Talk:Greenhouse gas/Archive 1

message: I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here:  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley.  If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate.   — Cortonin | Talk 12:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley 

message: 1. Water vapour is the spelling in the IPCC report and there is no sense changing it to US spelling. Appears just a snub. or were you wanting a spelling war? 
::The IPCC report's spelling is irrelevant for the purposes of this article.  The individual in question is American, so I think it is confusing to have a discussion of his claims using non-American spelling. It creates the false impression that he is British.--JonGwynne 01:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hilarious! A few days ago I looked at this article and saw inconsistency in the spelling of vapour/vapor. I decided to make it consistent and as the dominant spelling was vapour I went with that, even tho' I'm an American and personally prefer the other. Then JG arbitrarily changes them all to vapor. The article was written by a group of people - not by this American he refers to. There is no false impression - just an obvious snub at the British writers involved in writing this article. Vsmith 02:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The math is quite simple, multiply the increase by the GWP factor to see what the equivalent in CO2 would be.  It helps put the changes in perspective.  I wouldn't call it "original research", it is basic math.  But if you want to leave it out, I don't mind.--JonGwynne 01:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, that's your POV and you're welcome to it.  But the current one-sided percentage increases are also POV so either we do both or neither.  Which would you prefer?  Since you seem to be worried about clutter, I'll start with neither as the baseline and then we can discuss it from there--JonGwynne 01:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 09:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 09:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference?   — Cortonin | Talk 15:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 18:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the case of a topic without a particular regional focus it doesn't really offer a lot of advice for "choosing" a spelling preference, it simply instructs people to try to avoid edit wars on the topic by just sticking with what's there.  At this point in this article, "what's there" is a bit in flux as far as spelling preference, and this is why I suggested using the google counting method.   — Cortonin | Talk 12:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Here's what I think is the overriding factor:  The article makes reference to another wikipedia article called "Water vapor".  The spelling in this article should conform to the other one so it isn't necessary to kludge the links to it and so there won't be any confusing if a reader wants to jump from this article to the other one.  So, with that in mind, I'm going to change this article's spelling to "vapor" for reasons of consistency.--JonGwynne 21:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Let me see if I can explain this again.  The reason I changed it was to create consistency with the article on the subject of water vapor.  Why should the article have one spelling and the references to it use the other.  It is confusing and inconsistent and so I fixed it.  If the original article was entited "water vapour", then that's the spelling we should have used in this one.  This was nothing to do with me, I didn't write the article on water vapor.  Your assumption that I am "trying to pick a fight" by introducing consistency is simply absurd.--JonGwynne 03:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 10:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person picking a fight here William is you.  You're the one who runs off to the RFC to catalog your laundry-list of imagined grievances.  Vsmith's interpretation is irrelevant since it fails to consider the overriding factor that I will spell out a third time since it seemes to slip right past you the first two:   there     is     already     an   article     on     water vapor.   Do you understand that?  I'm simply using that article's spelling for the sake of consistency.  Does that seem clear to you?--JonGwynne 12:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop the phoney nonsense: the 1st and 2nd time you changed it it was stated as Americanizing, the third was hidden in a deceptive edit summary, then when that didn't work you decided to use the consistency theme because of an invisible vapor in a link. You are simply provoking a conflict. -Vsmith 14:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only "phoney nonsense" here is what you're bringing.  While you are correct that the first time I changed it, my intent was to make it consistent with the writings of the man whose work was being referenced, I had no objection to it being switched back as it was clear that this wasn't sufficient grounds for the change.  I was fine with that.  However, upon reconsidering the issue, it became obvious to me that the overriding issue here is the wikipedia article on water vapor.  It simply doesn't make sense to use one spelling in the original article and a different spelling in an article which directly refers to it.  Just because you are unable to admit when you're wrong doesn't mean you are entitled to suject the rest of us to this nuisance reversion.  In case you need further clarification, look at the original page's links to the water vapor article.  Whoever it was who added them had to go the trouble of creating the kludged links "water vapor|water vapour" in order to preserve the inconsistent spelling.  There are other examples of articles with the "vapor" spelling - vapor & vapor pressure to name just two.  In this situation, I'm right, you're wrong and the sooner you can come to grips with that fact, the sooner we can get back to more important things.  --JonGwynne 17:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: As far I know, 1000ppvb = 1 ppvm.  Does anyone here disagree?--JonGwynne 12:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think whichever unit is used, it makes sense to use the same units rather than some ppvm and some ppvb.  Just as we try to be consistent with temperature units, despite K/C/F. (I see carbon dioxide uses ppmv and there is Talk:Carbon_dioxide#Why_not_ppm? about it there also.  Concentration#"Parts-per"_Notation says usually ppmv (note at bottom of section); the NIST link suggests using powers of 10.  However, the IPCC Units states ppmv (parts per million (106) by volume) or ppbv (parts per million (109) by volume).  IPCC TAR mostly uses ppmv and has only a few references to ppbv. The NIST does note that terminology used in laws should be followed, and in nations which are part of the UNFCCC then the IPCC terminology could be seen as a "law". SEWilco 06:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question of spelling (Vapor/Vapour) 

message: While on the grand scheme of things "vapor" versus "vapour" doesn't really matter so much, you've all glazed over one thing that really does matter.  Amidst this revert war, we seem to have some changes to ppvm and ppvb being changed back and forth, which perhaps may be related to the different usage of "million" and "billion" across the pond.  More importantly than which one we use is that we need to clarify what it actually means numerically.  My suggestion is that someone who knows which version is correct under which interpretation of million/billion should place a description of what that actually means in terms of a power of 10 somewhere shortly beneath the first usage.   — Cortonin | Talk 12:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far I know, 1000ppvb = 1 ppvm.  Does anyone here disagree?--JonGwynne 12:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think whichever unit is used, it makes sense to use the same units rather than some ppvm and some ppvb.  Just as we try to be consistent with temperature units, despite K/C/F. (I see carbon dioxide uses ppmv and there is Talk:Carbon_dioxide#Why_not_ppm? about it there also.  Concentration#"Parts-per"_Notation says usually ppmv (note at bottom of section); the NIST link suggests using powers of 10.  However, the IPCC Units states ppmv (parts per million (106) by volume) or ppbv (parts per million (109) by volume).  IPCC TAR mostly uses ppmv and has only a few references to ppbv. The NIST does note that terminology used in laws should be followed, and in nations which are part of the UNFCCC then the IPCC terminology could be seen as a "law". SEWilco 06:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts-per spelling 

message: Will you two stop fighting over the spelling of vapor/vapour if we take a vote on it?  I'd like if both of you could agree to abide by the result of the vote.  We can give it, say, a week of time for people to vote.  Can we get an agreement to this from both of you?   — Cortonin | Talk 10:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we abide by the Manual of Style which JG is ignoring. See my comments above (and read them carefully). What you are suggesting is a loaded popularity contest based on your Google search. _Vsmith 12:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 12:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm suggesting a simple vote of the existing Wikipedia editors to establish a wiki-consensus to avoid and eliminate a rather meaningless conflict.  Does that sound so bad to you?   — Cortonin | Talk 18:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I am strongly opposed to a vote.  The policy on this is clear; the page was standardized on British spelling, JG Americanized it twice. After having the policy pointed out to him, he used another rationalization that was also incorrect to continue reverting.  A vote would partially validate this bad behavior, and the page doesn't need any more controversy.  I know that JG is new to Wikipedia but the policy has now been explained to him. I will consider any further reversions to American spelling as vandalism, trolling and disruption. I have no vested interest in editing this page, other than to honor the manual of style. Duk 20:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 21:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to resolve the matter, but if you wish to continue in conflict, I hope you enjoy it.   — Cortonin | Talk 01:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cortonin, how can we work on resolving conflicts if we don't observe simple rules?  If someone wants to change the spelling on one page to match other pages, they have a conflict with the manual of style. That is where this conversation belongs. Duk 03:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the style guide which says "the original contributor's usage should be followed."?  Perhaps you could look at the first  two  years .  In fact, up until just this past October , the dominant spelling was "vapor".  Until someone  (namely WMC) started converting the spellings over to "vapour".  And in fact, despite this, if you look at just one month ago , you will see that the spelling was still 8 to 3 in favor of "vapor", the original spelling of the article.  Then Vsmith came along here  only 9 days ago, and converted the dominant spelling "vapor" into "vapour", in violation of the style manual's instructions.  So if you REALLY wanted to obey the style manual, you would just put all the spellings back to "vapor" to match the original usage in this article, and end this ridiculous edit war (since you obviously didn't like the idea of a vote).   — Cortonin | Talk 05:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cortonin, I am sorry, haven't done the homework that you have done.  If you are right, and the article was incorrectly changed from prodominantly American to British spelling recently, then I apply exactly the same criteria as if it were the other way around. Thanks for mentioning this. Duk 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 12:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks as though I was in error on Jan. 23, should have done the detailed checking that Cortonin did back then. My apologies for that part. I'd best go undo my error. -Vsmith 12:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I did some more homework; I think Cortonin made good points. The article started out with American spelling.  The first British spelling was added four months later (more than a year before WMC started editing it).  From then on it contained a mixture of the two (I haven't verified every edit). Eventually, on January 23, Vsmith standardized it from mostly American spelling to British spelling. If this summary is accurate then I think Vsmith should re-standardize it to the American spelling Duk 13:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Again, my apologies for not checking closer and/or my inability to count :-) -Vsmith 14:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 20:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You started a category called "The role of water vapour" in an article with a dominant spelling of "vapor".  This very well may have been unintentional, as I know I don't check for which continent the spellings are from in an article before I begin typing.  But my only point was that it wouldn't be correct to conclude that the spelling "vapour" was original or dominant in the article, and thus, this edit war should never have occurred.  At the very least, such things should be checked before starting an edit war over it.  Examine and consider validity with assumption of good faith first, and ONLY then if an edit can't be worked with should you revert.   — Cortonin | Talk 02:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 21:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if you found that offensive, as I said the phrasing was not intended to imply intentionality or guilt, simply primacy of cause and effect.  Rather than "started converting the spellings over to vapour" I should have written "created the header with the spelling vapour, probably unintentionally, making that spelling appear more dominant in an article which previously had the spelling vapor."  I apologize for my imprecision or any offense.   — Cortonin | Talk 21:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 17:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Resolution Proposal 

message: The table works, but, don't need the % column with all those zeros. Percent is really pph or parts per hundred and redundant w/ ppm. The sci notation column was just adding confusion and clutter, if a casual reader doesn't grasp ppm values then I doubt they would get the meaning of sci notation either. And those were unitless ... ? Vsmith 16:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the scientific notation.  Percentages would be better.  I disagree with you that the percentage tables are "redundant" though.  I realize that 1% is just another way to say pph but not everyone else does.  It is both helpful and, in my opinion at least, necessary to put the size of the increase in context by showing what percentage of the atmosphere it represents.--JonGwynne 16:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Percentage is not a useful unit to use because you can make no conceptual comparison of a number with a large number of 0's to the left.  That's why scientific notation exists.  Scientific notation lets you easily compare the relative atmospheric concentrations of each compound, and get a feel for the relative orders of magnitude.  This is a standard across all fields of science, and should be used here.  ppmv, ppbv, and pptv are less clear for two reasons.  First, they are less standard across all fields of science (while they may be standard in atmospheric science, most readers are not experts in this field).  Second, the comparison of these values is not immediately obvious, and requires the reader to sit down and try to calculate, since the reader must try to discern the meaning of the change between m, b, and t, and must try to discern whether this results in three left-shifts or three right-shifts of the data.  This is unnecessary added confusion when the simple interpretation can be placed right beside those values in terms of an atmospheric concentration expressed in scientific notation.  It is standard, clear, and unambiguous.  There is nothing to lose by including it.   — Cortonin | Talk 15:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that not everyone reading this will be comfortable with scientific notation.  For them, the easiest way to compare orders of magnitude are by have the number of decimal places laid out for them.  For these people, 0.01 it obviously ten times larger than 0.001.  I understand the problem with the large number of zeroes but they can't be avoided with dealing with such small percentages.  Maybe two columns, one with sci-notation and one with plain percentages?  --JonGwynne 11:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific notation is standard in essentially every scientific field and in every country.  It's even standard in most high school science educations.  Invoking three different classifications of "ppmv", "ppbv", and "pptv", which are sufficiently complicated to the novice to require a decoder chart on the bottom, is just more cryptic and less clear, and is completely unnecessary when the equivalent information can be represented just as easily by scientific notation.  It's not important what's commonly used in the field of atmospheric science, since this site is not an atmospheric science paper.  The goal is to present the information clearly to a new reader to this topic, and scientific notation does that much more readily.  This has nothing to do with POV, this has to do with clarity and simplicity.  Please don't waste time fighting against that.   — Cortonin | Talk 18:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Which is more important, being the same as the IPCC, or presenting the information in the greatest clarity to the reader?   — Cortonin | Talk 21:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant columns in table 

message: First, the gridlines have to stay in so that it is readable on all browsers.  Second, there need to be context columns of some kind to put the increases in an objective context rather than just the subjective context of the IPCC advocates.--JonGwynne 11:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What browser are you using Jon? Works fine in Opera and Netscape. The wide grided version conflicted with the image in Netscape. Grid lines - esp. wide ones - are an unnecesary distraction for a short table. Extra columns redundat and not needed, see above discussion, -Vsmith 12:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using IE.  The chart without lines is unreadable because the columns don't line up.  The "extra columns" are not redundant and they are useful information and should stay.--JonGwynne 12:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked with IE in school lab (don't have the monster at home:), and the columns line up perfectly. Again refer to discussion above and in the extensive discussion at Talk:Carbon dioxide for your number playing. -Vsmith 16:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno what to tell you.  It doesn't work for me.  Maybe it is the version.  Maybe it is my resolution.  Maybe it is my video driver.  Let me repeat: the chart is unreadable without grid lines.  Grid lines aren't a problem so I'll keep putting them back if you take them out.  And what's this nonsense about taking gasses stuff out of the chart?  This is an article about greenhouse gasses.  They're greenhouse gasses.  They belong in the chart.  If they're important enough for the IPCC to talk about them, they're bloody well important enough for you to leave them in.  --JonGwynne 01:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - keep border @ 1, but there is too much redundancy and too many errors in the other trace gas amounts in your table. I will add corrected data for minor gases later (maybe, after I think on it a bit and have time to sort them out). Right now I'm tired :-) Vsmith 05:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I triple-checked the numbers.  They are correct.  Oh, BTW, I'm removing the reference to Mann's statements about water vapor.  Until someone can do better that a political extremist site like commondreams.org repeating a story from the "Environmental News Servive", it can stay on the fringes where it belongs and out of wikipedia.--JonGwynne 01:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chart 

message: (William M. Connolley 21:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfluormethane seems to be a mis-used term, tetrafluromethane - or CF4 would be better. I note the TAR lists a 1750s value of 40ppt or half the current value. I wonder what the pre-industrial source was? Vsmith 15:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the numbers 

