Talk:Climate change/Archive 18

message: I believe that it should be mentioned in the introduction on this article that certain aspects of the "Global Warming Theory" are still in dispute.  I proprose a well rounded, non-contradictory or inflamatory statement to that affect be posted as an addition to the first paragraph.  I already posted one, but the administrators suggested I discuss it first, so, does anyone have a problem with that.  Remember that my contribution can of course be edited after I make it.  Any problems? Suggestions? I have no problem with splitting the article, as long as the intro mentions that. ----Borghuman 09:56, 10 December 2006 (CST)
:Sorry, but your proposed addition is very much out of line with the current (and indeed the last 30 years) state of knowledge. The Oregon Petition is essentially worthless (less generous people would call it fraudulent), you are confusing weather and climate (climate is much easier to predict, and can, under reasonably assumptions, be predicted to a reasonably degree of accuracy decades in advance. The plot on globalwarmingart shows (reconstructed) local temperatures, and has a 300 year resolution, while the current episode of global warming is only about 150 years old. I'm not aware of any published peer-reviewed literature that contradicts the IPCC consensus (and you give no good reference to any). In short, this is not an improvement. If you think you can argue any of the points to a reasonable level of verifiability and weight, please argue them here.--Stephan Schulz 05:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed the way you bolded "Theory". As it has been mentioned repeatedly in many many forums, websites and wikipedia talk pages, a theory is not automatically dismissable as being "only probably true". On the contrary, a theory is usally assembled from established facts. That is, if you are using the scientific terminology, and saying the "Global Warming Theory" would be it's scientific use. Specusci 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications to intro 

message: It is widely reported in britain that water shortages are becoming more and more common such as the shortages in Essex. Surely gloabal warming and melting of the ice caps will result in a wide supply of liquid for commercial and recrreational purposes. This will reduce the need for hose pipe bans and as a result the general morale of the nation could rise. Also many areas of the world that will be affected are poor such as mexico and pakistan. Drowning these places could clense the world of poverty and the unaffected areas could start a fresh uniting in the need to survive resulting in a global frienship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.5.247.66 (talk • contribs).
: Ever seen "The day after tomorrow"? It might not be that rapid, but thats pretty much what will happen. You might actually have less water, because it'll be locked up in more ice. Not only that, but you'll pretty much have a canadian winter...all year. (Canadian winters are typically -30/40 degrees celsius). Specusci 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what will happen, rapid or otherwise. --Spiffy sperry 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There would be less ice if there was a global warming. Global warming means the Earth warms everywhere, not just in certain places (then again, the warming right now is only mostly going on in the Northern hemisphere isn't it?). It seems like there would also be a higher albedo due to much more water vapour in the air. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote, "Global warming means the Earth warms everywhere, not just in certain places...".  Actually, that's not true.  That's the great thing about GW; cooling in certain places doesn't falsify the theory. --Spiffy sperry 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, water vapour decreases the effective albedo (it is itself a greenhouse gas). Clouds (i.e. condensed water droplets or frozen crystals, not water vapour) can increase the albedo. But cloud formation depends (among many other factors) on relative humidity, not on absolute humidity. And I'm not aware of any current research that claims that warming is restricted to the Northern hemisphere. --Stephan Schulz 23:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is global warming a bad thing?

message: (1) The "tipping point" mentioned in one of the external links at the bottom isn't mentioned in the article. However, one often finds that it is referred to, mostly quite casually, in the media. Maybe we could include a sentence or so about what is known and what isn't known about this subject. I would guess that some readers are interested in sorting out the facts about this.
(2) Also, regarding this link  - it says, "The new research adds a third component, by calculating the likely contribution of carbon dioxide released from natural ecosystems such as soil as temperatures rise". -- Is the contribution from soil (and thus also bogs, I guess) really not part of IPCC's models?! I find that hard to believe. Narssarssuaq 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tipping point 

