Talk:Climate change/Archive 33

message: The source examining the contribution to global warming of increased consumption resulting from changes in lifestyle following divorce is interesting but certainly doesn't belong in the lead of the article.  I can't really see a subsection where that level of detail fits well either.  Perhaps this new information would be best limited to the Attribution of recent climate change sub article?Zebulin (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might warrant a sentence at world energy resources and consumption and divorce. ~ UBeR (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's a very indirect connection to global warming. It also is somewhat misleading - it's not divorce directly, but living in smaller units. Divorcees moving in with lovers are no problem ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  divorces and global warming 

message: I'm not a scientist or science writer but I am very interested in this topic and have read a lot about it. I understand the arguments made about the degree to which solar radiation cycles and solar flare activity can affect the temperature of the atmosphere, as well as the concepts of global dimming and how greenhouse gases/particulate matter may be mitigating warming. I've seen the charts of solar irradiation used by proponents of anthropogenic global warming and the conclusion that the effect from solar cycles is small. However, if the ice caps on Mars and other planets are subliming at rates similar to ours, and if the temperatures on these planets are, as well, rising concurrently, isn't that some powerful evidence against anthropogenic global warming. I saw mention of Jupiter and Pluto on the FAQ's page, but nothing about the one planet we know the most about ... Mars. Why is none of this mentioned in the Wikipedia article (the warming/subliming on other planets)? It seems to be a major piece of the puzzle. I'd love it if some knowledgeable people could tell me if my premise is altogether wrong, wether its insignificant due to planetary differences (distance from sun, atmosphere or lack thereof, etc.), or wether we just don't know due to the limited, only recently-collected data we have for these planets. After all, I tend to be skeptical in general, and one of my skepticisms about global warming is the constuction of ancient temperature estimates using ice cores and other means. Therefore, I certainly can't turn around and deny global warming based on insufficient data. But now I'm digressing and introducing other topics for discussion. Let's stick to Mars, our closest neighbour (no offense to the Moon). Someone please enlighten me as to why the current subliming of Mars' polar caps doesn't poke a hole (even if its a tiny little ozone hole) in the theory of anthropogenic global warming.Clioworship (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Thanks for discussing your curiosities. I suggest you take a visit to one of the articles here that I've started, extraterrestrial atmospheres. The reason we don't discuss them here is because they really have nothing to do with the global warming here on Earth. I don't know where you've read that whatever melting that is occurring on Mars is occurring at a similar rate here on Earth, but I can tell you that the mechanism involved are quite different. The issue with Mars is probably dust storms that occur on a near-global scale. Other mechanism also play role in the warming observed on other planets, like Pluto, and maybe Mercury and Jupiter--but there is no common cause on the whole. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Clioworship: please also see Climate of Mars - if you've been reading Abdusamatov, please realize that his work is not accepted by the scientific community, and violates some fundamental physics besides. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Editors using occams razor is original research which is forbidden in wikipedia.  We shouldn't be addressing his points we should be addressing their suitability for the article.  Is there a source that states that occams razor suggests a warming on mars and a warming on earth probably have the same cause?  If not then there is no point to be addressed by us here.Zebulin (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To the contrary; I directly addressed his concern. First of all, who is to say the temperature increase is similar? I would like to see some reliable sources regarding that. Second, just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean the same thing is causing it. It's simple logic quite frankly. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, it doesn't. The argument isn't based on wiggle-matching in curves, but instead on the radiative properties of carbon dioxide. This is old news; see e.g., Svante Arrhenius. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, as I said, simple logic. ;-) ~ UBeR (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraterrestrial warming 

