Talk:Climate change/Archive 30

message: A change was made some time ago which seem to have been reverted at some point. The section about climate models says that 
*Climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate
The last part implies that models will simulate all aspects of climate someday, which is an unsupportable claim. I suggest that this sentence is qualified with "at least for now" at the end, or that "yet" is removed. --Childhood's End 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence with the "yet" is open-ended. The sentence without it is an absolute statement that indeed is not supportable. What if we restrict it to current climate models and drop the speculation about what they can? "Current climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate". --Stephan Schulz 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see the difference between "but cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate" and "but cannot simulate all aspects of climate, at least for now". Don't they both imply that it might happen in the future, but that we can't do it right now? I don't see that either one suggests that it will happen in the future. That said, for the sake of consensus, I have no objections with the second version as I see them being equivalent statements. If anything, the version you're proposing sounds to me like it is more likely that it will happen in the future than the current version sounds. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Stephen's version resolves it all as it indeed contains no speculative claim. @Ben, the difference between the current wording (with 'yet') and the one I contemplated (with 'at least for now') is that the former suggests it will for sure, while the latter only suggests it might happen (which was also speculative in fact, so I think that the version proposed by Stephan is even better). --Childhood's End 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if this conversation is very logical. Scientific models are approximations of real life processes with varying degrees of accuracy. Sometimes the model exists because the theory is incomplete, sometimes a model is used because of limitations in computing power in dealing with all possible variables, and sometimes a model is used just for convenience to better visualize the otherwise not-so-easily comprehensible, like the idea that atoms can somehow resemble tiny solar systems. In the case of global warming, a key element is the very clear correspondence of atmospheric C02 levels to global temps. Raise the CO2 levels and the temperature goes up. That makes even the simplest climate model inherently predictive. "Speculation" has little to do with any of this. -BC aka Callmebc 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, but CE's point is that there's no reason to believe that any model will ever "simulate all aspects of climate". I disagree with his assertion of the meaning of "yet", but that disagreement is purely academic as I agree with the current version. Even if you do believe that we may one day be able to "simulate all aspects of climate" (which I doubt you do), unless we have a reliable source stating that we shouldn't imply that in the article. (Again, I don't think that "yet" does imply that in this context, but I have no problem leaving the word out, either.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll never be able to simulate all aspects of climate because we'll never know all aspects of climate (or any other nontrivial natural phenomenon, for that matter). I don't see the point of the statement, whether "yet" is included or not. Raymond Arritt 16:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His point was that the use of the word "yet" makes it seem otherwise. Since no one seems to object to the removal of that word, it doesn't really matter whether we agree with him on his interpretation of the word. Others might also interpret it the same way, and removing the word does no harm to how I (and presumably you) interpret it, so it's all good. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate models capabilities 

message: The latest "Global Warming is a Scam" nonsense making its way through the right wing blogosphere is an alleged, and not quite yet published, survey of peer-reviewed journals that purportedly shows that "less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory." This survey report originates with this    Daily Tech blog, which also says that the survey is authored by a medical doctor named Klaus-Martin Schulte and has supposedly been submitted to a journal called "Energy and Environment." The editor of that journal is a "Reader in Geography" named Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.
This pre-publication survey is represented by the Daily Tech blogger, Michael Asher (who has an anti-global warming history), as being an update to this 2004 survey by Naomi Oreskes. 
So we have a right wing blogger reporting on a unpublished survey submitted to an obscure journal of unknown scientific credibility -- what are the odds of this being taken seriously by logical, well-informed, responsible people, especially by those in government?    Yeah, well.... FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update -- I suppose that it's no surprise that Brit Hume of Fox News gave this a mention as well, and of course leaving off one or two minor, little, piddly details.... -BC aka Callmebc 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stopped reading at history professor Naomi Oreskes in the first sentence. Naomi Oreskes is a history of science professor, which is an entirely different discipline from a history professor. Similar name, but not even in the same ballpark in terms of substance. To paraphrase the Simpsons, it's clear whoever writes this blog doesn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground. Raul654 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this matter to the article? Blogs are not reliable sources. Are you just venting some frustration or something? --Blue Tie 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Tis a bit annoying, though, to see how that highly dubious blog post was featured on both a Senate office site, even if it was James Inhofe's, as well as Fox News (of course). If you didn't know any better....  By the way, Oreskes has posted a response to this new, um, report. -BC aka Callmebc 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disinfo Alert: Daily Tech Report of a "New" Survey 

