Talk:Antarctica cooling controversy

message: Human-induced Global Warming defenders keep on changing back revisions so that it stays, misleadingly, "proven" that there is no controversy about Antarctica cooling. There is little observed/factual data to Antartica's temperatures over time, as the article itself says. Recent research, the one concluded in 2009, uses a model to deduce past temperatures of Antarctic. Any '"deduced fact"' is not fact and is open to discussion and controversy. It should not be taken as incontestable truth as it is well-known that scientific bias works very heavily on deductions. If there is no controversy about this subject then I should suggest removing this article from Wikipedia altogether. Jamilsoni (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning of article bias 

message: some of the sources seem self-published and not verifiable. --Neon white 01:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is being cited as evidence for a 'controversy' as such. It seems to be more a theory. I think the opening needs to be rewritten, it should be a concise summary of the article, at the moment it seems to be identical to Climate of Antarctica --Neon white 18:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is little independent evidence for a controversy.  The article is a synthesis. Brusegadi 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm rather wondering if you read the abstract of C+W, since it says Trends calculated for the 1958–2002 period suggest modest warming over much of the 60°–90°S domain. All seasons show warming, with winter trends being the largest at +0.172°C decade−1 while summer warming rates are only +0.045°C decade−1. The 45-yr temperature trend for the annual means is +0.082°C decade−1 corresponding to a +0.371°C temperature change over the 1958–2002 period of record. Trends computed using these analyses show considerable sensitivity to start and end dates, with trends calculated using start dates prior to 1965 showing overall warming, while those using start dates from 1966 to 1982 show net cooling over the region. Because of the large interannual variability of temperatures over the continental Antarctic, most of the continental trends are not statistically significant. and thus supports a view completely opposed to the one you are editing for William M. Connolley 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable sources 

message: Someone added Chapman+Walsh to the intro, apparently in support of the "cooling", apparently without reading it. I added some text from C+W because it is highly relevant; CW removed this, I think because its inconvenient for the "cooling" folks . But I think its very important to point out that the "cooling" depends very strongly on when you are looking. The C+W quote may be a bit wordy perhaps, but its saying something important which ought to be in the intro William M. Connolley 10:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As your link shows, I just moved that block down into a more appropriate section.  The intro is not the place for it as it is too anodyne to be a lead in to the controversy. Colonel Warden 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added an NPOV tag to this article, as its now quite plain to me that you are determined to remove any hint of warming from the intro. As the C+W text makes clear, over the longer term the region is actually warming - or at least, the only paper we have says so; there may be others covering that period that say otherwise. You appear to be insisting that only cooling be mentioned in the intro, and make it appear as though this is undisputed, though it clearly is not William M. Connolley 12:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your paranoia is showing.  The intro already contains a 'hint' of warming - "Several scientific sources [1] [2] including NASA[3], have reported that there is a cooling trend observed in the interior of the continent for the last two decades of the 20th century, while the Antarctic Peninsula shows a warming trend."  This seems fair as a build up to the controversy.  Putting in a great lump of indigestible stats in the intro interrupts the flow of the story.  As we have it now, the article explains the background to the controversy, its development and then the detailed science.  The latter section seemed the perfect place for your contribution and you might think of it as getting the last word.  If I had been as biased as you suggest then I might have just deleted your addition outright, like you keep trying to delete the NASA picture that helps explain the mention of NASA in the intro.  Colonel Warden 15:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That the Peninsula is warming is not in doubt, so including that does not help. Currently you've removed from the intro the IPCC piece - that the trends are negligible. Since this is the most respected climate summary, thats a very dubious thing to do. And you've removed C+W reporting warming of the interior, which is the point at issue. So I repeat: the intro you have produced is biased; if you're not prepared to consider that, I'll conclude that it stems from your bias. The pic, of course, remains as wrong as before William M. Connolley 16:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * Per your addition, the IPCC's position was "little change over the rest of the continent".  This made them a minor player in the controversy which was directed at a more extreme warming position - that Antartica was melting down and so we were all going to be swimming soon.  The IPCC's lukewarm position is therefore not appropriate in the intro and is better in the more balanced and detailed exposition of what is really going on (insofar as we know).  This is an editorial judgement - we can't cram everything into the intro as, by definition, it is just prefatory.  Colonel Warden 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It makes no sense to present, as you insist upon, only one side of the matter in the intro. Asserting that scientists agree on Antarctic, outside the Peninsula, as cooling is utter nonsense William M. Connolley 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your revert didn't make progress so I have remixed the intro to address your concerns while maintaining a coherent narrative flow.  The intro now concludes with the IPCC current position which is nicely consistent with the rest.  Colonel Warden 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It means its misleading. Do you understand that if you say you're reworking the intro, whilst actually you're reverting back in the disputed pic, then thats misleading? Your good faith is coming into doubt William M. Connolley 09:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, you said reworking the intro, but you did much more than that so I reverted.  That is misleading. Brusegadi 09:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, now I *have* reworked the intro. It now states what the controversy actually is, and provides some background as to the state of scientific knowledge of what the trends actually are. I don't see how the controversy can be understood without this data William M. Connolley 12:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The stuff about the summary is ad hom nitpicking - I was just being brief and didn't understand Brusegadi's abbreviated summary either.  Since summaries are optional, be glad that I'm using them at all.  Anyway, the new intro is much better than your previous revision, being quite readable and comprehensible, which is what I wanted.  I'm not sure if too many cites have been shed in this rewrite but there were too many of them before so, stylistically, this is better too.  Colonel Warden 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please understand that if you use an edit summary implying only changes to the intro, whilst changing another part that is very contentious, people will doubt your good faith. However, if we have a more agreeable intro thats good William M. Connolley 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro text / NPOV 

message: Now that NASA has come into line :-) all the science seems to agree. So why not move the NASA pic up to the top and discard the map> Also, there seems to be no need to put NASA into a separate section any more William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That work's for me if the rest agree!   -SagredoDiscussione? 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good job.  I am happy that now we all agree about the inclusion of the image! ;)  Brusegadi (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done the image as a start. I added to the caption what amounts to a caveat. The pic should probably have more: eg None of the sensors were in orbit at the same time, so scientists could not compare simultaneous observations from different sensors to make sure each was recording temperatures exactly the same. Instead, the team checked the satellite records against ground-based weather station data to inter-calibrate them and make the 26-year satellite record. The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the intro:   "The trends elsewhere, whilst tending towards cooling, are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed[1][2]"   Shouldn't this changed to, "Observations unambiguously show the Peninsula to be warming.  The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed[1][2]"   ?   -SagredoDiscussione? 18:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp 

message: There is a huge controversy within the scientific community. Some computer models of GW do not seem consistent with observed data. The contrary should not be afirmed in this article.) is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please: here is a 200+ page petition  pointing all errors made by the IPCC; Antarctic may have much more ice than was previously thought . There is a huge controversy about this subject and your non-arguments are ridiculous! --Jamilsoni (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv: why 

message: I tried to locate the above source. Google Scholar does not find a 2010 publication by any Mcintyre that seems appropriate. I've removed it again. Before reinserting it, please specify the source clearly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mcintyre 2010? 

message: I removed the highly specific Crichton reference from the lede because a single statement by a novelist no matter how eminent as a writer isn't really lede material. The reference remains in place in the body. --TS 09:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted wholesale to the version before JS and the anon damaged it. That reverted your Crichton change, but only incidentally. I don't much care if its in or out. On the "in" side, it is a useful indication of where the controversy comes from, which we do need to cover William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reread the earlier discussion and I'm still wondering why this article exists. It's beginning to look to me as if the whole thing is built around that fictional work of Crichton. Perhaps it could be merged with an article (if it exists) about themes in Crichton's fiction. --TS 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, as the article explains this is no scientific controversy but one that took place in the popular media, and it began with Chrichton's book, followed by public presentation he made and even participated in a Congressional hearing. As you can see from the references provided (20 to 27), this issue was covered by National Geographic, The New York Times, CNN, The Daily Telegraph, etc. The notability of the article was discussed right after it was created (the AfD discussion link is above if you wish to see it).--Mariordo (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Crichton

message: Should probably add Bromwich et al.; see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/the-heat-is-on-in-west-antarctica/ William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment 7 links to NYT coverage, it's also been reported by the beeb. . . dave souza, talk 23:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Looks good. I wonder who Ejsteig can possibly be ;-? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bromwich 

message: The trend is more ice as can be clearly seen in the graph: 
Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois , and I wonder why the article starts with the 'warmer'...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.138.162 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  see ice extent evolution 

message: I concur with the previous reviewer that there is a major bias to this article.  Observations DO NOT show Antarctica to be "unambiguously warming".  The most recent NASA data shows both more ice forming and the temperature of the Antarctic cooling over the years.  This "article" literally reads as a political piece.  It is poorly written, argumentative, non-factual, and extremely skewed.  Furthermore, a quick check leads one to discover that this page is supported by the "Climate Change Task Force" on Wikipedia.  Thus, there is a clear bias, as one can easily deduce from reading the "article".  Wikipedia harms its reputation by keeping this trash up.  It should be removed immediately!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.251.130 (talk • contribs) 
:recent NASA data shows both more ice forming: I guess you mean https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses; or the study itself, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071. Firstly, that research is new, and controversial, and unlikely to be right. Secondly, even if it was right about the ice increasing, that wouldn't imply it was getting warmer. Indeed, the increasing ppn the study needs pretty well implies warming. Thirdly, the abstract doesn't even mention temperature, so i don't know where you get and the temperature of the Antarctic cooling from William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely I take your word on it being unlikely right. Science is seldom right before it is settled, and this science is not. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

text: (ec) To be particular, one recent study shows some increase in ice in some parts of Antarctica. In this one NASA study (press release), the authors best estimate is that overall the ice cap has been increasing (their data ends in 2008) and may grow for a few more decades. This study uses radar to measure changes in surface altitude, and it conflicts with e.g. the gravimetric studies done by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. So far, the conflict is unresolved, so I'd take that study with a large grain of salt. I have not found any suggestion that Antarctica is cooling in the paper (full paper here), but my time is limited, so I only skimmed it. The authors do suggest that warming lead to more snowfall and hence an increase in ice accumulation in the press release, but they assume the process has been going for a few millennia. If you have different "most recent NASA data", please provide a source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Article Bias and False Information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Antarctica cooling controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905022035/http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf to http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024111110/http://www.globalwarming.org:80/node/160 to http://www.globalwarming.org/node/160
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This statement "Novelist Michael Crichton asserted that the Antarctic data contradict global warming" has a reference  (currently reference 12, Michael Crichton (2005-01-25). "The Case for Skepticism in Global Warming" (PDF). Michael Crichton The official site. Retrieved 2013-04-13. Speech at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (restored from archived copy)) that does not mention the word "Antarctica" anywhere; nor does the next Crichton reference.  I am deleting this reference-- the correct reference seems to be the novel State of Fear.  
If there is a different Crichton reference, other than the novel, please cite that instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NumberC35 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Chrichton Reference

message: I moved sections around to try to make the flow of the article clearer, and to try to eliminate the repetition. The "Summary" section is now "Background," and I put the paragraph of it that was mostly summary into the lede, which is a more logical place. 
(Hopefully) I didn't change anything, just moved it into a better order. NumberC35 (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved material around 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antarctica cooling controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708144305/http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/Antarctic.paper.chapwalsh.2005.pdf to http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/Antarctic.paper.chapwalsh.2005.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811141844/http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu/other_papers/ThompsonSolomon_Science2002.pdf to http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu/other_papers/ThompsonSolomon_Science2002.pdf
*Added  tag to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Shindell_Schmidt.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Antarctica cooling controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924163242/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257 to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207221259/http://www.antarctica.ac.uk:80/Key_Topics/Climate_Change/Climate_Change_Position.html to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/Climate_Change/Climate_Change_Position.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Antarctica cooling controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305155142/http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027 to http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016210801/http://grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/ to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Just as a question, as the reading of this sentence irritates me a little bit. Is this grammatically correct?
"In his novel State of Fear, Michael Crichton asserted that the Antarctic data contradict global warming" (emphasis added)
I only ask as the sentence seems to suggest a past tense referral, but a present-tense version of "contradict". I am not an english teacher or professor by any means, so if it is correct, feel free to say so and then ignore me. Othrwise I would suggest changing it to "contradict(ed)" to continue the past-tense that Crichton "asserted" this. King keudo (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned after a few months of making actual edits to pages, and gone ahead and boldly made this change. Feel free to revert me if necessary! King keudo (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar Inquiry