignore. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the important parts of RBI is the B and the I. The R is optional, especially on talk pages. Don't be in a hurry to revert before a block otherwise you've be reverted back. -Atmoz (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think per Atmoz: people really need to learn to ignore trolls and remove their posts, not respond. And anyway, Scibaby tends to mature his socks enough to edit semi William M. Connolley (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just realised that I'm probably one of those "who should know better". The trouble is - as I've been told elsewhere on WP, and I think some policy doc was quoted at me at the time - 'silence implies consent' in Talk page discussions. Also, I worry about readers who are one step up from being unsophisticated WP users, who may well read an article then click on its Talk page to see if it's a stable, believable one or one that is in the grip of controversy and/or edit wars. This talk page looks, to such a glance, as if its editors can't agree on even the basics. That is a shame if 95% of the controversy is due to one disruptive sock-master. What a shame if nothing can be done. --Nigelj (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Silence does not imply consent - that is a terrible pernicious rule that encourages endless attempts to get the last word. Perhaps we should put up a banner saying so? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No. James T. Greely (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Scibaby sock>

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

climate science for dummies

can we learn from this approach that the geneticists have helpfully provided? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence

The current article starts:

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1]

Everytime I read "the projected continuation", I am reminded that the projected continuation made in 2001 was warming and that everyone including the BBC, now admit that there has not been warming since 2001.

The article clearly tells the reader in the first sentence that Global warming is two things:

1. WARMING
2. Projected continuation

The projected continuation of that warming since the IPCC report referred by the first paragraph has provably not happened. It is clearly laid out by the equal weight given in the very first sentence that the projected continuation is of similar or equal weight to actual warming, yet nowhere in the article does it even mention the cooling or more accurately the failure of that projected warming. I could accept that the article might not be split 50:50 to historic temperatures and analysis of the projections. I accept that the article does look at various projections, but how can the apparent failure of the projection that is clearly key to the article, and one that is regularly referred to as the "pause, cooling, global cooling" etc. simply be ignored?

I would like to propose two possible solutions:

The inclusion of a section on recent cooling

This section should state the obvious. That 1998 was the warmest year, that there are reasons to explain why that was exceptionally warm. That temperatures since the IPCC report in 2001 have been stable with a small downward trend and that this has led to many commentators saying that "global warming has stopped". Then the paragraph could explain that 8 years is not significant in scientific terms and that the recent cooling is much smaller than the overall warming during the instrumental record.

The article reduces prominence of projections and concentrates on actual measured warming

I suggest the first sentence should read something like:

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century leading the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 to conclude that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. ... temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C etc.

This changes the emphasis away from projections of warming and therefore the obvious questions of whether those projections have been accurate which makes it hard to mention the recent cooling, to a more detached article removed from the present debate about the recent cooling, concentrating on historic global warming and the political impact of those changes.

Scientific sources for scientific articles I have considered the comments that a scientific article should only refer to scientific peer reviewed articles and whilst I can see why this is being said, WP:weight clearly states equal weight to reliable sources and I can find nothing to back the assertion limiting us to scientific sources for scientific articles . As most people will be aware there have been serious allegations against some scientists in the field (and I do not include a link because I do not want to be accused of simply writing this to highlight those accusations). This clearly leads to concern about the honesty and integrity of a field which has not actively sought to correct the apparent bias in key data. These accusations may be unfounded, but even so it is quite credible that the lack of reporting of the recent cooling by the scientific community may be due to an unwillingness to highlight unhelpful information to the public as there is clearly a self-interest amongst the scientists in the field who stand to loose funding if the importance of global warming were reduced, which is what will happen if they admit that global warming has "paused".

Whether or not the accusations are true, and, whilst I accept that as a general principle scientific sources are much preferred to other references on scientific articles, where there is clearly a potential self interest by the scientific community in an aspect of the subject it is clear WP:NPOV regarding bias requires the inclusion of sources from outwith the scientific community. So can we please see an end to this arguement as it doesn't hold water, where the scientists themselves clearly have a self interest. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How much space do you plan to waste on this page by repeatedly quoting the same irrelevant sections from WP:WEIGHT and why do you expect this to advance your cause? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

William, it is only wasted if you refuse outright to listen to reason. As they say, you can take a horse to water but I can't make them drink - but that doesn't mean that if I wait long enough you'll either die of thirst or be forced to change the article! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest above IP editor read WP:TEND as he proposes to violate it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, I do not understand your comment, are you trying to suggest that the article will never be changed in response to a period of cooling, because if that is true it is a clear statement by you that you intend to break WP:NPOV. I have taken the time to outline the case for a change, it is a compelling case and if you have any respect for wikipedia you will stop attacking me and deal with the suggestion in the appropriate manner.88.110.76.120 (talk)

You just said that you intend to keep tendentuously arguing your point until you get your way:

"if I wait long enough you'll either die of thirst or be forced to change the article!"

