Talk:Climate change/Archive 25

message: The first paragraph defines the scope of the article as climate change in "recent decades" but a huge amount of space near the top of the article is dedicated to a review of "the present to the dawn of human settlement" -- why is that?  Shouldn't that ancient stuff be moved to climate change? 75.18.200.11 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's quite an awkward section, because it mostly discusses temperature of 1850 to present, which is long after the "dawn of settlement." There's some small bits on the MWP and Ruddiman's hypothesis. At any rate, it provides some useful context, even if not appropriately titled. ~ UBeR 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to figure out the actual difference between global warming and climate change or global climate change.  Well, I see that global warming is a sub-set of global climate change, but I think the issue is, at its heart, the contrasting view of global climate change due to man or due to natural phenomenon.  (This, of course, separates industrialized man from nature...a concept in and of itself that is worthy of discussion).    My point is that the articles don't distinguish themselves very well, in my opinion. --Alex.rosenheim 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the stuff on the Ruddiman hypothesis was put in by someone a few months ago and wasn't deleted because it's a genuine scientific hypothesis and there were bigger problems to deal with at the time. I think it's a distraction and would be happy to see it deleted. Raymond Arritt 13:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent decades vs. the dawn of human settlement 

message: I know I am opening myself up for major attack here, but there is a video (Watch at Google Video) from the BBC that disputes that claim made in the sentence under "Cause" that reads: detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[8] identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence.
No dispute on Global Warming, just disputing the extent to which humans are involved.  The video is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based on what they had seen in An Inconvenient Truth.
It would be nice if the Global Warming article cited some of the dirty misdoings of the IPCC that are cited in this video, before offering IPCC findings as scientific consensus.
Shaunco 07:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video comes from WagTV and director Martin Durkin, broadcasted on Channel 4, not the BBC. We actually have an article on it here. For further information, you might want to read global warming controversy. ~ UBeR 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody want to respond?? My question is: in this "neutral" article, how come only one side's ideas are displayed when reputable scientists in films such as this have a different idea? Is it because your precious majority? Please read my comments in "POV in Intro" as dismissal to that. The Person Who Is Strange 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot mention the "Great Global Warming Swindle" on this page as evidence against global warming as this film has been so ridiculed by the media -- it would be like using Hitler's comments that all cities should have efficient public transport as an endorsement on the public transport page. The film "Great Global Warming Swindle" is currently undergoing an independent investigation as to whether the producers of it "distorted or misrepresented their known views" (i.e. included blatant lies). One scientist interviewed for "Great Global Warming Swindle" as a "Global warming skeptic" said he was completely misrepresented (in the film) and called the film "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War II.". Rnt20 08:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent to Which Humans are Involved 

message: Hello.
The ice caps are melting on Mars as well. This article should feature a section where critique is featured.
Later...
:This is earth, not Mars. wise guy. John 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the fact that the ice caps are melting on other planets as well could signify that this is not human activity, at least not completely. The Person Who Is Strange 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should have a "Critique"-section 

message: Anyone up for starting a new section of the article discussing the benefits of global warming?  Tomertalk 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would belong in Effects_of_global_warming i believe. And adequatly summarized here according to weight in the section Attributed and expected effects --Kim D. Petersen 19:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much negativity.  Personally, I'm enjoying global warming.  Tomertalk 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, write a blog. Bendž|Ť 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right here?    Tomertalk 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ☹ Bendž|Ť 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other useless pointers today?  Tomertalk 07:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section proposal 

