Talk:Climate change/Archive 6

message: (William M. Connolley 20:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's a sensible change.  You may want to also correct it later in the article, as that's where I sourced the numbers.   — Cortonin | Talk 22:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.6 +/- 0.2, not 0.4 - 0.8 

message: (William M. Connolley 23:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the listed evidence is quite thin.  I also think that considering the climate model article says, "Whether these models are sufficiently "correct" to be useful or not is a matter of dispute," that perhaps the global warming article should reflect some of that dispute and uncertainty.  It's okay for scientists in a field to be uncertain.   — Cortonin | Talk 23:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Models predict warming... 

message: If the precise magnitude of human induced contributions to global warming is uncertain, then how is the significance certain?  If the significance is certain, what is that significance?  Is there an objective answer to this based on evidence?   — Cortonin | Talk 22:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 22:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was reading "significance" in that context in terms of importance or relevance considering other contributing factors, but I can see the confusion about it also being misunderstood as statistical significance within the single variation.   — Cortonin | Talk 23:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of human induced contributions 

message: I propose changing the sentence
"Increases in CO2 measured since 1958 at Mauna Loa show a monotonically increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2. "
to "On an annual basis, CO2 measured since 1958 at Mauna Loa has increased monotonically from 315 ppm (parts per million) to 375 ppm."
Basically because there is a ~ 3% seasonal oscillation at Mauna Loa (a smaller one in the Antarctic record, which is also interesting) as can be seen at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo144e_thrudc03.pdf
And putting similar language on the CO2 graph
: (William M. Connolley 10:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annual increases of CO2 

message: Can I suggest an alteration to the "Potential Effects" section on ice melt to :
"Global warming causes the sea level to rise because sea water expands as it warms, and through thinning of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps and reduction of glaciers."
Melting of the North polar cap and sea ice, as it currently reads, will not of course significantly affect sea levels as they are floating ice masses.
* I don't think anyone would seriously dispute you on this. Floating ice has no effect whatsoever on water level when it melts, as it displaces precisely as much water either way.
: On the other hand, it should also be mentioned that the atmosphere holds dramatically more water when warm, so that a sizable portion of the melt from the land-based glaciers would end up in the air, not the seas, because of the much greater volume of air (which is increasing in storage capacity) versus sea (which is taking up only the leftovers). Kaz 22:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 22:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it --Ben 01:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice Melt 

message: At the beginning of the article, there is acknowledgement of the fact that most widely accepted global warming models require 
: (William M. Connolley 22:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 22:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 22:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 22:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Mean 

message: (William M. Connolley 19:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this section had become a license to speculate.  The original idea that dimming somehow would imply an increase in the sensitivity of climate to CO2 was the original speculation, as if the current climate models don't already have a higher sensitivity to CO2 than implied by the paleo data.  Perhaps this dimming is the indirect feedback that resolves the discrepency, and eventually gets the doubling prediction down to to 0.5 to 0.6 degress C range.  This seemed more likely to me than the counter-intuitive speculation originally presented.--Silverback 05:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 10:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warming/Dimming & Silverback 

message: (William M. Connolley 19:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's "trashy" then it either needs deleting or putting in an article with a useful focus (eg popular/political discussion). The point is not that everything should end up in GW - but I think that should be the logical starting-point, with things spun off from GW (in a logical daughter-article structure) only because of the otherwise excessive length. Rd232 23:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting your sig at the end of your comemnts? It's really annoying at the beginning, not least because no-one else does it. Rd232 23:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the suggestions for re-arranging 

message: I have fixed what I consider to be a bogus (and sneaky) link to consensus science disguised as Scientific consensus. There is a distinct difference and the attempt to cause an apparent scientific consensus link lead to a made for the moment consensus science page is flat dishonest. -Vsmith 01:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that every link to scientific consensus should be named "scientific consensus", and every link to consensus science should be named "consensus science".  The terms refer to different (although related) things, and it would not be correct to point one at the other.  The goal here is to provide a clear and complete information source to the reader.   — Cortonin | Talk 21:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific consensus vs Consensus science 

message: These links have recently shown up on some of the climate change pages. Is an automated wire service/blog an appropriate link in Wiki articles? —Ben 22:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links to [[http://www.climatechange.com.au/ http://www.climatechange.com.au/]] 

message: (William M. Connolley 23:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne]] 

message: I've spent a lot of time cleaning up the document.  I appreciate that not everyone will agree with all of the changes I've made and that's fine but rather than reverting the whole, I would appreciate it if you would make changes from this version so the spelling/grammar/spacing corrections I made can stay put.  Thanks.--JonGwynne 13:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 13:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to your POV, it is POV. That's fine.  I hope that we can resolve this without reverting to reverting.  --JonGwynne 13:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with "apparent rise"?  The increase hasn't been definitively established - it has been accepted by consensus and that's certainly something.  But to say that it is definitely and absolutely rising ignores the legitimate concern over the methods used to establish the claim.  Put another way, saying something is "apparently" true, doesn't change the fact.  I could say that you "apparently" have a doctorate, or that you claim to have a doctorate.  These statements would be true.  I haven't personally validated your qualifications so I don't know for certain whether you have a doctorate or not.  When I qualify my statements, I'm not attempting to diminish your credentials, but rather pointing to my own uncertainty.  See the difference?  --JonGwynne 13:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with "significant dispute"?  There is a dispute and it is significant.  That seems pretty clear.  Whether that statement "matches" the consensus is beside the point.  Those with the dispute are not part of the consensus.--JonGwynne 13:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are overstating or mistating what the disputes are.  Today most skeptics accept that warming is most likely occurring, and although they may have residual doubts about how conclusive the data and analyses are, and still see problems and incompleteness in them, they are not countering the weight of the evidence with publications.   The skeptical focus now is on the mismatch between the models with each other and the temperature distribution data and the models oversized predictions compared with what one would expect from the published paleo data and analyses.  So your version is not consistent even with skeptics emphasis, but rather seems to be insisting unreasonably on uncertainty for uncertainty's sake, where there isn't much published research to hang your hat on.  One can always say "well it ain't proven", but while trivially true, it doesn't have much persuasive power, especially when it is used to insist on overqualifying so many statements.--Silverback 14:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Follow-up on the major issues, JonGwynne, there is already a lot of solar variation in the article so your major addition is duplicative, perhaps you don't recognize that the cosmic ray stuff is a proposed indirect mechanism?  Your other addition about the CO2 from the large increase in the human population states a largely insignificant contribution when compared not only to the fossil fuel sources but also insignificant when compared to the methane from cattle.  It is not worth mentioning.--Silverback 15:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The last papers I read on sea level rise referred to pretty high systematic uncertainties, and to a pretty wide range in values measured, depending on what land mass they're measured from.  So I think JonGwynne's edit to "appear to be" rising is a bit more fair to the content of the literature.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: In addition, the line "There are no known climatologists supporting this viewpoint", even if true, is a crappy phrase to put in an encyclopedia.  If you want to have a line like that with a sweeping generalization, then you should document it.  So in order to keep it, please list all known climatologists, and beside it place their views.  (Since claims like that should always be documented.)   — Cortonin | Talk 19:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, the line "The majority of scientists agree that important climate processes are incorrectly accounted for by the climate models but don't think that better models would change the conclusion." is not sufficiently documented.  JonGwynne's change of this to refer specifically to the IPCC is more correct.  I don't recall anyone ever surveying physicists, chemists, or biologists about their opinions on climate modelling, so lets not make undocumented claims about the majority of scientists.  There are also some climatologists who have spoken out saying they don't think the IPCC represents the consensus of all climatologists, so lets avoid such debates by simply making such things "According to the IPCC, the majority of climatologists", or something of the sort.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: And as for "All models show that the warming occurring from approximately 1975 to 2000 is largely anthropogenic."  Are we still debating this???  List all climate models so you can document this claim.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: "Some skeptics would claim that the warming trend itself is not valid, and therefore does not need any explanation."  Jon's elimination of the word "would" is correct.  This is not a matter of POV, it's a matter of accuracy.  It's not that they "would" do it, they have.  They've even published papers on it.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: "Skeptics have been unable to produce a model of the climate that does not predict that temperatures will increase in the future."  How about, "The sun stops shining".  Seriously, sweeping generalities are not useful.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: And regarding the temperature since the ice age, I think for accuracy's sake, "relatively stable" is more useful of a term than "quite stable".  After all, it's pretty damn cold outside today, but it's no ice age.  (Thus, "relatively stable".)   — Cortonin | Talk 19:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: And lastly, "and about half the minor ones, I would dispute"  If you dispute half the changes, then only revert half the changes!!!  This attitude of reverting everything if you can find something you disagree with is completely counter to the way other wikipedia articles are managed, and it makes the climate related articles extremely annoying to work with.  Please follow wiki policy and assume good faith.  If someone is going to take time out of their day to voluntarilly read an article and think about changes that might improve it, then you should CERTAINLY take time to consider each change before you undo all of that work.  This policy of "glance at it, see if there's anything I don't like, and then revert everything" is instead a sweeping assumption of bad faith, and it's very counterproductive.  Try to make an effort here to respect other people's contributions and the time they put into them.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, reverting is the way go with such extensive changes intermixed with POV additions.  The language corrections that I agree with are not that remarkable and rather than laboriously edit his version which is more divergent from the final product, it would be easier to just proof read the "original" language myself.  You should also bear in mind that some of the awkward language is by "design", since it is not the result single authorship, but a compromise, resulting in point and counterpoint.  It doesn't make for beautiful literature, but it is the way wiki is done.  An understanding of the history, from having participated in the creation, gives one knowledge of which changes that might seem more concise would actually disturb the stability of a compromise article.--Silverback 22:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting may be the "easy" way to go, but it is not the wiki-way to go.  Here we assume good faith edits, and we work with contributions and other contributers, not to try to oppose them.   — Cortonin | Talk 10:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree.  However, good faith edits do not imply good edits.  JonGwynne built up such a large difference in his version through persistence, not good faith cooperation.--Silverback 10:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall Cleanup

