Talk:Causes of climate change/Archive 2

message: Search for "recent", "recently" in Wikipedia the recent encyclopedia lead to this page amongst others.
Shall the recent climate change still be "recent" when it gets its climax and Wikipedia begins to melt too ?
I agree that the most common term used in the recent world is similar to the title of this article. But it shall have to change one day. -- DLL   .. T 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to disturb but : 

message: I am afraid "recent" will continue to describe the time period since the Little Ice Age until the next one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RonCram (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On a geologic time scale.

message: Have there been any responses to the claims made by the contributers to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Channel 4, UK, on the 9th of March 2007? Such as that temperature change has always led carbon change by a gap of 800 years? This would make it impossible for Carbon to be causing temperature changes. Another point made was that CO2 makes up 0.54% of the atmosphere and that human CO2 emissions are 6 gigatons per annum of that, whilst animals and plants create 130 gigatons and still more is produced by either volcanoes or the ocean than human activity. I really think that a lot of people will turn to Wikipedia for answers to these sorts of questions, but it was difficult to see them clearly laid out in this article.--82.43.176.137 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that nothing in that article makes any sense. Wiki climate articles don't spend much time on non-science. The T-CO2 lag is covered at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ if you want William M. Connolley 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ty, I had a lot of strong reactions from people both where I agreed or disagreed with GW, so any help is much appreciated.--82.43.176.137 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is now a section on the 800 year ice core lag thing (which I did think was one of the programme's stronger arguments). The argument about CO2 only being 0.54% of the atmosphere was just meaningless. Who cares? Plutonium makes up a very small part of the mass of the Earth, but that doesn't mean we want any more of it, as it is lethal at the level of microgrammes. The absolute amount of CO2 is completely irrelevant, what matters is the effect that _increasing_ the level of CO2 has. To be honest it reduced my respect for the programme that it used arguments such as these (which are obviously fallacious). Subsequent research into the producer of the programme, and Wunsch's very public complaint about how they used his interview, have reinforced this. --Merlinme 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that there was a lot of information presented in the Channel 4 programme that is not mainstream knowledge and should have representation in wikipedia articles so as to present a balanced view.  I couldn't find information anywhere in wikipedia on the % of CO2 attributable to human activities (directly or indirectly) so that kind of thing should be added somewhere.... Think Merlinme has made a good start by putting in the section on ice core stuff. Will henderson 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, that was my section, though rewrote it :-). As to CO2: the answer is about 200%; in that only 1/2 the human-emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Its Carbon_dioxide#Atmospheric_concentration there William M. Connolley 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Evidence on Channel 4 (UK) March 2007?

message: I dont see where B+G say "Bratcher and Giese claim the Earth was in a cooling trend from 1942 to 1975 and then saw warmer temperatures from 1976 through 2002." I don't think there is such a trend. B+G say "A similar situation existed in the early 1940’s when SST records show an equatorial Pacific cooling with the period from 1942–1976 generally cooler than the period following the 1976 climate shift [Zhang et al., 1997]." If you want them to say 42-76 (why do you say 75?) was cooler than 76 on then I'm happy with that, obviously. But if you want them to say a *global* cooling trend from 42-75/6 please quote them here William M. Connolley 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, throughout the article (starting in paragraph 1) B&G talk about the warming trend that began in 1976.  They also predict a return to pre-1976 conditions which they describe as "cooler."  I understand pre-1976 as 1975.  If you think the statement should read "from 1942 to 1976," I'm okay with that.  Regarding the issue of whether this is global, that is the topic of the article.  Here is one example: "Given the considerable effect that tropical Pacific SST has on global atmospheric circulation, a climate shift to pre-1976 conditions could lessen the warming trend that has existed since 1976."  They also write: "However the results do indicate that the human forced portion of global warming may be less than previously described."  Also, "The purpose of this paper is to bring attention to the similar, but opposite in sign, pattern as that seen prior to the 1976 climate shift and emphasize the importance of understanding the separation between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing in the climate system." The "similar, but opposite in sign" climate shift could only refer to cooling. Notice the trend from 1940s to 1970s in this temperature chart that GISS published in 1999.  There really is not much point in trying to argue against a cooling trend if that is your goal. RonCram 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, I do indeed argue against 1942-1975/6 being a cooling trend. I would see it as a small peak around 194x, followed by a plateau. However the results do indicate that the human forced portion of global warming may be less than previously described - this is fair enough, and supports your (other) point. But the "pattern" stuff: no. They don't say cooling trend; and you're having to torture their words to get it out. Try replacing it with something they did actually say William M. Connolley 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, I am not torturing their words.  They discussed the warming trend that started in 1976.  They indicate a similar climate shift is happening in 2002 but with the opposite sign.  That can only mean the beginning of a cooling trend.  Your argument for a plateau is not in accord with the B&G.  Neither is it in accord with the temperature record in which the 1930s were as warm or warmer than the 1990s (if you consider the temperature record prior to the unwarranted adjustments that were made in 2001 in time for the TAR). Did you even look at the temperature chart I linked to? If you insist on using the unreliable temperature records that are currently in vogue, the trend is still visible. This website will provide you with annual U.S. temperatures for the years being discussed.  RonCram 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why did you link to the *US* dta rather than the global? But the point is not to argue about the interpretation of 1940-70 here: clearly we disagree. The point is, what do B+G say, since we're reporting on them. And the answer is, they say nothing of a cooling trend from 42-75/6. Don't put words in their mouths William M. Connolley 08:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  B+G 