message: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
This article contains a number of summaries from Geophysical Research Letters, the U.N. Climate Change panel, the UNIPCC etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs) 
: The first one, purporting to come from J Climate, is clearly faked William M. Connolley 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe this may be the Journal of Climate article referred to: "Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin" --Britcom 09:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, they may be referring to this article, which mentions "the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas". Of course that is an extremely selective ("wrong") reading, and once more shows the danger of quote-mining. I cannot access the full article from here to check for the exact quote, which may well be a fabrication. --Stephan Schulz 09:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres the complete paper. And of course there is no such quote. --Kim D. Petersen 09:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact quote is here. The quote appears to be taken from an Environment News story about the JoC article. Both the Sun-Times article and the Environment News article appear to have been written by the same person; James M. Taylor, though the misquote could have been the Sun-Times editor's fault. --Britcom 09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an atrocious misquote, but the JC paper does establish the Himalayas as an exception rather than the rule with regards to GW. We know to disregard the alarmists, right? The science speaks for itself. Though surely it's not been counterproductive, I've now been put off ever seeing Al Gore's film, as propaganda is propaganda, no matter what it purports. With the anti-AGW's however, the maxim "keep your enemies close" comes to mind. Bendž|Ť 10:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parts of the Himalaya show exceptional behavior in some aspects. The overall temperature is rising there as well. And the overall glacier loss is real - the paper discusses only regional variations. This is science in action - as we dig deeper, we know more. Gore's movie has some shortcomings (as William will tell you with gusto), but you cannot really criticize a movie released in May 2006 for not taking notice of a paper published in September 2006. --Stephan Schulz 10:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed this thread.  I'll be in a meeting with Hayley Fowler next week, and will mention the, er, "misquote" to her. Raymond Arritt 18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be aware of the Chicago Sun-Times 

message: As we've said rather often now at present the link implies it links to scientists disagreeing with some broadbrush statements in the intro which amount to being skeptics but it links to a page listing many people disagreeing on much more techincal IPCC points. Fix and then link. --BozMo talk 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Raul654 13:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Copy/paste case already made as well as this comment. --Childhood's End 15:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilink to article not matching anchor 

message: I think the biggest point in the alarmist argument is not listed in the opening statements. The whole argument is about whether the warming is caused by humans polluting, or natural (cycles), or the result of volcanic activity, solar shifts, or other causes. Can someone please include it in the opening paragraphs please?U236 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lyokha, you'll find the phrase "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" in the first paragraph, a whole section on the causes and an article on attribution of recent climate change. You may also be interested in the F.A.Q.. Bendž|Ť 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm.... The biggest point not listed? 

message: First of all, I believe that global warming is being aided by human activity. However, I am concerned that the definition in the intro of the article is not correct, or misleading.
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."
I call into question the "in recent decades" part of the definition. Since global warming has in the past occurred, and since the scope of this article isn't limited to recent decades, why is the definition itself limited? It is a definition to "Current Global Warming Trend" and not a good overview of Global Warming in general.
DPK99 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussed this before, although that discussion has vanished into the archives. The term "global warming" has become a standing phrase that is used overwhelmingly to describe the current episode of warming. Also see WP:COMMONNAME. --Stephan Schulz 21:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't involved for the debates, but I would have to disagree about the term global warming being used overwhelmingly to describe the current trend. Even if it were, I don't think that warrants the introduction on its wiki to only limit the term to the current trend. This only leads people to believe the wikipedia is ignoring global warming as part of a natural occurrance, and plays right into the hands of those who dispute the human activity is the current primary cause. 68.162.151.157 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, back then several people did Google counts both on the web as a whole, and on Scholar only. The result was not remotely close. We do have the section on terminology explaining various terms, though. --Stephan Schulz 06:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Definition 

