Talk:Climate change/Archive 20

message: See Talk:Global_warming/OldTalk5#Standards_.26_Chemical_names for the discussion last time round. Anything new? Different numbers of people on either end? William M. Connolley 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming from Britain, I can understand why you would like to use British English. Only four people, including Connolley, suggested or implied that sulphate should be used. This is not a great number. The consensus was based upon the fact that the original spelling was sulphate, and that for that reason alone we should leave it. It still stands, however, the IUPAC suggest using sulfate. This is a scientific article, so lets keep it as scientific as possible. Also note, this article is using American English. It would seem redundant to use American English in everything except for the very word that IUPAC has already suggested as spelled with American English. It's also rather redundant to use sulphate in one part of the article and then sulfate in another part of the same article. ~ UBeR 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind much either way. If left alone, I spell it sulphate, because it's obviously the correct thing to do ;-), but the IUPAC and Wikipedia MOS weigh in on the other side. Is this article really American English? I've become rather desensitized about the issue (my books are half/half), and probably write a Frankenstein dialect myself... --Stephan Schulz 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article started out in BE but has tended to drift toward AE, probably because there are more of us then there are of them... I have a slight preference for maintaining the original convention but don't care much either way. (Stuff like this crops up all the time. In the Beatles Project there's been a huge brawl over whether it should be the Beatles, or The Beatles. Some people take things way too seriously, imo.) Raymond Arritt 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Following up, I just noticed that the AR4 SPM mixes British and American spelling. Raymond Arritt 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you get angry when no one agrees with you? ~ UBeR 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:ENGVAR. --h2g2bob 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MoS states, "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes)," and, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)" Currently, everything is written in American English, save the word "sulphate" used once in this article, with that spelling. So... You could change the entire article back to British English, as that is what was used for first two edits (in 2002), prior to Ed Poor (major contributor to the early article) who began using American English. Next, the MoS states, "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated." Finally, it says, if those above things don't apply, then go to the first major contributor's edit. So you're right in the sense that it does indeed state that; you're wrong in that sense that that is the one we should follow first. ~ UBeR 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, if you fail to strongly support William in every detail, you will be kicked out of the conspiracy! We may even be forced to retract your Cabal Membership and invalidate your secret decoder ring! --Stephan Schulz 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no - not my ring! :-( Vsmith 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just reviewing old talk and find I've missed this :-(. We really need this page organised better William M. Connolley 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sul(ph|f)ate

message: I found a 'citation needed' for the claim that CO2 was last this high 40 million year ago (mya). I did a google scholar search, and the top ranked article (widely cited) was Pearson and Palmer 2000 in Nature. However, looking over their graph in figure 3b (for those fortunate enough to have full text access) they have a data point something like 440 ppm for 24mya. This is their oldest data point in the more recent series; they have a 'no data' gap between 25 and 39 mya, then a separate series ranging much higher from 40 mya going back (into the 1000+ppm range). Anyway sorry if anyone had a strong basis for the 40 mya figure and just didn't have the ref handy, but this article has a pretty clear peak at 24 mya that's higher than today (if not higher than many projected 21st century increases).Birdbrainscan 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference of couse is that the 300ppm(?) jump in C02 that happens back then didn't occur in just 50 years. What is the point of trying to find time of highest co2 level. Level of co2 won't show if we are effecting the natural level significantly, we have to look at the change in co2, has there been such rapid change thta we have seen in the last 50 years?--155.144.251.120 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as we know, the sharpness of the rise in CO2 is unprecedented. It certainly is in the last few thousand years. But the farther back we go, the coarser our temporal resolution goes. We simply cannot plausibly isolate any given 100 year span 500 million years ago. --Stephan Schulz 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date CO2 last higher than today

message: Re the people intent on recasting this issue as a "theory" and not a "fact": Of course, out of the 6,000,000,000 people on this earth, ONE person will be a scientist who disagrees with global warming. As a study showed, however, out of 928 RANDOMLY selected, peer reviewed science articles pertaining to global warming, NONE of them discussed it as anything but fact. Why do these people wish to recast global warming as a "theory", and get people not to act? Do you not care about your children's lives? The science is HARD fact. No buts, ifs, or conditionals about it. Rather than listen to the media about whether it's true or not, simply look in science journals. Almost 50% of all news media articles wrote about global warming as a "Theory" and "unconfirmed", even though 0% of scientists took this view.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.36.80 (talk • contribs).
Yes.  There is doubt.  Consensus and conventional wisdom are historically inaccurate in many cases....and downright tragic in others.  I've witnessed the consensus on silicone breast implants, IUDs, salt, eggs, fat, etc.  To have doubt about the HYPOTHESIS!!!! of significant global warming due to human causation (the "null hypothesis", by the way), one simply needs to look at science and history together.  I don't specifically need history, however, anyone who knows history knows that it is a living thing and that experts and consensus groups have a pretty colorful tradition.  
As for the science, we don't even need to mention the data to find serious flaws.  The absolute discarding of the scientific method with respect to the latest, fashionable societal self-hatred trend is simply disgusting.  Theory, hypothesis, the rejection of the null hypothesis......what happened to the delineation and careful use of these terms?
Does anyone remember what a THEORY is????  Does anyone recall the rigor necessary for the establishment of a theory?  Good God!(my little joke).  Seriously, at best we're talking hypothesis here.  No one denies that the earth is warming.  OK.  What is the earth's temperature supposed to be doing?  Remaining stable?  Are "scientists" really serious when they allude to this?  REALLY?  
I don't know what the answer is.  You know what else?  No one else knows either.  There's the doubt, and I'm quite confidant in it.  It takes me about 5 minutes of simple researching to REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS YOU SHOULD SHUT UP.  Let's see......anyone care to venture what apocalyptic "theory" we'll be discussing 10 years from now?
Shame on us.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpgerber (talk • contribs) 
:Sadly, people do not seem to understand what a theory is.  Read the following definition from Wikipedia: In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
''
:Please note that gravitation is still only a theory.  Global warming certainly has not yet risen to this level of proof.  Global warming is simply a hypothesis until proven scientifically - which will take many years from the current nascent state of the science.  ~ Rameses 06:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page is for discussing specific things about the article.  If you wish to discuss / shout in caps about the topic of the article, you probably should head to a venue more appropriate for that. —AySz88\^-^ 17:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we've seen that.  Now check out Oregon Petition for a description and some critique of that project.  Note that it's also 6-8 years old; a lot has changed.  (Incidentally for other editors: I reverted the addition of a link to the petition in the intro of this article a few days ago.)  bikeable (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Touche` How about past scares? Like global cooling, global climate change? And has anyone heard of the global 1500 year model? I realize that something is happening to the earth, but just because Al Gore says people are the cause of doesn't mean I believe him (a joke don't take that seriously) . I'll find more information about this 1500 year cycle. Gavinthesavage 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there any doubt, at all?

message: I see the article has a section on "History of Warming." However, I was wondering if anyone thinks it might be of value to have a section also on the "History of Climate Predictions" or some such similar title? Below is a collection of various climate predictions (both for heating and cooling) going back to 1923 which should be useful in the event anyone is interested adding such a section.
: I don't see what relavance it has to global warming. Global warming is based mainly on C02 output. Until the mass exponential increase in the number of coal burners there were constantly people finding different cyclical changes as mentioned in all your links below. Surely there is a an article where such history would fit better, perhaps even make history of earth climate prediction?
===NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINES===
Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead - May 21, 1975
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D137B93C3AB178ED85F418785F9 
  
REPORT THE ARCTIC IS GETTING WARMER; Explorers and Fishermen Find Climate Moderating About Spitsbergen. FIRST NOTED ABOUT 1918 Old Glaciers Have Disappeared - February 25, 1923  http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F13F7395516738DDDAC0A94DA405B838EF1D3 
 
MACMILLAN REPORTS SIGNS OF NEW ICE AGE; Explorer Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers -- Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical - September 28, 1924    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C14FB3C5B12738DDDA10A94D1405B848EF1D3
   
AMERICA IN LONGEST WARM SPELL SINCE 1776; TEMPERATURE LINE RECORDS  A 25-YEAR RISE - March 27, 1933
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FF3D5E1A7A93C5AB1788D85F478385F9 
 
===Google Books:search results===
"...there are unmistakable indications that the earth's
climate is getting colder."
from Editorial Research Reports By inc Congressional Quarterly, 1986
http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22climate%20is%20getting%20colder%22
 
"World temperatures rose sharply in the latter half of the decade, ... It would
appear that at present world temperatures are falling"   -- Bulletin of the  American Meteorological
Society---1940  
http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22world%20temperatures%20rose%20sharply%22
 
"There is some evidence that our climate is getting colder..."   Sciene magazine, 1944
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01644869&id=NcgCAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&pgis=1
 
"There is evidence that the worlds climate is getting warmer" ---1950
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01259095&id=s5gFAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world's+climate+is+%22&dq=%22world's+climate+is+%22&pgis=1
 
"The Acrtic is getting warmer"
http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=arctic+is+getting+warmer&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=
 
"The Arctic is getting cooler"
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22arctic%20is%20getting%20colder%22&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp
 
"Both the USA, where certain States have been suffering a drought, and the USSR,
where the climate is becoming colder... "   Assessing the New Political Trends, Dublin, 1976
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02509012&id=se_N25iAuv4C&q=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&pgis=1
 
The late astronomer Sif Fred Hoyle suggested in his 1981 book Ice: the Ultimate Catastaphe, that the earth was on the verge of a new ice age.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0826400647&id=BXkWAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world+temperatures%22&dq=%22world+temperatures%22&pgis=1
 
"But of course the increase in atmospheric CC>2 didn't stop in 1950; it continued,
and even accelerated. Yet since 1950 world temperatures have slacked off"  --- Climat, Man, and History, 1970
Climate, Man, and History - Page 410
http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22Yet%20since%201950%20world%20temperatures%20have%20slacked%20off%22
 
"The high and low temperature records of the Na-tional Weather Service used by
The World Almanac tend to support the theory that the US climate is cooling ..."  The World Almanac, 1975
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0911818030&id=AYtpIEmY7tMC&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1
 
"Since 1960 there have been indications that the North American climate is cooling slightly" 
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC06072187&id=OJoJAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1
Delta x 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Past climate predictions

message: "...there are unmistakable indications that the earth's
climate is getting colder."
from Editorial Research Reports By inc Congressional Quarterly, 1986
http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22climate%20is%20getting%20colder%22
 
"World temperatures rose sharply in the latter half of the decade, ... It would
appear that at present world temperatures are falling"   -- Bulletin of the  American Meteorological
Society---1940  
http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22world%20temperatures%20rose%20sharply%22
 
"There is some evidence that our climate is getting colder..."   Sciene magazine, 1944
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01644869&id=NcgCAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&pgis=1
 
"There is evidence that the worlds climate is getting warmer" ---1950
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01259095&id=s5gFAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world's+climate+is+%22&dq=%22world's+climate+is+%22&pgis=1
 
"The Acrtic is getting warmer"
http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=arctic+is+getting+warmer&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=
 
"The Arctic is getting cooler"
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22arctic%20is%20getting%20colder%22&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp
 
"Both the USA, where certain States have been suffering a drought, and the USSR,
where the climate is becoming colder... "   Assessing the New Political Trends, Dublin, 1976
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02509012&id=se_N25iAuv4C&q=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&pgis=1
 
The late astronomer Sif Fred Hoyle suggested in his 1981 book Ice: the Ultimate Catastaphe, that the earth was on the verge of a new ice age.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0826400647&id=BXkWAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world+temperatures%22&dq=%22world+temperatures%22&pgis=1
 
"But of course the increase in atmospheric CC>2 didn't stop in 1950; it continued,
and even accelerated. Yet since 1950 world temperatures have slacked off"  --- Climat, Man, and History, 1970
Climate, Man, and History - Page 410
http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22Yet%20since%201950%20world%20temperatures%20have%20slacked%20off%22
 
"The high and low temperature records of the Na-tional Weather Service used by
The World Almanac tend to support the theory that the US climate is cooling ..."  The World Almanac, 1975
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0911818030&id=AYtpIEmY7tMC&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1
 
"Since 1960 there have been indications that the North American climate is cooling slightly" 
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC06072187&id=OJoJAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1
Delta x 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Google Books]]:search results

message: The sections "Climate models" and "Other related issues" are not using <ref> tags like the rest of the article.  Anyone up to fixing them?  -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try working on it tomorrow (i.e. later today, March 4th), if no one else does. ~ UBeR 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great :-)  I have a feeling this will be fixed up quickly.  -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a few done. There's nine more, but I will be gone for a bit. If no one else does, I'll change them to footnotes later tonight. ~ UBeR 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten them all into to footnote style references, except for one. The one I did not change had a non-functioning link. I put a note to the editors beside it. Hopefully someone can find the relevant paper. ~ UBeR 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation styles

message: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Mars has "global warming" on the same scale as earth... only it doesn't have people.
So much for this crap junk science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 March 2007
:Read page 2 of the article. --Stephan Schulz 08:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Human stupidity never fails to amaze me. Ugh. Specusci 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks like this "theory" is wrong

message: Did anyone see this Washington Times article about the upcoming British documentary  "The Great Global Warming swindle" (deleted link to copyright violation - see WP:EL and WP:C) which airs Thursday March 8, 2007? It should be very interesting viewing, regardless of which side one is on (personally, I'm on the "side" of whatever is scientifically demonstrable). Here is the trailer from Channel 4. Delta x 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting aside the fact that this "documentary" presents the opinions of nine dissenters above the consensus view of 2,500+ scientists, the trailer and the article don't appear to have much more than solar variation which is too weak to explain observed warming, name calling, and the usual uncertainty games.  The producer is a professional idiot sensationalist according to multiple independent sources. James S. 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just finished watching it, came to wikipedia to see what was written here.... Docomentary was very interresting and well presented.Certainly has made me question the science behind the cause of the current warming, which the program did not contest. Sunspot activity and the delay of temp rises compared to increases in CO2 levels (Temp rise leads to more C02) were the main 2 points made against the current dogma. The problem doesn't seem to be as clear cut as the media would have you believe. Ryanuk 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the media (including the very documentary you viewed) give much too much weight to the few remaining sceptics. I suggest you read more about the actual science. This article is a reasonable start. Also look at attribution of recent climate change, which has some information on the various forcings (which include most prominently solar, aerosols, and greenhouse gases). Finally, you might want to look at the latest IPCC report SPM (linked from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). In short, everything you mention is known and has been taken into account. And using the word dogma in this context is extremely unwarranted. --Stephan Schulz 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it really unwarrented? Its a widely held belief. Has it been proved beyond doubt? Ryanuk 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks James for the articles. "Idiot" seems a little strong. However, Durken's credibility does appear a bit suspect, given that the folks at Channel 4 were "forced to issue a humiliating apology" as a result of some of his earlier works. One wonders why Channel 4 would be opening themselves again to the possibility of even further humiliation, unless they believed this time Durken had something truly meritorious to present.  At any rate, I for one am looking forward to seeing what, if any, solid scientific data he brings to the documentary in support of the thesis that natural, and not human causes, are behind global warming. It think it'll be interesting. Delta x 09:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: s/idiot/sensationalist/, thanks. The show, according to those who have seen it, presents no alternative hypotheses other than solar variation.  What they won't say is that the probability of observed warming being due to solar variation instead of atmospheric CO2 increases is less than 1%.  That carbon dioxide traps reflected infrared radiation and forces it into atmospheric heat is a proven, demonstrable, fact, as sure as gravity. The variation of solar radiation has not been measured for long, but we know enough to tell that it wasn't enough more than it used to be a decade ago to cause the observed warming, with a very high degree of certainty. James S. 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, convert to 75% wind, 25% hydroelectric power, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.  Good luck on getting the developing world in on that.  We can kiss our icecaps and Florida goodbye, and say hello to stronger storms every year for 300 years. Those cold war bomb shelters that got built might have been worth it after all. James S. 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course James. If you'd watched the documentary, you'd know that the Earth's weather events are caused by the disparity in temperatures between the equator and the poles. If the poles warm faster than the equator, then extreme weather events will be less likely to occur. However, you're on a dogmatic rant, so don't let science get in the way.... Grimerking 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is unfortunate that the documentary is probably going to fall upon deaf ears - some of the arguments given against attributation of climate change with CO2 emissions were pretty convincing - particularly the section on the ice cores and the fact that CO2 increases following temperature increase, not preceding it, and the fact that the graphs showing the correlation between the rise in CO2 level and Arctic temperatures over the past century are much less convincing than the one correlating the same temperature variations with solar variation (are these explicitly compared anywhere on Wikipedia?) QmunkE 22:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to look at the aptly named attribution of recent climate change. It has a diagram with the major forcings and the resulting overall temperature change, including solar, greenhouse gases, and sulfate aerosols. If someone claims that a single forcing (i.e. solar) can explain the climate change, he is either ignorant or lying.  --Stephan Schulz 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This graph isn't the one that they used to demonstrate (that one is based on a model which some of the scientists in the film strongly criticise) - the one they used was actual temperature variation at the poles (measured, not predicted) against solar activity (measured, not modelled) and also compared it to carbon dioxide increases (not "greenhouse gases" - as explained in the documentary and articles, water vapour is by a long way the dominating greenhouse gas). The correlation between solar variation and temperature change was much closer than the correlation with CO2 increase. QmunkE 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just trimmed The Great Global Warming Swindle and edited for NPOV Mostlyharmless 10:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, some of you will be interested in reading a very nice (and very critical) review of the Channel 4 documentary by George Monbiot, here.  bikeable (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Channel 4]] (Britain) to air documentary challenging anthropogenic warming

message: These subtractions from the effects sub-article should be emphasized in the main article if you want the financial community to pay attention.  What is says is if governments divert 1% of domestic products to mitigation (presumably through clean technology subsidies) then they can avoid a 25% up to 20% loss in an increasingly sooner time frame. Xferacct 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "simple Wikipedia," I'd say, doesn't quite cut it as a reliable secondary source. ~ UBeR 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with you on that, UBeR. --BozMo talk 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommended replacement of effects

message: Last night I added a couple of  tags (seen as ) to the article in the "causes" section where citations are needed to validate and support the material. But today I see those tags have been removed. The "causes" section begins by offering two opposing views in the first two paragraphs. Each paragraph needs citation tags to show that those views are based on something other than the writers opinions or beliefs on those two views. --Clayc3466 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference for your first tag. The second tag really should be multiple tags for the individual alternatives, since they are separate mechanisms. Raymond Arritt 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On the question "who reverted the page and why" please see the page history. The reason for the revert given was "Rv. fact tags, references are in the linked sub-articles and in the text below (the lead just summarizes))". --BozMo talk 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There shouldn't really be those refs in the intro - they belong on the sub pages linked William M. Connolley 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree references in abstracts are always bad form and in summaries in WP the same rule should apply. It isn't hard to find the basis for everything said and that should do. --BozMo talk 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with putting refs in the intro. This is far from an abstract of a paper made to be published in a journal. ~ UBeR 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who reverted the page?

message: I am only doing this to one of the 4000 articles we are including, sorry (actually maybe two). This version of this article:  is about to be put in a fixed static schools copy of Wikipedia which based on last year will run off at least 50,000 times (see Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. The static 2006 online version gets about 10,000 unique IP hits a day so its worth getting right. If anyone (and I include of course the "group" of people who often disagree with me) could check for errors or obvious bits to remove I'd be grateful: the easy things to do are delete sections/strings or choose a better version. I have volunteers checking all the articles but they've ducked out of this one (and a couple on Islam). --BozMo talk 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did just a quick check, especially to find out if the new references are already included. It seems like there are none at all in that version - is that intentional? --Stephan Schulz 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Its rather hard to tell - you can't give us a diff from the current version, or tell us which version is was taken from? Also (though I'm sure you fix this somehow) none of the refs are there...) . I think I prefer the current intro... William M. Connolley 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I will get the date and version (about 2 months ago). I need to fix references, but that's hard work in algo terms. References are a real pain from Wikipedia because there is no consistency across articles on what they are called. In this article the references are called Notes (!*&^%^$)... why not "References". "Notes" generally refer to "See Also" internal links on WP which for a selection ends up consisting of a list of dead links: hence "notes" got deleted. Sometimes references are called references sometimes citations sometimes further reading. Hmm. Might be better to just pick a recent version. --BozMo talk 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concerns begin with the first sentence (!) since it doesn't include the "projected continuation" bit. A more recent version would be good. Raymond Arritt 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, so this one ? --BozMo talk 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be better. A couple of Qs: shouldn't the page contain a link back to the wiki GW article; and ideally to the version it is from, too? Or is that too much work. As to fixing the [n] refs... what do you do about that? Remove them, or put the hrefs inline, or wot? William M. Connolley 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The version is an offline DVD (or 2 CD with only thumbmail images) primarily, or was intended to be and has had wide use in the developing world. The position on link back and attribution is a bit more complicated than some people make out but we've agreed on improving this versus 2006 (actually mainly on images... the slightly more official 0.5 version isn't really licence compliant but its surprisingly hard work to comply) and in return we've been given permission to publish under the WP logo. The DVD will include a list of all the contributers to WP but not the page histories, which is what the German release did. Whether the static online version should have a clickable link to WP is a moot point: some of the child friendly classifiers insist no links to unsuitable sites (and WP is porn of course). However, I was a bit stunned by the popularity of the online version (partly I think because it delivers pages much fast than WP does) though so I need to think. At the same time getting about 15000 pages of written material hand-checked is a headache enough. Which brings us on to how to handle references offline (since they are links often). Deleting and refering to WP is the easiest fall-back: rendering all the links as text URLs in the "reference" section is possible and depends how many iterations it takes to get it right. In the end its for children and probably too complex to need references but it would be nice to have them anyway. --BozMo talk 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Question: In the interest of consistency, is anybody opposed to a change from "Notes" to "References"? Suprisingly, the WP:MOS is mostly silent about this. It mentions both "Notes" and "References" briefly,  but it leads by example. As far as I can tell, "References" is much more frequent overall, as well. --Stephan Schulz 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. But if we revert back to nice in-line refs the section wouldn't have to exist :-) William M. Connolley 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many jokes I could make now, so I'll leave it at "pftrrrt!" ;-). --20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry/favour 

message: I propose we start looking for a way to give scientists the finger (The Sixth Finger  that is) so that they’ll have the capacity, as (benevolent) brainiacs, to fully comprehend the intricate complexities of climate behavior --- just a little levity folks! Delta x 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal

message: As global warming increases, it is generally expected that the air will become drier and that evaporation from terrestrial water bodies will increase. Paradoxically, terrestrial observations over the past 50 years show the reverse.  Pan evaporation has actually been decreasing worldwide.70.56.91.246 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not drier - RH should stay about constant (so in fact the air should become wetter in absolute terms) William M. Connolley 13:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really does not matter what causes the so-called global warming.  The question is, should the pan evaporation paradox be listed on the front page with all the other counter-theories like increases in solar activity... 01:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pan evaporation measurements are data, not a "counter-theory." Raymond Arritt 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  It's a measurable fact, not theory.  As such, it should be included in the global warming article. kgrr talk20:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Pan evaporation is prima facia evidence that global dimming exists.  You can't deny the measurable facts.  And such, the observation is not a theory.  I think it must be mentioned. kgrr talk21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing prima facia (sic) about the relation to global dimming. Although the instrument is simple, its physical meaning is complicated. Pan evaporation depends on variables including wind speed, radiation, and vapor pressure deficit.  See for example here and here. Raymond Arritt 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK argue with the BBC. They are the source of your "conspiracy".  I quoted a reference to my source.  I will tell you it's because the Pan evaporation experiment is very accurate, simple and repeatable.  Don't get me into an RV war.  I will win. kgrr talk21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is best discussed at talk:global dimming first. But since you've been so unpleaseant ab out rv'ing, I have William M. Connolley 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pan evaporation]]

message: The references provided for the text I removed (diff), added by , come from a channel 4 documentary. Channel 4 is not a reliable source, and is very light on details. The site does not appear to 
* name who came up with these ideas
* provide references to the source material used
* provide any supporting evidence (not verifiable)
In short, C4 are just trying to boost their ratings again, and this is not science. --h2g2bob 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, this is the same Channel 4 which brought you "Dr" Gillian McKeith. --h2g2bob 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on a classic example of [Ad_hominem] h2g2bob Candy 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Channel 4 wouldn't be the source, per se. The source, of course, is the documentary and the scientists featured within. ~ UBeR 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is yet more clap-trap from certain people. It is not up to certain self-professed experts to tell us who is or is not experts - that clearly amounts to "original research" & "personal opinons". As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is neutral and any notable source is worthy of inclusion irrespective of personal opinions of anyone here. By any definition, evidence presented on a mainstream channel of authority in the UK is authoratative and worthy of inclusion. Mike 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In this corner, we have several thousand scientists who have written several thousand articles in peer-reviewed journals.  And in this corner, we have... a television documentary. I don't know how to respond to a proposal that those two bodies of evidence are comparable. Raymond Arritt 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The prog was junk, and I haven't seen anyone even attempt to defend it against the obvious attacks. For example, the "politics" bit at the end says the enviros are suppressing Africa. No mention was made of the fact that Kyoto exempts developing countries William M. Connolley 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, you haven't a clue have you! It may be your opinion that it was junk but that is of no consequence here. It has no impact on this article - Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions but for a record of worthy sources and to be frank your opinions are not worthy.Mike 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the gratuitious unpleasantness. Your failure to defend the prog substantively is noted. Wiki uses *reliable* sources: that involves judgement as to what is reliable. One test is does the source stand up to scrutiny? In this case, the answer (as you've just demonstrated) is no; which is why it doesn't appear. Furthermore, C4 is not a "channel of authority" and nor did the prog produce evidence: it produced opinions William M. Connolley 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William what seems to bother you the most is that the program interviews climate experts: DR BEATE LIEPERT, PROF GRAHAM FARQUHAR, DR MICHAEL RODERICK, DR PETER COX - the same ones that write the journal articles.  It's your opinion that their interview is not valid to be quoted in the Wikipedia pieces - Global warming and Global dimming.  Is their expert opinion not valid because it was on TV instead of a journal??  Please read up about NPOV again before you push your admin rights aroundKgrr 22:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're not on GD now - we're on TGGWS. Try to keep up! William M. Connolley 22:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I didn't see the documentary, but did snoop around the website quite a bit. To be honest, I'm quite interested in their ideas, but there's no references on the website to anything: not to other websites, let alone journalists. I didn't spot any names (except one, who wasn't explicitly linked to the claims made on the site). I don't mind inclusion of this material, if it's got a good source. --h2g2bob 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Channel 4 called it polemic from the get-go. And polemic doesn't necessarily equate to "bad." Einstein was polemic. Nicola was polemic. So lets not try to twist things into something they're not. ~ UBeR 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've said, articles on films, books, movies, etc, should have claims cited, be neutral, be uncritical, and be accurate as to what the work is about.  What we think about it is not important; putting in neutral verifiable credible information on the work is.  Whatever the information is.  So it's crap (or not).  Put it in there.  The show exists, right?  It's been written about, right?  Put it in the article.  Sln3412 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Deleted link to copyright violation per Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Raymond Arritt 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my response under "IPCC", below for my well sourced rebuttal to this program. 66.82.9.87, please do not spam your posts. We do read it even if you post it once. --h2g2bob 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added text from C4 documentary

message: A bit of track but this talk page is exceedingly long. Is it possible that the rate of archiving can be increased? For anyone trying to look at recent updates and debates on the main article this lot can be a bit daunting. --Chickenfeed9 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. ~ UBeR 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also begin to expect reoccurring discussions, almost verbatim, to take place, as it is the norm after archiving. ~ UBeR 01:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: talk page length

message: The NY Times today has an interesting article on the growing backlash against overzealous statements about global warming.  It is especially critical of Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth and the way it tied global warming to hurricanes.  A middle ground is emerging between the Warmers like Al Gore and the Skeptics like Benny Peiser.  The scientists in the middle are demanding more accuracy in statements about global warming and less hype. I think this article may deserved to be mentioned in the article.  RonCram 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. The article takes Peiser as a credible source on existence of a consensus. Raymond Arritt 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I have spent much time in Northern Canada hoping global warming would kick in as soon as possible, I was astounded at how many errors there were in Gore's book. Apparently the publisher who printed it doesn't have a science editor to clean up the zingers. Among other things, Al talks about the "drunken trees of the tundra". But there are no trees in the tundra by definition. Tundra is the zone where the climate is too cold for trees to survive. Then he has pictures of buildings collapsing because of melting permafrost due to "global warming". Building in permafrost is not easy. If you build a basement, the heat from it melts the permafrost and it sinks into the ground, as in the picture. If you build a multi-story apartment, you have to drive piles right to bedrock to prevent it from melting the permafrost and collapsing, as in the picture. And then, there's the mountain pine beetle, which according to Al is killing the "spruce" trees because of global warming. Al is unclear on the difference between pine and spruce. Since my back yard is an official pine beetle control zone, let me explain. The lodgepole pine is fast-growing, short-lived tree that doesn't bother to fight off beetles because it thrives where forest fires regularly destroy all the trees and kill all the beetles. The first tree to bounce back is the lodgepole pine because the heat from the fire causes the seeds to germinate. If there are no forest fires, the spruce will take over. The real problem here is that a century of controlling forest fires has resulted in huge numbers of overmature pines, which is not the natural condition of the forest, and so the pine beetle is killing them in drives. If you want to fix the problem, toss a match into the forest and restore it to its natural state. My solution, since I don't want to burn down the house, is to plant spruce between the old pines. The above is just a sample of the  misinformation, it's a book written by a politician for political reasons. RockyMtnGuy 04:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Growing Backlash

message: The normal CO2 rise between a glacial period and an interglacial period is about 100ppm, the associated temperature rise is about 18-20 degrees F as best I can tell from the article's graphs. The current CO2 level appears to be another 100ppm above the normal interglacial level. Why has the temperature not risen a proportional amount (another 18-20 degrees F) instead of a degree or two? Tobyw 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rate of sea level change graph shows quite rapid melting from early on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png Tobyw 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because the ice ages were caused mainly by slow variations in the Earth-sun geometry, not by CO2 (though CO2 was involved in feedback effects).  See Milankovitch cycles for details. Raymond Arritt 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure thats really right, though its part of it. Another part is that we haven't finished responding to the raised CO2 - we have another degree or so to go. Another is that the forcing is like log(CO2) not linear. Another is that the *global* changes were more like 4-5 oC (?) - not sure about your numbers, maybe for Greenland? Another is that the glacial sees vast ice sheets over N America which have a big feedback effect William M. Connolley 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And then what should they do with that laughable rubbish (which I enjoyed of course) in order to get to this fair summary you are refering to? --BozMo talk 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Simple Analysis

message: (Look at what the cat dragged in)
"The vast majority of climate scientists in the world seriously and objectively studies what it is that influences global climate changes.  We don't hear as much from them in the media as we do from the far smaller but also far more vocal minority of climate scientists who make a living by publicizing alarmist and often outrageous claims about man's detrimental influence on the global climate.  ...Objective scientists find that the evidence supporting a man-made global warming trend is at best skimpy."
So according to the wast "silent majority" of climatologists don't believe in global warming.  The rest are ones cashing in on spreading alarming propaganda.  Don't you wish you could edit their web page and insert a  in several select places? Kgrr 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response under "IPCC", below for my well sourced rebuttal to this program. Let me say that director Martin Durkin actually IS a liar. See also this article in The Telegraph for how he deals with criticism by name calling. Finally, 66.82.9.87, please do not spam your posts. We do read it even if you post it once. --h2g2bob 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This "article" (editorial) makes a mockery of Science

message: Will someone find a pie chart or facts showing man made C02 emissions as a percentage of the total C02 produced on earth? i.e. including sea, other animals, volcanoes, etc. 
I heard on the Channel 4 Global Warming program that man made C02 emissions are actually only a small fraction of total world C02 emissions and so we think we control the situation with greenhouse gases whereas actually we only have a miniscule effect compared to nature... I think hard facts on this issue would be worthwhile for the debate.
GJ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.101.189 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with many of the statements in TGGWS documentary, this falls into the "true but irrelevant" category. The natural sources and sinks are (for all practical purposes) in balance. Fossil fuel burning adds a source term but not a corresponding sink, so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Also measurements of changes in the isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 confirm that fossil fuels are cause of increased CO2.  There are plenty of uncertainties in the science of climate change -- but the reason for the CO2 increase isn't one of them. Raymond Arritt 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find more at Carbon cycle, including a nice diagram. Man-made emissions are somewhere in the 2-4% range. However, they make up about 160% of the actual surplus (the 60% are currently absorbed in various sinks, mostly the ocean). --Stephan Schulz 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I intepret what you said as the carbon cycle being steady state. Will the surplus fossil fuel burning generated CO2 not find a 'sink' to maintain stedy state?  What mechanism has caused CO2 concentrations to be within a narrow channel, unlike the current trend caused by fossil fuel generated CO2? Furthermore, how can we say with certainty, temperature is a function of fossil fuel CO2 concentrations? In other words, how will the fossil generated CO2, that is as you say represents a relatively small portion of CO2 emission into the atmosphere cause such a dramatic rise in temperature as the models predict? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much is explained in the global warming article itself, as well as related articles such as greenhouse gas. Your colleagues at PCMDI can fill in details. Raymond Arritt 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man made C02 emissions as percentage of total world emissions 

