Talk:Climate variability and change/Archive 1

message: (William M. Connolley 16:49, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: MWP/LIA

message: "Methane is mainly produced by cattle and by emissions of landfills."
Anyone have a reference to how modern methane generation is different from termites, prairie-covering herds, and swamps?  -- SEWilco 17:22, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
: (William M. Connolley 17:40, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)) It is, of course, in the IPCC report. I won't spoil your fun by telling you exactly where, but for a hint try chapter R U O F. Uncle Ed can have fun demonstrating SEPPs quality by finding the equivalent info from them, I'm sure.
:: Chapter 4 has some historical level info, and current values by source.  I was wondering about historical values by source.  Let's see.. each bison on alfalfa feed creates about 210L/day , which is near the low end of cattle  (top end is from dairy cattle), so inefficient feed in the wild probably makes them similar in methane production.  However, the maximum estimate of 70,000,000 bison  is less than the 97,000,000 cattle in the USA.  So current ruminant production of methane is probably significantly larger than the native emissions in North America.  I don't know the native termite population in the world before agriculture, nor marshes and other sources. -- SEWilco 21:03, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't mention any historical info.  I just updated the current methane sources.  Landfills don't seem to be in the same league as the other sources.  As glacial lakes are temporary, becoming swamps, I wonder what happens when all the swamps dry up. -- SEWilco 04:14, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: How Many Bulls?

message: The journal editor did not resign because of any specifically-mentioned methodological problems, but because his publisher wouldn't let him rush into print an EDITORIAL denouncing a peer-reviewed article. He thought he had (or ought to have) enough authority, as an editor, to do that. 
Sounds like he's saying, if I can't have unilateral control over the contents of the journal, so that it reflects my personal views, I refuse to edit it: grounds for being fired, I'd say, rather than proof that the article in question is unscientific. If the article were in fact unscientific, why doesn't he point out specific errors or problems with it? --Uncle Ed 21:34, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 21:44, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal Editor

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

message: I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here:  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley.  If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate.   — Cortonin | Talk 12:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley 

message: I am not a climate change skeptic. However, in the interests of being ecumenical as well as accurate (if only in the sense of reporting that skepticism exists) I think there ought to be a section in this article on climate change skeptics. It looks blinkered otherwise.
:Skepticism is a good thing and should be encouraged whenever possible.  However, the Greening Earth Society are a pseudo-skeptical advocacy group run by the Western Fuels Association, a coal lobby. The organizaion is also closely affiliated with ExxonMobil.  It should also be noted that GES is not skeptical about climate change -- they admit that it's occuring.  GES concerns itself with the beneficial effects of global warming.  Essentially, they are skeptical of the negative effects of global warming.  Their opinions are not taken seriously by the scientific community.  The external link certainly has a place on global warming controversy, which is a more politicized topic, and directly addresses their claims. --Viriditas  | Talk 08:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 20:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: skepticism

message: I've noticed several concepts which seem to be in use in the field, and they seem to influence how important various factors are considered to be.  Some concepts contradict others, although one might be used as a special case within the overwhelming influence of the opposite.  (SEWilco 21:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Large influence/effects: such as linear effects.  Phase changes: State or behavior change, such as THC shutdown, or glacial episode blocking CO2 cycle.  (SEWilco 09:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 12:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradigms 

message: Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:
Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin
 
by William M. Connolley
 
 
 
Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case. 
--mav 22:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary injunction