message: I took out:
: Recent DNA tests from ice cores in Greenland suggests that the climate in Greenland was much warmer than previously thought. The research uncovered genetic traces of butterflies, moths, flies and beetles. The DNA dated between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago and may be the oldest yet recovered. Though due to uncertainties in interpreting the age estimates, scientists can not rule out the possibility that the newly found DNA dates to the last interglacial, 130,000 to 116,000 years ago. ABC News: DNA Test Indicates Very Green Greenland  
on various grounds. Firstly it seems to be very new - its rather a good idea to let this stuff become clear over time. Secondly it has no clear scientific source. Thirdly, as written it omits the lack of DNA found further north, and gives the impression that all of greenland was forest covered (where did the plural on cores come from in the above?). And fourthly, I don't see why this is better than the d-o-18 and borehole thermometry from various greenland cores. It seems like excess detail William M. Connolley 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I'm confused.  Is this being used to say that Greenland was warmer?  Or that it hasn't been this warm in 450,000 years?  Or that it may have been this warm in the interglacial period?  --Tbeatty 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's bona fide but has no place in an article about recent climate change. Vikings were not on the scene! It could go in the paleo- climate change article. Bendž|Ť 08:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Potential battleground removed again - feel free to replace this with  a more less inflammative version of the pertinent points--Stephan Schulz 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point, Dr. Schulz and Tbeatty, is that the paper found that during the last interglacial ~120 kyr ago there was not as much melting of the Greenland ice as originally thought by people who study climate, such as William M. Connolley. Second, it showed there were plentiful forest and animal life in at least the central to southern parts of Greenland some time between 450-800 kyr, which is also counter to what most people who study climate, such as William M. Connolley, thought (i.e. that it was warm enough for this type of biodiversity and life). It was published in Science, which is a real scientific source, counter to what William M. Connolley claims. One thing he did get right was that, out of the small amount of samples, no DNA was found in the northernmost parts of Greenland. It should thus be clear why William M. Connolley feels uneasy about such findings of fact. ~ UBeR 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm impressed by your apparently psychic insight into another editors thoughts. --Kim D. Petersen 00:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you find a deviation of fact in any of the above? ~ UBeR 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, your mind-reading is wrong, as I've said before , as are your claims about my claims about sources. PErhaps more importantly, all this is a total waste of time as *nobody* seems to be suggesting it should go back into the article William M. Connolley 08:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not mind reading. It's a fact most people who study climate thought there was much less ice in Greenland during the Eemian than this study suggests. It's also a fact most people who study climate did not think that it was warm enough 450-800 kyr ago to support the biodiversity the research also suggests. ~ UBeR 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Uber, I don't think it is surprising that Southern Greenland was deglaciated and forested during some previous interglacial.  The main surprise is the suggestion that it wasn't deglaciated during the last interglacial.  Dragons flight 00:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all fine and dandy. And I agree, what the research finds is surprising. The implications that it has as it relates to the sea level rise during the Eemian are interesting, and suggests we ought to consider different sources for much of the rise in sea level, such as perhaps the Antarctic. Whether it has implications on today's warming and speculated sea level rise due to the instability of Greenland's ice, we'll see, but it's rather doubtful. ~ UBeR 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Orbital forcing. ~ UBeR 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Except that these past changes have occurred over thousands of years, from natural causes, while this change is taking place over a couple of generations, and is caused by human activity. --Michael Johnson 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Natural causes can be proved. Human activities cannot. (imho) Humans vs Solar system, no contest. --Dean1970 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both can be "proved." ~ UBeR 14:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (imho) (my personal opinion), solar activity is the main driver of temp on Earth (in the past, and in the future) than humans. but each to their own. welcome back, UBeR! --Dean1970 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, science trumps personal opinion. And I won't be staying long. ~ UBeR 18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: sorry to hear that --Dean1970 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like having UBeR around too but Dean 1970 tell me about your personal opinion: is this religious, political, gut instinct or based on some data somewhere? Do you just not trust the scientists? Please explain I would love to believe something so comforting. --BozMo talk 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I place (imho) on talk pages as stating my opinion and not a fact. I may not AGREE with  scientists, politicians, journalists or even people for that matter but they're entitled to their opinion. It shouldn't bother you too much to know this. p.s. sticking to the article, why is inlinking live earth so bothersome? I didn't see that you started a new thread on the matter as there was one already open, so no, I didn't ignore your comment, I was pressed for time yesterday. And inlinking it had nothing to do with google anchoring. --Dean1970 19:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA: why? 

message: So, there's been some back and forth regarding inclusion/ommision of the title, as well as some barbs back and forth regarding how it should be characterized. I've never seen the thing. i've never seen An Inconvenient Truth. There's fiction, non-fiction, and "documentaries" as far as i'm concerned, and it's not a bad place to start. Both TGGWS and AIT are both opinion pieces. "Fact" and "Truth" are better referred to as "Fast" and "Loose" when it comes to such things, since they are not held to any objective standard for presentation of reality. I'm put in mind of the intro title in the movie "Fargo": "THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.". The movie is, of course, a complete piece of fiction from first to last frame. But most viewers took the filmmakers at their word that they were being told "the truth".....Perhaps it would be best to simply leave both entries uncharacterized, so that the reader may come to their OWN conclusions, without the content being further editorialized? Anastrophe 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but these movies are not remotely comparable. AIT has been universally described as an excellent and fair description of the state of science on global warming, with only very minor problems. TGGWS has been repudiated even by one of the participants and has been criticised as crap by so many scientists that it's not even funny any more. --Stephan Schulz 00:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get nervous when people say "universally described" over such a contentious issue as global warming especially whrn the protagonist is a politician.  There are certainly aspects of climate change that are disputed and that's what creates movies like TGGWS.    --Tbeatty 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no serious scientific dispute about the core issues of climate change at the level presented on AIT. See scientific opinion on climate change. Science being what it is, there will always be progress, which involves invalidating or refining previous hypotheses. But TGGWS has not brought up any valid scientific points but rather presented (or reiterated) completely bogus claims, most of which had been long refuted. Indeed, some points could not be refuted before TGGWS was shown, because they only "invented" the graphs for the movie...--Stephan Schulz 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen either film, but the refutations seem pretty weak from a scientific point of view.  The problem that I see is that the argument presented by TGGWS appears to appeal to lay persons sense of proportion which may or may not be true.   For example, CO2 emissions by man is compared to other sources including animals, decaying leaves, etc.  It also shows data that says CO2 lags temperature.  This does not rule out anthropogenic warming but it appeals to the public that has been overwhelmed with CO2 graphs.  The refutation is that of all the CO2 sources that dwarf mans contributions, the scientists only refute volcano data (does that mean that decaying leaves exceed human CO2 production?).  The other big problem were dates on a graph.  That seems pretty lame.  In the same article, the IPCC chief says that he also uses the lagging CO2/temperature graph in his classes.  This seems to be science that is not presented to the public regularly as it would confuse the causal relationship of CO2 to GW.  So on the one hand we have TGGWS appealing to lay people "common sense" and on the other we have a pretty lame refutation by the scientists TGGWS criticises.  Neither scenario leaves me with a warm and fuzzy.  Given the politics on both sides, it appears there is probably a middle ground.  --Tbeatty 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TGGWS was full of junk. They lied to you about basic and obvious things like where the CO2 comes from and what the temperature record actually is. They also lied to you about harder to understand things which takes a bit more effort (on your part) to understand exactly how they were lying. You are using "pretty lame" as a substitute for "I couldn't be bothered to understand" William M. Connolley 08:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read our article on it and the external articles provided.  I gleaned the IPCC disputed volcano contributions of CO2 (but they didn't sdispute the other sources of CO2 mentioned).  I gleaned they got the dates wrong on a graph and that solar activity may not correlate to rising temperatures passed 1987.  Is there more?  It doesn't appear to be in our article.   A lot of "I don't like how it portrayed us" but the criticism is short on facts.  I would be interested in hearing a more technical refutation but I haven't seen it.  --Tbeatty 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't think there is serious scientific dispute about global warming.  The core issue you mentioned above that is presented to the public is that the planet is warming, CO2 is increasing, man has contributed to CO2 increases.  I think the dispute, and it is real, valid and scientific, is the level to which anthropogenic causes influence global warming.  The secondary dispute, related to the first, is the effect that global warming will have on the planet.  I have recently read a report about the cloud cover models.  Depending on the model, increased temperature increases water vaor which may or may not increase cloud cover.  The models vary in whether this will contribute to more warming or less warming.  The report I read is that IPCC only chose the increased warming models.  I don't understand why and it hasn't been adequately explained to me why only the warming models would be chosen if scientists believe that there is range.   --Tbeatty 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: External links are subject to policy guidelines as well. Weight comes to mind here. --Kim D. Petersen 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "no reader is harmed by the inclusion of a link to the page for TGGWS" - I dispute this assertion. TGGWS is propaganda intended to con people into thinking there is scientific dispute about the existence of global warming. We do readers of this article a disservice by linking to its article. It's quite possible an impressionable reader on this article might follow that link to the TGGWS article and believe that the claims made in the film have some truth to them, rather than being pure fiction. Raul654 01:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't get that impression from our article.  It appears that it raises questions about the influence man has on Global warming, not a refutation of global warming.  Specifically, whether the contribution man has on Global Warming is as large as is being presented by the government.  Considering that the IPCC even has a range of temperatures and a range of rising sea levels, it would seem this debate is going in scientific circles as they believe different factors have different influences. Also, it appears the lack of complete refutation and the admission by the IPCC chief that he shows the same lagging CO2 graph seems problematic.  According to our article, the data, if not the conclusion, has support of a number of scientists.  --Tbeatty 01:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This article isn't about what people believe, but the science behind it.  I'm more concerned that there are politics from both sides trying to gain the upperhand by claiming either it's political propaganda or it's completely settled science with no element with no differing scientific viewpoints.  There are certainly elements of both and it should be covered using reliable sources and NPOV.  --Tbeatty 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: which then argues for the exclusion of both TGGWS *and* AIT, because unless i'm mistaken, the title of the latter rather paints the matter as settled science, n'est ce pas? Anastrophe 03:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Anastrophe. We can't shelter people from TGGWS, as they'll come across it sooner or later, and all the better if it's from our article. But whether either are relevent to this article is another matter. There are already links to them on Global warming controversy. Bendž|Ť 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TGGWS is junk, and shouldn't be linked from here. AIT is not equiv to TGGW, and excluding one does not exclude the other. Whether AIT should be linked is another question William M. Connolley 08:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree TGGWS is complete trash. Entertaining but trash. --BozMo talk 09:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TGGWS though not perfect, is far more truthful than anything that the UN or Democrat politicians spout forth. rossnixon 11:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that's your yardstick, it's pretty hard to best TGGWS in dishonesty. I'm using the scientific opinion, as described by the IPCC and confirmed by a large number of respected scientific organizations and independent literature evaluations as my yardstick, and TGGWS falls depressingly short. --Stephan Schulz 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: DING! And with that comment, reality has left tbe building. Raul654 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So the gist of this conversation is: Everything that doesn't fully verify the global warming theory is junk? And everything that does (AIT) is suddenly "universally" accepted? [Incivility removed] The Person Who Is Strange 16:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the page, because that would show you that you are wrong William M. Connolley 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TGGWS 

message: Suggested addition
Tidal forces contribute to ocean currents, which moderate global temperatures by transporting heat energy toward the poles.  It has been suggested that  harmonic beat variations in tidal forcing may contribute to variations in climate.[]
Michael H 34 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is an extremely obscure approach, and the authors themselves say that " It is difficult to suppose that this is of sufficient amplitude, and associated with sufficient climate perturbation, to account for the millennial vaiiability.", i.e. they think this effect is unlikely to contribute to global warming. I think listing this here at all is giving it undue weight. --Stephan Schulz 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also it has nothing to do with currents: its about vertical mixing William M. Connolley 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidal forces 

message: I don't often go past 1RR but I have just reverted the Live Earth link out for a second time (third in fact). Linking to an example under an anchor text is inappropriate and too spammy. The only reason I can think of which may be behind this is to try to get the WP page on Live Earth to win the google search for the anchor term: as such it is way out of order. This comment on an edit summary was ignored. --BozMo talk 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate link 

message: The References section is all jacked up. Just bringing it to general attention, I'm not sure how to fix it. BURNyA 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The weather is supposed to become more extreme due to climate change. Suppose we fix some time scale \tau and define averages as <X(t)> = \frac{1}{\tau}\int_{t-\tau}^{t}X(t')dt'.  Then define the squared temperature fluctuation (at some fixed location) as  <T^{2}> - <T>^{2} and average this over the weather stations and satellite data etc. Does this quantity show an increasing trend?  Count Iblis 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trend in temperature fluctuations? 

message: I keep changing the first sentence to read, "Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans." which is the correct way it should be. Not "the increase... in recent decades and its projected continuation". This is a very serious difference, as one is a scientific definition, and the other, regardless of whether it is true or not, IS NOT a definition. "In recent decades" has no relevance to what global warming means, as GW is a phenomenon that has happened before in history (e.g. when Earth emerged from the Ice Ages and Little Ice Age), regardless of whether there's a scientific concensus that people are causing it this time. Will people stop reverting it without reason or debate on the subject? Thank you.Nufacion 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if you had checked the Talk page first.... See the last discussion here (just 7 days ago). This article is about the current warming - Climate change is about the warming/climate change in general. --Kim D. Petersen 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be a correct definition William but its misleading if you don't point out that by taking an average, some places, such as the northern hemisphere and the artic, that are much hotter than average or normal may suffer greater effects making the IPCC report actually rather conservative. 
Also its wrong to limit a discussion of global warming to the current warming or past warming or climate change as its the projections or models of future warming that have the most importent consequences for mankind.Rktect 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will people stop reverting my CORRECT correction!!!???? 

message: Is is possible to finally get rid of the solar contribution section in this article in light of the study refererenced in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm ? U236
:No. Even if the effect of solar variation on Earth's temperature is less than that of CO2, the effect is far from negligable. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. William Connolley has already included the source that you are referencing in the article. I should think that the refutation he provided would be adequate, rather than deleting the entire section. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: i see per the above note that the actual paper is available. i presume it covers the specifics regarding instrumentation. is still question why this paper isn't "too new" for inclusion...Anastrophe 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had it said something surprising - i'd agree with you (about it being too new). But this paper merely confirms (and expands) what we've already heard from Foukal, Solanki, West and so on. Never mind the hype of the paper on BBC :-) --Kim D. Petersen 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the same criterion for china surpassing the US in GHG emissions applies. it is not particularly surprising, and has long been predicted. I still fail to see the difference. The only people who would be surprised that China has surpassed us would be those who are a) unaware that china is aggressively industrializing at an unparalleled pace, b) unaware that china is exempt from kyoto, and c) believe the US, as an evil empire, must inherently always be the biggest producer of (xyz) bad thing in the world. IMNSFHO, of course! Anastrophe 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two different issues - but lets take the other one (again). The China surpassing US was a preliminary projection based on incomplete data (not as in this case - actually peer-reviewed and based on real data) - and to say that "China is the largest emitter..." would be incorrect - as this is not factual. To say that "China's CO2 emissions are expected to exceed those of the U.S. within the next few years (and according to one report may have already done so[71])." is correct and factual - and was eventually decided. It was btw. a bit surprising that it might have happened in 2006 - the projections were that it would happen between 2008-2010 (iirc). The real surprise in the study is that the US apparently has reduced emissions in 2006. --Kim D. Petersen 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The data on which the claim is made is widely used and reliable data. I really don't think this is a surprise to anyone, except for the people Anastrophe listed above (I would add the Chinese as well, as I think they're just in a state of denial). ~ UBeR 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, William M. Connolley is quick to jump on recently published papers if they fit his agenda, but adamantly opposes them if they challenge his idea of reality. Not much we can do about it, however. ~ UBeR 02:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Um...because we have no "clear maritime air" anymore? Cloud condensation requires only extremely minute amounts of aerosols, and we are blowing so much of them into the air that the effect of radition (if any) is negligible. --Stephan Schulz 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were the case, we would have seen cooling similiar to the sulfate induced cooling seen previously.  --Tbeatty 06:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apart from the fact that sulphates are neither the only aerosols we emit nor the only ones that serve as condensation nuclei, and that different kinds of aerosols have different effect on the climate, we do. Aerosol contribution is estimated to be -0.5 K without cloud effects, and -0.7K through cloud effects (with rather large error bars). But sulphate aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime, while CO2 has a long one. Hence sulphate concentration is roughly proportional to current emission (the growths of which has been reduced by anti-acid-rain legislation and other environmental laws in the West, and the near-total collapse of industry in the Soviet block), while CO2 accumulates over time. CO2 alone is now estimated to contribute +1.66K, and the other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are on top of that.  See Fig SPM-2 in the SPM. This (a bit older) image shows the development of various forcings over time. --Stephan Schulz 07:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that the cloud formation itself is part of the cooling process.  So if cosmic ray induced cloud cover is replaced by particulate induced cloud cover, the net effect is similiar and the reduction of "clear maritime air" in this context is semantic.   About the graph: Isn't it inconsistent with the arguments now being made?  For example, it says the solar forcing is 0.2C.  and volcanic is -0.15C.   This seems to contradict what was stated earlier to refute TGGWS 1) that solar variation is negligible and 2) volcanic contribution is negligible.  --Tbeatty 07:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either your understanding or your recall is incomplete. Volcanic CO2 emissions are negligible compared to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Volcanic aerosol emissions are not. Aerosols from a single eruption have a (rather short-term) cooling effect. So periods with high volcanic activity are somewhat cooler. The IPCC table lists forcings compared to pre-industrial times (1750, IIRC). There is a strong possibility that some of the warming in the fist half of the 20th century is solar, but consensus seems to be that for the more recent warming that effect is indeed negligible. --Stephan Schulz 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  I thought the the claim was that Volcano's didn't contribute to warming.  But it's clear that volcanic contributions do contribute to global warming.  Or rather, there is a forcing function related to sulfates and aerosols that have a historic average and reduction of that from the mean may contribute to warming.  --Tbeatty 07:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on your understanding of basic math. Now look at this graph again, and you will see that the effect is very sporadic, that it is not very large, and that it is responsible for short term variability (in technical terms, "it makes the line all wiggly"), but does not significantly effectaffect the longer-term trend. And it has been slightly negative since about 1960, right through the period of significantly increased warming.  In other words, it currently contributes to warming like a weight belt contributes to buoyancy. --Stephan Schulz 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've mastered the ad hominem before you have mastered the use of "affect" vs. "effect".  That aside, the mean of volcanic contributions are not determined over a century.  What is interesting from the graph, though, is the significant warming from 1910 to 1950 without a significant change in the forcing functions.   --Tbeatty 07:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting my English. You might want to work on your Latin, though. The warming you are talking about is adequately explained by the individual forcings - solar and ghg are up, and the volcanic aerosol contribution is recovering from the effect of three large tropical eruptions in 1902. --Stephan Schulz 07:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong but the text and the graph say that very little of the 1910 to 1940 warming is GHG.  Solar is the main component that is different.  Also, the solar contribution was higher in 1994 than it was at the 1940 peak.  --Tbeatty 16:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: UV light itself can cause clouds to form - no aerosol required Q Science 19:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar contribution conclusively refuted 

message: I added MiszaBot to this talk page. This bot will automatically archive any topic over 30 days old from now on. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here I thought this could be the first talk page to reach 1MB of fresh material.-Wafulz 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Is everyone ok with that here? Occasionally, these discussions do seem to remain relevant even after 30 days. --Steve, Sm8900 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can always reconfigure it if there are complaints. But I was noticing that there are conversations at the top of the page that nobody had contributed to since the middle of May, and the page takes long enough to load as it is. I ran the idea of botting this page past a couple of admins, and they supported it. If it causes any problems, though, we can just change the settings so it does it bimonthly instead of monthly. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MiszaBot added 

message: The first paragraph in this section requires either heavy revision or outright deletion. It basically rehashes the points made in the rest of the section. The content is as follows:
:Though it is difficult to connect specific weather events to global warming, an increase in global temperatures may in turn cause other changes, including glacial retreat and worldwide sea level rise. Changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation may result in flooding and drought. There may also be changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Other effects may include changes in agricultural yields, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the range of disease vectors.
This was originally placed as a separate section called "Other Effects" immediately following the introduction to the article, but does not introduce any new material or cite any sources. I merged it into the section it is in now because it had no reason to be where it was, but due to the above rationale, if it cannot be incorporated into the rest of the section then I move to delete the paragraph entirely. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some discussion about this before. The references are in the linked-to "see main" article. People are of mixed minds wether they should be replicated here - so far no one has bothered or succeeded. Removal certainly would be very premature, given that the sources are one click away. --Stephan Schulz 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that, and I do not suggest the removal of the section by any means. I just don't see the need to have a paragraph that summarizes the section, followed by three more paragraphs that tell the exact same thing in a less-condensed manner. Either one or the other, but not both. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expected and Attributed Effects 

message: The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750.
Can we have the specific level of atmospheric concentration? Also, the sentence is lacking a citation. RedRabbit1983 14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence 

message: Where did "Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F)" come from?  Whose data is this and how was it extrapolated?  If not cited, this should be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.169.189.226 (talk • contribs). 
:It's from the IPCC AR4 SPM referenced a half-sentence down. --Stephan Schulz 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite data source 

message: Is ther is a way to use some of the data from this web link for this article? It shows really well that arctic ice is decreasing rapidly.
: I like it but how about finding a second source for collaborationRktect 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for kicks, check out this link while you're at it. It has some interesting GISS charts. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting artic ice link