Talk:Climate change/Archive 5

message: Cut from article:
:The reports are intended to reflect the consensus of the published science.
It's not clear at all what the IPCC really intends. Some people believe that it is sincerely dedicated to objective analysis of scientific data. Others hotly contend that it has been completely biased from the start and exists only to promote the Kyoto Protocol.
Indeed, there is some evidence that the IPCC has frequently ignored scientific objections to the GW theory. --Uncle Ed 13:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 15:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to give me anything, how about some neutrality? Say that the IPCC claims (or asserts) that its reports reflect the consensus of the published science. --Uncle Ed 00:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intent of IPCC

message: I'm sad that William M. Connolley's wholesale reversions of Uncle Ed's work led to this protection.  All he and his cohort Graft needed to do was analyze the changes and select those that were POV and modify them.  Note that I am not an ally of Ed with regards to his changes, but rather am defending the best interests of the Wikipedia.  Wholesale reversions of what is at least partially good work is just indefensible. -- Stevietheman 13:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevie, I don't know how long you've been on Wikipedia, but please don't make yourself it's Caped Avenger. I am not WMC's cohort, I was merely attempting to step in and end what I thought was an unreasonable revert war. I justified my reversion above: Ed's edits added nothing to the article. There was no way to salvage them, since they were so extensive. They merited reversion. The appropriate behavior on YOUR part would be to salvage what YOU think to be at least partially good work; this would provide grounds for discussion, which is what I believe is the appropriate way to defend the best interests of Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, are eschewing discussion of the text itself and insist on turning this into a personality conflict (which it is not), which is precisely the wrong way to go about things. Please reconsider, so that the page may be unprotected. What do you want to salvage from Ed's text? If nothing, then what is the issue? Graft 16:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my job to determine that.  It's William's, as it was he who did the wholesale reversion.  He should present in an honest manner what is salvageable, then we can discuss it.  I want William to correct his mistake and say he won't do any more wholesale reversions of people's work.  You can call me any label you like, but I don't like rogue behavior, and I'm not going to stand by and just let it happen. -- Stevietheman 18:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also did the wholesale reversion, and I imagine William's reasons were the same as mine. I don't believe anything in Ed's text is salvageable. It is impossible for me (and probably for William, but since he hasn't explicitly said this I can't speak for him) to present in an honest manner what is salvageable, since I don't believe there is any salvageable material. With that in mind, how is a reversion not justified? Your continued insistence that this is "rogue behavior" are not call to keep this page locked up. I have given a clear list of reasons why I believe a wholesale reversion was justified. Please give a concrete reason (not a general one) for why you feel this specific act of reversion was unjustified; otherwise there's no point in continuing this discussion. Graft 19:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection discussion

message: Ed, I don't understand why you want to include a passage where you emphasize what you yourself admit is a little-known usage of the term 'climate change'. It seems as if Wikipedia is advocating for that usage over the more widely-accepted one. In fact, I've never even heard of your usage before - climate change is, as far as I can tell, a more biased term than global warming. Graft 18:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I include that passage to dismiss the term as misleading propaganda: I don't think we should use it. It's not "my usage", and I agree that it's a biased term. --Uncle Ed 14:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate Change

message: I strongly suggest a move to global environment change which is the term that the scientific community now prefer to use, and the one I was taught to: It may not just get warmer... Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move 

message: (William M. Connolley 21:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv of Ed's solar stuff up the front 

message: With a herculean effort that might be compared to the writing of Gadsby, the article completely misses mention of the Greenhouse effect. (the only occurrence is at the end under "see also").
Darn! Well, that's been known to happen on controversial articles. People NPOV so much that they leave out the actual meat of the matter. Sooo, that might mean some rewriting/tidying is needed.
Kim Bruning 21:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 22:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenhouse Effect 

message: Ed, could you please still calculate the significance of your regression (P) ? Thank you! Kim Bruning 10:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  P value missing from Ed Poors' graph 

message: Note that Venus is the planet with the highest surface temperature, while Mercury is the closest to the sun. Venus has a *much* higher surface temperature than could be expected merely by its orbit. I'd say that research on Venus has given much insight into the greenhouse effect.
: (William M. Connolley 18:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus / Mercury 

message: Hi - I've been trying to help standardize the chemical & mineral names on Wikipedia along with some others.
IUPAC is "The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is an international non-governmental organization devoted to the advancement of chemistry. It has as its members national chemistry societies. It is the recognized authority in developing standards for the naming of chemical compounds, through its Interdivisional Committee on Nomenclature and Symbols".
Quoting from: American and British English differences
"sulphur sulfur The American spelling is the international standard in the sciences, although many British scientists use the British spelling."
Vsmith 17:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 21:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 08:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: So its not an article about chemicals or chemistry.
Didn't say that. Global warming is largely about atmospheric chemistry, is it not? -Vsmith 15:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: No. Chemistry is a fairly minor component of the theory. If its "mostly" anything, its mostly radiation.
Hmm? But, it is the various gas molecules that absorb and re-radiate that radiation (IR from earth absorbed and re-radiated back to earth or bounced around in the atmosphere thereby increasing temp.) Or it is the DMS produced aerosols that creat cloud condensation nuclei & increase the albedo & cool the earth. It's the interactions between the atmospheric chemicals (man made or natural) and the radiation that is causing the changes observed. And these gases and aerosols are chemicals and their interaction with radiation is chemistry. So, no - it is not mostly radiation. It is mostly chemistry. -Vsmith 16:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Just like swimming is mostly chemistry, because water is a chemical.
Very funny. If your models or hypotheses lack a sound basis in atmospheric chemistry then they would seem to be in the realm of fiction. Good day. -Vsmith 03:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 17:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wiki policy is not to change spelling" - is it really? Where is this policy located, if so? ~leif ☺ HELO 23:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. " Mintguy (T) 08:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Global warming is a scientific article and therefor should use the accepted standard for spellings of chemical names. Any in depth study of global warming must consider the interactions between the various chemicals in the atmosphere, both naturally occurring and anthropogenic. The interactions are largely through the reflection, absorption and re-radiation of infrared and visible radiation. The thin gaseous solution that we call the atmosphere is a chemical solution, and works under the principles of chemistry. A look at the Greenhouse gases article confirms the importance of chemistry. Again, this is a science topic with heavy dependance on chemistry and should use standard scientific notation and spelling for clarity. It is irrelevant that other international groups and government agencies ignore the standards. We can be better than that: Consistency and clarity should be the theme throughout Wiki science articles. -Vsmith 15:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 15:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Not absurd - factual. And the standard should apply to all science articles. As for precision, what is the atmosphere composed of if not chemicals? -Vsmith 16:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Since this page doesn't really get into the chemistry of global warming (maybe it should, but it doesn't at the moment), I'd concur that leaving the variant spelling here is acceptable. Mpolo 07:50, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
----
(William M. Connolley 18:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards & Chemical names 

message: By the way, is there a reason that the "ozone hole" is not once mentioned in this article? -- it seems to be mentioned practically every time I hear Global warming debated. Mpolo 07:50, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
: (William M. Connolley 09:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ozone depletion causes stratospheric cooling. It should be mentioned. There's even theory that the resulting stratospheric cooling slowed down global warming, and now that CFC's are under control, the warming trend will increase in speed.--Ben 06:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 09:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree a note about ozone would be helpful as many if not most tend to link global warming and ozone depletion, two separate though related problems. High temp in stratosphere is due to absorption of UV by ozone, less ozone - more UV energy to lower atmosphere ... -Vsmith 16:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and Ozone 

message: (William M. Connolley 21:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''see [[Global warming/temp]] for a proposed change in the layout of this entry'' 

message: Wow, that's interesting. I never knew that. Whoever reverted reflect to say radiate, um, okay, do you have a source for that or so? Kim Bruning 09:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 09:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, if you say so. Kim Bruning 10:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 11:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it is an oversimplification to say that clouds reflect sunlight back into space, since they would absorb the infrared component, which I assume would lead to differential heating of the cloudtops vis'a'vis the bottoms.  Presumably at night the clouds would also be radiating into space.  The radiation of heat from the earths surface would warm the cloud bottoms, which would then reradiate, although convection might also be stimulated, etc.  Presuably the higher humidity is also correlated with clouds contributing to the a greenhouse component, there is also the heat of condensation within the clouds.  What is the net effect at night, just a slowing of the radiative transfer from the surface to space?--Silverback 12:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 12:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Found some detail in Science: "The effect of clouds on Earth's albedo is probably larger in visible light than in the ultraviolet (UV) or near-IR. For UV radiation, strong Rayleigh scattering and ozone absorption reduce the impact of clouds on the albedo. In the near-IR region, absorption by cloud particles, water vapor, and carbon dioxide all limit the impact."link to abstract, quote is from full text and also in Science "Absorption by water vapor, for example, occurs primarily in innumerable narrow bands of the spectrum separated by intervals of little or no absorption." summary, quote is from full text--Silverback 15:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clouds Radiate?

message: Cut from solar variation section:
:The meteorological community has responded with skepticism, in part because theories of this nature have come and gone over the course of the 20th century .
#This implies that the 2 scientists whose research and findings are discussed next, are NOT part of the meteorological community. A slap in the face that says nothing about whether their measurements and reasoning are correct.
#Actually, surveys of meteorologists (i.e., TV weathermen) show wide disagreement with GWT view. They say that the temperature data does not match the GWT's predictions.
Please summarize one or more "skeptical views" of the meteorological community, if you can find any. Then put the deleted sentence back in the article along with those summaries. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:46, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
:Perhaps they have in mind the analysis posted here:
:http://www.pik-potsdam.de/pik_web/news/news/html/pm_Shaviv_Veizer_e.html
:This criticises the Shaviv and Veizer research which attempted to use correlations over 100s of millions of years to determine the relative strengths of greenhouse and solar forcing (including cosmic ray effects), and estimated that a doubling of CO2 would only cause an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees C.  Which is much less than what the climate models predict.   Note, this criticism is unrelated to solar forcing correlations using more recent paleo and historical data and that the cosmic ray theory is still alive and well and being fleshed out.  However, until the understanding of the physics can be incorporated in the models, we probably won't get a good estimate of the relative effects.  There is a lot of work to be done in getting the cloud physics, ocean models, etc. right.--Silverback 18:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 18:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut from solar variation section