message: (William M. Connolley 09:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's more of a semantical argument.  We're not talking about sexual dominance, nor are we talking about control.  What is really trying to be said is that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas in the sense of contributing the largest portion to the greenhouse effect, but the trick is to say that while avoiding the POV of "significance" in terms of "importance".  I think there should be no statements at all about which greenhouse gas is most "important", since any assessment of importance would be entirely POV.  The word "largest" invokes images of size more than effect size, which just makes it not seem like the best word choice.  There are only a few short English phrases I can think of that might describe it:  "the most significant", "the dominant", "the major", "the primary", "the principal", and "the most prominent".  And the challenge is to pick the best of these.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: In the process of doing this, we must avoid phrases like, "the greenhouse effect, caused principally by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide."  I think we can all agree that's incorrect, since everyone pretty much agrees that carbon dioxide is not the greenhouse gas with the largest contribution.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 20:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sort of like saying, "It can't be concluded, either within or outside of England, that by any reasonable conclusion William M. Connolley kicks puppies."  Technically this sentence says that you don't kick puppies, yet it certainly doesn't feel like it's saying that when you read the sentence.   — Cortonin | Talk 02:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It doesn't fix it to say, "increases in the greenhouse effect, those increases caused principally by human-generated (anthropogenic) emissions of carbon dioxide", because the climate models which are predicting significant increases to the greenhouse effect do not receive this principally from carbon dioxide, but instead from positive feedback, and this is too complicated to explain correctly in the opening paragraph.  Let's leave the first paragraph simple, outline the topic in the next couple paragraphs, and then provide detail further down.   — Cortonin | Talk 02:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WV is not the dominant GHG 

message: This statement, "Recent research shows that the US (and global) records are not much influenced by the Urban heat island" seems to be in both versions of this page, but it is quite conspicuously undocumented.  The statement appears to be referring to some specific recent research, but I see no external reference to any of that specific research.  We have to be careful with statements like that, because the phrase "recent research" is a powerful one to the reader, and so when it is used it should be documented.  I would also suggest the word "indicates" rather than "shows", since all recent research is only indicative until it has had a chance to be tested and evaluated by time.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 20:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, that's a fairly incomplete referencing style.  It's okay to use that in a journal article if the end of the article then contains a more detailed reference.  But it's completely ineffective in that form.  There are 3.8 million google hits for Peterson 2003.  The first environmental researcher listed is this woman , but I see no publications from 2003 on this topic (although she does have many publications from 2003, indicating the magnitude of the problem in using a poor reference format like that).  One of the hits is this ppt slide  which does actually describe research on the topic of urban heat islands, but is quite unimpressive in its description of the methodology.  He takes temperature measurements, categorizes them by type of location, then subtracts off differences in temperature by type of location, and then concludes, "Oh look, now the urban heat island effect is smaller.  Those silly people who were saying it was significant were simply biased."  The mechanism of categorizing temperatures by location and then subtracting off the effects found in locations of a certain type is a fairly sketchy and dubious way of "showing" that there is no contribution from locations of another certain type.  If I were sitting at the conference where that talk was given you can bet my hand would be in the air asking about confounding correlations, and yours should be too.   — Cortonin | Talk 18:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 09:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  WMC: Using that only source commits the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Other scientists (http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate) disagree that it's insignificant.--Atlastawake 02:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 10:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Heat Islands 

message: (William M. Connolley 17:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct graph with error bars is available here:  .  Denorris simply grabbed the pdf without the error bars when she was making the image.   — Cortonin | Talk 01:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error bars on the global graph 

message: Cortonin, can you provide a reference demonstrating that UHIs significantly distort the temperature record? I have three separate sources (Easterling 1997, Hansen 1999 and Peterson 2003) that say there's nothing to be seen there. Graft 20:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we know that the UHI effect exists and is much larger than the reported global warming, as the UHI effect is known to make urban air about 6 C hotter than rural air , and we know that plenty of temperature sites are located in heat islands .  The real question then, is does the heat island effect contribute to a measured RISE in temperature?  If you look at Streutker 2003 (Remote Sensing of Environment 85:3), for example, you'll see a satellite analysis of Houston which shows the heat island there is rising by about 0.6 C per decade.  Now obviously that localized effect far exceeds the reported global temperature rise.  If you want to see a wide assortment of papers discussing the significance of urban heat islands, then you probably wouldn't have to look much farther than the dozen or so papers Peterson tries to dispute in his 2003 J. Climate article on that topic.   — Cortonin | Talk 22:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing the effect exists; that's not the issue. I'm saying, is there anyone who claims that it rubbishes attempts to estimate the global temperature record? In other words, does temperature estimated from all stations differ from temperature estimated from only rural stations? Graft 22:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UHI 

message: The change is expressed in degrees celcius difference between what the temperature now is compared to what it should have been.  But the actual temperature isn't listed.  Can someone add this?--JonGwynne 01:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Global temperature change

message: I found this data () from NOAA, Mauna Loa, Hawaii, can anyone see the "raw" numbers?--213.238.212.98 13:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you having trouble finding what you want when you click on Data at the top of that page?  (SEWilco 20:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data 

message: The possibility of volatilization of methane caltrates is referred to in connection with past warmings, but it also has relevance to the discussion of competing views of feedback effects (damping down versus runaway).  I therefore added a comment with a link in the "Greenhouse gas theory" section.  This article has obviously benefited from a great deal of scientific expertise, so let me acknowledge that the link I added is to a popularization (from the Baltimore Sun), not a peer-reviewed journal article or the like.  This kind of reference can be helpful to readers who (like me) aren't scientists.  JamesMLane 07:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Methane burps

message: Evidently Nature did not want McIntire and McKitrick to get credit for killing the hockey stick.  They had to beat them to the punch.--Silverback 18:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 18:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly these results should be discussed in detail on that page, however, I think the signed feature story in Nature , where most of the scientist quotes are from (there are more there), make it clear that these results have implictions in the global warming debate.  IPCC is criticised for putting so much emphasis on the Mann hockey stick, and there is discussion of how IPCCs credibility will probably suffer.  Technically, the scientists are correct that this new understanding does not effect the relative attribution to human influences of the recent warming.  However, the credibility of the fear mongering relied heavily on what the hockey stick portrayed as warming unprecedented in human history.  I think the text I have in this article should remain.  The hockey stick was that central to the political part of the debate, and I think it influenced the level of alarm that scientists raised as well.  A note or two on McKitrick should be added when that comes out.  There should be some pronouncements at that time or after the may IPCC conference in May of the death of the hockey stick.  --Silverback 19:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OT Remark: This page is getting huge. Maybe it's time that somebody adept at the technical aspects creates a new archive page? On topic again: As far as I can see, Moberg et al are still within the 2 sigma confidence interval of Mann  et al. So it is not revolutionary. Of course, the public usually only sees  a much simplified version. But, for a moment, assuming Moberg et al are correct, the warming is still unprecedented. The actual temperature may (or may not) have been similar in the MWP, but the rate of change is unprecedented, as far as I can tell. --Stephan Schulz 14:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 16:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is enough precision in the reconstructions to say that today's warming is unprecented, especially when the confidence intervals are taken into account. The key implication of the Moberg, et al, and Von Storch, et al is that centenial scale variability is much larger than previously thought, and with the sample being only 10 centuries, the current warming may well be within the natural variability of the current interglacial period.  The statements praising Mann's groundbreaking (if technically incorrect) attempt at a global reconstruction and implying that the post 1990 warming may be greater than the Medieval warm period are SOPs thrown to the climate community to make this bitter pill easier to swallow and spin.  Combine this uncertainty with the poor current understanding of possible cloud and aerosol feedback mechanisms, and there is reason to be conservative instead of  sacrificing hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth.--Silverback 12:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 13:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any intent to put my personal opionion regarding their intent into the article.  I hope it was clear that I was describing the statements and not the persons as SOPs.--Silverback 14:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 17:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the use of "SOP" as an acronym for "Standard Operating Procedure" originated in the U.S. military, though I'm not sure.  Silverback's use, however, appears to be "sop" in the common English word sense. JamesMLane 20:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A SOP is wetter, heavier and louder when it hits the dogs than a sop.  My bad.--Silverback 14:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moberg publication in Nature 

