Talk:Climate change/Archive 51

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 45

←

Archive 49

→

Latest global cooling trends

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No problem here, ignore the socks

I noticed the first plot "Global mean surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990" does not seem to include the most recent data point, indicating the latest cooling trends. Would it be possible to update, for accuracy sake, to include the latest cooling trend data points? Slongshot (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It actually does contain every data point (blue dots, through 2008); the red line is a 5-year moving average and can therefore (by definition) not be extended further. Recent cooling is what you see 2005-2008. Awickert (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is resolved yet. Shouldn't we add in a curve and associated data points indicating the year to year mean global temperature? This will provide the reader more detail regarding the latest global cooling trend. Thanks.Lauof Pinch (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. Every year's data point is already there, even connected by a curve as you specify. Are you asking for something else? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's about the red line, it cuts off at 2006 where it reaches a local max. This image is from Global warming art[1]. They update it every year. In every version, the last two to three years of the trend line is always left off,[2][3] my understanding is that to project to the most recent year comes too close to being extrapolation. Boris or Awickert might have a better explanation though. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The red line is a 5 year moving average. It needs 5 data points, the current year, and two before and after that. There are various mathematical tricks to work around this, but no obviously convincing ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest using this plot:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html It better captures the recent global cooling trend. Lauof Pinch (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I archived it because, as I explained, the 5-year moving average cannot be calculated to the end. The only way to extend it is to fudge. It was also archived because I EC'ed with Raul, who deleted it, and I later found out that the poster was a sock of scibaby who was sock-blocked some time ago. As Laurof Pinch's only edit is to undo my archiving and ignore what I just explained, I'm requesting a checkuser. I'm archiving again, and if a scibaby sock unarchives again, I am going to delete-archive. Awickert (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

EC - all right, not rearchiving, but still requesting a checkuser. Awickert (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting. If you look within the uncertainty bars of the HADCRUT data, you can make the case the global temperature has not changed in ca. 30 years...sometimes it seems the concept of uncertainty does not apply to climate "science". Helitosis (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Give it up already, Scibaby. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No, you cannot make this point, at least not reasonably. That's the difference between weather and climate, or between predicting a single coin toss as opposed to the long-term head/tail ratio. The "no change" hypothesis would require a very peculiar distribution of errors. You cannot just draw a line from one extreme outlier to another and claim "they are both within the uncertainty" - you need to do a proper statistical test (in this case I would do a Chi-Squared test, but I'm not a statistician) taking all the values into account. In other words, the data you get from a series of noisy measurements is better than any individual measurement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Input requested for sandbox article, "History of climate change science"

Given that this article only has one sentence on the origins of climate change science, I think it would be useful to have an article focusing on the history of the scientific developments in the field starting back in the 1800s and moving forward. I've tried a draft article here and would love to have some input: User:Brian_A_Schmidt/Sandbox

The article could use some work: it ignores the history of paleoclimate science after the 1800s (and I think that subject really deserves its own article); it doesn't discuss greenhouse gases other than CO2 and water vapor and is really focused on CO2; and each period could use some fleshing out. Still, I think it's a decent start.

I haven't used sandboxes before for starting a new article so I'm unfamiliar with the process, but I'd welcome input and advice on when to take it live. I'll also post this notice at one or two other climate change articles.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IPCC

There is consensus in the scientific community that global warming can occur from human activity, however there is significant debate as to what extent that impact is. The article does not make this clear. This article insinuates that the IPCC represents the scientific community. The Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, and the Leipzig Declaration are petitions which represent thousands of scientists who directly disagree with conclusions drafted by the IPCC. These sources and viewpoints need to be added to this article. This article uses the IPCC's findings as a resource to such an extent it has become disengenuous. The IPCC is a government sponsored committee assembled in order to study the impact of humans on climate change. They are not scientists. It is in the interest of the IPCC to find a negative human impact on the environment to remain relevant. Furthermore, it is misleading to point out only those scientists and scientific bodies who have endorsed IPCC findings. It is in the interest of science academies to support the findings of government bodies who fund them. The article insinuates there is no dissenting opinion, when in fact there is. The IPCC findings represent an 'extreme' view of human impact on global warming in the scientific community. Many scientists view the impact of carbon dioxide as a less significant driving force in climate change. The climate models used by the IPCC place a significant importance on carbon dioxide levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcburns (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Scientific opinion on climate change for the endorsement of the IPCC by the wider scientific community. And PLEASE see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and List of authors from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis for the "not scientists" claim. The "thousands of scientists" in the various petitions are only "scientists" by very loose criteria (indeed, for many of them the scientific specialty seems to be "retired"), and at least in the Oregon Petition case are only "thousands" by simple fraud. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The person above is not asking for redirect tactics Stephan. They are simply stating what I have said for eight months, which is that this article is bias and leads the reader to believe there is not significant dissent. AGW is now in the minority view and the consensus never existed. The longer you natural cycle deniers bias this article and deny the ten year cooling trend and its ramifications will only reflect poorly on WP and the few guardian editors of this article. Mk 68.56.175.27 (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is significant political dissent but not significant scientific dissent. It is not the minority view among scientists, and I believe that it is not the minority view in the general public, though I don't know and this drastically varies among the different circles one frequents.

Oh, and there is no decadal cooling trend, unless you connect the right dots in which case the noise is much larger than the signal. The only clear recent cooling trend starts in the mid-2000's, making it 4-ish years from the plot on this article. Awickert (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) Dismissal of the AGW scientific dissent is disingenuous or uninformed; (2) The general public's view is irrelevant to the discussion; (3) science is all about an objective process of 'connecting the right dots'; (4) A global cooling trend in the lower troposphere began in 2003 according to satellite observations; (5) this cooling trend coincides with corresponding decreases in solar activity and the total solar irradiance; (6) the accumulation of AGW-related GHG's has continued and is anti-correlated with the satellite evidence cited in (4) and (5); (7) time will tell if the Earth's climate is in a significant cooling phase but we have at present, as was the case during 1940 - 1970, a cooling trend that anti-correlates with the AGW-GHG hypothesis, and it is precisely characterized by satellite observations that leave little wiggle room for IPCC apologists.Dikstr (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read, the majority of scientists think solar forcing is very important, but think that it is a signal superimposed upon the larger greenhouse gas signal but that is strong enough to cause significant wiggles in the general temperature trend. The mainstream scientific community places the magnitude of the solar forcing as lower, based on physical models. There is a handful (4-5?) of scientists who show a strong correlation between solar forcing and temperature, but while ignoring presently-known physical constraints on the magnitude of that forcing. Does this sum it up all right? This seems to be indicated by the text you've added as well, with which I agree. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

there is no decadal cooling trend We won't know either way until some time in the future, won't we?

No, there is no decadal cooling trend. In the future, there may be a decadal cooling trend. There is a reason I wrote in the present tense, and verb conjugation is key. :) Awickert (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that in 2016 we may very well look at 2005 to 2015 and say "Wow, it got colder". It's possible (not likely at all, but possible). The Squicks (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Proof that C02 has a significant impact on climate at atmospheric ratio's of .00382 (or anywhere near it) is totally unproven. I don't have a political angle, and I'm certainly not a conservative. I noticed descrepencies while researching Physics and Earths history, not while studying the politics of human impact on climate change. I firmly believed in a severe impact from Global Warming on Earth due to carbon dioxide for years. However, I began to notice scientific studies that focus on other planets, or pre-historic Earth, almost always estimate CO2 has a smaller impact on temperature than those suggested by the IPCC, even though they use models with more severely increased levels. It appears well-publicized scientific reports treat CO2 as a more significant factor in the greenhouse effect when it pertains to human created CO2. This is the reason I became interested in this subject. I realize I should provide references and numbers, and I will shortly. However, the fact I have to provide references says something about the bias in this article. I assume a lot of people have noticed the same thing I have, especially scientists who study it. Some of the scientists in the petitions are 'marginal', but I have read articles citing IPCC scientists who feel the IPCC reports take an extreme position, and I'm not referencing political sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcburns (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're in good faith, I'll give you some sympathy. The number one error people make in this article is that they make general statements about what they believe. This is a forum style discussion. Wikipedia uses a different style, which has a learning curve so challenging that this article has amassed over fifty archives of discussion.

There is a purpose behind each discussion. In a forum, and beyond simple self-expression, you can bear the foundation of how does this improve the other person. How can I advance understanding. This form of discussion on Wikipedia is generally restricted to user talk. Article talk is different. It is enourmously different. The purpose is not how to improve the other person's understanding, but how to improve the aticle. The number one error people make, is quite simply, they make general statements on what they believe.

The first question I will always ask you is, what do you want to change in the article. Whether this may be adding a sentence, changing one, or removing one. You have to be specific. The second question after you've establish what you want to change is to verify it (WP:V); and often this question entails whether the source is reliable source (WP:RS). If you can adquately cite a peer review to verify reliability. Then the final question is neutrality (WP:NPOV), from which it'll have two parts: is it giving propery weight, is the wording objective. This is process, and it's a compromise articles of this level of interest have to make (WP:PROCESS). This is for you Mk and Gcburns. I don't have to do this. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The first question is "what do you want to change" to which the answer is: "Make is truthful and not so blatantly biased". 89.168.142.149 (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on climate change controversy

I recently came across Consensus on climate change controversy, and it seems to me a clear WP:POVFORK of Scientific opinion on climate change. There is a discussion at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Consensus on climate change controversy. Disembrangler (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Misleading language

The 3rd paragraph begins "Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation".

A more accurate version of this sentence would be "An increase in global temperature ...".

The use of the phrase "Increasing global temperature will" can be interpreted as meaning that global temperatures definitely will be increasing - this is far from certain, and you will find few, if any, scientists willing to make such a statement.

The rest of the sentence can also be improved by substituting "may" for "will" i.e. "may cause sea levels to rise and may change the amount and pattern of precipitation".

Cadae (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll find the predictions of increasing temperature sea level at the 'very likely' level by reading the IPCC AR4GW1 report, for starters. ..Skyemoor (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

'very likely' is not how the current sentence can be read - it can be taken as a definite statement that warming is and will happen, which actually hasn't occured over the last few years. Cadae (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is OK as an if-then statement. If temp increases, this will cause melting and thermal expansion, no? Awickert (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it would be fine as an if-then statement, but that is not how it is written. It is written as a definite prediction of actual warming. Cadae (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right about what it says. When I read it, I read it as an implied if-then, like "turning on the lights will make the room brighter". The first sentence of the article states "and it's predicted continuation", referring to warming, so I think the bases are covered... but if you think it is misleading and should be made more explicit, I wouldn't oppose your making it so. Awickert (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence is fine, but if you want to clarify please use as few additional words as possible so we don't end up with that over-burdened "Wikipediaese" writing style. Perhaps change "Increasing global temperature will..." to "Continued global temperature increases will..." or "Further increases in global temperature will..." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - "Wikipediaese" can ruin a good article. My suggestion of replacing the misleading implied definite article with an explicit indefinite article will meet your criteria i.e. "An increase in global temperature will ...". Also - when would be an appropriate time to make this change without some heavy-handed administrator arbitrarily undoing the change ? Cadae (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The suggested rewording sounds fine by me. Awickert (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the language is correct, because whatever the actual sea level, the results will be changed to ensure they show a rise, so a rise is pretty damn well inevitable. 89.168.142.149 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol - that can happen. Some of the so-called "peer-reviewed" scientific articles I've read have basic errors leading me to wonder just how good the 'peers' were who reviewed them. One 'scientific peer-reviewed' report on sea-level change for the Pacific had an extremely laughable section on how they used GPS to measure land ALTITUDE to within millimetres ! Some of these articles are written in a way to deliberately mislead (cherry-picked results and an emphasis on data that supports a theory whilst ignoring or banishing any contrary evidence to the back pages). It makes one wonder what kind of "peers" have reviewed these articles - some kind of mutual back-slapping job maintenance cabal seems likely. Cadae (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone hasn't heard of GPS monuments. More practically, please keep your comments useful, like those above, so this doesn't turn into a forum. Awickert (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the wrong place to point out just how poor GPS is at altitude measurement, monument or not, so I'll resist any followups. Cadae (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that in order to determine whether sea levels have risen one needs to use GPS on a monument at a fixed point on land, hence the altitude, and compare that with other measurements such as tide heights. Millimetre resolution I would guess might come from having enough data to wash out the variability/measurement error. Still, if you could shed light on why you found the researcher's methodology flawed and laughable then pipe up. Ninahexan (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Current trend in global temperatures

It is time this article addressed the huge current debate as to whether global warming has already stopped. On one side there are those who say the last few years are the highest on record thus proving that warming has not stopped. On the other hand there are many who point out that 1998 was the warmest year on record and that the trend in temperatures this century has been downward. This is a real dispute based only on the interpretation of the temperature data and it must be covered because nothing can be so key to this article as whether global warming is continuing or has already stopped. 88.110.23.228 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Any peer-reviewed scientific papers that claim "the warming has stopped"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't be stupid Stephen, show me the wikipedia policy that says "only peer reviewed material is allowed on wikipedia". You know you are totally fabricating that requirment and it is time you stopped being so dishonest. 88.110.23.228 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Longer answer: I thought the "global warming ended in 1998!" meme had died out but apparently not. Does this deserve a FAQ entry? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How's this? Too wordy? Suggestions welcome. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I have one suggestion -- "Choosing this abnormally warm year as the starting point produces a cooling trend; choosing 1997 or 1999 produces a warming trend." I think you're greatly under-representing your position there. Other than 1998, don't you get a warming trend if you choose any year in the instrumental temperature prior to 2000? Raul654 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, 1998 was an unusually warm year and wikipedia really ought to be able to explain why a single year doesn't make a trend. I've also seen comments like 14 years of cooling which I think is based on 1998, and cooling this century (which is going to have to be addressed sooner or later given that the current trend in the last few years is still down and it would take quite an upswing to bring it back to warming within the next 18months)88.110.23.228 (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the RSS and UAH satellite data. The temperature record for 1979 is about the same as for 2008. Any year from 2002 to 2006 was significantly warmer than present. Kauffner (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I know there's deception going on in that graph because (A) the author is Steve Milloy, who has made a career out of lying to people about science, and (b) it's not anywhere close to the reconstructions presented in this article. My guess is that he's presenting a graph of a GHG temperature-change-resistant part of the atmosphere and claiming that it represents true world temperature. WMC, Boris - either of you care to play whack-the-piñata-O-disinformation? Raul654 (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to spend effort digging for the reasons why Milloy's graph differs from Robert's, because nobody with a lick of sense would trust Milloy with anything more valuable than a burnt match. And of course comparing individual years isn't a valid way to compute trends. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks about right to me. Imagine a trendline on there and it would be a little over 0.3 C during that interval, which is about where it needs to be, but with no trend line, horizontal banding, and wide variance in the data it is easy to feel like nothing is changing. I need to go ahead and update the satellite figure I think. Dragons flight (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The RSS page gives the trend as 0.154 K/decade,[4] you're underestimating a bit. But that's still only 1.5°C per century. Kauffner (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I quickly tried to reproduce the Milloy graph: File:Uah_rss_temps.jpg. And then plotted them on a graph of the GISS data: File:Giss_uah_rss_temps.jpg. They are, unsurprisingly, almost exactly the same. Changing those axis sure can fool some people. -Atmoz (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting back on topic - I've adjusted the FAQ to address the issue I mentioned above. Do we need an entry for the "skeptic" lists that keep getting brought up here? Raul654 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Raul654 (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems to be come up every now and again, and since nobody objected, I've added a new entry to the FAQ based on the response comments from the most recent time it came up. Raul654 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Referencing problems

Possible problems I have identified.