message: Are there any objection to changing inline link references to use <ref> tags and Citation templates? —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me. Anybody else? Hardern 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not from me, but I know others object -  and .  --Spiffy sperry 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You can do a ref/Harvard hybrid, such as the one on Charles Darwin. It's harder to set up, though. Titoxd(?!?) 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For which ones do you need three clicks? And why do you need more clicks for tabbed browsing?? Hardern 09:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see that now. Yeah, that IS annoying the way it is done there. Hardern 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format 

message: I just thought that the headline 'Nomenclature' should be replaced with something a little simpler, such as 'Terminology' or 'Naming'. Any thoughts? I'm all for using the most precise words possible, but where simpler ones exist that convey the same meaning, we should try and use those. This is an encyclopedia after all, not a journal... Mostlyharmless 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with "Terminology". --Stephan Schulz 08:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not just link it to an existing wikipedia article for the less knowledgable? Or at least, a dictionary definition? Specusci 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: I'm surprised that anyone objected, but cooling via radiation is a valid point of view of the process.  All purely thermal equilibrium are a mixture of concurrent heating and cooling.  That is just the definition of equilibrium.  I think that if you have a problem with that wordage then you're getting hung up on the verbiage and not the concept. Mathchem271828 03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified it a bit. I have no serious problem with it, but I don't see it as a huge improvement, either. Maybe we should add something about equilibrium and radiation balance to make it clearer for laymen?  --Stephan Schulz 08:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a tiny bit of info on negative feedback effects on Effects of global warming. I couldn't find that in the global warming article right now. Narssarssuaq 09:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have guessed that radiation is the primary negative feedback mechanism.  Bye the way, has anyone seen long term predictions (with suitable assumptions) to an equilibrium point? Chrisnumbers2000 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by an "equilibrium point" -- there are lots of different kinds of equilibria.  Most models have done so-called 2xCO2 runs; i.e., long runs with CO2 concentration set at double the pre-industrial value, in order to establish the equilibrium response to doubled CO2. Is that what you mean? Raymond Arritt 05:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  What is the general outcome?  I have only seen projections of the planet's transient response to 2100. Chrisnumbers2000 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this representative of what you have seen?  http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/fig10.gif For Southeastern US it roughly shows a +5 and +10 degree change for a respective doubling and quadroupling of CO2 Chrisnumbers2000 15:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of 2xCO2 usually is to compute "climate sensitivity" (jargon for the global temperature increase expected from a doubling of CO2). Results from the previous IPCC assessment are in this chapter. Here's a nice little cookbook for setting up a 2xCO2 run, if you're interested in that sort of thing. (NB. We're straying a bit from the intent of the Talk page, which is to discuss the article rather than the topic.) Raymond Arritt 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, good article!  Cheers, bye the way.  I will take a look. Chrisnumbers2000 15:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiation and cooling

message: I came here from requests for comments about an edit war.
From my perspective there are more important things to tackle in this article than reverts.
*The writing style appears turgid (if not moribund with inaccessibility). (This article has one of the worst intros I have seen so far in Wiki).
*The use of SI units is inconsistent.
*Headings do not seem to accurately reflect the contents
Candy 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the intro should be rewritten into something much more concise, and leftover info should be moved into paragraphs. However, the article is so long that there is use for an abstract or overview in the beginning. Narssarssuaq 13:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also watchlisting this article from the same RFC, although I'm mostly away till Jan 2nd.  I'll try to be useful here and help out, if the editors are still in conflict at that time. Not really time to do much now, though. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I remember the German sister page to this article seemed to do a nice job.  (Chrisnumbers2000 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has problems (RFC responses) 