That sounds to me like a violation of WP:TEND. I don't know how you think calling you on it constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To be the first person to try to help this user - when you say this:

That temperatures since the IPCC report in 2001 have been stable with a small downward trend and that this has led to many commentators saying that "global warming has stopped".

...who says this? That's the first question another editor would ask. "Many commentators" doesn't cut it. --Tjsynkral (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

...in fact, reliable sources say the opposite ("trends over the past 10 years show only a 0.07 °C increase in global average temperature"[16]. The article will be changed as needed - in fact it's changed all the time. But it will be changed in accordance with good reliable sources, not speculations, and certainly not based on claims that a partial change in terminology somehow invalidates the idea of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says this? How about this quote from March 2009 [17] from the NCEE

"1.2 Global Temperatures Have Declined Significantly

Global temperatures have decline (Figure 1a) - extending the current run of time with a statistically robust lack of global temperature rise to eight years (Figure 1b), with some people arguing that it can be traced back for 12 years (Figure 1c)."

Now if my mathematics is correct march 2009 - 8years is March 2001. Also we have the BBC with: "For the last decade we have not observed any increase in global temperatures." [18] This is clearly not an opinion but a straightforward statement of fact. I could probably give you dozens more, but all anyone has to do is look at the trend on Hadcrut3. The evidence is clear, it is compelling, can we stop these attempts to censor the informaton about cooling and just change the article to make it fit with the current best information on the topic. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is saying that the warming has paused everyone even if it is just to say it doesn't undermine the case for manmade warming[19]:

'According to Stefan Rahmstorf, a physicist and oceanographer who teaches physics of the oceans at Potsdam University, "It is perhaps worthwhile reiterating two key points about the alleged pause here."

'Rahmstorf, who was a lead author of the paleoclimate chapter of the 4th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote, "A flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996)."'

This period of "alleged pause/pause/cooling" is real, topical and actively being discussed. It will is already part of the history of global warming because even if it starts to warm again it will be referred as the period of doubt with growing scepticism[20][21] and if global temperatures cool it will be called the turning point and the refusal of scientists and wikipedia editors to admit the cooling will no doubt be called the "time of denial". Either way it is already a historical fact and the none inclusion is clearly a breach of wp:NPOV. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see "Cooling trend?" below.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Small number" unsubstantiated

Stephan Schulz claims that there is a consensus for claiming that a "small number" of scientists dispute GW, without any reliable source cited anywhere in the entire article to back it up. I don't think there's consensus for that. I let a previous version stand that contained a source, even though it was a source I found biased - that is still better than no source at all. Let's talk about it. --Tjsynkral (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Schulz would be correct if it was 'current climate scientists'... but it just says 'scientists'. There are no doubt many thousands of scientists who would dispute GW (or do you mean AGW?). There are definitely 'some' then. Will revert. ^rossnixon 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole sentence is meaningless no matter if it's "some" or "a small number". -Atmoz (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Tjsynkral is right -- let's delete the whole sentence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Already discussed here Count Iblis (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a sentence indicating the growing number of scientists who are skeptical.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/weekend-opinionator-are-americans-cooling-on-global-warming/

Razor Occam (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when is the population of the US scientists? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"...there are so many books from skeptics accusing environmentalists of having completely snookered the American public." (Michaels, Balling, Singer, etc. etc.) Razor Occam (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Growning number"?...hmm...Michaels, Balling, Singer...but same old names. However, this article is about the phenomenon of AGW. If you have something worthwhile to add about scientific opinion, you'll want Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus, or the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I want global warming, and the growing number of skeptical scientists, per the discussion topic. Qstars (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you'll need something more substantial than a blog. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources per: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources?. And certainly not for a scientific article per: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Abrupt changes in climate not due to CO2