message: Hello, Karbinski - I disagree with the fact tag you inserted, as both the sub-article Effects of global warming and the summary paragraph in this article seem to contain information concerning changes in precipitation, cf statement "A 2001 report by the IPCC suggests that glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as the Larsen Ice Shelf, sea level rise, changes in rainfall patterns, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, are being attributed in part to global warming," and the sections Effects_of_global_warming#More_extreme_weather and Effects_of_global_warming#Increased_evaporation. Thanks,Hal peridol 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is there, but you really have to look for it.  References serve the user in more ways than just verifiability.  Perhaps, the link to percipitation (meteorology), although its a valid article in its own right, should not be linked within the context of the paragraph (other linked sub-articles mention global warming effects, but percipitation does not).Karbinski 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precipitation 

message: Hello, Vinny Burgoo - you have inserted a map of CO2 responsibility 1950-2000 into the Economic effects and impacts section of the article. I don't think it belongs there, and in addition, that section is a summary of the Economics of global warming article. If you think that there is necessary information within the map, it should be described in that article first. Thanks, Hal peridol 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, UBeR, sorry for the misspelling in my edit summary.Hal peridol 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I said the two first images should be consistent with all the other ones, which is what I did. Watch your diffs carefully. ~ UBeR 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that I was looking at the wrong map caption - my apologies. I'm still not sure that the deleted map belongs in the section it was in, though - the Economics section (currently) is concerned with the effects of global warming on the global/local economy, rather than vice versa. This could be changed, but some restructuring would be necessary first, I think. Hal peridol 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map in Economics section 

message: In the course of the prior "debate," I came across a couple of references, like this EPA one, to how "according to the National Academy of Sciences, The phrase "climate change" is growing in preferred use to "global warming" because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures." Apparently this is in reference to this National Academies report, Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. While the main wiki article is called "Global Warming" and that there is another wiki article called Climate Change, I'm thinking that in the content part of the article, when you can use either the term "global warming" or "climate change," and especially in the context of referring to scientific studies, it might be more appropriate to choose "climate change." But in the context of referring to the other aspects of the topic, most especially public opinion and the surrounding politics, then maybe "global warming" should be the preferred choice. This might be a good way to separate the catch phrase from the somewhat more complex underlying science. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 13:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Climate Change" vs. "Global Warming" 

message: I'm wondering if obvious/documented effects that are happening now, like the arctic ice melt and declining polar bear population, as well as some of the things extensively listed in this National Parks Conservation Association report, could be listed as bullet points (with appropriate refs of course) under the existing Attributed and expected effects section in the main article. I think that might help make things cleaner, more readable and hence more effective. -BC aka Callmebc 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet Points? 

