Talk:Climate change/Archive 11

message: Something in this article should mention the originator of the artificial global warming theory: Svente Arrhenius in the late 1800's. Maybe if someone writes a section on the history of the theory.
:His name is Svante Arrhenius and a detailed history is provided  there. Hans Erren 22:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Svente Arrhenius 

message: I'm not particularly happy with the recent edit. The passage now has the typical zick-zack feel of rule, exception, exception to the rule...
The source given is a bona-fide article in what looks like a bona-fide journal (but I'm not a biologist). From the abstract of the paper, however, it is clear that the authors worked with a single desert-adapted species of plant. It not clear if it was grown in a water-limited environment (for this species). I find it dangerous to generalize this to most plants. Does someonehave access to the Journal and can check the details? Online references to this paper seem to be concentrated in "sceptic" think tanks, which also makes me suspicious. --Stephan Schulz 09:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to review the source, but I've read such material elsewhere.  The is a fertilization effect of CO2, and part of that is through conservation of water, since there is less water loss through transpiration to get CO2.  Some of the increased growth however, has been correctly noted as making crops less  nutritious, in the sense that it increases the calorie content (sugars, starches, etc) more than it increases the protein and mineral content.  So the levels of certain important nutrients PER calorie has been decreased, although, since there are still parts of the world with protein/calorie malnutrition, the fact that a net increase in both is expected is probably a net gain.  In the more affluent societies, we probably really don't need crops with say 5 percent more protein and vitamins, associated with 10% more calories.  Although we go to great expense to create foods with almost entirely empty calories, i.e., with higher sugar, starch and white flour content.--Silverback 10:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit by 64.69.112.122 

message: When/why was the intro revised? I don't like this opening para, particularly "the question is how much?" seems quite inappropriate for an intro. Rd232 talk 21:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nov 13 by WMC in response to a suggestion by Count Iblis, above. The uncertainty bit could be worded better no doubt. What else? Vsmith 23:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, see here. Count Iblis 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it was just the addition of one sentence (diff) - I thought it was more of a change. I really don't like that sentence though - it breaks up the logical flow from the previous sentence ('man-made increases') to the next (on scientific opinion). It's vaguely misleading in talking about "adding CO2" only, as if that was the only issue; and what exactly is the reader supposed to do with "30C"? It's supposed to give some kind of context for the rise of the last century, but it needs to both say more (to explain it for people who don't know), and less (to avoid distracting from the main thrust of the intro). I think it should either be taken out of the intro or expanded/improved. Rd232 talk 13:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perhaps it's not so well written. The 30°C is actually meant to make plausible that changing greenhouse gas concentrations can indeed lead to non-negligible temperature changes. Before mentioning results of climate models etc. one needs to mention these basic facts, otherwise some people will remember just that some computer models predict a greenhouse effect. If they hear some anti-greenhouse effect propganda like they can't predict next week's weather, how come they can predict that hundred years from now temperatures will rise by  a few °C?, they won't know what's wrong with this statement. Count Iblis 13:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That issue is worth discussing, but I don't think it can be squeezed into one sentence in the intro. Rd232 talk 16:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: I am pleased to hear this.  I dropped in about a year ago and was not pleased with what he was posting.  While he does make some good points and I am sure he is a very hard working researcher who believes what he posts - what he posted before was at variance with "facts" from the paleoclimate record.
I have not reviewed the page since back then.  Frankly I gave up!  
This looks like a positive development.  As for you W.M.,  I will be more than pleased to review what your points of view are and indeed like any open minded scientist perhaps you will be able to correct some of my misunderstandings.  What I suggested before was a spilt into different factions.  The thing about science in this area is that it may take several lifetimes to sort out the facts.  So I think W.M. may have a lot to contribute but he'll have to stop chompin at the bit so to speak.
TB 
unsigned post by User:Terrell Larson 03:35, 5 December 2005
:Moved above post to bottom of page. Seems TB missed all the fun of the past year :-) Vsmith 04:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re W.M. Connolley's parole 

message: Believing it to be recent info, I inserted "In December, 2005 it was revealed the reflectivity effect of airborne pollutants was about double that previously expected, and that therefore some global warming was being masked.  This effect implies that pre-2006 models will underpredict future global warming. ". Simesa 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thats interesting, and supports my weakening it... note that the report was in china dily but the research was Hadley Centre I think. William M. Connolley 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You think that China doesn't have supercomputers? —James S. 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said I am not aware of China having applied super-computers to global climate change problems, as has Japan with their Earth Simulator. Simesa 09:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Daily report 

