Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

message: I think this page is looking really good now. I'm looking into the politics aspect at the moment, if anyone has come across notable good links in their net travels could you please post them here so we can look at this important issue. Hypnosadist 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just came here to comment that you guys have done a wonderful job. The simple, short bulleted points make getting the point extremely easy. Keep up the good work! NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Job People

message: William, I don't think that Pielke's support for the IPCC report is irrelevant. (Indeed, I think that the fact that he agrees with the content of the report makes his subsequent denouncement of the politically charged and unscientific nature of the IPCC process all the more credible).
I do not think we need this second Pielke quote on the content of the report because:
1. We already have his original quote (issued in the context of the Landsea letter) expressing his positive assessment of the content of the report.
[Pielke] expressed his opinion that the report "maintain[s] consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts."
2. The second quote was issued in response to an accusation that Pielke is in disagreement with the content of the IPCC report. We (wisely) do not mention this accusation in our article since it proved unfounded. I don't see why we would need his response to the accusation in our article if we don't even discuss the accusation. (and I don't see how discussing either the accusation or his response would actually improve the article) 66.92.77.23 10:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, I largely agree with you. But please mark your reverts as such (rv) William M. Connolley 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that, I consistently forget to label my changes (failure to mark rv being but a small part of that)66.92.77.23 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pielke 

message: The "summary" publications from IPCC 4 appear to lack even a single specific proposal to replace a carbon-emitting energy source with a nonemitting source, analyzed in terms of technology, capital, operating cost and environmental consequences. Does the ICCC publish any such specifics, or are they just continuing as policy wonks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.21.56 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been quite a while, but nobody replied to this yet (maybe a case of not rising to the bait...) Anyway, this is not a fair criticism of the IPCC; it was not in their brief to spell out what technologies will be necessary or sufficient to respond to this challenge. Rather, their task is to review and sum up the scientific case for the existence of the problem. Yes, politicians and society have a responsibility to come up with those solutions, but you can't just suggest that the IPCC should not report the problem just because we all have not yet settled on all the solutions. Anyway, there is plenty of analysis of technology specifics, including costs and impact, in the Working Group III section on "mitigation." The full WGIII report is online at: http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html with the relevant material on mitigation in this PDF file: http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/final%20pdfs%20of%20chapters%20WGIII/IPCC%20WGIII_chapter%204_final.pdf Go to page 272 and following for their overview of renewable energy sources including hydroelectric, wind, solar, biomass, etc.Birdbrainscan 03:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICC 4 Specifics Missing 

message: I moved the criticism of IPCC AR4 onto its own page for two reasons, as noted the article is already very lengthy, and also as noted there is some logic behind the page detailing what is in just AR4, not history, reaction, etc etc etc.  I also think that some of the info from Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming could be incorporated into the page and that poorly defined WP:BLP disaster waiting to happen page eventually deleted.  Although I don't think it should be a list of guys criticizing (like SOtMSAoGW), but of concepts with various support quotes.--Theblog 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted the language; "too optimistic" is not a proper English description of the criticism described. The initial criticism summary also misses a third common criticism. William M. Connolley reverted my edit with a confusing comment ("needs to reflect see-main"). Please discuss instead of simply reverting; let's follow wikipedia guidelines please. Mr Pete 20:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it goes against the Wikipedia POV fork policy to remove the criticisms to a separate page. Please restore the criticism to this page, where it belongs. "All facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." Mr Pete 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I feel compelled to add that the modifier major is key.  Per WP:WEIGHT, small minority views don't merit more than brief mention in the main article.  In their own article, they can get covered in detail.  Jim Butler(talk) 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Criticism onto its own page 

message: I agree with whoever put up the need more references tag.
It would be nice if lines were referenced to page or at least chapter in some way.  While many here are probably able to figure out where they can look up more regarding something like (just as an example of a random line): "Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years." most people would have no idea where to start to find that in the report.  As the article is now, it is fairly worthless and unhelpful with finding main points, you might as well go straight to the SPM and go from there.  I am not sure the best way to reference specific lines and still have the article look halfway decent though, maybe just grp, chpt, page or something like that.  Or I suppose a direct link to the page, if available, although I don't think it is right now.--Theblog 04:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts are that the language makes it clear that the statements are coming from the SPM.  It's available in PDF, and it's simple enough to do a search for text in quotes.  The paraphrased items are somewhat harder to find, but I don't think it would look right to have a page # reference on every line.  I'm not taking down the more references tag, but I don't agree with it. Mishlai 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page references are important because the article paraphrases AR4 quite a bit. At Wikipedia:Citing_sources they offer a style guideline, "Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article." Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think the best way to reference pages is with a linked reference number, because more than one AR4 document can be referenced for each Working Group. The section "Mitigation of Climate Change" shows use of this method. It will be handy to reference page numbers in the respective SPM, because paragraphs there have references to chapters in that Working Group's full report. Char Truth (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line by line references 

message: Hello there. The reason this article failed to make GA status is because when I was seeing if this article met the Quick Fail criteria, I noticed that the article was still tagged with to clean up/reference improving templates. According to the criteria if a GAC is tagged with the above templates it should be quick failed. I reccommend you address the issues that those template bring up. Then perhaps relist it for a GA nom status. Thanks, --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failed Nom 

message: The sentence "A third criticism is that lead authors tend to be biased in favor of their own circle's POV, to the neglect of alternative views." is poorly written. As someone has already argued in favor of keeping this sentence, I suggest that it either be improved to something like "A third criticism is that the lead authors tend to be biased to the neglect of alternative views." Although perfectly valid for policy and talk pages, the POV abbreviation is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article itself, unless it is relevant for the particular topic at hand, e.g., if an article on POV warrior existed (which I don't think it necessarily should). Also, the criticism itself should be sourced. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that there are 3 main crit. There are 2; the third is very much aminority and not "main" William M. Connolley 10:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term POV in the article itself 

message: The :Category:IPCC lead authors is used to identify the lead authors of the IPCC reports but is currently being considered for deletion at: :Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 8. 
Should this come to pass, I was wondering whether this information should be held as a list on this article or could it fit on its own list page, rather like: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Preferences? Ephebi 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there only 19 lead authors? Either way, a list makes sense—whether or not the category itself is deleted. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * There is one lead author per chapter, and several leads were retained from report to report, but a list page would need some work in order to collate and classify them. The CfD discussion is still open for comments and the deletion hasn't been decided yet.  Ephebi 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC) There's way more than 19 lead authors.  I haven't counted but a good guess would be something like 150-200. Each chapter has a couple of Coordinating Lead Authors, a dozen or so Lead Authors, and a somewhat larger number of Contributing Authors. Raymond Arritt 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is as Raymond said. I started categorizing those lead authors whom I found already had WP bios; at the category's talk page I've linked one PDF containing a list of the authors of one AR chapter. It would actually take a fair bit of digging simply to collate a list of all the authors, as they are mainly listed at the chapter level, and there have been 4 ARs.Birdbrainscan 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead authors 

message: Hi editors, I suggest to add one more picture to the article. So far, there is only one, although the article is quite long. I would suggest to add
this picture to the section "Factors that warm or cool the planet", because its informative and easy to grasp. Do you have any objections? --Splette :) How's my driving? 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image needs to be edited at the Commons to add a description. It is important to describe associations with human activities or natural processes because the image does not show them. The IPCC figure the image is based on does show them on the graph. The IPCC description also clarifies that the only increase in natural forcing of any significance occurred in solar irradiance. Char Truth (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional image?

message: I found the image "IPCC AR4 WGIII GHG concentration stabilization levels.png" and it's explanation to be quite confusing.  Specifically, it is said to show "equilibrium global mean temperature change above preindustrial" but makes no indication to dates, either "preindustrial" or when this data is supposed to be predicting (is this a comparison from the past to now, or sometime in the future?).  The section it is adjacent to in the article talks about climate change in the 21st century, but I feel that a hundred years is not specific, and this is not explicitly linked to the image itself.
Also, and I may be nitpicking, the colouring I thought to be emotive.  The progression from green to red to gray seems to add a pejorative interpretation of acceptable temperature increase without any justification.
In conclusion, it seems to have been taken directly from the IPCC report, with no modification, and think it is confusing/misleading out of its context.  If I'm not missing the point of the graph, could someone with good knowledge to the reports/subject clear the description up?
ScyllaMutt (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no times because this is equilibrium William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK thanks, I understand that now.  However the tag for the picture, and the x axis label say "stabilization" of GHG levels, but the description page for the picture says "equilibrium global mean temperature change above preindustrial".  So, is the equilibrium with the GHG levels, the temp or both? And you say there are no times, but this is in the section of the article titled "Model-based projections for the future", so this is going to lead readers to think the graph *is* a prediction of the future. Was there no time qualification in the report it was taken from? ScyllaMutt (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Equilibrium means, you increase the GHG levels (to a fixed level) and then wait until the temperature change stops. Its not a realistic prediction of future conditions, but a way of intercomparing the effect of a given GHG level William M. Connolley (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GHG concentration stabilization levels graph 

message: God damn propaganda, i hope that some real science will be included in this article. --Striver - talk 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: I just chopped out the updates section. I did this rather quickly, but it does not look like it belongs in the AR4 article to me William M. Connolley (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: When I heard about all the errors our papers have been finding lately in this report, particularly related to bad sourcing such as to the WWF or unpublished papers, etc., I keep thinking back to Wikipedia standards for reliable sources and other specific rules for references.
I think the IPCC should adopt Wikipedia standards.  It would certainly improve their reports.  What do you think?  Alice Lyddel (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's an entertainng thought, but not appropriate for discussion on talk pages which are about improving articles. A blog or two discussing the issue might be a better place for debating the idea. dave souza, talk 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC Assessment reports should use Wikipedia standards 

message: I added a reference to the criticism section, for two reasons. The minor reason is that there was a tag noting it had no references. The major reason is that the announcement of a review panel by the UN itself, it a major item. While the article addressed some of the specific criticisms, so some might argue belongs in the criticism article itself, the main point of this article is the review panel, not the underlying criticisms, each of which has been documented or could be documented in the criticism article itself. 
As an alternative, this item could be noted in the Criticism article as well, but as this section should serve as an overview of the main issues, I felt it belonged here.--SPhilbrickT 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT article on UN independent review board 

message: The WGII links aren't working. While footnote 16 does work, it is now a discussion of plans for the fifth assessment, not a summary of the fourth. Footnotes 17 and 18, presumably to the actual reports, are not working. I briefly poked around, thinking it would be easy to find, and I suspect it is, but I failed. Can someone else take a look for good links? Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The link in Reference 1 is also not working for me - http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/ar4.html Hilmar (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to have been written when the first reports were released, so, yeah, a bunch of links were broken. I have have brought in canonical IPCC references and revised most of the citations.  There are some citations where I question what is beng cited (independently of whether the link works), but someone else should come back and sort that out.  And all the none IPCC citations/references I leave to the original editors. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WGII links aren't working 

message: Could someone fix links please? All links are broken, and the only pdfs I could find online seem to be different version, as page numbers don't match. If you have some free time to find correct links and make sure page numbers match, it would be awesome, thanks. (also applies to other articles on global warming)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.120.104 (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  All links broken 

message: The diagram used across wikipedia is incorrect.  It shows NO2 having a significant radiative forcing.  It should read N2O.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.119.241 (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  radiative forcing diagram 

message: Mostly done with the IPCC citation updates, but some fundamental problems remain with the sources (and writing) of this article.  E.g.: references to reports that "will be released in ... 2007", use of draft reports, lack of specific page (or section) numbers, incomplete citations, a reference to the Third AR, etc.  I have tagged some of these, but the article really needs to be reviewed, and somewhat rewritten. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: Judith: a small quibble with your edit
here. Strictly speaking, the section is not about "the various" scenarios, but specifically the SRES secenarios.  I gather your objection is to using an acronym in the header; I don't what to say about that except that using an acronym seems (to me) to be clearer, more concise, and efficient. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SRES scenarios 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071124032424/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2007/TECH/science/05/03/climate.report.ap/index.html?eref=rss_world to http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/03/climate.report.ap/index.html?eref=rss_world
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515101534/http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=environment&storyID=2007-02-03T144510Z_01_L03357553_RTRIDST_0_DCBRIGHTS-GLOBALWARMING-APPEAL-DC.XML to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=environment&storyID=2007-02-03T144510Z_01_L03357553_RTRIDST_0_DCBRIGHTS-GLOBALWARMING-APPEAL-DC.XML
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170203204825/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc%2Femission%2F to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc%2Femission%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218181000/http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/health/16614710.htm to http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/health/16614710.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712111916/http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf to http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf
*Added  tag to http://unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=499&ArticleID=5506&l=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621194329/http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php/component/content/article/3163 to http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php/component/content/article/3163
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100718171134/http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php/component/content/article/28-all-videos/3162-lessons-from-the-climate-wars-the-future-of-the-ipcc to http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php/component/content/article/28-all-videos/3162-lessons-from-the-climate-wars-the-future-of-the-ipcc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621185550/http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php/component/content/article/3161 to http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php/component/content/article/3161
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722044146/http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/550 to http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/550
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion