Talk:Climate change/Archive 15

message: I'm confused about something. I don't see how global warming can cause flooding. If anything it would cause a decrease in ocean levels. The reason given for flooding is glaciers melting due to global warming. But if that glacier is already there, it already occupies space in the ocean. In fact, it takes more space as a glacier (ice is less dense then water... if you fill a glass with ice cubes and let it melt, the water will take up less space). So if it were true that GW melts the glaciers, it would actually lower the sea levels.--Republicanbetter (this comment by User:Republicanbetter - use four tildes (~~~~) to sign).
:There are two reasons for rising sea levels. One is the melting of ice, the other is thermal expansion of the oceans. Yes, if you take a given volume of ice and melt it, you will get a smaller volume of water (about 90% of the original ice volume). But for ice that swims, about 10 % of the ice is above water level. If it melts, this will contribute to the water level. Archimedes' principle tells us that the melting ice will displace exaclty the same amount of water (by weight) it is made of. So melting of icebergs and sea ice will not lead to sea level rise. But not all ice is swimming. Especially in Greenland and Antarctica, massive amounts of ice are above the sea level. If any of this melts, it directly adds to the water in the oceans, and indeed causes a rise in sea levels. 
:The second cause of sea level rise is thermal expansion of the water. Water has maximal density at about 4 degress centigrade. Beyond that point, it expands if it is warmed. So while the amount (by mass) of water in the ocean is the same, this amount of water will need more volume, leading to rising water levels. See Sea level rise for a more in-depth discussion.--Stephan Schulz 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: im still not convinced... you say most of the ice in greenland and antarctica is above sea level, but what is it sitting on? unless im thinking wrong, isnt there just more ice beneath it?. i do see however what you are saying about thermal expanision, but what is the temp. now? and how quickly is it heating up? Republicanbetter 05:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a saucer. Place an ice cube on it. See how only a one-molecule thick layer of the ice rests on the saucer, the rest sits on lower levels of ice. Now let it melt...the saucer fills with water. The ice shield of Antarctica is about 2.5 km thick on average. Most of it rests on rock, and most of it is above sea level. If it will melt, it will hence increase sea levels. The situation is similar in Greenland. Read our article on sea level rise. As for the temperature, the story is complex, because the ocean temperature varies a lot with location and depth. Much of the ocean water is at or below 4 degrees centigrade, because cold water sinks down and the deep ocean is barely mixed. The temperature typically rises as you come up. You can trust oceanographers to get the basics right...--Stephan Schulz 06:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Greenland is an island => solid land, Antartica is a continent => solid land, both covered with ice for the most part. And very deep ice for the most part. Layers of ice and snow above layers of ice and snow, never melting adding up over thousands of years. The Artic, on the other hand, is an ocean, with only a thin layer of ice. --Michael Johnson 08:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes of rising sea levels

message: I re-fixed the line "threat of possible global warming" to "threat of global warming".  I made this change before, this is why: I think it is clear in the connotation of the word 'threat' that we aren't dealing with absolute truth, ie, this is the predicted future, which by definition means we don't know what will happen.  
I think these kinds of word insertions muddle the intended meaning of the offending sentance.  I think it is clear this kind of language is commonly used by denialists to overemphasize the inherint uncertainty of dealing with a scientific topic.  I think it is sufficient to discuss these inherint uncertainties in a stand alone section without having to  muddle the language of the entire article as if we were talking about someone accused of a crime.  (as in: "Then the alleged gunman shot the victim")  Thanks. --141.212.142.247 17:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second reading that entire sentence is pretty non-sensical(opening sentance to Responses section).  I suggest someone with a better literary touch than I repair it.  I do, however, stand by removal of the word 'possible' as a matter of writing style principle. --141.212.142.247 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your argument above. It should be applied consistently, however, not just to the parts you think favour skeptical positions. That would result in the removal of a good deal of emotive language from the article and improve it greatly. Arker 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive and Unnecessary Argument Qualification 

message: I'm gone.  No point contributing when Raul654's arbitrary assessment of content is unchecked. Bye.--Poodleboy 09:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see that Rauls 2 reverts are so mighty William M. Connolley 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would assume the complaint is based on Raul blocking him for 24 hours.  Dragons flight 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So he did. Gosh. Then Raul is indeed mighty William M. Connolley 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And it wasn't John who added it, it was anon 72.129.86.169. JohnCPope's edit was caught in an edit conflict with me. I've removed the attack above again. Vsmith 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, is this an "environmentalists are commies" attack?  It's notable not for the strength of the attack as for its complete and utter eighth-grade lameness.  I will hope, instead, that it's a Groucho reference I'm not getting.  ("I've had a lovely time editing wikipedia, but this wasn't it"?)  bikeable (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There appear to be no checks on Raul654's power. 

message: Could some of the participants here add :Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr-2.png to their watchlist.  It suddenly seems that people are eager to add elaborate criticisms to this figure.  I'm not opposed to criticism, in principle, but the arguments being used are mostly original research and not reflective of the realities and context of the data.  Dragons flight 15:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hardern 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watching wanted 

message: This article has bloated to 61k. Anyone else agree it should be reduced in size? William M. Connolley 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly a good idea, the question is how to do it. Sections that don't currently have their own "main article" seem to be limited to Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and Pre-human global warming. Other options include trying to cut sections that do have main articles to one or two paragraphs at most. Top candidates for this might be the sections on Historical Warming of the Earth (3 large paragraphs), "Causes" intro (2 large and one small paragraph), Solar Variation Theory (3 large paragraphs), Biomass production (4 small-medium paragraphs), "Responses" (large section), and Climate Models (large section). So, I guess we could read through these and see if there's any fat that can be reasonably trimmed. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GW is too big 

message: I don't much like references at the end of an article myself (2 clicks, not one) but 3 reviewers seem to have asked for it. It would seem like spoiling the ship for a hapeth of tar if we don't do it and thus fail to get this made a FA. The FA guidelines Wikipedia:What is a featured article? also say a FA should have a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged" So I have 3 questions for people.
:1) do you agree we should move to some sort of footnote system?
:2) which system? The more I read about this the more confused I am. I tend towards like Harvard refs as that is what I use for all articles I have ever written but it is hard to see how use this for URLs which are a lot of our refs.
:3) Do you know a good way of doing the conversion as doing it manually will be a lot of effort.
But do keep going - I think we are nearly there, don't be downhearted now.--NHSavage 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard style is OK though. but how the ecky thump do you do a Harvard style for a URL? My problem with the way it is at the moment is the mixing of all types (and I think this is what the FAC people object to the most). Is there some compromise that we can find here?--NHSavage 08:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at Kyoto protocol for H style. As for mixed... well maybe, but the one sort we don't have is, so converting all to ref isn't obvious Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 08:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks even worse to me. It just includes the website, no date, no author. The whole advantage of Harvard referencing is meant to be that it is more informative than numbered footnotes and the details of all your references are collected at the end in a proper  refernces section which doesn't seem to work properly for Kyoto. The problem is that it just doesn't really work for websites. I basically don't like any of these and perhaps we should just give up and only use paper references. ;-)--NHSavage 08:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  But footnotes are generally cleaner since IMO one can combine all kinds of citations into one section, and it looks more professional that way too. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 08:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Kyoto protocol is mixed, too. Having looked at it, I don't really like the Harvard style, either. It completely disconnects the references entry from the corresponding footnote. I think WP:NOT Paper applies here. Articles are neither static nor is reading them fully sequential. Maybe, after all, the ref-style has something going for it. In fact, I would have WP:BOLDly reverted to the ref style again (and reverting from William would have been a first ;-), but the firewall I'm behind at the moment chokes on large edits.--Stephan Schulz 08:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to jovially point out the Kyoto protocol is not and FA, and if you want this article to have that status, universally if you look at the current FA's, the predominant citation system is clear. and Also, you already have the system complete! Just gotta cite the last 8, format the further reading, and you DONE :) And you can copyedit this baby and maybe get it Featured! I think we should focus our efforts and make this happen :) Judgesurreal777 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ref is not a requirement, it's just a convenient solution to a complex problem of different reference styles. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reverted this again. Please stop making this controversial change! I'll also point you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 principle 2: in part: If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor. William M. Connolley 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But a many of your friends think it should be footnotes, and are you going to do all 75 of them again, in the next 3 days, and extensively copyedit the article before the FA deadline is up? It might be prudent to let this one go, and just finish the article, and THEN switch the style once it's an FA, that way you get what you want, and wont have to waste time on it now.... just a suggestion :) Judgesurreal777 10:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:CITE makes clear that either Harvard referencing/embedded links or footnotes may be used, so if people are causing a problem over Harvard referencing at FAC, please direct them to CITE. CITE also says that, where no agreement can be reached to change from one citation system to another, the system used by the first major contributor to use one should be deferred to. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The paper/audio bit I'm not familiar with. These sound like technical problems that could/would be fixed if anyone were interested. Why is unifying the ref format so important anyway? Inline links for URLs are nice and simple and I think thats very valuable. The ref format is complex. Harvard style works fine for URLs, but doing anything with URLs other than linking them is over-rated anyway... all this listing when accessed isn't worth much William M. Connolley 11:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For inline links there is no real connection between the link and the references section. What do you do with a printout that say "Global warming has been proven a scam perpetuated by Nazi UFOs via mind control rays.[1]"? At best you can guess that this corresponds to the reference (Einstein, A, Knuth, D., Hawking, S., "Nazi UFOs and the Inner Earth", Crosstime Publishing, 2311). This is also a problem with the Harvard system, albeit to a lesser degree. The link is there, but only maintained manually. This is worse than LaTeX without BibTeX - this is typewriter technology. The <ref>s are at least maintained by the computer.--Stephan Schulz 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you. What refs have got going for them is maintenence by computer, but nothing else :-). Harvard-style is fine, cos each link gets a name. Of course it requires 2 edits. 2 edits, 2 clicks, which...? Well I know which one I prefer. The print-out problem: yes indeed. There are various solutions - one of which is to recognise that it doesn't happen much - but a "produce printable page" button would also work fine. But is the GW talk page a good place to have this discussion? William M. Connolley 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think, at this moment, our priority is to get this article featured. I gently suggest that we revert to the footnotes FOR NOW, and then when its featured, you will have time to change it to Harvard style or whatever you decide, which you have every right to do. In the meantime, we could then copyedit this article and get it featured, and then Mr William you can have your cake and eat it too! :) Judgesurreal777 11:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Only in a hurry, as I have seen articles developing recently and getting taken off after their 5 days because of stasis for whatever reason, and I really genuinely mean to help, I didn't think there would be such strong opinions on the matter, and if I had known I wouldn't have done it. I thought your group was smaller than it was, and consensus had been reached, which you will note if you look at the conversations from earlier. I meant no harm, and I meant no disrespect; ironically, I saw some of you getting bummed out about how much technical stuff was being nitpicked about your article so I decided to help in the first place!! LOL I did not mean to step on anyones toes, I just thought you'd want FA help. I PERSONALLY DONT CARE :) Really truly I don't, change it if you want, but lets change it and get back to copyediting the article :) Judgesurreal777 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, sorry for your pain and wasted effort, but as you see it arouses strong feelings. If we can leave the refs pending further discussion, then we can keep copyediting the rest William M. Connolley 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much :) Hell, once we copyedit, I'll help you harvard style the article LOL Judgesurreal777 13:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If the ref sys could produce and alphabetized list I might support, but a numbered list of 70 - 80 refs is essentially useless. Vsmith 13:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: can you provide some examples of its use? William M. Connolley 19:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relatively easy to write a script to help with this, e.g.  (which would need a little hand-tuning). You may also be interested in the proposal Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced GA#New template proposed to create a template better suited for formatting references in science articles (as an alternative to existing templates cite journal, cite web, cite book, cite news). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revived this discussion once more since it was unclear whether the tree had made a sound. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To ref or not to ref? (FA) 

message: Wikipedia articles should be presenting facts, and should not be a forum for anyone's political opinion.  Much data has been collected, and so data is fine to be presented.  There are many theories based on the data, therefore varying theories so based on the data, are fair game to be mentioned, but not promoted, especially as anything other than someone's theory based on data.  The article should mention that there is controversy and link to a contoversy article.
It is a foul to claim that any theory is "the prevailing scientific theory" because 1) there isn't one, 2)that wording is simply political agenda-speak, and 3) it converts the article into a politcal forum pushing that one theory.  
To Uncle Ed:  Please do not pretend to "chastize" me about "personal attacks" in the talk page.  This article has fallen victim to petty political agendas and you really aren't helping much.  The politics need to be removed, and to that end, I will call a spade a spade.  If you wish to help, you should be calling all those onto the carpet who have watched some Geenpeace documentary and now insist on converting this Wikipedia article into whatever their brainwashed minds have been told to repeat.  If there is data on global warming then that should be presented in the article.  If you are playing "let's vote on which theories we should present as legitimate, then you aren't helping. 
--JohnCPope 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't SHOUT. We can see that you have a strongly held (if unjustified) opinion. You are wrong on 1), 2), and 3). There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that is reasonably well documented in the article. It may be hard if reality does not conform to your point of view, but that happens occasionally.  As for your comment to Ed: Avoiding personal attacks and assuming goodf faith are basic Wikipedia policies. Ignore them at your own risk.--Stephan Schulz 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for your comment to Ed: Avoiding personal attacks and assuming goodf faith are basic Wikipedia policies. Ignore them at your own Unless you're in the majority. =) -- LoudMouth 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: John, I don't know where you are getting your information from (hopefully not my senator, who has no clue what he's talking about), but your sources are quite clearly incorrect.  Try looking at the science.  There are disagreements, there are uncertainties, but none that rise to the level of undermining the general conclusions.  As for "presenting data not theories" - that would, quite simply, be ridiculous.  Data are meaningless without theory - data collection is deeply steeped in theory.  Presenting data without theory means that known bias in instrumental measurements cannot be taken into account.  In addition, presenting data without theory would violate the idea that Wikipedia isn't a collection of unorganised information.  Guettarda 15:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact, opinion, data and theories

message: *Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.
I'd like to ask how many contributors to the Global warming article agree with the above:
Agree:
#Uncle Ed 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there are many but they have already been driven off in frustration
Disagree:
#This could lead to infinite regress- we must be reasonable.  Being too stringent on avoiding calling things "true" could lead to "Well, you only CLAIM that this source says what you say it says.  I claim otherwise, and we must label your POV as such."  In real life, we can neutrally and accurately present certain things as basically true.  It sounds like this is Ed arguing that we cannot say that there is a scientific consensus on GW- we can only says that so-and-so claims there is a consensus.  Friday (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth and neutrality

message: 1) No scientist claims that any gasses (classified as "greenhouse" or otherswise) are a source of heat to planet earth.  
2) All of science claims that the earth is heated almost entirely by the sun, but does get some small small radiance from geothermal venting.
3) No scientist claims that any gasses (classified as "greenhouse" or otherwise) does anything other than "redistribute" heat (claims include "trap it in" and "block it from escaping")
4) The article leads one to think that humans are not only heating the earth, but that it's the "leading scientific opinion."
:John, while I'm somewhat sympathetic here, I think you've missed the mark slightly. The article doesn't classify GHG's as heat sources. 
:On the other hand, maybe it needs to clarify this. The presence of GHG's (what a poorly chosen name, by the way!) in the atmosphere makes our air warmer than it would be otherwise. 
:: What is everyone to think when some articles talk about GHG as contributing to the greenhouse effect and call water vapor the main one and other articles talk about GHG as being positive forcing agents and call carbon dioxide the main one?  Then we call them both GHG and explain things differently?  Sln3412 05:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only dispute is over how much warming is attributable to their presence. Come to think of it, I'd love to see a layman-accessible explanation of HOW carbon dioxide "traps heat" or whatever it does to contribute to global warming. --Uncle Ed 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Roughly, infrared light coming from the Sun passes through the atmosphere and reaches the Earth's surface. At this point, the IR radiation is reflected back into space, but GHGs force it to bounce back towards Earth's surface, warming it. Titoxd(?!?) 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and have a donut on me. :-) --Uncle Ed 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, gasses can "block" heat from escaping, but gasses don't know direction, and thus will similarly block IR from entering the atmosphere.--JohnCPope 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no, it's two different "bands" of IR radiation. Right, Tito? --Uncle Ed 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) Tito's explanation is not quite right.  GHGs are transparent to most wavelengths, but opaque to IR.    They allow light from the sun -- primarily visible and UV -- to heat the earth.  the earth re-radiatates that heat (as blackbody radiation) primarily in the infrared.  The GHGs trap this infrared radiation leaving earth (actually, the GHGs absorb it and then re-radiate it back up and back down).  The reason GHGs work is that most of the energy coming into the biosphere is UV/visible, but most of the energy leaving it is IR.  See Greenhouse_effect.  bikeable (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Another edit conflict) Actually, it's not infrared light, but all kinds of radiation, but especially visible light, that strikes the surface and heats it up. As a consequence, the surface emits infrared radiation essentially as blackbody radiation, i.e. with a more or less continous energy spectrum. Photons with certain energies can be absorbed by certain molecules (e.g. CO2 or H2O) that go into an excited state as a consequence. When the molecules drop back to a less excited state, a photon (or photons) of similar energy is emitted. The original photon was on its way out (i.e. leaving earth). The re-emited photon can go any way, including back towards earth. Hence the energy is, on average,  retained longer and the earth becomes warmer. The more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the higher the chance that any given photon is absorbed. --Stephan Schulz 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The CCSP has a lot of good info on all this also, I thought.  I was trying to find the graphic at http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/carbon/fs97137/grnmhse85.jpg again, but only could find it at placeslike this online.  I don't know the copyright, so I didn't want to upload it. --Sln3412 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes of warming

message: Rather than even have that section at all, the Causes section itself should list up to the (2nd? 3rd? 4th?) largest theories on the causes with a paragraph, each with separate articles for full details, rather than just Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and "everything else" (Alternative theories).
  
Although the list of alternatives shows 'range of natural variation' 'coming out of a prior cold period' (with link) and 'solar irradiance' the only other theory under Causes with a section and a link to an article of its own is Solar Variation, and even then it uses a different term than in the list. 
 
One problem with the Alternative Theories section is that although it lists three things, then claims there's not much support for any, the solar irradiance/solar variation section afterwards is fairly lengthy and seems at least somewhat supported.  
The biggest problem is that the support for the implication that such (or any) alternative opinions being 'not widely held' is made by a reference to the Oreskes essay in Science.  There are problems with that essay.  It's not primary sources, it's not peer-reviewed, it's not more than an editorial, and it's very unreliable:  
:*As published, the essay was incorrect up to 3 times on the search terms; 2 times (later corrected) as to what was searched for and 1 time (unknown) about how the abstracts were deleted from analysis (paragraph 5 and footnote 9).  
:*The study itself (paragraph 5) was trying to test the hypothesis that dissenting opinions might be downplayed in the reports and statements of societies. But the abstracts don't test that, especially knowing now what she supposedly searched for; articles, in science, that had abstracts, that dealt with "(global) climate change", in that database.
:*The later correction by Science was on the search terms.  We don't know if the articles deleted from analysis were 'not about' which of the two phrases.  
:*The essay itself does not show what the entire search criteria even was.
:*Paragraph 8 starts out "...shows that scientists publishing..." and then "...among climate scientists..." The last paragraph switches between scientists and climate scientists also.
:*Paragraph 1, 6, 9 and 10 specifically mention "anthropogenic climate change" although that is not what she searched for.
The "Causes" section should list the possible causes.   --Sln3412 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with listing the 2nd, 3rd etc. most prevalent explanations for warming is that there are no real contenders for 2nd place, 3rd, and so on.  In the climatological community the role of greenhouse gases as an explanation for warming is way out in front, trailed far behind by what is best referred to as "something else".  There's no consistent proposal for what "something else" might be.  Soon and Baliunas say it's solar forcing; Gray says it's natural cycles; Lindzen says it's his cloud iris hypothesis; Piers Corbyn says he knows but is keeping it as a business secret(!); someone else says this, another says that.  The article as written is a fair reflection of the current state of alternative explanations. Raymond Arritt 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Raymond, the prevailing view is that there are no credible alternatives.  Given that it is always going to be hard to say what should be included under alternative theories (and forget about trying to rank them).  It is one thing to say that the section should be changed, but do you have any objective criteria for deciding what should be included?  Dragons flight 03:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are living in a fantasy land, if you don't realize that both solar variation is a viable alternative theory.  Solar is at its highest level in 8000 years.  The earth's climate is only out of balance by 0.85 W/m^2 per Hansen, and  no model is accurate enough to apportion attribution.  All have errors much larger than even 1 W/m^2. --70.183.72.123 03:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have references from peer-reviewed journals?  Is this a majority opinion among astro-physicists who specialize in solar dynamics?--Skyemoor 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the solar, the reference is Solanki, already mentioned in the article.  For the models try Bender , although any of several IPCC diagnostic subprojects will do.  I haven't seen any polls of astrophysicists, but if they have problems with Solanki's work, they should publish, as is the usual practice.  The solar conveyor theory is now predicting that the second solar cycle out will represent a significant reduction in solar activity, which is consistent with Solanki's probabilities of the current high level of activity continuing.--70.183.72.123 15:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Solar forcing of up to about 1/3 of 20th century warming is part of the consensus.  Solar forcing as an alternative to greenhouse gases for most of the warming is not seen as credible in the consensus view, in part because solar activity has been mostly constant during the last 50 years while temperatures have sharply increased.  Neither Solanki nor Bender argue that the existence of solar variations make greenhouse gases not the dominant factor in climate change.  Dragons flight 16:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Solar forcing was up to 36% of the RECENT warming per Stolt as part of the irrelevant consensus, and that was before IPCC diagnostic subprojects showed the models to have significant bias against solar forcing.  Solar forcing was constant, but at a historically high activity level, just as a burner at a constant activity level can raise the temperature of water.  The solar warming was interrupted by an aerosol cooling period. Anyway, you are arguing a different point, by getting into the details you are acknowledging this is a viable alternative viewpoint.--70.183.72.123 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with both of you.  In that case, something like what you've said should constitute the causes section.  Something like that the climatological community (reference) has the role of greenhouse gasses (reference) as the major explanation of why the Earth is getting warmer, and that there are no credible alternatives (reference).  Perhaps mention that minor points are solar forcing, natural cycles, cloud irises, conspiracy, or whatever, with a line or reference for each at most, if at all.  Alternative theory might be a separate section even, but not under causes.  As I said, the only other theory other than greenhouse gasses that has any space here is solar variation, so get rid of the rest.  It really doesn't read well as it is.  I'd try and fix it, but I've already proven I'm bad at it.    --Sln3412 03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an exclusive or. Natural cycles, solar forcings, and various anthropogenic forcings are all part of the current scientific consensus (and listed in the IPCC report). It's just that for the current warming, anthropogenic greenhouse gases have the largest influence and  are predicted to dominate for the forseeable future.--Stephan Schulz 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed in principle, but as the article is currently structured these points fall under the heading 'Alternative theories', i.e., they're 'alternatives' to the consensus view.  Maybe call them 'other factors' or some such rather than 'alternative theories'?  (That would have the further advantage of removing the non-scientific usage of the word 'theory.') Raymond Arritt 01:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not really alternative to anything, it's just another way to try and look at things as a whole rather than just little bits of it.  It's very difficult to even agree on a single aspect; put them into a huge number of aspects and we then start mixing up what it is we were talking about in the first place.  The conventional wisdom is that the current warming has named anthropogenically caused greenhouse gases to be the main cause and to be modeled to have the largest influence on climate change; and such gasses are therefore thought of as being the main item in the discussion in the near term. Other factors that might be involved, maybe?  Sln3412 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll give you an example kind of.  When I start going into how a computer "thinks" (the ALU etc) I don't go back to explaining what valence rings are, or positive and negative attractions.  But it's helpful before you start learning flipflops and then logic gates and counters, etc to know how transistors work or diodes work or how electrons act or what conducts and what doesn't and what semi does. The details aren't important in and of themselves, unless you're looking into theory.   Now, the classical view of it all is a number of electrons can exist in a certain ring, and they orbit.  If there is space, the electrons in valence can move.  If not, they can't.  That's all that's important.  The quantum view is different; the terminology, the view of behavior, the details, the sub-particles, most everything.  That just confuses the point, unless you're going into the subject itself.  All that needs to be done is explain it well enough so that grasp of the information can help to learn what comes later.  Then you can jetison any theory, except that knowing some of it later helped to grasp the concepts of what's happening and why things happened. Sln3412 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Theories, and perhaps reducing the size of this article

