Talk:Global cooling/Archive 3

message: I don't see why this  (subsequently modded by Stephan) is an improvement. Giddings crit isn't particularly notable (none of them are) its just one example. The earlier (my!) wording is more accurate and less weaselly William M. Connolley 20:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaking the intro 

message: Totally speculative, and very biased.  No differing perspectives taken into consideration, and definitely does not meet the NPOV wiki requirement.  I would like to see some links to criticisms. Iamvery 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrible comment. No substance at all. How does this article fail NPOV? Criticism of what? Global cooling? BTW, you can sign your comments with four tildas ~~~~ to give a more useful signature (with a link to your user page) conveniently. --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your criticism is rather unspecific and thus not helpful. Should we change "something"?. And for the second sentence: Do you confuse "only in the media" and "also in the media"? Assuming you want to draw an analogy with global warming, I suggest you check scientific opinion on climate change. --Stephan Schulz 19:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible article 

message: I cut but nonetheless gained popularity on college campuses and amongst the general public as a result of the public discussions by a few prominent scientists at the time who backed the theory, as well as the dramatic coverage the theory received in mainstream media from the lead. I don't see any evidence for this; there were one or two media articles but hardly "dramatic coverage" William M. Connolley 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead again 

message: Could we add a heading to the end of the article re: current political significance of this theory?  I think it's fair to say that Global Warming debate has broken down into a partisan political issue here in the US, and a lot of skeptics (largely right-leaning) cite the Global Cooling theory as evidence that, to put it bluntly, science has no idea what it's talking about -- "Look at this, they've been wrong before".  I don't have specific links/quotes, but I could probably come up with some if pressed.  I'd like to be NPOV about it, but I haven't seen any rebuttal of the charge (if one is really needed...) coming from the GW proponents/the political left.  --James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.51.111.1 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this article - there never was a serious "Global Cooling theory". I don't know about global warming proponents/the political left, but the vast majority of scientists is aware of this fact. --Stephan Schulz 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Political issues? 

message: If there is global cooling, the Earth grows cooler (contrary to global warming). This means colder and frigid winters. This also means cooler summers and a cooler year as well. I think there would be cool deserts even with small temperature decreases, just like melting of the polar icecaps with global warming even with small temperature increases. 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The effects of global warming or cooling would almost certainly not be uniform. But I'm not sure what the point of this speculation is. -- Beland 06:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colder Winters, Cooler Year(s) 

message: You had states that there was never wide support of the global cooling theory.  I remember being taught global cooling in the 8th grade and my teacher was just as believing in global cooling, and referenced as  many sources as you do to support golbal warming.
Additionally, according to the Newsweek Article you mentioned, Scientist were just as unanomous about global cooling as they are about global warming.  Below is an excerpt from the Newsweek article.
"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century"
Doug in Westminster
:Of course I don't know about your school. But Newsweek as acknowledged that their reporting back then was misleading. Read the various reports cited in the article. And the unanimity in your quite refers to the development of agricultural productivity under the assumption that climate cools. --Stephan Schulz 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calder believed it then and believes it still. So what? He doesn't and didn't represent "science". And NS is *not* the equic of SA - its rather more lowbrow, or at least it is now William M. Connolley 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many false statments 

message: dr a suliman - told us as a physics teacher:
global warming - ice caps melt and more liquid water -  more of a force need to pull this from the moon  -  tilt of axis of earth change -  therefore global cooling for six months on one half and heat normal on the other side of hemisphere 
makes sense to me,  he publishes it in the new scientist magazine soon, look out and incorportate this with regards to him .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by T saston (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  global coolong 

message: Excuse me. Why did William M. Connolley remove the external reference that pointed to information on Milankovitch Cycles? He said: "rv: there is nothing wrong with it, but its unescessary: we have a perfectly good MF article and its linked". However, 2 points: 1st, what I added was an external reference (to a NOAA article), not an internal link to another Wikipedia article; and 2nd, the existing external reference (#24) for Milankovitch Cycles is bad -- click on it and you get this: "We are sorry - there has been an error processing your request. Please return to the Nature home page." So why the heck is it an issue to add a good, up to date, external reference?????? SunSw0rd (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point in it, as I said. If your link is useful, add it to the MF article which this article links to. We should link within wiki to things we have good articles on, and put ext links to those things in there. We don't put in ext links to GW, or IPCC, or aerosols - for the obvious reason. MF is no different. Re the broken link: thanks for noticing, I did what you could have and looked it up via the DOI and fixed it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. SunSw0rd (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milankovitch Cycles 

message: If the article purports to be neutral I think it has failed.  More or less every single line is second-guessed and undercut by its author.  It might as well be a piece on medieval folklore, judging by its dismissive tone.
Since it is obvious that global warming exists - at least when viewed over millennia, I think all can agree on that - then the corollary, global cooling must also exist. Per definition.  I think the topic deserves more honesty in writing than the current piece.
Here is a recent link of interest to those with inquiring minds:
http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp
Actually, it might be better to combine both GW and GC under one header called "Global Temperature Cycles" - or something like that, you get the idea.
Thomas (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewording sounds good. This paper about the science and the hype might be useful - I can email it to you if you don't have journal access. Awickert (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: How could this "Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way" article from Hawaii Reporter be worked into the article? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. It has nothing to do with the historical meme, and Marc Morano is a political shill for Jim Inhofe, not a remotely useful source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I moved your comment here because the Hawaii Reporter article cites this Daily Tech article. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The dailytech blog is not a remotely reliable source. All except the very shortest-term temperature indicators are up. But I find it somewhat ironic that the very same people who used to claim that a century or so of climate data is insufficient to detect a warming signal now see cooling after half a cold winter... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you against including the link and the data it references (which is from a reputable source, while the blog may not meet your standard of being a reputable source) because it doesn't mesh with your idea of 'global warming'? From your sentence, that's what it sounds like. 68.222.160.154 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against including it because most of it is plain wrong and in conflict with the considered opinion of the scientific community, and because it is almost entirely non-notable. Being unreliable and in conflict with well-established science, there is no reason to include it on its merits. It also is not connected with the particular theory known as "global cooling" (which by now taken on a secondary role as a proper name, not just a descriptive term), so it is also off-topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As a National Post article about the data admits, "one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades." Assuming just for the sake of argument that the evidence for global warming is exaggerated, exaggerating evidence for global cooling as a response to that makes no sense. Two wrongs don't make a right. The Squicks (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedic entry -- viewpoints about 'global cooling' must be included for this to be a complete entry.  Since there is scientific data (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html) that shows the earth is currently cooling, it should be included.  Whether or not you or I agree on the issue of Global cooling is moot -- what isn't moot is that Wikipedia exists to be an expansive encyclopedia, and there is no justice done when data is ignored.  Gortok (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  That article is a popular press scare piece and quite irrelevant. No, on Wikipedia we are not interested in data, but in knowledge. If there really is a persistent cooling trend that is popularly referred to as "global cooling", then we can consider adding this to the article. But we do not add every short-term trend, or we bury the relevant information in mountains of irrelevancies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  rate of warming has dropped compared to 80's-90's despite CO2 increase. question is does this mean AGW theory is flawed or natural cooling cycles are masking global warming? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm  meh. personally, i can't decide unless i take apart a climate model - and i'm not bored enough to do that. :p  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.105.117 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaii Reporter 

message: The ceasing of thermohaline circulation in the world's oceans caused the rapid global cooling in the scientifically unfounded film The Day After Tomorrow.
The film is unscientific garbage, as its article notes. Why mention it here at all? The Squicks (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only because people may have heard of it. I'm ambivalent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in favor of removing it. It would be like mentioning skynet in an article about distributed computer systems. The Squicks (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  film 

message: "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Scientific consensus is that the Earth has not cooled, but undergone a period of global warming in recent centuries."
This is an outrageous statement. It starts with a flat out lie and ends with an attempt to muddy the waters. All extant scientific evidence points towards future cooling. There is no evidence whatsoever that we will continue to warm. Glaciations keep coming back and they last a very long time. The scientific evidence shows that nothing has changed and this cycle will continue.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP disputes article 

message: I think maybe there should be a section referencing the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Reason -- recent articles by NASA that the PDO has shifted to its cool phase, and articles including a report in Nature that the AMO has shifted to a cool phase. The convergence of these two together may shift the Northern hemisphere into a cooling cycle for at least the next decade. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Belongs on GW, or Cl Ch, but not here. This is a different page. Beware of grossly misleading interpretation of the current Nature stuff (assuming you mean what I mean ) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDO and AMO 

message: I looked up this article to see if anything was mentioned here about the numerous conservatives who will point to the "global cooling" theories to support their claim that global warming is a farce. I remember one very-convincing guest on Jon Stewart's show hawking his book that lambasted global warming as just the next environmentalist scare tactic, and he (falsely) claimed that "all" of the scientists in the 70's were warning the world about global cooling. Should something be added about global cooling's role in the global warming debate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Togamoos (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right,we should. I'm a bit surprised we don't so far William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Cooling History as a Counter-Argument to Global Warming 

message: We might add this 1974 Time Magazine article, as well as this 1975 New York Times article. —Bender235 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are any number of crap magazine articles about climate at the time. Why pick those? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you actually consider Time Mag and NYT "crap magazines"? However, even if you do, those articles deserve to be mentioned just as the Newsweek article, because they are an important part of the media coverage on global cooling. ––Bender235 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have the bracketing wrong; english is like that. I called them "crap magazine articles" not "crap magazine" articles. I don't think we should include more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And why? It's not like this article would be too long if we added them. —Bender235 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WEIGHT --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? This article is about global cooling, and I'm suggesting we should add two news paper/magazine articles to show the media response to that topic. Because, right now, there's only one media article cited. But there have been a lot more in 1970-1975 (beside these NYT and Time articles, there was also one in Science Digest, another one in the National Geographic, and two more in German newsmag Der Spiegel, to name a few). I just wanted to add two more to give an overview about the massive media coverage of this topic in the mid-70's. —Bender235 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Weight is about balance, not existence. Your claim that there was a "massive media coverage" is unsubstantiated - we need secondary sources that say that there was a massive media coverage - not your original research by cherry-pick. If we go 30 years into the future - i can cherry-pick 5 articles from within the last 2 years now, who will show "evidence" that the current period had "massive media coverage" of global cooling by the same merits that you are doing here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I got your point. How about Pearce (2006)? —Bender235 (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  The level of propaganda on this subject is beyond belief. TRUTH, n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. The Devil's Dictionary, Bierce. DasV (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media response 

message: Image:NASA global temperature 1880-2007.png|NASA GISS
Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.svg|Hadley Centre
Thompson (2008) is suggesting that the apparent cooling in the temperature record between 1940 and 1970 is actually the result of a change in instrumental bias in the sea temperature record.  This article claims that the cooling actually happened, and wasn't an artifact of how we were measuring.  Should the article be changed to indicate that the apparent cooling was dubious, or should it be changed to indicate that the apparent cooling didn't happen at all?
Smptq (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, does that mean both NASA and the Hadley Centre still don't know how to accurately record temperatures? Because both figures I added above show significant cooling from ≈1940 to ≈1970. —Bender235 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the paper says what I think it does, it sounds like both NASA and Hadley may have a modest correction to make.Smptq (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Climate models are not capable of giving exact year-to-year predictions. That is not what they are trying to do, either. And of course current models do include water vapour. While water vapour is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, it is not the original cause of global warming - CO2 is. See the GW FAQ and the links there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there actual cooling? 

message: Before User:William M. Connolley reverts this page once again, let's try to figure out whether we should mention Bryden et al. (2005), including the wide-ranging media response from London to Sydney. I really think we should mention it, and I honestly don't know why Connolley is trying to conceal this study. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is a slowing of the THC causing global cooling? There is nothing to conceal - the study simply does not belong here. Put it into thermohaline circulation, although, since it has ben superseded, its relevance is questionable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: …which means we are trying to conceal the fact that the Times of London claimed Britain faces big freeze, that the Sydney Herald reported Scientists forecast global cold snap (they said 'global', you read that?), and that National Geographic proclaimed that a "Mini Ice Age" May Be Coming Soon. Never happened, right? ––Bender235 (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way: studies and theories aren't irrelevant because they turned out to be wrong. Otherwise we might propose Geocentric model and N ray for speedy deletion. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the articles? None of them speaks about global cooling. There are two out-of-context quotes that can be interpreted that way (unfortunately the Sydney Herald title is one, but even they go to "the ocean currents which keep Europe warm" and finally talk about "devastating effects on socio-economic conditions in the countries bordering the eastern North Atlantic", not about global cooling. Nat-Geo talks writes "western Europe could soon be gripped by a mini ice age" - nothing about "global" there. The Independent talks about Britain only. The Times talks about Western Europe and Britain only. New Scientist has "western Europe [and] its relatively balmy climate" as a topic. In short, your sources do not support the claim about "global cooling" being an issue in 2005. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. This whole article is basically media mis-interpreting scientific studies (in the 1970s), yet you're trying to conceal that exactly the same happened less than 3 years ago. Does Wikipedia have to be that biased? What about Neutral point of view? What about balance? I kinda get the feeling that certain people are trying to conceal any indication that some studies turned out to be wrong. ––Bender235 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the media certainly is misinterpreting scientific studies all the time, in the recent case they have not been interpreting them to predict global cooling, so they don't belong here. We don't discuss E=mc2 in Pride and Prejudice, either, --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I came here to answer a third opinion request but this dispute involves three editors so I'd suggest using WP:RfC instead. JRSP (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need to mention Bryden et al. (2005)? 

message: Doesn't it? I tried to add a tag requesting a source and it was revered. 98.194.110.160 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The summary of the article doesn't include any references.  There isn't any particular reason to single out this statement, particularly since the summary is backed by cited statements in the body of the article.  In this particular case, the second sentence of the body of the article backs up the statement with a reference.   Smptq (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good response. Brusegadi (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the claim that "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support" not require a source? 

message: I added a cn tag to a statement: "The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) Global Climate Models (GCMs) that include the effect of sulphate aerosol cooling, so it (now) seems likely that this was the dominant cause".  My comment noted that research by Doug Hoyt appears to contradict the statement.  User: William M. Connolley reverted my change.  Perhaps someone could explain how this is remotely reasonable. 
(Note: I initially reverted Connolley's change, but then promptly undid my reversion, as I realized the reversion my cause me to violate WP:3RR.)
AlfBit (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-revert was a good idea. I could probably guess which Hoyt you mean, but not which of his work you mean. Please expand William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could first explain why it is reasonable to delete a cn tag. AlfBit (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem a teensy bit short on sources. You said that your cn was based on work by Hoyt. Which work? Do please explain, or you risk looking like some skeptic without a clue William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since AlfBit doesn't seem to be going away, and we've now got an anonymous user + bender235 trying to push the same issue, I think I've got a guess as to what the fellow was actually referring to.  There's a blog comment by Doug Hoyt in which he claims that human activity hasn't made a significant difference to atmospheric aerosol concentrations since the early 20th century, and cites some of his older papers to make the argument.  (Note: almost nobody else cites those old papers)  Given the plethora of other studies showing that human activity has an impact on atmospheric aerosol concentrations, it probably wouldn't hurt to choose an appropriate citation.  I nominate Anthropogenic influence on the distribution of tropospheric sulphate aerosol.  Anybody have a better suggestion? Smptq (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More recent would be the AR4 (WG1, Section 2.4, in particular 2.4.4.1). It also cites a large number of relevant papers, e.g. Boucher, O., and D. Tanré, 2000: Estimation of the aerosol perturbation to the Earth's radiative budget over oceans using POLDER satellite aerosol retrievals. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(8), 1103­1106; Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297­302; Boucher, O., and M. Pham, 2002: History of sulfate aerosol radiative forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(9), 22­25.; Haywood, J.M., and O. Boucher, 2000: Estimates of the direct and indirect  radiative forcing due to tropospheric aerosols: A review. Rev. Geophys., 38, 513­543. However, as far as I'm concerned, AR4 itself should be enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your reference better than mine.  Lets give it a day or two so that others can chime in, and then find a way to work it into the article.  Smptq (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting a { {cn} } tag 

message: Just to make this really clear: According to the | RS document, fringe sources are acceptable as sources of information about fringe groups.  On this topic, SEPP clearly qualifies as such, so their Washington Times opinion pieces are acceptable as a source of information on their opinion. Smptq (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEPP/Washington Times reference

message: Using only The Times the first hit for (a) global cooling is Jan 28, 1975 Science report Glaciology: Ross ice shelf flow and (a) global warming is Dec 02, 1976; Meteorology: Climatic changes By Pearce Wright. These articles (and similar upto 1985) are essentially non commital (but nudging towards suspected global warming) Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media references