Talk:Climate change/Archive 14

message: It may be sacrilege to question the interpretation of the global warming fundamentalists, but here is the case.  It falls into two categories, the known and the unknown.
The known:
* solar activity have been at unusually high levels for over 60 years and based on reconstructions that is unlikely to be sustained. Solanki (2004, 2005) Muscheler (2005)
* while most temperature change from new sustained levels of forcing takes place in the first 100 years, it takes 1000 years for the climate to achieve stability or equilibrium with the new level of forcing due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. Meehl (2005) Wigley (2005)
* we know that paleo climates reconstructed at equilibrium time scales show strong correlation with solar reconstructions, and that this is difficult to explain by differences in direct radiative forcing expected from the orbital and other signals seen in the solar variation
The unknown: 
* We don't know the amount of recent warming this new level of solar forcing may account for, because the climate commitment studies haven't been done using unbiased models and starting from the time period of this high level of solar forcing.  Evaluating equilibrium temperatures from these high levels of solar forcing are complicated by net volcanic aerosol cooling during the first part of the period.
* We don't know the relationship between past solar activity as reconstructed from sunspot and and isotopic evidence and the level of radiative forcing.  We only have good radiative forcing measurements for the last two or three solar cycles.
* We don't know the indirect and feedback mechanisms coupling changes in solar activity to the climate, although leading theories are stratospheric coupling or cosmic ray/cloud coupling.
The known:
* We know models range over more than a factor of 2.5 in climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing and vary similarly in their predictions using various scenerios.
* We know that estimates for climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, as reconstructed from the paleoclimate data are lower than current climate model predictions, although this may be explained by non-equilibrium vs equilibrium time scales and conditions.
* We know that albedo and cloud physics are two particularly problematic areas for models, and all models are biased towards higher albedos than is actually observed, thus underrepresenting solar forcing.  Since the models fit the 20th century data well, they must have compensating errors that warm the climate elsewhere.
The unknown:
* We don't know what the predictive or attributive accuracy of climate models are currently or what their accuracy was at the time of the IPCC TAR, but we do know there are known problems and biases which raise questions.
--Poodleboy 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolling is generally not allowed on wikipedia. Why is it allowed in articles like this? - Abscissa 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abscissa, that characterization is not appropriate.  The points PB raises are technical and relevant, though I disagree with some of them.  Such discussions, to the extent that they help to shape the article, are appropriate to this forum.  Dragons flight 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PB, the biggest limitation of what you have written is that of your 10 points you only cite support for two of them.  The uncertainties in climate change are a major topic of research and as such what is known and unknown is discussed at length in papers and summary reports like the IPCC, as well as quantifying the uncertainties as best as we are able.  I don't have the time to prepare a point by point response to you, but perhaps another contributor will take up that challenge.  Dragons flight 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe most of the others are either in the article or have been discussed here.  For instance albedo is discussed above as the very first topic on this page.  See: . I cite a paper in that discussion.  The sensitivity variation in the models is from the IPCC and is cited in this article proper.  Search this article for "sensitivity".  With such a range of sensitivities, the models clearly disagree with each other can't be all right.  Yet the IPCC appears to think that combining or averaging them, somehow makes them better, much like a panel of experts.  Yet as the albedo cite shows, they all have a systemic positive albedo bias.  I'd have to look for a cite for estimates of paleo-climate GHG sensitivities.  It has been awhile since I reviewed that, but it is pretty accepted as a unresolved issue with equilibrium the leading theory to explain the disparity between model and paleoclimate sensitivities.  It will be interesting to see how the IPCC does this next time around.--Poodleboy 07:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is what the EPA said after the 2001 report came out: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
"What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities....."
Newer reports are gloomier after observations of the collapse of ice shelves in Antarctica and the like:  http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/newsandeventsScienceandPolicyNews.html
Can someone put that cite in the article?  (or does it get broken down into the various reports?) I'm not exactly sure how to cite this correctly. --Ssilvers 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: One must presuppose the indirect feedback mechanism exists, or reject the paleoclimate/solar reconstructions.  That is the point.  The TAR statement that the latter 20th century warming is fully compatible with no net natural contribution (they combined volcanic and solar in their statement), is based on the model results, which have since been shown to have a systemic positive albedo bias.  So you will have to reevaluate your acceptance of that conclusion.  The paleo estimates of sensitivity that I have seen are on the order 0f 0.75oC not 3oC.--Poodleboy 07:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are refering, I believe, to Veizer and Shaviv in referencing the 0.75 C.  However those authors never claimed that their result held over very short timescales and in a subsequent publication (Eos Vol. 85, No. 48, 30 November 2004) acknowledged that without the long-term compensation of continental ice sheets then a 1.5-4 C climate sensitivity was plausible.  There initial results (covering 100s of Myrs, mind you) is a sceptics' talking point, but not really a serious challenge to the predictions of climate change during the coming century.  Paleoclimate data over shorter timescales (such as during the last glacial maximum) generally predict responses within the IPCC range.  However, I will disagree with William in thinking that we probably do need some mild solar amplification, but it doesn't negate the point that solar activity has been flat over recent decades when temperatures have risen substantially.  Dragons flight 08:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, V&S, and I mentioned the time scale issue.  Correction of the models may close the gap and the time scale theory may then no longer be necessary.  Yes, solar activity has been flat, and that point does not need to be negated, when it is flat at high levels that have not equilibrated yet.  The thermal inertial of the oceans dampen high frequency signals.  Keep in mind that solar activity had been increasing since the maunder minimum until it reached this high plateau about 65 years ago.  Most of the temperature impact from this sustained flat level of solar forcing would be realized over 100 years.  In this particular case, the volcanism which resulted in cooling during this period would extend the time needed to equilibrate.  If Solanki is correct, this high level of solar forcing will likely end before its full temperature impact has been realized.  09:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the commitment papers, including the ones you cite, you'd noticed that much of the warming is accomplished in the first decade or two as the land and atmosphere equilibrate.  The rest proceeds at a much slower rate.  For solar forcing commitment to work as a total explanation, you'd expect the rate of warming now to be ~1/5 the rate it was in the past.  Instead the present warming is at or near a maximal rate for recorded history.  Also, keep in mind that the climate change attribution models all include commitment effects.  Even considering commitment and some solar amplification, it is hard to attribute more than ~1/3 of the warming in recent decades solar effects.  Dragons flight 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I partially agree, actually perhaps mostly agree.  Those first couple decades of the plateau in solar activity, were during a time of net cooling, so the temperature rise and net storage of heat in the oceans were delayed until that lapsed while the  high level of solar forcing continued the 80s, 90s, 00s.  