message: I strongly recommend deleting this material or putting it elsewhere. The main article already is long and tends to sprawl over a wide range of subtopics. I'll wait a few days for comment and then delete it, unless there's a clear opposing consensus. Raymond Arritt 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep it, it's an excellent source of information and it's down past the references so it doesn't take away from the main article. --Calibas 03:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete it. These "popular culture" sections tell us nothing about the subject in hand. They just attract trivia, bloating the article size. No-one looks up "global warming" to find out how many times it has been mentioned on South Park. --Michael Johnson 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I surely understand the wish to remove such a section, being as it is closely related to such things as urban myths, popular science, popular culture, junk science and a host of other cultural phenomena that can involve major distortions of fact.  The juncture between empirically based insights about global warming and popular conceptions that affect policy and action on a global scale, though, is important insofar as it allows a meeting place between the popular views and the views based on extensive research by the scientific community and others familiar with scientific methodology.  Offhand, I'd think some connection between the two should remain visible in this article. ... Kenosis 04:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Delete. There are far too many things that could possibly be listed William M. Connolley 11:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's to be kept, it should be in a seperate article. Simply because the article is too long. Narssarssuaq 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say keep it. Someone might want this information for various purposes; if it is not to be kept in the article, then a seperate entry should be made for it. Specusci 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of this question if the article is too long what else can we spin off into another article? --BozMo talk 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a link to Global warming in popular culture.  So we now also have our "connection" between empirical and popular views referred to above, which, I would hope, will serve as a convenient place to refer users who wish to dwell on such views. ... Kenosis 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming in popular culture 

message: It is unusual in a namespace article to have an anchor link to a Category Page rather than a list. I am not sure if it is explicitly in a style guide but anyone else think we should take it out? 
--BozMo talk 10:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neutral. I see little value in the link, but also no problem. Whoever added it possibly had an opinion on this, so I'm not motivated to remove it. If you are, go ahead! --Stephan Schulz 10:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish Chemist 

message: Near "The warming is primarily a result of variances in solar irradiance, possibly via modulation of cloud cover [26]"
The [26] links to
http://spacecenter.dk/cgi-bin/nyheder-m-m.cgi?id=1159917791|cgifunction=form
This link should perhaps be updated to 
http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate
which describes a link between cosmic rays, the sun's magnetic field, cloud formation, and global warming, or maybe 
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/
which contains details about the experiment itself.
The press release from the Danish National Space Center is talking about cosmic rays, something completely different than solar irradiance.  I am unaware of any research associating the variation in cosmic rays reaching Earth with the variation in solar radiation reaching it, so I think the link between the Danish research and solar irradiance is unsupported.  Regardless, I do think the theory on the relationship between cosmic rays and low-level cloud cover is worth considering in any discussion of global climate.
Sethwilson 23:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this article: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Go for it! -Amatulic 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed the link Calibas 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link suggestion 

message: The article should be merged with Global weather effects (which is not yet created, all there is is a template) (Global cooling has also been suggested to be merged into that page) because they are both topics on severe changes in the Earths weather. To discuss the merge, leave a note on Global weather effects talk page so we can reach a consensous on what to do. Kamope 14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SNOW. Why not merge all Wikipedia into Human Knowledge? Seriously, these are complicated topics with very different foci (global cooling has some historical interest, global warming is a current, well-researched subject with huge scientific literature), and at least global warming already is much longer than recommended. Moreover, article names should reflect the most common name used to reference a topic. The googlewhack is 70 to 53700000 against your suggested name.--Stephan Schulz 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Re . Its pretty well impossible to say that any one winter is warmer or not due to GW - the interannual variation is large. See  for the central england temperature series (only up to oct 2006 :-() or  for some pix. Yes it *has* got warmer, but as far as a rose is concerned its just one warm month. Also  may be interesting William M. Connolley 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bears in Russia didn't even hibernate till the new year. Other areas of the world have warnings being issued because normally hibernating bears are becoming aggressive. Not only that, but endangered species are even beginning to thrive in the new conditions (Whooping Crane, as described in a recent scientific paper). I don't know where you live, but for most of the northern latitude countries, you'll have a hard time trying to convince locals that this is "A normal phenomenon". Specusci 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, no single warm event can be proven to be an effect of global warming, just as a single cold event does not prove the sceptics right. Only a longer term average eliminates individual outliers. That said, I just returned from volleyball wearing nothing but cycling shorts and a sweater. I've been cycling without gloves for the last few days. This is very unusual for Germany in January....--Stephan Schulz 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, we've only just have had lasting snow here in Ottawa this january. All of the previous snowfalls melted before the day ended, or disapeared in RAIN storms in december. Rain...in december...Specusci 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roses 

message: The recent level of vandalism have made it hard to pick out constructive edits from subtle (or not-so-subtle) vandalism. Is it time to request semiprotection again? Raymond Arritt 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotect again? 

message: Although i am a relative novice on this subject, and my view may be overlooked, the basic reason for global warming is because of the human race.  It has been going on for centuries before polution i know, but back then the climate changed 3 degrees in millions of years.  Recently the climate has changed 1 degree in just 20 years.  I'm only 14 but that is a MAJOR difference.  Many of the people here, no offense intended, may be dead or almost dead when the results of global warming hit.  I may still be alive to recieve these results along with my children.  All this was learned from my science teacher who has worked in my school for over 35 years and is very knowledgable about the subject. User:Chris Gonzalez Not currently signed on.
: What point does your argument serve? This is an information site, not a debate forum. The talk page is ONLY to discuss any possible or recent changes to the article. Specusci 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument 

message: I know i can just do it, but I'd like some opinions first. I'd like to add a link to the external links list. It is the website for Al Gore's DVD, An Inconvenient Truth. You can go there and tell me if it is appropriate. Thanks! If you'd like to talk to me on my talk page, click the blue "Guy" in my sig. RyGuy  Happy New Year! 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. It adds nothing to the science William M. Connolley 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I didn't want it to be considered vandalism, so thanks for telling me. RyGuy  Happy New Year! 12:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Edit

message: The article says in hidden text that there is a debate about whether global warming for other planets should be inculded. I couldn't find this anywhere. It is happening on other planets, such as Mars. Where is this? The article is about strictly Earth's global warming. The article's name is therefore confusing. Is it mentioned anywhere on wikipedia? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Old stuff. Needs taking out. Will do... William M. Connolley 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "needs taking out"? So this article is purely about Earth? Is there any article about global warming on other planets? Is it included in the other planets' articles? Is it not important enough to be notable? Is it because the importance of global warming on Earth is an infinite number of times more significant than global warming elsewhere? Thanks. (P.S. sorry if I added too many questions.) AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was decided that when people say global warming it goes without saying they're talking about earth. All other planet's temperatures rise and fall with the cycles of the sun so they all experience a global warming and cooling. The other planets with atmospheres, Mars, Venus, and moons like Titan, experience the greenhouse effect so if the amount of greenhouse gases were to rise they should experience a global warming effect like ours. I dont think there's a page but you could make one if you want, Global warming on other planets. Here's some info:   --Calibas 06:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraterrestrial global warming 

message: Without going into the scientific arguments about whether global warming is actually ocurring, what is causing it, and how much of it is going on, can we make a section on the POLITICAL implications of the global warming propenents?  So many regulations have been put into effect as a result of this that it surely should be documented here.  It is practically its own political movement.  While the article does refer to the Kyoto treaty, there is no other discussion. Jcc1 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, Global Warming has huge impacts on politics. Alot of politicians talk about it, and handling it in a wrong way would cost a politician votes in an election. Specusci 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political implications 

message: The expected effects section of this article is longer than all of the rest of the article combined.  Expected effects already has its own page -- we just need to briefly mention that there are a number of expected effects. Jcc1 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some scientists have concluded global warming is already causing death and disease across the world through flooding, environmental destruction, heat waves and other extreme weather events.  (Reuters, February 9 2006; archived)
Can you name one scientist who actually said this?  I don't think so.  It would have been in quotes in the Reuters article.  The Reuters article is an interpretation of a report.  That report, what scientists conducted it, what credentials those scientists actually have, what field of science they even study, and what those scientists actually said is conveniently not mentioned anywhere in the Wiki article.  Reuters writes headlines for newspapers.  They dont do scientific research.  Jcc1 21:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I just torched that bit -- the "some scientists" has to go per WP:WEASEL, and overall it rings of hyperbole.  Better to replace it with specific examples, such as recent studies that have linked heat waves with global warming (see esp in the context of the European heat wave of 2003). I'll add an example or two later. Raymond Arritt 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's validly sourced. Probably no single scientist referred to all of those effects, hence there's no quote. To soften the appearance of hyperbole, the sentence could be prefaced with "according to 2006 Lancet report..." KarlBunker 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expected effects 

message: I removed:
: Although global warming has been seen as potentially dangerous for some time, the first international attempt to define what constitutes a 'dangerous' level occurred at the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change scientific conference in February 2005. This took place in Exeter, United Kingdom under the UK presidency of the G8 .
At the conference it was said that increasing damage was forecast if the globe warms to about 1 to 3 °Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 °Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels . It was concluded that the stabilization of greenhouse gases at the equivalent of 450 ppmv CO2 would provide a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to the average figure of 2 °C (3.6 °F) . Stabilization below 400 ppm would give a relatively high certainty of not exceeding 2 °C, while stabilization at 550 ppm would mean it was likely that 2 °C would be exceeded . 
It was stated that unless 'urgent and strenuous mitigation actions' were taken in the next 20 years, it was almost certain that by 2050 global temperatures will have risen to between 0.5 and 2 °C (0.9 and 3.6°F) above current levels . With carbon dioxide levels currently around 381 ppm and rising by 2ppm per year, without such action greenhouse gasses are likely to reach 400ppm by 2016, 450ppm by 2041, and 550ppm by around 2091 .''
I don't think this conference was important or notable enough to deserve its own section here. Sorry I don't know who put this in. Jcc's fact tags are a bit silly cos there is a link to the conf pdfs. William M. Connolley 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea whether or not the article is relevant - nor if the conference was important or notable. But every fact that is asked to be quoted is in the executive summary (at least those few i checked before William put it here :-)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are alot of "citation needed" tags. Specusci 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining dangerous climate change 

message: This is a leading statement, and gives undue weight to one side of a debate.  It is not the job of wikipedia or any encyclopedia to take a position.  How about presenting evidence and letting the reader decide how stong it is or isn't?  Jcc1 03:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In spite of such strong evidence" 

message: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HughGRex (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I would say 99.99% of scientists beleive in global warming. What, do you want some street preacher listed as a critic? How silly. I am a Republican and totally beleive in the subject. The only critisisim comes from the uninformed and I beleive that Global Warming should be taught as a science in Public Schools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.43.144 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a criticisims page? 

message: The contribution '(at low angles of incident light, such as early morning, late afternoon and near the poles, water is more reflective than ice),' was replaced by modifying the previous work by adding the word 'average' to the sentence. Average is also true but hides the insight of the steep rise in reflectivity at shallow incident angles of light. The relation refers only to the angle between the direction of the photons and the surface of the water so 'direct beam (cloudless skies)' is not relevant. The issue of waves has been addressed  and is accounted for. At the scale of the wavelength of light, the reflectivity of water is always specular. The local angle of the (wavy) water surface is what must be used in the Fresnel calculation. Real (wavy) water reflectivity beyond about 60 degrees latitude exceeds the average reflectivity of land. Accounting for the extreme effect of the incident angle of light on reflectivity of water is mandatory for rational assessment of the effect of added water surface on global warming. Dan Pangburn 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of incident angle of light on reflectivity 

message: The "Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Records" graph has time increasing to the left on its x-axis, in opposition to convention and the rest of the graphs on the page. Perhaps it could be replotted? Dk2 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The beauty of having it in SVG instead of a PNG is that we don't need to replot it: it is easy enoug to simply directly edit the SVG in Inkscape. I've done that to reverse the x-axis. Leland McInnes 00:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent graph orientation 

message: The article clearly mentions positive feedback, but no negative feedback is mentioned.  It is a well-known fact that increased levels of carbon dioxide lead to increased planet growth.  Dr. Sylvan H. Wittwer (director emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station at East Lansing) has written the following article (pdf) http://www.heartland.org/pdf/23297z.pdf which argues that increased levels of carbon dioxide stimulate plant growth and therefore act as a negative feedback loop.  No mention of this fact is in the article.  I am seeking group consensus to change the positive feedback section to a simple feedback section with both positive and negative feedbacks mentioned.200.121.111.113 18:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An old non-peer-reviewed essay isn't a particularly good source. Plant uptake of CO2 is a climate-scale negative feedback only if the resulting biomass is prevented from re-entering the atmosphere (e.g., by burying it or other means). Otherwise, the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere when the plants die and begin decaying. Raymond Arritt 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've never much liked that section. And it repeats what is elsewhere. Also, the whole "effects" section is enoooooooooooorrrrmous despite having a seemain. Can a lot of it be cut? William M. Connolley 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a lot of it could be cut out. I vote for ten line summary of the whole section. As to this remark on negative feedback I think saying "net" positive would do. --BozMo talk 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its done. Complaints...? William M. Connolley 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, well done (I was on my way back to try). Corrected a little grammar thing. But there I think are still two parallel reference systems in the article and they need making consistent some time. --BozMo talk 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a list somewhere of the most significant positive and negative feedback mechansims for global warming?  This might be helpful. (Chrisnumbers2000 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Seriously, what are the mechanisms of positive and negative feedback listed in order of significance?  (Chrisnumbers2000 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No such ordered list is possible since the answer depends on the time scale and on the part of the system you're interested in, not to mention the fact that the processes interact nonlinearly.  In the short term the most important feedback is the water vapor feedback, which is positive. Raymond Arritt 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive and Negative Feedback 

message: Just wondering what people think about this site ...com/fightingthewaragainstglobalwarming?  Anyone think that we should place a link to this site from the Global warming article?  Why or why not?  Have a nice evening, 
Eric 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking over it, I don't think it is a particularly notable site for global warming.  It also uses the graph without attribution, which may be a copyright violation.  --TeaDrinker 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a copyright attribution to use photos from Wikipedia because all photos from Wikipedia are free for public use anywhere.  I think I agree with you maybe this link would not be the best for Wiipedia. Eric 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure your interpretation of the license is quite correct.  The image on the website allows for GFDL license or non-commercial share alike.  Both have restrictions on or requirements for use.  Here an attribution of main authorship is needed (possibly a link to Wikipedia is sufficient).  See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.  What you may be thinking of is Public Domain, which is some, but not all, Wikipedia images.  Some images are even used under fair use, meaning they have a purpose which may be limited even on Wikipedia (permitted on only some pages), and require a legal justification for use.  --TeaDrinker 06:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2704.htm said cooling trends are considered a mere "speed bump" peer-reviewed, etc.  I feel it should be included in some form. 200.121.111.113 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why this is interesting. The graphic of global T quite clearly shows year-to-year variations already William M. Connolley 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cooling Trends 

message: The problem here is that either "consensus" or "scientific consensus” is being used even in the presence of alternative points-of-view or even conflicting evidence. The result of this is that it makes it more difficult for scientists to inject updated evidence, theories, hypothesis, etc.. when it might differ with the majority-view. While I agree that the there is a high percentage of climatologists and meteorologists who support the idea that this phenomenon exists, there are enough members of these disciplines who disagree that it cannot be considered a consensus. Please consider revising the article to show that it is a "popular" or "majority" view, but not a consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.144.55.6 (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through all this fairly often before. We need a GW-talk-FAQ William M. Connolley 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hohoho! Talk:Global warming/FAQ. Now fill it with life! --Stephan Schulz 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would I fill it with life when you're just going to delete what I say?  You may think the Oreskes paper stands for a scientific consensus, but when the conclusions and methodology of the article are called into question, you just delete them?  Why don't I publish an article that says there's a scientific consensus that global warming was created by purple sea monkeys?  Then when you call me out, I can delete your comments too!  After all, I found a consensus! Oh and you also ignore the fact that the IPCC has been accused of bias when stating that the "IPCC position has been derived using a consensus process."  What does that even mean anyway? JQLibet 23:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I fear the people who most need to read  Talk:Global warming/FAQ will not.  We've had plenty of people who have criticized the main article with no evidence of having actually read it (claiming it says things that it doesn't, etc). Raymond Arritt 23:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least there is a repository of answers for copy&paste. And we can polish them over time, so there is less work and a better result than re-explaining the same stuff over and over again. I certainly have discusses water vapour 10 times already...  --Stephan Schulz 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please exclude the word "concensus" from various sections, and revise. 

message: I've listed :Image:Temperature comparison.PNG for deletion, since it seems either totally pointless, or perhaps because its intended to make some obscure point. But since the graphs are all anomalies anyway, adding a pile of extra whitespace is not useful William M. Connolley 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Temperature comparison.PNG 

message: I think the section on mitigation should include a link to geothermal power. Recent evidence indicates that this source might have great promise and the Wikipedia entry has some good information. Jacqueslacansan 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitigation 

message: Bush mentioned climate change in the SOTU last night. Think it's worth mentioning in the article?
"America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."
JPotter 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do with science though. And in fact really just political fluff. Admitting that GW is a serious challenge is vaguely new. How about politics of global warming? William M. Connolley 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I'll have a look. JPotter 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of the Union 

message: As a long established Wiki, I find the article is biased by the way some contributors abuse the concept of objectivity by blocking reasonable attempts to improve the quality of entries. The article concentrates for example on CO2 and doesn't mention other more important warming gases especally H2O, but also CH4 and NOx. Ths lowers the objectivity of the entry, and introduces a political bias into what should be a neutral entry.
Peterrhyslewis 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But CO2 IS the most important global warming gas. It is more important than H2O because it is anthropogenic, and it is more important than CH4, at least for now, because it lasts much longer in the atmosphere, ditto NOx. regards sbandrews 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Peter, I suggest you read beyond the first paragraph: Global warming#Greenhouse_gases_in_the_atmosphere has NH4 and NOX. Water vapour is in a dynamic equilibrium in the athmosphere, and hence is not a climate forcing, but only acts as an amplifier and is discussed in Greenhouse gas#The_role_of_water_vapor. The uncertainty about the effect of clouds is in Global warming#Climate_models and in Global climate model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming. --Stephan Schulz 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's puzzling that you missed all twelve (12) mentions of methane in the article. Raymond Arritt 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CO2 is not the most important warming gas: water vapour is much more efficient, as you will observe on an FTIR spectrum taken in air. It is immedately perceived when clouds gather over a cold surface and when the humdity increases in a dry atmosphere. It shpould thus be put up front in any article which claims to neutrality, and lack of plitical bias. Peterrhyslewis 10:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i said 'But CO2 IS the most important global warming gas', you said, 'CO2 is not the most important warming gas' , is it just me, or did you miss the word global out? Was this a mistake, because this is an article about 'global warming', not 'warming'. If you want warming, I suggest a blanket :) sbandrews 10:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an old argument; see greenhouse gas for why WV doesn't dominate. Incidentally, you missed the obvious error in water vapour is much more efficient... It is immedately perceived when clouds gather over a cold surface... William M. Connolley 11:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also see Talk:Global warming/FAQ#Water_vapour_is_the_most_important_greenhouse_gas.21. --Stephan Schulz 11:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Credibility of Article

