Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 5

message: Another fact is that the relation from natural CO2-emissions to human is by 97:3!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.53.229.105 (talk • contribs) 
:That's not true, as can easily be found by checking numerous sources on the Carbon Dioxide article. Do you have a source for this dubious "fact"? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article is correct, but your source is wrong. There is a lot of documentation available that will demonstrate the inaccuracy of that statement. (My German is only mediocre, but good enough to get the gist of that article without resorting to Babelfish.) I like Bill Bryson, but I wouldn't trust him for facts about climatology. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, things in nature produce more CO2 than human industry. But that does not render the contribution of industry insiginificant. If you ask me, something more telling is the fact that during the cretaceous there was five times the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but life on earth was thriving regardless. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I doubt this claim that things in nature produce more CO2 than human industry. Even if it were true (and I've seen no evidence that is and plenty that it's not), we're talking about the change in CO2 concentration which is almost completely due to human influence (including agricultural practices, which some might argue is "nature"). Read the article on Carbon Dioxide before you try to argue that human influence is negligible. As for your "telling" fact, consider that life back then evolved in those conditions. So, it's pretty much an irrelevant fact, not a "telling" one. (The timescales involved are radically different.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IPCC AR4WG1 report gives a good diagram of carbon fluxes in section 7.3. Gross natural fluxes are estimated at 90 GtC/yr for atmosphere-ocean and 120 GtC/yr for atmosphere-earth. Net fluxes, pre-industrial, are around 0. Industrial contributions are about 7 GtC/yr, with half of that being taken up for a net of around 3.5 GtC/yr. So plant respiration etc. does produce large amounts of CO2, however, the natural sources are balanced by sinks such as photosynthesis etc. Hal peridol 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Hal, for the correction, and for the clarification about net fluxes. For those who don't think humans are responsible for increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, I have no idea how you explain this image in your head. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the only direct measures we have for atmospheric CO2 exist from the past 50 or so years. everything else is via proxies. none of those proxies can provide a glimpse of atmospheric CO2 levels that can be pinpointed to an interval of 50 years or less, can they? how do we know that there haven't been similar, extremely short term (in geological time) spikes or dips in atmospheric CO2 that have been masked by the inherent interval inaccuracy of the historical proxy record? Anastrophe 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: something else to ponder: where do our industrial CO2 emission derive from? burning oil. fossil fuel. fuel that came from the accumulation of formerly living things, that accumulated - dead - and after millions of years became oil. what is the source of the carbon those living things came from? hmm. must have been environmental. at times in the ancient past, there were orders of magnitude more 'free' carbon on the surface of the earth than there is now - else where would all that carbon in oil have come from? burning oil is releasing back into the environment carbon that's been sequestered by natural forces. Anastrophe 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to look at carbon cycle. Carbon is sequestered and released via tectonic processes - over many millions of years. There have been periods with much more and and less atmospheric CO2 than now. But these were periods with very different climate, and the changes between them were slow enough to give ecosystems the time to adapt. All of human history is not even noticable on the geological time scale (well, there may be a miniscule layer with some weird isotopes if someone digs in 50 million years). Now we are releasing carbon sequestered over millions of years in mere centuries. Earth will survive this, the question what this will cost us... --Stephan Schulz 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't disagree in principle. however, as with my earlier comment, i question the validity of drawing conclusions about the CO2 rise over the last fifty years of direct measurement, when - if i recall correctly - ice core records have an inherent 'fuzz' of a minimum of 150 years due to permeability of the ice structures until sufficiently compacted. that would implicitly flatten out spikes and dips in CO2 levels in time domains shorter than that interval. yes? Anastrophe 00:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another fact 

message: It seems the climatologists are a bit frustrated by the weather.  It just isn't getting hot enough for them.  The last few years have been disappointing.  1998 is still the warmest year on record. (Although not in the U.S., Stephen McIntyre found an error and NASA's corrected temp record shows 1934 to be the warmest year in the U.S.)  Now the climatologists are admitting that no new global temperature records will be set for the next few years, but boy is it going to get hot after that!!  Read the story for yourself.   Now, I ask you, is this science?  We are often told (and Roger A. Pielke says this is a ridiculous scientific claim but I hear it all the time) that it is easier to predict the climate than the weather.  If so, shouldn't the accuracy of the climate predictions be better?  Can a weatherman predict the weather three weeks from now?  Of course not. How can they say that, over the next few years, weather is going to mute global warming?  Aren't they really saying that natural variability of the climate is greater than they expected?  Why not just admit the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has turned to the cooler phase and we will not see warmer temps for a while?  Well, if they admittted that they would have to admit we will not see warmer temps for probably 30 years and that will not scare people enough! I need some help trying to figure how to put this in the article, but this kind of unscientific attempts to save a theory on its last legs is just amazing to watch. RonCram 02:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you taken a look at the talk page guidelines recently? MastCell Talk 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have.  I am asking for help on how to discuss this controvery in the article. I suppose you are trying to say that I have allowed my personal views to be seen.  But this is an article on a controversy.  In global warming articles, every editor's personal views are known.  Here's the FOXNews piece on the same study. Note that Smith is willing to discuss El Nino but does not mention PDO. RonCram 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you address, specifically, how you would like to incorporate this source into the article? I brought up the talk page guidelines because your initial comment consisted largely of spinning your wheels, replete with rhetorical questions, in a manner more fitting for a blog than an article talk page. MastCell Talk 03:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It obviously needs to be discussed in the "Controversy concerning the science" section. But I'm not sure if it should be in section 2.6 "Predictions of temperature rises" (in which case we could also discuss how climate predictions are wrong more than half the time) or whether this deserves it own section - maybe titled "Response to falling global temperatures."  What do you think? RonCram 03:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the sources you've cited sounds controversial. The articles just detail an apparent improvement in our understanding of patterns of short-term warming. The "controversial" aspect is in the way you're spinning it, which is original research. MastCell Talk 03:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit confused.  Should this not matter?  I mean, surely if the above is true we would not experience hotter temps for a while; but that does not invalidate the theory og agw since we could have had even colder temps without the anthro forcing and once we go back to the warm phase we will observe even hotter temps...  I mean, are this not two different forcings we speak of?  Just a thought.  Brusegadi 06:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: RE placement of the material: one of the options Ron proposes is obviously inappropriate. --Nethgirb 07:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: William, it will help because it is such obviously bad science.  Brusegadi does not seem to understand that scientists really do not understand how much of climate variation is due to natural causes and how much to mankind.  This is the main objection of all of the skeptical climatologists, including Pielke.  They all agree that the affect of CO2 is overrated because we are underestimating natural climate variability.  But Mastcell is correct. It is probably too early to put this into the article at this moment. But it won't take long.  The debunking should happen pretty quickly.RonCram 14:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, how coud they have made these predictions for the next decade ? Count Iblis 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I mean.  Most natural forcings are cyclical so they tend to cancel out in the long run.  The anthro CO2 forcing is in only one direction so it should matter more in the longrun.  I see it like the Keeling curve.  The variations move you up and down in periods, but the anthro component moves you only in one direction. Brusegadi 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best analogy I've heard is that it's like rolling loaded dice. You can't tell what the next roll will be, but you know the odds have changed. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming just won't cooperate! 