The models, as they exist, already can get the solar contribution as high as 36%, with the albedo corrections this can go higher.  I don't deny a significant anthro GHG component, so I guess technically I am not a GW skeptic.  But if the revised models increase the solar attribution to say the 33 to 60% range instead of the 16 to 36% range, then their GHG sensitivity will be corrected to the extent that future predictions are much more benign.  The solar attribution component of the commitment will also be increase.  Not only do future predictions of GHG impact get reduced, the temporary nature of this high level of solar forcing further moderates the outlook.--68.35.43.82 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any good reference for this?  My impression has been that much of the solar forcing uncertainty is already incorporated into the top of that 16-36% range you quote, which would imply that even if these things do need to be corrected it isn't going to move nearly as much as you think it is.  In particular, my impression has been that the model independent paleoclimate correlation studies looking at the last several centuries are still with that range.  (16-36% is still more than a factor of two uncertainty, after all.)  Dragons flight 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I was thinking of, for example, the correlation study of Solanki & Kirvova (2003) who attribute 30% of warming since 1970 to solar effects based solely on solar proxies and the historical temperature record, quite independent of global climate models and GHG sensitivity.  Dragons flight 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've read that and other similar attempts.  I think the flaw is that, unfortunately as problematic as models are, there is no other good way to account for energy storage in the ocean, without going to equilibrium time scales, which makes analyses such as the Solanki's above, useless for a mere 30 years, over which solar activity was relatively constant.  For the albedo problems, I think the best reference is Roesch [I prefer this link to essentially the same abstract I cited above. ].  In the abstract, he writes "Simulated global mean annual surface albedos are slightly above the remote-sensed surface albedo estimates.".  The article has been accepted and is currently in prepub, although the work has been presented at several conferences.  I look forward to discussing it when the full text has been published. I've been waiting for it for several months.--Poodleboy 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PB, thank you for the reference regarding albedo.  Do you have any reports arguing that the fraction associated to solar forcing needs to be substantially increased?  It is obviously an important issue, but not something that Wikipedia can really respond to until it has been published and discussed in the literature.  Dragons flight 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have to realize is that slight errors in albedo, even on the order of 0.01 represent more than 10 to 13 watts/m^2, if globally averaged model albedo's are off by that or more, you can easily get to values that comparable to the contribution of the total increase in well mixed GHGs.  The albedo problems in the models cannot be corrected by a mere global increase in solar forcing, since most of the problems that lift the globally averaged albedo error are due to much higher albedo errors over specific land areas.  The Roesch abstract specifically mentions snow cover areas, where, of course, the local errors can amount to 100s of watts/m^2.  The impact of albedo errors will be complicated, because most of the impact of will be during the day of course, and due to land distribution, more of the impact will be in the northern hemisphere than in the southern.  GHGs of course, although their watts/m^2 absolute values are low, regain some lost ground because their impact is over the whole 24 hour day.  Unfortunately, with such slight errors making such large differences, models will have to become more rigorous before they can have much credibility in either attribution or prediction.  I don't full text access to the text of the Bender article that has been published, so I don't know to what extent it calculates globally averaged albedo errors, but once the Roesch article is finally published, there is no reason wikipedia cannot reflect it immediately.  It was accepted for publication several months ago. Unfortunately there is a huge publication backlog in advance of the AR4, so these articles have been trickling out. We can get to specifics then.--Poodleboy 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the effects will be as large as you think they will be.  First, you are overstating the effect of a 0.01 error in albedo.  Yes, the solar constant for direct, top of atmosphere sunlight is ~1360 W/m^2, but after accounting geometric effects (e.g. latitude) and the absorption/scattering from the atmosphere, the forcing at the surface averages ~350 W/m^2.  Still, 3.5 W/m^2 would be a big number, but I'd maintain that this number will have little impact on the attribution/prediction studies.  The reason is that the key variable in attribution and prediction is ΔT/ΔF, i.e. the change in temperature associated with a given change in forcing.  If the error, in this case in the forcing, F, is constant over the model run then it would have relatively little implication for model results that depends on how the modeled world changes over time.  Since we are on the topic, one might as well mention that many of the models have errors in average global temperature of a couple degrees (or did last time I was looking into the issue).  But again, if a temperature error is constant throughout the model, it has only little impact on attribution.  Of course, we would prefer that all of these issues be resolved so that the models could be as realisitic as possible, but they are still a work in progress.  People can and will try to draw conclusions as best we can from the models that we have.  While these results will have to be corrected, I doubt the change will be the factor of 2 modification you suggest above.  Dragons flight 14:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ΔT/ΔF would only make sense at equilibrium.  The whole point of climate commitment is that ΔT will change without changes in F until equilibrium to a new level of forcing is reached.  For instance, in the Gregory study cited on the climate sensitivity page, there is an admission that the 20th century started with some warming already committed, because new levels of forcing had not reached equilibrium yet.  If the positive albedo bias in the models is corrected they will have more heat they have to store in the oceans.  Of course for the modern period where we have lots of data on the forcing, the models already match the heat flux into the ocean.  To make the accounts balance with the extra heat from the sun, they will have to correct their erroneous energy budgeting elsewhere.  You are right that my 10 watts/m^2 figure was based on solar flux at 1 AU in the plane orthogonal to the sun.  I prefer that figure to the average figure your cited, although the average figure may be easier to compare to GHG forcing.  Note that even only a 0.01 positive albedo bias, is comparable to the CO2 forcing.  This implies the albedo error could have an impact as great as the total CO2 attribution.  You can't dismiss this as being only a relative error, because to get the sea level rise correct the energy budget has to balance, and not be only relatively correct.  BTW, do you know if the average solar constant, is for daytime only?  I haven't worked through the geometry.  The global albedo error is not smoothly distributed. It is concentrated at much higher values on land at times of snow melt and in the desert (presumably year round there).--Poodleboy 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the above thread has been continued here: --Poodleboy 04:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Then you have invalid palaeo estimates. Try http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html. Your insistence that the models are all biased is tedious and wrong William M. Connolley 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in for a surprise when you read the albedo literature.--[[ 09:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The paleo cites at that blog, do not arrive at their sensitivities independent of the models.--Poodleboy 10:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Even the analyses of the Vostok data appear to rely partially upon the biased models.--Poodleboy 10:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are cherry-picking in your boosting of solar forcing. I don't think any "revision" of the models will boost your values; in fact even 36% is at the far high end; its no good quoting that value (or even 16-36%) as though absolute. GHG forcing clearly dominates over solar, certainly since pre-industrial. William M. Connolley 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the known and the unknown -- the case for sacrilege 