message: 1) In the opening section, I do believe "Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe." would be less awkwardly written as "Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount and rate of the overall warming trend that should be expected, and how related climatic changes will vary from region to region around the globe."
2) And that this section, under Causes, be removed altogether: "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. In contrast to the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of increased solar radiation associated with greater numbers of sunspots.[12]"
That doesn't really belong in there since that odd "50 years" bit isn't attributed, and that the solar radiation "hypothesis," along with its 2004 newspaper reference, is now obsolete and basically refuted in the Solar variation section.
Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can get refs for the "50 years" bit (Mauna Loa, radiosonde network, etc).  Also the fact that a hypothesis is obsolete and refuted doesn't stop people from adhering to it, when it's what they desperately want to believe... Raymond Arritt 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see now -- it was Keeling who put together the first direct, realtime CO2 measuring system in the late 50's at the Mauna Loa observatory. Still, though, even with that as a ref, that doesn't justify the "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years" (which is a bit closer to 60 yrs) part since scientists had been researching atmospheric CO2 levels since the late 1800's, with good estimates based on historical records going back as far as 1751. While there have been obvious technological leaps, as well as a huge increase the number of researchers, that's just how science moves once people get seriously curious. That whole section strikes me as just being a weasel insert and should be deleted. And it is very inconsistent with the rest of the article. And my bad on the top posting (I was spending too much time at the top of the page and forgot.) -BC aka Callmebc 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The solar hypothesis is by no means obsolete. The Lockwood and Froelich paper has been widely disputed eg. . Iceage77 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any peer reviewed criticisms? Count Iblis 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That piece was written by a mechanical engineer and not a climate researcher, and the engineer lists himself as being a member of the ironically named Friends of Science Society, which has, surprise surprise, somewhat dubious credentials and does not represent a legit scientific viewpoint by any means. -BC aka Callmebc 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, using one unreliable source to discredit another. ~ UBeR 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society is just as "unreliable" as an unrefereed posting by the Foes of Science... err, if you say so. Raymond Arritt 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no. I was responding to Callmebc, as represented by the amount of indentation. ~ UBeR 19:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see now. Foes of Science vs. the smog blog. You had me worried there for a bit. Raymond Arritt 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, let me reclaim my 3-indent position. The Desmpogblog.com piece summarized The Globe and Mail newspaper piece on "Friends of Science". I would have linked directly to the G&M piece, but you have to pay to see it. However, in the interest of completeness, I located a copy of the article on the author's (Charles Montgomery) website, go see. -BC aka Callmebc 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Addendum -- that Globe and Mail article referred to a "now-infamous 2003 memo" written by a  "U.S. pollster and consultant Frank Luntz". Curiously enough, that Wikipedia article on Luntz   gives no mention of that memo, but a little Googling found a PDF of it quickly enough. The rather interesting bit about global warming starts on page 7 (by the PDF page count). -BC aka Callmebc 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Changes 

message: as i know, CO2 is one of the green house gases.  in plant the photosynthesis uses CO2 and light as energy to produce sugar and oxygen.  so i wonder, if we know how the photosynthesis work, is it possible to make a machine or something that can do a similar job, to transfer CO2 to O2, that can help the earth.  but if it is not possible, why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardchow (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do understand the various mechanisms of photosynthesis. And yes, we can build machines that will extract CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into other carbon compounds. It requires copious amounts of energy, of course. Since plants are already doing this (and with solar energy), why should we build machines? We could just as well collect the biomass of grown plants and sequester it. Various carbon offset programs are regrowing forrests, which keep a certain amount of carbon (and hence CO2) locked up. There are various difficulties about the scale and the economics, though. And as long as we do not actively remove carbon from the biosphere (e.g. by burying it deep underground), the effect is rather limited. Also, if you look at the energy and effort involved, it almost always is easier to not use fossil fuels in the first place than to extract the corresponding amount CO2 from the atmosphere later. --Stephan Schulz 15:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 

message: I take issue with the two images at right which appear under the Causes section of this article. Both of them display CO2 emissions on a per-capita basis, but this is a somewhat deceptive way to display this information. Looking at the images displayed in this article, China and India appear as minor contributors, shaded in the same manner as most of the nations of Africa. In a per-capita sense, this is accurate. Yet the following table contains information from Wikipedia's list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. As we can see, China (at the time of this table's creation) was second only to the US in terms of CO2 emissions, and other nations like India and Japan were also major contributors.
Rank	Country	Annual CO2 emissionsin thousands of metric tons	Percentage of total emissionsHuman Produced carbon dioxide only, total carbon dioxide in atmosphere is 2,700,000,000 thousand tons  (See also: Carbon cycle)
1   	       	6,049,435                                      	22.2 %
2   	       	5,010,170                                      	18.4 %
-   	       	3,115,125                                      	11.4 %
3   	       	1,524,993                                      	5.6 %
4   	       	1,342,962                                      	4.9 %
5   	       	1,257,963                                      	4.6 %
6   	       	808,767                                        	3.0 %
7   	       	639,403                                        	2.3 %
The images which appear in this article do not reflect this, and the reason is obvious. China's per-capita CO2 emissions are approximately one-fifth that of the United States, but China's population is also nearly five times that of the United States. Canada produces less than half the amount of pollution that comes out of India, but in the graph this trend appears in reverse. I wouldn't say it's necessary to remove both of these graphs from the article, but it's obvious that they are not representative of the major global contributors of CO2 and changes are needed. The best way I see to do this and maintain balance would be to generate another chart which shows emissions on a per-nation basis, or in terms of land mass, and replace one of the above images with the new one so both methods of measurement are displayed right next to each other. I don't have the software to do something like this, but perhaps someone here who does would be willing to volunteer. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: China has already surpassed the U.S. in total emissions (and if I'm wrong, it will most certainly happen before 2009). There's a reason China wants to have everyone look at their emissions per capita, and that's because it makes them look better. Whether or not this was the intention of the map maker, that's what it's doing. ~ UBeR 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one case where I believe the solution to a perceived "bias" is to add a second "bias". I.e., an image that shows GHG and/or global warming contributions per square kilometer of land area or something. If I had the skills, I'd do it. Per capita is important, but I think per area is also important. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why emissions per unit area are relevant at all, but I'm willing to listen. Have you seen any scientific discussion of why this should matter? Raymond Arritt 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll answer the second question first — no, I haven't seen any scientific discussion of it. As to the first, it's partly a matter of politics (so perhaps is more appropriate in the global warming controversy article), but it's also a matter of sustainability. It's easy to say that China is (now) the biggest contributor of carbon emissions, but considering how large China is (in area), perhaps other countries' contributions are more significant (in a non-statistical sense). Per capita is very relevant, but it "punishes" countries that have more sustainable population densities. A country with a very high population density will be unable to generate as much CO2 per capita as a country with a much lower population density. Sure, there's a POV hidden here (although presumably quite different than others who feel this way) — I feel that population control is a very important component of global warming control. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There is no scientific discussion as far as I know about why this should matter, but there is also no scientific discussion on why per capita rating is better or more relevant than by nation. This is not so much a scientific debate as one of interpreting statistics, and as such there is no 'right' way to analyze the numbers we see on emissions. Being as both analysis have political consequences, the best way to maintain neutrality is to represent both points of view. Sort of like how when the US government formed there was disagreement on how states would be represented in Congress, resulting in both the Senate (by state) and the House (by population): neither solution could have stood on its own. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 16:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The measures I've seen most often are per political entity (i.e., national emissions), per capita, and per unit of GDP.  The point is not that any of these are better or worse in an absolute sense, but that they each give different useful information. It would be nice to have all three but that may be too much for the present article.  I'd argue for having all three or having none. Raymond Arritt 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, I think the best solution might be to have none here, but to have a link to a (probably new) article that contains all of these (and possibly my pet, as well). I say this mainly because Global warming is already a large article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dr. Arritt. The ways CO2 and other GHGs are most commonly displayed is either through total CO2 per nation, total CO2 per capita, or total CO2 per USD in GDP (PPP). I agree that all should be shown or none. At the current moment, there is little room to add more images, and last time I was here we were looking for images to actually remove because some sections get so clustered (and begins to alter where the edit buttons are). ~ UBeR 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, emissions per GDP is the most useless measure.  In the US, for example, there are high rates of insurance and litigation, to name two, the actually provide no productive 'work' per se, but are pervasive and extravagant in cost.  On the flip side, China is producing prodigious quantities of products for other nations, though the CO2 emissions are being assigned to them. Such lopsided calculations only play into the hands of those who wish to obfuscate. --Skyemoor 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There definitely are  problems with CO2 emissions per unit GDP (as there are with CO2 emissions per unit of anything) but the measure is widely used as a point of reference. See for example the IPCC Working Group 3 reports. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The map that replaced my GHG per capita map is labelled "GHG emissions per nation based on total CO2 emissions". What does that mean? That CO2 emissions have been extrapolated to include all GHG emissions? I doubt that the map actually does that - and why would anyone do that, anyway, when estimates of total GHG emissions are available ready-made? The replacement map is almost certainly mislabelled - and it was such mislabelling that prompted me to make my own maps. If you don't like 'em, fine. But be aware that there is more to global warming than GHG emissions, and that there is more to GHG emissions than CO2. So any maps used by Wikipedia must say exactly what they include and what they do not include. Labelling a CO2 map a GHG map is BIG no-no. Such antics create sceptics. (Re the per-capita point, if I get time I might do a per-nation GHG-including-land-use-change map from the same data to keep everyone happy.) Vinny Burgoo 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my bad, sorry. I was getting ahead of myself a little, and if I made changes in error I apologize. As far as the images go, it's not a matter of liking or not liking them, simply an attempt to maintain balance by presenting multiple analysis of the data. Anyway, if you would be willing to make a map based on emissions per nation that would really be great. I liked the style of the other ones and it would be good to keep things consistent. Thanks. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added a GHG-by-country map using the same data (or I will in a minute). I agree that there probably are too many images in this article - but also that per capita, per PPP GDP dollar and per nation should probably be shown together. So it's probably best to have all three or none. (I don't mind which.) Vinny Burgoo 13:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put it in. There's no room for all three. (The new one is called GHG_by_country_2000.svg.)  Vinny Burgoo 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per Capita measurement 