For information, a new peer reviewed paper is coming out and the pre-publication press release [22] suggests that shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate with abrupt changes in the climate in the last 50 years. "In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring 'warming in the pipeline.' Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration." It is also worth noting given the recent cooling since 2001/1998 (depending on the source) that the press release also says: "the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving". This is yet more evidence that diminishes the importance of the role of CO2 on the climate and we really need to according reduce the prominence given to CO2 as per wp:weight. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Douglass has always been on the sceptical side, and this press-release is essentially content-free. Wait for the paper, and then wait for some reactions to it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that Physics Letters A is an odd place for a climate paper William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I noticed, too. What's next, Social Text? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In times like these, look to The Onion... --Skyemoor (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on volcanos and CO2

I know it's just one article, but this story [23] suggests the earth was warm while CO2 was being given off by volcanos and cooled when the CO2 stopped being released. I understand it's a geologic time frame, but isn't that the opposite of the ordering being suggested by other scientists? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to Talk:Climate change (I suggest you do this after you see my reply) because this is related to longer time-scales, or to your talk if you want it to be more of a conversation. I read most of the paper, which is here. That actually isn't what the paper is about - argh the press. What they say is that early on, volcanic outgassing of CO2 was matched by CO2 sequestration via silicate weathering - so no warming and no cooling. They go on to say that after the eruptions were reduced in volume, continued weathering of the volcanics resulted in a drop of temperature. But that's not the question that you're asking.

CO₂ is released by volcanoes, and volume that is released depends on the type and amount of magma involved. CO₂ (which warms) has a long lifetime in the atmosphere, while the particulates and sulfates which cool the Earth on the time-scales that we observe today act on a short (~1-3-year) time-scale. Due to resolution, geologists generally can observe only the lower-frequency signals in Earth history; we therefore see the longer-term CO₂ portion of the picture. Awickert (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Conlicting Evidence on Rising Temperatures

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeSoStupid (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Theory

Global Warming is a theory, yet in the article, it seems to be stated as fact. Please don't overlook this, because this is a legitimate discussion. 97.126.90.238 (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

See FAQ Question #8. Ignignot (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rainfall trends?

Due to higher average temperatures, there is more evaporation from the oceans and in a dynamical equilibrium situation, there must be more rainfall. So, I was wondering if the total of the global rainfall records is a reliable indictator of global warming? Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for GW, so this question would have been better asked at the reference desk But see How much more rain will global warming bring? -Atmoz (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk Topic: update article title to "Global warming change", thus combining "Global warming" and "Climate Change"

Talk Topic: update article title to "Global warming change", thus combining "Global warming" and bigger picture "Climate Change"

Hmm...I'm not sure what the advantage would be of doing that. Could you please explain why the article title should be changed, and how your proposal would be an improvement?--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence does not seem intellectually honest. I have not found a reliable reference to indicate that "global warming" has a defining characteristic of "mid 20th century". This would lead one to believe that "global warming" has not happened previously during the history of earth. There are countless references to indicate that it is not just "mid 20th century".

I have found a reliable source for the definition of "global warming". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/global+warming 1. "an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect." 2. "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Perhaps changing the title to something like "Recent Global Warming" or "Rapid Global Warming" or remove the time scope of the first sentence would provide a more intellectually honest statement.

I don't understand "intellectually honest"; "Global Warming" in the public mind and the vast, vast majority of discussions is related to recent warming. On Wiki we usually try to use the most common term. Global warming has indeed gone on in the past, but other articles cover past warming, which is why there is the "For ..." at the surface. I don't think that there is a way to use the common usage of "global warming" for what people will be looking for, while also including all warming episodes. Awickert (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for response. One definition of "intellectually honest" is "honesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication". I guess I am looking for a more accurate and more permanance than recent discussions, most common terms, common usage, catering to what people will be looking for and so on. Perhaps I should search for a more scientific approach dealing with accuracy rather than Wikipedia since this resource seems to focus on recent conversations, common jargon, etc.

"Combining" when an article is this long just seems the wrong way to go. As for your comments on accuracy I suggest you read around the meaning of language to help your perspective to clear. --BozMo talk 11:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NEO. The term "global warming change" isn't used by anyone, therefore it can't be an article title here. Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is why this needs to be amended to say that Global Warming is a scientific THEORY. Right now the article presents Global Warming as scientific fact, which it is not. There's no discussion that Global Warming has come under intense scrutiny in the scientific community. It needs to be changed. jbird669 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

jbird669, please read the FAQ. The Question 8 is addressing that issue. --McSly (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