message: This heading (and hence possibly this section) is clearly POV. I have marked it as such. Ben Finn 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Errrmmm... so what do you suggest? William M. Connolley 09:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've renamed the section "Arguments which dispute attribution to CO2", and discussed the argument in more detail. I think it's worth exploring at length, because I can understand why it can be a persuasive argument, and we need to understand it if we are to understand why it is fallacious. Given that I now think the argument is reasonably presented, I've also removed the POV tag. Merlinme 10:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Myths of attribution'

message: I thought we were a bit hasty to delete in full the following which had been added in the "Arguments which dispute" section:
"Climate change elsewhere in the solar system
In recent years warming has been observed on Mars , Jupiter , Pluto , and Neptune's largest moon Triton . This points to a solar explanation for the recent warming on Earth."
It is an argument which disputes, so surely it would be better to discuss in full, rebutting where reasonable? In fact most of the articles linked to gave strong arguments why this wasn't thought to indicate a single solar irradiance cause (as opposed to e.g. changes in orbits, local climate changes, etc.)
The one I would take out would be Jupiter, where it was far from clear to me from the article linked to whether we were talking about global warming, or local warming caused by changes in Jupiter's atmosphere. --Merlinme 13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. It was more or less reflexive on my behalf, as I've seen this 15 times and over refuted crapmisinformation introduced over and over again in the various articles. --Stephan Schulz 13:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This can go in, as long as its clear that the evidence is against this having anything to do with Earth GW. As the plotu folk say: Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto.". Ditto Neptune. In fact, when you look around there is *no* evidence for solar-caused warming on any planet William M. Connolley 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, of course, the evidence for "global" warming is very scant in most of these cases. --Stephan Schulz 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about any direct measurements, even on Mars. Pluto's "global temperature" is derived from three occultation events in 1988, 2002 and 2006. There should probably also be a note that we know about the existance of Triton for about one (1) Neptunian year, and about the existance of Pluto for about 1/3rd Plutonian year. --Stephan Schulz 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One might assume that all the planet should be warming if solar output was increasing (or cooling less than what would be expected given natural variations), but I don't think this is being observed. So far, the only warming I've seen argued to be connected with Earth's is Neptune's. ~ UBeR 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments which dispute- solar system warming 

message: On the whole I like the changes, although they perhaps make it a little heavy-going for your average lay person. However, I'm not sure about the "death spiral" bit. I thought there were processes which are believed to have eventually reduced CO2 levels because of changed atmospheric properties, e.g. rock weathering. Do the changes really help explain the ice core argument? --Merlinme 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Death spiral is no good. And of course the feedback does work in reverse, or at least its no great surprise if it does William M. Connolley 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice cores changes 

message: It is weak page. 
If you want to attribute something you should also put out the numbers as to the percentage of the change that is attributed to that cause.
:Doesn't the graph give the necessary information? Apart from anything else, I imagine it depends which model you use. Given that this is one of the most heavily disputed areas, I'm not entirely sure what numbers you are looking for. It seems pointless to me, to be very precise about things which have a large level of uncertainty. --Merlinme 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is an awful lot of technical details in the TAR if you feel like reading it William M. Connolley 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: This entire section seems to be someones opinion and synthesis (ie. does the BAS hold this view? its the only source..). My questions here are: 
* is there really such a dispute? 
* who is disputing it?
* Is the dispute scientifical?
* why isn't there a large section in Global warming controversy about it if its a big controversy? (where it belongs if its real?)
* The size of this section (compared to the rest) seems to indicate that this is an important controversy or is it WP:Undue_weight?
--Kim D. Petersen 07:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Errrm, so why the factual-accuracy tag? But to answer your Qs: this isn't a scientific dispute, its a septic talking point (see TGGWS). Its here because its an issue with attribution. This section was smaller; its grown perhaps too much William M. Connolley 08:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag should probably be something else (i appologize) - i selected it because the POV flag defined the whole article (which i didn't intend). Change it to something more appropriate. The section does seem to indicate a dispute (by being in a section called "Arguments which dispute attribution to CO2" - since it doesn't and isn't scientific - shouldn't the section either be labelled something else ("common misunderstandigs"? *grin*) - i think i understand the purpose as being some kind of FAQ then? --Kim D. Petersen 08:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry my english deteriorates when i'm tired --Kim D. Petersen 08:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try looking back at the original . But - why this fad for tagging stuff nowadays? Whatever happened to just talking about things first? I prefer myths William M. Connolley 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This section was created to handle the following: people look to Wikipedia for information about Global Warming; in particular they look to Wikipedia to understand arguments used for and against Global Warming; there are arguments used against Global Warming which are not particularly scientific, but they do exist and should be discussed; where they should they be discussed in Wikipedia? The original title of the section was something like "Myths of global warming", but this was felt to be rather a long way from NPOV, so it was given the title it currently has. If you have a good suggestion for how this should be handled differently, we will of course consider it, but I have to agree with WMC: this should be discussed on the talk page first. I'll remove the tag now. --Merlinme 09:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merlinme, i was tired and probably overreacted. Sorry. Myth is better than the current title (how about "common misconceptions"? --Kim D. Petersen 09:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about tagging it (i agree with your sentiment). I'm probably a bit to tired to edit anything today. --Kim D. Petersen 09:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't worry, its no problem William M. Connolley 10:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Initial rise is one thing but the subsequent falls and rises also had the co2 lag - are you sure about this? As I understand it the lag is only really well established for deglaciation, and 800+/-600 is not too precise even there. very little can be concluded from the graph except that there is a correlation and that co2 lags temperature - two things. Firstly, as pointed out, people are attempting to conclude from the graph that CO2 can't be causing T rise. I'm glad to see you denying thats possible, but not everyone has realised it. Secondly, various scientists who have studied it *ahve* concluded various things from the graph: why should we prefer your interpretation to theirs? William M. Connolley 10:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William: You assume "people are attempting to conclude from the graph that CO2 can't be causing T rise". I don't see that at all. To me it seems sceptics use the time lag as a rebuttal of the idea that CO2 caused temperature swings in the past when the reverse corrollory is equally plausible and indeed more likely. No one can seriously claim though that the past CO2-T relationship proves anything about current climate either pro or against AGW. Any attempt to do so by postulating that the CO2-T feedback is shown to be a driver in the past is surely accepting second or even third best interpretation of the graph and that the most logical conclusion if there is a CO2 lag - which everyone seems now to accept - is that the original driver of temperature in the past is more important than any CO2 feedback. I don't ask you to accept my point of view but I ask you to think about it yourself and conclude whether it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or is it just more uncorroborated noise in the debate? Do you not feel that inclusion of this poorly thought-out theory makes even non-scientists strongly wonder about the thinking ability of the people who assert it and hence weakens their case? JG17 09:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sadly you are wrong: there really are people stupid enough to make this claim (see TGGWS) and people stupid enough to believe it. I could find you various comments from such people if required William M. Connolley 21:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the flawed logic of the feedback argument is acceptable just to counter the flawed logic of the sceptics? Where does the truth stand in all of this? Too inconvenient? Maybe you should ask your colleagues how they explain the cooling periods with this feedback theory before it comes to court or before someone embarrasses them on CNN or Newsnight. Maybe the CO2 is sucked into a black hole at the end of the heating period thereby allowing the climate to start from scratch?  JG17 09:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The feedback argument isn't flawed. The argument isn't that it initiates change, only amplifies it. Hence it can explain cooling or warming, as long as they are triggered by something else William M. Connolley 10:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case "positive feedbacks from CO2 concentrations amplify warming initially caused by other factors" should have "or cooling" inserted after "warming" and "temperature and CO2 rose in parallel" should be "rose and fell in parallel." In that case the idea of removing CO2 from the air as mooted on the IPCC website and encouraged by the Gore/Branson prize should be discouraged forthwith because the climate is clearly such a delicate system that if we remove too much CO2 we'll initiate a catastrophic ice age. But then you don't really believe that do you? Oh what a tangled web we weave.... JG17 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the text mostly focusses on the lag where its best understood, ie deglaciations, ie T rise, the current text is probably OK. We'd need to remove an awful lot of CO2 from the air to get towards glacial type levels... certainly below 300 ppmv, and we're at 380+ and climbing William M. Connolley 20:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#It_was_obviously_much_warmer_when_the_Norse_settled_Greenland--Stephan Schulz 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Warming sometimes leads CO<sub>2</sub> increases 

message: Point to consider?
People often say that climate change is natural and use that as a counter argument to attempts at mitigation. However, I don't believe that argument in itself is a valid counter argument to undertaking mitigation. Even if climate change is mostly natural, it is still a situation that our civilisation needs to contend with. Of course one of the ways to deal with it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (the science behind that is not disputed at all as far as I'm aware - correct me if you have better information though). Simply saying that climate change is natural (even though it is not believed to be so) is not a counter argument against reducing greenhouse gas emission. I would almost go so far as to say that using the 'climate change is natural' argument is irrelevant to the entire debate.
I am sort of new to this so sorry if the format or section placing of this point is wrong. I wonder whether there is a case for putting a section like this into this article (or a more appropriate one? Open to suggestions). Anyway what do people think?... Gaz
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.242.31.43 (talk • contribs).
:The argument is as follows: If climate change is natural, then it is not caused by (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions and hence we do not need to reduce them. Mitigation using other means than reducing human interference with the climate system is a much less understood and potentially much more controversial topic. --Stephan Schulz 13:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Natural Climate Variation and justification for inaction 

message: The reference says:
"A climate model can be used to simulate the temperature changes that occur both from natural and anthropogenic causes. The simulations represented by the band in (a) were done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. Those encompassed by the band in (b) were done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and an estimate of sulphate aerosols, and those encompassed by the band in (c) were done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings included. From (b), it can be seen that inclusion of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of the observed temperature changes over the past century, but the best match with observations is obtained in (c) when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included. These results show that the forcings included are sufficient to explain the observed changes, but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed."
The article says:
"Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not."
I changed this to "...reproduce the observed global temperature changes better than those forced by natural factors alone."
I thought this was a better summary of the reference, however WMC has reverted it. WMC knows the science much better than I do, and rereading the reference, the inference is that graph a) (with no GHG forcing) doesn't explain the observed changes. However, I still think Wikipedia's claim is too strong: to me, "reproduce the observed global temperature changes" suggests that there's a near perfect match, and that's surely not the case. How about: ""Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols produce the best match to the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not produce a good match."? --Merlinme 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I could have been a bit more polite here. Your last version is OK-ish; the briefer version you put in, to my mind, didn't downplay the nat-only match enough. How about "The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing" from the AR4 SPM? William M. Connolley 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. Presumably you'll need to change the reference as well. --Merlinme 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate models 

message: Although others may disagree, I feel that in a section where problems with the CO2 theory are being listed, this choice of wording seems awfully biased, eg. by someone who is convinced by the CO2 theory and wants to hide the problems, or even "slip them under the rug", wanting those reading to ignore this section.
I suggest that it is changed from "that complicates" to "that may contradict to", not any further though (eg. not to "disproves", for that is simply bias in the wrong direction).
I know it may seem a subtle change, but to me "complicates isn't very neutral". TJ 16:28UTC 07/06/07
*note, I in fact agree with the CO2 theory, but feel that there should always be some form of proper Critisism page, not trying to convince people otherwise.
:*I agree, I don't like "that complicates".  It implies that the theory is still 100% true, just more complicated.  I'm not sure what it should be changed to.  "may contradict" or "may challenge"?  --Bill.matthews 16:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been various attempts to get a better wording for this. I'm not convinced by "that may contradict", as this implies they have significant weight, when very few (no?) scientists give them any weight at all. Previous efforts include "Myths of climate change attribution" and "Attempts to disagree with CO2 attribution" (or words to that effect). I think the current wording gets the balance reasonably well. --Merlinme 16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) People often fall into the trap of thinking the issue is either-or. But it isn't. Nobody who knows anything about the science doubts that there are roles for both CO2 and natural variations.  Results that show natural variations play a larger role than presently thought (even by a factor of 2 or 3) would not "contradict" the role of CO2. "Complicate" may not be be the best word, but it's more accurate than "contradict" or "challenge." Raymond Arritt 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, possibly something along the lines of Talk:Global warming/FAQ might work better. Then the countertheories could be phrased as questions and answered in a less tortuous way. --Merlinme 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''"That Complicates"'' 

message: I don't believe "Previous research has demonstrated a reduction in cosmic rays between 1920 and 1980, when measurements were stopped. ". Reading the ref (I presume this ) says "Fair-weather potential gradient (PG) observations in Scotland and Shetland show a previously unreported annual decline from 1920 to 1980, when the measurements ceased." which is entirely different. CR measurements continue William M. Connolley 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sven 

message: This user's last edit says that the user undid a past version.  Yet, the changes are very different.  In fact, it seems like the user was just trying to hide a past change that was earlier attempted at least once here.  Is it possible to hide edits under the 'undo' function or am I just being paranoid? Brusegadi 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like 'undo' works differently and more selectively from a rollback or revert.  The 'undo' removed the edit by BenB4 (this one) without affecting any of the intervening edits.  I didn't know it worked like that, but it seems useful when one needs to fix an old edit while leaving intermediate constructive edits in place. (Which is not to say the undo was appropriate in this case.)Raymond Arritt 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got confused.  Sorry for wasting your time.  Anyhow, it is good to know how this things work because some vandals are tricky.  Brusegadi 23:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jedimetroid

message: I've moved the recently-added map lower, because I think it carries the wrong implications of "attribution" and shouldn't have priority by being at the top. This page (I assert) is about the attribution of climate change to different forcing agents; not about why countries have caused which proportion of CO2 emissions William M. Connolley 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. A necessary distinction, a necessary move. Vinny Burgoo 16:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mv map: why 

message: 1.  The phrase "The current best answer is..." is incredibly POV and inappropriate for this article.  While it is true that some people may believe that it is "the best answer", that doesn't necessarily mean it is and it certainly should be reported as fact when it is opinion.
3.  It is absolutely inappropriate to discuss the issue of greenhouse gas emission in the second paragraph without including discussion of the fact that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions has taken place AFTER the reported increase in global temperatures.  Anything else is POV pushing.
3.  "A summary of climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports".  That isn't either accurate or sufficient.  The IPCC doesn't summarize all climate research, it creates its own summary.  So this phrase must be changed to reflect this fact.  I suggest something like "An IPCC summary of climate research may be found in their assessment reports".
:<My POV> I am currently undecided on the issue of anthropogenic global warming (I have changed my mind about three times today), but I am opposed to any single organisation dominating any given field of research </My POV>. A read through of this article made my POV hackles rise. Five of the top eight references are IPCC. This may as well be titled "The opinion of the IPCC and ridicule of skeptics". If the theory linking warming on other planets to that on earth is 'nuts' (uncommon scientific terminology), why include it? Simply to ridicule skeptics? Article needs NPOV work IMHO, but I'm not going to waste my time making changes that will be reverted instantly. Dhatfield (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cl Ch is unusual in that there is one body - IPCC - charged with collecting and collating and summarising resea ch. IPCC doesn't dominate the research enterprise, but it does provide the best summary. And (once again) its work has been endorsed by X, Y and Z. Warming on other planets is different (you're right: it is basically nuts and has no scientific support, its only here because it comes up from the septics). Not making instantly reverted edits is a good idea. As always, you're free to discuss POV-type improvements here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unusual is one way of putting it. Unique would be another way. Why does the article not reference the fundamental research? Is primary research not preferable to referencing a third party in an encyclopedia? As an aside, is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png really the best we, as a species, can do? It ends in 1994.  Dhatfield (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though this discussion seems over, I'd like to point out that at least in this case, secondary research is DEFINITELY preferable to primary, although relying on one source is indeed a problem. In general, interpreting primary research is NOT the job of an encyclopedia, and on Wikipedia qualifies as OR. In this particular case, there are literally thousands of studies that need to be compiled, statistically analyzed, and interpreted; citing individual studies would be useless. As for the graph, I'm not exactly sure what the objection is.  Eebster the Great (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some POV problems

message: I don't like the current version of the "solar var" section; it reads too much like endorsing it. Quotes from the various articles linked need to be pulled in to make it clear that the people observing this stuff aren't claiming it. It would be nice to find a way to note how weak the stuff is - eg the pluto and neptune stuff is a trend from 2 points William M. Connolley 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is poorly written. The entire section about the solar variation only speaks about mostly unrelated climatic changes on other planets, which it shouldn't. ~ UBeR 21:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My recollection is that this is a leftover from an old edit war. Somebody put in the nonsense from Abdusamatov when he was in the news, then some of us added the responses, so here it is. Delete as much as you like. Raymond Arritt 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that section reads like it is totally bashing the concept... I'm totally clueless on this subject matter, so unless it is supposed to read like that (i.e. the concept is just some scientists making crazy assumptions and is ridiculous to pretty much the rest of the scientific community), can someone make it more neutral? wctaiwan (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar variation 

message: Re  - I'm with Hermione. This is a science article; CCD is primarily political William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, i don't know what i does on the Attribution article, the connection would have to be rather far-fetched. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A river in Africa? 

message: Several footnotes should be attributed to Gavin Schmidt (not "gavin" or "Gavin Smith" or other mistakes).  But I cannot figure out how to edit them--they don't seem to show up in the editing page.  Haven't been active lately, so have forgotten how to do this.
Jeeb (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote text is where the reference is made, not in the references section (to be more exact, it's at one of the places where the reference is made, but usually there is only one). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you are right. I have corrected the references now. Splette :) How's my driving? 14:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: editing footnotes

message: Who the hell decided this article should be called "attribution of recent climate change?" This should be changed to "causes" IMMEDIATELY.  I mean, seriously, the English language does not use the word "attribution" in this manner, at least not in America at any sort of reasonable level. I'll wait a few days, if it's not fixed, I'll do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.185.129 (talk • contribs) 
: Don't William M. Connolley (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amusing rant 

message: This sentence needs some clarification:
While 66% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the last 250 years have resulted from burning fossil fuels, 33% have resulted from changes in land use, primarily deforestation.
I seriously doubt that there was any substantial impact on CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels during the 18th and 19th centuries. Steohawk (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the sentence makes perfect sense to me. It refers to the the percentage of fossil fuel vs.land change related CO2 emissions of the cummulative total anthropogenic emissions in that time, regardless of how these are distributed over these 250 years. Of course the last few years contributed the most to that... Splette :) How's my driving? 23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  250 years ago? 

message: I think this article needs more on positive feedbacks.  Here's a science summary http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/su-ccl021009.php
Unless there's widespread disagreement, I'll start making some edits soon.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a press release, not a science summary. It also mostly affects future effects, not recent climate change. I think most of that (if sourced to better sources) should go into Effects of global warming, which already has a feedback section (and covers most of the material). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Stephan, consider this disagreement widespread. -Atmoz (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   The feedback effects are based on peer-reviewed science.  Is that not popular in this article?Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then start with the science, not with press releases William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly the science has been edited out previously.  Can I assume that I'm now free to include it, now that there seems to be little doubt that the 4th report is, as i have been saying all along, utter rubbish?Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no longer going to put feedback effects in here.  The point I was making above was simply that the IPCC report 4 underestimates climate change so badly as to be entirely misleading.79.65.169.132 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've said that several times, it gets very boring. After asking you to learn to log in, we've replied "do it from papers not press releases" and then you go away William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit the personal attacks william, I've simply stated that THIS ARTICLE is not the right place, because it's FUTURE impacts I'm talking about.  The quote from Field was entirely appropriate, as discussed on the GW talk.  I'm just about to edit the GW article now, as per the '24hrs on talk page' policy.  So get ready to make some more entirely unconstructive comments and arbitrary reversions.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "'24hrs on talk page' policy" is somewhat new to me. It seems like a reasonable idea IF you participate in a constructive dialog during that time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a good way of preventing an edit war!Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive feedbacks

message: What I'm thinking of is McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels (2004). "A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data" Climate Research 26 pp. 159-173. full text -- and similar papers that discuss the problem of the poor quality of the instrumental record. 
The obvious question is: can we really (empirically) detect the signal of AGW in the noise of poor-quality temp records: from Heat-island contamination (McKitrick's argument), weather-station site issues, instrumental-calibration issues, etc.
Thanks in advance for pointers (to the archive?) and comments, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest to discuss this not here, but at Instrumental temperature record. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has the issue of the quality of the climate record been addressed here? 

message: Isn't it somewhat redundant to have a section called "Attribution of 20th Century Climate Change" within an article called "Attribution of Recent Climate Change"?  After all, isn't this what the whole article is supposed to be about?  This seems to be a clever apology for the fact that this article talks about anything but what it is supposed to cover, which is a clear explanation of why we can attribute recent climate change to human causes, not repeated references to "all scientists agree" or "this study concluded".  It is so sad that this article is so poorly written, since its topic is one of the most critical of our times.  --Westwind273 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for that constructive criticism. I'm glad to see you're spending so much time making Wikipedia better, despite the efforts of all the rest of us. --Merlinme (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Merlinme.  Nice to know that my contributions are appreciated.  :)  --Westwind273 (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: "Recent climate change" is rather vague in my opinion. Given the current obssession with global warming and the nature of the article as dealing primarily with global warming, the definition of "recent" should be something like "from the beginning of the current warming trend" (which, according to even this hockeystick graph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png, began sometime after 1600 and before 1700, before the Industrial Revolution). In my brief scan of the article, the (relatively) exact DATE of the the inception of the warming trend is not mentioned; it says something about 1750 but that's not what the hockeystick says. I think a discussion on theoretical causes of this pre-industrial warming is warranted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this merit inclusion? 

message: The first citation in the article points to a page that has dozens of megabytes of reports linked. Is that as close as these footnotes need take the reader? Citing so generally is akin to pointing someone to the library and saying, "the answer's in there somewhere." Can the article's writers do better? And if not, why bother with such citations? (If the writer genuinely went to the cited source for the cited information, then a page citation should not be too hard to include. And I was taught that citing material you did not read is unethical.) Thank you, Pcrh (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Wiki. Feel free to improve the citations. One problem is that older IPCC reports have been on the web in different forms (html, multiple PDF, single PDFs), and page numbers have not always been consistent (or existent). But I agree that sticking to one version and refining the references is a worthy endeavor. If you want to verify a particular statement, though, it's usually pretty fast to search in the document. If you do, please add the page number. And remember, we are all volunteers. With Wikipedia, you get a lot more than what you pay for. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Standards Question

message: This article neglects to attribute the consensus probability specifically to Bayesian probability.  The reader would benefit from a distinction made about frequency observed probability vs Bayesian Probabilities.  A link to the Bayesian article should be provided. It is impossible to have frequency probability on a single global event, all the research is conducted in the greater Bayesian context. source    Which has inherent objective flaws and is subject to rapid changing views. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article would benefit from this distinction. The distinction does exist, and can affect interpretation. JEB has some interesting posts on Bayesian stuff and cliamte science, e.g. . But it doesn't appear to be a *notable* topic in the field William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The subject is taken for granted. I am not saying give the topic undue weight, just fair mention. It likely not very active because their is little to be done about it.  It is obvious to me that this is at heart of the debate. Folks are just beginning to measure the consensus changes as scientific study. The Bayesian context is relevant and meaningful to justifying this important issue where there is no realistic proof outside of mind objects. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be obvious to you that it is at the heart of the debate, but (to belabour what I hope is the obvious) your opinion doesn't matter; you'll need to bring in some RS's for it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You obviously missed the source above .  This is adequate to justify Bayesian probability for relevant, notable and meaningful inclusion in the article. (I apologize for misleading you with my opinion.)  Again, what should be said with a link (and text) is the probabilities are Bayesian. This is not a synthesis, it's just good editing and is what Wikipedia is about with linking. (My opinion matters as much as yours, thank you.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  A source    from IPCC.     Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You provided a link to an unpublished paper (or to a pre-print of something that was subsequently published? I'm not sure which). What you have proved is that "bayesian ideas have been used in climatology". Since that was never in doubt, you haven't got very far. Your *claim* is that "it is at the heart of the debate" and you have provided no evidence for that. A small section from WG II doesn't help much either. I think it is clear we disagree. I'll back off for a bit and see what others have to say William M. Connolley (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  Ok, it's better to follow this source  from IPCC.  I got to break now too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly it's not a 90% probability in the same sense that it's a 90% probability that you will roll between 1 and 9 inclusive on a ten sided die. But I would have thought this was (relatively) obvious. Having had a quick look at the links, I'm unconvinced that they would help people understand; I'd have thought there's a high chance they would instead make the article more confusing to read. You make what is a (relatively) intuitive concept and imply that people have to understand quite a technical field before they can understand climate change. People don't need to understand Bayesian probability to understand that the 90% figure is an estimate based on a large number of different factors. It's an opinion, albeit one which has an extremely large degree of support in the scientific community. --Merlinme (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayesian Probability 

message: A wikipedia search on 'MMGW' redirected me to this article.  But this article doesn't even mention MMGW let alone explain what it means. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think it means? What were you expecting to find? Assuming it's a global warming related abbreviation, I would guess it's Man Made Global Warming. In which case it should probably redirect to Global Warming rather than here. --Merlinme (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  He means http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMGW&action=history William M. Connolley (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sure, but that just redirects to here. It doesn't give any clues as to what it means, or why it redirects here. --Merlinme (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

text: This might be a complete shot in the dark but I guess if 20.133.0.13 knew what MMGW meant, he wouldn't have a need need to look it up in an encyclopedia. The fact that MMGW is complete myth is totally beside the issue. 81.157.131.194 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your shot in the dark may well be right, but doesn't help us work out what it's supposed to mean, either. Although if you know it's "complete myth", then presumably you can enlighten us. --Merlinme (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I hadn't got a clue which is why I tried to look it up.  But then Wikipedia is known for being as much use as a chocolate fireguard - especially in environmental matters. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MMGW 

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose  Is it vague? Especially for an ongoing process? I suppose you could have two separate articles, moving early material into "instrumental temperature record" and later material into a new article "climate change since 1950". The latter title requires the encylopedia user to guess what date Wikipedia editors think relevant, though, unlike "recent climate change". In any case, I really don't like the proposed new title. The main problem is that it assumes that recent climate change is anthropogenic, whereas the IPCC only says it is extremely likely that it is anthropogenic. The other problem is that anthropogenic climate change has probably been occurring since the invention of agriculture, so that title is too broad for this article. Finally, that title already redirects to Global Warming. There would be a case for rationalising the current redirects, it's not clear to me why "anthropogenic climate change" redirects to Global Warming, whereas "anthropogenic global warming" redirects here; but I don't think renaming this article Anthropogenic climate change is the way forward.--Merlinme (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I reverted CD . Given points 1 and 2 there seems little point adding "and natural" to point 3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv: why 

message: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/RTC%20Volume%203.pdf is useful. Its got Mars and all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPA ref 

message: The paragraph is clear that the 18% figure refers to anthropogenic emissions, but this isn't obvious in the bullet points – "9% of global carbon dioxide emissions" etc. From ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e03.pdf this section of the cited document] these all refer to anthropogenic emissions, and I've edited accordingly. My browser couldn't find the server for the link in the citations, but a search brought up Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options which gives links to sections as well as the complete pdf. Should we change the link in the citation? . . dave souza, talk 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable, though its a bit ugly to repeat it thrice. I removed "Scientists attribute..." cos that language always annoys me, its a bit peacocky. Who else could possibly do the attriution anyway? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Livestock etc.

message: Could we have an expanded and more up to date section on "fingerprinting"? I always thought it was an important part of the attribution, and I believe there's been some recent progress; if I remember correctly there were a couple of big studies in the news which reported that fingerprinting supported an anthropogenic cause. Currently the article is vague as to what fingerprinting actually is, and it seems to point to 2001 reference. --Merlinme (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be nice. Its on my list of things to do once peace breaks out again. Though I don't suppose I'll be able to do it then. Never mind, I'm sure one of the inexhaustible supply of experts that arbcomm appears to believe in will suddenly pop up and do it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a shame. I was considering doing it myself based on news reports and whatever linked research I can dig up, but obviously it would be better coming from a scientist. I'm quite busy at work at the moment, and now my evil Freeholder seems determined to tie me up in legal applications, so I can't really see me having the time in the next month or two. But if and when I have a chance, maybe I'll try to do something and you can correct as necessary. --Merlinme (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was going to base what I wrote on AR4, which hopefully lays it out clearly. But I haven't checked yet William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fingerprinting 

message: A new paper  in Nature suggests that an abrupt shift in Atlantic sea-surface temperatures around 1970 may offer an alternate explanation for the puzzling "pause" in global warming from about 1940 to 1975. This decline has been conventionally ascribed to the influence of man-made aerosols. The new work suggests that changes in circulation-patterns in the Atlantic, perhaps influenced by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, may better account for the observed cooling. See When the North Atlantic caught a chill (Nature Science News) and A Sharp Ocean Chill and 20th Century Climate (Andrew Revkin, NY Times) for discussions and speculations. Plenty more in the blogosphere, if you're curious.
This is more a heads-up to work-in-progress, but perhaps our aerosol section here might need a caveat. Interesting work. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: explanation for the puzzling "pause" in global warming from about 1940 to 1975 - are you sure? It looks like it only talks about ~1970. But as you say, not yet. Let it settle William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eduardo Zorita has a nice discussion of this paper at Klimazweibel,  and there's lots of chatter in the technical blogs comparing (forex) the 1910-1940 warming to 1970-2000 -- here's one by Judith Curry. Interesting stuff, but way too preliminary for here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eduardo "Jugula" Zorita? No, I wouldn't call that nice. But even EZ is talking about 1970s, not 1940-70. And Curry isn't talking about this paper, so I'm rather puzzled by your refs William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've been trying to point out, perhaps not very well, is that the scientific attribution of recent climate change is in a state of flux. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, now I see what you mean. I think you're rather over-egging your pudding William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Sharp Ocean Chill and 20th Century Climate" 

message: How about if we compromise by adding "except solar." to this.  We could use the IPCC FAR quote:  
--Africangenesis (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand why you think that quote means we should change the article the way you want us to (or why you think the article is incorrect). The article is saying that the combined effect of all natural forcings over this period is net cooling. The quote you want to use agrees with that. If you think that this could be stated more clearly in the article, then suggest a better wording; but you appear to be under the misapprehension that the article currently is trying to say that "all natural forcings are negative", whereas in fact it is trying to say that the sum of all natural forcings is negative. At no point does it say "solar forcings are negative". --Merlinme (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting for solar: Known natural forcings would, if anything, be negative over this period.  

message: I am redirected to http://guide.opendns.com/main?url=ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackminardi (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The website has apparently been taken down, and your DNS provider is lying to you to grab advertising dollars. That, unfortunately, is not infrequent today. I've updated the reference to a proper reference with a link to the official version at the IPCC. And I strongly wish all Webmasters would read Cool URIs don't change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First source link does not work 

message: "The dominant mechanisms to which recent climate change has been attributed all result from human activity"   Where is the reference?   Highly disputable!  Solar emmission (not diffusion, not absorption) alone could cause this, yet the evidence is still lacking.   This should not be offered as a statement of fact.  There is plenty of naysayers still to be found. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems at the very first paragraph 

message: I've removed this bit from the opinion section:
Some scientists noted for their somewhat skeptical view of global warming accept that recent climate change is mostly anthropogenic. John Christy has said that he supports the American Geophysical Union (AGU) declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured.[22]
I don't see that this information is of great importance. If Christy hadn't changed his mind, then it might be worth noting his opinion alongside those of others, like Lindzen. But since he has changed his mind, he's now part of the consensus, and therefore not notable. Enescot (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed John Christy's view 

message: Add Portal:Global warming.  97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Portal box|Global warming. 

message: Un-Redline Clim-Past-Discuss.net (Climate of the Past Discussions) please.   99.181.140.243 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-Redline ... 

message: This section states, "Over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.65 °C (1.17 °F) at the Earth's surface". However, the accompanying graph indicates that the .65 metric is for the past century. One of you special editors should fix that.--184.240.56.237 (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution of 20th Century Climate Change 

message: The IPCC citations here are woefully incomplete and unspecific. I can't do much about the latter, but in line with Stephan's response to a query two years ago ("This is a Wiki. Feel free to improve the citations.") I shall be replacing the IPCC citations with a revised form, such as now implemented at Global warming.  As using  templates will be a lot easier for me, and I think a significant improvement in citations, I query: anyone strongly enough opposed to want to clean all this up themselves? :-)  _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC citations 

message: Beware Climate Change Risk from A/C, Fridge Gases: U.N. "Soaring use of man-made gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners and fire extinguishers risks speeding up global warming and industry should adopt alternatives, a U.N." Scientific American November 21, 2011 by David Fogarty; excerpt ... 
See China, India, Brazil, Montreal Protocol, 
97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SciAm]] resource 

message: The climate change attribution figure should be removed.  It dates back to 2004, and significant diagnostic literature has been published since then that show that models had errors larger than the phenomenon of interest.  Stroeve and Scambos described the models as 30 years behind the melting of the Arctic ice cap.  Andreas Roesch showed a positive surface albedo bias that amounts to more than 3W/m^2 globally and annually average, and Wentz in the journal Science (2007) showed that none of the models produced even half of the increase in precipitation in the observations.  This result was recently confirmed, showing that even the most recent models haven't fixed their under representation of the acceleration of the water cycle. 
:"The result also suggests that the water cycle is intensifying quickly under global warming—twice as fast as climate models have been predicting."
--Africangenesis (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which 2004? The one in Non-consensus views? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The one that was based on the models later shown to have significant diagnostic issues of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png  --Africangenesis (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 climate change attribution figure is way out of date 

message: Old: 
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/global-climate-change
New: http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/climate/ModernGCC03KarlTrenberth.pdf ??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxik (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated source URL 

message: Section: "Effect of cosmic rays"
Henrik Svensmark has suggested that the magnetic activity of the sun deflects cosmic rays, and that this may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei, and thereby have an ******affect****** on the climate.
(should be "effect")
Fixed, thanks. --Merlinme (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo (Page not editable to public) 

message: We can use page 5 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf 

message: FYI this article was mentioned at Talk:Global warming#Should "Evidence of global warming" really redirect to "Attribution of climate change"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: Changes a while back in the CS1 templates resulted in some error messages in the Attribution of recent climate change#Notes section.  recently made some changes to suppress those messages. However, these changes were sub-optimal, so I have reverted them, pending a deeper look into this to find a better way. To be continued. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "CS1 errors" 

message: There's a nice pic at http://www.realclimate-backup.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/?wpmp_switcher=desktop that we could perhaps use (http://www.realclimate-backup.org/images/attribution.jpg to be specific) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice pic at RC