Talk:Climate change/Archive 9

message: Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
let me remind you that user William M. Connolley is under parole, and he is not allowed to revert pages about the climate unless he writes a justification including sources on the Talk page. If he happens to violate this rule, you may complain on []. All the best, Lubos --Lumidek 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Lubos, your pointless trouble making is going to get you RFC'd unless you start behaving yourself. William M. Connolley 13:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lumidek, you are trolling. Please stop it. Remember, Wikipedia works by consensus. Your edit was pointless and provocative and William's edit summary was fully adequate. We have been over this over and over again, and you know it. --Stephan Schulz 14:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  W. M. Connolley's parole 

message: If the North Pole melts then much more energy from the Sun will be absorbed. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article. Recent studies have indicated that the North Pole could be gone within a few decades. Count Iblis 14:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The North Pole is a location, by definition it can't melt. I presume you mean to talk about the [worrying] recent retreat of the Acrtic Polar Sheet. Facts aside, it is a valid point and would be worth including. NigelHorne 15:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the good Count is probably thinking about the Arctic sea ice rather than the Arctic (Greenland, I presume) ice sheet. "A few decades is probably on the short side". The seaice-albedo feedback is important, yes. This might be better elsewhere though... it belongs in some "mechanisms of GW type article" which we don't have yet... William M. Connolley 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albedo changes due to North Pole melting 

message: We're back at the bloating solar section, again. See .
I consider the extensive quote from Lean definitely inappropriate. Also, Scafetta and West, and other independent approaches, derive climate sensitivities to solar variation that are 1.5 to 3 times greater than models predict. is misleading (and unsourced, since SB hasn't provided the others). But its misleading because it fails to include the idea that solar forcing may simply be exactly as it seems (and nothing to do with models).
And its not really true that at least one satellite reconstruction does show a post 1980 positive trend (and even if it was, that ignores the ones showing not). Even the ACRIM version doesn't show an overall trend.
William M. Connolley 22:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They detect the trend at a 22 year period and two year lag, using wavelet analysis.--Silverback 08:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at the data... William M. Connolley 22:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page bloat/solar again 

message: I've taken it upon myself to attempt to draft a compromise text before there are any more reverts on the solar section. I kept Silverbacks paragraphination, on the grounds that in my opinion it flows better that way. I kept WmCs wording "has reassessed" over "has revised the assessment" on grounds of avoiding unecessary wordiness. I kept WmCs wording "one estimate of the solar contribution" over "the solar contribution one estimate" on the grounds it's proper English and the alternate must have been an inadvertant error. I kept the link to the PDF rather than the bare journal citation, on the grounds that it's much more useful to most readers that way. I removed "and other independent approaches" for the time being on the grounds that, after checking the talk page, it appears this line has been challenged and no other independent confirmation has, to this date, been cited. I also removed the 'However' at the beginning of the next paragraph on the grounds that there are too many blamed 'however's in this paper already and it annoyed me. I sincerely hope that my work here is acceptable to all. Arker 02:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx.  The new result shows good consistency with the Stott,et al, and Meehl, et al, results discussed above that also found that greater solar sensitivity in the climate than in the models.  Both those papers were out of major climate centers, NCAR and Hadley, and they attributed up to 35% of post 1950 warming to solar activity, even accepting the satellite data that did not show a trend.  If the data with a positive trend ends up more accepted, it will be interesting to see what the impact on their work would be.  It looks like WMC has gotten rid of the Meehl paper, despite its importance, probably because it didn't make an estimate of contribution like the Stott paper.--Silverback 08:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Meehl paper? I've re-removed the excess detail of Lean-quoting. Put it in the solar var article, if it isn't there already. William M. Connolley 22:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempting a compromise text.  

message: One important paragraph is buried deep inside the article:
Atmospheric scientists know that adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to an atmosphere, with no other changes, will tend to make a planet's surface warmer. Indeed, greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be 30°C lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding CO2 or CH4 to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, on average. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of CO2 and CH4 will be, and whether changes in water vapor, clouds, the biosphere and various other climate factors will cancel out its warming effect. The observed warming of the Earth over the past 50 years appears to be at odds with the skeptics' theory that climate feedbacks will cancel out the warming.
Currently the article starts with what the scientific consensus is and that there are some scientist who dispute global warming etc. I think that these things should be mentioned later on in the article. It is important that people reading the article get some sense of the relevant order of magnitudes that underly this problem. The fact that without any greenhouse gasses temperatures would be 30°C lower and that human emissions are significantly changing the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gasses should be mentioned early on in the article. Then you mention the observed warming and results of detailed climate studies etc.Count Iblis 15:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have tried to do this, briefly (the article is already too long). William M. Connolley 17:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important undisputed hard facts must be mentioned earlier in the article 

message: i removed him. he has nothing to say. William M. Connolley 18:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I think he has plenty to say, especially since he had a poor, but notable, best-selling book on the subject.  He's listed in the skeptical area, nothing else is really noted on the subject in the article, I'd say the removal is without much merit in this case. --badlydrawnjeff 18:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe in global warming controversy, but he has nothing useful to say about the science.  Guettarda 18:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also disagree with that.  He has valid protests regarding the idea of scientific consensus and the reliance on climate models used to predict such things.  It's useful for where it sits and what it's meant to do, whether you agree with it or not. --badlydrawnjeff 19:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If that's the criterion, we should throw out SEPP and the Cooler Heads coalition as well. Seriously, I'd prefer Cichton to stay out, but it's not a big concern if people want him in...--Stephan Schulz 19:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, perhaps that's the fault of the articles and not Crichton? --badlydrawnjeff 20:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain what you mean?  It seems to me that you are either saying (i) that the GW article should largely repeat what's in the GWC article, or (ii) that the articles should be merged.  The former would not be in keeping with policy, the latter would make the article longer than guidelines recommend.  Guettarda 20:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably shouldn't remove it when the "case in talk" has only really been attempted to be made over a two hour period.  To say that "crichton has nothing to say" is patently false, and to dismiss it based on the fact that it was chosen, or perhaps outright exorcised one way or the other, is poor logic.  The case is being made here, and pay attention to it before you dismiss it outright.  He criticises the science, he criticises the collection abilities, and it's a link that's worth noting, especially given his prominence recently, like him or not. "He has nothing to say" isn't a valid reason.  --badlydrawnjeff 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if it was premature.  What case?  "Perhaps it's the fault of the article"?  What specifically in Crichton's speech is relevant here?  He spends >3/4 of it documenting the fact that people tend to arm-wave when they don't have data, and then arm-waves himself to dismiss climate modelling.  It might be a notable link in an article about logically flawed rhetorical devices, but it says nothing about the specific issue he claims to debunk.  So, to put it simply, he has nothing to say.  He says nothing germane to GW.  While it may be relevant in the GWC article (be a good place to point out the logical flaws in his argument), he doesn't address GW.  Guettarda 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: hard to 'assume good faith' when people arbitrarily and capriciously decide for everyone else what is and isn't relevant, rather than relying upon consensus.Anastrophe 22:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: it's further worth noting that the article linked to is specifically addresssed on MC's page on WP. so the assertion above is without merit.Anastrophe 22:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: i have restored the crichton link. if alternative points of view are to be silenced, then remove the entire 'global warming skeptical' section, and declare the article POV.Anastrophe 00:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: removed 'global warming skeptical' as consensus is there are no credible skeptical opinions.Anastrophe 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this was indeed your interpretation, but it looks like WP:POINT. In any case, I reverted your removal of all skeptical links. Rd232 talk 09:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the risible crichton 

message: Since we're on the subject... there is no real criterion for links at the bottom. I'd like to trim it more. Specifically: anything on temperature data to the temperature record page; anything on mitigation to mitigation; errrm, etc. Comments? William M. Connolley 15:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i would propose eliminating the 'global warming skeptical' links, and replace with a link to global warming controversy.Anastrophe 19:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Bring back the 'global warming skeptical' link! Why does it have to be in global warming controversy if it isn't political?69.239.178.179 05:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: GWC is not just about political issues. most of that article deals with questions regarding the science behind GW theory. Anastrophe 07:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More link cleanup? 

message: I've trimmed the solar section. I'd like to think the page is now stable enough to be worked up a bit more. Currently the TOC irritates me - there is too much of it! The reference links extend to 10 sections! I intend to greatly trim these (I've said this before but unless anyone strongly objects tomorrow I'm going to actually do it). William M. Connolley 23:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've had a go and probably got carried away. Example: I took out http://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.htm. Its fair enough, but why are we bothering to link to it? It contains nothing that isn't better done in wiki. Ditto for several others I removed. Also... the "ext links" section tends to accrete links as news items come in... maybe a page called "global warming news"? to put these in? William M. Connolley 00:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move, link weeding was long overdue. Wiki is not just a list of everyone's favorite links - the elimination of the link bloat is an improvement of the article. Though some may not agree - see below :-) Vsmith 01:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page size, again 

message: I am confident that the majority of us disagree with "holocaust" - a massive eradication of links by William Connolley ("holocaust" is his own description of his acts) without including any alternative anywhere. I have also looked at William's censorship of many paragraphs about the solar variations and found his reductions undesirable - which is why I returned the article to the last version of Dragons flight whose edits seem to be improvements most of the time - at least to me. Thanks, Dragons flight. --Lumidek 01:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be wrong on this, as on some much else about GW. William M. Connolley 11:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Holocaust" undone 

message: A-W has  changed has  to is believed to have been in Over the past 1-2 thousand years before 1850 the temperature is believed to have been relatively stable. Its a minor point, and the new version is probably more words than are needed; after all the graph is just nearby. However his edit summary no instrumentation before 1850 - all models are just that, models, not data. is simply wrong, and pointlessly provocative. There *are* instruments pre-1850 (of course) and the data comes from proxies, not models.
But her edits to the Public Controversy section are unacceptable. This section is *about* the public controversy; the small minority sci disagreement is already mentioned in the intro. A-W seems to be trying to turn this section into a repeat of material elsewhere. William M. Connolley 11:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, patent nonsense on both counts. "1 - 2 thousand years" is absurdely vague. were temperatures relatively stable for 1000 years, or for 2000 years? if 'soft' data is acceptable, then i guess one or two thousand years is no big deal. close enough, i suppose? is that the scientific rigor we expect? regarding public controversy, the previous text was no more than a cut and paste of the first paragraph of the GWC article, and that is about the sum of the discussion of public policy matters dealt with in the article. the majority of the GWC article deals with questions and problems people see in methodologies, data, and conclusions drawn from same. the opening statement "leaving the realm of scientific journals" is "pointlessly provocative" to coin a phrase. are we to understand that not one, single study has ever been published that comes to conclusions different from those of the global warming proponents? if even a single published study contradicts the GW party line, then you cannot say "leaving the realm of scientific journals". the fact is, this is arguing an appeal to authority - verecundiam -which implicitly biasing to a point of view. Anastrophe 01:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, another point. if, again, we are to understand that global temperatures over the last 1 - 2 thousand years have been relatively stable - what does that mean for 3,000 years ago? 4,000? 5,000? were they not relatively stable then? if the proxy records are reliable, then it should be easy enough to clear that up. Anastrophe 01:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh. You seem determined to be pointlessly impolite. 1-2 kyr reflects the temperature record of the past 1000 years page. Proxies past that are fewer. And... volcanoes don't emit much CO2. William M. Connolley 10:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: GW is the "science" article. mentions of disagreement with the science seem to be systematically limited. that's fine. however, if you intend to keep this article strictly science, then it demands rigor. imprecision is not rigorous. that the "temperature record of the past 1000 years" article contains precisely one mention of one reconstruction by one researcher of the temperature record out to 2000 years is certainly not a firm basis for claiming "1 - 2 thousand years" in this article. if it were, then perhaps the source article might need to be renamed "temperature record of the past 2000 years".Anastrophe 21:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The public controversy bit 

message: OK, here are the links: I'm going to note their fate... some done, some not. William M. Connolley 19:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The links and their fate 