message: Several editors today have inserted the word allegedly into the first sentence.  It reads something like Global warming is the allegedly observed and theorized increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future.  It seems to me that such words are giving undue weight to a very small minority who do not believe global warming is observed.  There is only one person listed on the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus.  It would be a bit like say "hiv is alledgedly the virus that some have theorized causes aids."  It simply does not reflect what the vast majorities of professionals believe.  --TeaDrinker 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The definition was in fact in contradiction with the remain of the article. the goal of wikipedia is to provide information based on the best available data, not to criticize this data. If in the future this consensus of scientists proves to be wrong, so be it: the encyclopaedias (including wikipedia) will be changed. Until them, I stick with the closest thing to scientific consensus.--Ninarosa 04:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  allegedly 

message: I suggest that every one that is talking about global warming today would realize that the term, “warming” changes the topic from just talk to a discussion of energy.
The energy guru of all times was Sir Isaac Newton who lived in the seventeenth century. His work was and still is the authority on questions of energy of all kinds. Any one talking global warning should do a google search on energy forms and learn what they are talking about.
In his work he stated that almost all energy on earth is or was furnished by the sun. He also stated that energy is conserved meaning that it does not dissipate or diminish. It has been stacking up for at least four million years and our scientific community should answer the question, “where did it go?” before we buy the story that something that we are doing is having a negative effect on the ozone and causing global warming.
I believe that this daily layer of energy is absorbed as heat and has been radiating to the center of the earth for four million years and melting rock. There is no other place with that much stored energy on earth.
I also believe that the coefficient of expansion of the crust of the earth being warmed from below causes pressure that causes upheavals that they call "mountains caused by earth quakes." These mountains even look like the upheavals in our roadways caused by summer heat and the coefficient of expansion of the road material but on a larger scale.
When there is a fault such as a break the pressure that caused the break sets the broken piece of the crust in motion away from the break floating on the magma. The kinetic energy or energy of motion initiated by the momentary impulse caused by the break is equal to the weight of the land mass times it’s velocity squared. I believe also that the magma gets bigger and the crust gets thinner with time and the earth tends to swell as the suns heat builds up because of it‘s coefficient of expansion.
Thus I believe that global warming is a non man made fact that we can’t do a thing about. However, it has been happening for four million plus years and I have no real reason to run and hide yet.
I have been in the engineering field all of my working career and would welcome discussion as to the possible feasibility of these statements from the scientific field.
Retired8903 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Newton was a great scientist, but not a great expert on energy. Thermodynamics as a field was in its very infancy during his lifetime. You suggestion is not compatible with current physics. The Earth, as any body not at absolute zero, is radiating energy as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Intake and outflow very nearly match, or it would have melted long ago. The Second law of thermodynamics makes it impossible that there is a net energy flow from the relatively cool surface to the molten interior of the earth. Sorry. --Stephan Schulz 08:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, You surprise me. I thought that Rutherford established that the Earth would have cooled completely in about 10 million years without an internal energy source and that it was background radiation in the rock which keeps the Earth's core hot and means outflow is slightly more than inflow... --BozMo talk 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read carefully: "Intake and outflow very nearly match..."--Stephan Schulz 11:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try! "Very nearly" was said in the context of net balance implied over geological timescales, which isn't correct. By the way did you know there was a Flanders and Swann song on the Second Law of Thermodynamics? ("Heat won't flow from the cooler to the hotter, You can try it if you like but you'd far better notter"). Out of interest any idea how does the net outflow compare to the solar energy falling per square meter?  --BozMo talk 11:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was in the context of inflow and outflow of radiation. I don't have the exact numbers handy, but the net difference is so small that it is normally ignored in most models. Solar inflow (averaged over all earth surface) is about 342 Watts per m^2), and I seem to remember that radioactive decay is at least 3 orders of magnitude smaller.--Stephan Schulz 12:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming another viewpoint