Talk:Causes of climate change/Archive 1

message: I think this entry is superfluous; the political aspects of anthropogenic global warming are just about identical to the political aspects of all (man+nature) global warming, since we can't do anything about natural global warming. A better place might be with greenhouse gases. --TheCunctator
I also find it somewhat confusing; the Democratic party is said to consider anthropogenic global warming a huge threat, but then it goes on to describe how not a single Democrat politician supported the Kyoto protocols. And then there's that odd reference to Enron. I don't know if this article is biased in any particular direction, but it feels that way somehow. To make you feel better, very few politicians supported Kyoto initially, regardless of being right or left. 
----
Responding to the unsigned paragraph above
#Democratic support and non-support is puzzling (but real). Perhaps there is a political strategy involved. I'm not sure whether we should analyze and comment on the Clinton Administration's strategy, but the 95-0 Senate vote is a fact and should be reported.
:I'm glad the bit about Enron came out: it was only breaking news, and really of a political or financial nature. This article should be scientific.
Ed Poor
This article seems to be totally focused on the US political aspects of an international issue, and in any case, if every single Democrat voted against the Kyoto protocols, then it is clearly not the case that "the Democratic Party" supports it. I think this article gives the Democrats much more credit for being progressive and pro-environment on this issue than they deserve. soulpatch
:Ah, but the Democrats didn't vote against it. The treaty never was submitted to the Senate for ratification. What was actually voted was a resolution -- not the treaty itself. If you check around, you'll see that Democrats are adamant supporters of the treaty, ratified or not. Go and talk to some people, or check out campaign literature or visit some websites. Or dip into Gore's Earth in the Balance. But you're right about the "more credit...than they deserve"; I think they only rode the issue to get votes in 2000. --Ed Poor
::My understanding is that those who opposed the treaty, held that position partly because of China and India (and their rapidly growing economies) are excluded and because of widespread emissions trading. Brian Pearson 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old stuff 

message: :The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization which aims to be objective, but its opponents assert that it has misrepresented scientific reports because of political pressure.  The IPCC says its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. 
:SEPP, an organization which claims to be non-partisan, presents a number of objections to interpretation of the available data on global warming. In particular, they point out that temperature measurements from weather balloons show no warming whatsoever in the 1979 to 1996 period when land-based thermometers show record-breaking rises (they won't tell you that the longer-term balloon record from 1958 matches the land-based record well). Also, they present evidence that rising temperatures cause sea level to fall (not rise, as orthodox global warming theory predicts) although this is widely disbelieved. However, the oil corporation ExxonMobil is one of SEPP's sponsors.
I don't think the above 2 paragraphs are really relevant to the Anthropogenic global warming article. But where should they go? William, Martin, Eloquence, SEWilco, what do you think?
(William M. Connolley 19:27, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on IPCC and SEPP

message: (William M. Connolley 18:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar/Cosmic rays and climate 

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

message: What part of "Wikipedia does not endorse a best answer, source it to someone or remove it" do you not understand???  It's straight out of NPOV policy, follow it!   — Cortonin | Talk 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that's one of the problems with True Believers, they don't see their opinions as anything but absolute fact.  In their eyes, it isn't POV because they absolutely know it to be true.  What does one do in this situation?  --JonGwynne 17:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best answers 

message: (William M. Connolley 21:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some facts for you William:  The statement "The current best answer is, roughly, most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" is grotesquely POV.  First of all, it fails to mention who is responsibole for deciding the "best answer".  I'll assume that since you're such a big fan of this statement, that the IPCC is somehow responsible for it.  However, the statement is unattributed.  Second, the statement is completely subjective.  Even if this is the IPCC's official opinion as to what the best answer is, then it still isn't an absolute fact it is opinion and, therefore, POV.  In other words, it isn't relevant to the discussion and it is a clear violation of wikipedia policy with regard to POV - as you have been repeatedly informed.  So, the real question is why do you insist on pushing unattributed POV when you know it is a violation of wikipedia policy to do so?  --JonGwynne 00:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JGs: Removed POV paragraph - not only does it violate wiki policy, it isn't relevant to the article 

message: (William M. Connolley 22:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sound of black helicopters you were talking about earlier may be confusing you William, I don't use sock-puppets.  BTW, since you bring them up, what interest do you think your personal, unfounded suspicions hold for other people here?  --JonGwynne 22:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry? 

message: Don't forget that the US National Academy of Sciences concurred with the IPCC conclusion that the majority of the temperature rise last century was most likely due to anthropogenic influences. If the IPCC is to be cited explicitly as a source of this scientific opinion, then so too should the NAS, and perhaps also all the other scientists who did not take part in either IPCC or NAS reports but have arrived at the same conclusion. It would seem to be biased to attribute that conclusion only to a subset of those who hold it. Daniel Collins 22:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then list it as both.  Such evaluations must be sourced and attributed.   — Cortonin | Talk 03:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: National Academy of Sciences

message: (William M. Connolley 13:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  expressed / according to 

message: Is there a better place to find out what has caused these regions to warm?  Is there a ball of CO2 hovering over them?  Or is the cause of regional rise and falls of temperature completely unrelated to the rise or fall of global temperature?  Should I be asking this some place else or on a different article?
:I doubt this is the right place. First, we don't do original research, and secondly, this article primarily deals with global temperature. Changes in regional climates are not unrelated to global temperature, but neither is it  a simple, monotone correlation. One of the famous questions is what happens to northern European climate when the North Atlantic Drift shuts down due to melting of polar ice... --Stephan Schulz 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Shore Alaska/Antarctic Western Ice Shelve? 

message: No citation is provided for the "indeed" sentence I deleted.  The sentence is probably an erroneous statement of the idea of trying to explain all 20th century warming with solar and without GHGs.  That would require enough solar in the latter half century to overshoot the warming in the first half.  However, this explanation is not what the indeed text says, and the indeed text is false.  There could be a "significant" increase in sensitivity to solar that compatible with the first half century, there is room for reallocation of forcing to solar there.  That "significant" increase in sensitivity to solar would not be enough to fully explain the latter half of the 20th century, but more would be attributed to solar than the TAR, and probably even Stolt did.  --Poodleboy 13:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  indeed? 

message: *"The Earth as Modified by Human Action", 1868, George P. Marsh   assumes anthropogenic change as given fact: "The object of the present volume is: to indicate the character and,approximately, the extent of the changes produced by human action in the physical conditions of the globe we inhabit..."  This book gives an extremely thorough description of the multiple ways in which humans have most definitely and observably contributed to climate change.
: I've moved this to talk. I don't think its very relevant to attribution of GW William M. Connolley 06:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Earth as Modified by Human Action 

message: In the section Detection and Attribution, Detection is defined to be a specific demonstration of statistical significance, but then we go on to claim implicitly that there is no uncertainty, or "margin of error" to be dealt with when discussing Detection:
Detection does not imply attribution, and is easier than attribution. Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible. Attribution, as described above, can therefore only be done within some margin of error.
There most certainly is uncertainty in Detection!  We are dealing with experimental (and therefore uncertain) data, and unproven (in a strict sense, as all theoretical models are, strictly) (and therefore uncertain) models.  Statistical significance itself is a somewhat arbitrary thing (5% significance level?  10% level?  0.5% level?).  Thus the implication that Detection does not entail any uncertainty is a gross abuse of statistics, is very misleading to those not familiar with statistics, and should be remedied! Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your interpretation. As you say, detection is done to some level of stat sig. There is nothing in what you quote that asserts or implies absolute certainty in det William M. Connolley 21:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My reading of this concern is that, while detection might be 'easier', in that statistically significant results are more readily obtained, even a statistically significant result is still subject to uncertainty (or "a margin of error", even if that margin of error is statistically small). There still exists uncertainty in many (most?) relevant areas of climate science and ignoring that uncertainty risks assigning certainty to an inherently uncertain understanding of a complex system. Statisticians understand the nature of statistics. Many others don't and might interpret words like 'consensus' and 'statistically significant' as meaning that there exists absolute certainty where uncertainty still exists. Hope this helps. Ofomamad 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  That was a bit wordy - apologies. Structure of the wording in question is: 'D is easier than A. Unequivocal A would require X, which is not possible. A therefore can only be done within a margin of error.' Implies Unequivocal D can be obtained, either using X or some other way, without a margin of error, which is false. D is not unequivocal - it is also "done within some margin of error", but the opposite is implied here. Hope that's more clear. Ofomamad 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics! 

message: Svensmark's recent research on cosmic rays is certain to gain many followers, but I just found a very interesting article written in 2004 that predicted global cooling by 2006 because of increased cosmic rays.  The fact temperatures were down in 2006 says something, although I have not yet found proof that cloud or cosmic rays were increased (I would not doubt it).   The article itself is only on google cache, so the charts and images do not show.  RonCram 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm...2006 is the warmest year on record for the US, and the 6th-warmest worldwide. And that despite the fact that for the first half of the year ENSO was in El Nina. Where did you get the "fact" that temperatures were down? --Stephan Schulz 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, we are talking about global temperatures - not US temperatures.  Hansen, Jones and others had predicted that 2006 would be the warmest ever globally, breaking the record of 1998.  It didn't happen.  In fact, temperatures were down significantly from 2005.  Your comment regarding La Nina is incorrect.  Conditions changed from La Nina to El Nino in February, 2006. RonCram 01:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cosmic rays cause global cooling

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 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want to? Better read  William M. Connolley 19:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monckton's analysis of 4AR