message: For those of us only familiar with the Fahrenheit scale, it'd be helpful to see those numbers given parenthetically throughout the article (or at least in the introduction and other major statements of the theory). Fireplace 08:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No way! Is there a MoS guide for this? William M. Connolley 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha!  At the same time that William posted his warm and fuzzy response above, I did it.  If William insists on reverting it, fine.  But, William, this is not a scientific article, it is an encyclopedia entry intended to be read by people from different countries.  So what harm does it do to give the same data in a manner that all English speakers will understand?  --Ssilvers 13:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whilst I appreciate your view, this *is* a scientific article, and proliferating units is bad. If people really don't understand oC, then link the first one, and they can go and find out. So I've reverted. But I welcome other views... William M. Connolley 13:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry William, Wikipedia convention is that conversions should usually be given.  Dragons flight 13:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How hideous. It certainly isn't done, though - not within the GW type pages. Where is it done? What about... water? carbon dioxide? Not really (though the CO2 info box gives K). I don't think the convention is used - maybe needs revision? William M. Connolley 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Get over it, doc. Some of our readers are non-scientists and don't even know ST means surface temperature. My mom never quite grasped metric units. We must think of our target audience: the general reader who wants to know something about science. --Uncle Ed 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (double edit conflict, sigh, and all just for a bit of fun) At least, we will not have to present also Rankine, Delisle (I'm sure somebody in Russia still uses this) and definitely not Réaumur values ;) Hardern 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Fahrenheit isn't an SI unit. Considering that this is a heavily scientific article, I would think most of our readership should be familiar...? Oh well, minor point anyhow. I would support only one unit, just out of aesthetics. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe one day the people who came up with the date formatting preference thing (25 May) will make it so temperatures can display in C or F as each user prefers... Rd232 talk 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's dumb. They should all just plug into the Ur-Mind and download the appropriate cortical schemata directly, avoiding this whole "language" problem entirely. Graft 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Scientific results are universally published in degrees Kelvin or Celcius.  Since these translate to fractional values Fahrenheit, there is the danger that the false impression will be given of more significant digits of precision than in the actual results.  Care should be taken to convert the range of error to degrees F as well, and that the actual reported results be primary, with the conversions clearly subsidiary in parentheses.--Poodleboy 07:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fahrenheit 

message: User:Ed Poor has changed the title 'Effects' to 'Predicted effects'. I am not sure about whether this is POV pushing. I think most but not all have been seen to occur and if the language in each section is appropriate just Effects would be better than 'Predicted effects'. I think there is suitable language in most sections (eg 'Even a relatively small rise in sea level would ...' admits the possibility that a very small rise would not be severe). I should however point out that the attribution to GW is probably a lot less clear than whether we have seen some of the effects.
If the title is Predicted effects then should hurricanes be mentioned at all? If some models show it and some models do not show it, is this just evidence that the models are different and have not made a reliable prediction? I think some mention of hurricanes is appropriate but possibly shorter and possibly demoted to a other possible effects section. Possibly also add that this is unlikely to be good reason to spend money on prevention of global warming as the money would be better spent on changing society to make it less vunerable.
I would be inclined to change back to Effects as the title and change 'The extent and likelihood of these consequences is a matter of considerable controversy.' to 'The extent of these consequences and the likelihood of them being more than just mild is a matter of considerable controversy. However, I accept that could be too much opinion pushing in the other direction. crandles 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the change should be made back to Effects, rather than Predicted Effects.  The latter sounds like POV pushing.  Also, this is one more tic in a slate filled with edits of the same theme: a misunderstanding of terms in science versus terms in every day language.  In a scientific theory such as Kepler's laws of motion, which rests upon a theoretical framework (Newton's theory of gravitation in this case), always predicts effects.  That's what scientific theories do: they predict.  That's their power versus pseudoscience like ID and the like.  Since the article is on a scientific topic and not a pseudoscientific one, stating "predicted effects" is redundant and can only be included in the context of a POV. It's pretty clear to me: Effects should be the heading. Astrobayes 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By convention, when converting from C to F, it should be rounded to retain the same number of digits past the decimal point in F that the C measurement did, exactly to avoid false precision. This is similar to the EU airlines placing pounds in ()s on carry on weight limits (and trucating) for the benifit of travelers from the US who have no natural feel of kilos either. Jon 13:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicted Effects 

message: ===Version I (Natalinasmpf) suggested===
Well since this is going to be on the main page, it seems that Raul implemented a different summary than I suggested (that WMC also edited slightly): 
Global warming refers to the increases in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans that have been observed in recent decades. The scientific opinion on climate change is that much of the recent change may be attributed to human activities. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, among other human activities, are the primary sources of the human-induced component of warming. Observational sensitivity studies and climate models referenced by the IPCC predict that global temperatures may increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as tropical cyclones or floods. There are a few scientists who contest the view about attribution of recent warming to human activity. Uncertainties exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over attempts to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences. (More...)
===Version to be implemented===
Global warming refers to the observed increases in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The average global temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °C over the 20th century, and the scientific opinion on climate change is that it is likely that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, and other human activities, are the primary sources of the human-induced component of warming. Observational sensitivity studies and climate models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes and tornados. (More...)
Recently featured: Absinthe – Western Front (World War I) – Che Guevara
===Comments about the main page summaries===
Methinks that the one suggested is better, because there is more concise information over a larger breadth of a topic (rather than going into a long list of possible natural disasters I gave the more immediately destructive ones). I of course don't want to rewrite the template at whim so can I ask whether I should go ahead and replace the current summary with the one suggested? 
[And oh, congratulations: this talk page has had 5000+ edits since its move in February 2004. Lively discussion, as always. ;-)] Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth (not much obviously) I think the first introduction is better because it's more neutral.  Is neutrality an endangered species when discussing global warming?  Prior evidence suggests that it is. Cla68 04:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objections, so I've updated accordingly, with a small change. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  main page summary 

message: Methinks that the one suggested is better, because there is more concise information over a larger breadth of a topic (rather than going into a long list of possible natural disasters I gave the more immediately destructive ones). I of course don't want to rewrite the template at whim so can I ask whether I should go ahead and replace the current summary with the one suggested? 
[And oh, congratulations: this talk page has had 5000+ edits since its move in February 2004. Lively discussion, as always. ;-)] Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth (not much obviously) I think the first introduction is better because it's more neutral.  Is neutrality an endangered species when discussing global warming?  Prior evidence suggests that it is. Cla68 04:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objections, so I've updated accordingly, with a small change. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments about the main page summaries

message: I removed the observational climate sensitivity studies phrase because it was misleading and plus this paragraph is about predictions and the predictions were based on model studies.  Although the phrase is one that is used to describe some studies, the phrase gives the misleading impression that the climate sensitivity studies are independent of the models.  They aren't.  See the discussion and my corrected text at climate sensitivity.--Poodleboy 08:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But your text states that the sens studies are purely model based, which is wrong. In particular the Grregory et al is obs based for its lower bound; asserting (as you've done now) that this is entirely modelling is worse than misleading William M. Connolley 08:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this stating that they are "purely model based", e.g., "but also dependent on estimates of pre-existing average heat flux into the oceans based on models".  My intent is to indicate that they are not totally independent of the models.  Now in the global warming page, those predictions are purely model based, or, are you saying they fudged the model results somehow, and that they used purely observational climate sensitivity studies to fudge them?  If you provide the cite, I will try to come to agreement on how those predictions are based.--Poodleboy 08:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You changed it to Climate models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by, removing the observational component. You've changed a mix of obs/models into pure models. The predictions of T rise are informed by the obs sensitivity estimates, of course William M. Connolley 19:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and they are also informed by model sensitivity estimate, work in cloud physics, study of paleo climate, temperature  histories, etc.  The question is, why are you singling out "oberservational climate sensitivity studies" here in relation to these predictions?  Climate sensitivity is mentioned in the last sentence of the paragraph in an appropriate way, what is your point in this earlier mention?  We might be able to make you intention more clear, if you state what the concept is that you are trying to communicate.--Poodleboy 03:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point the obvious one: that they are not purely model based (work in cloud physics, study of paleo climate, temperature  histories is all observational). There is an agenda here: they are model based -> all models are wrong -> the estimates are wrong William M. Connolley 07:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you make predictions from observations?  Perhaps linear extrapolation from past temperatures?  If your phrase is from a source, perhaps that source provides a context which makes sense of it.  Let's add something about "observational" if you can show how it relates.  Linear extrapolation gives lower figures that the reported model predictions.  My agenda is that the predictions you cite are model based.  If they are based on something else, provide the citation.  The models themselves are used in sensitivity studies, and I am sure those are comparable to more observational climate sensitivity studies, but how are predictions made from observational climate sensitivity studies.  Now, given a climate sensitivity itself, and a scenerio  for a forcing, one can apply the sensitivity to the figures and come up with a prediction.  But that is an application the sensitivity figure, and not a sensitivity study.  Perhaps you have citations where the authors did this in the discussion part of their article?  The IPCC itself may have done that if that is the source of these figures.  Let's look at the cite.--Poodleboy 08:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your text implies, that this independent method came up with exactly the same range, that would be a surprising result, overlapping ranges I could understand.--Poodleboy 09:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly didn't mean to imply exactly the same range William M. Connolley 14:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why it shouldn't be there, or it should have a supporting citation and whatever range of predictions result from this approach.--Poodleboy 07:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm amenable to re-writing it. But not to leaving the page with the impression that the only contraints are models William M. Connolley 08:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The models themselves are constrained by observations, so I don't see what your phrase adds.  A citation would help guide any rewrite, perhaps a fuller explanation could be given when the predictions are repeated below.  The citation there explicitly refers to the models averaged over scenerios as the source for the predictions.  Probably all kinds of sanity checks went into the validation of the models and the predictions.  Recent research in published in Nature adds further constraint to the upper extreme end of the range, but I don't see why you are wedded to this particular phrase.--Poodleboy 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I consider your new language clearer and more supportable. Agreed. While I doubt there are many purely observational climate sensitivity studies, there are some with stronger independent, more observational approaches.  It is surprising how essential models are even in  those studies.  Further development of these tools is essential to further insight into the climate.--Poodleboy 10:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "observational" climate sensitivity studies are not 

message: I disagree with PB's recent addition of More recently, errors in surface albedo, snow cover area, and too heavy snowfall (excessive snow water equivilent) have been detailed. (Roesch 2006 . 
For the reason I gave in my edit comment: this isn't a place to bloat out with various minor model errors, or successes. The one listed already - clouds - is widely acknowledged as the major problem; by contrast, the R et al stuff appears quite minor and doesn't deserve a place.
Secondly, this thing isn't even published yet and should be removed on that ground alone. William M. Connolley 11:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, clouds are still a major problem, whether they are widely acknowledged or not.  The Roesch results in the abstract are significant, and build on a body of evidence of model problems in the area of snow cover especially.  We might as well use the most recent and on-point abstract.  We have full text of some of Roesch's earlier but still quite recent work, and those articles have references that would be a good place for you to start if your intent is to form a evidence based opinion, rather than a dismissive "appears quite minor".--Poodleboy 11:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No this won't do. We don't use unpublished/in press papers, or even very recent papers (see discussions in the past) except for exceptional results, and this isn't. Asserting that the R results are "significant" is meaningless/wrong: they aren't particularly exciting; I can see why you want ot puff them up, though William M. Connolley 11:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Asserting" the results are significant, is not "meaningless/wrong", it is just the nature of the peer review process, results that were not statistically significant or detectable within the margins of error would not be allowed in the abstract, unless the paper was reporting a null result.  You know I have been patiently waiting for this paper to finally appear in print, it has been accepted and is in prepub.  Fortunately the abstract has been published, and is informative and useful.  Just because the paper has not been published yet, does not mean it is new or untested results.  The results were reported and discussed at conferences last year.  It would have been published months ago, if it weren't for the FAR article boom and subsequent backlog.  You've tolerated other "minor" results in the existing climate model section, you must be particularly unsettled by these results.--Poodleboy 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Asserting" the results are significant, is not "meaningless/wrong", it is just the nature of the peer review process, results that were not statistically significant or detectable within the margins of error would not be allowed in the abstract - precisely. You are using "sig" in the sense the journals do: sig enough to publish. Obviously, sig enough to publish is not the same criterion as sig enough for the wiki GW page; this is why I said "sig" is meaningless. Thats the first issue. The second - thats its not even published - is also a bar to including it. You haven't read the paper, neither has anyone else, it shouldn't be in wiki William M. Connolley 13:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think Poodleboy is mixing up two different meanings of significance, namely statistical significance ("there is a high probability of a real correlation") and importance. Journals typically require the first and often a bit of the second (but that depends on the journal and level of specialization). In Wikipedia, we require "notability" rather than "importance", although they sometimes go hand in hand.--Stephan Schulz 19:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To avoid possible confusion later, not everyone agrees that "notability" is required (it could possibly be described as "either notable or encyclopedic", though). —AySz88\^-^ 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roesch 

message: For what it's worth, Sun-Times columnist Paige Wiser used this article as a source in her June 18 column: . Zagalejo 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm...I think I can guess the colour of that hair she talks about.--Stephan Schulz 06:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL... Zagalejo 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's scary.  This article looks more like a blog than an encyclopedia most days. Dubc0724 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article mentioned by ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' columnist

message: It seems to me that, generally, species would migrate north (in the northern hemisphere) in response to global warming. Global warming, by itself, may not result in mass extinctions. Two reasons that they may occur in the current scenario are 1)that the warming is occuring faster than it has in the past, potentially giving species as ecosystems less time to move. Forests can gradually shift spatially in response to climate change, but not if the change happens too fast. The second possibility is that a species will attempt to shift, but will run into some sort of a barrier -- a strip mall, a highway, a suburb. At the risk of being banal, I'll note that this may be quite a serious problem as natural areas' political boundaries are fixed but ecosystem boundaries are fluid. I don't have references for these points, but I'm sure that they are out there. Matthias5 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecosystem effects 

message: The reconstruction chart that shows tempeartures from 1 AD to 2004 AD would be much more useful at the top than the image that starts at 1860 AD; a very bad year for historical comparsions considering it's around the end of the little ice age. Jon 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's the most accurate chart, since it comprises of recorded data, not proxy data. The other chart is provided just a bit downstairs. Hardern 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, by 1860 the LIA was over. The 1000 and 2000 year charts make the 20th century essentially unreadable.--Stephan Schulz 13:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Topright image chart

message: Excellent work, guys.  Congratulations on much deserved FA status and selection for the Main Page.  Ideogram 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I add my plaudits as well? Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent 

message: Just  a short note. There has been much debate on these talk pages about scientific concensus, and I thought this was a very interesting read. (link is to Dr. Jeff Master's tropical weather blog at "The Weather Underground" which does contain ads.)  TimL 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About Scientific Concensus

message: I noticed this is a featured article and was wondering why there is no mention about the studies of the implications of methane gas as a consequence of the futher changes that many scientists believe would occur with a signifcant rise in global temperature. The release of traped methane is one of the potencial major outcomes of a rise in temperature of about 5 degrees or  more. That is, the release of trapped methane from carbon12 (mostly in the sea bed) into the atmosphere, which is triggered by the rise in global temperatures , and which is thought to increase the temp by another 5% in itself (thus total rise in temp goes to 10% increase), as well as dramatically affect oxygen content of the atmophere. These resuls of an increase of 10% are thought to explain the first mass extinction event on earth. Thanks. Professor33 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does contain this: "Positive feedback effects, such as the expected release of methane from the melting of permafrost peat bogs in Siberia (possibly up to 70,000 million tonnes), may lead to significant additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions." and this: "Another suggested mechanism whereby a warming trend may be amplified involves the thawing of tundra, which can release significant amounts of the potent greenhouse gas methane that is trapped in permafrost and ice clathrate compounds " and this: "Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis), have been hypothesized as a cause for other past global warming events, including the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. However, warming at the end of the last glacial period is thought not to be due to methane release [60]. Instead natural variations in the Earth's orbit are believed to have triggered the retreat of ice sheets by changing the amount of solar radiation received at high latitude and led to deglaciation." - though whether these were added before or after your comment, I haven't checked. Carcharoth 11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis entails the phenonmenon I am thinking about. Glad it is there.207.47.40.19 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Methane?

message: I am not an expert on global warming but after doing some reading, it is obvious the article overstates the case.  I have included a quote from the IPCC report that clearly says climate modeling cannot predict the future climate.  A wikipedia reader would have thought that was possible the scientific community believed the models were wonderful predictors.  I also noticed that the article does not mention the 60 scientists who signed the letter to the PM of Canada saying:"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."  It seems editors here want the world to believe there is a consensus of opinion on this issue in the scientific community.  The evidence does not bear that out. RonCram 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting. Dubc0724 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not notable or rather we should be careful to give undo weight to this tiny minority view. They are counter to the consensus among the majority of scientists.Professor33 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is, in fact, a consensus of opinion on the scientific community. and as Professor33 implies, we have to be careful not to over-balance the article.  This does not mean that there are no dissenters.  (There are dissenters on every scientific position.)   More information on the consensus is at Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.  bikeable (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, there is by no means a consensus on global warming and its extermities. The majority has a positive view, and the minority a negative, but there is not a consensus. I don't understand how the article can be called "Scientific opinion on climate change"? As far as I am concerned, there should be no opinion or bias in science, only a search for knowledge and the truth. It is not a debate. -- The Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this article is "overstating the case", i don't think it's trying to convince anyone that GW is real, i do think it's aim is to provide alot of relevant and accurate information about the GW theory, and i believe that it's good job at it (or was until it was on the front page and copped an onslaught of vandalism and whatnot). -maj
This discussion is very interesting. I have to add, that as a student of environmental science who has read the journals and studied the numbers, there really is a scientific consensus on global warming. There are, however, several evangelical christian scientists who will continue to voice their minority point of view (60 scientists! wow, what an insignificant number! I would find out who they are and guarantee you that >90% are heavily involved in evangelical christianity). Even if I'm wrong, I know for a fact that according to the real scientific community (sans evangelical bias) GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL! Furthermore, it is human induced. Global warming does not care about your politics. Ecosystems are not persuaded by rhetoric. I am not a "left-winger" and neither are the other 99.99% of scientists who are trying to save your lives. The crazies have done a marvelous job of convincing the public that this is a political issue, but that's because there are still trillions of dollars to be made in the oil business, and as long as they can muddle the facts, they've won the debate.24.215.253.143 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding your recent edit, the comment from the IPCC report is a worthwhile addition but I am not convinced that you have represented it fairly.  It is an extract from the (rather long) summary; it is certainly not the entire summary as the wording of your edit tends to imply.  Also the IPCC comment in its proper context is a recognition that the model results will span a range of uncertainty which we need to quantify; for an example of a project which attempts to do this, see .  Scientists of course recognize that there is uncertainty, and that no single model will give a single numerical answer that can be taken in isolation as an accurate prediction of climate sensitivity, but your interpretation that "the scientific community still does not have a great deal of confidence in these models" is journalese.  I will try to work on this paragraph to take into account the IPCC quote but in what I consider to be a fairer way; watch this space.  Arbitrary username 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Thanks, RC, for providing the source, but unless I'm blind your "quote" is not a quote, it's misleading. I could not find the first part "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that..." on that page at all. The second part seems to come from a discussion of possible improvments, suggesting the use of many models and a probabilistic view. In full, it reads: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible." (emphasis by me). It goes on to say: "Rather, the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions". Chaotic systems allow no exact prediction if the initial conditions are not exactly known - something that is impossible in the physical world. That does not mean that predictions are impossible at all. What is suggested here is to work with different models and different initial conditions to explore the possible evolution of the system, and to allow an estimate of the probabilities of the different possible states. --Stephan Schulz 22:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did my best at refactoring the paragraph in question to take account of the IPCC quote in a hopefully fairer way.  However, I was unsophisticated in the way that I resolved the edit conflict with WMC (who was reverting RC's edit), so I'm not sure whether the text now reads well within the section as a whole.  Could someone (e.g. WMC) please be so kind as to check this?  Thanks.  Arbitrary username 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with copying if you attribute the author? And why did you add septic in there? I've been to a two of those sites and they were nicely designed, as well as having factual information! -- The; Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong that one of them misquoted the original report and all the others, without ever checking the original source, just copied the convenient mistake. So how much can you trust that "factual information"? Nice formatting is a sign of either talent or funding, not of correctness. --Stephan Schulz 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine, edit it as you wish.  Oh and incidentally, a note to anon 24.215.253.143, your comments about evangelical Christians siding with the skeptics really weren't very helpful.  Check out John T. Houghton for starters...... Arbitrary username 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, I pulled the original quote from the Wall Street Journal piece by Philip Stott found on freerepublic.com.  When someone complained I went to the report and the quote was exactly as Stott quoted it.  Are you certain you went to the link I provided?  I was trying to find the final report but the only version I found was an interim report.  Perhaps they changed the wording slightly from the interim report.  If so, my fault.  And if so, can you provide a link to the final report.  I would not want that to happen again. RonCram 22:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ron, I used the link you provided to check the quote (, page 78, section G2). In fact, I checked all of the page, and the following one. I was unable to find your version. I couldn't find anything relevant on Free Republic, but from a short look I'd treat anything I found there as very tentative at best. --Stephan Schulz 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, it appears I made two mistakes.  You are correct that the quote is not exactly the same.  The portion I looked for was exactly right but I did not check the earlier phrase.  Also, I thought perhaps I was linking to an interim report because of the words on the front cover "A report accepted by Working Group I of the IPCC but not approved in detail."  But apparently this is the Final Report and Stott had quoted the interim report in the Wall Street Journal.  I found this quote on  junkscience.com: On Monday, February 19th, the much publicized and extensively pre-released and pre-hyped IPCC Third Assessment Report (Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) will be released. Contrary to media hyperbole, the "report" actually contains no new data or evidence of any description, it is a speculative collection of "story lines" ranging from the conservative (no change) to the bizarre (that which has been repeatedly touted in the media over the last few weeks). Whether the "official" release retains the one significant quote from the draft version ("In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-liner chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000) remains to be seen. Given the media's recent fixation with the most extreme (and least likely) "story line" distributed by the IPCC, it seems doubtful whether the media would admit that damning quote's presence even if it has been retained in the "official" publication.  I apologize for my role in the misunderstanding.RonCram 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article overstates the case