message: I've cut this one (in the context of sun-spots/solar being an hypothesis for warming):
* 
Its a directly (and provable) distortion of Solanki's research. See for instance this and this.
Find a reference to Svensmark or Veizer who are actually saying this - instead of using a piece of popular press that is (unintentionally i'm sure) misleading and directly wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted Uber's revert -- we had gone over the Solar Variation/Friends of Science nonsense further up. The Solar Variation comment is, as I posted earlier, now obsolete and basically refuted in the article's own Solar variation section, and there wasn't a single good reason given to keep it. -BC aka Callmebc 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FOS had nothing to do with the section you deleted. If the FOS were in the article, then you might have a point. Either way, see my response in the thread below. ~ UBeR 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut Solanki 

message: I see that William Connolley removed the rest of this discussion for essentially being redundant. I'm not so sure that was the best move: a lot of the anti-global warming sentiment revolves around very confused notions of what exactly a "theory" is in scientific terms. I think when a discussion like this forms, especially if it's a recurring one, a FAQ on it should be created as the first response to address the underlying concern, and have that added to the main article FAQ as a matter of course. And only when this is in place, then delete the bulk of the discussion, but with a reference to the FAQ added. Even though there is already a "Theory" wiki article, it would still be helpful to at least reference that with how this applies to the current global warming/general climate models. As it now stands, there is no "Global warming is only a theory" section in the current FAQ. This would seem a more logical and thorough method to address recurring confusion and build up a more complete and useful "Frequently Asked Questions" page.  Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have been too severe. The boundary where it had become junk was unclear. Adding to the FAQ is a good idea William M. Connolley 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addendums to the FAQ recommendation 

message: We don't seem to have a good article on predictions of temperature change. There is a bit here; a bit in climate sensitivity; probably something over at GWC. Maybe there should be an article, on global mean and regional and ocean and so on? William M. Connolley 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are two articles that are related (although these analyze previous predictions):   Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is actually yet another global-warming related Wikipedia article here that discusses the goings on at Climateprediction.net -- a distributed computing project meant to "produce a forecast of the climate in the 21st century". And still another one about the Effects of Global Warming, which also includes forecasts. How many climate change/global warming related wikis do we need? With that said, the Hadley Centre has some interesting stuff worth especially noting. -BC aka Callmebc 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NAS also has this cute exploratorium-type virtual exhibit. -BC aka Callmebc 03:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You may want to hold off a little on predictions as there seems to be a rather large problem in data quality shaping up . It's incomplete data so far but that chart looks very bad for the ground station data in the US. No doubt other countries are going to go through similar reviews once it gets out how bad the US is. According to what I understand, quality 1 and 2 stations are acceptable according to CRN and that's only 13% of the USHCN stations. The other 87% of the network looks to be not good enough. No doubt the data will firm up once the rest of the network is audited. TMLutas 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictions of temperature change 

message: I think adding stuff about environmentalism is not good because it takes us into the realm of normative analysis.  I suggest we try to stick to the positive analysis.  So, I reverted Hybridboy's changes and everything that resulted thereof.  The most that merits weight, in my opinion, would be a link in the 'see also'.  There may be important normative stuff, but I do not think this is one of them   Brusegadi 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting: global warming is not interested on environment. This is illogical. On the other hand, global warming is used in some countries to try to promote nuclear energy with nuclear waste, instead of use the less pollutant renewable energies  . This is clear: USA promotes nuclear power and building of new power plants. I can cite it with clear sources. Can you indicate any other sources about USA is not promoting nuclear energy ?. There is a fight between nuclear and renewables to replace petroleum. --HybridBoy 07:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are not on the same wave as I am.  I understand that this article is about the science.  Anything that people decide to do with "the science" belongs elsewhere.  Thus, this article is best suited to answer the question "What is going on?" and not "What should we do about it?"  The last question should be dealt with on some other article.  So, a statement that belongs here might be "CO2 causes warming" but a statement like "we should reduce CO2 emissions" does not belong in this article.  Perhaps you should try Mitigation of global warming. Brusegadi 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Environment stuff 

message: A possible source of information on this subject is the references and bibliography contained at the rear of the 2004 novel "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Of course, there may be bias in the references and bibliography cited by the author. No endorsement or agreement with the author's point of view as expressed in the novel is intended. George614 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: State of Fear is a novel. It is not a suitable source for a page on a scientific topic. I'll refrain from further commenting on the quality of the footnotes... --Stephan Schulz 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, he is only talking about the footnotes and not the novel itself. That said, although the motive of locating more sources is good, the best place to find sources is in other articles that are relevant to the topic (thus getting back to Stephan's point). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnotes are part of the novel, and have been under the same "rigourous editorial review" as the rest of it. --Stephan Schulz 15:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "On Environmental Stuff" 

message: I note that there are now 3 refs to Svensmark's cosmic ray/cloud seeding theory (or rather, hypothesis) following the mention of "solar activity" on the main page. Anybody else see some problems with this? -BC aka Callmebc 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a WP:WEIGHT problem. But Svensmark's theory has several parts - one that galactic cosmic rays induce cloud formation (or, if that is refuted, low level cloud formation) and hence cool the earth, and the other that solar activity modulates galactic cosmic rays (more solar activity -> less galactic cosmic rays). Yes, I know you could not make this up if you wanted to... --Stephan Schulz 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just read one of Svensmark's papers. It made a lot of sense. I am not sure why you think is is weird that sun spots affect the Earth's magnetic field and that those changes affect the number of high energy protons (cosmic rays) entering the Earth's atmosphere. As for cosmic rays initiating cloud formation, that is exactly how cloud chambers detect cosmic rays. What I see is a possible explanation of *how* a decrease in sun spots could have caused the Little Ice Age by simply allowing more clouds to form. Q Science 15:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is no one has ever shown that the laboratory mechanism has any importance at all to the real atmosphere.  Very much the opposite if anything; there are many different types of cloud condensation nuclei, the vast majority of which have nothing whatsoever to do with cosmic rays. Raymond Arritt 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. And the correlations that Svensmark claim are all extremely tentative, with several of them refuted or at least very dubious. You should read some of the replies to Svensmark's papers. --Stephan Schulz 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henrik Svensmark 

message: I've added a link to the article Global warming controversy in the see also section. I feel this is a good edit, it improves the overall quality of the article in that it provides instant access to alternate points of view directly relating to the subject matter of this article.Jaredbelch 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general policy is to only have links in "see also" that do not already appear in the text. Global warming controversy is already linked from the introduction (as public debate), as a "see main" in the "Issue debate, political processes and laws" section, and from the "Global warming and Climate change" infobox on the bottom. Don't you think this is enough?  --Stephan Schulz 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right, I brushed up on the style guide, and the community seems to feel the same way [].  With that being the case, I'm going to clean up the "See Also" section, I'll alphabetize it, and remove links that are already covered in the text of the article. Jaredbelch 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be very welcome. --Stephan Schulz 06:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and Low-carbon economy, I've left Renewable energy since it really isn't discussed in the article. Jaredbelch 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Global warming controversy to See Also Section 

message: We have less to cool them with . Is it my imagination or is the predicted timelines for this sort of stuff keep having to be ramped up? -BC aka Callmebc 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and perhaps  if you're confident. Maybe I should ask "death spiral" Serreze William M. Connolley 20:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know -- power law distributions are slippery slopes in more ways than one.... -BC aka Callmebc 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT#NEWS, and we do mention the ice/albedo feedback early on. Global warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects is only a summary. The main article is at Effects of global warming. But you do have a point - that section is badly disorganized and could need some work. --Stephan Schulz 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad you at least agree that the section is badly disorganized, but I do believe WP:NOT#NEWS is hardly applicable when a key aspect of research in a supposedly science-based Wiki article barely gets a mention at all, nevermind any breaking news on the matter. The word "arctic" only shows up once and then in the title of an article in "Further Reading," and the word "polar" likewise only shows up in another article title, again only in the "Further Reading" section. The word "solar" though -- go try to count all the mentions of that. I'm just saying.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Effects of global warming, where most of the information should be. Also try counting how many times "greenhouse" comes up compared to "solar." ~ UBeR 16:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, but what term(s) are best connected to the current state of climate research? In any case, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Global Warming wiki essentially acts as a summary wiki that links to other wiki articles delving more deeply into specific aspects of the whole, rather complicated global warming/climate change topic. As such, it should still give weighted info regardless if there is another wiki covering that specific matter in greater detail. Indeed Solar variation has its own separate wiki for itself, so by your reasoning, that should likewise be given as little or even less mention in the Global Warming wiki as the arctic issues. Logical, no? -BC aka Callmebc 17:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The solar variation hypotheses holds quite a bit more weight than a news report. There'd be a serious weight issue if we devoted just one sentence to the solar variation hypothesis and an entire section on Arctic ice.  ~ UBeR 17:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ice melting is an effect.  Of course that it may lead to a positive feed-back loop but ice melting is definitely not a forcing.  Solar variation can only be a forcing.  So, the solar stuff should be mentioned while the ice melting stuff could be added with details on the feed-back loops if you guys think it has not been properly covered in the article.  On the other hand, talking about melting ice alone and polar bears does not belong here; it belongs in the effects of global warming. Brusegadi 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think I need to only point to what supposedly the "Global Warming" wiki is suppose to cover. It isn't just about the Attribution of recent climate change, which would be more suited for delving into forcing effects like possibly solar variation, nor is it just about the Effects of global warming, which would be more suited for delving into   things like  glacier retreat. It appears that a broad topic like Global Warming should endeavor to give a balanced introduction to at least the key aspects of the matter. I think. -BC aka Callmebc 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEIGHT does not mean everything should be discussed equally. ~ UBeR 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks -- I will endeavor to make it sling and arrow proof. -BC aka Callmebc 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the mean time, whilst we warm our britches... 

message: Getting more prosaic, I just noticed how the main wiki article actually gives very little mention to the arctic ice melt despite most of the recent "global warming news" centering on that. Actually, try this little experiement out for size: go to the main page and do a word search for "arctic" and then one for "polar". Interesting, no? For all the guff I got for wanting to remove solar variation as a hypothesis just because, well, it's not really considered a valid alternative scientific explanation anymore, it's been overlooked that some not so hypothetical stuff involving a key indicator of global warming has been marginalized, intentionally or not. My feeling is that it perhaps needs a wee bit more attention as per WP:Weight and such. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 14:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#NEWS, and we do mention the ice/albedo feedback early on. Global warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects is only a summary. The main article is at Effects of global warming. But you do have a point - that section is badly disorganized and could need some work. --Stephan Schulz 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad you at least agree that the section is badly disorganized, but I do believe WP:NOT#NEWS is hardly applicable when a key aspect of research in a supposedly science-based Wiki article barely gets a mention at all, nevermind any breaking news on the matter. The word "arctic" only shows up once and then in the title of an article in "Further Reading," and the word "polar" likewise only shows up in another article title, again only in the "Further Reading" section. The word "solar" though -- go try to count all the mentions of that. I'm just saying.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Effects of global warming, where most of the information should be. Also try counting how many times "greenhouse" comes up compared to "solar." ~ UBeR 16:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, but what term(s) are best connected to the current state of climate research? In any case, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Global Warming wiki essentially acts as a summary wiki that links to other wiki articles delving more deeply into specific aspects of the whole, rather complicated global warming/climate change topic. As such, it should still give weighted info regardless if there is another wiki covering that specific matter in greater detail. Indeed Solar variation has its own separate wiki for itself, so by your reasoning, that should likewise be given as little or even less mention in the Global Warming wiki as the arctic issues. Logical, no? -BC aka Callmebc 17:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The solar variation hypotheses holds quite a bit more weight than a news report. There'd be a serious weight issue if we devoted just one sentence to the solar variation hypothesis and an entire section on Arctic ice.  ~ UBeR 17:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ice melting is an effect.  Of course that it may lead to a positive feed-back loop but ice melting is definitely not a forcing.  Solar variation can only be a forcing.  So, the solar stuff should be mentioned while the ice melting stuff could be added with details on the feed-back loops if you guys think it has not been properly covered in the article.  On the other hand, talking about melting ice alone and polar bears does not belong here; it belongs in the effects of global warming. Brusegadi 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think I need to only point to what supposedly the "Global Warming" wiki is suppose to cover. It isn't just about the Attribution of recent climate change, which would be more suited for delving into forcing effects like possibly solar variation, nor is it just about the Effects of global warming, which would be more suited for delving into   things like  glacier retreat. It appears that a broad topic like Global Warming should endeavor to give a balanced introduction to at least the key aspects of the matter. I think. -BC aka Callmebc 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEIGHT does not mean everything should be discussed equally. ~ UBeR 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks -- I will endeavor to make it sling and arrow proof. -BC aka Callmebc 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar/Arctic Ice Melt Section 

message: GW addressing include mitigation, adaptation, techonology and finance. I suggest include clearly these as main sections in the article. --Nopetro 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Mitigation and adaptation are their own articles, and are already incorporated into this article as much as they need to be without being redundant. They are both mentioned and linked in the opening paragraphs. As for those other two nonexistent articles... what changes exactly are you trying to suggest? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The technology and finance sectors of global warming can be found in the discussions on mitigation, adaption, and effects. ~ UBeR 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing GW: mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance