Talk:Climate change/Archive 17

message: I've semi-protected this again, since the anon vandlaism seems to be getting rather high. Please discuss here if you disagree. Nb: unlike last time, can we keep this section for discussing the value of semi-prot, rather than the article in general. Maybe this thing needs near-permanent prot? William M. Connolley 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sprotect against a content dispute? Bad form. Kyaa the Catlord 15:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the semi-protect, the vandalism has been indeed high. Skyemoor 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi again 

message: This press release is about a survey on American public opinion on global warming as an environmental concern.  Here is the main page for accessing the survey.   I'm not to sure where or whether this would fit into our coverage of the topic, but I suspect the editors here would know where it can be appropriately used.  GRBerry 17:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Source for some related article 

message: This is a carbon calculator from the non-profit Environmental Defense. Very useful for people to see how much they are contributing to global warming.
http://fightglobalwarming.com/carboncalculator.cfm
The very brief sentence on how global warming is linked to extreme weather events needs to be highlighted or strengthened somehow due the fact that such events are an easily identifiable phenomenon which are occuring more frequently. Information to support day to day to observations of change and it's relation to the subject of Global Warming may be a vital oppourtunity to raise awareness. here is a useful link for a citation after this reference. 207.6.233.239 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended link 

message: People may be interested in the talk at  William M. Connolley 12:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice age lag-leads stuff 

message: CNN recently came out with a news story about Scientists that have discovered that species and ecosystems are already being adversly affected by Global Warming; An example was given that 70 species have already gone extinct because the habitats they lived in have disappeared. I have a source for this, but I have no idea how to cite it. Can someone tell me/cite it for me? (The article is on the front page of www.cnn.com, but I'm too lazy to directly link to it right now). This is more or less a part of this article that needs to be changed from will happen to is happening. I anticipate this won't be so uncommon in the near future. Specusci 18:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see the gentleman above me has already linked to it. Specusci 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You should, perhaps, also cite the source article for that CNN story:   Deditos 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecosystems 

message: One of the major problems with this article is that it makes no distinction between the opinons of "environmentalists" and actual atmospheric scientists. The IPCC's claims are in many regards faulty, and there is also some question as to possible ulterior motives of the IPCC. A more Bold textscientificBold textdiversity of claims would be most appreciated, as atmospheric scientists tend to actually be quite neutral on the subject of climate change's causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Great Scrivener (talk • contribs) 
: The entire article is about scientists... what made you think otherwise? If you want the IPCC's opinions to be faulty, you'll have to do more than just assert it; ditto your claims to speak for atmos sci William M. Connolley 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and you've confused high C14 with high CO2. CO2 was *low* during the last ice age... William M. Connolley 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Opinion 

message: I've massively trimmed the new "positive feedback" section. This page is always in danger of bloat, and will become unreadable if much longer. Anything not really important should go into sub-pages. 
I'm not even sure "+ve feedback" belongs where it is now... should really be in the mechaism section (where ice-albedo already is) William M. Connolley 19:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  +ve feedback 

message: JackMcGuire
The article contains statements that are manifestly FALSE.
As quoted, the EARTH COOLED from the 1940's through the 1970's, See Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976); Science Digest (February 1973); The Christian Science Monitor (Aug. 27, 1974); Newsweek ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975).
Yet the article  FALSELY claims that the Earth has warmed over the last 50 years.
Since the Industrial Age began in the 1700's, the COOLING Earth from around 1946 to 1974 clearly casts severe doubt on man-made global warming.
AS A RESULT, THE ARTICLE IS FALSE, DECEITFUL, AND MISLEADING TO THE READER, IN VIOLATION OF THE GOAL OF CREATING AN EXCELLENT ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE.
A GOOD ENCYCLOPEDIA DOES NOT   *LIE*   TO ITS READERS.
The article is FALSE AND DECEITFUL in claiming that global warming may reduce agricultural yields.
Higher moisture content in the atmosphere -- caused by warmer oceans -- plus higher carbon dioxide STIMULATE plant growth.   The combination of moister air and carbon dioxide is an ideal environment for plant growth of all kinds.
Add to that longer growing seasons, and it is clearly FALSE that global warming can cause lower agricultural yields.
Carbon dioxide is a NUTRIENT in photosynthesis -- the foundation of all life on earth (since animals eat plants for food).
The article is also FALSE AND DECEITFUL in claiming that global warming will cause sea levels to rise.  That is unknown and unknowable.
Precipitation -- rain and snow -- occur when moist air encounters a cold environment.  Just as water condenses out of the air onto a cold lemonade glass or a cold window in the winter,  a higher moisture content in the atmosphere would INCREASE snow and ice falling on the polar regions.   This would INCREASE the snow and ice pack at the poles, transferring evaporating water from the oceans to the poles, LOWERING sea levels.
Furthermore, ice melts at 0 degrees C.   But temperatures at Antartica reach only -30 degrees C IN THE SUMMER at the Coast.   Ice does not melt at -30 degrees C.  Increasing temperatures from -30 to -28 degrees C WILL STILL NOT MELT ICE.   Ice does not melt at -28 degrees C any more than it does at -30 degrees C.  
http://www.coolantarctica.com/schools/lesson_plans/fact_file_and_references.htm
Temperatures must EXCEED  0 degrees for ice to melt.   
Warming from -30 to -28 doesn't get you any melting ice.
Jack McGuire
:Thanks for discussing on the talk page.  I have reverted your additions since they seemed to be largely uncited.  The material you did cite comes from sources which are out of date in terms of their methods of paleoclimate reconstruction, and popular rather than peer-reviewed sources.  In short, they no longer reflect the current scientific consensus.  There are several issues to be dealt with in your edit: the cooling between 1946 and 1974.  It would be problematic to take a short term trend and extrapolate, while ignoring the orders of magnitude larger long term trend.  See, this article for more information about this.  The material about the specific consequences of global warming are less well established, since they involve many biological interactions which are difficult to predict.  I think if we can find citations to scientific sources which reflect a consensus opinion of climate scientists, then they should be included.  Without them, however, it would seem like endless speculation.  There is some recent empirical evidence that gloabl warming has a negative impact on animals, and there is substantial evidence that the ice caps are melting. I am not sure that there are sources which say what you have said, but if there are, cite them and we can discuss.  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sea water is of course above freezing point, so it is at the interface of ice and water that global warming will produce ice melt, which of course compounds as sea levels rise. Also sea levels will rise even if there is no ice melt - as water warms, it expands. And sadly thirty year old references just don't cut it. --Michael Johnson 04:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still, he is quite correct about Antarctica melting: See Sea level rise. (By the way, salty sea water may melt at temperatures far below 0 degrees C). Also, if there was a significant lowering of global temperatures from 1946 to 1974, it may of course be mentioned, but the article is already too long. Narssarssuaq 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no cites in Jack's discussion, and from my own reading on Antarctica, it's obvious that 0 C is exceeded frequently in the southern pole summer. Even readings from Scott, Shackleton, and Amundsen in the early 1900s confirm this.  If Jack wants to provide scientific sources for his statements, then we would have a starting point for his assertions.   Skyemoor 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, Jack is getting confused between the continental mean temperature and the temp at the edges. He is, however, correct in that Ant isn't going to melt in a hurry; but he is wrong to imply that the article says it will. As for the 40's... there is a graph right up front with the temperature record on it. No, the T change then isn't very sig - only as a break in the warming. It gets a brief mention at the end of "Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" section William M. Connolley 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MANIFESTLY FALSE STATEMENTS

message: "Make the article neutral by including crititism of global warming and showing that it is not a proven fact." Is that really necessary?  We have alternate theories AND the proven fact thing sounds like an import from the evolution type 'debate'. Brusegadi 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it is pretty muc general consensus that global warming is real, human cause or not; that, and I'm pretty sure everyone assumes that both sides are unproven, much like the Evolution/Creationism disputes. Specusci 16:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed that bit William M. Connolley 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "global warming is real, human cause or not" points to an important point that many misses: Global warming until 2100 is, at a certain degree of precision, predicted by models. Whether the present warming can be attributed to this predicted global warming or not is in principle beside that particular point. Present warming may consolidate the theory. Still, as there is a lot of "natural noise", such as solar and volcanic activity, plus weather fluctuations, involved in global temperatures, such an empirical consolidation of the theory will have to rely on a complex analysis of the situation, an analysis which is totally different from the modelling of future climate. I'm unsure if the article is clear enough on this point. Although it may seem self-evident for scholars, it seems some journalists, not to mention Average Joe, have problems with this. (Or am I wrong?). And as the Global warming article is most probably extensively used by such people, we may want to become slightly clearer on this point. Narssarssuaq 17:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to wonder if you're reading the article, or just the talk page. A widespread scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"[2]. is clear enough, with its link;  as is causes" section William M. Connolley 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am reading both the article and the talk page, if you're still wondering... My point isn't that it's not mentioned, but that the divide isn't emphasised enough. Also, the first sentence reads "Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades". True, and it's perhaps good enough, but it may be misleading not to mention that "Global warming" is also, and perhaps more often used about, the partially unrelated predicted increase in coming decades. I see the point of keeping the article concise, but as I said; I have a feeling that the article could be slightly clearer as to the divide mentioned. Narssarssuaq 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: Hey guys, this is off-topic, but for the better: It's for celebration! I'm the main author of the German sister article about Globale Erwärmung, so I guess it's up to me to thank you all for your contributions here, because both the content of this article and that of this very talk page played an important part in the German article about global warming becoming a newly elected Featured article. Thanks to all of you, please keep it up and enjoy the spread of your excellent work! Hardern 21:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats on a job well done! --Stephan Schulz 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: German article [[:de:Globale Erwärmung|Globale Erwärmung]] now a featured article!

message: from the bbc.--Pixel ;-) 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An Oxford professor in the article seems to claim that this indicates a too optimistic scenario distribution at IPCC. I hope it's an unreliable source. I guess we'll have to wait for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report instead of quoting loose statements like that in this Wikipedia article. Narssarssuaq 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Mike Raupach is pretty reliable source!  (He gave a fantastic talk a couple weeks ago at a conference I attended.)  Likewise Myles Allen is head of the Climateprediction.net super-duper-mega-ensemble project. But I'd wait for the dust to settle before including this as encyclopedic content. Raymond Arritt 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (I was referring to the organisation doing the survey). Narssarssuaq 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the bbc got it wrogn we have the right to be wrogn too.--Pixel ;-) 13:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. Though this isn't wiki-news. I'm not sure how this is compatible with the trend in actual CO2 conc, which is *not* accelerating in the same fashion William M. Connolley 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say this graph:  shows a certain increase in concentration growth rate. Not sure if it corresponds to 1% -> 2.5%, though. Narssarssuaq 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CO2 curve is kind of bumpy-looking (there's a rigorous scientific term for you).  I'd be hesitant to attach much significance to rate fluctuations on scales less than a decade or so.  As for the second diagram you cite, look at the time axis.  The time scale relevant to anthropogenic GH warming is a century or so.  If I've done the math right, that would be invisible on your diagram -- i.e., less than the width of one pixel.  There's no reason to expect that processes that are important on time scales of tens of thousands of years are the same as the processes that are important for a few decades. Raymond Arritt 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Thanks. Narssarssuaq 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 is accelerating 

message: Global warming sounds like something nice. Heating is something to be serious about.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.176.177 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 30 November 2006  (UTC)
:No, its most common name is Global warming. Wikipedia is about objective information, and not an arena for political (or other) agendas. Narssarssuaq 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just today read about somebody who suggests renaming the phenomenom. somebody else suggested "global climate disruption". But as long as its commonly called global warming, Wikipedia should stick to that. Hardern 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah... terrible idea. See WP:NAME. Mikker (...) 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So... I guess Global roasting won't fly either.  ;^) --Richard 03:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we rename this article Globle Heating