Talk:Climate change/Archive 19

message: Does anyone else feel that the intro does not meet Wikipedia standards in regards to being a concise summary that keeps the reader interested?  While there is a much bigger debate going on, I feel that the intro should be labeled for editing.  Alex 10:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now would be a very poor time for trying to re-write the intro. OTOH if you want to discuss it here, feel free. If its not concise enough, what do you want to cut? William M. Connolley 11:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the Size and Content of the Intro

message: Given that CO2 levels are currently about 100ppm above the usual 100ppm rise associated with interglacial periods, and given that temperatures usually drop in the tens of degrees F at night due to radiation losses, and given that volcanic eruptions have caused a 2 degree drop in temperature over a year (no mention of the rate of change, just the duration), why has the 100ppm CO2 change over the past century or so not caused a temperature change equivalent to the normal 8 degree C rise associated with the interglacial period? 
I understand ice cap melting and ocean temperature theories, but that does not enter perceptibly into the day to day temperature variations due to radiation. Something else must be causing the temperature change. The heat just escapes faster than the atmosphere can stop it. Tobyw 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All interesting questions, but a Wikipedia talk page is not really the place for a tutorial on energy balances. You might consider looking at an introductory meteorology textbook. The one by Ahrens is reasonably good, and a used copy of the previous edition can be had for US$20 or less. Raymond Arritt 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sun spot activity and weather are both measurable with historic records. There is an acknowledged relation which works over hundreds of years. For the same reason it is easy to eliminate as a reason for what is happening now. --BozMo talk 10:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rates and Degrees of Change

message: The map of the global temperature anomalies (variation from mean) is said to be based on instrument recordings.  This is highly misleading.  The articles referenced explain that the maps are, in fact, based on models of expected surface temperature change, and not actual measurements of surface temperature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.31.101 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The images in the article aren't what they are purported to be

message: no..i think ur going to see a further massive loss of species...the warming is too rapid...humans already have the technology to preserve species...thats not the issue...the issue is the humans want greater and greater share of the planet and its resources...the humans will increase their pressure on all the species habitats...and this on top of the warming will really slam them and we'll see a massive extinction event...in fact we already do...we are currently documenting the massive extinction event...it started long ago...the scientific establishment is currently documenting a massive extinction event...if the humans drastically reduced their impact on the environment, and reduced their share of the land and sea areas, perhaps the species could better adapt to the increasing temperatures...who thinks that is going to happen tho???..the species best shot is perhaps reverting the temps to a steady state...Benjiwolf 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are going to see many more species becoming extinct. However, the root cause of this will not be Global Warming. It will be habitat loss caused by human overpopulation. Just look at the Brazillian Rainforests. They are being destroyed in order to make way for cattle ranches and soya farms. Global Warming is not to blame. Kyoto will not solve these problems. We should be concentrating on habitat preservation, population controls, education. Spending a trillion dollars a year just to slow the rate of warming by seven years (Which is all that Kyoto will do, even if the so-called consensus is correct), is lunacy. The planet and its species face immediate problems today. Global Warming is no more than a distraction from the real problems.Grimerking 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: as to grimerking and species migration

message: after reading some of the latest discussions on POV in this article...i can see people are quite emotional about this page...i enjoyed the post by lordsreform with the picture of the zurich witch burnings...we indeed went crazy over here in switzerland back in those days 1400s...if u were in the out group...a protestant in a catholic town...or vice versa...you were looking at trouble...and it seems to me that if witch burnings were still legal, we would see a slew of people burned at the stake that contribute to this page on both sides of the arguments, by fellow wikipedia users and editors of these pages...anyways...yet i do think "lordsreform" was getting a bit over emotional...(we like to see that on the talk pages tho)...the other authors werent disputing a "peak oil concept"...its obvious and self-evident that oil will eventually run out...i think they were disputing its timing...yet as to governments not being able to curb CO2 emissions...i think u are very wrong...governments can do whatever they wish...they have armies...and nuclear weapons even in many cases...they can do whatever...including reduce CO2 emissions...its just that they might not want to for various reasons...Benjiwolf 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ow this is a heated one

message: We may want to work this into the article:
White House accused of misleading public on climate-change
Seems to me that global warming is now more politics than science. If you want the truth about global warming listen to the view of the vast majority of experts on global warming, climate scientists. Otherwise, tell yourself that the actions of individual humans can't possibly have an effect on the entire world. Tell yourself that everything is okay and that other people will solve all your problems, no change is required on the part of the individual. 
I believe that global warming is a message of hope. Yes, it shows us that we have the power to drastically alter the entire world, but why does this have to be a negative thing? What if we decided tomorrow to slow and eventually stop greenhouse gas emissions? What then? --Calibas 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a sentence or two about the congressional hearing today and the allegations that provided the impetus for it should definitely be mentioned in Wikipedia.  I'll do it myself if you or someone else doesn't do it soon.  However, this information belongs in the "Politics of global warming" article, not the "Global warming" article. Here's another article on the topic: Panel hears climate 'spin' allegations -- MrRedact 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Warming Disinformation

message: The public opinions expressed at this BBC news forum may make for some interesting reading
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5386&&edition=2&ttl=20070131033711 (Chrisnumbers2000 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate Change: To act or not?

message: Just thought it would be worth noting this AfD here -- result was to merge and redirect the article here. The redirect is in place. If anybody wants to see the page history for merging, feel free. Keep up the excellent work, everybody. Luna Santin 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were 2 votes for redirect here; 2 for redir to GWC. I prefer GWC so I've changed it to that William M. Connolley 09:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A little after the fact, but that sounds fine by me. ;) Definitely an area where being more familiar with the article layout helps. Luna Santin 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate alarmism]]

message: Talk:Global warming/FAQ
:needed its own section--Lincoln F. Stern 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQ for the Global Warming Talk page

message: I am just downloading the free NASA GW Simulator from http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ for PC/Mac etc.  
I am shocked that it doesnt seem to be in the links anywhere and I think they are a mess anyway.
I can only suggest breaking up and reordering the link somewhat and I am going to add this one.
I suggest adding an "Educational" section where this could go along with anything I guess clearly related for schools, undergrads, uni etc. - there are some lecture notes there I noticed. 
Any comments? Mattjs 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think I will do it add my link and come back and move some of them later or let some editor sort it out (got a feeling the editors here are going to be real polite to a non-vandal non-controversial supportive poster like me! :-) Mattjs 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ext links here tend to get into a mess, and to bloat. If you want to try sorting them out, that sounds good. William M. Connolley 14:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a style guide for it? Might be the first one I actiually read! I'll read any guide there may be and have a go at reading through them then sorting them out on a lazy Sunday.  Aside from ordering and grouping like the new heading suggested above some have hyphnes, some not, some start with the link and some start with the author first rather than after... Could have a Video section for videos and Software instead of Educational though I can see a few good ones to go under Educational Mattjs 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the style guide. Mattjs 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-ordering and improving External links and perhaps adding an "Educational" links section

message: Global warming is a more specific case of 'global climate change', not 'climate change' as global climate change refers to the change in average climate of the world as does global warming, where as climate change would normally refer to a localised climate change and its analog would thus be warming. BBC uses the term global climate change. (Bouncingmolar 07:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. Again, some people should really learn a little bit what is a (scientific) reliable source. The entry here, 'Global Warming', is first of all a scientifc subject (despite the critical political and societal implications). It needs scientifically recognized references, at least as long as the science is discussed. A conference proceeding and a journalistic article in the New Scientists, relying on a student report, are of very little scientific value for a mainstream article designed for an encyclopedia (even if they could fit in a dedicated 'controversies' list, and are probably of interest for future advanced research (though it is clear it is already considered in some ways...)). I am surprised that a scientist can't even see this evidence! Moreover, it would be good to pay more attention to the subtilities of these papers (something I am sure an expert in the renewable energy problem will be able to do ;-) ): only conventionnal reserves are considered, and the problem of coal is ignored ! This clearly limit the range of these studies ... --Galahaad 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW there is a view on 2050 total hydrocarbon published by Shell in 2001 here: . Shell assumes that people make changes influenced by climate change. The conclusions are (1) affordability of energy will not curtail consumption (2) oil production starts declining around 2040 (3) there is 15000 EJ (central estimate, wide range) conventional gas and "perhaps" 13000 EJ unconventional gas. Note 1bn bbl oil = 5.8 EJ.  It is worth a read: they assume CO2 production will peak but in line with IPCC forecasts as far as I can see. --BozMo talk 15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be pointed out that supporters of the peak oil view such as Matthew Simmons dispute views such as this. And argue that oil etc reserves have been overeported for political reasons, and are in fact much closer to depletion than many would believe. G-Man * 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, and I understand that in Wikipedia this alternative view needs to be given appropriate space. Personally I am never going to be convinced: I used to work near the top of Shell, knew the people who produced the numbers and think that the suggestion is ridiculous. If there was any bias IMHO it was a bias toward sensational (i.e. low reserves because it is more of a problem). This bias is the same as the natural bias of Simmons just to a lesser degree. "Proven reserves" of course was a completely different matter: there are plenty of well pumping plenty of oil where there is zero proven reserve. --BozMo talk 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BozMo, I was very heartened by your comments. My aim is, an has always been, to get a link between the two articles so that a reader is made aware that the two issues are related, and which allows them to follow the link and view the evidence for themselves and make up their own mind. I've tried various approaches, a separate section, a simple sentence at the point where future predictions are made, but none (so far) seem to be acceptable. Scientific common sense tells me that the ultimate extend of global warming must be funamentally limited in all models by fossil fuel availability. As my personal belief is that politicians are simply incapable of bringing in the kind of policies necessary to significantly reduce CO2, I would really like to know what this means the world has in store for my children - a very simple question this article currently fails to answerLordsReform 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on the Peak Oil talk page I vote we write a separate article on the depletion of the world's hydrocarbon reserves and keep the peak oil one for the life of a field type discussion. Then I think the relationship with this article is then much more appropriate. As this article keeps saying more than 50% of current greenhouse gas comes from coal which was burnt anyway and the discussion cannot be limited to oil. --BozMo talk 08:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: BozMo - I agree in principle, but I'd worry it might become speculative - and it might be taking all the uncertainties of global warming adding them to all the uncertainties of peak oil! Thinking aloud - there are 1. Known reserves, 2. predicted reserves 3. recoverable reserves 4. "enerconic" reserves (economic of energy). There is the issue as to where the oil is (65% in middle East). There is the topic of how the change from one fuel type to another will impact on CO2 output (oil->coal), there is the issue of the linkage between energy use and the global economy, there is the topic of economics of consumption - I'm sure there will be studies predicting how prices will vary due to price elasticity of demand with supply constriction. There is the issue of new technology making more oil/coal recoverable. There is the question as to whether fuels such as coal tars and methane hydrates are recoverable and what about those moons with substantial organic reserves? You might also go into the likely increase in temperature as fossil fuel use declines due to decrease in global dimming .... Ok, there's enough for an article even if half the above can't be sourced! LordsReform 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've found this article Bridging the gap between peak oil and global warming activism which is probably worth reading for all involved. G-Man * 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  G-Man, that is a superb article - well worth reading by anyone following this discussion. It only highlights the problem of creating a single article combining the two approaches. From what the article said it appears that there are two camps which could roughly termed: "half empty and half full". Depending of the "belief" of those involved the assumptions create different predictions. This isn't a very good basis for a Wikipedia page. it does however show three separate articles giving credence to an alternative view to the mainstream global warming assumption that global warming will not be limited by fossil fuel scarcity and though I say it again, the article does need to make readers aware of this other view else it fails WP:NPOV88.111.194.147 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edits

message: i am surprised that in the other caused of global warming the sun isn't mentioned.All the reports that have come out are a farce.global warming is happening because of the sun.
here are some articles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
http://www.you.com.au/news/1629.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm
Also in a conspiracy website www.abovetopsecret.com and discovered this excellent article
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread221608/pg1
Its no doubt that global warming is caused by the sun which is getting hotter.The powers that be don't want the public to know this cuz if they know then there would be mass paninc as it is beyond human control.
:Don't expect an answer to this. Its an old story discussed in detail in all the proper reviews --BozMo talk 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources do seem quite believable, and even the conspiracy site has sources and external links. However, about 75% of global warming is likely still caused, directly or indirectly, by humans. If the government wanted to keep it secret, why would there be so many websites that disscuss ths issue? If there is any panic, it would be due to misunderstanding, and the issue is mostly already out of our hands, because most people can't afford to give up their economy which contributes to this. Even if a large portion of it was because of the sun, it would likely be tempoary. Species have already gone extinct, and many things are already irreversible. We can't really add this to the article beause we still don't know what amount of it is caused by the sun, because it isn't 110% verifible, and because most people have agreed on consensus that global warming is likely mostly caused by humans, and it should be cited as such, unless if we're to do another consensus. I hope this helps. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is less a the goverments keeping it a secret and more the media ignoring it. The earth being warmed by the sun is not a story but a story on global warming is a gold mine, people believe what they read in so called reliable sources but at the end of the day all these sources want is money.  Just goes to show how the media has total control over the world.  Another example of this is the "Killer Bees" stories that came out in the 90s and the Avian flu and west nile virus stories that came out recently, not to say these are not things to look into, but the media blows them way out of proportion.Tdgeorge25 07:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: true global warming kept secret by world govts.The culprit is THE SUN

message: Consider the most ambitious program I have seen for reduction of greenhouse emissions, described in the article Mitigation_of_global_warming, a proposal by "Pacala and Socolow of Princeton" that requires the following measures (or their equivalents) to be globally effectuated:
* Replace at least half of all coal fired generators with nuclear or natural gas
* Increase the efficiency of coal powered generation by 50% (from .4 to .6)
* Double the fuel efficiency and/or halve the aggregate usage of the worldwide fleet of diesel and gasoline powered vehicles
* Derive half of all diesel, gasoline and home heating oils from coal synfuels, which are cleaner burning than coal
* Essentially all other future energy development to come directly or indirectly from solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, etc
Personally, I think that is a great program.  No fueling :)  But it has as much chance of being implemented as a snowball in Hell.
And the punch line is, that after all of that, according to the projections of the proposal's authors, emissions would be reduced by only 1 billion metric tons (a reduction of 20 percent from current levels). That is, a stabilization at 1990 levels.  That would delay, but, ultimately not prevent the effects of global warming.
In light of the above, "solutions" such as the Kyoto Protocol are just beaureaucratic masturbation - they are unimplementable.  Even if they were not, the numbers don't add up: the goal of Kyoto is to return global emissions to 1990 levels by reducing emissions in Annex 1 countries an average of 6 percent.  Do the math: taken together with the increased emissions from non-Annex 1 countries that doesn't give 1990, that gives 2002.  Talk about futility!
Get used to it.  CarlSpalletta 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The authors never pretended that it would be the ultimate solution. They gave a practical 'shopping list' of 15 concrete options (in which 7 could be picked by any gvt willing to stabalize their emissions) as a first step, with the technology and means currently available! They obviously conclude that further technology development will be required in the mid/long term ... They are those who think and propose, even relatively modest steps, and those who whine and say 'I tell you it's impossible to fly...!'--Galahaad 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that the  objective of this paper (and beyond, of all the similar studies around the globe we don't necessarly hear about) is to make the bridge between a 'beaureaucratic masturbation' and concrete and effective action. In other words to make the treaty 'implementable', by means of the current knowledge and technologies. Instead of being a source for despair, I see it as a very optimistic information: even if Kyoto will have a limited impact, it is at least something that can be technically achieved if only one have the political and economical will. Kyoto is not only about making big promises and 'politically correct' commitments that are impossible to fulfill, it CAN be implemented and it's a test of our capacity to get commited on the long run. The next steps will probably be more difficult ...--Galahaad 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Get Used to it

message: Lord Monckton has a very readable analysis.  Here are some excerpts:
:FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.
:Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.
:UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.
:The Summary for Policymakers was issued February 2, 2007, but the report on which the Summary is based will not be published until May. This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).
:The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.
:The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.
You can read the full report here.  RonCram 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.... That is a lie you've created to discredit the article. He claims that Viking settlements that are emerging from the permafrost were actually thriving communities during the Medieval Warm Period (1000AD to 1400AD). He claims that the ice encroached on their settlements during the mini-ice age (fifteenth century) and this is what caused the settlements to be abandoned. He also cites a Chinese expedition (1421AD) that supposedly sailed to the North Pole and found no ice. Given that winters in France are far colder than the UK (less than 50km away), do you not think it is possible that the Bering Straits may have been warmer than Greenland (thousands of kilometres away)?Grimerking 11:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm...the two renditions (modulo sloppy language) sound fairly similar, given that 1421 is in the 15th century (when the Viking settlements were "abandoned"). The Chinese expedition is pure fantasy, of course. And no, Marseilles does not have colder Winters than Aberdeen (but then, they aren't 50 km apart, either). Dover and Calais are about 50 km apart, but then they do have very similar climates...--Stephan Schulz 12:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, just for the record, the Norse settlements in Greenland were never under ice or permafrost. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#5._It_was_obviously_much_warmer_when_the_Norse_settled_Greenland for maps of the Norse settlements and satellite photos of the areas showing they are, in fact, very green and very much not under ice. If you want more then try photos of the Gardar ruins:  , and the Brattahlid ruins  :, Hvalsey church: , and Sandnes Farm: . I think, rather, that it is a lie to say these settlements are "emerging from the permafrost". -- Leland McInnes 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monckton's analysis of 4AR

message: Are images like :Image:IPCC Radiative Forcings.png being updated from the IPCC 2001 report to the 2007 report?  I'm not sure about which other images can be updated also.  —AySz88\^-^ 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An updated image using data from the 2007 report is at :Image:Radiative-forcings.svg, and has been substituted in on the Global warming page. -- Leland McInnes 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph update with new IPCC report

message: The new IPCC report says that humans are a "very likely cause"(90%) this article should be updated accordingly
:Don't fall for this so quickly. If this is the statistical 90% then we need the standard deviation to know what 90% is 90% of. Is this 90% with +-.0001 or 90% with +-10.0. Big difference - and also +- from what estimate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs).
::It is not, and it also is not 90%, but >90% (and, implicitely, <= 99%). See the relevant IPCC document explaining how they handle and express uncertainties.--Stephan Schulz 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That document is clearly the most accurate description of the terms used in the IPCC report, however it should be noted that, per the document, "The categories defined in this table should be considered as having ‘fuzzy’ boundaries" and accordingly the language used is not meant to be taken as an exact description of the author's assessment of probabilities. Mike wiki 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the relevant section, 14. Likelihood, the definition seems a little unclear becuase in once sentance, it says "The categories defined in this table should be considered as having ‘fuzzy’ boundaries." but the next sentance says "Use other probability ranges where more appropriate but do not then use the terminology in table 4." which presumably means, use your discretion to decide when these terms, which have fuzzy boundaries, should be used. In conclusion, the terminology used to describe an event as "Very Likely" is defined by table 4, which is explained to have fuzzy boundaries. Mike wiki 09:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Likely or Very Likely

message: Given the recent concensus that manmade CO2 is causing CO2, this article is in urgent need of a rewrite!
As an article there is a lot about the model of global warming, there is a very clear assertion that CO2 is caused by fossil fuel use, yet there is almost nothing about the predictions of fossil fuel use except in the first paragraph where it says: "The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions."
I may be wrong, but I thought the purpose of the first paragraph was to summarise the article, not to make an assertion which is not referred to again. As predictions of fossil fuel use are stated as being equal in weight to the variability of the model, it is quite clear that this issue should have an equal weight in the article to avoid failing WP:NPOV.
*Words giving information on climate model: >564 words
*Words giving information on fossil fuel predictions: ZERO! 
or, are we still denying that burning fossil fuels causes global warming?
LordsReform 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a bit in the section greenhouse gases in the atmosphere... perhaps too little, but the article is long... --BozMo talk 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are useful somewhere, I've made a variety of plots addressing emissions scenarios: .  Dragons flight 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Predicting CO2 emissions

message: This article on "Global Warming" is a controversial subject and the article should be tagged as such. --Britcom 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject is a matter of controversy, but the contents of the article are not, as the controversy is mentioned. Narssarssuaq 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial Issue Tag

message: Regarding the following:
Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently.[dubious — see talk page] The detailed causes of this change remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. Outside the scientific community, however, this conclusion can be controversial.[dubious — see talk page]
#"Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently."; is not a factual statement and instead contains Weasel words WP:AWW. The following link shows that Climatologists are far from agreement on this subject:
#"Outside the scientific community, however, this conclusion can be controversial."; is also not a factual statement because it pre-supposes that there is no controversy about the cause, or even the existence of "Global warming" within the scientific community. As shown in the above linked news article, clearly there is controversy within the scientific community.
--Britcom 12:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the same old stuff all over again. Why not trouble to review the talk page? The answer is, one dodgy newspaper op-ed doesn't make a substantial disagreement. See scientific opinion on climate change, etc etc William M. Connolley 12:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus--Britcom 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Britcom, If you are going to quote non-peer reviewed low quality sources please at least quote them accurately. Your referred article says ref global warming "Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred." He just disputes causes and whether it matters. Even the most way out and contraversion ex-climatologist, who struggles to get publicity agrees this. Writing things here which are so lacking any substance just to try to get a reaction is a type of trolling: please apply a mirror test consider whether this may be what you are doing. --BozMo talk 12:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs to be factual and refrain from Weasel words WP:AWW. The facts must be presented in an NPOV way. We are not here to debate the subject, just get the description of the subject right. Changing the wording to reflect neutrality on the subject will do this.--Britcom 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes (dubious statments)

message: I believe the citation required in the Global Dimming section for the statement:
"Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming (the reduction in sunlight reaching the surface of the planet, possibly due to aerosols) may have masked some of the effect of global warming"
is satisfied by the IPCC 4AR GPI SPM on page 10 of 18, 1st bullet under the heading "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" which states:
"It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogentic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place."
I believe this would also call for a rewrite of the article statement from "some scientest consider that... may have" to a consensus statement with a confidence of 66-90%.
Mishlai 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go forth and be bold. Raymond Arritt 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but I am very new to Wikipedia.  I created this account yesterday, and the article is semi-protected, so I can't. Mishlai 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've unsemi-ed it for a bit as a test, and so you can edit it William M. Connolley 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added some hard numbers too. Mishlai 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Required

message: the info coming is the bears are losing 20% weight, 20% population already the last 20 years, now only 2/3 cub survival...dont waste ur time people...anyways all polar bear research now needs to focus on what to do with the bears in a no ice situation...some say itll take 50 years...some say less than 30...there is some luck involved and random chance...they might have 100 years...plan for the worst case scenario...yet forget about trying to save the arctic ice...its a thing of the past...the point for saving it has now past...perhaps Gore could have...yet that doesnt mean we shouldnt be concerned with global warming...the russians get their ice free shipping lanes...the new concern is can things spiral out of control with the temps and what will happen with the seas/marine ecology...a big mirror might get temps back in order...yet what about if the marine ecology suddenly shifts??? how to get that back in order???...eventually our agricultural will be developed so our crops can stand colder temps and even siberia will be a fruitful paradise (or at least with huge nuts) and we can throw the global temps back and the bears can have their ice back...if we can keep them alive...Benjiwolf 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic in this study is flawed. It is much like saying 'we catch more fish then 100 years ago, therefore there must be more fish'. The two don't necessarily have any correlation. More accurate logic would be that sea ice breaks up earlier every year and polar bears (as good swimmers as they are) rely on ice to catch seals (which have the advantage in the water). This means that polars bears have less food, and like most other bears, move closer to human settlements for food when hunting is slim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.176.6 (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please limit your comments to improving the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums which welcome discussions of global warming but this is not a forum. -Will Beback · † · 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes and please try to make sense in the future as well. When's your birthday? Let me know and I'll buy you "English Language for Dummies". It is a shame about the polar bears... if only Superman, excuse me I mean Al Gore, was elected President. Then things would be completely different. Hyperion395 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is an article about the effects of global warming: Effects_of_global_warming. You could contribute something about the endangered species there. But remember you have to use the more formal tone expected of an encyclopedia, and provide links to scientific articles in order to back each of your claims. Touisiau 21:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and where do you live, a cave? I can barely understand you, it's called grammar buddy. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for you. Maybe you should look into creating a Wikikindergarden, I think people there could really appreciate your ideas for a giant mirror to reflect global warming and turning Siberia into a "fruitful paradise" for growing "huge nuts." Hyperion395 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you two don't see eye to eye.  There's no requirement that you be pals, but please be aware that Wikipedia does have requirements on civility and personal attacks.  (Encouraging the former and discouraging the latter, to be specific.) Raymond Arritt 02:40, 12 February 2007
 (UTC)
once again: its an american idea for the huge mirror/shield, not mine. Im just reporting on it hyperion. As to huge nuts on some of the trees that make up the vast siberian forests, last i checked that is indeed my idea. You dont seem to have much of a scientific education it seems, otherwise u would know that the space mirror/shield was an american idea just in the news...(while im not sending u to "wikikindergarten" perhaps u should move away from pages relating to scientific matters like global warming)...and otherwise you would understand that engineering the trees to have large nuts thru using a mass pollen spray from planes to rapidly (in some decades) achieve re-engineering the entire russian forest system is indeed possible...just like its possible to engineer a carrier virus to transform all human men to be red...or black...or whatever...using that nifty Y chromosome, with women still having their natural color...(engineering the trees in siberia to have soft fleshy fruits (a nut is technically a fruit) is a tougher one as of the extreme cold & short season (yet perhaps possible to get past this engineering challenge)...perhaps soon russia will have a massive nutritious nut industry...welcome to the world of science and its possibilities hyperion...yet keep on reading Wendi Dengs & ruperts FOX news propaganda so you dont understand it...its better the chinese & australians control american propaganda i think...lets keep it all as "magic" courtesy of his senior highness "the omnipotence"...Benjiwolf 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Americans are really stupid, is that the point you're moving towards? I've never heard of your giant mirrior plan but Americans have come up with tons of stupid ideas in the past, lets see: Electricity, Atomic energy, Microprocessors... yeah, bunch of idiots. Anyways I'm done talking to you, like in a arguement with a mentally handicapt 3rd grade child who thinks 2+1=8 I'm going to take the high road here. Maybe I'll go to grad school and work on my scientific education so that perhaps one day I can hope to comprehend your "huge nut" hypothesis that's going to end global warming. Goodbye. Hyperion395 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the time for saving the polar ice & polar bears is past

message: I would suggest expanding each of these into its own paragraph with some statements on the relative merits, in the same style that Solar Variance Theory is presented, or perhaps for brevity of the article giving each its own page and having the merits discussed there.
For the urban heat island, the SPM states that "Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006C per decade over land and zero over the oceans)...".  It is also important to note that urban heat island is not an alternative explanation of global warming (which is based on many data sets - surface temperatures, baloons, satellites, ice cores, glacial retreat, sea surface temperatures, and possibly more) but is only an explanation of the observed rise in land-based surface air-temperature measurements.  It is, in fact, not an alternate hypothesis to global warming at all. Z Mishlai 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also relevant is that urban heat island does not challenge the cause of global warming, but whether it is occurring.  No one is seriously questioning whether earth is warming.  I think urban heat island should be removed from this section and perhaps added to a political/historical discussion or a de-bunked area, something of that nature. Mishlai 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be imprudent to dismiss the urban heat island theory from the article on the basis that a few do not coincide with the belief. The point of the alternative theories (as so it should be named) is not that you must agree with them, but rather that they are alternative theories that have been presented. There is room for the urban heat island discussion in article (see below discussion, etcetera). ~ UBeR 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "a few do not coincide with the belief."  Please let me assure you that my recommendation to remove UHI is made in good faith, and that I in no way wish to skew or censor the information in this article.  UHI was not removed because an editor simply disagrees with it.  It was removed because there is no logic to it as an alternate hypothesis to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It attempts to challenge the assertion that the planet is warming at all; this warming is not in question and is accepted as fact by even the most vehement deniers of anthropogenic global warming.  Further, it does this by disputing only a single set of data, upon which the conclusion that the earth is warming does not depend.  Even if we didn't have the "disputed" land-based surface air-temperature measurements at all, the planet's warming trend would be very apparent from the other data sets that are not questioned by UHI.  In short, UHI isn't relevant by itself.  If it were compiled with a credible alternate explanation of every other temperature record, then there would be a basis to include "the planet is not actually warming" as an alternate hypothesis, to which UHI would be a part.  There isn't such a coherent hypothesis that the earth is not actually warming, which is why the IPCC has stated that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level." So, in short, I think it's completely fair to remove UHI from the Other Hypothesis section. Mishlai 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Hypothesis

message: Ths article should attempt to remain neutral, and not exclude arguments about a topic which is stll very controversial. Analysis of data is surely an important issue to raise, so the problem of urban warming cannot be excluded simply because eds think it irrelevant. It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Peterrhyslewis 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be excluded either, because it is often brought up in connection with the topic. But it has been analyzed to death, and there is no significant influence of the UHI effect on the temperature record. --Stephan Schulz 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think a lot of people might come to the article and be dissapointed to not see any mention if they've heard of UHI.  There's an argument to be made for including it under a different heading as a point of discussion, and I'm not opposed to that.  I think it's important for one of the group of global warming related articles to address the issue so that people can get their questions about it answered.  It just isn't an alternate hypothesis. Mishlai 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems fair enough. I've added it in where it probably belongs, in the description of the warming section William M. Connolley 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Con-Ally: If its fair enough to put in about urban heat islands, why are you still denying those experts who are saying fossil fuel scarcity will limit global warming, despite at least three good references? I would agree: "It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge." Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelise global warming, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said - even if you don't like itMike 23:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely concur. ~ UBeR 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At present Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a decent article on fossil fuel running out (as opposite to peak coal etc which aren't general enough). If there was one I would support citing it, at least in the context of 2080-2200 time period. --BozMo talk 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has an article on exactly tha topic. Raul654 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I don't understand the basis for this statement, found in the Interenational organizations section:
"The IPCC's position on hurricanes was a marked departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC."
I've read through the WMO joint statement and the SPM, and both seem to broadly agree on the issue of hurricanes.
SPM:
In a section describing observed changes to the climate, but not attributing them to anything:
"There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.  There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.  Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity.  There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones."
p.8
Table SPM-2 (p.9) describes that for "Intense tropical cyclone activity increase" it is
Likely in some regions since 1970 that the trend occurred.
More likely than not that there is "a human contribution" to the observed trend.
Likely to be a future trend in the 21st century.
None of this says that the Katrina style hurricanes are any more than a little bit strengthened by global warming, or that we will have a dramatic strengthening of hurricanes in the future because of global warming.  
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs.  There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones.  The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period."
p. 16 of 18
WMO:
http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/press_releases/2006/iwtc_statement.pdf
I'm not going to quote it all, but it essentially says the same things.  That sea surface temperatures have risen and will probably continue to rise, that this is expected to produce stronger but not more frequent storms.  That the observed strengthening of storms is more than climate models predict for the rise in SST that we've seen.  That there are natural variabilities such as ENSO, that neither global warming nor natural variability seem to account for the unusual years of 2004/2005.  That there are data uncertainties that cause us to qualify the assertion that hurricanes are generally strongers since the 70s, and so on.
I don't see the "marked departure". Mishlai 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because there isn't one. Raymond Arritt 01:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IPCC vs WMO on hurricanes

message: The corollary data to the graph below would be the polar ice thickness measured accurately by submarines since the 1960s, I think.  Anyone know where we can get a graph of that data?  Al Gore mentions it in "Inconvenient Truth".  uriel8  (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attributed and Expected effects

message: Global Warming is wrong title for the article. There is no Global Warming, there is only Global Climate Change in professional literature! Majority of the places on our planet will experience warming, but a minority will see cooling and in general all places will suffer from wildly fluctuating weather phenomenons and the breakdown of seasonal cycles. The truly big, unmanageable problem with climate change is actually not the warming, but the increasingly chaotic nature of weather everywhere. America already learns that from hurricane one week, 4ft snow next week.
As long as the article is named "Global Warming" wikipedia remains unprofessional and incompetent on the important topic of Earth climate problems. Must rename article! 82.131.210.162 09:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy is to refer to things according to their most common / widely known name.  Dragons flight 10:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a wikipedia page for climate change, which, on wikipedia at least, is taken to cover all historic climate changes, while the title global warming is taken to mean (for the most part) the present instance of climate change (i.e. the anthropogenic one). kind regards sbandrews 11:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A search for the string "global warming" on the American Meteorological Society publication database returns 910 hits. Your contention that "There is no Global Warming, there is only Global Climate Change in professional literature!" clearly is unfounded. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "The term global warming is a specific example of the broader term climate change, which can also refer to global cooling. " - is the first line of the main article, regards sbandrews 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Must rename article!

message: We are not the caus eof gobal warming, the effects are just now being shown, of the sun growing, and solor flares! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.192.77.231 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Earth is actually slowly moving away from the sun because of tidal interaction and because the sun is losing mass equivalent to the energy it emitts divided by c^2. These effects are extremely small, though.88.73.111.58 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The earth is actually moving away, but the sun is expanding in the same time as its supply of hydrogen is depleted. It will eventually grow so large that it will engulf earth, mars and a bit beyond. Luckily, this is not for about 5 billion years...--Chickenfeed9 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is getting off-topic, but last time I read on this issue, the best estimaye was that the sun in the red giant state will have a diameter slightly larger than the current earth orbit's, but that by then the earth will have moved out enough to avoid direct immersion. --Stephan Schulz 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We Are Moving Closer to the sun

message: Warwick Hughes, an AGW skeptic, has published a "Greenhouse Warming Scorecard."   It deals with lots of different issues and predictions by climate models regarding AGW.  It also provides links to support the conclusions drawn.  Interesting reading.RonCram 17:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "links to support the conclusions drawn" are almost exclusively to conservative think-tanks and professional skeptics, not primary sources or independent analyses. Raymond Arritt 17:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: look here and search the page for 'warwick hughes' - interesting reading sbandrews 17:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point #1 of the scorecard appears to be a direct lie, and contradicted by the most obvious of sources: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm. Is the rest any better? William M. Connolley 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scorecard on Climate Models

message: Who agrees that "although there were several decades during which global temperatures fell" is a correct statement while discussing temperatures over the period of 1900 to 2000? Who agrees this should be explicitly explained to the readers? I, for one, think that global cooling is something that should be explained to read to show to them temperatures have not risen constantly through the century. I know Rameses, the writer of that sentence, would agree. However, one administrator in particular, who thought otherwise, felt that it would be more prudent to abuse his power, rather than using the proper method of discussing here. ~ UBeR 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, no special administrator power was used. Also, it's hard to take claims of censorship serious, when there is a large graph clearly showing the temperature curve just right of  the proposed text. Rameses first version spoke of an "unexplained" drop in temperature - this is plain wrong. The drop in temperature is well-understood and reproduced by all major climate models. He dropped the "unexplained" in the second attempt, but I still find his version inferior to the current text. Yes, the temperature increase is not monotonic, but we don't claim that it is, and have the "picture that is worth a thousand words" just next to it. If we mention the drop, we should also mention what caused it. But that would clearly overload the introduction, which should be a short summary of the topic. --Stephan Schulz 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It involves too much detail for the lead.  It should be mentioned in the "history of warming" section, where it can be treated in adequate detail. (Some constructive advice -- be aware that throwing around the term "censorship" tends to backfire.) Raymond Arritt 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As well as the above: the graph doesn't support several decades of temperature fall. Without the peak in the 1940's, its more of a plateau. Unlike the warming, which is definitely statistically significant (and is reported with error margins), I'm not sure that the "cooling" is. In the mentime I'm moving the text with the explanation higher up William M. Connolley 10:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article relies heavily on the published views of the intergovernmental panel and US/UK government agencies. Articles which  describe minority views include Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming. I'd hate to see anyone waste time wrangling over the intro to "global warming". --Uncle Ed 12:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "History of warming" section clearly states that general warming has only been observed since 1979.  Thus, it's implied that temperatures were generally either stable or cooling prior to that.  Should that be explicitly stated in the article?  I don't think it's that important.  This article is about global warming and again, states clearly that the current phenomenom, if that's what it is, apparently started in 1979. Cla68 11:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship of facts in the lead

message: Since this page is locked I can only suggest this not do it.
The lead finishes with "most nations have signed...."
Numerically true but _the_ most significant two have either not signed or ratified.
It is important to point this out to avoid the implication that nearly everyone is envolved in Kyoto process.
It is one of the few bits of good news in this whole concern that P.R.O.C. , despite staggering ecomonic growth in recent years and refusing to participate in Kyoto protocol, appears to have one of best records on CO2 emissions.
I would like to see an entry similar to the CO2 emissions entry based on following graph from the same source.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region_png —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.179.208.229 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States and Australia have not ratified it. India and China are exempt, along with some other industrializing countries (i.e. those without many (or any) environmental laws). ~ UBeR 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: record of non kyoto ratifiers

message: I am missing information or at least a reference to such phenomena on other planets/moons. Mars Global Surveyor's cameras have been showing receding polar ice caps there for years and terraforming has played with the idea of amplifying global warming effects on planets to make them more hospitable for decades.88.73.111.58 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wiki maxim for ya 'always assume wikipedia has an article on it already!' - good eh - meanwhile martian global warming will help, kind regards sbandrews 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It does puzzle me how can you be skeptical of warming on Earth, with all the hard data we have and not even hesitating about global warming on Mars. Anyway, read your article and Mars dust storms seems to be the reason, but of course we are far from certain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.253.166.143 (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent, Oren0 was kind enough to add a link to that article under 'see also', thanks, Oren0. that should resolve the issue. one more point: i believe the introduction to the global warming article, which connects the term to earth exclusively is written from a too geocentric point of view, but i guess that is just me, human perspective appears to be limited to their own planet for the most part. ->88.73.111.58 again 88.73.80.251 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Warming/Climate Change on other Planets than Earth

message: The existance of its own Global warming controversy page should be enough to anyone to show that this IS a Controversial issue.--Zeeboid 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said it wasn't a controversial issue. However, the controversy is political, not scientific, which is described. JPotter 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed Scientific controversy on this topic, most to do with wether or not Humans are causing the earth do to something it has done in the past without humans... Warm and Cool.--Zeeboid 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since some recent findings, it has become very probable (90% probable, according to those findings) that Humans are the main contributors to global warming. There is evidence that suggests there have been periods of global warming in the past, but that really has nothing to do with the human impact on modern global warming. Specusci 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has everything to do with Human impact on modern global warming.  If you have an experimant with 4 control groups and 1 test group, but your control groups get the same results as your test group, what does that tell you?--Zeeboid 18:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specusci, the controversy is about the science. The IPCC has proven itself to be nothing but an advocacy group unconcerned with the science.  The IPCC promoted the Mann "Hockey Stick" in 2001.  In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick showed that the HS was the result of sloppy methods, fudged data, and a program that would produce a hockey stick even if the data was red noise.  The AR4 SPM was just released and continued to promote the unwarranted claim that it is warmer now than at any time in the last 1300 years.  The two Coordinating Lead Authors on the Paleoclimate (chapter 6) are Eystein Jansen and Jonathan Overpeck (of “Get rid of the MWP” fame).  Unbelievably, the IPCC does not even deal with the Hockey Stick controversy.  One would have expected them to spend a great deal of time to make certain they got their facts straight after the HS fiasco.  Instead the incompetence is becoming all the more obvious.  In a press conference, Jansen cited "well core [borehole]" data regarding the MWP.  Stephen McIntyre responded: "The borehole curve in the spaghetti graph only goes back about 400 years or so, so it’s ridiculous for Jansen to cite it as having anything to do with the MWP. But hey, he was only the IPCC Coordinating Lead Author - why would he be expected to know?" See comment #7. You have to admit, that's pretty funny there. RonCram 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I think people misunderstood me. Even if events in the past led to a period of global warming, that does not mean we must sit back and let it happen. If Humans caused this period of global warming, then it is by no means a natural phenomenon and entirely seperate from previous global warming periods. The effects could eventually end up being far more severe, for example, or the effects themselves on the Earth could be different. Obviously there is no scientific evidence to support this statement, but it should be blatantly obvious to any outside observer that natural global warming and human triggered global warming and two seperate entities, even if they belong to the same species. Specusci 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It reminds me of the "experts" who created panic around the Y2K bug (planes will come crashing out of the skies! etc.)  They made off with $300,000,000,000 ($300 Billion).  -- Rameses 21:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added controversial issues Tag

message: So, according to the graph presented on this page on the annual climate, the begining of the industrial age, 2 world wars, and most of the cold war has no effect on climate change. But of course the 21st century does with the new enviromental regulations placed on firms and the safe products to use.
So, should we have a third world war? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Bow (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me or am I the only one who notices a spike during the early 1940s? That, of course, implies nothing other than there was a spike during the 1940s. P.S. we all know the cold war was one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. All that fighting and stuff. ~ UBeR 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my grandmother, who was born in 1924, it is far milder now then when she was a little girl. According to her, there was enough snow on the ground in winter to build whole forts under the snow, and still stand up straight. In fact, she apparently got in trouble because a lady fell into a hole she dug and couldn't get out, since she was too short and too unathletic to help herself out...Anyways, the climate has changed, and apparently within the expanse of a single human lifetime. Specusci 15:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing she doesn't live in New York currently? ~ UBeR 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  She lives in Canada. btw, the weather you see in New York is what its SUPPOSED to be like. That, and quit whining, we are getting worse weather here and Ottawa and nobody is complaining (about -10 to -15 farenheit and crappy road conditions with the snow). In fact, we usually see similar weather in November but it didn't even snow here until January, due to the Jetstream hubbub. Specusci 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Luckily for mankind, not everything you don't know is unknown. We have good models that explain all of the instrumental temperature record, combining solar forcings, greenhouse gas forcings, aerosol forcings, and various minor causes. No-one seriously claims that greenhouse gases are the only influence on the climate. --Stephan Schulz 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global temperature rise

message: If Wikipedia demands such a high standard for 1st hand sources, then I want a link to the raw data the IPCC used to create their pretty little graphs.  I call your bluff, 30 trillion is on the table.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.176.5.79 (talk • contribs).
:See WP:RS#Types_of_source_material. Wikipedia uses primarily secondary sources. For the sources of the IPCC graphs, follow the references given in the reports (which are linked from here). --Stephan Schulz 11:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want the raw data from the models, it's available here. Raymond Arritt 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the data?

message: There is nothing that we can do to stop global warming, neither is it the fault of human beings, like so many other things are. There is a known gaping hole in the ozone layer around Antarctica, and that serves as a big hole for the "greenhouse gasses" and all of the heat to get out of. It is like breaking a big hole in the proverbial greenhouse. Global warming is the result of the natural movement of the earth. Periods of unusual warmth in the earth's history have usually been followed by an acute drop of 4-5 degrees Farenheit in temperature for a period of about 200 years, and I believe that this instance is no different.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheesey goodness (talk • contribs).
:You are at odds with nearly all of the planet's competent scientists. You also fail to make sense. Sorry. --Stephan Schulz 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You also don't make any sense  Cheesey goodness. I'm afraid you show no comprehension of the way that science works. You stated your belief but it is irrelevant to this talk page which is about improving this article. Candy 00:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your explanation is good but misses the bit about Aliens visiting the earth 10,000 years ago. That's probably in the second chapter of the book you are going to cite to back this up? --BozMo talk 09:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's Not OUr Fault This Time

message: Svante Arrhenius's 1896 scientific predictions is mentioned above (on this talk page) and are detailed on his own article, but have no made it into the global warming article proper. This seems like a massive oversight to me. Would anyone be interested in starting a section (which may eventually bud off into its own article) on the history of global warming science? —Pengo 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...(As the one who mentioned it on this page) I thought this was common knowledge, but yea, I suppose it should be mentioned. Raul654 02:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) The article already is way too big. But you're absolutely right, Arrhenius (and Fourier) should be mentioned. It's important to point out that the science behind GW isn't some newfangled scheme that was cooked up 20 or 30 years ago.  Since the present article already is too long, it would be best to follow Wikipedia's summary format with just a couple of sentences here and a pointer to the subsidiary article.  You seem to be interested in the topic, so go for it! Raymond Arritt 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Svante Arrhenius

message: This article has bloated, as statements fill with qualifiers and extra text gets added and things that really shouldn't be here get balance added instead of being removed. I propose a bold project to hack the page down to 32k, leaving it fair and balanced but shorter. Inevitably this will mean overriding the cries of Censorship from the usual parties.
I've made a start (now down from 63 to 50k... William M. Connolley 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 50-64K is suitable for a discussion page. In regards to the main article, all pages do not necessarily have to be at 32K or below, but whatever suits you. ~ UBeR 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To be safe, you might want to re-run the article through Peer Review and/or Featured Article Review, especially if the article's changed a lot (I haven't looked at a diff or anything yet). —AySz88\^-^ 00:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the diff between the 17th May 06 when it was featured, and the present - . I'd wait until the revision process stabilises before a PR or FAR however... Mostlyharmless 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project 32k

message: User:Pengo moved the discussion of Ruddiman's preindustrial AGW hypothesis to the "Scientists opposing..." article.  Ruddiman argues for a pre-industrial human influence but not against a present-day influence (in fact, it's hard to form a coherent argument that would accept the first without the second). He's also not on record as a skeptic so far as I know. Moving it to another article in order to shorten the present one could be OK, but the "Scientists opposing..." article isn't the right place. Raymond Arritt 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is called "Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". The consensus view is that global warming is caused by industrial (or post-industrial) humans, and thus he is opposed to the mainstream assessment. As he doesn't fit into the usual see-no-evil/speak-no-evil camps which are listed on the page, he requires his own section for himself, but still he is opposing the consensus view. Likewise, the snowball earth theory opposes the consensus view that atmospheric CO2 is at an all time high (I see no other reason for it being mentioned on the global warming page), and so I was in the process of moving that too. —Pengo 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to be blunt, but this just doesn't fly. Ruddiman's hypothesis is neither here nor there with regard to the cause of recent warming. If anything, it's logically inconsistent to argue that a small change in GHG in pre-industrial time did affect climate and yet a large change in GHG in the present day isn't affecting climate. And snowball earth was > 500 MYa, which is way outside any relevant time frame for current global warming (the continents were in completely different places, for a start).  Finally, Ruddiman himself would likely take exception to being thrown in with the "scientists objecting..." camp -- the fact that his latest book is "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate" gives a hint as to his stance on recent warming. Raymond Arritt 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok you've convinced me. Sorry, I think I misread Ruddiman's hypothesis to be attributing climate change to pre-industrial type practices rather than modern ones; and the snowball thing seemed to be arguing that the earth has gone through this sort of thing before (as if it were making the point that it's therefore not a problem). But sure, I can see that they can fit. I disagree with your last point, by the way, because many of the scientists on the "opposing" article mostly agree with the scientific consensus to varying degrees, and many would not be classed as deniers, so being lumped with them isn't such a horrible thing. Anyway, those sections as they stand are only background to the article's topic ("Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."), and are not even widely accepted (i think), so they ought to be better summarized, but i guess that's for another day. Good night. —Pengo 05:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ruddiman

message: While Al Gore is no scientist, he has certainly become well known for his popularization of global warming. I've even heard people refer to "Al Gore's global warming" like he owns the patent. He's also mentioned six times on this current talk page in various sections (and plenty more times in archived talk). But... he doesn't get a single mention on the global warming article. Is there no room for a section on the "popularization of global warming" or "key personalities"? Does this article have to be "just the facts, ma'am"? —Pengo 11:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many of those six times are negative? If you actually did count, at least one (mine) was to make a point that these non-scientists and non-experts here are no more qualified than Al Gore, which is the truth. Al Gore isn't a scientist; he has artistic license, but that's about it. He hasn't contributed anything to the science of global warming, at all. ~ UBeR 19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps not to the science, but you cannot ignore the public attention he has brought to the issue of Global Warming. Not only producing a widely popular documentry, he has definitely been a voice in the public's eye. To say that he is insignificant simply because he is no scientist, nor has he contributed original research to the effects of global warming, is a simple statement indeed. Specusci 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps in Politics of global warming, or controversy, but this article is best as just the facts ma'am. Mishlai 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Gore

message: Reading http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/, I came across another version of the global warming article at http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming
However, I think the current wikipedia version is more suitable. Chrisnumbers2000 07:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know...I kind of like the part about the "liberal athiests scientists" who are "untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him". Also, it's not cluttered up with all these sources, unlike our version. --Stephan Schulz 07:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I laughed out loud when I read your response, Stephan. How true. Specusci 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, maybe you are right.  I suppose that bit was quite good. Chrisnumbers2000 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole site is a good laugh. Except that some people believe it. --Michael Johnson 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On another serious matter, why does a wiki search for "global wamring" return an article on Jacques Chirac as having some relevance?  I am not exactly sure what is a "wamring", but it doesn't sound pleasent.  Chrisnumbers2000 04:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Take 2