Talk:Climate change/Archive 24

message: This sentence still doesn't make any sense because it is basically circular reasoning:
::Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are primarily due to an increase in population, and are partly due to increasing severe weather.
This sentence needs a rewrite because it's fairly given that increasing severe weather correlates with increasing severe weather... but that doesn't have anything to do with the cause of severe weather. --Tjsynkral 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could do with a bit of clarification. The population bit refers to more human suffering caused by increased population in areas prone to severe weather even if the number of weather events doesn't change. But that probably wasn't very clear either :-) Vsmith 23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could probably be clearer if written, "Catastrophes resulting from extreme weather are primarily due to an increase in population, and are partly due to increasing severe weather." Nothing wrong with Mr. Arritt's version, if not a little verbose. ~ UBeR 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd recommend rewording the context around the sentence so that you could say something like "The increase in such catastrophes is primarily due to population increases, but partly due to increasing severe weather".  Then the repetitive and confusing "severe weather" can be avoided. —AySz88\^-^ 06:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would help because there's no context for "such catastrophes." ~ UBeR 07:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...which is why I said to reword the context so that it could be done? :/ —AySz88\^-^ 16:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that increasing severe weather is a result not a cause. --Tjsynkral 04:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An increase in intensity and severity of extreme weather is already mentioned in the previous paragraph. I'm assuming that this sentence is a segue from that statement to the discussion of tropical cyclones, in which case a better wording might be Damage caused by increases in extreme weather attributed to global warming may be exacerbated by increased population in areas affected by such weather. This is noted particularly in the case of tropical cyclones., and cite Pielke's study. Hal peridol 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more refinement, Increasing deaths, displacements, and economic losses caused by extreme weather attributed to global warming may be exacerbated by growing population densities in affected areas.  Since the extreme weather will include heavy rains, high winds, drought, and other such phenomenon, we don't need to call out cyclones in particular. 'Damage' on its own is too vague. The damage to ecosystems is not related to population growth combined with extreme weather (though both play a role independently). And we can cite the ARM, Pielke is outside the consensus (such a suggestion shows too much POV)..  --Skyemoor 00:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it - it seems to have been overtaken by events, though, judging by the section below. I prefer your sentence, but I'm happy enough with Raymond's change to the original. Thanks, Hal peridol 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Increasing severe weather is caused by increasing severe weather... huh?

message: The sentence in question is
:Increased losses resulting from extreme weather are primarily due to an increase in population, and are partly due to increasing severe weather.
The noun is losses; that is the subject of the sentence. The noun is modified by the phrase "resulting from extreme weather." Here  "extreme weather" does not function as a noun or the subject of the sentence, so your insistence on interpreting it as "extreme weather is due to extreme weather" is unfounded (as you of course know).  To write it more verbosely,
:There are increased losses due to severe weather.  These increased losses are primarily due to an increase in population. But the increased losses are also due in part to an increase in the incidence of severe weather itself.
Perhaps you will still insist on pretending not to understand, but I have done my best to explain. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, say I give you everything you just said. Where exactly in the source is population mentioned, or losses? Some of us actually check sources to ensure they back up the text... and this one seems not to. --Tjsynkral 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to do more than grep for the word "population." Raymond Arritt 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, where do you find support for this sentence? I don't see it, so as far as I'm concerned the sentence should go. --Tjsynkral 00:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new WGII report seems to verify it. ~ UBeR 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a source saying that losses from severe weather are caused by severe weather (no matter how dumbfoundingly obvious and circular that may be) please give me a cite and page number on it. --Tjsynkral 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just a quick skim of the report, BTW. Haven't read it in full yet. Nevertheless, I don't think it's saying losses from severe weather are caused by sever weather. Well it is, but it's being modified by "increasing." That is, losses from extreme weather are partly due to increase incidence of severe weather, but mostly population changes. So if a researcher is seeing there are ever increasing losses coming from severe weather, he might ask, "why?" Well it's partly due because of an increase in severe weather, but mostly population fluxes (to reiterate). I hope this clarifies. ~ UBeR 04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then we have to source the claim that severe weather is, in fact, increasing, and that losses are increasing. I found one thing that Raymond might have misunderstood, where it says that projected losses may be caused by a projected increase in severe weather. And even if we do that we need to reword the sentence so it isn't saying that increased losses from severe weather are due to increased severe weather. And I am still at a loss as to what increased losses due to severe weather has to do with global warming. --Tjsynkral 04:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is a rather daft sentence. What are 'losses'? If they are primarily due to population why are they in the gw article? And it is circular. Why not just delete it? Paul Matthews 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did but the owner of the sentence reverted it back in and started this discussion. --Tjsynkral 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parsing of sentence on losses from severe weather

message: This statement from the intro "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950"' is unsupported by the provided reference number 1.  There is no evidence that solar activity has had a cooling effect since 1950.  Given the climate commitment studies showing much longer equilibration times, it is probable that the earlier increases in solar forcing are still contributing to the current warming.  Why the strange and misleading conjunction of volcanic and solar in this statement?  Is there any peer review literature supporting a cooling effect for solar activity in recent decades?  --68.35.43.82 14:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Errm... have you read the discussion above? (Causes section issues AGAIN). The statement really should say "combined" William M. Connolley 14:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it now.  There are more problems with the statement than can be resolved with a "combined".  The volcanic influence is neither continuous, nor periodic.  Combining the two to argue that the net natural contribution is negative, makes the truth of the above statement dependent on the level of volcanic activity and probably false at this particular time. --68.35.43.82 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh good. Now you need to look at the SPM fig 4 and see that models forced by combined sol+vol show a negative trend since 1950 William M. Connolley 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IPCC diagnostic studies show that the models have errors much larger than the net energy imbalance.  Roesch showed that all the AR4 models had a positive surface albedo bias against solar that is arguably larger than this energy imbalance.  The models are good for providing insight into climate behaviors but are not yet up to the task of attribution and projection.--68.35.43.82 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you write a paper saying so - until you do, your word counts for little William M. Connolley 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The diagnostic studies have already been published.  Can they be responded to with any evidence of how the models can somehow be useful for attributing less than a 1W/m^2 of global energy imbalance?  Consensus and faith are not evidence or science.--68.35.43.82 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But as you know, the diag papers say nothing about attribution. If, in *your personal opinion* the diag studies invalidate the IPCC spm results, then that is very interesting for you but not for wiki, unless those opinions have been published. Which they haven't been William M. Connolley 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the diagnostic studies say nothing about attribution explicitly.  They do say things about the models, and they are published after the key model studies relied upon for the WG1 work, since those model studies take months to years to run.  When a study such as Roesch finds that all of the models have too much snow cover area and a delayed spring snow melt, that is significant its its impact on the global averages, that means that the models must be replacing that missing reflected solar energy elsewhere, in order to have matched the recent warming and energy imbalance.  Roesch himself calls it a "bias", a positive surface albedo bias.  It is present in all the AR4 models, with some also having a positive albedo bias in the tropical deserts also.  If all the models are shown to be reflecting too much solar, then they must be miss attributing the warming they reproduce.  You can claim that the diag papers say nothing about attribution, only if you refuse to think about them.  However, back to the topic, no source has been provided for the statement at issue as phrased, and since the statement is incorrect, if we are to reproduce it anyway, it should be attributed to the proper opinion holder.--68.35.43.82 13:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Is there any peer review literature supporting a cooling effect for solar activity in recent decades?" None that I've seen.  Actually there is a general increase in insolation at the canonical 65N for the last three hundred (five hundred?) or so years.  But many studies (e.g Robertson et al JGR 2000 Hypothesized climate forcing time series for the last 500 Years) have used the combination of solar and volcanic forcings together as indicative of the natural forcings in the system so it is not surprising to see the refered to together like this.Ken 14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is about the radiative forcing during the last 50 years or so. Volcanic CO2 is nearly negligible on a non-geological timescale (though volcanic aerosols, as you rightly pointed out, are not). The SPM.2 figure you refer to has forcings compared to 1750 ("pre-industrial"). There is little doubt that a significant part of the 1900-1950 warming was due to solar, but it is unclear what influence changes in solar activity had since. Either way, they are small compared to sulfate aerosols, volcanos, and greenhouse gases.--Stephan Schulz 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you admit the solar significance prior to 1950, and not since, then you reject the climate commitment studies which show that the oceans take centuries to respond.  No further increase in solar activity is required for the climate to continue warming.--68.35.43.82 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fascinating. Do please provide a clear reference stating this William M. Connolley 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. No skeptic am I. My only point was that an element of solar forcing does exist -- but as you rightly point out it is small relative to other anthropogenic causes. Arjuna 09:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Radiative forcings are coupled to the climate system in different ways.  You can't just compare their absolute values or sum them in a non-linear system.  The current level of solar activity is at one of its highest levels in the last 7000 years, per Solanki, and these size changes in solar activity have been large enough to apparently trigger past climate changes, hypothesized to be natural and not anthropogenic.--68.35.43.82 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But like Yoda you speak ;-).--Stephan Schulz 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  68.35.43.82 - please get a wikipedia id and join the debate. It seems like you know what you are talking about. It is a rather bizarre statement and not properly supported by ref [1], as I argued above. In fact fig SPM2 in [1] shows solar as positive. I suggest we use Arjuna's wording. Paul Matthews 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a more correct statement of the SPM position would be that "the contribution of solar forcing is poorly understood and thought to be small".  In this complex non-linear system, we need models, better ones than we have, to assess whether the "effect" is "small".  A small forcing does not necessarily imply a small effect. Given the "small" increase in temperature over the 20th century, even a "small" effect might be significant, especially if the models are attributing that effect to GHGs, and are managing to reproduce warming in the face of excessive snow cover.  In projections, the errors will be magnified, as further warming eventually eliminates the snow cover restraint, leading to more extreme temperature excursions.  I'm interested in a more proper representation of the state of the science.  It is probably best for me to continue to pursue that elsewhere.  I just occasionally get sucked in by how wrong some of the statements are, even by wikipedia's regurgitative standards.  Even if statements dismissive of a combined solar and volcanic net impact can be found, the combination will still not be relevant to solar as a viable competing hypothesis for some of the attribution.  --68.35.43.82 13:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good stuff. If you had a wiki account you could fix the incorrect statements yourself. The page could do with some more editors who know the science. I have edited the disputed sentence to  "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a relatively small effect.[1]" in the lead (where things need to be kept short and simple) and "Solar variation has probably had a relatively small effect on recent global warming, compared with anthropogenic effects" in the solar section. I hope that should be acceptable to most people. Paul Matthews 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a wiki account now. Lets see how it goes.--Africangenesis 06:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think the previous was better, but I can live with this for the moment William M. Connolley 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is an example of the problematic atmosphere surrounding this article.  Gentlemen such as Mr. Connolley feel that they own it, but they do not.  I would invite these editors to retreat back to their personal webspace, and let Wikipedia get back to being a collaborative endeavor.  "I can live with it," he says.  Can you?  "For the moment," he says.  Indeed!  --64.222.222.25 16:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with William. Old wording was better. ~ UBeR 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no reason to believe the messages coming from Maine are from the same person making the comments from New Mexico. ~ UBeR 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And even if they were, it doesn't "illustrate" any such need.  As I've said earlier on this page, Wikipedia is about the content, not the editors.  I'm not going to make an account just so Mr. Connolley's fan club can more easily ignore my rather trivial yet completely logical concerns -- it seems they've done so quite effectively anyway.  Just think, if I had a name, you could immediately skip past my comments, without double-checking the IP first.  My request to change one small, misleading phrase does not equate to "tendentious POV," but the insistence on keeping that phrase certainly does.  See the disussion above, under "Clearly Biased Language," where Mr. Connolley's attack dogs spin a page-long web of mumbo-jumbo in order to justify the total dismissal of a seemingly insignificant edit request.  --64.222.222.25 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported or poorly worded statement? 

message: End of first paragraph reads:
Stratospheric warming has not been observed. when in fact it should read Stratospheric cooling has been observed. or something akin to that.  Citation:  Science 24 November 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5803, pp. 1253 - 1254 DOI: 10.1126/science.1135134 
Ken 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cooling of the stratosphere caused by CO2 buildupEsthameian 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should read that, but it is related to GHGs or ozone, not solar, so it is in the wrong section, and properly presented doesn't add much to the article.--Africangenesis 06:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About section 2.3 Solar variation

message: Under "Attributed and expected effects", the paraphrasing of reference #37 fails to mention the positive effects which are spoken of in the very same section being referenced.  Please don't refer me to Effects of global warming; if Global warming is going to make the reference, it should do so accurately and completely.  A short sentence should suffice, so long as it alludes to the projected benefits of climate change in some areas, and the fact that these are expected to lead to fewer deaths.  I'll leave the wording to the article ownership, but would like to see the phrase "fewer deaths" included, to balance that of "increasing deaths," as the referenced material so carefully does.  Thank you.  --64.222.222.25 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just get an account and do it yourself.  Raymond Arritt 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posing a question: is the chart on pages 14 and 15 of the WG2 summary public domain, and if so would it be appropriate to reproduce it in part? Mentioning the fact that fewer deaths are expected due to decreased cold nights is legit, but not if it is out of context with the (perhaps) greater number of increased deaths due to other projected effects. In other words, the whole picture should be presented, not simply that "increased deaths due to heat waves is balanced by reduced deaths due to fewer cold waves". I'm simplifying, but you get my point. Arjuna 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not asking for an out of context addition, I'm asking for the inclusion of a statement which was omitted.  It is this omission which creates a contextual problem.  --64.222.222.25 05:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Why put off till four days from now what can be done today?  Or better yet, why not assume good faith by unprotecting the article?  The alternative involves me creating an account, waiting four days, making the edit, and crossing my fingers that it doesn't get reverted.  Instead, I made an edit request, hoping that someone who agrees with the request and who already has a 4-day-old account might do it.  --64.222.222.25 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Looks like I am not allowed to edit.  The first change I wanted to make was to change "predict" to "project".  Next, I'm not sure why the model projections are in the introductory paragraphs, but if we are going to note that the IPCC used models which made these projections, we should also note that the IPCC used models which had a positive surface albedo bias relative to the satelite data.  There is no particular reason to cite one fact about the models that the IPCC used and not the other, when reporting the state of the science--Africangenesis 06:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New accounts can only work on semi-protected articles after about 4 yearsdays. And including one article which talks about only one aspect without evaluating it's overall effect is both a violation of WP:WEIGHT and, if its used to imply unreliability not explicitely stated in the paper,  WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz 06:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you mean 4 days (not years). More at WP:SEMI. --h2g2bob 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The weight is left to the reader, as it should be.  The Roesch paper is an IPCC diagnostic subproject published after the papers that made the projections.  It very clearly states that the models do not reproduce the surface albedo, due to several explicitly detailed factors relative to both ground and satelite data, and that all the models are biased in the same direction.  The reason that there haven't been any articles in response that state that the models were able to reproduce the 1990 to 2000 snow cover area and snow melt timing, is that the community knows that they didn't, and they knew it before the Roesch study to diagnose the issue in detail was done.  Is the fact that the IPCC used these models intended to imply reliability that they did not explicitly state? --Africangenesis 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this a pronouncement or ...? --Skyemoor 11:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an explanation informed by general principles of physics and the climate commitment studies such as those by Wigley, et al, and Meehl, et al. --Africangenesis 11:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like we have another obsessed editor. Sadly its 4 days not years William M. Connolley 08:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, it is just easy for a fresh pair of eyes to spot these issues.  Why are you uncomfortable with any of the points raised? I assume it is good practice to check the supporting documents to see if they really do support the statements, and to make sure the statements fairly represent the evidence.--Africangenesis 10:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good practice.  You just picked the wrong article to try to edit.  Check out the talk history and you'll see what I mean.  It's hard to believe this article is part of wikipedia, because of issues with civility and ownership issues.  Thegreatdr 10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Uncalled for.  If I were able to issue a warning, or knew how, I would do so here.  Please remain civil and assume good faith, just like I will assume that you're not really sad.  Also, I would have to say that insisting on describing an article-length list of names as "a few," then hacking away at said list in an attempt to actually turn it into "a few," would better describe the deeds of an "obsessed editor."  --64.222.222.25 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon IP, "heal thyself".  --Skyemoor 11:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am unsure how to take this comment.  Please elaborate, thanks.  --64.222.222.25 12:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've hit the nail on the head. Squarely. Grimerking 10:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you'll be happy to educate them in the perils of WP:OR. And as for knowledgeable... they appear to be pushing one paper, which is common. And in fact I seem to recall that one being pushed before William M. Connolley 13:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason you focus on just this one paper?  Have you read it, do you have specific issues with it, assuming you mean Roesch?  It is a paper solidly within the mainstream, why be particularly sensitive to it?  As Pons and Fleischman found out, calorimetry is hard.  Modeling the recent global warming is essentially doing calorimetry of the whole earth surface, ocean, atmosphere system to reproduce and attribute an energy imbalance of less than 1 W/m^2 when averaged over the whole surface and year.  There are many diagnositc subprojects, do you doubt that others also document errors larger than this 1 W/m^2?  Your reaction to this paper would seem to confirm rather than contest that one paper is enough, just as one scientist with a valid point is enough.  However, single papers seldom stand alone, they derive strength or power from their context.  The Roesch paper merely quantifies known issues with the models, and suggests specific improvements.  Do you really suggest that modelers would or should ignore it, rather than making those improvements?  Rest assured, that I will also be citing work by Wigley, Meehl, Solanki, Pierrehumbert,  Hansen, etc, but if we dismiss any one paper, I hope it will be based on a discussion of the substance, not a mere count.  If "weight" is an issue as suggested by Schulz, then hopefully it is also based on an issue found with the substance, and not on a mere paper count.  Fortunately, it is rare that a paper stands alone, the Roesch paper stands in a context of documented model problems at the higher latitudes, adding confirmation and quantification based on satellite and other data sets, and in the context of Roesch's own prior work.  You will find it a nice read that does not appear at all anamolous.--Africangenesis 16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William criticizes for using one paper when he relies on one paper more than any other, with the reference name of grida7. ~ UBeR 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oooohhh that was constructive. But no, you are missing the point. Poodleboy is indulging in OR based on the one paper, and we all know how much you dislike OR, so I look forward to you restraining him - just as you're doing here William M. Connolley 09:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely. ~ UBeR 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, I dont know and I did not take position about this. What I noticed is that Stephan was openly enthusiastic about this editor being limited in his edits, and that you accused him if being obsessed. That didnt seem fair to me. --Childhood's End 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was what? I tried to be helpful and pointed out why he was unable to edit just now (admittedly with a thinko in the time unit used). How can that possibly give the impression I was enthusiastic about his inability to edit? For the record, I neither felt nor expressed such enthusiasm. The 4 day lockout is to prevent spontaneous acts of vandalism from unregistered users. The fact that it restricts serious new editors is an unavoidable side effect.--Stephan Schulz 13:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well getting an account was pretty useless. 

message: The controversy section seems very odd to me. It's too short, but at the same time it's naming names, which seems over-specific. Any suggestions on something fuller?
Economics is also a very short section. Can we give two sentences to the Stern report? And perhaps one or two on how the economics of the issue is often politicized? We ought to mention what gets mentioned a lot elsewhere.
With these two sections looked over, one outstanding issue on the FAR will be solved. Marskell 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could expand the Stern Report is you would also expand on the criticism of it. ~ UBeR 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a bit to the section. Again, nothing lengthy, but it's now less of a stub. Marskell 09:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics and controversy

message: In the solar variation section these sentences appear, which are apparently intended to be an argument to support a conclusion: 
*"A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. Stratospheric warming has not been observed."
However, the Haigh does not assert or argue that a lack of warming in the stratosphere would argue against a solar contribution to the recent warming.  In fact, the paper does not even cover the first half of a century when the rise in solar activity to the current plateau would have occurred.  The stratosphere responds quickly to increases in solar activity, and the little variation in solar activity in the last half century would probably have been dominated by other influences.  Further warming of the stratosphere would not have been expected.  The two statements above are manufacturing an argument that the author (Haigh) is not making on an issue she is not addressing.  These are at least partially unsupported statements and partially original research.  Is there another reference that can support the above statements?--Africangenesis 11:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argumentative statement? "Stratospheric warming has not been observed." 

message: An "Intercomparison of the northern hemisphere winter mid-latitude atmospheric variability of the IPCC models" by Lucarini, et al, appears to have found serious problems with the AR4 models.  Here is the final line of the abstract, and the full text article:
*"This study suggests serious caveats with respect to the ability of most of the presently available climate models in  representing the statistical properties of the global scale atmospheric dynamics of the present climate and, a fortiori, in the perspective of modelling climate change.  " 
And this excerpt from the conclusion:
*" In particular,  when considering the total variability of the wave fields of the GCMs, we have that the biases on the intraseasonal and interannual variability are positively  linearly  correlated: for larger average signals  the variability tend to be larger. When considering the process-oriented metrics, we have that the baroclinic waves are typically overestimated by the climate models, while the planetary waves are usually underestimated. This closely resembles the results  of many diagnostic studies performed in the past on global weather forecasting models (Tibaldi, 1986). The climatologies of the wave activity of only two models – GFDL-CM2.1 and MIROC(hires) - are statistically consistent with that of the reanalyses both for the global and process-oriented metrics."
Note, that once again correlated error has been found, that results in a bias, even in the meta-ensembles.  The good news is that two of the models have done well.  Elsewhere in the paper, the model used by Hansen, et al, in his 2005 Science paper, GISS-ER, did not fare very well.--Africangenesis 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again. It's not "the abstract for the publication", it's a conference abstract. Raymond Arritt 15:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again??  I don't know where that comes from.  Thanx for the correction.--Africangenesis 15:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Followup, it looks like it has been accepted for publication in Climate Dynamics, but I can't tell if it has been officially published yet.  I guess I didn't discover this paper, it is all over the internet.  Roesch could have made statements as strong or stronger, but didn't, at least in the abstract or conclusion, leaving the implications for the credibility of the models to the reader.--Africangenesis 15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another diagnostic study 

message: Uber removed "small"  on the grounds that "A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphereinterdecadal temperature variability [from pre-Idustrial to 1950] is very likely attributable to . . ." vol/sol". There are two probs with this: first, "sig" probably means stat sig, not sig in the everyday sense of large. Secondly, its "sig frac" - so even if you use "sig" to mean "large" its only a "large fraction" - no comment is made as to the size of the change itself. And third,  "pre-ind to present" (or 1950) (as used in the GW intro) means the 1750/1860 type times to PD - for which the SPM table-2 shows solar forcing as about 1/10 of GHG forcing William M. Connolley 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this solved with an adverb? "Comparatively small"? Or perhaps "statistically significant...but comparatively small..." Marskell 22:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since this is the intro, we don't want to get into excess qualification William M. Connolley 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I was misunderstanding. But then again, as you say, if there's no mention of size change, then perhaps we shouldn't mention it either. ~ UBeR 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A single adverb isn't excess qualification. As I read it, people are saying it's not absolutely "small." But it's small in comparison to anthropogenic change. So put an adverb in. I don't like "relatively", because people misuse it so often. Marskell 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All subjectivity, especially if it isn't in the source, should be avoided. ~ UBeR 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small again 

message: The current first sentence is:
*"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."
I propose to change it to:
*"Global warming is the increasing average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and the hypothesis that it will continue."
The main change is to reduce this sentence's dependence on the models. Presumably there is a hypothesis of continued global warming inspired by the recent trend, and the continuing increases in GHGs, whether we currently have models capable of credibly projecting it or not.  Given the complexity of the climate system, specific projections are usually model based.--Africangenesis 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with either "increase in" or "increasing," as I don't see much a difference. I think, given the the expected continuation of GHG emissions, it is assumed temperatures will continue to rise. So you got an assumptions based off an expectation, which is overall pretty intuitive, and not necessarily dependent on models. That's my view. ~ UBeR 17:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this edit candidate.  Climatology uses modeling as a primary projection tool, so any attempt to separate modeling from climatology is puzzling, to say the least.  If you are looking for an acknowledgement of uncertainty, 'projection' is inherently so. --Skyemoor 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice try, but it is more than just a "hypothesis" that it will continue. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's not stray into giving undue weight to small minority opinions. --Skyemoor 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not give weight to any opinions, just stick to the evidence.--Africangenesis 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:NPOV as an answer to your above statement.  And note that original research is precluded here at WP. See WP:OR.  --Skyemoor 11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The prior effort to define the lead sentence took quite a bit of time and involvement to resolve. Unless there are significantly more editors that establish a consensus of the above, the current language should remain.  --Skyemoor 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh, enough talk about prior consensuses, and "how long the section is getting." here's a radical idea: how abouyt if someone wants to add new valid information, we just let it be. How does that sound? And I suggest we stop suppressing and removing others' ideas just because we deem a section to be too long. We need to try being respectful of others' ideas here. --Sm8900 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed first sentence change 

message: I restored text that mentioned the well known fact that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries (unless consumed by plant life).  Methane is another matter, of course. --Skyemoor 11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longevity of CO2 

message: Re recent small changes and revert  - I think the problem here is that future warming reflects *both* the long lifetime of CO2 and the large effective heat capacity of the ocean. I'm reluctant to see this section get too long though... however the link to the long atmos lifetime of CO2 is useful William M. Connolley 11:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that future warming reflects both, but the statement was about future sea level rise even with *stabilized* GHGs, according to the supporting IPCC SPM reference.  There should be someplace in the article for the longer lifetime of CO2, which is a legitimate contibuter to concerns arising from the AGW hypothesis.  It just wasn't relevant in the context of stabilized GHGs. --Africangenesis 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only after you edited it to say so  William M. Connolley 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the original statement was completely unsupported.  At no place in the document is there discussion of the scenerio where *no further greenhouse gases are released*, i.e., only sinks for GHGs and no further sources.  Both methane and CO2 levels will start declining, admittedly methane faster than CO2 due to CO2s longer lifetime.  Are you aware of projections of sea level rise under this unlikely scenerio?  I am not aware of this scenerio being explored even in other literature.--Africangenesis 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Africangenesis - I believe the SPM statement is stronger than just for stabilized GHGs, i.e. "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}" (p.17), which seems to have the meaning that even for zero future emissions, the past emissions will continue to contribute... Hal peridol 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is in the context of further emissions, not *no further...emissions*.  This scenerio is one rapid trip to an ice age.--Africangenesis 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No: even in the absence of any emissions, atmos levels stay high for a long time William M. Connolley 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need another source then.  The SPM does not support this. --Africangenesis 16:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that past emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise seems plain. How is it that you are reading this in the opposite manner? It's analogous to taking your foot of the gas of a car; it will continue rolling to a stop, it will not stop abruptly.Hal peridol 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think the problem is that we have not yet reached equilibrium with respect to current CO2 levels. So if we stop anthropogenic emissions now, CO2 levels will drop slowly, while the Earth will keep up warming. At some future point, temperature equilibrium will be reached.  CO2 will continue to fall, and there will be a negative radiative forcing, so that temperature will then start to fall again. --Stephan Schulz 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe my latest text should satisfy, since the lifetime reference is retained, and is correct in its new location.--Africangenesis 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me. --Stephan Schulz 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commitment stuff 

message: We need to clean up the intro.  The ad hominem appeals to authority, to the extent there is any validity to it, can be elsewhere in the article, perhaps just as other pages to check out.  There is no evidence that the other societies endorsing the IPCC position, did so based on consideration of any different evidence.  While it is also good to know that some (a few?) scientists have stated reasons to disagree with the IPCC conclusions, perhaps the reasoning and evidence they put forward can be handled in the appropriate sections.--Africangenesis 22:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflicted) I think you're actually thinking of the appeal to authority (ad hominem is an argument by personal attack).  We could debate the status of expert opinions in argument (most argument, in fact, is not strict deduction), but that is not immediately relevant.  Since Wikipedia reports on the views of authorities on a topic, I see nothing wrong with it. --TeaDrinker 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No the fallacy has forms that have nothing to do with personal attack.  Consider the ad hominem argument that one should use a product because a celebrity has endorsed it.  It is an argument by appeal to persons rather than to the merits.--Africangenesis 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the general interest, an argument by "by appeal to persons rather than to the merits" is called an appeal to authority.  The ad hominem argument is different.  But the terminology is not what is at issue.  I think it is perfectly valid for Wikipedia to indicate the views of experts, that is more or less what we do.  --TeaDrinker 23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see my generalization of ad hominem was incorrect, the favorable ad hominem fallacies, go by the own names "appeal to authority", "appeal to celebrity", my bad.--Africangenesis 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Your right, but "expert testimony" might be a better analogy.  Still, does this need need to be in the intro?  Doesn't the misuse of the statements of the societies in support of the TAR by applying them to the FAR SPM statement need correction?--Africangenesis 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A feeble point, but a point. I've changed it to "basic conclusions", which, at the level of abstraction we are talking, have been stable since before the TAR. --Stephan Schulz 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed the [[ad hominem]] [[fallacy ]] material from intro 

message: ""Solar flares generate storms of solar-magnetic flux that partially shield the Earth from cosmic radiation. Evidence suggests that this cosmic radiation promotes cloud formation, either by ionizing the atmosphere, or by affecting the atmosphere’s electrical circuit. Thus high levels of solar wind have the effect of blowing away the cloud cover, giving the Earth a sunburn. Add that solar activity has been very high since the 1940's, and the slight global warming observed since the mid 70's could easily be due to this effect.
None of the global warming alarmists take this effect into account. All of the recent alarmist studies are based on the GCMs (General Circulation Models) employed by the IPCC (the International Panel on Climate Change). These IPCC GCMs have never included the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Back in 1996, at the time of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, this omission was marginally tenable. Sunspots generate a slight increase in solar luminosity (the relatively cool spots are surrounded by super-hot “faculae”) but this increase in radiance is not enough to create significant global warming. The correlation between sunspots and cloudiness was also known, but since no one had any idea what the causal link might be, they did not built it into their models. "" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.143.219.194 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is on the authority of whom? And the implications are what? I'm sure you can provide pointers to peer-reviewes articles discussing this issue.--Stephan Schulz 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Aha, this is Svensmark et al. Their work is rather tentative, and much of it has been refuted/disputed. While they have published a pop-sci book, not much has been accepted by the scientific community. See  for a discussion and additional references. In short, the claimed corellation is not there, and the mechanisms are unconvincing. --Stephan Schulz 12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When considering the effect of solar radiation the article Confuses two completly seperate solar effects those between solar heat radiation(solar luminosity) and solar winds effect on cosmic radiation

message: Recently Africangenesis requested citation for dengue fever, and Dr. Arritt supplied one. Most recently, he requested a citation for malaria, but it appears to be in the linked-to article, effects of global warming. The given citation is here. Additionally, the citation Dr. Arritt provided appears at the end of the sentence, perhaps giving the illusions that the reference covers all of the effects listed, when it does not. I suggest that perhaps dengue fever be added to Effects of global warming (along with the ref), so that we may remove the ref from here (for no other reason than its location is deceiving). Additionally, it'd be pretty ridiculous to cite references for every effect listed there. Just read the effects of global warming article, and if there's still something you're not content with, discuss it here on the talk page (or there too). Thanks. ~ UBeR 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I added the dengue fever cite I moved the cn tag to follow malaria (since as you say the cite I provided only covers dengue fever) but somehow the tag got deleted.  There were a bunch of edit conflicts while I was working, so I don't know if someone else removed it or if it got lost in one of the ECs.  If anyone still thinks a cite is needed it's easy enough to find. Raymond Arritt 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If UBeR reads my edit summaries, the citation needed was not just for dengue fever.  There also appears to be a problem with these same issues being redundantly discussed up above in what is presumably the attribution part of the section.  The anticipation of the spread of disease, is poorly worded, diseases spread even when the climate is cooling, they're contagious.  Presumably what is meant is that the range of certain diseases endemic to certain climates will increase, with the extension of that climate to higher latitudes.  We need to get specific here so that this is not just vague fear mongering.  This issue does not apply to the mainland US for instance, since tropical diseases are already controlled on the Gulf Coast, and mesquito control is already in place all the way up to New England for West Nile Virus and St. Louis Encephalitis.--Africangenesis 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read effects of global warming. The references are there. We don't have to repeat them on this article if we follow the WP:SUMMARY guidelines. Plus, you can read the TAR. ~ UBeR 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A summarization that generalizes from specifics to something as non-specific as the "spread of disease", distorts the source.  Additional, Stephan made the point in an edit summary accompanying a revert that *NOT* all the anticipated effects are model based directly or indirectly.  Specific supporting citations would assist in deciding his point.  If he knows which are model based, he could assist with clarifying language, rather, than a revert. --Africangenesis 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, we have "Additional anticipated effects include . . . the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever." What the effects article states is "Global warming is expected to extend the favourable zones for vectors conveying infectious disease such as malaria and west nile virus." The given source is here, like I stated above. Although it's a pretty shoddy source, it's accepted by many health organizations, such as WHO (of course, it's been criticized by quite a few as well). ~ UBeR 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two paragraphs above that, without any citations, and both redundant and inferior to the statement you cite, we have "Other expected effects include water scarcity in some regions and increased precipitation in others, changes in mountain snowpack, adverse health effects from warmer temperatures, and the spread of disease."  "Expected effects" and "anticipated effects", seem to all be based on expectations based on climate models.  So, do you have any problem with the text I proposed, that Stephan reverted?  We probably should also eliminate the redundancy.--Africangenesis 01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To make my "models" remark clear: Ocean acidification depends on CO2 concentration, and not (or only in very minor ways) on the temperature and hence on climate models. Disease vector spreading depends on climate models only indirectly. --Stephan Schulz 06:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree with Africangenesis that the section in question could stand to be condensed to reduce redundancy. However, he/she also needs to read WP:SUMMARY as has been mentioned more than twice to understand the requirement for references in summary sections is not required on the level that it is in the associate subarticle.  For example, the subarticle associated with this section is Effects of global warming; there you will find the references you seek.  Of course, some people still put some references in the summary, so it is easy for new editors to become confused, understandably.  The summary and the subarticle could stand some syncing to remove the summary references.  --Skyemoor 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations, attributed and expected effects, and Africangenesis

message: In the feedbacks section, there was a confusing reference to a slight increase in humidity as part of the water vapor feedback mechanism.   Presumably this is true for absolute humidity, but that would probably confuse the readers, since relative humidity is far more familiar.  Futhermore the citation used relative humidity, and found it interesting that it was lower in all the AR4 models.  We probably should qualify "humidity" whereever we use it.--Africangenesis 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Swapping to slight dec in RH was even more confusing, though. Inc is the important bit; I dont think it needs to be qualified but it can be if you really want William M. Connolley 08:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To expand, relative humidity measures the percentage of humidity in the air for a given temperature.  The hotter the temperature, the more water vapor can be absorbed by air.  Absolute humidity, on the other hand measures the amount of water vapor in the air without regard to temperature.  --Skyemoor 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Being tediously pedantic, air does not "hold" WV, though the amount of WV does depend on the temperature of the air William M. Connolley 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  relative vs absolute humidity 

message: Sorry if I'm being dense here, but what exactly is the first graph in the article showing? What does "anomaly" mean in this context - what is the norm against which it is being measured? Or is it showing the changes in temperature at each year across the period, in which case I'd suggest the caption needs clarifying? QmunkE
: This does keep coming up. Perhaps it should be explained somewhere. Following the common practice of the IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990. says the figure. That should mean that all the data is expressed as anomalies from the 1961-90 average (for that station) before being averaged up William M. Connolley 11:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, if we could change the image, The scale on the Y-axis is very biased. Its +/- .6 degrees C. It should at least be 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachninme (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "Global mean surface temperature anomaly"? 

message: I thougth I'd pass along this article. I contains just a hint of good news on GW. Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers Delta x 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that kind of stuff is covered in Shutdown of thermohaline circulation William M. Connolley 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted"

message: So you ended up converting the references to Cite.php after all. Why didn't anybody tell me? I notified everybody on this very talk page not so many months ago that I had a script that would do 90% of the work for you - in fact, I had made an edit to show that it worked because like usual, nobody believes anybody anything. But no, the proposal was rejected. So finally, you chose to do it manually anyway. So here I'm thinking, what a bunch of clowns. You could have told Peter Andersen, HughGRex et al. that I had that script. Keeling over, guys, keeling over! Okay, back to occupational therapy now! Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I never heard of it. What are you going on about now? ~ UBeR 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd certainly like a script like this, but I could do without the attitude. Like UBeR I didn't see your announcement. Why not a polite reminder and (more usefully) a link to the script.JQ 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Script good! Too bad it didn't get used this time. Perhaps next time? --Kim Bruning 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Way cool! Creating the citations manually is a pain, it is the main reason I am having to take improving this article's status slowly.  Can it save any labor during this one citation at a time stage of the process?--Africangenesis 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: While on the subject, maybe something could be posted at the top of talk, suggesting: if you do not format your ref, it will be removed. Really, why spend the time formatting fifty refs, if tens more will be added unformatted? Marskell 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, well I tried to keep up with the rush of new refs with the added info. Obviously still a few left to convert. I'll do this later tonight. ~ UBeR 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a web interface to one such script. I don't find that it saves much time, though. Raymond Arritt 22:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it doesn't seem to save much time. I could probably fill it out manually in the same time. Additionally, that script doesn't delete the superfluous premises that are not being inputted, which is just a waste of space. Just my thoughts. ~ UBeR 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had envisioned something that could fill everything in based on the DOI.  We could then just add the supporting quotes that save others so much effort.  The form, doesn't seem any faster.--Africangenesis 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you are aware of this described in some detail at User:Verisimilus/Cite. It takes BibTeX, either raw or from Google Scholar, and makes a ref from it. And I hope Marskell's suggestion is a joke. From a  badly described ref to a good ref is a simple, mostly mechanical process. From no ref to any ref is a lot harder. --Stephan Schulz 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: look for the changes that say "refconvert" ot something similar. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you're the only who has the script, why not do it yourself. I don't think anybody is (or can) restrict you for changing the refs. In fact, I think some people might appreciate it. ~ UBeR 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: This news item should be included in this and related articles.  
:recent studies suggest that current scientific estimates about natural absorption are too optimistic: Earth's climate by century's end could be on average up to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F.) hotter than current projections suggest....
It also has good info on the IPCC 4AR WGIII SPM due out today:
:the use of natural "sinks" – oceans, plants, and soil that can hold carbon – is said to appear in the report researchers and politicians are haggling over this week.... Some 100 countries participating went into this week's meeting ready to offer 1,500 amendments to a 24-page draft document.
The ref is:  
Spotts, P.N. (May 3, 2007) "Nature's carbon 'sink' smaller than expected" Christian Science Monitor accessed May 4, 2007.
The peer-reviewed article being summarized is: Buesseler, K.O., et al. (2007) "Revisiting Carbon Flux Through the Ocean's Twilight Zone" Science 316(5824): 567-70. DOI: 10.1126/science.1137959 accessed May 4, 2007.
75.35.115.45 07:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. The CSM article seems to be a synthesis of various articles. I can only access the abstract of the new Science article, and that speaks of carbon sequestration only, not of the effect on climate. Also, it is rather careful in noticing the large variability and the restriction to two sampling sites. I would let this sink in for a while and see how it is received. The Science article itself could go into carbon cycle sooner, of course, where it is directly relevant.--Stephan Schulz 08:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got an email back from Spotts who said the cite for the 1.5 °C increase over earlier predictions fact wasn't Buesseler et al. but rather: Friedlingstein, P. et al. (2006) "Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison" Journal of Climate 19: 3337-53. 75.35.109.153 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News item: additional 1.5 °C increase at 2100 from ocean measurements 

message: I believe that the role of alage in the ocean naturally combating the effects of excess CO2 in the environment is a vital point that is given short shrift in this article. Read up on algae and how rapidly it expands in the presence of high levels of CO2. There is no reason the think that the symbiotic relationship between algae in the ocean and humans will not balance itself out as it always does. More CO2 means more algae, and more algae sinks the CO2 levels amd the algae die off and the process starts over again and again. It's the cycle of life!
So why all the hysteria over a warming that will naturally correct iteself?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.108.189 (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any reliable source that describes this effect. If you have one, please tell us. Of course the warming will "naturally correct" itself, but this will take a couple of ten thousand years (give or take a few millenia). Some of us are concerned about the time in between. --Stephan Schulz 01:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  [] (PDF) First one on google when you type "algae global warming". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tutmosis (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a bit different than what the anon was explaining. ~ UBeR 06:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite --Kim D. Petersen 08:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Algae expansion in global warming

message: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg
plz mods contact this website http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/cylmaps.html  and ask permission to host this pic in the gw article.This scenario will happen 
manchurian candidate 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAP OF THE EARTH WILL ALL ICE MELT! 

message: Um, the temperatures readings wouldn't be completely accurate before 1979, when we started using satellites, so isn't the graph at the top of the page flawed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.48.4 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You *could* read the graphs text, if interested. Although I suspect that there will be satellite SSTs in there after 1979 William M. Connolley 22:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The ICOADS data set (on which the ocean part of HadCRUT3 is based) goes back to 1784. Raymond Arritt 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Temperatures Graph 

message: I removed the following paragraph, which was in it's own section titled "Interstellar Cosmic Ray."  
:Cosmic rays influence the formation of cloud by causing evaporated water molecules to condense into tiny droplets. When the amount of cosmic rays colliding with the earth's atmosphere increases, more cloud form, which cause more of the suns energy to be reflected into space without reaching the earths surface, cooling the earth. Also, evaporated water molecules are one type of greenhouse gas which captures the suns energy more than CO2. Therefore, when less cosmic rays hit the earth's atmosphere, less water is condensed into clouds and therefore more water exist in the greenhouse gas form increasing the earth's temperature.
My feeling, based on this and this (be sure to read past the title), seem to indicate that it is a hypothesis among some scientists, but is not widely held enough to deserve its own section.  Since some of the effect seems to (at least in one formulation of the hypothesis) modulated by the magnetic field/sunspot activity of the sun, perhaps adding a sentence or two in that section would be appropriate.  But with the article as long as it is, this seemed like undue weight.  Thoughts or further comments? --TeaDrinker 01:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. --Skyemoor 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's definitely a tiny-minority hypothesis per the undue-weight clause of WP:NPOV. Intriguing but highly speculative and disagrees in many ways with observations. (It's interesting that some people reject findings based on far better data and sounder theory, but gladly accept tenuous hypotheses such as this.) It doesn't merit more than a passing mention in the solar part, if that -- maybe add the words "and perhaps cosmic ray activity" somewhere in the solar discussion. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text did not correctly explain the hypothesis anyway.  I think it receives an indirect reference in the solar section, "cloud feedback".  There is a stronger correlation of climate change with solar activity than can be explained by current reconstructions of solar irradiance alone.  It is data awaiting an explanation, and it is also a reason for humility among the GHG warming theory alarmists.--Africangenesis 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it warrants only a small part. Too many unknowns at the moment. ~ UBeR 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Africangenesis. --Blue Tie 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intersteller cosmic rays 

message: For those interested, the US National Academies of Science will be webcasting the presentation "Measuring the Economic Effects of Global Warming: Models, Data, and Policies"
William D. Nordhaus will present an overview of the current state of research in the field and challenge the federal statistical and research communities to develop the data, statistics, methodological research, and analyses needed to help us chart our future course. Specifically, he will discuss "integrated assessment” and other economic models of global warming; present results of recent modeling efforts attempting to identify the relative efficiency of different policy objectives; assess the major uncertainties that limit our modeling efforts and, in turn, our understanding of the issues; and other recommendations for improving statistical data that would improve our models, projections, and policy assessments.  --Skyemoor 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GW Economics Webcast 

message: Excerpt from a paper published in Nature :
:(...) But the rates of mixing in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, and the extent of upwelling induced, remain poorly understood due to a lack of direct observations. A natural phenomenon, the release of helium from submarine volcanoes into the current near Drake Passage, provided an opportunity to fill in that observational gap. (...) This creates a previously unrecognized 'short circuit' in the global oceanic overturning circulation (...) 
--Childhood's End 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate models accuracy re: oceanic circulation 

message: The article states "Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950"
If their was global warming since 1800... then wouldn't solar variation and volcanoes take the ENTIRE blame of global warming during pre-industrial times? What does this "small warming effect" mean? And if it truly was only a small warming effect, then what caused the rest of it? Bryanpeterson 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase entangles solar variation, which has a strong correlation with climate variation over the past few millenia, with episodic periods of volcanic activity, which cause  cooling.  "small ... to 1950", depends on whether one picks a dip or a peak as the baseline period, e.g., maunder minimum or the miedeval warming period.  It also depends on what you consider "small".  There is a low level of scientific understanding of past solar forcing.  While the correlation is strong, the amplitude of variation that presumably caused that variation is not known.  Our best physically based solar models can only account for about 80% of the solar variation over the satellite observations of the current high plateau of solar activity.  Their validity for extrapolation to periods of relatively quiet solar activity is unknown.--Africangenesis 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very rarely is only one force the cause of any change within Earth's climate system. The rest, of course, is said to be attributed to this. ~ UBeR 05:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, correlation is not causation, and the forcings themselves are coupled.  For instance, CO2 is released in a warming climate and along with water vapor would constitute a positive feedback to the solar forcing.--Africangenesis 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1800 to 1950 warming 

message: I know I am opening myself up for major attack here, but there is a video (Watch at Google Video) from the BBC that disputes that claim made in the sentence under "Cause" that reads: detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[8] identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence.
No dispute on Global Warming, just disputing the extent to which humans are involved.  The video is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based on what they had seen in An Inconvenient Truth.
It would be nice if the Global Warming article cited some of the dirty misdoings of the IPCC that are cited in this video, before offering IPCC findings as scientific consensus.
Shaunco 07:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video comes from WagTV and director Martin Durkin, broadcasted on Channel 4, not the BBC. We actually have an article on it here. For further information, you might want to read global warming controversy. ~ UBeR 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody want to respond?? My question is: in this "neutral" article, how come only one side's ideas are displayed when reputable scientists in films such as this have a different idea? Is it because your precious majority? Please read my comments in "POV in Intro" as dismissal to that. The Person Who Is Strange 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot mention the "Great Global Warming Swindle" on this page as evidence against global warming as this film has been so ridiculed by the media -- it would be like using Hitler's comments that all cities should have efficient public transport as an endorsement on the public transport page. The film "Great Global Warming Swindle" is currently undergoing an independent investigation as to whether the producers of it "distorted or misrepresented their known views" (i.e. included blatant lies). One scientist interviewed for "Great Global Warming Swindle" as a "Global warming skeptic" said he was completely misrepresented (in the film) and called the film "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War II.". Rnt20 08:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TGGWS is probably the most prominent AGW-critical movie out there.  It is obviously notable, and since its subject is the same as this article, it most certainly should be noted here.  Zoomwsu 23:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent to Which Humans are Involved