jbird669, intense scrutiny may be found at History of climate change science and the resources provided in that article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FAQ question 8 says That the temperature is rising is an "observation". However, that is not true. The temperature is actually the output of a proprietary and highly complex model. The FAQ does make it clear that the supposition that increasing CO2 causes global warming is a theory. In addition, the majority of the article is about the theory and not the "obervation". Q Science (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at where the OP is attempting to insert "theory", it may also be of use to consider why the OP thinks that theory should be inserted. (what is a scientific "fact"?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the phrase "Global Warming" (like most dictionary entries) has several very different definitions. The article itself uses several of these without any specific distinctions. In particular, many people want the term "anthropogenic" added when CO2 is the cause and a different phrase when simply discussing warming without attributing cause. Q Science (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that this might help: WP:WTA#Theories_and_hypotheses --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Theory, Law and Fact in Science. TLDR summary: facts are consistent observations; theories explain facts. A scientific theory is much stronger than a scientific fact. See also Evolution as theory and fact. -Atmoz (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed those, thanks. However, the Webster definition is a bit looser. (Actually, a lot.) Q Science (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

One should take into consideration an early statement of Pielke jr about the Real Climate Bllog, which applies as well to this article: The Controversy ist not so mucb about science, but about politics and political measures, to use only scientific sources and to leave out quality press repeats this error again. --Polentario (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 global temps

I just came across this article about winter forecasts in the US, and most of it doesn't concern this article. However, the last paragraph reads:

NOAA also announced on Thursday that globally September was the second warmest month in 130 years of recordkeeping, just behind 2005. World temperatures last month averaged 60.1 degrees Fahrenheit (15.6 degrees Celsius), which is 1.1 degrees (0.6 degrees Celsius) above normal. Three-quarters of the way through the year, 2009 is lining up to be the sixth warmest year on record.

This seems to support claims that global warming is indeed still happening. Is this, especially the part about September being the second warmest month since recordkeeping began, worth a mention in the article, or in a related article if not this one? Timmeh 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This falls into the same trap as those who think global warming is over because it's been a chilly June or because winter ice extend is the same in ne month as it was in the same month 30 years ago. The key is the multi-decade rising trend in global temperatures, during which of course some years are cooler than others. The trend is still there. --TS 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See FAQ #3. Ignignot (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out; it makes my comments look a bit stupid! Timmeh 21:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you knew everything already, then why would you be reading an encyclopedia? No worries. Ignignot (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ice Core Data

I'm skeptical about AGW and have read about ice core data, if closely examined, show CO2 levels rising hundreds of years after temperatures rise. Before digging up references, I'm sure there is a standard response to this which I'd like to hear. [Soapboxing deleted - WMC] Rkcannon (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Where have you read about the ice core data? I would like to look at this. The problem isn't there is not listening by many of the climate scientists, it is there is always an "explanation" when the data doesn't fit the model... El Nino, La Nina, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, aerosols, etc. etc.....warming or cooling, they have it covered. And then they will say they already explained this long ago, and we already knew that is was going to cool before it was going to warm, etc. etc. For this article, it seems like it would be best to add a peer reviewed article indicating the data, and then see what happens. It will likely be deleted, but at least you did your bit for science. Subsumee (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[24] or [25]. I've trimmed your question to remove the inflammatory "groupthink" on the assumption that you were actually interested in the ice core data William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And internally, Attribution of recent climate change#Warming sometimes leads CO2 increases William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It’s also covered briefly in Global warming controversy under the Greenhouse gases section.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Q: Should this go into the FAQ? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A: Yes, it is a common question and IMO a compelling one for those who do not know the details differences between Milakovitch-driven glacial cycles and present-day warming (i.e., which of multiple variables are doing the forcing). Awickert (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A picture: [26]. Dragons flight (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a nice FAQ about this would be helpful if someone with sufficient knowledge wants to take the time to do that.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I mainly use New Zealand Climate Science web site. (http://www.climatescience.org.nz/) Based on the blogs and responses posted above by WMC, it is confirmed that CO2 could be lagging the temp increase by a few hundred years, 800 +- 800 potentially. This further demonstates lack of understanding because it is also admitted that the initial driver of the temperature changes or the CO2 changes is not known, and it is certainly not man. These unknowns are rarely mentioned but should be the main focus of discussion IMO. To me it does not support the theory that CO2 is a significant driver of climate change because one should see a rise in CO2 followed by a rise in temperatures, not the reverse or no effect at all, going back 100k+ years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkcannon (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to use whatever sources you want to for your personal entertainment. But New Zealand Climate Science is not a scientific organization, but pure propaganda, run by a list of well-known contrarians. I suggest you read some real science, like the IPCC reports, the statements of the major academies of science, or, if you like to stay local, the pages of the Royal Society of New Zealand here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So far I have not used anything from that site in this discussion, only what WMC provided, except I admit it has colored my thinking. I also like to look at both sides. Restricting myself to "real science" from certain sites only can lead to groupthink as I said before it was deleted. But the points raised I think are still valid. I have no connection to either side of the argument. Rkcannon (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You might enjoy Dr. Hansen's paper Climate change and trace gases where he says that the ice core data is wrong. His claim is that, if the data was correct, then the CO2 would "warm the upper kilometre of the ocean by approximately 160 C". Q Science (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you mean by "wrong"? All data and all interpretations are "wrong" in some sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

He says that the increases in CO2 actually happened at the same time as, or slightly before, the increases in temperature, even though the data presented in all the other studies indicates that the CO2 concentration increased several hundred to several thousand years after the temperature increases. So, that is what I meant by wrong. Q Science (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am disinclined to believe Dr. Hansen on this one, especially since all he says is that "two events 800 yr apart and with 1 kyr error bars are nearly synchronous" which is an interesting use of a PDF and dodges the lead/lag issue in question, and because of my general distrust of him on using real data since he was telling everyone a few years ago that sea level would rise on the order of [insert Laurentide Ice Sheet collapse sea level rise figure here]. Also, he has no mechanism for CO2 to vary and lead temperature in such a predictable pattern as Milankovitch cycles provide, which could be because he doesn't seem to touch on this issue too much in my skimming of the paper - it is clearly not the main point of the article. Since we know that temperature rises can lead to the release of CO2 from certain reservoirs, I would not be alone in saying that temperature and CO2 are simply coupled and can interchangably lead or lag. In the Pleistocene, quite a few geologists (including myself) would say that CO2 served to amplify Milankovitch cyclicity and cause the temperature swings that resulted in the glacial and interglacial periods. Awickert (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I worked through that paper (for the superficial meaning of "working through" of a non-specialist with limited time) some time ago. It's been a while, but IIRC his claim is about one particular termination that seems to show a 5000 year lag. He accepts that "forcing and temperature change had to be synchronous within a few centuries" (which agrees with the commonly cited 800+/-200 years). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you (Stephan), however I have yet to find the place where Q Science states that, "the increases in CO2 actually happened at the same time as, or slightly before, the increases in temperature". As a matter of fact (and now that I read the paper more I become less skeptical of Hansen's work), he contradicts what Q Science says by saying "The temperature change appears to usually lead the gas changes by typically several hundred years, as discussed below and indicated in figure 1b. This suggests that warming climate causes a net release of these GHGs by the ocean, soils and biosphere. GHGs are thus a powerful amplifier of climate change, comparable to the surface albedo feedback, as quantified below. The GHGs, because they change almost simultaneously with the climate, are a major ‘cause’ of glacial-to-interglacial climate change, as shown below, even if, as seems likely, they slightly lag the climate change and thus are not the initial instigator of change," which I find to be very much satisfactory, Awickert (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ

Main page: Talk:Global warming/FAQ

I'm always amazed at how many members of the public (i.e. non-climate-scientists) feel that they have just thought out, or found out, or stumbled across the crucial scientific fact that all the world's experts have systematically missed for years or decades. In creationist circles, as noted in a short thread above, the same thing happened for a while over evolution. Yet it never happens in other areas of science (some where there is possibly more of a chance of a member of the public finding or thinking out something new, like entomology, or string theory, or hypersensitivity). The best thing here is the FAQ page, which apart from answering the question, by being pre-prepared also proves to each asker that they're not the first to think of it. --Nigelj (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[Soapboxing deleted - CI]

(Reply to Nigelj) Actually, it doesn't surprise me, and I think it's a natural reaction to the amount of shoddy partisan reporting that is done on the topic of global warming. Most people know little about the science of global warming, but all the non-scientists I've talked to have done a little bit of interested research. I think that the poor communication about the science behind global warming leads to people questioning the world around them and what they are told - which is a fantastic thing IMO - but leads to a number of intuitive objections to global warming which are not addressed in most readily-available resources. The FAQ here is an excellent source, but unfortunately by the time people land themselves on Wiki, they have rather entrenched views and have drawn the battle lines. So I guess this is more a philosophical reply to a philosophical question and not so directly related to this page, but I think I might ask some of my non-scientist friends (who lie across the political spectrum) if they'd mind reading through a few climate articles on Wiki and giving me feedback on what they do and don't feel satisfied about in the knowledge that they acquired in reading the articles. Awickert (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the FAQ could (or should) be brought out from being a subpage of a talk page, and be promoted to article status in its own right? What would it get called to meet WP naming guidelines? Could it keep the current collapsible format? Should it? Would it become just another junk-magnet to monitor and police? Maybe it doesn't get targeted so much now, because it is not so well read, but is that really a good thing? A lot of work and thought has clearly gone into it, for it to stay hidden away like it is. Just thinking out loud. --Nigelj (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the FAQ's purpose is to let people with good intentions avoid repeating the same discussion over and over again on the talk page. Therefore it needs to be on the talk page. Unfortunately there is nothing to be done for people without good intentions. Ignignot (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Cooling" on the global warming consensus

This news feature gives an excellent summary of how the current consensus on global warming seems to be crumbling:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/13/ED7O1A4IQU.DTL

Could someone please add this to the "Debate and skepticism" section of this article? TS Handon (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to look at WP:weight and Scientific opinion on climate change to understand why the article you're citing holds nothing relevant for this page. But, feel free to add Piers Corbyn to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Easterbrook is already listed and Carlin isn't a scientist.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:weight "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source". The BBC and about 50 other news outlets have stated that there has recently been cooling/no warming/paused warming. Neutrality requires that the article represent all significant viewpoints - which must include the viewpoint that we are currently in a cooling period. Only by redefining "reliable" to mean "scientific" and then only by limiting it to those with a clear self interest who believe we are currently and actively warming is it possible to claim WP:weight supports this lack of Neutrality (NPOV) in the article. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also in WP:weight: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." By my estimate something from 10-50% of all news articles on global warming either dismiss the idea of manmade warming, or state it to be hugely overblown. There is therefore a significant body of opinion that holds the opinion that global warming is a hoax, scam, etc. based on bad science. There is also strong evidence to support this view and clear allegations of misuse of data which simply isn't mentioned in the article, no way on earth can this article be said to be complying with WP:weight.88.110.76.120 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And Corbyn is yet another weather man with airs of academe. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Global warming will spur growth of forests

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/20/20greenwire-global-warming-could-spur-growth-in-northwest-43219.html

This NYTimes reference provides a good summary of predicted increased growth of forests, due to global warming. Suggestions on where to add this? Tom Dietz (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick to peer-reviewed articles that are Critically Important, don't rely on Broadcast And Bulletin media, else You become Stale and Old hat—Content is King. -Atmoz (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. You’ll need the original piece as published in Forest Ecology and Management. However, the scope of the study appears to be too narrow for this article as it only concerns the Pacifc Northwest. But, it might be of some value to Effects of global warming and/or Regional effects of global warming.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Precipitation rates

"TAIPEI (AFP) – Global warming will cause the amount of heavy rain dumped on Taiwan to triple over the next 20 years.... Data showing the incidence of heavy rain has doubled in the past 45 years, coinciding with a global rise in temperatures, said Liu Shaw-chen of Taiwan's leading research institute Academia Sinica...." -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/taiwanclimatewarmingtyphoon

Presumably, additional heating induces more evaporation and transpiration, so does the global projection for total aggregate precipitation vary in proportion to temperature linearly? How much more total precipitation is associated with a 1 degree C. increase in temperature? 99.60.3.23 (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No-one else has stepped up (Boris?) so I will. Precip does not vary linearly with T, more like exponentially (so how much extra precip is assoc with 1 oC depends on what your base T is). Local precip will vary much more than global. You might find fig 10.6 of chapter 10 helpful: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Figure 10.36 on page 828 (PDF page 82) is also very helpful. But the different scenarios in this document, and the news I've been reading about,[27][28][29] suggest that projections have been changing rapidly. What is the date of that AR4 report? 99.62.185.62 (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Its various parts have been published over much of 2007. See IPCC AR4. Cut-off for inclusion of results will have been somewhat earlier. As far as I can tell, nothing in your sources is substantially new - we just choose which of the many possible trajectories for emissions we are following. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A. How far are increased precipitation rates expected to raise 10-year flood plain levels?

B. How much have projections for future greenhouse gas concentrations changed over the past 10 years? 99.62.185.160 (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [Copied from my talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)]]