message: ===Data - all done===
*NOAA CMDL CCGG - Interactive Atmospheric Data Visualization NOAA CO2 data -> to GHG
*UNEP - The present carbon cycle - Climate Change carbon levels and flows -> Carbon cycle
*Temperature data Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Philip D. Jones and other. -> Temperature record
*Hadley Centre: Global temperature data -> Ditto
===Scientific===
*NASA's Global Hydrology and Climate Center
*NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) — Global Temperature Trends. -> TR
*NASA's GISS paleoclimate site -> Palaeo
*National Center for Atmospheric Research - Overview of NCAR research on climate change
*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — NOAA, United States Department of Commerce — Global Warming FAQ
*NOAA's paleoclimate site -> (on Palaeo)
*MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
* An Overview of Results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) -> CMIP
*Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
* ACIA report: Impacts of a Warming Arctic, (2004) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)
*Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre FAQ Includes links to lots of useful Carbon Dioxide statistics. -> to GHG
*Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming by Richard Lindzen.
*RealClimate a blog where scientists discuss the science of global warming
*David King at openDemocracy.net UK chief scientific advisor explains history and science of global warming
===Educational===
*New Scientist: Climate Change — Latest news, articles and FAQ on climate change from New Scientist magazine.
*Open Democracy: Climate Change debate — substantial article series by scientists, activists and others, and global debate about the politics of climate change.
*Discovery of Global Warming — An extensive introduction to the topic and the history of its discovery
*Science of Climate Change — Meteorological Service of Canada, a guide to understanding the science behind climate change with a thorough FAQ section.
*Global warming - a briefing document, summarising current arguments concerning global warming. They present various points of view and some of the basic problems in following the science.
*  — The Big Melt / No Escape: Thaw Gains Momentum / By ANDREW C. REVKIN /  New York Times – October 25, 2005
*Climate Change: Facts and Impacts A thorough but non jargon-filled introduction to Climate Change and it's consequences for society, the environement and the economy.
===Environmentalist===
*"Global warming is real and underway" — Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
*Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): overviews, news and reports on global warming — NRDC
*Climate Alliance of European Cities
*http://www.undoit.org Global Warming: Undo It (Environmental Defense)
*BBC: 2004 Climate Change Feature — Major feature from the BBC including climate change animations, articles, Q&A, video, analysis, charts and quizes.
*Global Warming — National Wildlife Federation Includes maps of impact on birds and Senate voting records.
*Global Warming & Hurricanes - Review based on latest articles in Science and Nature. Graph of trends in 6 hurricane basins.
===BBC articles===
*BBC - Earth - melting in the heat?
*BBC - Greenhouse gases 'do warm oceans'
*BBC - Europe study shows climate risks 
*BBC - 'Gas muzzlers' challenge Bush
*BBC -  CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
===News clippings of events which may have been caused by global warming===
* 11th Oct 2005 Nature News: Amazon hit by worst drought for 40 years
===Global warming-skeptical===
*http://www.sepp.org/ — the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
*The George Marshall Institute (GMI)
*John-Daly.com: Still Waiting for Greenhouse: A Lukewarm View of Global Warming
*Ross McKitrick's commented list of resources on global warming
*GlobalWarming.org
===Industry-sponsored===
*— Carbon mitigation initiative — Information on carbon capturing, storage, science and policy
*http://www.cei.org — the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Funded by petrol oil corporations (Source: ) 
*Access to Energy
*CO2 science magazine
* The Greening Earth Society
*Global Warming Information Page sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition, a subgroup of the National Consumer Coalition.
*The Global Climate Coalition
===Independent===
Sites which are considered to be independent or receive too little support to be considered influential sponsorship
* Greenhouse Effect by Thomas C. Schelling, winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize for economics
*David Suzuki Foundation— : Impacts and Solutions,on Climate Change.
*Possible solutions — Introduce interesting theories like "sequestering" or forcing carbon dioxide deep into the oceans
*GreenFacts— A summary of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC
*The PR Plot to Overheat the Earth, analysis of industry efforts to discredit global warming science, by Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton, published in the Earth Island Journal.
*Sleepwalking to Extinction, by George Monbiot (Z Magazine)
*Climate change (global warming) : a couple of answers to some elementary questions by Jean-Marc Jancovici
*Global Warming FAQ by Tom Rees
*Global Warming - a collection of articles from globalissues.org which also has developing country perspective
===Other===
*Global Warming FAQ — A comprehensive FAQ.
*A large compendium of links to sites with information on global warming
*Science and Technology Librarianship: Global Warming and Climate Change Science — Extensive commented list of Internet resources — Science and Technology Sources on the Internet.
* Activist Magazine: Carbon Activism for Beginners
*Global Warming and the Effects on Skiing
*Global warming - briefing document
*Environmental Defence - Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer — How ExxonMobil funds scientists and media pundits to "de-bunk" the science of climate change
*Global warming - Greenpeace pictures in Spitsbergen
*NOVA scienceNOW - A 7 minute video of the NOVA broadcast that aired on PBS, July 26, 2005. Hosted by Robert Krulwich, the video is about the world's fastest glacier and how "moving way too fast reveals how unpredictable the effects of global warming can be".
*Global Warming Related News
*Methane Burps: Ticking Time Bomb
:: This really scared me for a moment. I nearly thought I had posted a comment in the main article space! -- Natalinasmpf 14:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: *Global Warming FAQ — A comprehensive FAQ.
*A large compendium of links to sites with information on global warming
*Science and Technology Librarianship: Global Warming and Climate Change Science — Extensive commented list of Internet resources — Science and Technology Sources on the Internet.
* Activist Magazine: Carbon Activism for Beginners
*Global Warming and the Effects on Skiing
*Global warming - briefing document
*Environmental Defence - Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer — How ExxonMobil funds scientists and media pundits to "de-bunk" the science of climate change
*Global warming - Greenpeace pictures in Spitsbergen
*NOVA scienceNOW - A 7 minute video of the NOVA broadcast that aired on PBS, July 26, 2005. Hosted by Robert Krulwich, the video is about the world's fastest glacier and how "moving way too fast reveals how unpredictable the effects of global warming can be".
*Global Warming Related News
*Methane Burps: Ticking Time Bomb
:: This really scared me for a moment. I nearly thought I had posted a comment in the main article space! -- Natalinasmpf 14:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: i realize that WP discussion is not a 'chat' area, but since there are climate experts here, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction. i've done some googling, but i suspect i'm just not using the right terms. i'm trying to find the following, any assistance would be appreciated: 1. i presume there are standard methods for gathering temperature readings from which the vast data is accumulated that shows global warming. where are these methods codified? i'd like to learn more about them. 2. i'd also like to review some of this actual temperature data, but can't find any online source. how does one go about reviewing this data? thanks. Anastrophe 07:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On point 2, I would suggest that http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ is a good place to start.  In particular, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ will allow you to examine and download data from individual stations if you so desire.  Dragons flight 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: outstanding, thank you. Anastrophe 08:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a question

message: Just noting that an anonymous user has added the    template to this article. no comment on the issue.--Alhutch 20:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no reason seems to be forecoming, I'll remove it again. Whoever added it: Please discuss first! --Stephan Schulz 20:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: good good. Definitely needs to be discussed first.--Alhutch 21:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias tag 

message: An anon changed 420,000 years to 650,000 years in the article , with this source BBC - CO2 'highest for 650,000 years' added above on the Talk page in the list of external links. If we're done processing those links, it would be helpful to archive them (and other things on this over-long talk page) to avoid confusing people. And possibly that or another source for 650k should be in the article or a related article. Rd232 talk 07:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the talk page is overly long.  On a controversial article, it is helpful to have a long talk page, so that new comers know that what they think of as "news", is unlikely to have been missed, and so that they can see the level of review that has already gone into the current text, and they type of objections that are likely to be raised and the type of sources that are respected.  I think this page should be allowed to grow to twice this length or so.--Silverback 08:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be achieved better by writing an explicit notice above the TOC telling newcomers what we want them to know, instead of expecting them to get it by looking at outdated discussions. 79kb (never mind 160kb) is long for a page (server load, digestibillity, people on dialup), and most of the material is no longer current. Rd232 talk 14:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  650,000 years