message: I consider myself neutral on this subject. I have sifted through the scientific literature and popular media and nothing I've seen proves or disprove the theory of anthropogenic warming beyond doubt. And don't forget, amongst all the arguing--only experiment can dispell doubt. With a large and complex system such as our climate with many coupled variables it makes it impossible to perform a controlled experiment in the laboratory at this time. 
And unfortunately computer models, such as the various climate models, do not generate experimental data because they depend on assumption. Furthermore it's impossible to predict how these assumption interact. Computer models in general are notoriously unreliable and therefore should not be trusted until validated by experiment. Remember, models are written by programmers (the same people who write windows and computer viruses). Programmers are human. As we all know humans make errors, much of them unforeseeable. That’s why software development has a critical step known as beta testing where ‘debugging’ occurs. With scientific models the important debugging feedback loop is generated by comparing the model to the experimental data. Several generations of bugging are required to develop a robust model of any scientific phenomenon. Therefore to validate the climate models we must measure the climate itself. Unfortunately it seems this will take a long time. 
How long is uncertain. In terms of geological reconstructed temperature data we see significant temperature changes occurring in frequency of at least hundreds of years. That's quite a long time to wait to validate a model. After including error in this reconstructed data and any incorrect assumptions and the correlation length will grow further. Since we are only now in the early stages of this grand climate experiment it is hard to imagine how any conclusions can be written in stone.
Simply looking back at the history of science you'll see many popular theories later disproved and mostly forgotten over a generation. Therefore it should not surprise us if the current popular theory of anthropogenic 'green house' CO2 caused warming, which this Wikipedia article claims as the consensus view, to be disproved by experiment and mostly forgotten as other have in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that sense then, the article will be updated accordingly when the future comes. Most of the data is concentrated on current data, not expected future data. Just by trend alone, we can make some inductions. So it would be nonsensical to forget about the article and theory of global warming simply because there's a possibility of being "disproved by experiment" (because it hasn't yet). ~ UBeR 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say Just by trend alone, we can make some inductions, however there's a problem with using trends to predict future behaviour. The difficulty is that you have to assume a causal relationship. The climate change data shows a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, but that's a long way short of a demonstrating causation. Of course you can hypothesize a causal relationship via a model such as greenhouse warming, but how do you parameterize that model when all you've got is the same data, which shows a correlation, that prompted you to consider a causal relationship in the first place? Fizzackerly 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Climate models don't work by extrapolating past trends. The radiation parameterizations are based on line-by-line absoroption/emission properties of radiatively-active gases as can be measured in the laboratory. The relationship of CO2 to temperature then is a result of the physics, not an assumption. Raymond Arritt 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 128.115.27.10 hardly sounds like a 'neutral' person, as he/she strictly toes the skeptics argument line.  They didn't even sign their name...  Skyemoor 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The comments by 128.115.27.10 sound reasonable and sensible to me. I work in the area of structural failure, and predictions of the lifetimes of oil rigs, buildings and bridges is fraught with problems, even in the rather short time scales of decades. A finite element analysis can be way out if the data input is flawed, and just the same applies to global warming models. What if new phenomena are discovered in the interim which throw the calculations? Caution is needed in interpreting the results of computer models, especially in view of the fact that short-term models used to predict the weather are frequently inaccurate, despite the hype by meteorologists. 
Peterlewis 06:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A great deal of caution is used with these models.  If a number of reputable engineers told you that they had computer models showing that a bridge you'd designed was unstable and would collapse, would "let's wait and see" be the right response?  More generally, this is a scientific question about how to deal with situations where n=1 and can never be greater than one.  Experiments cannot be performed as we would require of physics or even biology.  More precisely, they can be performed exactly once, and then you'll have to live with the results.  bikeable (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate models can only validated by actual temperature measurement 

message: Right now we have our temperature format as # °C/F. Just wondering why this is, as it is most typical to have as #° C/F. All of the sources for this article either have it like the latter or no space at all. I suggest we use the latter of my examples. ~ UBeR 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just flipped through a dozen or so articles from several journals in the field. Most don't use a space. I found one that uses # °C. I'd prefer no space, but don't particularly care as long as it's consistent. Raymond Arritt 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Akward temp formatting

message: I have rewritten and considerably compressed the solar section. Please complain here. It was far too bitty, with too much detail that ought to be in the sub article. This was prompted by, and overwrote, Dansphere's changes: apologies (on which subject, :Image:Cosmic_rays_and_temperature_showing_recent_anomaly.JPG looks like a copyvio) William M. Connolley 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It appears likely taht solar variations..." Typo, plus, "It appears likely that...", isn't a formal scientific writing style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar 

message: Given some of the accusations and counter-accusations surrounding the IPCC, don't you think that the IPCC material belongs in Global warming controversy instead of in this article? --Don't lose that number 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The IPCC, like the UN, has an official consensus status despite sometimes getting into contraversy. --BozMo talk 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Official consensus status." Heh. ~ UBeR 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is the proof there is a consensus?  I demand proof, socialist liars.  20 signatures from socialist beaurocrats is not a consensus. 70.176.5.79 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, consider that some of the graphs are doctored, some other data is from a source which has well known inaccuracies, yet more data is many years out of date, one of the scientists claims to have been misrepresented by the program, and director Martin Durkin has previously been in trouble with TV regulator Ofcom over another documentary on gloabl warming 10 years ago, the result of which Channel 4 had to make a prime time apology. Further notice the large number of good-quality references in my statement, and notice the utter lack of any supporting evidence on the Channel 4 website. In the words of Marcus Brigstocke, "someone's pants are on fire. Who's are they? They're Martin Durkin's." --h2g2bob 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this pseudo-science is not legitimate.  They admit in the document they have not provided any of the data but have only "collected" it.  Why not just stick with primary sources rather than some pseudo-governmental group.  Please leave the science up to the scientists, not the politicians. Without this "source" much of the argument fails70.20.192.207 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC 

