Talk:Climate change/Archive 27

message: Now shown that trees growing in northern, snowy regions INCREASES global temperature.  Any honest global warming fans should now be calling for all trees in the north to be cut down.  junkscience.com for the story.
And then there's this...
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
:Junkscience.com is a biased source with an anti-AGW agenda.  And what exactly about that second source were you referring to?  The whole "The Little Ice Age proves that greenhouses gases are not to blame" idea, the "Carbon dioxide is such a small percentage of the atmosphere that it couldn't possibly make any difference" argument, or the "Climatology = Weather forecasting" fallacy? johnpseudo 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much a fallacy as a lack of judgment. But, uh, where was junkscience.com mentioned? I reckon some bona fide persons have examined trees' potential to warm the planet, but I don't think anyone's really suggesting we cut down all the tress. ~ UBeR 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually, this article covered a climate model from a Californian team (if I remember correctly) that did suggest that cutting all the trees would help fight global warming. The article did not suggest, although, what to think about climate modeling... --Childhood's End 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The study was based on a computer modeling heat reflection effects. Even if the data was isomorphic to a real world scenario, it still would not take into consederation other, more devestating environmental effects. So no, "any honest global warming fan" would be a complete moron to say "hey, lets cut down all the trees!" It'd be a bit like saying "we should just extinguish the sun: problem solved!". Brentt 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, wouldn't want to trust computer modeling.  (SEWilco 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trees CAUSE warming -- trees must be cut down in northern climates 

message: Hey Dude! I think the Deutsch Globale Erwärmung article is better than the english Global warming.. The pictures are really boring. See this http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellemetlen_igazs%C3%A1g (An inconvenient Truth)-Al Gore page's pictures. Boots, ships is the desert, Roger Revelle is an important person too, and so on.. --Tamás Kádár 09:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming's boring picture 

message: James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and the top U.S. climate scientist, has issued a new warning about the threat of a catastrophic rise in sea levels. He warns further that many scientists aware of such a rise are reluctant to discuss it out of fears of appearing "alarmist."
Hansen, J.E. (2007) "Scientific reticence and sea level rise" Environmental Research Letters 2(2): 024002.
:I suggest that a 'scientific reticence' is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control....
75.35.115.68 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, get this!  His immediate superior, NASA administrator Michael Griffin says, "To assume that it is a problem is to assume ... that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."  Some reactions: , , , , , and my favorite, "White House Blames NASA Chief’s Global Warming Denial On His ‘Wry Sense Of Humor’". :D 75.35.115.68 22:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top U.S. climate scientist says alarmism is appropriate 

message: You hacked away the citation formatting and again failed to check your work.  Others seem to have more robust adaptations to this new format than you.  If you break your changes into small parts and do diffs after your work you may spot some of the mistakes you make.--Africangenesis 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point to anything that was deleted? Nothing was deleted. ~ UBeR 19:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you found your error in the intro, you don't check your work, so how do you know nothing was deleted?  Just because you didn't intend to?--Africangenesis 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually sir, that typo came when I was formatting the new link with a citation template. Again, nothing was deleted. ~ UBeR 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, so is this whole edit war over whether to split references into separate paragraphs from the text they're referring to? johnpseudo 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Human flame out.  He left us with a 4th revert, I guess not having the citations globbed together with text was the last straw for him.--Africangenesis 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again please mind WP:CIV. Congratulations on driving away an editor who contributed to the project through meticulous copyediting, reference checking, and the like. Raymond Arritt 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make it sound like he was the first person driven mad by this article. So many have been shown the door ruthlessly by the "establishment" here that I can't count anymore. I'm not saying that Uber wasn't good for this article... he certainly was. But he's just another fish in the sea of those driven nuts by both sides of this controversy. 67.49.13.166 07:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there have been times when I too have had to take a break to maintain what is left of my sanity. Raymond Arritt 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I had plenty of run-ins with UBeR but when I reflected afterwards, I often found I'd been forced to improve things. JQ 03:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You are fond of that accusation Raymond, what are you up to?--Africangenesis 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally hate the templates they add pointless code, clutter up the article, and add several KB to the article's size. Aaron Bowen 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation wars 

message: :The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page -- wait, this is a discussion page -- No further edits should be made to this page.
Question A : Should the third paragraph be lengthened to include the inaccuracies of the IPCC?
Question B : Should mention of the dissenters be removed from the second paragraph?
* A: Yes, B: Yes. --James S. → talk 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I agree with RA, and feel this straw poll should be ignored. However, to the extent that it may be (inappropriately) used to argue that a consensus has been reached (ironic, no?): No to A and B. Arjuna 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason was that I had edited this article inappropriately.  When I asked you and Thatcher131 which edit(s) were inappropriate, you refused to answer.  Again, how have I been editing inappropriately?  Such accusations, when not substantiated by facts, are personal attacks. --James S. → talk 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no more appropriate way to attempt to "stuff text" in the article than by convincing the community on the talk page.  Unfortunately, there are deletionists around that don't participate on the talk page or attempt to understand the issues, and others who reach agreements on the talk page and then don't participate in implementing them.  Proper editing requires a community committed to improving the page, whether they agree with the science or not. --Africangenesis 12:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether you believe it is a good poll or bad, you closed after just over a day -- 26 hours -- and so I ask that someone else re-open it. --James S. → talk 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point out any policy that straw polls must stay open for more than 26 hours, thank you. >Radiant< 11:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say there is one, but I suspect there would have been more legitimate opinions and discussion of the issues I am raising if the poll had been left open, as all the straw polls in the recent archives are.  Is there any policy or guideline that would preclude me or anyone else from re-opening it? --James S. → talk 12:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Actually, yes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, Polling is not a substitute for discussion, How consensus is formed and Voting is evil. The point is that this really isn't a good way of deciding things. It is a very good idea to get more legitimate opinions and discussion on this issue; it is not a very good idea to require that those opinions and discussions conform to the pigeonhole categories mentioned above - it creates a false "us vs. them" mentality. >Radiant< 12:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly none of those policies would prevent re-opening the poll.  For WP:PNSD the poll does not preclude discussion and clearly, based on the second and subsequent answers, was encouraging it.  If I re-open the poll, will you take any retributive action against me?  In the mean time, I will try to create a structured discussion without polling which I hope you will support.--James S. → talk 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: In 2007 we cant speak about global warming, we can speak abou just Global Climate Crisis. We have to change the article's name to Global Climate Crisis.--Tamás Kádár 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Climate Crisis 

message: * WP:NPOV -- presenting IPCC findings as unbiased truth when empirical observation, time series analysis, and economic projections as reported in primary and secondary peer-reviewed sources all disagree with them is against one of the pillars of Wikipedia policy.
* the IPCC has substantially underestimated:
** CO2 emissions (Raupach, M.R. et al. (2007) "Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences);
** icepack and glacier melting (Stroeve, J., et al. (2007) "Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast" Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L09501; and also UN); and
** the rate at which the oceans are saturating with absorbed CO2 (Le Quéré, C., et al. (2007) "Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change" Science.)
* Attacks on the IPCC and conventional scientific views abound in the mass media by global warming skeptics as being alarmist.  General readers need to know that the mistakes they have been making understate global warming, not overstate it.
* The CO2 projections [that] WMC has made in his blog, are based only on past emissions trends, and are not informed by the expected rapid increase in fossil fuels in China, India, and other parts of the developing world, seriously understating the expected increase. apparently irrelevant --James S. → talk 13:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for

message: I suggest we should mention the good side of global warming. Global warming has negative effects for serain individual countries, but on a longer time scale, it has a global beneficial effect.
===Ecosystems===
Life, human, animal, as well as plant life, is most abundant around the equator, the warmest area. On the other hand, it's very scarce around the poles, the coldest area. Global warming will simply emphasis the warmer areas of the globe, moving the borders of climate zones further north. It's uncertain wether a warming of the warmest areas will yield an even more abundant concentration of life, or if this peak of life will move further north and south respectively. However, there will be a boost of life ecosystems around the poles on a longer time scale, as the rich temperate climate will move to these areas. Thus, globally, there will be an increase in life.
:Interesting pronouncement; which scientific organizations embrace this concept? What are your sources of information? How does this address tropical and sub-tropical desertification increases? Are arctic soils conducive to agricultural use? I look forward to your answers.  --Skyemoor 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might benefit from some basic reading in ecology and anthropology. Raymond Arritt 13:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is no place for unpublished speculation or theories, so thank you for bringing this onto the talkpage rather than straight into the article. We'd all love for your scenario to come about, but it is unlikely that the warmer conditions that may be conducive to life will last long enough or be stable enough for eco systems to adapt. Even if they do, our species as we know it will not be around for it, so we'd sooner focus on a more humanist scale, on which global warming is a cataclysm. Bendž|Ť 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive effects of global warming 

message: Life, human, animal, as well as plant life, is most abundant around the equator, the warmest area. On the other hand, it's very scarce around the poles, the coldest area. Global warming will simply emphasis the warmer areas of the globe, moving the borders of climate zones further north. It's uncertain wether a warming of the warmest areas will yield an even more abundant concentration of life, or if this peak of life will move further north and south respectively. However, there will be a boost of life ecosystems around the poles on a longer time scale, as the rich temperate climate will move to these areas. Thus, globally, there will be an increase in life.
:Interesting pronouncement; which scientific organizations embrace this concept? What are your sources of information? How does this address tropical and sub-tropical desertification increases? Are arctic soils conducive to agricultural use? I look forward to your answers.  --Skyemoor 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecosystems

message: Vast areas around the poles will become habitable, and this advantage to mankind easily overcomes the bad effects on e.g. more extreme weather.
Thus, it's only the exodus from bad stricken areas to the larger new inhabitable areas that are the obstacles of global warming, for mankind as well as for plants and animals. Mikael Häggström 07:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might benefit from some basic reading in ecology and anthropology. Raymond Arritt 13:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is no place for unpublished speculation or theories, so thank you for bringing this onto the talkpage rather than straight into the article. We'd all love for your scenario to come about, but it is unlikely that the warmer conditions that may be conducive to life will last long enough or be stable enough for eco systems to adapt. Even if they do, our species as we know it will not be around for it, so we'd sooner focus on a more humanist scale, on which global warming is a cataclysm. Bendž|Ť 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mankind

message: Could Nrcprm2026/James's ban on this article be extended to the Talk page?  I find his actions here to be highly tendentious and disruptive. Raymond Arritt 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We get a dozen outright deniers a month, with nothing more than propagandistic TV shows to back them up, and when I ask for something stronger than the IPCC, with peer-reviewed sources on three different topics, it's time to bring out the banhammer?  Sheesh.  Please review WP:TEND and note that arguing for a point on a talk page, no matter how much it might upset you, does not fall under the definitions therein. --James S. → talk 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my goal here is to support concern over global warming. (You are not alone in this misimpression, though most others who think this are on the opposite side of the issue.)  It isn't.  WP:OR and scientifically unsupportable material has no place in the article, regardless of which "side" it comes from. Raymond Arritt 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope your goal is to improve the encyclopedia.  Inserting the claims from the three peer-reviewed sources described above is not OR, but leaving them out while giving voice to the very few who argue on the other side of the IPCC position is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Why is my advocacy upsetting to you? --James S. → talk 16:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia is not the place for "advocacy" (see WP:SOAP, Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs among others). Advocacy can be a good thing, and there are many good forums for advocacy, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Raymond Arritt 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Advocating for the neutral point of view policy, asking that peer-reviewed sources be included, is not only allowed, but encouraged. Let me rephrase my question:  Why are you upset that I am asking that these peer-reviewed sources showing the serious underestimations by the IPCC be included? --James S. → talk 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree his spamming of the talk page is getting tiresome. Aaron Bowen 17:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see WP:POINT, he's being purposefully disruptive. Aaron Bowen 17:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree and ask that you please refrain from making personal attacks. --James S. → talk 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Given all the other highly tendentious editors on this talk page, I don't (yet) see what JS has done that is so objectionable. I didn't like his call for a poll, but that was hardly disruptive. Arjuna 18:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool out James, but no ban.65.12.145.148 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's a good idea. Better for James to meditate for a while on WP:OR.  It would be helpful for an uninvolved admin to check here occasionally. Raymond Arritt 01:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban James S. 

message: Global warming seems to be studied by meteorologist, and it seems to me that all global warming models focus on the atmosphere and the oceans' water volumes. Taking into account the extremely high temperatures beneath the earth's crust, it seems likely that fluctuations in that core temperature can have a direct or indirect impact on global climate.
Bill Bryson: "No one knows exactly how hot the Earth's core is, but estimates range from something over 4,000 degrees to over 7,000 degrees Celsius - about as hot as the surface of the sun'" Bryson, Bill, A short history of nearly everything.Fortinbras 18:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Stephan Schulz 18:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan is entirely correct.  In slightly less terse form: the issue has been looked at, and the flux of heat from Earth's interior is many orders of magnitude smaller than the other fluxes such as insolation. The heat flux at the earth's crust is 63 milliwatts (0.063 watt) per square meter (see e.g., here), compared to a mean absorbed solar radiation of about 240 watts per square meter. It's an interesting question and one that is often asked by students in our introductory meteorology class. Raymond Arritt 18:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your informative reply. Maybe a "Falsified theories" chapter should be added to the article, in which this idea, and perhaps others, are done away with. Fortinbras 10:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Earth's core temperature and global warming 

message: This link that is clogging up the history page whould not be added. Its sole purpose is rhetorical and is out of line with the WP:NPOV of the article. Bendž|Ť 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but which link are you referring to? Raymond Arritt 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *sigh* How to talk to climate skeptics Bendž|Ť 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK. Definitely. It's been picked up by major media sources, which puts to rest the "blog" objections. Raymond Arritt 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GW skeptic link 

message: ...was the hottest day ever in Eleusina, Athens, Greece, Europe with the remarkable pan-European record of 47 degrees Celsius, said the Greek media. Europe is being African-ized (and Africa is being infern-ized), and the effects are evident year after year, and more evident in the southern European countries. Me, trolling? Well, it may be the heat (and the very good article I  bumped into -congratulations, now list it on the main page for a month)... NikoSilver 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH its cold and wet in the UK :-( Can we have some of the greek warmth please? William M. Connolley 08:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the jet-stream has split Europe in two.  Can't remember a worse June than this in England. Iceage77 10:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had hail and storms 2 weeks ago across Greece too, and it's become a habit in the last 4 Junes (before that it was unheard of in the summer, and very rare in the winter). That split by the jet-stream must be revolving... In Romania 18 died from the heat in that day; in Greece just 8 up to now. Thank God we got frappé! (yes, the heat is still on; so is the trolling...) NikoSilver 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Justifying my existence with a (somewhat) productive comment: I read in the sub-article that the renewable energy accounts for only 14% of the global consumption. I failed to grasp what is the total course of that percentage over the years. Projections? (there's only one graph for the wind farms there). NikoSilver 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day before yesterday... 

message: Cosmic Rays and Global Warming
It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with `the cosmic ray intensity' are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great. We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So far we have not found any and so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause. 
Comments:  Submitted to ICRC 2007 
 Count Iblis 00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- very interesting, especially the bit about Chernobyl. Raymond Arritt 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article: Cosmic Rays and Global Warming