message: I seem to have messed up the referencing system. I was trying to move some of the material to the front and other parts to a footnote in this edit, but this needs to be a footnote, not a reference. Can anyone fix this? Thanks. Carcharoth 11:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted that, sorry. We had a long discussion about not using footnotes, which I believe is still current. I'm not really keen on the defn being in the first para - its rather dry, and not really needed there? William M. Connolley 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WMC, could you point to that discussion? The archives are huge and not easily searchable, and I'd like to read the rationale for avoiding footnotes before I shoot my mouth off about it. Graft 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Could someone offer a link to the footnotes discussion please? I have an overwhelming urge to change all the inline links to footnotes, but I see a lot of comments about how the consensus here is against it, but I can't see any rationale for the consensus. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 04:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the discussion took place at the the related Kyoto protocol  and see the RFA too William M. Connolley 07:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References - my edit needs fixing! 

message: OK, so you don't like it...can you explain?
: Only if you sign your posts :-) Stossels view is a common-or-garden error. Why is it notable enough to be the *only* individual piece refd in the intro? William M. Connolley 18:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "dislike the stossel bit" 

message: There was no mention of temporal variation due to changes in surface and cloud reflectivity/absorption. This is not the same as solar irradiation variation. I have heard that cloud reflectivity swamps variation due to greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, I don't have any data to see what the real story is. Ditto for surface reflectivity/absorption. I think this is of great importance and needs to be addressed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.144.32 (talk • contribs) 23:22, June 22, 2006 (UTC)
: Albedo?  It would probably go near/next to the "positive feedbacks" paragraph in the "causes" section. —AySz88\^-^ 03:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflectivity 

message: Is there any specific reason why "degrees" is spelled out ("1.1 ± 0.4  degrees Fahrenheit"..."2.7-8.1  degrees F") for the whole article instead of using the symbol "°C" or "°F" in those places? —AySz88\^-^ 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SOmeone made the change recently, during the front-page excitement. IT seems silly to me William M. Connolley 06:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed it back except in the first mention of temperature changes. Count Iblis 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "degrees" 

message: Something I am at a loss to understand is how this all needs to be attributed to the actions of the industrial human race. Mt. St. Helens released more "greenhouse gasses" in its eruption than any thing humans have ever even come close to over our existance on earth. As for the polar ice caps, as long as it's only the sea ice that is melting then no water is really being added to the oceans. Barring nuclear arms, we have really no capacity to control them. I really think that this is a natural process. We are coming off the tail end of the Little Ice Age and it's only natural that things get warmer for a while.
Deepdesertfreman 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, you didn't really read the article have you? It deals with each of your points. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Deepdesertfreman, there is so much propaganda about Global Warming in the US media, that it is better to forget everything you have read so far and start over. Try to read only articles based on peer reviewed scientific articles. It shouldn't be too difficult to find that humans greenhouse emissions per year are more than 100 times that of the Mt. St. Helens eruption.  Count Iblis 17:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or that a large part of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion, no due to melt water.--Stephan Schulz 21:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: .. or that the article also states that Ice Cores extracted by NSF researchers have "identified at least 20 sudden climate changes in the last 110,000 years, in which average temperatures fluctuated as much as 15 degrees in a single decade." Fyunck(click) 09:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HYPE 

message: NASA climatologists Jay Zwally and Konrad Steffen, have been studying the Greenland ice sheet and talk about their newest suprise in The LA Times:
:By 2005, Greenland was beginning to lose more ice volume than anyone anticipated — an annual loss of up to 52 cubic miles a year — according to more recent satellite gravity measurements released by JPL.
:Since Steffen started monitoring the weather at Swiss Camp in 1991, the average winter temperature has risen almost 10 degrees. Last year, the annual melt zone reached farther inland and up to higher elevations than ever before.
:There was even a period of melting in December.
:"We have never seen that," Steffen said, combing the ice crystals from his beard. "It is significantly warmer now, and it happened quite suddenly. This year, the temperatures were warmer than I have ever experienced."
:Kevin Drum says: "in a way, the skeptics have turned out to be right: the computer models aren't as reliable as we thought. They're too optimistic." 71.132.131.237 20:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As with other reports, we should wait until they have seen some scrutiny and their implications have been worked out. An encyclopedic article should give the overall picture, not follow each single event or publication - especially not those is the popular press or political blogs.--Stephan Schulz 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest NASA research from Greenland: Global warming is WORSE than predicted! 