message: Okay, sorry, I see the "80% of the world" is a direct quote. Personally though I would change "citing" to "claiming" since the basis for 80% of the world is not given and is not clear, also I am not sure if exempt is technically correct (I imagine he is referring to developing nations?). Other views? --BozMo talk 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally assume he's talking about exempt nations, i.e. non-Annex I and II nations under the UNFCCC (which is somewhere close to 79.59% of the world's nations according to my own calculations). "Claim" would be fine though. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Percentage of countries? Ah, I see. I thought it was of the world's population being claimed. If San Marino has the same weight as Germany in the calculation I can see how you'd get to 80%. --BozMo talk 14:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that 80% of world's nations, including China, India and most of Africa if not all, must account for close to 80% of the world's population. Anyone has an approximate count? --Childhood's End (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty close. In 2006, the populations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America accounted for roughly 82% of the world's population. (Numbers from here.) ~ UBeR (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. So there was no problem with the White House text. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course there is a problem.  In terms of consumption most of those just cited account to very little pies.  Its a figure to impress those who think very little, or to be diplomatic given that the only exempt countries that really matter are India and China. Brusegadi (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  80% 

message: Should a mention of this new scientific development be mentioned in the section about mitigation? It seems to be widely reported    --Childhood's End (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitigation of global warming. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is not particularly significant in any case. Mitigating methane production from cattle is a very hot topic of research at the moment. Until and unless something actually shows success then I don't think it can be considered a major development Nil Einne (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might deserve a place in Mitigation of global warming.Zebulin (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kangaroo stomach bacteria 

message: User:Samsee added a phrase to the lead with a link to a september ABC news article about the future opening of the northwest passage.  I shortened the addition to the lead to two words ("trade routes", in parallel structure  that means "changes in trade routes").  I also added a slightly longer phrase in the section Attributed and expected effects, and put the reference there.  Samsee, please try to put your references in footnotes (instructions), and put more than just the url's name in the footnote.  One easy way to do that is to use citation templates. -  Enuja  (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northwest Passage 

message: I find that much of the visual representations have not been updated in a long time, one is still from 2004. I think we can get these up to date from the same sources. UoLMephesto (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Please 

message: According to cloud seeding, cloud seeding is a human activity, whereas global warming#Solar variation presents "cloud seeding via galactic cosmic rays" as a natural phenomenon.  If both articles are correct about these expressions, should "cloud seeding" be disambiguated? -- Wavelength (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "cloud seeding" be disambiguated? 

message: NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalej78 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA Study Debunks Part of Global Warming 

message: This is what will embarrass WIkipedia in the future- quotes like this:
" the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them"
This Wikipedia article is politically driven, rather than scientifically driven.  
"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained. 
"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," from a team of scientists at the recent UN conference.  http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c
Wikipedia, by literally treating global warming skepticism as "junk science" is setting itself up for a major embarrassment in the future.  
The authors of this article know nothing of science.  They only know their own personal religion.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs) 
:Using a politician's blog to decry "political science" - this is really hilarious. If we could use Inhofe's spin to turn a turbine, fossil fuels would become obsolete overnight... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia won't be embarrassed. It reports what is "verifiable", not what is "true". It is only the "scientists/politicians" who push the climate change hoax who will be embarrassed is a few years time. rossnixon 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking as a scientist, I say that the few remaining skeptics of global warming will be convinced when the north polar sea ice vanishes in a decade or so.  Speaking as a Wikipedia editor, I observe that ArbCom has determined that Wikipedia will reflect the scientific consensus - and that includes the scientific consensus on climate change.  This really isn't about the article, though, is it?  End the thread. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I say that the few remaining skeptics of global warming will be convinced when the north polar sea ice vanishes in a decade or so." Willing to take bets? ;-) ~ UBeR (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh! I certainly won't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. It'll all be the fault of the sun, or mysterious "natural variations," or whatever you like. Any explanation will do, as long as it's not a certain nameless phenomenon that is consistent both with observations and with the principles of radiative transfer and atmospheric thermodynamics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking back at the past I have to say that the phrase "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on <particular area of research> are in agreement with <developed scientific consensus>" would not appear to be embarrassing had it been applied to a contemporary article dealing with any other topic in which scientific conclusions had broader implications whether it had been theories of natural selection, recognition of anthropogenic species extinction, or adverse effects of pollution.  No matter how the future plays out I don't see how that phrase would somehow become an embarrassment.Zebulin (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't a "discussion board." Usenet is three doors down the hall. HTH. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Well fed troll returns to den for the night satisfied) --BozMo talk 08:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In the future, please don't inject your comments in the middle of an unrelated discussion. You cannot determine trends from a single season worth of data. From the very press release of NSIDC that announced the 14.7 million number: "This year's low wintertime extent is another milestone in a strong downward trend. We're still seeing near-record lows and higher-than-normal temperatures. We expect the downward trend to continue in future years." That statement was made before this summers season, which brought an absolute record low in arctic sea ice.. And I would very much like to see a source for Gore's alleged ownership of MV Explorer, although this would be rather off-topic for this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Check the discussion here. In short, several of the signatories are not scientists at all, very few are either eminent or climate scientists, and at least one is plain nuts. Most of the list is recycled, anyways. Ball does not become more competent if he repeats the same nonsense a hundred times. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#There_was_once_a_time_when_the_majority_of_scientists_believed_the_earth_was_flat.21.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lesson learned from this discussion is that it is vital to always check your sources. If "blog" appears in the URL, then its credibility is suspect to begin with. That's really all I have to say on this topic, as I don't see anything constructive coming out of it. But for future reference to my fellow skeptics, please, this is a scientific subject, and as such it is best to avoid political outlets for information on the topic. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:  An Embarrassment to Science 

message: Ice age, climate can change without human activity, and Western Interior Seaway which shows that oceans have risin in the past.
Maybe you would also like to look at:
deforestation
water and soil pollution
poverty
habitat destruction
Im sure they are all interlinked. T.Neo (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't help you if you don't have any suggestions for the article. This isn't a forum. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, everything is "somehow" connected. We cannot have one article on the sum of human knowledge, though. Yes, climate can change without human activity. People die without being murdered - that does not mean that we should ignore the concrete blocks tied to the feet of a corpse found in New York harbor. The  Western Interior Seaway went away about 65 million years ago. At that time, climate was a lot hotter than today. But anyways, its end was not due to sinking sea levels, but due to continental uplift. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You are mixing up several very different things. Yes, climate changes. But it changes in different ways over different time scales. In the Cretaceous, the continental layout was very different. Sea levels were much higher due to rifting (making for shallow new oceans). There was no Himalaya. The composition of the atmosphere was very different (a lot more of both O2 and CO2). Climate change over tens of millions of years is dominated by geological processes and feedbacks. Ice ages (like the current one) are triggered by a combination of geographical and orbital parameters. Glaciations in an ice age (we are currently in an interglacial period) are primarily triggered by orbital parameters.  All these processes are very different from the current anthropogenic process that is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. I don't know what you mean by the "mass-mania total destruction version of global warming". This article is a fair representation of the current scientific opinion on climate change. Have you read it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  look at these: 

message: What are the thoughts on this article?  How does it line up with the contents of this article?  Chris M. (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One study.  Two studies.  Too few to merit weight. The mainstream is discussed.  Brusegadi (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To complement Brusegadi above. The article in Newsmax is complete hogwash. I'm sorry but there is hardly a word in the article that describes the paper even remotely close to reality. You can find the preprint here. A nice example of why you shouldn't trust media on science issues such as this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and yet this article cites such 'scientific' non-media outlets such as The Guardian (28), USAToday (97), AP (93), Reuters (90), and others I'm sure.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If you call for no trust in media at least be consistent and call the above outlets "hogwash" also.  They ALL have their political and economic future to think of.  I just wish I could make some money selling carbon credits like Al Gore does!! Flesh Over Steel (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of your examples discuss the political reaction to climate change, not the science. For such topics, the general press is usually the best available source. As for the scientific points sourced to the popular press, it would be nice if we could find better sources. However, they have not been challenged so far, while the NewsMax article is crap (and the underlying study has a number of problems that have been exposed already). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor in general allowing some mention of some studies which appear in credible news sources. (I'm not saying this particular study necessarily meets that standard.) Doing so would only increase our credibility, as the few studies against global warming theories would make clear how many studies do favor it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NewsMax: "New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story" 

message: Just a note about this edit . It is widely documented that the Earth's climate is a complex system, so I think it should be re-linked (see for instance , , . --Childhood's End (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Climate is a complex system. Who would have guessed? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well William seemed to disagree it is, so instead of reverting his edit with no discussion, I chose to explain my view first. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit link suggests he disagreed with the choice to specifically reference turbulence and with the choice of the complexity article to link to.  Perhaps there is a better choice of article for that kind of complexity?  Although, the article linked does in fact list climate as an example of that sort of complex system.Zebulin (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complexity 

message: Just as a matter of discussion in case an adjustment would be warranted, the sub-section about models states that "These models are based on physical principles of fluid dynamics, radiative transfer, and other processes". Is this fully demonstrable or should it be qualified? Can it be sourced and can someone point towards the physical principles of turbulent flows, water evaporation and such? --Childhood's End (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AR4 Chapter 8 is as good a reference as any. It's an important point; I suspect many people think climate models work by fitting curves to past observations and extrapolating, or something like that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate models: physics-based? 

message: Adaptation refers to efforts at adjusting to a warmer world. Mitigation refers to attempts to slow down or reverse the warming.
Some (environmental groups) have gone so far as to suggest a quota on worldwide fossil fuel production, citing a direct link between fossil fuel production and CO2 emissions. references: http://sustento.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/climate-control.pdf http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/12/11/rigged/
China's per capita emissions remain at a fraction of the U.S. or other developed countries.  
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanPater (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And China's population remains at approximately five times that of the United States, which makes their net output of greenhouse gases practically equal (some recent studies say China has overtaken the US in this regard). I might redirect your attention to this previous discussion. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that every country in the world, no matter what their population is, should have the same total emissions? AlanPater (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, please do not take me out of context. I am simply reminding you that there are multiple ways to interpret the data, each with their own merits and disadvantages. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not a forum. The suggested change is not about whether you or I believe the per capita emissions are important or not. It is a large part of the international discussion, however, so I feel it belongs in the wikipedia article. AlanPater (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is posting to a forum here? If you would read the discussion that I directed you to, you would see that there is an agreed-upon reason why none of those images are present in the article. And if your per capita argument truly has nothing to do with your proposed changes, then why bring it up at all? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think these figures are quite relevant for the global warming issue. I understand that there are different ways to count to the greenhouse gas emmissions. Therefore I suggest to add both images, per capita and per country, to the article. This way the reader can draw his own conclusions. --Splette :) How's my driving? 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I see the reasoning to not display any images on this topic.  I think the text, however, needs to mention that the G77 countries feel that per capita emissions are the important number. As the article now stands, only the rich countries feelings on this are stated. AlanPater (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone else had already added the per capita image, I added the second for balance. I would not object to removing them both, so long as it is all or nothing. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 19:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree that the third map (accumulated GHG emmisions) is very informative, too, I think the per-country and per-capita maps alone give a balanced view on the issue. Any more maps will lead to confusion. Removing the two maps is not a good option either. They are quite important to understand the debate over global warming and why e.g. the US argues on a per-country basis while China refers to the emissions per capita. --Splette :) How's my driving? 21:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested additions to the Adaptation and mitigation section 

message: In light of the recent US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Report, can we rebalance this article:
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Full report:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Scientific consensus is no longer a point of fact  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaseFace (talk • contribs) 07:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The report is very strongly biased, as you'd expect. Its not a useful source for wiki William M. Connolley (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  William, to quote your exact words earlier today: "Thats as may be, but who produced this report is irrelevant. We're not using their authority to trust it; its merely a list of possible names William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I don't hold out any hope of it being useful; maybe it is to you. The point is that the report itself can't be used as a RS for what its saying, though you are of course free to use the contents to prompt further research as you see fit William M. Connolley (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't it be used as an RS?  By what rule?  It's an official United States Goverment document. If it is not a reliable source, then either someone must exert judgement over which government documents are reliable sources, or else none of them are.  (Where does that leave the IPCC report?)  I'm sorry that you don't find it useful.  Why not?  I find it very useful, because I want to know the spectrum of expert opinion on this important subject, and it gives me lots of links.  Vegasprof (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it might be "an official United States Government document" in a formal sense, it's also a partisan political statement, and has to be interpreted differently from something nonpartisan like census records. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: They have :-) The problem is that they've fooled some people William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny. Brusegadi (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  William, the above remark is quite puzzling.  In what way did the Senate report "fool" people?  Did they fabricate the quotes?  Vegasprof (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the "over 400 prominent scientists" claim. Many on the list aren't scientists at all, and quite a few have had near zero scientific impact. And that's just in the report's first sentence... Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to toss around numbers of "real" scientists, I will point out that there has been some question as to how many of the "thousands of scientists" involved in the IPCC consensus process are actually scientists working in the area of climate change.  If you're going to make ad hominem attacks on the opponents of global warming, it might be interesting to analyze the credentials of the scientists on both sides of the issue.  I wonder if anyone has actually done this analysis for both sides of the debate.  I think it's unlikely, given the partisan nature of the debate.  It's far more likely that each side of the debate assumes their "experts" are all wonderful and importantant scientists, while the other side's experts are obviously incompetent and bought off.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I contributors are given here; Working Group II contributors are given here; and Working Group III contributors are given here. I will be interested to see your comparison of the publication records of those individuals versus the "400 prominent scientists." (BTW I don't think most of the latter are "bought off"; most really believe whet they're saying.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick! Brusegadi (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove phrase 'scientific consesus' 

message: I have no idea how the article should be updated for the following information.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.  However, 100 scientists are on record as strongly opposing the conclusions of the IPCC.  I wouldn't consider this to be "only a few."  They published an open letter to Ban Ki-Moon, available at http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002.  Interestingly, there are also scientific claims made within this letter (such as the claim that there has been no global warming since 1998) that probably also need to be addressed in the article.  I don't have the time or expertise to amend the article to include this information in a fair and balance manner, but if it's not included I'd argue that the article is misleading at best.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing new. It's the  usual suspects, with a few more retirees and nonscientists thrown in to get the number up to 100. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also be careful with the 1998 deal.  It was an outlier so you will not see any hotter years for a while.  You are not supposed to look at single years, you have to look at trends.  When I see stupid errors like that is when I stop taking those 'letters' seriously, it is obviously PR. Brusegadi (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typical.  Write off the credentials of your opponents.  (Sorry, I'll turn my sarcasm off.)  Has there been an analysis comparing credentials of the thousands versus the hundreds?  I asked this above, and there has been no response in the five minutes that have passed since I posted the question.  On a different note, I just noticed that the wiki article is citing the IPCC summary reports rather than the full reports.  Given that there is at least some comments that the summary reports don't always match the full report's conclusions, shouldn't the full report's conclusions be cited rather than the (possibly biased) summary reports.  Assuming that the summary report is an accurate summarization of the full report, this shouldn't be that hard to do.  I don't feel like doing it, because I'm not a big fan of the consensus and don't want to spend my time supporting positions I disagree with, and because my wife says that I've got to pack for holiday travel NOW.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given your interest in the topic I would encourage you to undertake such a project when you have the time. The results would be quite interesting. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also heard the SPMs don't always match the full reports, but I've not seen anything that would give that claim merit. The SPM is fine for now. It's much easier to cite than the full report, and I'm sure our readers would rather read the SPM than the full report. For more technical or detailed portions, using the full report would be good--but I see no reason to replace the SPM with the full report at the time being. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming Non-Believers 

message: While I know that we wish to keep this as short and sweet as we can, should it not somehow be said that the increase in temp is largely the fault of humankind? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make the second paragraph, which I think is fine there, rather redundant. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: I think it rather unnecessary. I also doubt Sterculius is a brand new user. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how this was not called for. There was a revert war between several users. Discussion is required by the use of the keyboard, not the revert button. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks more like Sterculius and a random IP to me. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Need I say more? ~ UBeR (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks familiar... William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protect 

message: We should put the Stern Review article's link to the {{ }} global warming's blue table (under)  .--Tamás Kádár (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stern Review 

message: Regarding this edit, I think it's a little much for the intro. Obviously the stated increase in temperature is not the 100-year period since 2008, but rather 2005, and this should be noted there in the intro. But the increase since 2000 bit would probably fit better in the body, where the same IPCC findings should be stated.
The quote inside the ref should also go for multiple reasons. First, I think it's unnecessary. Second, and more importantly, is that every inline citation of the reference will have the quote, which would be rather out of context for some of the other information that uses the same reference. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Hi.  I inserted an image to the right of the table of contents.  See here.  This was reverted, so now there's just blank space to the right of the table of contents.  Maybe I did something wrong.  Any advice?  The image is completely self-explanatory, and is more dramatic than any other image in the article.  No caption should be needed.  And the size is necessary to make out the detail.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its about something too specific to be placed in the intro.  Thats the problem I see (it also did not look good, but maybe I am just used to how it looked before and I liked it :) ) Brusegadi (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The North Pole is on the verge of melting for the first time in human history.  This photo is the most compelling proof that global warming is real and urgent.  When temperature rises, ice melts.  This melting is direct and visible proof of warming.  I agree that it doesn't look good (though probably not in the way you meant).  An actual photo of the melting Arctic is more powerful than a graph or other mathematical representation.  (P.S. I also miss the Yangtze River dolphin, as you say at your user page, Brusegadi.   :-))Ferrylodge (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Human history is a very short interval.  There is evidence  that the Arctic Ocean was free of ice several times during the Pleistocene.  In fact, in the 1950s amd 1960s there were articles in Science that proposed that Pleistocence glaciations were triggered by melting of the polar ice cap.  I remember reading, at that time, that the polar ice cap was melting, and the Arctic Ocean would become ice-free fairly soon, at which time a new glaciation would start, eventually leading to the formation of a new polar ice cap, and then repeating the cycle.  You can look at the original articles by Donn and Ewing in Science Magazine. Vegasprof (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Recently, a few coccoliths have been reported from late Pliocene and Pleistocene central Arctic sediment (Worsley and Herman, 1980). Although this is interpreted to indicate episodic ice-free conditions for the central Arctic, the occurrence of ice-rafted debris with the sparse coccoliths is more easily interpreted to represent transportation of coccoliths from ice-free continental seas marginal to the central Arctic. The sediment record as well as theoretical considerations make strong argument against alternating ice-covered and ice-free….The probable Middle Cenozoic development of an ice cover, accompanied by Antarctic ice development and a late shift of the Gulf Stream to its present position, were important events that led to the development of modern climates. The record suggests that altering the present ice cover would have profound effects on future climates."
See The Arctic Ocean and Post-Jurassic Paleoclimatology by David L. Clark, in Climate in Earth History: Studies in Geophysics (1982).  Later, in 1997, Melnikov noted that, "There is no common opinion on the age of the arctic sea ice cover."  See I. A. Melnokov,  The Arctic Sea Ice Ecosystem (1997).  No one suggests that the age is less than 700,000 years.  And at the present rate, it will be gone within ten years.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My point is not about inclusion (you guys can battle that) I just think that, if included, it should not be in the intro, it should be further down in a relevant sub-section.  The intro is reserved for the most general cause, which is raising temps (there are many ways to illustrate the effects of raising temps, one of them being the image you provided.)  Ciao,  Brusegadi (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problems: 1) Is its size: It's too big. 2) Is its placement: not important for the intro 3) Yes, it needs a caption 4) Is its usefulness 5) The article already is probably above its image capacity. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UBeR, do you think it's a mistake to mention the imminent disappearance of Arctic ice, in this article?  I see that you have reverted this edit. My understanding is that disappearing Arctic ice is a separate issue from disappearing glaciers.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not UBeR but will add my inflation-adjusted US$0.02. Changes to Arctic sea ice should be mentioned in the article, but not in the lead, and not with a figure. In a topic as wide-ranging as this one we have to be especially careful about how much we stuff into the lead and how much detail we add, lest the article collapse under its own weight. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image to right of table of contents 