message: It is my understanding that the 100,000 year cycles in temperature and carbon dioxide are caused by the changes in the Earth's distance from the Sun. This causes change in the intensity of light, causing change in temperature. This change in temperature then causes changes in carbon dioxide levels. Seeing as how this works in the reverse way that global warming is said to, what would be the mechanism of this? Obviously the ice core graphs show that the industrial age has seen drastically increased carbon dioxide levels and matching temperatures, but how can it be said that this trend will doubtlessly continue if we don't fully understand the graph? If anyone knows of any research that explains this, it might be a good thing to include in the article.
Also, a PhD in Marine Biology quoted to me yesterday that approximately 60% of the worlds photosynthesis occurs in the oceans. Marine algaes and planktons would receive all the benefits listed in the "biomass" section with barely any downside. 
Also, if you look at the 100 million year timescale, the Earth has been much warmer in the past, and the plant life flourished. 
So, if anyone could find research on these topics, I think they would be great to include. The evidence for global warming is almost indisputable, but the evidence for the unchanging, exponential, apocalyptic nature of global warming is NOT conclusive; the article should reflect this. 
The supposed effects of the mechanisms listed in the global cooling article also contradict the effects of global warming described in this article. That must be addressed.   --TBSchemer 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Marine algaes and planktons would receive all the benefits listed in the "biomass" section with barely any downside." I think they might suffer in a significant way from ocean acidification. Hardern 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ocean acidification is happening at such a slow rate (0.11 pH difference over the course of 253 years) that the majority of organisms would be able to adapt. The ocean is filled with buffers that inhibit rapid change in acidity. As it is, marine organisms tend to have mechanisms which allow them to tolerate changes in pH because of the changes in salinity (and therefore pH) that bays, coastal regions, and upwelling/downwelling regions can experience. Though calcifying organisms can be damaged by acidity, the levels occuring are not enough enough to cause noticeable damage to these species. Keep in mind that your tooth enamel is composed of calcium phosphate, and the 7.4 pH of your mouth doesn't eat away at them (the ocean currently has a pH of 8.14). Also, the majority of calcifying marine organisms use calcium carbonate; increased levels of acid-forming carbonate ions will not liberate calcium from other carbonate ions. Finally, the majority of algaes do not calcify, and would not be affected in any way. --TBSchemer 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a different reading of the 2005 Royal Society report on this topic (PDF). At least, it is uncertain which species will suffer how much: "The tropical and subtropical corals are expected to be among the worst affected, with implications for the stability and longevity of the reefs that they build and the organisms that depend on them. Cold-water coral reefs are also likely to be adversely affected, before they have been fully explored. [...] From the evidence available it is not certain whether marine species, communities and ecosystems will be able to acclimate or evolve in response to changes in ocean chemistry, or whether ultimately the services that the ocean’s ecosystems provide will be affected." (p.vi) Therefore, the risks evolving out of ocean acidification should not as easily be underestimated like you do, but instead taken seriously. Hardern 16:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a first approximation, any biosystem evolved under certain conditions likely to suffer if this state changes. Of course, a new, more efficient one may take its place. However, in this case, algae growths in the oceans is usually limited by lack of nutrients (often iron), not by temperature, lack of water (duh!) or CO2. Seeding the oceans with iron has been suggested as one way to deal with global warming, but I'm a bit sceptic about fixing a global environmental problem by more fudging on different buttons.--Stephan Schulz 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cycles and Mechanisms