message: I've not contributed to this article before, and since I know this is a contentious issue, I thought I would just add a note here on the talk page in hopes of causing less contention that way. The paper cited and linked below claims to contraindicate global warming based on a study of Greenland climactic data:
:Vinther, B.M., Andersen, K.K., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R. and Cappelen, J. 2006. Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006810.
You can find a synopsis online here:  I hope that someone finds this useful! Cheers, Dick Clark 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't contradict GW based on one region, of course. Don't take the CO2 science take uncritically. Fig 2.5 of the recent NRC report is useful: http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/36.html William M. Connolley 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, take it critically.  The gist appears to be another predicted component of climate that the current models are in general agreement about, and yet get wrong.  Recall the central role the models play in attribution and prediction.--Poodleboy 01:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What makes you think the models get it wrong? William M. Connolley 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This earlier work.--Poodleboy 07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Errm, you mean the bit that sez Using this region as an indicator of Greenland's temperature change that is related to global warming, we find that the ratio of the Greenland to global temperature change due to global warming is 2.2 in broad agreement with GCM predictions.? William M. Connolley 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Errm, yes, perhaps you didn't notice that the reason they had to go to such extremis to find one part of Greenland that agree with the GCMs, was because the GCMs weren't able to model the North Atlantic Occilation.  Their attempt was a bit strained, and they wouldn't have had to do it if the models weren't wrong.--Poodleboy 16:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical paper reference

message: The editor who reverted the information about this theory did so saying that no one suggests this is responsible for the current warming.  That is not true.  To quote:
:Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University explains that it is a serious mistake to regard the natural climate cycle as tranquil and predictable. In fact, there is no reason to believe that current rates of temperature change are in any way different to what one would expect due to entirely natural causes. Dr. Patterson says that, by examining Greenland ice cores, scientists have found breathtakingly sudden variations in climate throughout the geologic record.
:“About 15,000 years ago, while the planet was still emerging from the last ice age, Greenland’s temperature rose by 9°C in only 50 years,” explains Dr. Patterson. “Once, 12,000 years ago, the temperature rose an astonishing 8°C in a single decade.”
:Recent European data suggests that even more severe climate fluctuations occurred at the end of the previous interglacial warm period. Their data shows that temperatures varied from warmer than they are today to the coldest of the ice age in merely a few decades, and then bounced back up again over the next century or so. Dr. Patterson sums up - "the only thing constant about climate is change."
So then natural climate change is one possibility for the warming we see today.  Natural climate change includes the Orbital Theory.  For this reason, I am restoring the information. RonCram 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about. Not even Patterson has advanced Milankovitch cycles as a reason for the current warming. Read the article. --Stephan Schulz 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe Solanki will be looking at Milankovitch cycles.  His research paper shows he is open to channels of solar forcing other than brightness.  I do not know of any other channel, other than Milankovitch cycles, that he could be considering. Do you?RonCram 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:BEANS
Sigh. You were almost doing well for a bit. Then you go and prove that you haven't got a clue about orbital forcing, and that the quote above from TP has anything to do with orbital forcing. Ah well William M. Connolley 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ron, you completely misinterprete the last sentence in (Solanki and Krivova, 2003). They look at 3 different mechanisms for solar forcings, and arrive at an absolute upper limit of 30%  for the solar contribution. These are not three arbitrary mechanisms, but the major ones known. The parenthesized part is purely scientific prudence - science is always tentative. Of course he is "open" to other channels. That does not mean that he expects that any will be found. And the influence of the Milankovitch cycles is slow, steady, and predictable. It has no significant effect on the current climate development. --Stephan Schulz 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned some time ago, Solanki's analysis did not allow for unrealized temperature increases from increases in solar activity prior the period he analyzed.  The thermal inertia of the ocean draws the temperature response out for several decades and the sea level rise for centuries.  Solanki essentially was looking for a solar signal in the climate during a period when the solar activity was not increasing, although, as usual, it was varying.  He and Stott both found solar explained a significant fraction even then.  This is probably explained by the timing and geographical distribution of solar energy reinforcing the warming.--Poodleboy 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that is true (and I guess you have a quote for that?) and significant (and I guess you have a quote for that?), it does not affect the validity of Ron's Milankowitch hpothesis. And, looking at the Solanki discussion on List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, it does not make Solanki into a sceptic.--Stephan Schulz 06:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The time scales of the orbital influences are too large to be involved in our decadal and centenial scale warming.  Ron would have a stronger case looking at the centenial scale solar cycles, specifically the two whose superposition has been proposed as the mechanism of the 1470 year climate cycle.  A partial peak superposition of the Gleissberg and Suess cycles (see Solar variation) would be a more likely solar forcing candidate, with our recent recovery from the maunder minimum.  Stott and Solanki are both referenced in the article proper.  Even 16 to 36% solar attribution (or the 30% you mention above) is a "significant fraction".  I wouldn't think fractions would get insignificant until smaller numbers.  Such phrases are really ambiguous.--Poodleboy 09:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The quote from Patterson was not intended to show that he specifically named orbital forcing.  Patterson is arguing that natural climate cycles can be responsible for the warming we see today.  I simply extended that argument logically to name orbital forcing as one of the climate cycles involved.  I presumed your disagreement has to do with the time period involved in the cycles.  If we were talking about orbital forcing in a vacuum, I would agree with you Stephan.  But I am not convinced these natural forces are not synergistic.  Patterson claims the data suggests natural forces can change temperatures quickly.  What forces would you credit for this rapid change? RonCram 22:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not yet, in fact, convinced that Pattersons's data is real. Remember, the recent NAS report is rather tentative about decade-level claims for multi-proxy reconstructions of the last thousand years. Now Patterson makes a sub-decadal claim for some 10000 years ago. Even if it turns out to be real, it's only  a local temperature, not a global one. I don't know enough about the paper (is it in print? Do you have a reference?) to be more specific. --Stephan Schulz 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring information on Orbital Theory of Climate Change