message: I tried to create the following section today. it was deleted. Is there some reason that some people seem unable to accept this kind of section? I thought others' ideas were welcome at Wikipedia. Thanks. 
 Recent Developments and Findings
 Note: In addition to being a scientific concept, global warming is also a societal issue. This section will be for documenting various recent findings and statements by various groups. If you prefer to focus on the scientific aspects, then that is fine. However, please do not veto others' ideas about might be valid here. Thanks for your help.  
--Steve, Sm8900 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the one who deleted it, but suspect the problem was that the section contained no actual information. By the way, don't use language like "this section will be for..." in the text visible to the reader -- include it as a comment, if necessary. Raymond Arritt 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. That's a valid question. Once I added the section, I added a recent finding by the NOAA that Dec 06 -Feb 07 was the warmest winter on record. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Steve. I've deleted the section. The first part, an editorial comment, does not belong on the article page, but only onto this talk page. If you feel you need it on the article space, format it as an HTML comment , so that it is only visible to editors, not to readers. "Recent developments" is not a good title, as a) what is recent changes permanently (and this is not WikiNews), and b) its bound to become an unorganized list of  vaguely related points, with few of them put into a suitable context for interpretation. Temperatures of a single winter, for example, are suggestive, but irrelevant for global warming. That's why I suggested (in my edit summary) to put it into instrumental temperature record, an article that deals with just these measurements. I think a section on extreme seasons and years would fit in very nicely there (2007 is warmest winter, the 10 warmest winters were in the last 12 years, 1998 and 2005 are the warmest years, and so on). --Stephan Schulz 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Stephan. thanks for your reply. i understand your point. however, my point is that we could use a section for societal issues and developments, along with the more scientific sections. So that's why it seems fine to have a section which tracks these; it would not be simply semi-related points, but it would be valuable for tracking societal developments, which are extremely relevant to this issue. --Steve, User:Sm8900 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "Recent findings" section is a bad idea. If there are any noteworthy recent findings, they can be incorporated into the article accordingly. That's not to say, of course, that other issues unrelated to the scientific prose cannot be discussed. ~ UBeR 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand. However, I would still like a recent developments section, which can reflect new events in societal, political and organizational areas, along with scientific areas. --Steve, Sm8900 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, it can be integrated. ~ UBeR 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy pages recommend that "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." What's current is constantly changing and thus will quickly become obsolete. As UBeR and others have already mentioned, important new findings are better integrated into the article as appropriate. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent findings section

message: Just to explain my recent edit... I was redirected to this article from a search on AGW, which, it seems to me, is the precise term in use in the community of climatologists to refer to the current warming. So I found it a little jarring to read that 'global warming' is both the common and the scientific term in use. Simply not true, though of course scientists will use the common term when talking to the public and among themselves informally. Also, the standard convention when referring to a term as a term, rather than to its referent is to enclose the term in single quotes. Baon 17:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Double quotation marks per MoS and formal American English. ~ UBeR 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both terms are used in the scientific literature (as will be confirmed by a quick search on "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming"). "Global warming" (with "anthropogenic" usually implicit) is more common but "anthropogenic global warming" is useful especially when there is a specific need to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural components of the warming. Raymond Arritt 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to point out, the results for the former search loses about 20,000 articles when the word "anthropogenic" is not included. ~ UBeR 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I get about 90000 hits for "global warming", 411 for "anthropogenic global warming" (and 22600 when searching for individual words, not the whole phrase). All on http://scholar.google.org, of course. On Google it's 67,000,000 vs. 100,000. Did you mix up scholar and Google proper?--Stephan Schulz 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means "global warming" but with a negative on "anthropogenic", like this. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks! --Stephan Schulz 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a little unfair, however, since it eliminates things with "global warming" and "anthropogenic" anywhere, while presumably we want to eliminate things that have the exact phrase "anthropogenic global warming" like so: . I have no idea exactly what's happening with the count there, but it is interesting (probably some sort of Google artifact). -- Leland McInnes 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Returning to the original point, we've established that "global warming" is indeed commonly used in the scientific literature. Move along... Raymond Arritt 20:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: terminology and AGW

message: Every 2 months the Popular Science magazine would come out with a new doomesday global warming graph.  In one issue from the early 1990's we should be 10-20 degrees warmer by 2007.  Where are all the older predictions?
These older preditions would serve a comedic value to a particularly bland subject, I think this is essential to the entire subject to get more people interested in Global Warming.  70.176.5.79 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with Popular Science magazine, but early 1990's predictions as reported in the scientific literature weren't anywhere near as dramatic as that. The best sources for the older predictions are the previous IPCC reports, available here. Raymond Arritt 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just reading about Global warming in an old magazine in the loo it was talking about 70m rise is see level - I've left it there where it can serve some useful purpose. Future psycologists are going to have a field day looking at fear and dread produced by a few early daffodils! Mike 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are all the older predictions? 

message: Check out the wiki article on disinformation. It will explain the whole Global Warming hoax...--68.80.207.22 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Disinformation]]

message: Please can I have the page number where the claims attributed to this reference are? I can find China overtaking the USA "by 2010" but not the other bit? I think it might make more sense to include some of the other figures about the percentage of the worlds CO2 from other sources? --BozMo talk 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, found the bit saying China would be world leader in emissions before 2010. Sentence was changed to reflect this. ~ UBeR 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref 31 

message: To complete this entry, it should have references to the various movements/standards designed to reduce our collective impact on the environment. Examples are Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or TurnLeaf Green Office Standards. Thoughts?
:There's a small "Mitigation" section in this article. ~ UBeR 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, i suggest you look at Mitigation of global warming. thanks for suggesting. --Sm8900 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Description, But Where's The Action!

message: I strongly think that global warming is a fact, and a proven theory. There's been strong evidence on both sides of the topic, but yet, I think it is pretty obvious that the side in favor of global warming has stronger evidence of it. Obviously, there always will be doubters, but eventually there HAS to be end to the debate. And as time passes by, it really seems like everyone agrees with global warming. I'm not exactly an expert on this, but I have heard from people I know, that generally every country agrees that the earth is warming, and that humans are causing this. Also, I consider it a fact because of the weather I've had where I am. In the winter of 2007, temperatures should obviously be cold, with a high temperature at about 40 degrees. However, in January, there was a span of about 1 and a half weeks where the high temperautures were in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s. Moreover, there should be about 30 inches of snow where I live. However, it is March 23, 2007, and we have had less than 15 inches of snow this winter. I don't think such conditions are simple heat waves or coincidences.
P.S. This is my first time trying to sign a message, and I'm sorry if I didn't do it right.
Asiansaxboy101 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you got everything right except you haven't read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. If you're here to help edit the article, though, you are welcome. --Uncle Ed 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind, Asiansaxboy101, talk pages are reserved for discussions about improving the current article. Every once in a while discussions can go on a tangent, or usually serve no purpose than to . On busy pages such as these, we try to limit that to the absolute minimum. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia though! P.S. Wikipedia will automatically sign your name and date for you if you simply type four tildes (~~~~) in a row. ~ UBeR 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My view