message: This should be pretty non-controversial.
The six-page bottom section of this page is really ugly. Can some of these links be cleaned up? Are all of them really necessary?
Also, it's pretty obvious that this is a super-meta-topic, and ought to be organized that way. Anyone want to put together a topic template for global warming/climate change topics? Graft 06:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the controversial label at the top.  The way to reach consensus is to be able to cite supporting literature and let everybody have their documented say.  The scientific field is going through a lot of turmoil right now, so it is best to wait until things shake out before reorganizing.  There is the possibility that there may be lull this summer.--Silverback 08:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  organizational 

message: (William M. Connolley 00:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne]] 

message: What I find most distressing is that we seem to have people getting emotional and reverting other people and when I suggested that climate change is correlated with orogenic developments I was accused of original research.  Sorry folks.  Tim Patterson's course on climate change discusses the issue of mountains and the distribution of land masses as well as the importance of ocean currents.
:Sorry, if my comment about original research offended you, and thank you for the reference.  I hope you can appreciate that comments about orogenic effects are not usually part of the global warming debate, so it felt suspicious.  Dragons flight 05:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'll post a quote from Tim's course here:
"Since the Miocene, mountain ranges and plateaus have risen to the sky in southwestern North America and central Asia. The elevation contours are labeled in kilometers. The appearance of these giant barriers across the planetary circulation of the northern hemisphere may have given the final push to the northern hemispheric glaciation."
You can find an online outline of the course here:  
http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/climatehome.html
What distresses me is that those who wrote the artical should know this.  I can see why Greg Benson who is a professional research geologist made the comments he made to me about this artical.  However, I will let Greg speak for himself.
Terrell
:Hi Terrell, have you actually looked through the material at that website? I took a cursory overview today, and as far as I can tell, Tim Patterson is not at all challenging or disagreeing  with the scientific consensus (Global Warming is real, and man-made CO2 is responsible for it). In his course he outlines other influences that have an effect on the climate over geological time periods (millions of years and up), but he seems to accept the IPCC consensus for the current, short term climate change quite well. --Stephan Schulz 12:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 19:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 21:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey! You cannot do that. Have you forgotten about the secret conspiracy? No public disagreement! ;-) As I wrote, I only glanced at the material, and found a lot of  links to reasonable material. And the rest is not nearly as breathlessly pathetic as usual for "skeptics". But I grant your point. --Stephan Schulz 21:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What 66.18.218.43 finds distressing 

message: Please settle the dispute on talk. 172 20:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 15:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And what will you do as soon as he lifts it?  That's right, start up a revert war again.   — Cortonin | Talk 17:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 18:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And what will you do as soon as the protection is lifted?   — Cortonin | Talk 18:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 21:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence continue the edit war. This is exactly why the page has to remain protected for the time being. 172 00:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: (William M. Connolley 18:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Proposed decision 

message: Increased natural  carbon sinking absorbs approximately 40% of anthrogenic green house gas activity. In order to slow global warming it would be required to more than double the natural carbon sinking effects that occur. . 
The over all carbon intensity of energy production has been falling by approximately 1.8%, according to baseline projections, this trend is projected to slow, as most of the GDP growth is going to occur in economies which will go through a heavily carbonized period of development.  
For a "carbon sink" model to balance global warming at acceptable levels, some kind of strong postive feedback loop would need to be shown between carbon sinking and AGHG - there's no paper in the literature which suggests a plausible mechanism for doing this. The best you will find is that given stiff enough economic penalties, short term "carbon sequestration" becomes economically viable, Basically, nature is sinking carbon as fast as it can, and while there are advocates of "carbon sequestration" as part of the role of climate control. 
In short, no one is currently projecting that human beings can become "global warming neutral" based on "decarbonization", except the very, very, very most optimistic scenarios (5% or less probability of occurance). Stirling Newberry 23:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could easily become CO2 neutral.  Starting today we could begin building fission reactors in huge quantities, mandate a transition to hydrogen powered cars (which is environmentally beneficial given fission as the initial power source for electrolysis), and put down 20 to 50 billion USD in a Manhattan-project sized attempt to build working fusion reactors.  Of course, we won't do these things, but those are for political reasons rather than technological.   — Cortonin | Talk 07:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if by "political reasons" you mean, "what would we do with the waste". Anyway, a discussion of carbon sinks and especially sequestration probably belongs on Kyoto Protocol, not here. I remember reading a study that said sequestration strategies based on, e.g., cedar plantations were doomed to failure because they actually released more CO2 via plowing than they ended up sequestering; that is, only after 50+ years of old-growth do you actually get a net sequestration. Chee. Graft 01:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What we would do with the waste is the same thing we do now with most of the waste.  Stuff it in a barrel that will outlast the radioactivity, and store it in a concrete building out behind the reactor.  Those things make surprisingly little waste, and most of the waste a reactor will ever make can simply be stored on site.  There seems to be some big fear of radioactivity that keeps people afraid of ideas like this, but the technology is fairly safe and well understood.  The DOE has been funding research projects on this question for quite some time, and has come up with very good solutions.   — Cortonin | Talk 07:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I always find it one of the greatest ironies of contemporary environmentalism, that the people who are most afraid of carbon dioxide, are usually the ones most opposed to the only scalable solution to its rise.  I'm not the least bit afraid of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, given the evidence that has been gathered to date, but I do hate smog, and I think it damages the living quality in most populated areas.  Nuclear energy with hydrogen solves this, but it's the environmentalists that keep it from happening.   — Cortonin | Talk 07:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon sinks 

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the range of predictions discussed in this paragraph from different models and NOT different CO2 forcing scenerios?  I thought for the purpose of furthering the science, the modelers agreed to model the same future scenerios and therefore the differences in the predictions were differences in how the models were internally handling the physics, with the key areas of concern being aerosols and clouds.  If my recollection is correct that would make the attribution of uncertainty for these figures wrong.--Silverback 01:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 09:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx, these aren't the figures I would have used, since they are from the simple model that is in a sense of a model of the responses of the coupled models, that was chosen out of necessity for computational reasons so that the scenerios could be run to 2100.  I prefer the CO2 doubling ensembles of the coupled models, even thoough those only get us to the middle of the century.  The IPCC report does appear to be an excellant review of the literature at that time, although, the conclusions and summaries don't seem to incorporate all the uncertainties of the component parts.--Silverback 11:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 11:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning: ''"Much of this uncertainty results from not knowing future CO<sub>2</sub> emissions"'' 

message: The page should not be protected
* Agree strongly (William M. Connolley 09:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, it doesn't make me tense.  Stirling's behavior is not that much of a problem as long as the page isn't protected.  This happened on the George Bush page, it was being worked so intensively that even though it was a frequent target of vandalism, everyone was happy to just revert and continue working.  The lifetime of vandalism on the page was measured in seconds and minutes.  There was considerable protest when some concerned admin protected the page.  We aren't as large a community, but the problem was quite managable.--Silverback 12:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not view SN as a vandal by the standards of Wikipedia:vandalism.  Adding "Global Warming is a farce" would be a vandal.  Trying to clarify the issues and improve presentation is not a vandal, even if the results of those efforts are inadvertently deleterious.  It is important that the efforts of well-intentioned editors be treated with respect even if those efforts are ultimately found to be wanting or inappropriate.  Dragons flight 12:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
*Agree. The only protection needed is from SN & allies massive rewrite w/out discussion then rv & lock immediatly w/obvious admin collusion. -Vsmith 12:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protect? 

message: I used Excel to generate a random number between 1 and 250.
:=RAND() * 250
Then I went back to the 158th previous version and reverted to that one, while the page was still locked - and added the NPOV dispute tag.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the new "base version". I suggest you all discuss the precise wording of each change you want. I will determine consensus and make changes accordingly.
I will bow out (and unlock the page) if:
* anyone can convince me I'm introducing my own biases into the article; or,
* enough people think I'm being heavy-handed; or,
:For the record, I think you are being heavy-handed. I also think there are two seperate things going on here that you may not recognize. First, there was an edit conflict primarily between User:JonGwynne and many others (most prominently  WMC).  In my opinion, JonGwynne  has no understanding of the science and clumsily tries to introduce his misunderstood POV.  However, that had already cooled down a lot. Then, User:Stirling Newberry came to the "rescue", decided we have a bad case of edit conflict, and rewrote the article without any prior discussion or even without looking at the existing discussion. I think he is well-meaning, but he seems to have a very limited understanding of the science, and did disturb the carefully hashed out balance of the article. Most people working on the page are quite reasonable. I find it indeed heavy-handed and inappropriate to revert to "a random version". Indeed, it pisses me off. --Stephan Schulz 15:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is wrong of you to favor administrators, we are all equal here. I agree with Schulz's explanation of what was going on above, this page should never have been protected.  The only reason it is protected is a cozy relationship between 172 and Stirling, or haven't you noticed 172 protecting right after a Stirling revert (twice), and that 172 has unblocked Stirling in the recent past when Stirling was blocked for violating the 3RR rule.  If you will accept an objection from an admin, you should also accept one from Schulz or myself.  WMC and I already have requested unprotection.  When unprotect, we will immediately revert to the legacy version and get to work. --Silverback 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 17:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Ed, you did not go back 158 versions, but 157. After your reversion it is now 158 versions. According to your procedure  is the "correct" version, i.e.  18:57, 3 Feb 2005 Kazvorpal "removed pov" ;-)  -- best regards, mkrohn 15:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin intervention

message: I apologize to the rest of you, I have had run ins with 172 on other pages, and this is apparently his revenge. --Silverback 18:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 18:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  apparently it is not Ed but 172 that has the page protected. 

message: WMC, This is the section I have been relying upon, perhaps I have been misinterpreting it?
:"AOGCMs can only be integrated for a limited number of scenarios due to computational expense. Therefore, a simple climate model is used here for the projections of climate change for the next century. The simple model is tuned to simulate the response found in several of the AOGCMs used here. The forcings for the simple model are based on the radiative forcing estimates from Chapter 6, and are slightly different to the forcings used by the AOGCMs. "
This seemed to be the source of the numbers being used.  The link is to the summary, but I believe I read more details on the simple model, later in the section.--Silverback 11:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 15:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it looks like your right.  The paragraph above discusses AOGCM results for 2050, the paragraph that talks about the simple model give the results for all the scenerios including the one we quote in the article, which is what mislead me.  But the very next paragraph talks about the AOGCM runs for the 30 years at 2100.  So the simple model must just be filling in some gaps or scenerios, although the summary doesn't provide the details.  I am at section 9.3.3 right now when I have to quit until tomorrow. --Silverback 18:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple models, not AOGCMs 

message: I just did a quick glance and I didn't see anything in the article about the recent study that used computer modeling which seems to prove that man made green houses gasses are to blame for the rise in ocean temperatures.  Scientists are basically saying made made (green house) gasses is the only explanation that matches the computer model of ocean temperature rise, no other explanations fit the actual recorded ocean temperature data. I think this info should be added to this article.    zen master    T  01:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 10:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is an article(s) about it then it is already acceptable for wikipedia inclusion. zen master    T  05:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 09:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's POV should not be judged by words on a talk page but by edits to actual articles.  Regardless, the issue should not be about POV.  The scientists that issued the report in question claim to have *definitively* concluded that man made green houses gasses are to blame, nothing else comes close to fitting their ocean temperature computer models.  Such a discovery is actually huge. zen master    T  18:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 19:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's in an article it is an acceptable source for inclusion in a wikipedia, please cite specific wikipedia guidelines if you countinue to disagree.  90% of the "evidence" presented by conservative (in many cases subtle) POV pushers on wikipedia have not been peer reviewed.  Ironically, all peer reviewed scientific journals on global warming conclude man made green house gases are to blame. zen master    T  22:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 23:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent ocean computer models 

message: (William M. Connolley 22:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA 

message: The "Global mean surface temperatures" image should be pulled. It has long since been discredited.
: (William M. Connolley 20:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Global mean surface temperatures"