message: Why do you guys persist in removing important information from the chart?  Your changes are unnecessary, inappropriate and unwarranted.  Not only that, but the changes do not reflect the IPCC data on this subject.  Where are you getting these changes?--JonGwynne 00:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - let's work with your tables a bit. Fixed a unit error, remove a redundant column in 2nd table (covered it with comment above table), work to make headings and tables more readable. More to do as there is still some confusing parts (need to separate the really trace gases from those of significance - later. The water vapor paragraph is valid and pertinent. Vsmith 03:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to find a reputable source for the Mann quote, be my guest.  But the retelling of tales from the "Environmental News Service" by commondreams.org hardly qualifies.  If Mann really said these things, there should be a more authoritative record of it.  Feel free to look.--JonGwynne 12:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 11:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the IPCC gives much thought to what you would "prefer to remove".  In an article about greenhouse gasses, what it is relevant is the greenhouse gasses the IPCC took the trouble to list, not that tiny subset you would "prefer" to discuss.  --JonGwynne 12:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 14:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least you're closer to the proper use of the word ironic here.  But, you're still missing the point.  I have no stake in the IPCC's conclusions either way.  In other words, it is nothing to do with what I "like".  Just because you judge facts according to whether or not you "like" them, doesn't mean the rest of us do.  The point, whether you want to admit it or not, is that if you want to cite IPCC data, you have to be prepared to do it accurately or else you will be corrected.  The real irony here is that such a hardcore IPCC propagandist like you who receives their proclamations as though they were delivered by a burning bush would be censoring their data.  Despite your feeble excuses for censorship and vandalism, the matter for discussion is greenhouse gasses and, if you're going to list them, you's best do it accurately.  Oh yeah, and legibly.  The tables are not readable without gridlines.  I don't know why and I don't particularly care.  But whatever else happens, the lines will stay.--JonGwynne 14:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent vandalism by Vsmith and WMC 

message: Thanks to Cortonin for fixing JG's mistake with the %: . % is an odd unit though to relate ppm to - perhaps better just deleted? And why waste space on a table of what-ppm-means, when we can just link the first occurence of ppm?  --WMC
:Or better yet, why use a notation which is sufficiently obscure that it requires a table just to translate it to the common visitor?  Scientific notation is standard and prevalent, and works just as well (if not better) as a concentration notation, since scientific notation allows more clear mental comparisons of the relative concentrations.   — Cortonin | Talk 15:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If only people would realize that percent is just a shorthand for parts per hundred and not some special unit it would make the ppm notation much more understandable. I agree the explanation section is unneeded - I got rid of part of it a day or so ago. Ppm is quite standard and a switch to sci. notation would still need some units as just a "naked number" by itself conveys limited info. And surely anyone able to grasp scientific notation can understand ppm. -Vsmith 15:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fraction by volume.  A fraction is hardly naked.  Ppm is still used when discussing low concentration polutants (which yes, this happens to be), but is much more rare outside of this limited usage.  Scientific notation is by far the dominant notation in science for both very large and very small values.  In fact, if you check the recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology located here, you will see that they consider ppm, ppb, and ppt "deprecated" and "not uniform", and that the preferred way of expressing numbers is to use powers of 10 (aka, scientific notation).  The recommendations of NIST generally do a good job of expressing clear and unambiguous ways to explain things, and we would be wise to follow them for the sake of the readers.   — Cortonin | Talk 16:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 09:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to Cortonin for fixing JG's mistake 

message: The problem comes when you start talking about percentages of the greenhouse effect.  Yes, clouds are not a gas, but while the article is about greenhouse gases, the opening paragraph is discussing percentage contributions to the greenhouse effect, and for this, clouds are a significant contributer.  So it does not make sense to exclude the contributions of clouds to this effect in a tally process.  When CO2 is removed, and the others are kept in, to get the 9% value, clouds are included in the amounts left in.  So it doesn't make sense to then turn around and exclude clouds from the water vapor amounts.   — Cortonin | Talk 22:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 09:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I read the above.  The points I just raised were not addressed any better above than you just did now.  If you're going to erase it as you just did, then please address those points, because the description in the opening paragraphs is incomplete until we do.   — Cortonin | Talk 15:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "greenhouse effect" due to "greenhouse gases" 

message: (William M. Connolley 21:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not merge that page with this one and put the better list in its proper place?--JonGwynne 21:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 22:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rest your neck dude.  I was just asking a simple and civil question, you didn't have to get all <fill in the blank> about it.  And since when is wikipedia a "game" than one "wins" or "loses"?  Just because some people think it is, doesn't mean that this is the case.--JonGwynne 22:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 22:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, maybe you should take a few deep breaths and do some yoga or something.  You seem to be looking for confrontation where none exists.  Remember, there is no spoon.  --JonGwynne 23:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete list page 

message: /archive_1
Carbon Dioxide - the evil villian that is creating a new industry
The information contained in this article seems to be selective. We all know that the use of cars and burning of fossil fuels produced carbon dioxide our most hated green house gas. The question is if carbon dioxide is 1.5 times heavier than air which is a fact as opposed to a theory, how is it rising to the upper atmosphere and keeping heat in ? 
Common Mr Gore answer that one, or is this Mr Gore's inconvenient truth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.51.232 (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I think this article should include a graph showing the man made sources of green house gases against the natural sources of green house gases.  
71.28.213.24 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man made sources 

message: What does the percentage increase in the table within the section Increase of greenhouse gases refer to? 85.124.182.40 15:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1750 baseline, which isn't given separately (the 1998 level and the change from 1750 are). It might be clearer to have the baseline as well as, or even instead of, the 1750-1998 change. Rd232 18:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage increase 

message: Someone needs to change the line about dipole moments. The problem is that it should either simply say that they cannot absorb light in the IR region, or get fairly technical to explain why.  The solution is to probably reference a page or a stub which goes into why.  I will think about writing this, however, if it is to be done, how can the top of the page be changed?
: Dipoles goes beyond me - sounds like you should be fixing it! And... go edit your user page Josh! William M. Connolley 17:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dipole 

message: Do these Sattilite images dipict the difference between the seasons, or the increase over a six month period?
E-Mail me an answer at:
donald_johnston@sympatico.ca
Click Me!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.172.38.200 (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The MOPPIT Sattilite Images 

message: In a comment to , Andrew Lacis wrote some stuff that might be useful here one day, so I'll record it before I forget where I read it: 
: The first statement of the punching bag quote that the combined effect of terrestrial greenhouse gases is to warm the surface of the Earth by 33 C is basically correct. The second statement that 95% of this warming is produced by water vapor is clearly erroneous. Of the 33 C greenhouse effect, about 10-11 C is due to non-volatile greenhouse gases (i.e., gases that do not precipitate out from the atmosphere for the typical range of atmospheric temperatures). These non-volatile greenhouse gases are CO2, CH4, N2O, ozone, and CFCs. If the Earth's atmosphere were totally devoid of water vapor, these non-volatile GHGs would support a surface temparature 10-11 C warmer than the -18 C equilibrium baseline (which corresponds to no atmospheric greenhouse effect). The rest of the 33 C greenhouse effect is due to feedback effects of water vapor which is a reaction to the radiative forcing due to the non-volatile GHGs and accounts for roughly half of the 33 C greenhouse effect, and clouds which provide roughly 6-7 C. As a crude analogy, the non-volatile greenhouse gases serve as a "skeleton" upon which vater vapor (and cloud) feedbacks can operate. (A horse without a skeleton upon which its muscles can exert their force would be laying sprawled out flat on the ground.) Accordingly, if the non-volatile GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) were removed from the atmosphere, the atmospheric water vapor and clouds would precipitate from the atmosphere, and the resulting surface temperature would drop to the basline -18 C value. In this over-simplified model, the non-volatile greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) provide an overall radiative forcing of about 11 C. The volatile component (water vapor and clouds) operate in teh current climate system with an effective multiplicative feedback factor of 3 which multiplies the applied 11 C forcing to generate the total 33 C terrestrial greenhouse effect.
: An early discussion of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity is given by Hansen et al. 1984 (Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol 5, AGU, 130-163). This paper compares the radiative forcings due to doubled CO2 and to a 2% increase in solar irradiance, and provides a quantitative analysis of feedback contributions due to water vapor, cloud, lapse rate, and surface albedo changes. The paper shows that while feedback efficiencies of the different feedback processes can be compared linearly, the feedbacks combine in a non-linear fashion. In the Hansen et al. 1984 paper, the radiative forcing due to doubled CO2 was 1.2-1.3 C, with the overall feedback factor in the 3-4 range to produce a 4 C global equilibrium warming. More recent results (Hansen et al. 2005, Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science 308, 1431-1435) suggest that the total global feedback effect is in the 2.1-2.3 range giving a 2.7 C global warming for doubled CO2.
: Because of overlapping absorption and saturation effects, the greenhouse contributions of individual contributors depend on their atmospheric context. For example, the radiative forcing due to doubled CO2 in the current atmospheric context is about 1.2-1.3 C (with no feedbacks operating). But removal of the current CO2 amount produces a cooling of more than -7 C (with no feedbacks operating). Analytic formulas that describe the amount of radiative forcing due to different concentrations of atmospheric CO2, CH4, N2O, and CFCs can be found in Hansen et al. 1988 (Global climate changes as forecast by GISS three-dimensional model. JGR 93, 9341-9364). Again, the (applied) radiative forcing is provided by changes in the non-volatile GHGs, aerosols, or solar irradiance. Water vapor, clouds, and snow-ice albedo change in response to the applied radiative forcing and account for the overall global feedback factor which acts to magnify the applied forcing to produce the eventual equilibrium change in global surface temperature 
70.134.105.203 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of WV 

message: The article points out, correctly, that homonuclear diatomic don't absorb in the IR. It doesn't point out that heteronuclear diatomics such as CO or HCl absorb IR. Should it? I don't think they are very important GHG's. William M. Connolley 16:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heteronuclear diatomics 

message: This page was nominated on Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations, but I have not added it to the list, because although the article is generally very good, the intro needs work - it's extremely confusing to quote lots of percentages and then say you can't really quote percentages anyway.  Worldtraveller 00:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not GA yet 

message: I was under the impression that for every molecule of CO2 produced combusting petroleum products, a molecule of H2O is produced, however that no H2O is produced combusting coal.  I was also under the impression that petroleum products accounted for about only 25% of combustion derived CO2 and coal most of the rest, however the chart seems to suggest otherwise.  May be the chemical formulas would be helpful to the article.
Does Michael Mann mean to say that water vapor can not significantly be controlled by humans?  If so, does not that make the “Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.”  discussion insignificant also?
: The point you are missing is that excess H2O precipitates rapidly. Co2 doesn't William M. Connolley 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‘''water vapor can not be controlled by humans''’ ? 

message: I am intrigued by the assertion that the mechanism for greenhouse gas warming is not the one which warms greenhouses.
My understanding of greenhouses is that the glass lets in visible light from the sun. This is then absorbed inside the greenhouse by the contents, which warm up. The contents then emit infra red light - but this is not transmitted back through the glass, which is opaque to IR light, trapping the energy inside the greenhouse and keeping it warm. This is analagous to greenhouse gases - visible light goes in, gets absorbed by the surface and re-emited as IR - but some frequencies of IR are not transmitted back out because they are absorbed by the greenhouse gases and radiated in all directions. Stephen B Streater 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the greenhouse effect page (and the extensive talk page discussion, poss the archives) William M. Connolley 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I've added a wikilink in to help the next guy. Stephen B Streater 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenhouses 

message: I've made a number of edits to remove redundant bits of text, clean up some grammatical slips and so on.  
I've also changed the description of the greenhouse effect at the top of the page to one that is more accurate scientifically, though maybe too intricate for a general audience. Since this article is about GHGs as such and not the greenhouse effect, I'm sort of inclined to remove this bit altogether and just have a pointer to the main GE article. Raymond Arritt 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! I had a part in writing this bit. The most significant thing for me was the discovery outlined in the last sentence: The term is something of a misnomer, as this process is not the primary mechanism that warms greenhouses., so I'd be keener to keep this last sentence than the rest which is, as you point out, explained in its own article; a wikilink could suffice here. Stephen B Streater 17:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General cleanup 

message: Hi, I'm a bit confused by W/m2 as units for radiative forcing - surely there should be a ppm component to this thing as well? Or some such? Clarification is not to be found in radiative forcing, either. Graft 19:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No... the rad forcing is... well, the 1.46 W/m2 for CO2 is for the 87ppm increase over preindustrial. You could perhaps express it as 1.46/87 W/m2/ppm but it wouldn't be that accurate William M. Connolley 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. So, there's an observed forcing for the increase that has actually transpired, 1.46 w/m^2 - but is there some theoretical number, here, i.e., the general potential forcing of CO2? Cuz this is how I read that table. To me it says: given equal quantities of CO2 and methane, methane results in far less forcing than CO2 does. But this is probably not what it's saying. It's actually apportioning the amount of observed forcing attributable to various greenhouse gases. Right? So where does one find the former quantities? Graft 19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1.46 is calculated, not observed. And no, the methane forcing is smaller, but thats in total - per molecule, methane is stronger. Sorry - I though all this was obvious William M. Connolley 20:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calculated, observed, same difference - my point is, why don't we have a table of per-molecule forcing? Surely this is relevant? As to it being obvious, maybe it should be, but it could clearly be made more so. Graft 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, since the effects are not linear (in fact logarithmic in many cases) and different gases interfere with each other through overlapping absorption bands, it isn't a trivial matter to construct such a table.  Really, such a comparison is most sensibly limited to discussing the forcing associated with small changes in gases relative to the modern atmosphere.  Dragons flight 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Expert syndrome: Knowing so much that no one else can understand a word you say.  Though if there is a good table on the differential impact of various greenhouse gases relative to the modern atmosphere, I'd love to see it.  For some reason, climatologists don't seem to think about greenhouse gases in the same way as physicists.  Dragons flight 21:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units for radiative forcing 

message: :please go away and read Chapter 3 of IPCC TAR and then come back if you still have any questions.--NHSavage 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenhouse Gases - human factor 

message: A large observational database of many different atmospheric constituents including greenhouse gases from a host of platforms is available. This was created as part of ESA Envisat and NASA Aura validation. It is of general use. Do you think it should be added to the article text? Dlary 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observational Database 

message: It is widely understood that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas.  Out of interest, is there a suitable reference to some fundamental report or study?  Chrisnumbers2000 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arrhenius article is pretty good. Raymond Arritt 05:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only actual experiment I've found proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ONLY if atmospheric pressure increases as well. It was conducted in the 1890's I think, but I haven't been able to relocate it in google. If it really is true that no institution has ever repeated this experiment in such a long time, that makes me... somewhat disappointed in modern science if we can have such a large debate over global warming and CO2 and then nobody has ever ponied up an actual experiment as proof in over a 100 years. How has global atmospheric pressure changed in the past 100 years? Has it increased? Decreased? Stayed the same? 64.126.164.3 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your premise is mistaken.  Perhaps you're confusing the partial pressure of CO2 with total atmospheric pressure. Raymond Arritt 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont remember the specifics because I'm unable to reproduce the search term that brought me to the page with the experiment mentioned. Basically what I remember is that you could have x amount of CO2, and it's ability to be a green house gas increased with y, where y is the total gas stuffed into a container.64.126.164.3 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 is a greenhouse gas 

message: Please, gentlemen, acknowledge that this is a controversial topic, with well-respected climatologists having very different opinions.  Please do not make it an editorial for one POV by deleting references to minority viewpoints.  NCdave 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrarian references 

message: This is shown in the top diagram part 2 Carbon Flux. Can somebody fix this?
--Nick Green 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lines are correct, but it would be clearer if the legend were labeled as "all sources and sinks".  I'll ping Robert and see if he can fix it. Raymond Arritt 03:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The TAR chapter is as good a starting point as any though it's a little old by now. The whole carbon sink/sequestration/storage area is moving very fast, both in terms of observations as well as proposals for methods to increase carbon uptake. Raymond Arritt 03:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil Fuel Burning cannot exceed Total Flux, All Sources 

message: This was recently added to the section without any discussion or explanation: Another theory on the cause of CO2 level increases, among other green house gases, is that their increase lags global warming.  CO2 levels increase as the global temperature increases.  This is partly due to ocean warming.  When the ocean warms, it releases CO2.  When the ocean cools, it absorbs CO2.  When looking at ice core samples from a much broader perspective, we see that CO2 levels increased after the earth began to warm up.  Also, in Bruno Wiskel's book "The Emperor's New Climate" (2006), on page 110-112, we see more factors on the release of CO2, among other greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere.  Wetlands for instance are the largest producers of methane.  As the wetlands warm up, along with the global temperature, their ability to produce methane increases.  Some other factors mentioned in Wiskel's book are the release of CO2 from the soil under glaciers, when they melt.  As a result, the theory that industrialization has caused global warming could be entirely false.
First, Bruno Wiskel doesn't have an article and the book isn't that well known. A search on Google for "Bruno Wiskel The Emperor's New Climate" returns 11 hits. This section seems very dubious. I'm not saying it is false, but I've never heard anything like this and the person and book cited don't seem that notable. Unless more appropriate citations can be added, I think this section needs to be removed. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 05:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the new section. Since there is zero scientific support for this new idea (at least for the present day) I don't think it belongs William M. Connolley 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't blame you one bit. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions to the "Increase of greenhouse gasses" section 

message: Why does "The role of water vapor" section keep getting removed by various people? It's very annoying to have to revert edit after edit.  Maybe we need to discuss why you don't believe the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.Invasion10 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The role of water vapor 

message: It is necessary to understand the situation and the discussion.  When man-made global warming is discussed the topic is, specifically, a change in the average temperature of the earth brought about by the actions of man.  That's a change in temperature from what the temperature would be absent the additional greenhouse gas.  
Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas but water vapor rapidly leaves the atmosphere (snow, rain, hail.)  Add a million tons of water vapor to the atmosphere and there very quickly will be a million tons of additional precipitation.  Add a million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere and that CO2 will persist for decades, slowly being removed by natural processes.  (This isn't a quantitative statement: I don't claim that combustion of fossil fuels, in total, produces equal masses of H2O and CO2.  "Million tons" is a phrase used to indicate "a lot.")
Something that also gets too little attention is that a one degree (Celsius) increase in the average temperature of the earth is only a little more than a 0.3% change in temperature.  That one degree change can have significant global effects but it's still just a little more than a 0.3% change.  It is entirely possible that man's activities can cause a change of that magnitude.
It is false logic to conclude that since water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas that the effect of added CO2 can be ignored.  The global warming issue is not the temperature, it's the change in temperature.  The effect of the water vapor appears in the temperature.  The added CO2 contributes to an increase in temperature.
Minasbeede 16:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was added by anon 217.42.21.7 and is now deleted.  It's totally wrong, of course, but that doesn't stop it being used as a common skeptic talking point. (Tim Ball even claims that water vapor is left out of the models... sigh.) Raymond Arritt 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you have a quote for that? We then could address the point head on in the article. — Sebastian 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent Soden and Held (2006) article diagnoses cloud feedbacks in GCMs (it would be tough to diagnose something that doesn't exist). There's a nice figure that shows magnitudes of the various feedbacks.  Or were you thinking of a quote from one of the IPCC reports or another source that says something very direct, along the lines of "All modern general circulation models contain parameterizations for radiative transfer, clouds..."? Raymond Arritt 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't have to be all; the claim that "cloud formation [is] largely ignored in climate models" is easily refuted by a statement like "modern general circulation models, such as ..., model cloud formation". Would you have a link or two that we could use as a reference? — Sebastian 18:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something like this excerpt from chapter 8 of the WGI report of the AR4: "Cloud parametrizations are based on physical theories that aim to describe the statistics of the cloud field (e.g., the fractional cloudiness or the area-averaged precipitation rate) without describing the individual cloud elements. In an increasing number of climate models, microphysical parametrizations that represent such processes as cloud particle and raindrop formation are used to predict the distributions of liquid and ice clouds. These parametrizations improve the simulation of the present climate, and affect climate sensitivity (Iacobellis et al., 2003)." (reference here; specifically at subsection 8.2.1.3.) I'd still like to find something that explicitly says "all modern GCMs include the effects of clouds", but it's such an obvious point that maybe no one has bothered stating it. Raymond Arritt 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (addendum) Maybe "current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds" from this source? Raymond Arritt 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's perfect! I'll add that. — Sebastian 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually, that belongs rather in the article Climate model. I'll write something on its talk page, please follow the discussion there. — Sebastian 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas 

message: It's one thing to claim that CO2 is nearing the saturation point and another thing to show it.  You've claimed it but have shown no reference to back the claim.  Show the data, please, if it exists.  Surely the absorption coefficients of CO2 are well enough known that this should be a simple matter.
It's rather unlikely that of all the scientists who warn of the greenhouse gas crisis none are aware of Beer's law.  In particular those scientists who do modeling of the effect of an increase in atmospheric CO2 are overwhelmingly likely to do the computations according to Beer's law and not according to a linear mode.  Still, over any small range, doesn't a logarithmic curve look approximately linear?
Your explanation of the reason water vapor is not considered a greenhouse gas of concern is far better than one that talks of a short lifespan, although these are or should be different ways of expressing the same thing.  the "short lifespan" statement about water vapor implies a comparison with CO2, which has a longer lifespan since there is no mechanism similar to precipitation that quickly removes CO2 from the atmosphere.  There, again, it isn't individual molecules that matter (and molecules of water are indistinguishable one from another), it's the total concentration.  Burning of fossil fuels is another source of atmospheric CO2.  Absent the burning of the fossil fuels there would be more or less of a balance among atmospheric carbon (as CO2), biological carbon, and carbon in dissolved CO2 in the oceans and lakes.  The CO2 concentration measurements taken in Hawaii would show the same seasonal variations but would lack the constant upward motion attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
Minasbeede 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been given he answer, even if you haven't understood it. The answer is basic radiative physics plus some feedbacks, or perhaps HadCM3 William M. Connolley 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Response 

message: I see no claim made that all emissions due to burning of fossil fuel remain entirely in the atmosphere.  Either the vehicular emissions did or did not grow as was claimed in the removed material.  The level of emissions of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuel is pertinent, is it not?  That the growth in atmospheric CO2 is less than the total emissions over a period of time does not disprove the level of emissions nor reveal the data to be incorrect.
Minasbeede 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emissions 

message: What is the source of the graph "green house gas emissions by source"?
Northern Bear 16:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to :  --Kim D. Petersen 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  source of graph 

message: William M. Connolley has repeatedly deleted the following section, sourced to a peer-reviewed National Academies of Sciences report:
:;Underestimation by IPCC : The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimated 2000-04 CO2 emissions by a substantial amount. CO2 emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1% during the 1990s, but from 2000 to 2004, CO2 emissions growth rates almost tripled to 3% per year.Raupach, M.R. et al. (2007) "Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
:
The reasons given in summaries were:
* "rv: as per GW page: releveance is dubious AND atmos CO2 only grew at 2-3/y ppmv in 2000-4"
* "rm - remains of no clear importance - needs to discuss short timeframe & actual CO2 concs)"
* "its not criticism; other reasons as before"
The abstract of the source reads:
:"CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y�1 for 1990–1999 to >3% y�1 for 2000– 2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s. Global emissions growth since 2000 was driven by a cessation or reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of gross domestic product (GDP) (energy/GDP) and the carbon intensity of energy (emissions/energy), coupled with continuing increases in population and per-capita GDP. Nearly constant or slightly increasing trends in the carbon intensity of energy have been recently observed in both developed and developing regions. No region is decarbonizing its energy supply. The growth rate in emissions is strongest in rapidly developing economies, particularly China. Together, the developing and least-developed economies (forming 80% of the world’s population) accounted for 73% of global emissions growth in 2004 but only 41% of global emissions and only 23% of global cumulative emissions since the mid-18th century. The results have implications for global equity." (emphasis added)
Since this is clearly criticism, I believe that WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of this caveat.  I would like to know what other people think. --James S. → talk 07:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, no it isn't criticism. Its just some findings. Second, your reporting of it is badly biased because you are failing to report on the all-important atmospheric concentrations which actually remain within SRES bounds. Which you know because it was discussed on t:GW William M. Connolley 08:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Findings" that observations are not in line with IPCC projections are most certainly criticism -- what reason do you have to say that they are not?  Even if they weren't, they would still be a different, important, and impeccably sourced point of view, and must be included. Atmospheric concentrations aren't the subject of the report, emissions are.  Why are concentrations "all-important"?  They may be within SRES predictions at the moment, but if emissions continue to rise as much as have been above IPCC predictions, they will not be for long. --James S. → talk 12:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is hopeless. Why are concs all-important? For the obvious reason: they provide the radiative forcing. Emissions don't. And you still persist with your own bizarre defns; this is not crit. Now, if you want to add something balanced and sensible in the CO2 emissions section, that would be fine William M. Connolley 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The CO2 emissions section is under external links, but I added the PNAS and Science quotes anyway. --James S. → talk 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  What provides the concentrations?  The emissions! I'm looking at a half dozen definitions of the word "criticism" and I can't believe you when you say the Raupach paper isn't a "comment expressing fault" or a "critical comment or judgment" or a "serious examination and judgment of something" -- why you would think that it's not all three of those is unclear to me. --James S. → talk 13:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concs are measured in the atmos. Its clear that they are pretty well on the IPCC proj's - not way above William M. Connolley 13:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've mv'd and re-written it into what looks like the most appropriate section William M. Connolley 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm collecting all the findings of the PNAS paper and will add a balanced representation of them shortly. Bendž|Ť 11:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, I've read the discussion on the global warming page, and Connolley, you're violating WP:OR by giving precedence to your own reading of the graph data over the author's interpretations in text of the research paper. I did notice the discrepancy but let's just report what the scientists find, shall we? All sorts of adjustments have to be made to be able to use data from different sources, but if they conclude one thing from the data it's not our place to say that's incorrect when it has been peer reviewed by the United States National Academy of Sciences. Until another paper points out an error, we'll have to settle for the findings in this one. Bendž|Ť 13:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated deletions of National Academy of Sciences findings 

message: Re : FWIW the effect *is* logarithmic: but this (of course) doesn't make additions negligible William M. Connolley 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. logarithmic => negligible is one of the stupider septic arguments around. But explaining the dependence would be sensible William M. Connolley 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that the best article for discussing the logarithmic effects would be the Radiative forcing article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logarithmic