Talk:Climate change/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

What, no "Criticism" section?

This is the first Wikipedia article I've read all day that doesn't have a "Criticisms" section. Given that this is still such a (socially and politically, if not scientifically) controversial issue, I would think you should have something. _{Preceding unsigned comment by user:153.2.246.33}

You need to get out more. Maybe read rainforest or perhaps pencil or even doorstop William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to equate the global warming controversy to the global pencil and global doorstop controversies? Bjquinn (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He is saying that you need to "get out more" by staying home and reading novels and religious books.Wsulek (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he is saying that you need to "get out more" by attending more meetings of the Technocracy movement. They were the true pioneers of global warming hysteria. Bushcutter (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(because they are also 15 year old girls and they don't do regular research on the topic) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.112.116.69 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC).

No, its b*ll*cks. If you pause for a moment, you can work out how you could have realised this for yourself: that the graph of CO2 level in the atmos is smooth, and has no huge spikes corresponding to volcanoes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The graph has been "smoothed" so naturally spikes from Mount St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo would not show up. What about bark beetles in British Columbia. Their destruction of forest has released more CO2 than the last five years of human caused emissions in Canada.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, that is not the raw data. It is re-adjusted propaganda data.98.165.6.225 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have any source for that? Reliable would be preferable, but I'd look at anything for giggles... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Try National Geographic news April 24 2008 or contact Werner Kurz of the Canadian Forest Service who is cited as leading the study on the impact of the tree destruction by Pine Beetles and Bark Beetles. Of course his research used computer modeling and we know how inaccurate that can be. Showman60 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Keeling Curve. You can very well see the 5 ppm seasonal variation and even month-to-month changes. So any substantial volcano impact would have shown up as well. I'd like to see a source about the "bark beetles" before I comment on that. But whatever the details are, the ecosystem is, in the medium term, very closely balanced with respect to CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And the same applies to you (see below). You are assuming that the output from one volcano (or from man, for that matter) is perceptible on a 5ppm variation on a global atmospheric scale. Hogwash. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, your assertion is hogwash. It doesn't really serve as a valid way of answering the question (i.e. comparing the volcano's impact to man's impact) because it assumes that the level of gas emitted by one volcano (or by man, for that matter) would even HAVE a perceptible level change on a global atmospheric scale. I recommend you read up on Affirming the Consequent, a well known logical fallacy. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your indentation is a bit confusing here - are both of these supposed to be answers to me? Well, surprisingly, we know how much CO2 man creates - it amounts to about 3ppm per year. Currently, about half of this is eaten by sinks. But it's no problem to see 1.5 ppm on the scale of the plot. The argument I replied to, as you can easily see, was " that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens pumped more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution", i.e. it was talking about a single volcanic eruption. As you rightly see, this eruption is not visible on the graph, and hence the effect is obviously much smaller than man's emissions. The seasonal variation is also visible, hence the graph is not smoothed to a degree that would make a much bigger short-term spike invisible, so that claim is bogus.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/forcing.jpg from this page: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/gw-forcing.html. That graph shows the temperature's significant change being caused by CO₂.12.197.112.117 (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Volcanos don't pump out only C02. Another major gas that is pumped out of any erupting volcano is Sulfur Dioxide (S02) which creates a LOWERING of global temperatures. With a significant sized eruption, such as Pinatubo or Krakatoa, large enough S02 emissions will effectively lower global temperatures (such as the Year Without a Summer).71.210.21.44 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And let's not forget Michael Chrichton's speech "Space Aliens Cause Global Warming", arguing that the "science" behing global warming is on no more firm footing that the speculation that there *must* be life on other planets.

I'm sure there's a good joke in there somewhere, but nothing else William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, I expect more from Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.33 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, and what do we make of this comment by Bottle:

Bottle says:
9:32 AM
Hey, can we stay on topic? Which is, "Global warming is caused by the cosmological constant."

Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic here? 153.2.246.33 has a good point, but Mr. Connolley bites the newcomer and makes him feel like an idiot. First, please be WP:CIVIL. Nearly every post you have made in this section, Mr. Connolley, could be seen as uncivil and counterproductive. First, you bite him, then when others come to assist him you point the discussion in another direction so that the main issue cannot be brought up.

Why don't we have a criticism section? - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? This article reports peer reviewed research and the conclusions of scientists based on that research. Much of the "criticism" is politically or commercially motivated, without a scientific base. We also have the article Global warming controversy. Anyway, personally I dislike "criticism" sections. They are often one dimensional responses to complex issues, and break up the logical flow of articles. IMHO they are lazy and amateurish editing tools. Better to handle criticism by integrating it into the appropriate sections of the article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that "Global warming controversy" article is very much the sort of thing I was looking for. Perhaps it should be listed here under "See also:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.32 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is already linked thrice: once from "public debate" in the lede, once from the infobox in the heading, and once from the collapsible topic overview at the bottom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's because Wikipedia is biased and only has criticism sections in articles that aren't liberal. This definitely isn't the only article that's this way. BTW I tried adding a well-written and researched criticism section with several *cited* quotes from actual scientists and my edit/hard work got undone. Way to go Wikipedia! Mentalhead (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your "sources" were two articles from Newsmax and a WP:SPS book sponsored by a right-wing think tank. Try the peer-reviewed scientific literature... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very biased. You should have found reliable sources if that seemed to be a problem. If everyone was unbiased Wikipedia would be much better and a lot more professional. Mentalhead (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to allow personal beliefs to interfere with our editing, but I'll make an exemption here to help move things along. I'll be among to the first to admit that I am skeptical of global warming (at least of its anthropogenic influences). But Stephan, William, et al are correct in the stances they are taking here. Wikipedia is built on the foundation of reliable sources, and rooted in verifiability, not truth. Agree with it or not, but this is what is most widely accepted by the scientific community; thus, it is what Wikipedia is supposed to document here.

Unlike most Wikipedia contributors (myself included), Stephan and William are actual scientists, and we cannot underestimate or belittle the contributions of members with such qualifications who take this project seriously enough to spend their time here. If it seems that they are biting the newcomers, it may be because they are addressing issues which have been raised here countless times, and have on many occasions faced personal attacks or worse along the way simply for having the animosity to disagree. Wikipedia tells us to assume good faith in our fellow editors, and not to assume "bias" in those we disagree with. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion here, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. As a collaborative project, anyone is encouraged to contribute. But as a general rule, one can expect to receive the degree of respect and civility that they display to their fellow editors. It makes for a more pleasant editing experience for everyone. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate them trying to help but since they have such strong stances on the issue I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for them to be in charge of the article. Unless of course we had someone who believes the other way with just as much power over the article. Mentalhead (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, nobody is "in charge" of this or any other article, or at least should not be. On Wikipedia, contributors are free to edit whatever they want, and are typically drawn to articles on subjects in which they are interested or those which fall within their area of expertise. People may disagree with their beliefs, but they are simply applying Wikipedia's established policies to the article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not asking this to mean anything, but what do you mean when you say that William and Stephan are actual scientists?

To answer your question, I mean that they are Wikipedia contributors who happen to be scientists in real life whose work is concerned with the subject at hand. I do not fit this description, and doubt there are many contributors here who do. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very confusing for me (who gets to be considered a scientist in this and who doesnt) but I suppose it's not important. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to avoid a misunderstanding: I'm a scientist (see [1]), but not a climate scientist. William is a climate scientist. Our other resident climate scientist is Raymond. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, whereas I agree with your description of how material has to be included in WP, I take exception with Michael Johnson's comment above. There are several authoritative scientists who disagree with the mainstream of peer-reviewed papers. The reason why they're not in so far is essentially decided on an interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. As with any rule interpretation, it is liable to be 'soft' and subjective, and this is this interpretation that, good or wrong, has so far been 'applied' by a group of editors.

So, there could be a criticism section in this article per WP's rules. Gravity has one. It all comes to how WP:WEIGHT is interpreted, and who interprets it. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are alternative models of gravity that have been and are published in leading peer reviewed journals. The article on gravity like this article on global warming does not mention some crticism that do not make it into the peer reviewed journals. So, MOND is mentioned (ther are many peer reviewed publications about this topic) but not a theory by Yilmaz (who was unable to get his theory published because it was seen to have a fatal flaw by most physicists). Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find the article is fully referenced to reliable sources. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a definite need for a criticsm section. The fact that one editor is a scientist and administrator all the more should give it weight. Any editor/administrator could feasibly serve his own interests by wiping out different points of view. Perhaps one who is so clearly biased should not be considered an "authority" and all relative verifiable facts be presented whether pro or con. As it stands, this article is very biased to the point of religious ferver.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. One of the editors has a vested interest in wiping out opposing points of view on this topic and many other "global warming" related articles and biographies of skeptics. Nothing he dislikes can remain on the wiki topic pages he controls. Showman60 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "criticism" section. Alternative explanations such as solar variation are woven into the narrative as they should be. In fact they are over-represented in the article compared to their presence in the academic literature, contrary to the provisions of WP:WEIGHT. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just echoing the original comment about no 'criticism' section. It could be called something else though (doesn't have to be called that). Something that at least gives the other side a fare shake. I for one haven't seen enough evidence to believe that global warming is occurring on a grand scale that is caused by the burning of fuels and being able to read the thoughts from both sides would be helpful for me. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but we don't pretend that there are two equal sides to every issue. This article presents the evidence, and the evidence is compellingly one sided. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I will retract my statement above in the general sense that such section doesn't exist. Reading the first couple comments in the next section "AEB (criticism section)" shows that such articles/sections do exist on Wikipedia. So now my general complaint is from what I can tell none of these are referenced very clearly in the opening of the article nor clearly marked in the TOC. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I support adding this to the end of the intro of the article (this isn't perfect but I'm trying a state at it, improve by all means).

Controversy still surrounds the global warming debate. There are a number of articles that cover this topic.

The titles of these articles are written in a way to imply that anyone who contests the god's honest TRUTH of anthropic global warming must be an idiot with their head in the sand or having a political bias. I mean, here we are a year and a half into the strongest period of global cooling since the 1870s, which has wiped out all of the warming claimed by AGW promoters, which is a combo of an extended solar minimum, strong La Nina, and NAO cycles which are predicted to keep climate change flat for a decade, and we are headed toward a solar cycle 25 in 2018 which is now being predicted to cause a global cooling of 1.5-2.0 C for 11-22 years after that, but none of that is being admitted here. Conversely, Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" charts and software have been so roundly discredited by statisticians that he is increasingly being considered a scientific fraud, but his work is still being considered valid in this article and in papers referenced here which depend upon Mann's work. Really, anything linked to his work should be thrown out just as if it were generated by a crime lab with proven corruption and thrown out of court. Even lumping all climate change topics under the header "Global Warming" is inherently biased. The overriding article should be Climate Change, with subarticles linked to that for both global warming and global cooling theories, politics, etc, to be truly NPOV. 75.67.80.68 (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there sure are. And yet, it's not clear from this article that they exist/ might be valid/ have many supporters. Also, the name "climate change denial" sounds like a POI problem- makes it sound negative right off the bat, instead of being neutral. Those links need to be more prominent, and there needs to be both a mention of the debate in the intro paragraph and a mention that this is all a theory. Even the evolution page says it's a theory. - Pop6 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Strawberry Island (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are links to both Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming in the last sentence of the lead. The rest of the articles are linked in appropriate places throughout the article. Adding an addendum to the lead isn't a very organized way to link to related articles. We've tried having links on the right-hand side up on the top, but it was simply too cluttered and awkard. Personally, I think links throughout the article and the link template down at the bottom take care of the situation in the best way possible. However, I think the template at the bottom of the article should be default-shown instead of a default-hidden. - Enuja (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds very reasonable, there is nothing following the template so I don't see why not? I went ahead and expanded it.
— Apis (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

AEB (criticism section)

A Criticism section IS needed, I am willing to work on the section myself, but am requesting help from other members, and am here and now asking other Wiki contributors who disagree to pledge that they will not vandalize the new section, but take complaints and concerns to the talk section. Almost every article on Wiki (that garners criticism) HAS a criticism section, global warming should be no different. Creating a page on the controversy is needed, but it does not replace a well-researched and appropriate criticism section.

By the way, labeling all scientists that disagree with the whole global warming propoganda "oil company lackeys" is both incorrect and libelous. For example, this from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Professor Easterbrook disputed Mr Gore's claim that "our civilisation has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this". Nonsense, Professor Easterbrook said. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century".

Getting personal, he mocked Mr Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Professor Easterbrook said.

"And I'm not a Republican."

So, who is willing to help with the Criticism section? Supertheman (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out before, special criticism sections are discourages. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. In this article, we describe all scientifically viable viewpoints with sufficient weight and reliable sources directly in the main prose. By long-standing consensus, we we restrict this article to the science. For the political debate, see global warming controversy. We also rely on what is considered the most reliable set of sources, peer-reviewed scientific publications and consensus reports. Your example is thus doubly missing the point - first, the unpublished (in the scientific sense) opinion of Professor Easterbrock as reported by the popular press is not a good source, and, since we do not even mention Gore or use him as a source, the criticism would be a straw man, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly NOT straw man:

1. Professor Easterbrook (not brock) provided *factual evidence* about climate shift - research that has been published (long before the article here on global warming was, in point of fact).

2. Gore *is* mentioned on this talk page, and frequently, so your assertion that criticism of Gore is straw man (here on the talk page) is false.

3. We are not talking about "political controversy", we are talking about peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and plain, climate data.

4. While your citation of the Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section is germane, the fact remains that this is not worth the hard drive it is stored on as it pertains to that actuality of Wikipedia articles. Criticism sections are rife in almost every (controversial) article, which sets forth a defacto standard, expected by Wiki readers. Also, while Criticism sections might be "discouraged", they are in fact necessary because of the habit of a few, dedicated contributors to erase, edit and otherwise maneuver content they find distasteful out of existence. Point being, while criticism sections are "discouraged", they are not disallowed and a significant minority of contributors desire such a section on the page, and it is not the providence of the majority to squelch such an effort.Supertheman (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whomever is or isn't mentioned on the Talk page is immaterial, I'd like to say. I could mention Hitler all I want here, and that doesn't make him referenced in the article itself. That's really all besides the point, though. This article does need a criticism section, if only due to the fact that there IS a large amount of criticism and controvery surrounding global warming. That is noteworthy, just as it should also be noted that both the validity and neutrality of much of this criticism is in question. How about instead of bickering back and forth like this, you actually propose a draft of a criticism section here in the talk page. That way it can easily be viewed, edited and discussed before being inserted into the article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is Scientific evidence against Global warming, we aren't just posting a section on political debate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratanuva66 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it would hurt anyone if we post evidence both supporting and against global warming. Mentalhead (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We do. The leading contender is solar variation theory, which is discussed in the article. In fact it's over-represented here compared to its weight in the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As this is an article of interest not only to scientists, it should also try to cover the science of what is being discussed fiercely by the public. Bridging the jump between public debate and scientific literature should be one of this article's aims. As there is a lot of attention surrounding the solar variation theory amongst the public, it is important to address it properly here.Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a link should be placed linking to the Global Warming Controversy page. Somewhere noticeably visible rather then in the bottom of the page with all the references and the See Also section. Where, I'm unsure, but it's an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.67.7 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a link in the lede, anchored on public debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely if this article was even making a show at attempting accuracy it would have to follow the first sentence wit "It stopped in 1998 & there was a slight cooling effect up till winter 2007 & a sharp fall back almost to the level 20 years ago this year. Sceptics say this is caused by the failure of the sunspot cycle. Warming alarmists ignore it."(Neil Craig) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.88.26 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There should at least be a little area that says, "Crticisms: See Global Warming Controversy." Gefreiter Gefreiter (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There are at least 3 direct links to global warming controversy - one in the lead, another citing the article as one of the main articles for social and political debate, and the final one at the bottom in the navigation boxes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There can't be a global warming skepticism page, otherwise it'd disrupt the ambiance of fear perpetuated in this article. I found this article horridly POV, the temperature graphic on the front page doesn't even show the recent cooling trend or UAH or RSS data from non-biased actual scientific venues. If you're going to consider GISS's data accurate with its miraculous "adjustments" and not offer any other viable possible data sheets, such as UAH's collaborative satellite data - then this article is automatically POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.136.78 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to actually check the source, you would have been surprised by the fact that the plot does not use GISS data, but rather the HadCRUT data from Hadley centre in the UK. And the latest UAH and RSS interpretations are fully compatible with this - in fact, even the most recent Christy interpretations are. You can find the discussion at Satellite temperature measurements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be seperate sections on scepticism of the idea of global warming and of the science involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.238.86 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between cosmic ray theory of global warming and solar activity

As a possible cause of global warming, the main article cites both increases in solar activity and also the cosmic ray theory, where the sun's magnetic field at the earth affects the number of cosmic rays reaching the earth and hence cloud formation. To refute the increased solar activity theory, the article cites chapter 9 of "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change", which states that the stratospheric warming predicted by the increased solar activity theory has not been observed. Assuming this refutes the increased solar activity theory, does this also refute the cosmic ray theory? Unless you assume that that increased solar activity also affects cosmic ray activity at the earth, this question is left hanging.

In fact, chapter 9 of "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" says nothing about cosmic rays or the sun's magnetic activity except in a reference to a 2002 paper by Lean, J.L., Y.M. Wang, and N.R. Sheeley entitled "The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun’s total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate." (Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(24), 2224, doi:10.1029/2002GL015880). I don't have access to the paper, but the abstract reads

"We investigate the relationship between solar irradiance and cosmogenic isotope variations by simulating with a flux transport model the effect of solar activity on the Sun's total and open magnetic flux. As the total amount of magnetic flux deposited in successive cycles increases, the polar fields build up, producing a secular increase in the open flux that controls the interplanetary magnetic field which modulates the cosmic ray flux that produces cosmogenic isotopes. Non-axisymmetric fields at lower latitudes decay on time scales of less than a year; as a result the total magnetic flux at the solar surface, which controls the Sun's irradiance, lacks an upward trend during cycle minima. This suggests that secular increases in cosmogenic and geomagnetic proxies of solar activity may not necessarily imply equivalent secular trends in solar irradiance. Questions therefore arise about the interpretation of Sun-climate relationships, which typically assume that the proxies imply radiative forcing."

If I am interpreting this correctly (and I am only a layman), it would suggest that the geomagnetic proxies of solar activity (which I assume would affect the cosmic ray activity here on the earth) may not directly correlate to actual solar activity. In other words, solar activity is not necessarily a proxy for cosmic ray activity here on the earth, and refutation of the increased solar activity theory does not necessarily refute the cosmic ray theory.

If so, I think the main article needs to clarify the relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays, and address the cosmic ray theory separately. At the least, chapter 9 of "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" has nothing to say about the cosmic ray theory and the 2002 paper may be dated. What current evidence is there to refute the cosmic ray theory?

Mscritsm (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confused here. Chapter 9 is not (afaikt) referenced about cosmic rays but instead on stratospheric cooling. As for the IPCC on cosmic rays - see Chapter 2 - section 2.7.1.3 "Indirect Effects of Solar Variability". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain why a difference in energy output of the order of 0.1% between solar maximum and solar minimum could possibly have much effect on climate variability. Should this section be removed for being unscientific garbage as the publishers of the nature article on the subject concluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.103.253 (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it really exist?

According to the Physical Science Edition 2 textbook by Dr. Jay L. Wile, Apologia Publications; greenhouse gases retain the heat from the Sun within Earth's atmosphere. So, in reality, the loss of ozone (a greenhouse gas) would cause what Wile refers to as "global cooling", suggesting that the global temperature rise is caused by a natural cycle rather than pollution. Still, the ozone is being destroyed by the use of CFC's.

Also, the hole in the ozone layer only opens up during August through November, as weather patterns show. Eventually, the hole will be so corroded by pollution that it cannot close up, but a continous phenomenon involving a breach in the ozone would not occur presently.

I believe not in global warming, but instead, the complete opposite. Thank you for reading this. Signed, BlueCaper 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. You want Ozone depletion#Ozone depletion and global warming, BTW William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a point...

Graphs show carbon dioxide levels are rising, and others show temperature is rising. That means they must be related right? One must be a direct result of the other, right? Well, the levels of salt are increasing, and the amount of hair on my cat are both increasing... that means the amount of cat hair is directly affecting the amount of salt in the ocean, right? Those are obviously going by the same idea, right?

By the way, this is me giving one bit of information proving why global warming - and liberals in general - are ridiculous. And no, i'm not republican, by the way. I am conservative independent, which allows me to see the pros and cons of both sides. They're both horrible at best and unspeakably appalling at worst, but generally, the republicans make more sense and have their heads on sort of right (Generally). - Maoman123 8:45, September 5, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maoman123 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. However global warming is an observed scientific fact, and has nothing to do with politics. Your veterinarian (an animal health scientist) will be able to advise you on your cat's fur, but any changes are unlikely to have anything to do with changes in the salt content of the oceans. Likewise we look to atmospheric scientists for explanation as to the reasons for global warming, as explained in this article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The history of this issue is that the enviromental movement has always been predicting global catastrophe in 10 to 20 years. The only thing that changes is the pseudo-scientific handwaving. It in 1970s, it was overpopulation, running out of minerals, famine, and, yes, even global cooling. Global warming is fast becoming just another one of yesterday's catastrophes. This article is in denial -- the temperature data is from 2005. Now that the Earth is cooling again, the hip catastrophe is "climate change."

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it... The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. The Cooling World, Newsweek, April 28, 1975 Kauffner (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good scientific source, that "Newsweek" of yours. One of the big myths of global warming deniers is that the AGW theory is based only or even primarily on the correlation of CO2 and temperature. That is not so. Arhennius understood the mechanism, including the major water-vapor based feedback, long before we could measure CO2 concentration or global temperature with even reasonable precision, simply based on the spectroscopic properties of CO2 and water vapor. He arrived at quite good numbers for climate sensitivity, too, even though he had very much underestimated the rate at which we could release fossil carbon into the atmosphere. The observed correlation is a (confirming) prediction of AGW. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

K needs to read global cooling William M. Connolley (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Add Unit root to his reading list :) Brusegadi (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's say its all true and the Earth really is going to burn up in seven and half years, just like crazy Al Gore says. Should we ride go-carts to work and give up air conditioning just so we can live for eight years? Kauffner (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to consequences, WP:BLP, and how does Al Gore's opinion come into this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You can use a source other than Gore for different numbers, but they are just illustrative. The point would be the same. No one is acting like they would if they really believed a warming catastrophe was on the way. Kyoto is just spitting into a hurricane. If we are facing global catastrophe, we need to repeal the nuclear test ban, blow up some big ones, and get that soot into the upper atmosphere. Kauffner (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephan and others, remember WP:NOTAFORUM. Please don't encourage personal commentary unrelated to specific article improvements by responding to it in any way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Temperature change of a system

I have been thinking about a good way to make people understand how a few degrees temperature change can greatly effect the viability of a living system. The high specific heat of water acts as a temperature regulator both in the human body and for the earth. The high specific heat of water at 1 calorie per gram per degree Celsius allows for variability in temperature that does not translate completely into raising or lowering the temperature of the water. In other words, in the body, the temperature differential in the atmosphere is taken up in part by breaking water's hydrogen bonds. What energy remains goes to the body's temperature change. This among other regulating systems helps the human body to maintain a 98.6 core temperature when the atmospheric temperature rises or falls. Similarly, the earth's overall temperature is regulated in part by absorption of energy by the oceans' water's hydrogen bonds. Of course if an individuals temperature rises by a few degrees, the individual's entire system experiences great difficulties. Similarly, if the earths' ocean's temperature changes by a few degrees, the entire biosystem will also have great difficulties.

Moreover, as core temperature rises, and we turn more and more to air conditioning and the insulated comfort of powered transportation, there may be another analogy - that of cytokine storm in the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think a separate article that explains the effects of global warming would be the ideal place for this. The global warming article itself should be limited to science that is directly related to global warming and not a lecture on the effects.HillChris1234 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

New paper

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Because if there's one person whose temperature reconstructions we can trust, it's Michael E. Mann. Oren0 (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best on the temperature record of the past 1000 years first. And ideally without snide comment William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Adding: also, unless there is something vital in this new paper, I will use my std argument that new papers should be left to settle for "a while". And as far as I can tell, this is being treated by the world in general as "more of the same". None of the skeptics are going to be converted William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The graph strikes me as unremarkable except the spike on the extreme right, which I guesstimate as the last 20 years. This seems out of whack since satellite date shows global temperature as pretty much stable for 1980-2008. Kauffner (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Humm...monthly temperatures...still, if you "split" the global graph in half you can see how most of the months since 1995 are above the normal while those before are under it. --Seba5618 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope of "Global"

According to wikipedia, a globe is a spherical representation of any celestial body. So, I wonder if there should be something in this article that mentions global warming could be the warming of any celestial body other than the Earth. I mean, if Mars was warming, wouldn't that count as global warming, too?12.26.68.146 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OR, especially at WP:SYN. Quoth: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Composite words very often acquire meaning and connotations beyond their constituents. This is the case with the term global warming, which nearly exclusively is used to refer to the modern episode of fairly rapid global warming. Hence, following WP:NAME, we use the term as it is predominantly used. Also, of course, "global" itself has acquired a meaning quite independent of "globe", as e.g. in the "global maxima of a polynomial". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com gave me this definition for "global"

of, pertaining to, or using a terrestrial or celestial globe.

I just believe the true meaning of a word or term should be considered in a factual article and not just what people assume it to mean. Then again, wikipedia is generally an encyclopedia of majority acceptance.HillChris1234 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com gave me a lot of alternative definitions, including "universal", "comprehensive", "globe-shaped", "of or involving the entire earth". Funnily, it also gave me a lot of definitions of "global warming", all of which mention the Earth, and not one of which referred to "a spherical representation of any celestial body". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs long-term data

The Vostok ice core data is far too short-term (500,000 years). There is a billion years of sedimentary rock and plate tectonic data that can be used to estimate past temperatures at various latitudes over a much longer time frame. Jwray (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need that? Over much longer periods, very different processes start to dominate, from continental drift to the aging of the sun. Also, of course, the farther back we go, the less reliable the estimates do become. We have a link to Geologic temperature record, which has graphs for the last half billion years. This is not very relevant for the current phenomenon of rapid global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the current rate of warming is unusual even in the context of the Holocene period? Even if you believe Mann's proxy data, that only goes back a few hundred years. Besides, the current rate of warming doesn't appear at all that rapid, we're approaching a decade with no warming at all, or even slight cooling. The late 20th century warming can partly be attributed to the urban heat island effect.[2] How will NASA GISS reconcile themselves with JPL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.143.91 (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's frightening that conclusions such as, "current phenomenon of rapid global warming", could be based on meaningless graphs such as this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png A series of seemingly random intertwined lines spliced with recent spotty surface temperature measurements pass as science as certain as Newton's laws of motion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.143.91 (talk • contribs)

It's a good thing that we have experts for this stuff. I base my opinion on the paleoclimate chapter in the latest IPCC WG1 report and, in a pinch, some of the roughly 300 scientific papers it references. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Was that a typo Stephan? Perhaps you meant "current phenomenon of rapid global cooling", or "rapid climate change"? ^ross ^nixon 02:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Read climate and geological time scale. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion on improvements to this article. Please leave discussions on this board to scientifically-cited information that can improve the article instead of debating the methods for obtaining that data. We'll leave that to the scientists. Our job here is to report their findings.HillChris1234 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)