Talk:Climate change/Archive 7

message: Please read the new articles and consider commenting on them and/or moving some material to either one. Note that climate forcings is not specific to global climate forcings, so if it makes sense to create a separate section please do.
I hope this helps get this part of Wikipedia sorted out.
Posted to all discussion pages listed in the "See Also" section of global climate change.
--Ben 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Articles: [[Global climate change]] and [[Climate forcings]] 

message: (William M. Connolley 20:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CM -> GCM 

message: Global warming is the central underpinning of Environmentalism which is Communism repackaged for consumption by Westerners who are used to abundance (this unsigned comment by User:JohnSmith777).
You damned fool: Communist governments had far less concern for the environment than modern Western governments. As well, the tenents of environmentalism far predate global warming concers, though currently, GW is a central issue. --D. Franklin 04:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
: Please remove your personal attack from your comment, it is considered flaming. -- Natalinasmpf 05:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To a neocon or even any con... 

message: The bias of certain posters from sci.environment and alt.global-warming is evident in this wikipedia article.  A better article that frames the issues in terms of pros and cons instead of 'received wisdom circa 2005' is this site:  http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming-controversy User: raylopez99
:Which was copied from global warming controversy.   — Cortonin | Talk 08:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This link better 

message: I came across the article to discuss add in the content that a rise in carbon dioxide levels is more crucial than what the article said before (due to carbon dioxide starvation and all), but then I realised "positive effects" meant the positive effects of global warming...now, global warming doesn't cause CO2 increases, no? Also, the argument also runs not the either way round for a certain extent (the heat trapping effects plotted on a graph, for example, levels off)...I added in my content, but I was kind of too bedazzled to fix it (yet). Does someone with free time have time to fix this? -- Natalinasmpf 01:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually there are a number of records which show past warming events took place before CO2 increases.  (SEWilco 02:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm yes, I just remembered that was one of the arguments against the Kyoto protocol. But what I meant is that generally, the idea that "increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (a suffocating 300-600 parts per million to plants, compared to 210,000 parts per million of oxygen) increases plant growth" should be listed as a proponent for benefits of increased carbon dioxide, not global warming itself. -- Natalinasmpf 02:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps CO2 effects should be in the carbon cycle article.  However, if there is any relationship between CO2 and warming then perhaps it should be mentioned among effects.  And have you seen a heat trapping graph?  (SEWilco 02:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I have, but in my perspective I have always considered this a side effect that carbon dioxide isn't linearly related (neither exponentially, maybe more like a quartic function or an S-shaped kind of one) to rise in global temperatures, rather than the fact global warming causes carbon dioxide increase. My proposal is to mention the argument that "carbon dioxide increase" may not cause global warming in the first place, never mind the benefits of any global warming should it take palce. And that while at the same time, carbon dioxide may also be beneficial. -- Natalinasmpf 03:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "the fact global warming causes carbon dioxide increase": Actually, there tends to be an increase in methane after warming, with CO2 increasing even later.  And after the chemical acrobatics in the atmosphere, methane breaks down into water and CO2.  If this stuff were simple… (SEWilco 04:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  positive effects of carbon dioxide != positive effects of global warming 

message: (William M. Connolley 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DragonFlight attempt at compromise 

message: I've deleted the 2kyr graph, why is the year 2004 plotted even though it should be off the graph.  Is the instrumental data decadally smoothed?  How are the boundaries handled, especially the hockey stick end where only the black instrumental line appears.--Silverback 04:15, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:The x-axis runs 0 AD (or whatever you want to call it) - 2004 AD to accommodate the 2004 point, which is the single value for that year.  The black line for the instrumental data is smoothed the same as everything else.  The smoothed records are 5 years shorter at each end than the original data.  Anything else?  Dragons flight 04:53, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, how can the smoothed instrumental data be 5 years shorter than the original data and have a 2004 point?  Also, how did you place the decadal smoothing relative to the year it is plotted, shouldn't you have used an odd number of points for your smoothing. What should the last plotted year be with your smoothing? If you "center" your 10 pt stencil on the year, you will have 5 pts on one side and 4 on the other.  Which side is the 5 on? --Silverback 04:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::The 2004 point is simply the annual average for 2004, and is shown for a present day reference, if you want to add a comment to the caption about this, be my guest, but it hardly seems a reason to remove the whole plot.  The smoothed record, which is shown as the dark line, ends in 1999.  As noted on the image description page it is actually σ = 5 year Gaussian weighted moving average.  In other words, if T(t) is the Temperature record as a function of time then the average is given by 
:::\bar{T}(t) = {\sum_{k=t_o}^{t_{max}} T(k)*e^{-(t-k)^2 \over 2 \sigma^2} \over \sum_{k=t_o}^{t_{max}} e^{-(t-k)^2 \over 2 \sigma^2}}
:::As you will note, \bar{T}(t) actually is defined for all times t and uses the data T(t) at all measured times in determining the average.  However, because the Gaussian is a rapidly varying function of k, it is mostly determined by k in the interval [t-σ,t+σ], and it is usually considered reasonable to report the averaged values to within σ of the end of the record.  Dragons flight 05:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
::::So approximately 68% of the weight is within an 11pt stencil centered the year being calculated.  I wonder what happens when it runs into the end, is something reasonable assumed for the 16% of the weight that gets lopped off at.  I am going to self revert, and place a comment in the caption. If you redo this to incorporate later analyses, it would be better not to mix individual data points with smoothed data.--Silverback 08:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I disagree with respect to the 2004 point.  A reasonable person can conclude whether or not it is likely to be consistent with a continuation of the trend.  A sceptical person can go look at the other plots and decide whether 2004 is an anomalous outlier (I would say it is not).  In my opinion it is more useful than confusing, however I have added a note about that point to the image description page.  Dragons flight 13:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
::::::That is what is deceptive about the graph, the 2004 point looks consistent with the trend because of the compressed time scale, even if the 2005 is even higher, the smoothed curve will pass below that 2004 point, and since the black line is based on unadjusted raw data, it probably should not even be on the chart, even if it was used to scale the other data.--Silverback 21:13, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::SB, I'm not clear what you are objecting to when you say the black line shouldn't be on the chart.  As far as whether or not 2004 is consistent with the trend, I just ran the following test:  I fit a line to the black curve from 1980 to 1999 and asked what value it would project for 2004.  The difference between that and the reported value for 2004 is a tiny 0.005 °C (with the line being below the point).  However, 0.005 °C is basically a rounding error when it comes to climate.  Had it been an El Nino or La Nina year in 2004 you could get deviations of 0.1 °C.  Obviously, this is just one test, and a fairly arbitrary one at that, but in my opinion there is nothing about the 2004 data point that is inconsistent with the long-term trend.  Dragons flight 22:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions about 2kyr graph 

message: Would it be sensible to cite Michael Crichton's book State of Fear as a reference for reading?  I recently read the book, and although its sci-fi attributes lean more to the fictional genre more than the scientific, Crichton did some pretty extensive research, as displayed in the book's bibliography.  OK, so I'm adding it.  If anyone cares, you can sue me or just remove the edition.  =)  Regards, Salva 20:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 15:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for a reference 

message: Quote: "The current scientific consensus on global warming might be summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In their Third Assessment Report, they concluded that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
I did not know there is a concensus now.
: (William M. Connolley 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I give up - it is still biased 

message: Shouldn't there be a WikiProject Climate Change to help coordinate the various articles around the topic? Also, I suggest that it would be worth trying to create a simple entry page aimed at laymen with no knowledge of the subject, sans confusing detail and too many references. Maybe Global warming and Global warming (advanced) - that kind of concept anyway. It would really be useful to have a more stable, easier overview, and keep the discussion of the developing scientific details a little bit tucked away. Take a minute to think about the average reader, people. Rd232 09:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be nice! But with such polarised views and with each side minutely inspecting the other's contributions, and (rightly) insisting on citations, I'd be very surprised if any summary would survive a deluge of edits. There seems to be such strong disagreement even on the underlying approach the "Global warming" article(s) should adopt. See, only as a sad example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin. Thincat 10:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth a try though. I do think since much of the disagreement is about detail, it should be possible to summarise the general issues in a moderately non-controversial way. Does the average reader really want to go straight into scary graphs and discussion about recent data on the effects of urban heat islands? Or be faced with paragraphs like this: A new reconstruction by Moberg, et al, published in Nature 433, 613 - 617 (10 February 2005)  shows both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age anomalies (although not by name) and concludes that the temperatures around 1000 and 1100 AD were comparable to those of the 20th century before 1990. "Moberg's reconstruction will help to put the record straight in one of the most contested issues in palaeoclimatology," says Hans von Storch. "But it does not weaken in any way the hypothesis that recent observed warming is a result mainly of human activity." . Moberg's results are consistent with those of Von Storch, et al, who conducted a modeling analysis that showed the variability to be about twice as great as previously published Science 306, 679 - 682 (2004) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1096109|). Rd232 17:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Climate Change 

message: Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:
Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin
 
by William M. Connolley
 
 
 
Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case. 
--mav 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary injunction 

message: I'm re-inserting the realclimate.org reference as a discussion and critique of the paper at Envirotruth.org  as well as the published Nature article. Seems appropriate to me. Vsmith 16:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we in turn have a reference to a similar discussion and criticism of the Oreskes paper?  After all, it's pretty easy to check that Oreskes paper does not actually describe the 928 abstracts which result from looking up "climate change" as she claims in the paper, and there are valid criticisms about the subjectivity of assessing the degree of support in the abstract.   — Cortonin | Talk 20:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 22:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey V, perhaps you'd care to explain why a blog is a valid source to criticize a peer-reviewed article.  I mean, it seems pretty lopsided to me - rather like using extracts from the editorial page to refute something on the front page.  Shouldn't we steer clear of the "apples and oranges" comparison here?  Sorry, but "seems appropriate to me" isn't really a good enough reason to put opinion on the same level with scholarship.  --JonGwynne 06:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 22:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RealClimate.org discussion