message: I've blocked Sterculius for tendentious editing and also as probably yet another sock. With that done, I think most of the edit warring is gone and we can go back to semi-protection? I really don't think an important article like this should be protected just because of one, new, ill-disciplined editor William M. Connolley (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Roman gods may smite you; be weary. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as an uninvolved person, I wasn't really aware of whether there was really a content dispute, or whetehr the edits were plain POV, really. If you think it should be unprotected, then, fine, I was just filling a request at RFP. Forgive me for not delving deeper than I probably should have. If you think a block is required, go for it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite weary, but its nearly Christmas :-). AD: no problem; S is now indef sock-blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job.  It was an obvious sock. Brusegadi (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, all is well, then. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (un)protected 

message: Semi-protect does not seem to be on, though the icon is in the corner. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turned semi-protect back on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: I placed an external link to a wikiHow article on Global Warming Prevention and someone removed it. I recently noticed that it was removed from the article. I added it again this evening and found that User:BozMo removed it with the reasoning that it is not notable. Is this a joke? Since when do you need to have all your external links be notable? Yes, before starting a new article, you need to make sure your article is notable... Not an external link. I strongly support re-inserting this external link as it is very applicable to the topic, and very resourceful and informative. Ayudante (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a very good resource. We're not a repository of links. Sorry. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to be fair the edit summary I gave also listed "very shallow" as part of the reason. We cannot be soft on poor links just because they are on Wikis. Neither notable nor of any quality leaves very few arguments to include it. --BozMo talk 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: added links about global warming happening on other planets in the solar variation article.obviously this is legit.
manchurian candidate 15:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, its wrong. Quite where you find the discussion to demonstrate it I'm not sure... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system warming 2 perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manchurian, see extraterrestrial atmospheres. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added solar variation articles 

message: Changed to full protection for 48 hours. The last 48 has seen an average of one sock edit per hour. Unprotect if you think this not proper, but the sock problem needs to be addressed - on a wider basis. Should be some control on account creation. Vsmith (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ACB over the small IP range instead?  Also commented on your talk page .  R. Baley (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, the attack is not limited to this atricle. Vsmith (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkuser says Obedium is coming in from various IPs across a /16.  We'd probably get a lot of objections to blocking such a large range for any significant length of time (it's about 65,000 IP addresses). But it's been done before, so may as well try. It might be helpful if several of us chimed in to point out the necessity of the block. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is contacting the ISP allowed/effective?  R. Baley (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes/not usually. Let's ask User:Alison for ACB on the underlying IP range but with editing allowed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be good to do it now.  I would assume that the number of accounts created this time around is not high so it would not hurt as much. Brusegadi (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not an admin and I'm sure you have a better idea of what should be done here than I would, but is it possible to only block accounts in that IP range which were created in, say, the last 24 hours and on? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that can be done. In any case he's using accounts that were created across a fairly broad stretch of time. They weren't all created on the same day. There are other details I'd rather not share per WP:BEANS. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many socks