message: We need more. We have too many graphs, we need a photograph that captures the entire concept at hand. I am considering exchanging the Himalaya photograph's position with one of the images at the top, considering that photographs are better as in the lead section than it is tagged at the bottom. Anyhow. -- Natalinasmpf 05:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can probably find a few more retreated-glacier type photos... William M. Connolley 20:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion, some of the most pronounced changes include the breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf (satellite imagery available) or the reduced (soon to be gone) ice cover on top of Mount Kilimanjaro (see :Image:Glacier at summit of Mt Kilimanjaro 001.JPG). --Aude 21:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read that Kilimanjaro's losses are due in part to drought and human-caused desertification in the region, so it seems to me to be a less perfect demonstration of global warming, but perhaps someone with a better reference can fill me in.  I think the best images I've seen are NASA images of the Artic ice melt, e.g., here and here.  Dramatic, no?  bikeable (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another great example.  And, yes we need to be careful in associating a particular example with the global warming article.  Changes in places such as Kilimanjaro are often very nuanced. --Aude 21:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos are good, but as Kmf and Bikeable say one also has to be careful with photos.  With any specific example of climate change it is often the case that there are multiple factors in play.  I am reminded of a certain glacier comparison done by Greenpeace where they showed a before and after picture of a glacier that had greatly retreated over the last 50 years as an example of global warming, only to have their comparison ridiculed when someone pointed out that the retreat was unrelated to changes in local temperatures.  (I forget what the culprit actually was in that case, but something related to local water management or daming, I think.)  So if we are going to hold up pictures as key examples of global warming, let's do our homework and make sure that scientists actually support that conclusion.  Personally, I'd love to see more photos on the subject but good ones seem hard to come by.  Dragons flight 05:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  A video, too! How much material do they have? All of this should be uploaded to the commons. Hey, it's time we linked to a video on here, and maybe a spoken article, if anyone bothers. -- Natalinasmpf 03:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  we finally have a photograph 

message: According to the current version of the page, "Over the past 1-2 thousand years before 1850 the temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with various (possibly local) fluctuations, such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age."
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but following through to the links on MWP and LIA, doesn't that mean that the last 700 years of the "past 1-2 thousand years" have been "variations?"  I think this needs a cite to another wiki page or an external source, because I'm not sure I understand it.  Is the author saying that the temperature was relatively stable for the 300-1300 years before the MWP (and if so, that's a big range - is it closer to 300 or 1300?), or is the author saying that the temperaturature range was stable even during the MWP and LIA?  Also, who is it who is it who believes that the last 1000-2000 years before 1850 were relatively stable, and what do they mean by "relatively"?
To clarify, I'm not saying the statement isn't true, just that it doesn't make sense without some kind of reference clarifying the point. TheronJ 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, maybe whats its relative to isn't so clear. Relative to the recent change; relative to the glacial-interglacial fluctuations. And yes the statement (I wrote it so I can read my mind) does mean literally 1-2 kyr before 1850. William M. Connolley 20:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Was Historical Temperature "Relatively Stable"? 

message: Discussion archived to Talk:global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph. No users other than the producer of the extrapolated graph appear to wish it to be included, and at least 8 users have said that they do not. The discussion appeared to end around 2 January 2006. Rd232 talk 13:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain of the opinion that a version of the graph consisting of purely historical data would be useful. Rd232 talk 13:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And I would urge James S. to drop his crusade for the extrapolation, as the matter appears to have been resolved. The matter has taken up quite enough of our collective time, and as he clearly has much to contribute to the general topic of climate change, I urge him to do so. Rd232 talk 13:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2nd revision of the extrapolation graph, which was produced solely from suggestions made here -- from comments on the first revision -- and which predicted the preliminary 2005 cost estimate precisely, is valuable because it shows that the cost of extreme weather events is rising much more rapidly tham most people imagine.  It is netiher "original," being designed from the comments of others, nor is it "research" as merely a display of published data.  I maintain that graph should be included, if not here then in at least some of the most appropriate branch articles. —James S. 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that no-one else agrees with you. As to your underyling reason for having the graph: the graph shows only dollar economic costs. The economic impact of extreme weather events in developing countries is underplayed (because X livelihoods being wiped out counts for less in dollars), and the human cost (eg displacement from floods) ignored entirely. If anything, your graph understates the global impact of extreme weather (but not in any way that fixable). These and other issues previously raised can be discussed in a paragraph far better than in an extrapolation line. Rd232 talk 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And indeed, I have been endeavoring to use text instead, and will continue to do so when I hunt down some more peer-reviewed literature quotes, but I still think the graph belongs at least in Effects, Action, and Extreme weather. —James S. 19:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extreme weather extrapolation graph

message: I deleted the POV sentence under "alternative theories" which stated that "only a small number of scientists believe in such theories."
* Why is that POV, if it's a fact "at present, none of these has more than a small number of supporters within the climate science community"?  There's nothing POV about that at all, if it is an accurate count of scientists in the climate science community.  bikeable (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of the POV Sentence 

message: I don't understand how people can be claiming at various places that human activity doesn't have an effect on climate. Based on the facts that  
a)we are burning fossil fuels and thus converting carbon, that has been locked up for millions of years, into carbon dioxide in huge quantities into the atmosphere. 
b)we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, because otherwise we would never have been able to come about. Venus serves as an example of the temperature-raising effects of a high carbon atmosphere.
c)we are generally releasing carbon from all the places it got locked up in over the ages, that allowed the Earth to cool to this degree.
This isn't really about this specific article, but I'm sure the people who edit it know where I can find the arguments people use against this stuff. Is there an article on them? There must be some arguments, however bad, or people couldn't maintain it. 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: I heard a headline the other day on yahoo.com.  It said, "several prominent members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have announced the first evidence of rising sea levels in the south pacific."  The article went on to state that the "rising sea level" on this particular coral atoll was causing inhabitants to pack up and leave.  
After further research into the subject, I found out that these "prominent scientists" with the IPCC were in reality working for various foreign governments which are suing the United States for being the "number one cause" of global warming.  I also found out something astonishing...the island in question was actually SUBSIDING on its own accord at a rate of 1 inch per decade, and sea level was not rising.  The "prominent scientists" actually knew about this, but knew that the ensuing publicity would help their cause.
As a scientist, I would implore everyone to take a good look at the members of the IPCC, and to consider the source.  I would also encourage everyone to do their own investigation on the matter of the cause of global warming.  Everywhere I go, scientists are quick to point out the IPCC annual reports as the gospel, and I think that most informed individuals would agree that this organization has its shortcomings.  I think you will agree that the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that the IPCC members have agendas other than "saving the planet."
:i happened to overhear a bit of that report myself. it immediately made me wonder how on earth the sea level could be rising just around this one group of islands. obviously, a land mass that's only a few inches above sea level would be particularly sensitive to rising sea levels - but any such land mass would be inundated purely by wave mechanics constantly. it's unfortunate when things like this happen. all it does is add to the distrust many people - including myself - have for those who relentlessly push the 'end of the world predicted, film at eleven' mentality. Anastrophe 03:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? An anonymous AOL user tells us about a story "on Yahoo" that several (unnamed) "prominent scientists" make bogus claim to support unnamed "foreign governments" which are suing the poor old United States (in which court?). But luckily, our anonymous AOL user is a scientist himself, and due to his painstaking research he found out that this is all BOGUS (well, there might be a true statement) and that the experts are lying because of their secret (unnamed) agendas. --Stephan Schulz 08:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of googling came up with these (responding to above and below):  and  - it would seem that the anon's story is a 'reworking' of this story to include the US et al (stories date from just a few days ago). However, it does bear the thrust of the issue. Can someone explain how certain islands would be being swallowed up by our rising sea levels, when last i recall, there had been a 1cm rise over what - 30 years? Anastrophe 08:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A centimeter?  More like 10 to 25 over the past century:  and .  bikeable (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: anyone want to put up a link to that report? I'm interested in reading it myself--naught101 06:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And what would that benefit be?  Guettarda 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: May I please remind my fellow editors that we should be discussing how to make the article better, and not debating the topic itself. Both sides of disputed issues should be presented fairly. Relevant citations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature are the most likely to satisfy the WP:V amd WP:NPOV guidelines. They are to be preferred to comments by politicians or reports by the news media. Of course, the latter two can be useful for describing the reaction of politicians or news reporters, but cannot be relied upon for more than that. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also... all this is Effects of global warming stuff. William M. Connolley 14:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ends Justifying the Means 

message: The page on Climate Audit has been proposed for deletion.  I don't know if people will agree with me on the merits of keeping the page, but I am confident that this community is better suited to judge that then the average AFD voter.  So, please take a look.  Dragons flight 13:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Audit 

message: I removed: 
: Living Plants (eg forests) have recently been identified as a major likely source (10-30%) of the greenhouse gas Methane. 
Its true; but its todays news. See-also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=236. I dislike having breaking news in the articles, and prefer it to settle down (for long enough for people to be able to comment, which is ideally a year but perhaps a month or two for Nature stuff).
Is there a general policy on this kind of thing?
William M. Connolley 12:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is a policy but I agree with your handling. This is one laboratory based study possibly backed up by some unpublished field measurements. It is a very interesting study and I need to go and read the paper(s) but is far from established science. There have been plenty of cases where the scientific community gets interested in an idea based on a single study, does the research and at the end realises it's wrong. This is part of the normal process of science  --NHSavage 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that (and have no idea whether it is a policy either). I think that for newly released research we should wait until the scientific community has had time for a response, trying to strike a balance between timeliness and the need for scrutiny. There does seem to be a large amount of possibly relevant infromation in Nature, Science etc., but it most of these could/should (?) (perhaps ideally?) generate their own pages. The risk otherwise is that these pages could become a summary of the pages of a few major journals. Mostlyharmless 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree this is good research but the point is this should "prompt a re-examination of the global methane budget" in other words more reasearch is needed. The extrapolation of this is based on a single study and so uncertain at this stage. I will add a small mention of it to the methane article. I will also look at properly sourcing what is here. I feel that in general it is better to base wikipedia articles in review articles or recent textbooks. Perhaps we need to take this debate to some wider forum? It seems an important debate with wider implications.--NHSavage 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note Also that the authors have recently published a statement in which they state "our findings are preliminary with regard to the methane emission strength" and "the potential for reduction of global warming by planting trees is most definitely positive" .--NHSavage 11:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As an example of why its a good idea to wait, see . William M. Connolley 11:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that their forest analysis assumes "new forest", this period of rapid growth probably does have a net positive effect, however, after that in the more mature forest whether there is a net benefit is questionable.  It probably is a good idea to repeated harvest the forests and plant anew, sequestering the harvested carbon in new construction. (not newspapers in landfill).--Silverback 12:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of which goes to show that this should be left to settle for a while before going in. William M. Connolley 13:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't go to show that at all.  The forest statements were not part of the research.  The research can be mentioned on its own merits.  The forest statements were comments upon the research by reputable scientists and can go in as such, properly quoted and cited.  They are not as questionable as some of the already included IPCC TAR information is now.  The scientific state of affairs does not have to be certain to be cited, in fact if it is certain, it probably ain't science.  What is unknown and needs to be investigated further, is worthy of mention and more properly represents the state of the science.--Silverback 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methane 

message: I'm tired of trying to wade through the rvv'ed IP numbers on this article's edit history, and I bet you are, too.  Please join my request for semi-protection by adding:
 :seconded --~~~~
after the request.  Thank you. --James S. 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin has protected Effects of global warming, but I think this one may have been overlooked.  Please second. --James S. 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I think it may just be the message. I've replaced the text Ae used with the template; when I edit it, though, I get a message saying only-admins-may-edit. Is this just a message error? William M. Connolley 11:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's just the message.  It gave me the same message but let me make an edit.  Perhaps this is a bug, but maybe it has a featurish effect. --James S. 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request semi-protection, please 

message: I cut:
: The fact that global warming is observed to be stronger at high latitudes precludes other explanations for global warming, but CO2 greenhouse forcing. Water vapor and CO2 share some of the same infra red spectrum, so the anthropogenic increase in CO2 will show at cold high latitudes where there is less water vapor in the air. The recent increase in the average global temperature is thought to be a direct result of greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution e.g. carbon dioxide emissions increased from 280ppm to 360ppm between 1890 and 2000 (there has been a steady increase in total energy consumption per capita (per person)). Changes in the nutrient content of the high latitude surface waters are also thought to affect atmospheric CO2 on longer (decades, centuries) time scales.
This is too strong (first sentence) and probably wrong (CO2 and H2O). William M. Connolley 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-enthusiasm cut to talk 

message: I added the italicized statement.
Although no cause and effect relationship has ever been established between Global Warming and the especially severe 2005 hurricane season [43], the United Nation’s Environmental Program recently announced that severe weather around the world this year has made 2005 the most costly year on record. [44]--Smithsmith 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the quotes where they were. Quote marks indicate... a quotation. Please familiarise yourself with the source text before messing with quotations. I await (without much hope) an apology re POV. William M. Connolley 18:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quote "it is likely that most of the warming observed..."  is not mine.  It came from the report, unless their website (IPCC's) has been hacked or something.  I am looking at a copy of the report as we speak, so if I have a bad copy, I need to know before I go any further with this.  Why are you so defensive about this?  I already apologized to you last week for the Chicken Little statement.  I really think that the "it is likely" quotation needs to be made part of the statement since this is apparently what was actually said (presuming I have a valid copy of the report).  --Smithsmith 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added  

message: NASA and NSA silences global warning researcher James Hansen of Goddard Institute. Big scandal all over the world news. 195.70.32.136 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA never minds the climate