message: Stephen McIntyre has just posted on the HO-83.  In the early 1990s, USHCN began changing weather station instruments over to the HO-83.  Numerous peer-reviewed studies documented the warm bias this instrument change caused, including at the infamous Tucson weather station run by the University of Arizona Department of Atmospheric Sciences.  The Tucson station is built on top of a parking lot and shows the greatest warming of all stations in the USHCN.  Now it seems this artificial warm bias is not due just to the poorly sited station but also to the change to the HO-83.  One peer-reviewed study says "the HO-83 maximum temperature readings at Tucson were probably too warm by 1-2 deg C on sunny, light wind days."  McIntyre lists eight different peer-reviewed articles that discuss the warm bias caused by this change in instruments.   There are so many controversies here it is difficult to discuss them all.  First, we have no indication NASA GISS has adjusted for this warm bias.  Second, NASA GISS does not release its data, methods and code so others can check their work and determine if this was handled correctly.  Third, was this instrument change done intentionally to create a warm bias in the record?  Fourth, was the warm bias left intentionally uncorrected to allow the warm bias to remain in the record?  A degree or two here and there introduced over a period of time creates a step-wise warming bias.  This is a controversy that will not go away until NASA GISS releases all of the data, methods and code (just as the new "America COMPETES Act" requires). RonCram 04:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony Watts has commented on the HO-83 saying: Given that the problem went undetected for 4 years in Tucson, and the high temperature records there stand, it stands to reason that the HO-83 has contaminated part of the USHCN and GISS record in other instances for perhaps as long or longer.  RonCram 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just a local US problem or are these things widely used? --BozMo talk 05:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very old news and well-documented. Problems with HO-83 bias due to poor ventilation were recognized fairly quickly, back the early to mid-90s I think, and the instrument was redesigned to greatly improve ventilation (denoted HO83m or something like that). One must be careful to note replacement of the HO-83 with the HO-83m, as failure to do so can produce an erroneous cooling trend since the warm bias is removed. It's curious that some folks seem to be interested in errors of only one sign and not the other...  Raymond Arritt 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think what Raymond is saying is that the HO83 had a known bias of, say, B.  So, they would adjust their data by 'subtracting' B from their recordings.  If you begin to use the HO83m you no longer have the bias of B.  So, you have to be careful to not subtract N from HO83m because if you do you end up introducing a bias of -N. Brusegadi 15:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brusegadi, the problem is that there is no evidence GISS ever adjusted for the warm bias to begin with. It is erroneous to claim a "cooling bias" if the warm bias was never adjusted. RonCram 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not so. You'll get a spurious warming trend when you introduce the faulty thermometers, and an equally spurious cooling trend when you replace them with good ones. The temperature will be ok afterwards, but the trend is still wrong (as e.g. in "there has been no warming since 1998" ;-).  --Stephan Schulz 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: William, you deleted a section because it did not advance the article.  Fair enough.  By why leave Stephan's comment which also does not advance the article and is demonstrably wrong? RonCram 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the HO-83 Hygrothermometer 

message: I feel that the new addition may not be appropriate per WP:RS.  I mean, on one side we have a published paper (from what seems to be a highly regarded publisher) and on the other we have a blog.  Is there a better source for Shaviv?  I will not remove because I may be alone on this, but I do feel that a more reliable source is in order. Brusegadi 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am dubious about it. It isn't even S's blog, but Lubos reporting on S, and we don't even know he is doing so accurately. I would be inclined to remove/shorten William M. Connolley 08:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Thats why I ask again, is there a better source for Shaviv?  Otherwise, as it stands, the paragraph gives undue weight to a blog posting. Brusegadi 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - We have no way of validating if this really comes from Shaviv - and this fails all rules for WP:RS. WP:SPS exceptions do [ins: not] come into play here, as 1) Lubos is no expert by SPS  2) Lubos is citing someone else without a proper reference (instead of givin his own view) 3) Shaviv's own blog doesn't contain this. I suggest removal as well. (Nb: i've looked for this "memo" on the net - but cannot find anything except Lubos).  --Kim D. Petersen 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with axing it for now - in general, this article needs better attention to quality sourcing and fewer such subpar sources. MastCell Talk 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaviv 

message: another potential cause that has been recently identified is
"A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts" http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf
"The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."
It would be good to add something about it under (potential) causes. LetterRip 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LetterRip, I agree. One of the problems with the AGW groupthink is the lack of acknowledgement of natural climate variability.  Global temps go up and down over time.  This peer-reviewed research is another in a line (see Bratcher and Giese 2004) that shows PDO looms large in natural variability. RonCram 01:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  causes 

message: With unintended irony, Hansen has named one of his methods the "bias method" and described it in his 1987 paper.  McIntyre examines his paper, Hansen's description of the method and compares the method to the more widely used "anomaly method."  Hansen's "bias method" is not used in statistics and it appears Hansen has something in common with Michael Mann.  Neither of them are statisticians, yet both have tried to innovate new statistical methods.  Mann failed and it appears Hansen has as well.  I think this should also be discussed in the section describing the controversy about unwarranted adjustments to the temp record. RonCram 21:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RonCram, McIntyre is not a statistician, either.  He is a former mining executive.  He may have taken statistics in university, but so have Mann and Hansen.  Otherwise, Mann and Hansen wouldn't have the positions they maintain.  Iceberg007 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what your working definition of "statistician" is. McIntyre has already proven his ability with statistics.  He has published articles in peer-reviewed journals based on his analysis.  He has found statistical errors made by both Mann and Hansen.  When it comes to statistics, I would trust McIntyre over any climate scientist. Mann, on the other hand, has admitted that he is not a statistician.  I would guess that Hansen will soon be making the same admission. RonCram 03:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a very weird system here. McKitrik, of the McKitrik temperature scale, who does not know the difference between degrees and radians, and who doesn't know a thing about sampling and independence, is a statistician because "he has published articles in peer-reviewed journals based on his analysis", while Mann and Hansen, who have also published many articles based on their analyses (and in high-class journals, not E&E), are less trustworthy because Mann is honest enough to admit that statistics is not his main occupation?  --Stephan Schulz 06:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, you seem to have a selective memory today!  McKitrick is not the subject, it is McIntyre. McKitrick is the academic, McIntyre is the statistician.  While E&E is peer-reviewed, they have a habit of seeking out reviewers who are skeptics of global warming.  McIntyre also published in GRL, which is very well respected.   In the GRL paper, the statistical analysis was the essence of the paper (not an afterthought or a tool to make a case).  BTW, I do not fault Mann or Hansen for attempting to innovate new methods. I fault them for not checking with a statistician before sending it in for peer-review.  The peer-review system is just not good enough to find problems like those introduced from new statistical methods.  It is too much work and the reviewers are not paid for their time. Mann and Hansen should have asked a real statistician to check it out first. RonCram 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not selective, but Freudian. I mixed up the M&Ms...they are nearly indistinguishable anyways. --Stephan Schulz 01:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, they are very different people with very different talents. But they are often confused.RonCram 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly we can all agree with your second sentence. Raymond Arritt 02:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Ron, McIntyre is not a statistician.  He is a former mining executive.  Also, about the centering business of which you speak being flawed in the "hockey stick" study, Wahl and Ammann (2006) have refuted these claims here: .  Iceberg007 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Brusegadi, I may not be the best person to answer this but I will give it a try. The principal components analysis (PCA) was new but so was the decentering Mann used.  It was the decentering that McIntyre, von Storch and Zorita claimed created the artificial hockey stick even when trendless red noise was fed in as data.  Von Storch and Zorita seemed to think the artificial hockey stick did not really "matter" because the result was already contaminated from the PCA. McIntyre thought they were both big deals. Stephan, based on the email from Zorita did I describe that correctly? RonCram 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brusegadi, also McIntyre pointed out that the bristlecone pine series is not a temperature proxy and should not have been used.  At the request of Congress, the NRC reviewed the debate and agreed with McIntyre on this issue.  Unfortunately, the bristlecone pine series is still being used by climatologists.  Von Storch and Zorita have said McIntyre may be right about the bristlecone pine series but they have not checked it out.  RonCram 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was under the impression that when fed random data the algorithm used by Mann produced hockey sticks but they were 'insignificant.'  I believe it had something to do with some eigenvalues being too small (I have only worked with PCA once in image compression, and I do not remember very well what can go wrong... sorry).  What I recall M&M doing was changing the labels in the graph to hide this.  The hockey stick obtained by Mann et al. was 'significant'. Brusegadi 04:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hansen's "Bias Method" 

message: Mark Morano has written a new editorial discussing his view of the latest peer-reviewed research on global warming and its impact on the science controversy.   I think this can probably be useful to explain some of the key points. RonCram 19:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoted a Motl. Dismissed. Raymond Arritt 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, you still have not answered your own question.  Why are you ducking it? :)RonCram 19:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "study" was refuted by Naomi Oreskes, which can be seen here: .  Iceberg007 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editorial on the latest peer-reviewed research 

message: Rebuttal requires evidence to be presented.  It is tough to judge if CEI used info that may be considered evidence so it becomes very subjective and brings forth problems of weight.  The 'evidence' is only taken serious by few.  Thus, I did what is normally done with External Links; I used appropriate material from the linked page to describe the link.  Brusegadi 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but you are using only one, narrow definition of the term. in common usage, rebuttal can be the presentation of a counter argument or it can be the presentation of counter evidence. as it was originally phrased, it was utterly non-controversial and NPOV. i'm amused by the parade of suddenly urgent reversions that even this became controversial.Anastrophe 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current is more descriptive. Brusegadi 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal 

message: Stephen McIntyre announced that Hansen has finally released the code.  McIntyre has been requesting the source code used to construct global temps from GISS for some time.  Contrary to the standards of science (see Pseudoscience), Hansen had refused to release the code until now.   Without doubt, the fact GISS had to admit McIntyre found an error put additional pressure on GISS to release the code.  This is a significant development in the controversy. It will give McIntyre more information and many people expect more errors to be found. While Hansen's action is a step forward, Phil Jones of CRU still does not share data and code and so this will continue to be a controversial issue.  The article does not deal with it in any way at this point and it needs to. RonCram 06:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can write about it in the article about Stephen McIntyre, or you could create a new article devoted to the dispute McIntyre has with Hansen about the data. It seems to be a notable thing in the climate-skeptic sector of the blogosphere. In this article we cannot give too much weight on the opinions of one person (but it can be mentioned briefly).  Count Iblis 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine a brief bit might be appropriate in the James Hansen article, as well. Of course, due care must be taken to keep it NPOV. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hansen "frees the code" 

message: It's been a while since I read this whole article from beginning to end. I'd not realized how awful it is. Raymond Arritt 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, I agree with that.  I would much rather see the political stuff merged into the Politics of global warming article.  If we focused just on the science controversy, it could be turned into a decent article. RonCram 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good for a start. Raymond Arritt 01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know anything about merging articles or portions of articles.  Is it a long process? RonCram 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comment 

message: Someone requested more info about the provision of this act requiring government scientists to provide data and methods. Here's a quote from the Act:
:SEC. 1009. RELEASE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH RESULTS.
::(a) Principles- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the heads of all Federal civilian agencies that conduct scientific research, shall develop and issue an overarching set of principles to ensure the communication and open exchange of data and results to other agencies, policymakers, and the public of research conducted by a scientist employed by a Federal civilian agency and to prevent the intentional or unintentional suppression or distortion of such research findings. The principles shall encourage the open exchange of data and results of research undertaken by a scientist employed by such an agency and shall be consistent with existing Federal laws, including chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code (commonly known as the `Bayh-Dole Act’). The principles shall also take into consideration the policies of peer-reviewed scientific journals in which Federal scientists may currently publish results. (page 11 of 208 of the Act)  
BTW, COMPETES is capitalized because it is an acronym for "Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science."  RonCram 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an acronym, but a propagandistic backronym ;-). Anyways, it looks like this is mostly hot air. Note "overarching principle" (i.e. nothing concrete), "encourage the open exchange" (i.e. not require it). It also only applies to federal research agencies. I welcome the sentiment, but I doubt the effect. I fear this will add another bureaucratic layer and have the opposite effect ("before you publish, it has to be vetted by our open access officer. Oh, for vetting that incenvenient piece of research he will have time in 2013, unless his dentist's appointment gets into the way"). But maybe I'm just cynical. --Stephan Schulz 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me this looks more significant a provision than you acknowledge. As an authority-giving clause, this means that principles will be developped and issued, and that these principles will have to require the open exchange of data and results. The language is quite clear despite some appearance of looseness. It actually looks like after Enron - the SEC was 'invited' to develop regulations that would 'encourage' some practices... This translated into SOX. --Childhood's End 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ron, you're ranting again. And no, glaciers *don't* break off and form sea ice  William M. Connolley 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, you are being insulting.  If you are trying to make me think you are delusional, it is not working.  I did not say sea ice breaks off to form glaciers, glaciers break off and become sea ice.  One of the news articles you deleted was about Greenland's glaciers and they do break off into the sea. RonCram 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ?!?Wot are you on?!? Where does sea ice breaks off to form glaciers come from? And no, glaciers don't break off to become sea ice, which is what I criticised you for. Glaciers break off into the sea - buts that a different matter William M. Connolley 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  America COMPETES Act 

message: Recently this was deleted:
A request was made to bring to the talk page for re-adding (actually, it should have been brought to the talk page before deleting, but I have no interest in an edit-war), so I'm doing so. The claim was that it wasn't clear that the source backed up the claim, but if you look at the acknowledgments on the last page, it clearly says:
I feel that this supports the sentence quite amply. Thoughts? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The user may have skimmed over it too fast and not noticed it.  Brusegadi 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindzen funding sources 

message: Ron insists on re-inserting an edit that looks barking to me: "arctic sea ice is approaching its record low, but its current level is within natural climate variability". First, Pielke doesn't say "within natural climate variability" or indeed anything very similar to it, AFAICS. Second, Pielkes original post was on the 10th of Aug and can (just about) be excused noticing that the very data he was relying on said it was already a minimum. But now the ice has declined even further, there is no doubt that "is approaching" is simply wrong: it *is* a record low. We don't have to print everything RP says, especially when its obviously false. RP knows precious little about sea ice, as evidenced by his "Antarctic" comments in the same post William M. Connolley 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.  If the record low is an outlier then being close to the record does not imply being within natural variability.  Including it constitutes WP:OR.  Furthermore, if we already have a new record-low inclusion of that paragraph is not correct, as William Connolley points out.  Ciao, Brusegadi 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, Pielke makes clear from his post that he prefers the site you linked to because it is updated daily.  Your conclusion that Pielke would write about a daily website without looking at it for two days seems ridiculous to me.  There is no question Pielke has read it just prior to his post because he is talking about the news media picking up the story soon.  Pielke does indicate that sea ice will continue to shrink since it is still summer and he provides a link to another website which is updated weekly. The NSIDC website says the previous record was set in 2005.  If the article says sea ice has reached a record low, it also needs to mention when records began to be kept so readers will know these types of measurements were not made in the 1930s.  Pielke's view that sea ice low is due to regional warming and not global warming is a common view among skeptics, including Syun-Ichi Akasofu - the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center.  I used Pielke's quote because it is more recent and directly applicable to the current situation. RonCram 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still makes no sense at all. Pielke is getting data from his preferred site, which says that sea ice has just reached a record low, and you insist he knew that, and he writes a post saying "approaching a record low"? Its obviously wrong. We could perhaps put it on the Pielke page as an example of his errors; but there is no point putting it in here. I notice you haven't troubled to defend your inventing of the stuff about within natural variability William M. Connolley 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, William, it is not obviously wrong.  The data from Cryosphere Today is great data, but the data only goes back a short time.  They did not take those measurements in the 1930s when the previous low happened. Pielke is also exactly right about the question of arctic sea ice melt being from regional or global warming.  I have referenced the images from Cryosphere Today he used for Southern Hemisphere.  In addition, I referenced a Letter to Nature that points out the high natural variability of arctic sea ice and how changes there do not conform to expectations of global warming.  Since this article is about the science controversy, it is important these views are made available to readers. RonCram 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring for a moment your WP:OR regarding 1930 (which neither Pielke nor anyone else but you mention). Where do you get the information that the 1930s should be the "previous low"? (Chapman and Walsh(1993) as well as Vinnikov et al(1999) seem to disagree .... a lot). --Kim D. Petersen 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not read the Vinnikov paper but I know that 1934 was the warmest year in the U.S. in the 20th century.  1934 was also the warmest year in Europe, if you only count the rural stations.  1934 does not show to be the warmest in Russia, but the Russian temp histories are not reliable.  To reach a record low in sea ice melt, you need warm temperatures and you need the arctic to be in a warm period of its 8-10 oscillation.  Since the entire decade of the 1930s was warm, one of those years had to be in the warm period of the regional oscillation.  I think it is clear from Pielke's writings that he is aware of some measure of sea ice that showed it to be quite low in the 1930s.  I do not know what measurement that could be.  Obviously, it is not the satellite method currently being used. RonCram 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pielke and sea ice 

message: see here  Count Iblis 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy and Environment journal rejects Schulte's consensus article 

message: European Science Foundation has reported on the "World Conference on Research Integrity" which met in Portugal from Sep 16-19.  It was organized by the ESF and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity.   They discussed two incidents touching on global warming - the misrepresentation of the examination of station history in China and the NASA error found by Steve McIntyre.  The misrepresentation regarding Chinese station histories is an issue being pushed by Doug Keenan.  Keenan has accused Wang, a co-author of Phil Jones, of unethical behavior.  Both of these issues were originally raised by Steve McIntyre.   It seems misconduct by climatologists to push an alarmist view of global warming is becoming a more important issue all the time.  The article should discuss this. RonCram 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens where you least expect it. Brusegadi 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brusegadi, climate science is a field with one of the worst reputations regarding unethical behavior by scientists. This is mainly due to their refusal to provide data, methods and code so other researchers can reproduce their work.  Almost whenever this info is provided, errors both intentional and unintentional are found. Lindzen is correct to be negative about the state of affairs in climate science. RonCram 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny... a few years back it was secondhand-smoke researchers who, we were told, had a horrible reputation for unethically bending the data to support their "alarmist" views on the harms of passive smoking (cf. anything by Steven Milloy). Now it looks like climate scientists have surpassed even that ethical low point (cf., well, anything by Steven Milloy). It's almost like there's a pattern er something... though I'm sure more study would be needed to establish one. MastCell Talk 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh dear, I wish you hadn't done that... now I feel obliged to ask Ron to stop ranting, again. Ron, please see WP:SOAP and try to use the talk to discuss improvements to the article William M. Connolley 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sorry, the substance: why should this article discuss the conf? According to their prog  they have nothing to say about climate, but a lot to say about medical. Why not try over there? William M. Connolley 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, if you read the article I linked to, you would see that climate issues were discussed just as I wrote. My earlier comment was a response to Brusegadi since he seemed to think that climate science was a rare place to find unethical behavior.  The two fields with these greatest number of these kinds of problems seem to be medicine and climate.  My post is all about making the article better.  Unethical behavior is a major part of this controversy. RonCram 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Conference on Research Integrity to Foster Responsible Research 

message: Ron added the good ol' list of sci... . As has been said often before (usually to a chorus of yes-we-know-that) that page can't be used to assess scientific opinion, because it includes people who are clearly no longer scientist, and scientists with no climate expertise at all. Until that page gets cleaned up, leave it out of things like this William M. Connolley 19:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, I completely disagree.  The list is a good list of scientists including many eminent who are "Professor Emeritus" of climate science.  To say they are no longer scientists is just bogus. RonCram 04:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   This may be a bit not pc for some, but on the topic of Emeritus professor's views... A friend of mine studies physics and he mentioned that (he read it somewhere) in physics the new 'consensus' tends not to be established because scientists change their minds.  It basically happens because all those that believed in the old stuff die.  I thought it was funny.  Brusegadi 04:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ron, I will revert your edit because the article you link to is not primarily about climate scientists.  To be more precise, most of them are not either not climate scientists or not engaged in current research.  Also, I think there is a thread about this in the archives. Brusegadi 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brusegadi, this article is about the controversy regarding the science.  It is completely POV to give readers access to the majority view and not give access to skeptical scientists. The list of skeptical scientists includes both climate scientists and other types of geophysical scientists.  It is not a list of social scientists or some other unrelated field. Give me the date of the archived discussion and I will read it.RonCram 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, just a question -- do you know what "emeritus" means?  Raymond Arritt 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, you really need to stop treating me as if I am uneducated.  Maybe I am just in a bad mood tonight, but I am beginning to find your questions offensive.  Of course I know what "emeritus" means - not every retired prof is given the status of "emeritus."  This is a title of honor and usually means the prof still keeps an office at the university, at least the ones I knew did, even though they do not have any teaching responsibilities.  These older gents have tons of wisdom and are often asked to attend meetings with contributors to the university.  BTW, instead of insulting me with these silly questions, you ought to start paying me for all the things I have taught you.  Without me you would not know about the data archiving policies of AGU - or how the distribution of weather stations could yield a non-warming trend overall but still show a warming trend using the grid cell method. RonCram 06:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The practice varies, but at most universities "emeritus" simply means retired after a certain minimum period of service. It's not usually a "title of honor" as you say. Raymond Arritt 13:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, that is nonsense.  I defy you to name me one university (in the U.S.) that has such a practice. RonCram 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look under emeritus here you will see that it does not say anything about "achievements" and that the title is "customarily awarded" to faculty that is retiring after 15 years of service.  You do not have to be a full professor so associates may get it too.  Finally, right under "18.4 Retired Faculty" emeritus is used interchangeably with "retired faculty."    What I did not know is that it could also be awarded to people doing mostly administrative work.  For those of you who like to learn about places other than the United States, Cambridge has definitions for some slang terms they use; including one that seems right on for this "argument."  Brusegadi 23:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your first link, I'm wondering if Ron will accept such a reference to an obscure backwater college. Raymond Arritt 23:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Cambridge? Isn't that Europe? Where everybody is a socialist weeny?--Stephan Schulz 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: He can always say that it is a school for liberal potheads... :) Brusegadi 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of... 

message: As far as i can see the insertion of a paper by Laxon et al(2003), is misrepresenting the results of the paper (by cherry-picking a quote):
:However, researchers claim computer models predictions poorly represent observed changes in arctic sea ice.
:'The observed variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, which shows that the sea ice mass can change by up to 16% within one year, contrasts with the concept of a slowly dwindling ice pack, produced by greenhouse warming. http://www.cpom.org/research/swl-nature.pdf High interannual variability of sea ice thickness in the Arctic region] by Seymour Laxon, Neil Peacock & Doug Smith published by Nature, October 30, 2003
This makes us think that Laxon et al are arguing against the previous paragraph, which as far as i can see is entirely wrong. If i read the paper correctly - then Laxon et al. are arguing that the melt is being underestimated by models (corresponding well with the former paragraph) - not that it is being overestimated as the text implies. (i'm btw. a bit confused about what this is doing here - since it seems more appropriate elsewhere - and looks to me to be an "invented" controversy). --Kim D. Petersen 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, you seem to be confused by many things.  If you read the paper in its entirety, you would the authors are convinced the arctic sea ice melt is not related to global warming but to natural climate variability, including sometimes longer summer seasons.  They see an eight year oscillation between longer and shorter summer melt seasons and they also see a much greater variability in arctic sea ice on an annual basis than the computer models show. This is further support of Pielke's position that arctic sea ice melt is related to regional warming and not global warming.  Pielke's comments continue to be germane to this aspect of the scientific controversy.  If you still want to delete this section, I suggest you try WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RonCram 14:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead, how about a short summary in the style of "However, in light of recent studies and observations made in Antartica, some scientists argue that Arctic ice melting is attributable to regional warming instead of global warming (refs)" ? --Childhood's End 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would implicitely accept a broken use of language. Global warming and local warming don't conflict, one is an expression of the other. I could just as well claim that the "arctic sea ice is not melting, just some chunks of ice swimming in the arctic ocean". --Stephan Schulz 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can obviously have ice melting because the region has warmed without it being a consequence of planetary warming.... That does not mean that global warming and regional warming are conflicting. --Childhood's End 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm confused here, where exactly does the Laxon paper argue against global warming or argue for local variability? It actually does the opposite. Its stating that the circulation issues have little effect - and (again from my reading) that the GCM's are understating the consequences in loss of sea-ice. The actual cherry-picked quote is even further misrepresenting since the current melt is way beyond 16% (annual variation) - since its currently more than 20% below the last record.... --Kim D. Petersen 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read my proposal as "Provided Ron is right"...  But at least Pielke seems to make the suggestion no? --Childhood's End 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: William, I resent you saying I am misrepresenting the paper.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  All of my statements have been accurate.  Laxon, Peacock and Smith write: "However, it is unclear from model results whether ice thickness is controlled mainly by changes in thermodynamic (radiative or thermal) forcing5, or by dynamic (ocean and wind stress) forcing7."  Thermodynamic forcings may be global but dynamic forcings are more closely related to regional climate. They also write: "The majority of Arctic Ocean models suggest that variability in Arctic ice thickness occurs on decadal timescales5,6,9, and is caused mainly by dynamic forcing6–8."  They write: "However, numerical simulations of ice thickness are undermined by uncertainties in the representation of physical processes9, and by differences in methods used to couple the ice, ocean and atmosphere12, resulting in significant discrepancies between model simulations of ice thickness evolution14."  Here they admit the models are not very good.  They also write: "The lack of continuous large-scale thickness measurements means that conclusions drawn from numerical simulations regarding the variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, and the processes that control it, remain untested3,12."  Here they admit that we simply do not have much data about sea ice in the past.  Pielke writes that we are "approaching" record lows and he must have a reason for his view.  No doubt Pielke has the 1930s in view as the time period of the previous low but satellite records were not kept at that time.  To make a big deal out of the current level of sea ice is unscientific.  We do not have enough data to make claims about record lows in arctic sea ice. RonCram 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Resent all you like, it doesn't change your inability to learn, though your ablilty to read Pielkes mind is impressive. But I agree, making a big deal of the current Arctic sea ice is a bad idea - see the current t:GW or indeed http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/09/betting_on_sea_ice.php William M. Connolley 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, you are just being pejorative.  You did not attempt to deal with any of the facts I presented so you did not support your claim regarding my "inability to learn."  I accurately represented the paper which shows the authors are not convinced the level of sea ice is related to global warming.  Your blog link does not really deal with issue of regional vs. global warming.  You only project that next year will not set a new record.  It seems a safe bet to me.  Let me know if you get any takers. RonCram 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laxon et al. 

message: J. Scott Armstrong has presented on this issue.  I just recently found his presentation online.  The PowerPoint (in pdf form) is here.   Video of him making the presentation is here.   Armstrong audited IPCC chapter 8 and found 72 principles of scientific forecasting were violated.  I believe this was discussed here before.  Why is it not in the article? If there was a reason, I have forgotten. RonCram 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is an extremely important criticism of the IPCC methodology. Further coverage here 
BadCop666 08:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can point to him again, David Orrell makes a similar claim, and few would say he's not an authority in this regard. You can take a glimpse at . --Childhood's End 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictions of global warming are not based on scientific forecasting 

message: The content of the section does not match the section heading and is very poorly written.  A great deal of the section is criticism of skeptics and people saying they should stop being skeptical, but not much on skeptical scientists actually changing their position.  If there is something in this section worth saving, please point it out.  A portion of it seems to be discussing adaptation so it seems that may belong in a different section or a different article.  The section on Lindzen might be interesting if I could figure out what is being said and who is talking.  There are so many quotation marks and people quoting people that it is nearly unintelligible. I believe an end quotation mark is missing but am not certain where it goes. The stuff on the Bush Administration probably belongs in the Politics of global warming article. Will someone please more familiar with this section take a look and see if you can make this better by shortening it and tightening it up?  RonCram 13:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one spoke up for this section, I deleted it and placed it in the Talk page of Politics of global warming.  They can discuss it there and use any part as they see fit. RonCram 12:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the section "The evolving position of some skeptics" 

message: Based on the work of Anthony Watts, Stephen McIntyre has completed a reconstruction of U.S. temp history using only those weather stations identified so far as meeting the requirements to be CRN level 1 (excellent) or level 2 (good) stations.  McIntyre writes: 
:So what does my calculation using CRN1-2 data look like: see below, which includes a 2007 estimate (using the 2006 difference between the CRN1-2 and NOAA to estimate 2007 CRN1-2 from the YTD NOAA results.) In this calculation, the warmest year remains 1934 by a margin of nearly 0.2 (enough to be “statistically significant” according to things that GISS has said, then 1921, then 1998, then 2006 in fourth place. Values since 1998 have been at uninterrupted high levels. Looking at the graph, it’s definitely noticeable - but is it the sort of change that’s inconsistent with the sort of stochastic behavior in the early part of the series - hard to tell here. If you cut the series off in 1997, you certainly wouldn’t have noticed anything odd about the 1990s. You can sort of see in retrospect why MBH98-99 were so excited about how warm 1998 and in such a rush to include it in their article. The main verification issues right now is why the ROW history is so different from the US - is it climatic or nonclimatic? And can one tell?
McIntyre points out that this temp series is only for the U.S. and not the world. The benefit of McIntyre's work is that it is completely open.  He explains every step and provides all of the code so other statisticians can see what he is doing and they can explain why they think different approaches may be better.  At least one other statistician is running his own temp series and McIntyre has included it in his post marked as "Vliet minus CRN1-2 TOBS (SM)."  Vliet is a poster known as JohnV.  McIntyre's openness is in stark contrast to the unscientific refusal of NOAA, GISS and CRU to provide all of their data, methods and code.  Slowly, the the data, methods and code information has been leaking out and allowing this kind of reconstruction.  If the rest of the world (ROW) has microsite issues (and apparently they are greater outside the US than inside), the global warming may be much less than currently thought. RonCram 12:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My question is, regardless of whether certain stations are removed, is there still a warming trend?  I'm sort of playing around with the idea that if not for the aerosol cooling that followed I wonder if the thirties might have seen the beginning of a runaway greenhouse effect, but perhaps it was just delayed.  Anyway, just the ramblings of a non-expert. 69.107.224.129 05:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McIntyre has completed a U.S. temperature series reconstruction using CRN1-2 stations 

message: The "Related controversies" section is outrageously biased. If such a section belongs in this article (which I doubt) then it should also cover "related controversies" involving global warming's true believers. If it's necessary to highlight a link between global warming scepticism and a rejection of peer-reviewed studies of passive smoking and of the role of CFCs in depleting the ozone layer, it's equally necessary to highlight a link between global warming activism and a rejection of peer-reviewed studies of GM foods, whaling, selective logging and the eco-advisibility of scuttling the Brent Spar oil platform - all of which controversies found or find Greenpeace (which for some reason is quoted in this section) on the wrong side of the science. The whole section should be deleted, in my view - especially as this article is currently being edited to remove political aspects of the global warming controversy. Vinny Burgoo 17:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not thrilled with this section either. The larger point is that the whole article is a mess -- it's a dog's breakfast of charges, counter-charges, The Gospel According to Steven McIntyre, irrelevant tangents, and whatever else someone with a particular POV felt like throwing in. Raymond Arritt 17:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen McIntyre, please. And the man is merely a saint, not a messiah. [insert winkie thing] Vinny Burgoo 18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Vinny.  The article would be greatly enhanced by removing this entire section. RonCram 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's gone now - though I didn't really mean to delete it. My connection to Wikipedia was playing up and ...  Anyway, it's done.
Its back, since I've restored it. There is no consensus to edit the article to remove politics - this seems to be a Cramism William M. Connolley 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It should definitely be removed. But if it stays we should at least mention the recent study in Nature showing that the previous science on CFCs and the ozone layer may have been completely wrong.  Iceage77 19:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you feel like fighting that particular one, start at ozone depletion (and read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/uncertainty-in-polar-ozone-depletion/langswitch_lang/in too) William M. Connolley 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WMC: RealClimate has a known bias towards reality, and we all know that reality has a liberal bias! Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing from your link shows that the previous science may have been "completely" wrong.  Again, I love the skepticism of some 'skeptics.'  One study in thousands finds something different and they immediately jump on the wagon and do not consider that the probability of one study being wrong is much greater than the probability of thousands of studies being wrong... Brusegadi 01:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RealClimate has a known bias towards climate change alarmism, funded as it is by an environmental PR organisation. I would agree however that reality has a liberal bias, being a liberal myself (a real one). Iceage77 22:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, more evidence that GW "skepticism" is actually ideologically driven wishful thinking, based on credulous acceptance of each new talking point that appears to reinforce tightly held priors.JQ 00:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've hit the nail on the head.  Global warming theory has been 100% embraced by the left as a cover for their failed authoritarian ideology. Iceage77 00:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Iceage77 gives more evidence that the issues are closely related, both in terms of the scientific issues and the people involved.JQ 22:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its funny.  My little sister thinks the right is the authoritarian one...  She grew up under GW Bush. Brusegadi 08:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ozone depletion is perhaps relevant. Passive smoking has nothing to do with global warming. Iceage77 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not about global warming, it is about the global warming controversy. The global warming controversy is not a controversy within the climate science community. It is a controversy in which people motivated mainly by interests other than scientific curiosity dispute the results of the climate science community. The very fact that passive smoking has nothing to do with the science of global warming makes it relevant for this article as it shows that many of the leading skeptics have a history of being involved in controversies in which they as non experts disputed a scientific consensus. Count Iblis 23:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Count Iblis, you are wrong.  This article is about the controversy within the science community.  See my comment below.RonCram 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Weird. Who elected you dictator of the page content? William M. Connolley 11:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: many of the leading skeptics have a history of being involved in controversies in which they as non experts disputed a scientific consensus.  I agree with this line of reasoning as it provides the readership with a measure of the veracity of those involved in the controversy.  --Skyemoor 11:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A measure of their veracity? That's a bit harsh. How about "a measure of their credibility"? Vinny Burgoo 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Totally agree. The "Related controversies" part should be removed as pure manipulation and propaganda, and an example of proponents of this theory at trying to discrediting critics. But if some of the critics has been wrong before, that is no relevant reason not to belive that they are wrong on this issue. Everyone of us has been wrong before. That does not imply that everything everybody says is wrong.--85.165.87.54 07:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider the probability of them taking such minority views in more than one occasion, it is small enough to merit inclusion.  Now, each time they take minority positions in terms of the science but "majority" positions in terms of concentrated money interests (read tobacco, oil companies.)  Finally, what about the fact that the controversies involved different fields of expertise.  First they argued over the effects of tabbaco and now over the effects of ghgs.  So, do you trust a guy who takes a small position view twice (small probability), is wrong one of the times, there is a good chance someone is paying him to take the position, and he is not arguing over matters that include his field of expertise...?  I say the section is highly relevant. Brusegadi 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related controversies 

message: I am restoring a section deleted by Ron Cram, The Evolving Position of Some Skeptics, first because the was no consensus, in fact he was the only one who seemed to want it gone.  Second because it was apparently user 4.246 who contributed that section March 4-8 of this year, and to which others contributed, according to the history.  Now I may be off here but I note that Cram had some disputes with user 4.246 as seen above and which, perhaps, Cram felt obliged to stike back on by deleting the entire section?  Anyway unlike Cram which states that it is "off topic" on the Talk page of the Politics of Global Warming article where he put it, "very poorly written" and "nearly unintelligible" he says above, I think that it lays out a nice deliniation between the mitigators and the adaptationists and explains the politics behind the latter position and is obviously part of the controversy.  If others in the pro-GW camp feel that it should be deleted then it can be but it simply looks like bias for one person from the opposite camp to remove it for questionable reasons.  Perhaps if 4.246 happens to see this he/she might comment... 69.107.224.129 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring Section 

message: I just read the abstract of the S.I. Rasool article in Science discussed above.  It is interesting because the abstract makes the same claim regarding CO2 that many skeptics of global warming also make.  Here's the quote:
: It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 
Most skeptics believe that whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened.  It is interesting that Rasool also agrees that CO2 is not a problem. RonCram 12:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a tense problem. That was from 1971. This is all on global cooling anyway William M. Connolley 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, this is not news. The effect of adding CO2 on forcing is logarithmic, IIRC. (William will correct me if I'm wrong.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, I am well aware it was from 1971.  However, I have never seen any science to refute this finding and I know a good many skeptics who continue to hold this position. Ben, thank you for pointing out that it is not news.  The article should have included this information long ago.  I added it. RonCram 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, the logarithmic effect of CO2 was known to Arrhenius in 1899, has been known since, and it is part of the IPCC consensus. What this has to do with " whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened" is unclear, though. CO2 has "only" increased a bit more than 30% compared to pre-industrial times. It's projeced to go much higher. And of course we are not in temperature equilibrium with respect to current forcing, either. --Stephan Schulz 13:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, if Arrhenius knew of the logarithmic effect in 1899, that only confirms that this should be discussed in this controversy.  The controversial part may be the "whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened," but it is clear that Rasool did not see CO2 as a problem in the future.  There is no reason the logarithmic nature of CO2 should be left out of an article on the controversy about global warming. Please explain that to Kim. RonCram 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the logarithmic nature is not controversial at all. That's why climate sensitivity is given in degrees Celsius (or whatever unit of temperature) per CO2 doubling. CO2 grows exponentially - temperature grows linearly. Or, equivalently, linear increase of CO2 causes logarithmic increase in (equilibrium) temperature. And your summary of the abstract is almost entirely wrong. At least the abstract does not say that "CO2 is not a problem", it contrasts the logarithmic influence of CO2 with the different behavior of areosols. --Stephan Schulz 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The contribution of CO2 to warming isn't even logarithmic--it's asymptotic.  The physical process by which CO2 contributes to warming is the absorbtion of photons in a certain frequency spectrum.  An infinite amount of CO2 cannot absorb more than 100% of those photons.  This means that a mathematical model that assumes (or posits) a constant increase in temperature per doubling of CO2 systematically overestimates the CO2-dependence of temperature.  User:QBeam 10:33 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.238.2 (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is somewhat oversimplified. Furthermore, it is wrong. See Weart's excellent treatment of the subject here. Raymond Arritt 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly oversimplified.  I've ignored the fact that the contribution to the greenhouse effect per photon absorbed is frequency dependent.  That makes it quite a bit harder to compute the real effect, but it doesn't undermine the basic thesis.  Neither does your cite.  Photon absorbtion cannot exceed 100%, ergo, there is an upper bound on the amount of greenhouse effect that is possible.  QED.  User:QBeam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.84.86 (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first part of your statement is true, but the second is not. If 100% of all photons are absorbed, the temperature of the earth will rise without limits (think about it - photons coming in from the Sun, but none are leaving). --Stephan Schulz 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Stephan and William, your comments show that you are either unfamiliar with the arguments of the skeptics or you are being intellectually dishonest.  The fact the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics can be seen here.   Now, if you already knew of these arguments, you are being intellectually dishonest in saying this is not part of the controversy.  You may disagree with Motl and Junk Science, but you do not have the right to say their arguments do not exist. RonCram 13:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, you are confused. Neither of us said that the claim  of logarithmic increase is not "part of the controversy". We said that the fact is not controversial. Everybody with a modicum of knowledge agrees (that, interestingly, seems to exclude Lubos, who uses an self-invented oversimplified model which results not in logarithmic increase, but in a hard asymptotic cap) about this. The fact that skeptics tout this well-known fact, fully accounted for in current models, as a big flaw in the theory, should tell you something about intellectual (dis-)honesty. But back to the topic: What does the Rasool&Schneider paper have to do with this? --Stephan Schulz 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, I am not confused.  The difference between "controversial" and "part of the controversy" is too fine a distinction for an honest man.  Let us put away distinctions between synonyms. Regarding current models, they are worthless - as Orrin Pilkey, J. Scott Armstrong and many others attest.  In addition, current models do not model the negative feedback found by Roy Spencer.  Perhaps most importantly, the models are checked against global surface temp series by CRU or NOAA.  Now, due to the work of Anthony Watts, Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke, we know these global temp series probably greatly exaggerate the amount of warming in the 20th century. This preliminary indication is in accordance with the much lower climate sensitivity published by Stephen Schwartz. Like many things in climate science, I do not think most climate scientists understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2 well. I think Rasool understood the issue better in 1971 than most climate scientists do today. RonCram 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Like many things in climate science, I do not think most climate scientists understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2 well." That's either astonishingly ill-informed, or astonishingly arrogant, or both. Ron, your tendency to give condescending lectures to others, while at the same time making it clear that you are unable to grasp even the simplest quantitative concepts, is wearing thin. Raymond Arritt 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Raymond, it is possible I am both ill-informed and arrogant but my opinion of climate scientists stands.  When I began my study of climate, I did not have this opinion.  It has been formed only after reading about their poor quality science and their antics to cover it up.  However, this discussion really is not furthering the article.  I suggest we go back to the discussing the article and making certain the views of both sides of the controversy are presented. RonCram 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I'd like Ron to find one — just one — climate scientist who he thinks doesn't understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2. Since he claims that "most" don't, this should be easy for him to find. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Benhocking, I would say any climate scientist who thinks CO2 is a major problem does not understand the issue clearly. Am I able to explain their error quantitatively? No.  But their results do not make sense.  More to the point, as a Wikipedia editor, I do not have to explain this.  Wikipedia has to represent both sides of the controversy.  The proper response here is to find a citation for readers to go to that would explain the error the skeptics are making.  That is how we provide a service to readers, not by trying to censor out arguments if you don't like them. RonCram 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I'm not for censoring this information, but I am in favor of providing it accurately. Unlike you, I believe this will make the critics who make this argument look uninformed. I won't argue why the climate scientists "get it", as I don't expect it'll do much good. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction, the logarithmic influence of CO2 on long-wave emissivity isn't accepted just by those "in rough agreement with the IPCC" but by anyone working in the field whether they are pro- or con-IPCC. It's simply a basic fact, measurable in the laboratory and derivable from theory, like water having a dipole moment. Raymond Arritt 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, perhaps I did not write clearly enough for you.  I should have written "the effect resulting from the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics."  Please excuse the ellipsis.  I assumed it was clear from the context.  The fact atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic is not disputed.  What is disputed (and therefore part of the controversy) is whether this logarithmic effect will prevent a doubling of CO2 from having a major effect on climate.  Each new molecule of CO2 in the air has a decreasing effect.  This is well established.  Motl, Junk Science and Rasool all argue that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a problem because of this.  Rather, Rasool feared a coming Ice Age.  A large minority among the skeptics also fear global cooling - which if you look at the history of the planet would appear to be the more reasonable possibility. RonCram 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For this wiki article, the old article by Rasool is not relevant anyway. We have to focus on the controversy as it exists today. The current article does mention that some dispute the consensus figure for climate senisivity. New input by skeptics today about this issue can be mentioned. Count Iblis 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Rasool is not relevant.  His analysis was once the majority opinion and many of the older climatologists still think this is correct. RonCram 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When was it ever a majority opinion? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the reality-based community, never. Raymond Arritt 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: When are you going to stop equating "emeritus" with "honored"? In most cases it just means "retired after X years of service." Five years of service and retiring at age sixty or older is enough at this two-bit liberal arts college, while an obscure tech school just says "a professor who retires becomes professor emeritus."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond arritt (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, you are sadly mistaken that "Emeritus" is not a title of honor.  There are tons of professors who are retired without the title.  Use a dictionary to check the honorary status of "Emeritus Professor."  Or click this link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonCram (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to comment on the links he has provided to several of the best schools in the US (in the US per your request!)????  I believe he gave links showing that in Harvard and MIT Emeritus is NOT honorary.  I gave links showing Brown and Cambridge (yeah, Cambridge is not in the US, just to give the communist perspective...)  This post about Dr. Arritt being "sadly mistaken" precedes another post about Benhocking being "confused".  Fellow editors like Raymond Arritt and Benhocking are very intelligent and highly qualified.  It is unlikely for them to be "sadly mistaken" and "confused" so often; specially when they take the time to provide evidence on such simple matters as the Emeritus status that as far as I know is given to anyone who manages to stay in the department...  Think of it this way; every department thinks they are the best, so if you manage to stay with them until retirement; they say you are Emeritus...  Finally, I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just saying that if you are wrong then typing around telling people how mistaken they are may seem a bit arrogant... Brusegadi 02:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brusegadi, I remember asking for links but I never did see them.  Can you direct me to this link?  Just for my own knowledge, did you click on the link I provided?  I may be a tad older than Raymond and Ben and practices may have changed since my time.  "Emeritus" has always been a revered title and the dictionary still indicates it is so.  It is difficult for me to think this has changed but I am willing to look at the evidence.  In my experience, most retired profs no longer maintained a relationship with the university while "Emeritus" profs continued to maintain an office and keep up on literature in the field.  They would also attend fundraising functions for the university to rub shoulders with donors. RonCram 12:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will post the diffs on your talk page. Brusegadi 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If it were the majority opinion in the 70's why were there so few journal articles published about it? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, you are confusing the view that rising CO2 would not be a problem because of the logarithmic effect and the view that global cooling was coming.  The first viewpoint was widely held.  Most climatologists at the time thought climate was governed mainly by natural forces and that mankind's perturbations would not be catastrophic.  A minority group thought global cooling was coming.RonCram 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the only one of those who appears to be significantly "honored" is the first one, and not in the field of climatology, but in subnuclear physics. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, we should give credit where it's due. The other three were good scientists in their day. Henk Tennekes was (is) a great boundary-layer guy but never had anything to do with climate as far as I know (the upper limit of his time scale of interest was basically the diurnal cycle). Bryson was one of the leaders in looking at the interface of climate and society. Kukla is the only one of the three who could be considered a climatologist in the modern sense of someone who looks at the physical processes involved in the dynamics of climate. Raymond Arritt 03:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I meant no insult to those guys, I was going completely off the wikilinks Ron provided and know nothing else about them. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA scientist claims CO2 is not a problem 

message: I've made a few changes to the Funding for skeptics section.  In particular, I've clarified the nature of the IREA (they're a co-op, not a power producer themselves) and removed some of the more questionable phrasing ("to confuse the issue"? we can't say that in the article, only quote it) and also replaced the quote from an article that paraphrases the UCS report with a quote directly from the report itself.  I'll be happy to discuss these changes with anyone who has a problem with them.  --Sapphic 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding for skeptics