In the lead of the article it states: These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries While in the body of the article this is not discussed in any depth. WP:LEAD says that everything mentioned in the lead should also be included in the body in more detial. I think simply duplicated this sentance with a lead further down the article would be a good solution to this problem.
There are no sources listed within the article for any of the ~~images~~ charts and graphs provided. All facts and charts, including those in image captions, need to have a source listed on each article they are presented on. I have found there is a source listed on the images page, these need to be duplicated onto the article page and footnoted.
Scientific opinion on climate change in linked several times within the article. Per WP:LINKING, only its first occurance within the body should be linked.
The most commonly cited indication of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface. This global mean temperature has increased by 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) relative to the period 1860–1900, according to the instrumental temperature record. Statistics are stated in this sentance, it should have a reference following it. Text has been tweaked to align with the already-cited reference. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Statistics are stated, and a reference should immediatly follow this sentance. There appear to be plenty on the satellite temperature measurements, one with this information could be identified and moved over.
Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally-varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. This is a pretty broad statement without a source. It appears to be based on an interpretation of the chart in the same section - which without a reference added to it would be in violation of WP:PRIMARY. Charts, without accompanying explanations are primary sources and interpretation of the chart without a text source of explanation is WP:OR.
Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[9] This article was wrote on 2006-12-29, and it predicted the record would be set again by 2007. Is this true, and if so and updated source and statement should be added. If not, the statement should be changed to say, Based on a 2006 estimate by NASA..." A similiar solution should be worked into Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998.
The Northern Hemisphere warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere because it has more land and because it has extensive areas of seasonal snow and sea-ice cover subject to the ice-albedo feedback. Although more greenhouse gases are emitted in the Northern than Southern Hemisphere this does not contribute to the difference in warming because the major greenhouse gases persist long enough to mix between hemispheres.[15] The source listed here links to the table of contents of larger work. Either the section numbers need to be included, or the reference needs to link directly to the page that supports the two statements.
Attribution of recent climate change focuses on the first three types of forcing, since orbital cycles vary over tens of thousands of years and thus are too gradual to have affected temperature changes observed in the past century. This should have a source.
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[17] In the source provided, it is pretty clear that global warming was discovered in the 1950s. It says, " It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible". This should probably be reworded to say that as early as 1896, scientists theorized about the possibility of global warming, rather than discovered it.
Response: The sentence is correct as written. Notice the sentence discusses the greenhouse effect, whereas your concerns are about global warming. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed even by those who do not agree that the recent temperature increase is attributable to human activity. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. This has no source, but one should be easy to find.
The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.[19][20] The given sources do not give any information on the actual warming value of methane and ozone.
You can see ozone in the Table of the first source, the only problem is with methane, and I've mentioned it 2 sections above.--Adi (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. This should have a reference since it is a primary premise of the article. If it is the same source as one already use, just duplicate it by naming the ref tag, and move it down.
The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[21] The source given does not say since the mid-1700s, but that it has risen that amount since "pre-industrial" times. That is quite open to interpretation, as modern industrialization began in the 1890s, while lighter industry dates back all the way to the early 18th century. replacing "mid-1700s" with "pre-industrial era" would probably be the easiest fix.
Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. This needs a source. I presume it is probably the next listed source, but it should be duplicated at the end of this sentance.
Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.[24] There are no pages numbers listed for this source, which is a 94 page report. (It is page 7, 39, & 41)
The destruction of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons is sometimes mentioned in relation to global warming. Mentioned by who? This also needs a reference for attribution of the mentioning. It is not in the next listed source.
Although there are a few areas of linkage the relationship between the two is not strong. Reduction of stratospheric ozone has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s.[27] The source here does make any connection between ozone and warming or cooling. It is focused entirely on ozone deleption. This needs a source.
Tropospheric ozone is a positive forcing and contributes to surface warming. This should probably be referenced. (Added reference. Atmoz (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Global dimming, a gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, has partially counteracted global warming from 1960 to the present.[28] The given source makes no mention of global dimming, or any cooling effect from anything. I read it twice, and it seems to be completly unrelated to this statement, and if so, only marginally and not enough to substantiate the statements. This needs a source.
The main cause of this dimming is aerosols produced by volcanic activity and emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. These aerosols exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This is supported by the reference that precedes it, I beleive that ref 28 belongs on this statement, not the preceding one.
When deposited, especially on glaciers, or on ice in arctic regions, the lower surface albedo can also directly heat the surface.[34] The given source does not support this statement. While mentions both glaciers and aresols, does it mention that having it deposisted on glaciers has a special effect. And the arctic regions are not mentioned in the source at all.
Observations show that temperatures in the stratosphere have been steady or cooling since 1979, when satellite measurements became available. This should have a source.
A positive feedback is a process that amplifies some change. Thus, when a warming trend results in effects that induce further warming, the result is a positive feedback; when the warming results in effects that reduce the original warming, the result is a negative feedback. The main positive feedback involves the tendency of warming to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. The main negative feedback is the effect of temperature on emission of infrared radiation: as the temperature of a body increases, the emitted radiation increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature. This needs a source, there appear to be good ones on the sub article.
Warming is also the triggering variable for the release of methane from sources both on land and on the deep ocean floor, making both of these possible feedback effects. Thawing permafrost, such as the frozen peat bogs in Siberia, creates a positive feedback due to the release of CO2 and CH4.[48] This 166 page book source gives no page numbers.
Models are also used to help investigate the causes of recent climate change by comparing the observed changes to those that the models project from various natural and human-derived causes. Although these models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects, they do indicate that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. This needs a source.
It usually is impossible to connect specific weather events to global warming. Instead, global warming is expected to cause changes in the overall distribution and intensity of events, such as changes to the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation. Broader effects are expected to include glacial retreat, Arctic shrinkage, and worldwide sea level rise. This needs a source.
Broader effects are expected to include glacial retreat, Arctic shrinkage, and worldwide sea level rise. Other effects may include changes in crop yields, addition of new trade routes,[61] species extinctions,[62] and changes in the range of disease vectors. The source here do support the two points which they are next to, but the rest of the series has no source. The first three could be attributed to previous reference by naming the tags and duplicating them here. Crop yeilds were breifly discussed in one previous reference as well but in a past look, and not in a forward looking estaime. Nothing on disease vectors has been mentioned in any source prior to this statement. Regardless, refercening for the series needs to be added.
Social and economic effects of global warming may be exacerbated by growing population densities in affected areas. This needs a source.
Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans.[74] The source given for this statement contains nothing related to this statement.
CO2 dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. Ocean surface pH is estimated to have decreased from 8.25 near the beginning of the industrial era to 8.14 by 2004,[75] This ref needs page numbers.
"Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. 2007-05-04. http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/final_PDFs_ar4/SPM.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-12-09. is a reference used for quite a few different statements. Each of the uses should be changed to include the page number on the document for their specific statement, rather than pointing to the lengthy documents and expecting the reader to browse many pages in search of the source.
One widely publicized report on potential economic impact is the Stern Review. A source is needed to establish it was widely publisized.
Preliminary studies suggest that costs and benefits of mitigating global warming are broadly comparable in magnitude.[83] This uses a primary source, is there a better one available?
According to United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), economic sectors likely to face difficulties related to climate change include banks, agriculture, transport and others.[84] Developing countries dependent upon agriculture will be particularly harmed by global warming.[85] Both of these sources need page numbers to direct to the specific page that establishes the fact.
The broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures will continue to increase has led some nations, states, corporations and individuals to implement responses. This needs a source, the one at the start could be duplicated down here if this sentance was reworded to reflect the content of the source, but I think "broad agreement" is probably an acceptable use here.
There has also been business action on climate change, including efforts to improve energy efficiency and limited moves towards use of alternative fuels. In January 2005 the European Union introduced its European Union Emission Trading Scheme, through which companies in conjunction with government agree to cap their emissions or to purchase credits from those below their allowances. Source is needed.
Australia announced its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2008 Source is needed.
The IPCC's Working Group III is responsible for crafting reports on mitigation of global warming and the costs and benefits of different approaches. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report concludes that no one technology or sector can be completely responsible for mitigating future warming. Source is needed
A wide variety of measures have been suggested for adaptation to global warming. These range from the trivial, such as the installation of air-conditioning equipment, up to major infrastructure projects, such as abandonment of settlements threatened by sea level rise. Source is needed. And who has suggested such projects?
Reference formatting could use some work. There are several sources that are used multiple times, but are not condensed under named ref tags.
The issue of climate change has sparked debate weighing the benefits of limiting industrial emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs that such changes would entail. Needs source. This is AR4WG3. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
There has been discussion in several countries about the cost and benefits of adopting alternative energy sources in order to reduce carbon emissions. What countries? Got one new source, prose is out of date, realigned.[5] ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, environmental organizations and a number of public figures have emphasized the potential risks of climate change and promote the implementation of GHG emissions reduction measures. Possibly needs source. A specific example should be cited here. Got a press release from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which organizes a number of the government organizations in the US.[6] The public figure is Obama.[7] ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Another point of contention is the degree to which emerging economies such as India and China should be expected to constrain their emissions. Needs source Got one from the Associated Press.[8] ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
China has contended that it has less of an obligation to reduce emissions since its per capita emissions are roughly one-fifth that of the United States This should probably say, the Chinese government, or X-agency in China. (ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC) It's actually Su Wei making this statement. He is speaking for the people as a whole. It's part of diplomacy, you don't go into a negotiation saying "I speak for that half of China that supports me".)
India, also exempt from Kyoto restrictions and another of the biggest sources of industrial emissions, has made similar assertions.[119] The source does not support this statement, the given source is about a glacier. (ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) LOL, glaciers, that actually cracked me up. India is exempt because its not listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol, which would make it "Quantified emission limitation or reduction"[9]; as a secondary source, Thaindian news talks about it and the google test tells me its a top searched item [10]; when I've finished fixing it in the article, I'll cross it out)

This is a list of referencing problems I have found on a first read through of the article. Several of these are obvious errors and need to be corrected. I have taken all the off-line sources in good faith, but given the extent of problems in the online sources, I am curious if any of the editors active on this article have personally checked the given book sources as I expect there will likely be more problems found there. Additionally, several of the book sources used (again which I have assumed good faith on) are linked to sites where it give a summary review of the book, in which the summaries do not fully support the information in the article - are these instances intended to be referenced from the book? If so page numbers need to be given. If they are only sourced from the summary, then they are not acceptably sourced. For the most part, these problems could be addressed without a great deal of trouble, just some digging for sources or removal of information until such sources became available. There are also several minor MOS issues, primarily with formatting and linking. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So your contention is that every single statement of fact in the article needs a reference? Wow. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No absolutly not. But every single statistic, and evthing that is likely to be challenged, or attributed to someone must be sourced. Even with these issues being address, about over half the sentances in the article would still not be proceeded by a ref. My biggest concern in this list are the facts that are sourced to articles where the source is not even about the topic it is supposed to be sourcing... —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. I think a lot of this is nit-picking, but some may be worth going into. But I'm surprised about the requirement that images need to be sourced in the article. Looking at recently featured articles Barack Obama, Ironclad warship, Major depressive disorder (today's FA), Emily Dickinson, Charles Darwin and Technology of the Song Dynasty, few images seem to even have a reference in the article - and if they have one, it seems to apply to a statement made in the caption, not to the image itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an image does not need to be source. But if the image is of a chart, or graph, or things of that nature then a source is needed just as if you had wrote the graph in text. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly not the case in the articles I listed, and a quite new requirement to me. An image needs to be verifiable, yes, but that can quite happily happen on the image page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When you present a new fact within a caption, which is discouraged ([{WP:CAPTION]]), you need to also provide a reference in that caption the same as if you had mentioned it in the body of the article. Each caption in this article is presenting facts and statisicts. Since the captions on the graphs and charts simply providing the source of the chart would satisfy that need. Which is my point. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of this is helpful and some absurdly pedantic. For example asking for a cite for the statement that the Stern Review is "widely publicized" given how much public discussion is cited even just here: Stern_Review#Positive_critical_response may be technically correct (since it is OR to look at such a list and describe it as "wide") but it is too close to violating Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules to remove something which is so obviously correct. --BozMo talk 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a long list. I refactored it to be numbered (WP:TPG) and corrected the spacing to parse correctly (WP:LIST). This lets us say something along the lines: let's look at item number so and so—and here's the correct source, now cross it out. Starting at the bottom. I'll take on item 47. Page numbers do improve the verification process, however WP:CITE, the page WP:MOS defers to for verification issues, doesn't make a explicit mandate for it. I'll work out a system for you guys if you want, it's not hard. What's the time frame you want to accomplish this by Charles? I looks like a weeks worth. ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't have a time frame. I don't have any intention to bring up an FAR, but wanted to voice concern in a detailed and specific way so not to poke the proverbial hornets nest, while showing the level to which I beleive the referencing is a problem. :) And from personal knowledge, I feel resonably comfortable that most of the information in the article is in fact accurate as it presented, just lacking the level of sourcing that should be expected in an article of this quality rating and this type of a controversial topic. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of them are just outdated links like #30 which I fixed. The numbered list is great -- it doesn't look so daunting any more. We can pick these off over time, one by one. I don't think there's any rush. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Took care of 47 and 46. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a ref for 19, although I doubt anyone would seriously challenge that statement. -Atmoz (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Found two sources for Item 44 verifying the organization and public figure clause,[11][12] but I needed to realign the prose to those sources. It seems that they're emphasizing adaptation now, and not just mitigation. They're also emphasizing effects more in the present tense than in the future tense. I think its an update, which goes along with "climate change" rather than "global warming". I chose only to cite the press release, whitehouse.gov's blog doesn't seem reliable enough and they're pointing to the report by the enviornmental organization which was the one used in the article. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Found two news source to replace the one old one for item 43.[13][14] The original one from the BBC is out of date, the "discussion" is already over. Realigned the prose to fit this. They're very recent, probably should wait on the energy bill passes or fails before citing the source from the United States. Here's the old id.[15] Also removed a dubious edit from Dhebold.[16] ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Took care of item 42. Cleaned up the IPCC citations, found a couple errors, moved the references around for easier use. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutron energies

From:ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/muscheler2007solar-mod.xls I used openoffice with b-splice 80pts for the 1000ad-1930, and 67pts for 1937-2003, and put next to each other and got this graph: [[17]] It shows a rise then drop around 50 and returns higher around 1970, dipped for part of 90's and returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithsoni0201 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance you could label the axis of the graph with units, it would make it easier for me to understand :) If you already have and I missed it then sorry Originalwana (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The graph is interesting, but I have to ask -- what purpose do you have in mind? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the graph with more... different things, the xls file put it in units of megajoules, I'll update that part. I just noticed the b-spline trends for solar energy from radionucleides and antenna( I read that on something on something from solar_variability/ link.)

Questions before I record

I'm going through the process of proofreading the article before I make a spoken recording of it (although this may take a couple weeks or so) and I want to know whether some phrases have errors or make sense.

" Tropospheric ozone is a positive forcing and contributes to surface warming.[28]" -- Does just "a postive forcing" make sense, or should it be "a positive forcing factor" or the like? – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've deleted "is a positive forcing and" as redundant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

" US$-10 per tonne of carbon (tC) " What does the hyphen there mean? Surely it doesn't mean negative. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it does mean negative. There are reasonable arguments that a small amount of warming may be of economic benefit (i.e., a negative cost). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also some pronunciation questions:

mesopelagic

mez-uh-puh-LAJ-ic

thermohaline

ther-mo-HAY-line

(please don't ask me to use IPA) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

– DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Meso pelagic I'd have said... Me-zo pEL-agic William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You talk funny. Must be a foreigner. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, I'm wondering about the relevance of this paragraph:

Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans.[75] CO2 dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. Ocean surface pH is estimated to have decreased from 8.25 near the beginning of the industrial era to 8.14 by 2004,[76] and is projected to decrease by a further 0.14 to 0.5 units by 2100 as the ocean absorbs more CO2.[1][77] Since organisms and ecosystems are adapted to a narrow range of pH, this raises extinction concerns, directly driven by increased atmospheric CO2, that could disrupt food webs and impact human societies that depend on marine ecosystem services.[78] Heat and carbon dioxide trapped in the oceans may still take hundreds years to be re-emitted, even after greenhouse gas emissions are eventually reduced.[6]

Isn't this article strictly about global warming, not all the effects of increased CO₂ concentrations? Just thought I'd bring this up while I was going through the article.

Also, if you get a chance, it'd be helpful if I could get a couple more sets of eyes on the article before I read it just to make sure I didn't miss any catastrophic mistakes. Thank!– DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That looks so bound up with inc CO2 that it ought to be mentionned William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming"

I think this should be mentioned in one of the global warming articles, although there are so many I'm not sure which one! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see: James Inhofe, check. Competitive Enterprise Institute, check. Fox News, check. Yeah, that's the Triple Crown of scientific reliability. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see: no attempt to argue the matter at hand, check. Attempt to dismiss the statement merely by invoking names of people involved as if it's a foregone conclusion that they can't possibly be right if they disagree with you, check. Affectation of superiority without merit, check. That's the triple crown of dodging the question on political correctness grounds.24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, you showed me! I'm so ashamed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

They call it news, we call it bullshit. -Atmoz (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually its truth in reporting and your bias is bullshit! Not to put too fine a point on it. Mk 68.56.175.27 (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is a credible source, and the most watched cable news channel. Inhofe is a member of the U.S. Senate. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is not a credible source - it's the laughing stock of the journalism world. And Inhofe claims that global warming is a conspiracy by the weather channel to get ratings. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide if this claim is credible. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in this debate but I had to comment. Come on.. you're using a dvd flick distributed by moveon.org to make a point on news credibility? Fox would not have the viewership they do if they were not seen as credible reporters of news. Media bias is present in most news sources in one direction or another. In any case, it is certainly not a means for excluding material and it is within the policy for a reliable secondary source if such material is determined to be included. Morphh ^(talk) 21:48, 08 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about "scientific reliability". The EPA is placing the same type of gag order on these people as Hansen claimed NASA tried to place on him. In addition, this guy got fired (transferred) for expressing his views. (Sorry, for having the wrong views.) That is the story and Fox is a reliable source for that.

From the article: The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all,"

From the released email: "..., please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of NCEE on endangerment. There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls etc. All communication needs to" go through us.

Sounds like a gag order to me. Q Science (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you - it sure does sound like a gag order. Wikipedia has so many article on global warming - I wonder which one would be most appropriate for something like this. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This has a link to a PDF of the report, and a link to a PDF of some emails about the report. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

amazing how the supporters of this global warming THEORY can all speak loudly but when someone has an argument that slows their political advancement...and thats all it has become...can easily be silenced by bias politicans. besides, hasn't anyone wondered, how is it that these so called experts can predict the weather in 100 years...when they cant even get it right 10 days in advance??? save the whales was noble, but this is just out of control. don't get me wrong, i'm all for cleanliness and good healthy environments...but be realistic!! stop destroying the economy over something that has never been proven!!! in the end, only one fact remains, no matter who you speak to, the earth has been hot and cold in the past(as proven by science mind you, and that had nothing to do with human impact) therefore, it will be hot and cold again in the future, and we cant do anything about it! -kingnothing8211 7-2-09 -Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingnothing8211 (talk o contribs) 07:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing what you consider to be an argument. People have died in the past, people will die in the future, therefore let's abolish all medicine... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that humans' burning of fossil fuel is causing global warming. However, I disbelieve the claim that there is "no dissent" on the subject. The wikipedia articles on global warming should present all points of view from legitimate scientists on the subject, including that of the skeptics. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a Wall St. Journal editorial on the EPA's suppression of the skeptic. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Global_warming_controversy#Political_pressure_on_scientists is a good place for this information. What does anyone else think? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlin isn't a scientist, so "Political pressure on scientists" is inappropriate. It would need to go somewhere else (if anywhere). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. I don't see that isn't science. Q Science (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's the PhD in economics that makes him not a scientist. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Although he has a decent background in basic science from CalTech, Econ is part of MIT's "humanities, arts, and social sciences" program, and is very quantitative but contains no physical science. IMO he certainly doesn't qualify him as an authority on the topic in the way that, say, Dick Lindzen could be a champion of skeptics. Awickert (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Carlin has a strong background in Operations Research. You know those simulation models used to predict the end of the world by global warming? They are created by people with a background in OR. I would say he is quite qualified, you don't have to be a climatologist to know how to program a simulation model, yet a climatologist would have a pretty difficult time knowing how to use simulation modeling. Arzel (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You know those simulation models used to predict the end of the world by global warming? They are created by people with a background in OR. So many errors in two short sentences. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess you could not produce anything valid against his argument. Attacking his grammar is a good pasttime though. Last time I checked, the simulation model only projects climate changes. ONE of these projects was a warming trend. Same concept used to 'project' global cooling in the 70s. If you check climate history, there was a peak in the 50s and a trough in the 80s. Guess when we thought global cooling. Guess when we were in the peak of our CO2 emissions. It was during the 70s. Would Times count as a source? Search there for "Another Ice Age" Cflare -Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What Boris said. I think the error density is as high, but the overall text is longer, so you currently lose on the b-score.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"What Boris said." is correct grammar? This stupidity is pointless. You use poor grammar to critisize grammar. By the way, thanks for deleted my rebuttal. This shows your true integrity. You obviously cannot admit that objective dissent exists. By rejecting objective dissent, you are a failure to the scientific community you defend.Cflare (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm. Neither I nor Boris have criticized anybody's grammar so far (but, to give you a morsel, "critisize" is wrong in any variant of English I'm aware of). And I did not delete your "rebuttal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The 5 year mean dataset

Here is the dataset the temperature chart is supposedly based on. It uses a 5-year mean, which shows a noticeable downward drop at the end. However, the chart does not show this drop.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

We discussed this a while back, and the explanation was someone used some kind of fancy smoothing algorithm to produce the trend line. From my perspective, we should just use the five year mean, but if we're going to use that "rocket science" smoothing algorithm, someone should post the actual data, and explain how it was produced. 76.19.65.163 (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, which pronounced drop do you in the data set? The 5 year mean column shows a single drop from 0.55 to 0.53 from 2005 to 2006. The data used in that image is exactly the same data you used, and is linked to in the image description page. The values are slightly offset because NASA uses a non-standard mean for the anomaly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The data linked to above is not represented by the red line in the chart. If it was, the red line would have a noticeable drop at the end. The red line in the chart is based on some kind of more complicated smoothing, that essentially ignores the last year of data (2008). 18.111.20.217 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If a person, when shown that he has made a mistake, admits his mistake, it is worth carrying on a conversation with him. If a person, when shown he has made a mistake, ignores the correction, and moves on to put forward another mistake, then the discussion is pointless. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion [18], only a few months ago went into this in detail. I won't be surprised if the mean curve takes a downward trend when the data for 2009 becomes available, but you need a lot more data than that to show that there is sustained cooling going on. Just take a look at the mean curve for the periods 1981-1984 and 1990-1993. In both cases they show short-lived cooling trends, but that's what you get with the sort of short-term variability seen in global temperature values. We won't know if there's sustained cooling for several more years at least. Mikenorton (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The NASA GISS data site linked above has an exellent summary page of their data here. I would look there first if there are any questions. This talk is for improving the article, and this data only confirms what's already in the article.He Flips (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

bias in the opening statment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.

Its a theory, but the scientific community is split on the issue. Suggesting that the theory is conclusive is not NPOV. --75.25.3.253 (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a FAQ linked to at the top of the page that covers the scientific consensus and the use of "theory." He Flips (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Coastal Sea levels rising!

I have heard a number of researchers and even President Obama speak about the rising sea levels. I have owned and lived beachfront in North Carolina for over fifty years. Strange thing is that my boat dock is still in the same place and high tide comes no higher now than it did forty plus years ago! I can't help but to wonder if the experts and the President of the U.S. have coastal property and have seen this so-called rising waters for their own eyes. I have seen no such rising levels with my own eyes........and i have better than 20/20! -Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.156.126 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seal level rise differs locally. ~~But even globally, over the last 50 years observed sea level rise is about 0.9cm, or 0.35 inches. Are you sure you would have noticed this? It's about the thickness of a sheet of paper per year...~~ --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have lost a factor of ten. Sea level rise in the last 50 years is closer to 10 cm (4 in). Dragons flight (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Somehow I misread the value as per decade, not per year. I seemed low to me. Sorry about that. -Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry. The oceans have been receding ever since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination. You'll be right soon. Kauffner (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I basically lived on an island that fronts both the Gulf of Mexico and a bay (called Gulf-To-Bay type property) in Florida for about fifty years. I love the water and paid close attention to it my entire life. During the late 60's and early 70's the polution got pretty bad and alot of fish and sea grass died. However, there has been a tremoudous come back both in terms of both. However, I have not seen the water level at the boat docks, which has been unaltered for over 50 years, change whatsoever. The high tides seem very much the same and the low tides very much the same. Even though this is empirical, seeing with ones on eyes is indeed very powerful. As an explanation of why people get so upset over this issue, I'd like to submit the following article. It is opinion, but it provides a good explanation and insight into the thinking of a large number of people. To just totally ignore these type of opinions is stupid at best and dangerous at worst. Please consider all sources before stating facts. I contrasted the "Global Warming" page with the "Global Cooling" page and there is quite a bit of difference between the two pages in where bias leans towards. Here's the link that delineates why so many are "up in arms" - http://www.manateerivernews.com/pdf/071009P5.pdf -Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.157.113 (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember everybody, talk pages are here for the sole purpose of discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussions of the topic. Will Beback talk 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

skepticism

from the Wall Street Journal, meaningful published skepticism from scientists is growing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would take what the Wall Street Journal editorial page says with a large grain of salt. Unlike the paper itself (which is reliable), their editorial pages are notorious for getting it way, way wrong. In particular, this latest editorial cites Inhofe's list as evidence. (Perhaps we need a FAQ entry for that particular canard) Raul654 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

~~That's a link to a news article, not an op-ed.~~ Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm, did you miss the "Opinion" header at the top of the article? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3) I was about to strike that out, I was misled by the big "article" tab at the text header, I guess. Nonetheless, I think this carries verifiable content (not opinion) which can be cited and I've only posted it here for editors to think about. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we cannot use that at all. Everything in there has been argued in this very pages, so it very likely is a case of indirect self-reference ;-). More seriously, it really is nothing new. There are a couple of political decisions, the miss-attribution of a paper to the Polish National Academy (see our discussion) and Inhofe's "You're on if Morano can miss-interpret anything you ever said, if you want to or not" list. If this has been fact checked, then the fact-checking at the WSJ needs some attention... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much if it's already been argued here, the content is verifiable, the source reliable and I think it would be helpful if the main article somehow noted growing dissent among the scientific community. Sourced criticism of this dissent among scientists and meteorologists (along the lines you've talked about, or along others) can also be cited. No rush though, if the PoV of this main article indeed happens to be slanted, secondary sources acceptable to consensus here may take time to catch up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the "growing dissent" is just some bloke's opinion. (I'm certainly not seeing "growing dissent" in the journals and at conferences; quite the opposite if anything.) Academic meta-analyses of the scientific literature would be interesting, but just citing people's opinions would turn this article into a bucket of noise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with just some bloke's opinion is that "he" thought the earth was round, that men could fly, that a light could be derived from electricty, that a liquid could be made to displace water consistently, that analog signals could carry sound... and so on. If you dismiss 'some bloke's opinion', you dismiss half of technology. 1. Just because everyone agrees, doesn't make them right. 2. The reason the arguments against global warming are only found in opinion pages is because these scientists that disagree can't see their ink on the page of any scientific journal due to the failure of the community to acknowlege differing opinion. If they did so in any other field, we'd still think atoms were a blob of protons and electrons. Cflare(talk) 7 14:45, July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Bozo-the-clown-argument is always entertaining, if a bit dated. But scientific journals are not usually in the business of publishing "opinions" - they publish science. And the few that have an opinion column have given plenty of space to sceptics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Shallow condescension does not contribute to the discussion.Dikstr (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Who decides what is and is not opinion. There is obviously research out there that disagrees with global warming. They don't make it into a journal because the 'powers that be' don't want it to happen. The same thing is true for evolution. No one's willing to admit objective proof to the contrary. Like I said, there was a time when a person believed the world was round and not at the center of the universe, and he was cast out by the scientific 'powers that be' as well. There's your historical proof that the scientific community isn't always right even when there is a majority opinion.Cflare(talk) 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which journals you're reading or meetings attended but you must not be experiencing the same ones I and many others are. Although I'm not sure about the context in which your dismissal of 'growing dissent' as 'just some bloke's opinion' was made, it sounds like an affront to reasonable debate on this subject. The AGW bias of entrenched Wikipedia editors in the climate change area noted by Gwen Gale needs to be addressed as she suggests.Dikstr (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that source carries a lot more than "just some bloke's opinion." Thanks for having a look and sharing your thoughts. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the kind of thing I mean by verifiable content in the source: A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.) As I said though, no rush. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You might consider this open letter vs. the list of opinions on scientific opinion on climate change and consider WP:WEIGHT. As for the "growing dissent", as you probably know opinion pieces are only RS for the opinion of the author. And I don't think I'd take Kimberley Strassel's opinion as significant, compared to, say, that of the United States National Academy of Sciences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To put this another way, 54 noted physicists ... demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.) is not the author's opinion, but wholly verifiable and published in a reliable source. Likewise Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue with opinion pieces is that they often selectively take facts and spin them, so the info really has to be pared down to get to the core. As far as I know, Jim Inhofe's lists are infamously incorrect, and often include scientists who do not oppose the global warming consensus ~~(these scientists are taken off when they complain, but are often returned to the list later)~~. The notable individuals who dissent may be important to bring up on scientific opinion on global warming and global warming controversy; they can be brought up here when they've written papers that provide good evidence against man-made global warming. For the open letter, I'd question how "noted physicists" is defined as "notable" is often used as a weasel-word... perhaps the Princeton professor is notable; are the others? Awickert (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Imhofe's list - 'as far as you know' is weak - which scientists are you referring to that are unable to extricate themselves from his list? The vast majority aren't in that category and your offhand critique doesn't address their views. Its easy but unconvincing to dismiss the views of others with surface criticism. I've heard the same complaint about the IPCC reports - that some scientists were inappropriately listed as part of the consensus - but I would assume that is not true of the majority and that their views should not be dismissed out of hand.Dikstr (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"As far as I know" is weak, and is also true, which is why I qualified it. I've certainly heard that said before, so I wanted to throw it out while noting that I have no known backing. Stephan seems to know more. Awickert (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember some complaints from the original 400 list a while back. What I can still find now is George Waldenberger [19], [20]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, are you sure about the scientists that have been taken off Inhofe's list? I've read about several who tried to get off, only to be told that they don't know their own position... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure. Stricken. Awickert (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Noted" is opinion. If the about the letter is independently verifiable, it still is an extreme minority position. Inhofe very much does not "count more that 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N." - he counts that many alleged scientists that he claims disagree with something (his own report is not too clear on what they are supposed to disagree with - the UN, Man-Made Global Warming Claims, the IPCC, or Al Gore). Some of these so-called scientists aren't, and several have protested against miss-representing their work as opposing the IPCC position. Not to mention trivial errors like the fact that 13*52 is not "more than 700", and that the authors of the SPM are not "UN scientists". I've read Simpson's letter, and unless she has made other statements, Strassel's characterization is completely bogus. In short, Strassel's piece is not a reliable source except for her opinion, entirely in line with WP:RS#News_organizations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The writer was rounding down for a general readership in the WSJ, a wee bit more than 700/52 wouldn't be an integer, but more like about 13.5, not 13. This rounding in prose undermines neither the assertion nor anything else in the source. If this is the kind of criterion being used to sweep critical sources from the main article, I think it hints at a big worry. However, I only dropped by to share this source here on the talk page with other editors, which I have done. Thanks again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry if we (or some of us) seem somewhat aggressive - we are used to a robust discussion style here. No, I don't dismiss the source because of this feat of arithmetic (which was, btw, copied verbatim from Inhofe), but because it is a) an opinion piece (and hence not a RS for facts) and b) an unselective collection of mostly older snippets, many of which are simply and undeniably wrong, others which in my opinion are extremely tendentious, and some that are entirely irrelevant for a scientific topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're so sure that there is a warming trend, why was the name changed from "global warming" to "climate change"? If Gore is correct, we will burn up in eight years time. If we spend a zillion dollars on the problem, make it nine years. In 1970s, we were running out resources and overpopulating. In the 1980s, it was the ozone layer. Ten years from now, the environmental boogieman will something else -- unless of course this time around the scaremongers are correct, in which case we will be dead. Kauffner (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mu. What do you think IPCC stands for and since when? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add the following articles from the NYT under the Economic & Political debate section. If someone could look at them or help me out I would appreciate it. Environmental Group Advises Discontinuation of Term "Global Warming", Suggests "Climate Change" More Effective http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1 Global Warming Concern Decreasing Among Voters In Latest Pew Research Poll http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/science/earth/23warm.html Thanks Tadamsmt (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This article contains a number of FACTUAL errors. The science does not support the contentions made in this article and when this is pointed out, the author does not take criticism well. I would also point out that the IPCC report has been THUROUGHLY debunked as a political statement NOT science.Bill in BC (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are free to point out the errors in the article. That's how articles improve. I would recommend posting at the bottom of the talk if you want your revisions considered.He Flips (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Schmitt

I would like to add to section Economic and political debate: Increased Number Think Global Warming Is "Exaggerated" add this to trends, skeptism or awareness section paragraph? -Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithsoni0201 (talk o contribs) 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also under it: Buzz Aldrin and Jack Schmitt article: "The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." MOONWALKERS DEFY AL GORE'S CLAIM Smithsoni0201 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the first link, I don't see the change you're proposing. The section is not for external links, but uses references to back up claims. Regarding the second link, same issue, but the source is partisan, and the facts reported are unremarkable. The author is reporting that a former Republican US Senator (although he fails to id him as such) has come out as skeptical of global warming, which I don't think is all that surprising. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from CFlare

Why doesn't this article even mention or link to any articles talking about natural emissions of CO2. There's evidence that CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher before. Also, a volcano can spew out in one eruption more than humans have emitted in their natural lives. Also, a collection of cows in a field can spew out more greenhouse gases than a car can and have equal impact. I'm sure there are more cows in America than cars? This is similar to saying oil spillings are bad, but not mentioning that the ocean leaks out more oil than man has ever spilled. .Cflare (talk)

Some of your concerns are addressed in the FAQ. – DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight?

I've noticed that the article contains no mention of any dissent whatsoever. I understand that WP:UNDUE states that we should only give a view x% of coverage if that's what x% of the literature says, but isn't dissent among all people in the world (not just the scientific community) greater than 0%? Even the AIDS article has a very small section about AIDS denialism, which is probably equally rejected by the scientific community and held by just as few (if not fewer). I would expect that something similar would be appropriate in Global warming. What are your thoughts?– DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 04:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My thought is that if you have something that is well sourced and relevant, you can add it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We do have the section on solar variation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet you treat the theory on solar variation as a side note, then point out its critism as if it were fact. If you are going to mention an alternative theory, don't strawman it.Cflare (talk) -Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The solar variation says that some people think the role of solar variation is underestimated, but nowhere in the article does it directly address that there are some people that believe that global warming is completely due to natural causes and not man-made. What about this article ("just as many say either that warming has been caused by natural patterns in the earth's environment (21%), or that there is no solid evidence of global warming (20%)") or this article ("'...many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening.'" – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite right either. In fact the second reference you mention is already cited in the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize. In fact, both of them are already cited in the article. But what's not quite right? – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What you're asking for is for this article to include more about public opinion. While public opinion about AGW is not irrelevant, it is beyond the scope of this article, which is primarily about the science of global warming. Numerous other articles exist that go into further detail about various aspects of AGW, and links are provided throughout. I believe what you're looking for can be found in Global warming controversy.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to know the distance to the moon, you can set up a radar system and measure it, or you could ask 1000 people how far away they think it is and average their answers. --Nigelj (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet there is a section on political and economic debate regarding global warming. And in regards to Nigelj's comment, no one is suggesting that we give equal scientific merit to the opinions of dissidents, if that's what you were implying. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 05:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Much as people like to claim that this article is "only about the science", that just flies in the face of what an article on an overall topic should be, per WP:SUMMARY and common sense. This article is about the topic in general, and therefore scientific sources are not the only relevant ones. In the USA, for example, equal percentages of the public do and don't believe in human-caused warming. The only indication of this whatsoever in this article is in the lead: "public debate continues regarding what actions (if any) to take in response to global warming." In fact, survey results show quite clearly that no matter what the science academies may say there is much public debate about whether humans are even causing global warming, a fact which this article glosses over entirely. Oren0 (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What if this article was moved to a topic called "Science of Global Warming" and linked in to this page. The main page should merely be about the topic, not the science of the topic.Cflare (talk)

In the USA, equal percentages of the public do and don't believe in astrology. Should the article on astronomy include the belief that the positions of the planets at birth influence a person's destiny? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unequivalent comparisons. The equivalent would be: "In the USA, equal percentages of the public do and don't believe in astronomy. Should the article on astromony include the belief that the sky is not real?" You cannot seriously compare "direct dissent with a theory" to "inclusion of admittance" to a distant related topic. Cflare (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC) -Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk)

Reply to Oren:

The problem is this. A few years ago there was a vigorous debate here on the talk page with some sceptics. It was decided that this article will give the scientific point of view on the science of global warming. I.e. if all the peer reviewed sources say that man is the cuase of global warming and James Inhofe's blog says something else, then we're not going to take Inhofe's view into account when writing about man's impact on the climate.

What we decided to do instead is allow the views of Inhofe & co. to be included in the article about global warming controversy. The reason is that the views of the sceptics, while not relevant to the science of global warming, are part of the public controversy about global warming. If we were to put some of the views of sceptics in this article, then that would create the false perception that the certain scientific questions that have long been settled are in fact not settled at all.

This would in fact be caused by a NPOV effect, as it would violate NPOV if the standard of inclusion of statements from the pro-GW camp would be peer reviewed sources, while views from the sceptic camp would only have to be published on some blog posting. So, to correct that we would also have to allow blog postings by the pro-GW camp. So, if James Inhofe makes ridiculous accusations, then non peer reviewed sources in which Inhofe is attacked must then also be allowed in.

The end result of all this would be a bad article that would also not be to the liking of the sceptics. A consensus could thus be reached about putting anything that has to do with the controversy in the article about the controversy. Count Iblis (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What about co2science.org? There is tons of peer-reviewed skeptic material on it. I can't believe this is a real problem. Kauffner (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Any examples? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are papers about how the PDO may cause global cooling, for example Bratcher and Giese, "Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming" Geophysical Research Letters. There are also temperature reconstructions showing that the Middle Ages were warmer than present (i.e. no hockey stick), for example Moberg, A., et al. 2005 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Finally, there are papers claiming that water vapor is responsible for 90 to 95 percent of the greenhouse effect, much higher than this article acknowleges: Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264). Kauffner (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner: all of your claims are easily refuted. For example, Bratcher and Giese is about the weather over the next seven years, not about the climate over the next thirty years. But, as you have been told many times, this is not the place to debate global warming. I am guilty, too. I get drawn in. These questions have been asked and answered many times before. The answers are here: Talk:Global_warming/FAQ If you are a climate scientist, and if you have hard evidence against man-made global warming, publish it in a peer reviewed journal. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bratcher and Giese isn't about the PDO. Are you unable to read a science article, understand it and then articulate it to others or did you intentionally misinterpret it? Either way, there's no point in discussing anything further with you.Atmoz (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Are you claiming that Bratcher and Giese's "tropical Pacific decadal variability" is something completely different than the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? Kauffner (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a hint: the PDO is defined by the first principal component of north Pacific Ocean SST outside the tropics. Now what's the title of Bratcher and Giese again? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I guess that clears it all up. I had no idea there was a massive wall across the Pacific at 20 degrees North. Kauffner (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The astronomy/astronomy and skeptics/global warming situations are fundamentally different. Astronomy is, by its very definition, a scientific discipline, nor is there any notable conflict between people's astrological beliefs and the field of astronomy. On the other hand, global warming is not just a scientific discipline, but also an area of considerable notable public controversy, and as a top-level article on this broad topic, Global warming must present an accurate representation of all aspects of the topic, not just scientific.

The facts are this: scientific consensus supports the human-caused global warming model, and not all Americans believe it (or did three years ago). This is not some fringe opinion like flat-earthers; they are a substantial minority. I also think that its inclusion won't necessarily undermine the scientific superiority of the mainstream viewpoint, if written appropriately. All it will do will state (factually and verifiably) that a consensus does not exist among the American people. The two can exist simultaneously, and any misconstruing of these facts will be the fault of the reader who's looking already to invalidate GW, not the fault of the article.

Neither oren nor I are asking to include Inhofe's or anybody's arguments against GW, just the reception of the theory by Americans (and others, if sources can be found -- I don't mean to be purposefully US-centric), nor are we asking to cite blog posts or opinion pieces. Frankly, much of your argument is a little bit of a straw man. And for the record, I'm not a GW skeptic; I just think this article is incomplete in the ways I've just stated. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Astronomy is a terrible example. It is worth noting, though, that right is the astrology lead we find: "Scientists consider astrology a pseudoscience or superstition.[9][10][11][12] In one poll, 31% of Americans expressed a belief in astrology and, according to another study, 39% considered it scientific.[13][14]". A better example would be evolution, specifically this section of that article. It handles this much better, but still gives too little mention of creationism/intelligent design IMO (and I'm a strict believer in evolution). Global warming is not only a science; it has political, economic, and social aspects as well. This article should be about the topic in general, and if that means creating a science of global warming article so be it. The fact that as many people don't believe in this as do is very relevant as it indicates a level of public debate ignored by this article. Oren0 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

While we mention this briefly, perhaps we could add a few more words on the details; e.g., polling data show that skepticism is greatest among Republicans and the less educated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And shouldn't we have similar sections for what the Irish people believe, Canadians, the people of Barbados, Koreans, the Chinese people? Indeed, is there a nation on Earth whose people's level of education in this area is not equally important? --Nigelj (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source for it, then go for it. However, maybe this is just me being American talking, but I do think levels of public acceptance hold particular importance in the US, since the US hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol and all that. Also, I'm going to go ahead and add that polling data into the article. Also, in regards to Short Brigade Harvester's suggestion, the article with the poll actually says, "Men and women hold virtually identical beliefs about the issue, as do younger and older people, and those with more and less education" – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that the controversy should at least be briefly mentioned and linked in the lead. Was looking for more information on the 98-page EPA study on climate change, which shows global temperatures will decline until 2030.[21] Didn't know if it would merit weight for inclusion but I figured there should at least be some mention of dissent in the lead linking to the sub-article on those arguments. Morphh ^(talk) 13:22, 08 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah.. my mistake, I see it is linked in the last paragraph. Perhaps this could be made a little clearer that these links go to dissent. The way I read it, it leads me to think this just discusses the "what actions (if any) to take in response to global warming", not that there is debate on global warming itself and the extent of man-made causes of global warming. Morphh ^(talk) 13:40, 08 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with DroEsperanto's central point: this is about polling, this is about politics. Let's go over how we can improve this article. Got your sources in paragraph two, this is my peer review of the second paragraph of the "Economic and political debate" section thus far.[22] "In the poll, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to disagree with the anthropogenic global warming model" Political parties in the United States actually very weak compared to those in Europe.[23] There are actually more Independents than Republicans.[24][25] On the recent energy bill that just passed the house, the majority whip wasn't able to control 44 democrats who voted against it.[26] The difference observed by the poll you've cited seems be the polarization during the Bush adminsitration.[27] For these reasons describing the politics party-wise might to be the best choice of factors, and especially when only comparing democrats vs republicans.

While approval remains constant for gender, age, and social-economic factors; approval changes with time and ideology. Those two are the what I'm looking at, they're in my opinion just as important, and combined more important than political parities. I like the Gallup poll, they usually provide better interpretation and context than the media; news sources are in my opinion are not reliable enough. Here are the sources: this goes over time[28]; we've only covered the western world, this goes over the everyone else[29]; there more dimensions than just who approves of global warming and who doesn't, this describes perception of the media[30] and the appropriate response[31]. Ideology is, in my opinion, a better indicator of who approves what than political parties, but they're hard to find because you can't score political points this way. If you can find one, then this would help. Same goes for "Independents", they're described in the prose of those sources rather than the graphs. Here's are some more results from Gallup.[32] Sorry to sound as if I'm just putting stuff off, I'll work on the prose on Sunday. Going camping, back (ironically) the same day Awickert gets back. We can probably get this issue hammered out then. ChyranandChloe (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as independent voters go, there's a book The Myth of the Independent Voter (1992). It says that people who identify as "independent leaning Democrats" are really no different than the people who identify as plain old "Democrats." Only about 5 percent of Americans are "independent-independents". Kauffner (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping with summary section (WP:SS) and world-view (WP:CSB), I couldn't even get to party politics in the United States. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe the above would be more appropriate for the main Controversy article with a one-sentence summary of it in here. – DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 13:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead flow. The main controversy article isn't very well written. About belief, lets give this a spin. Of those countries poll, there are only a handful of develop countries in Asia (that is Asia-pacific, not the middle east): South Korea, Japan, and Singapore.[33] South Korea (1), Japan (2), Taiwan (6) and Hong Kong (11) (which are actually part of China), and Singapore (17), they're all right up there about the top 20 item threshold Gallup used to describe Latin America. Gallup is usually very brief, they give you a criteria and an example and move on. Latin America was explicit, "[...]Latin Americans lead the world in the belief that rising temperatures across the globe (a part of global warming) are a result of human activity." About the contrary, Gallup describes it as "The countries where fewer people believe that global warming is the result of human activities are highly dispersed. Although 8 of the 20 countries at the bottom of the world rankings are in Africa, the remaining 12 include a mixture of Asian and Middle Eastern countries, a few countries from the Former Soviet Union, and individual countries as different as Haiti and Iceland." ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Readded some prose about belief. Left out Asia, though in my opinion it's fairly obvious; found a source skimming over it, but its not that good[34]. Maybe you'll have better luck. Anyways, about OR, everything I added should be directly verified in the article, now:

"In 2007-2008 the Gallup polls surveyed 127 countries." -> "Gallup Polls conducted in 127 countries in 2007 and 2008 reveal[...]" Change in perspective, we're talking about the Gallup, not Gallup talking about itself.
"However, awareness does not equate to belief that global warming is a result of human activities." -> "[...] Their responses reveal that public knowledge of the concept of global warming is not the same thing as the public belief that global warming is a result of human activities."
"Of those who are aware, Latin America leads in belief that changes temperature are a result of human activities;[...]" -> "However, focusing on people who say they know about global warming, Latin Americans lead the world in the belief that rising temperatures across the globe (a part of global warming) are a result of human activity. In fact, 13 of the top 20 countries where more people believe global warming is a result of human activities are in Latin America."
"Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, a few from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite." -> "[...]at the bottom of the world rankings are in Africa, the remaining 12 include a mixture of Asian and Middle Eastern countries, a few countries from the Former Soviet Union, and individual countries as different as Haiti and Iceland." Left out the two outliers, Haiti and Iceland, Gallup is just doing their SOCS.

Here's the source again.[35] ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A small two-paragraph section, cited of course, after the "Economic and political debate" and titled "Skepticism" or something like that, should give adequate weight to the opposing viewpoint on this topic. Then, one sentence should be added to the end of the intro stating, "A small number of notable scientists have dissented from the prevailing view on the existence global warming or its possible causes." Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Northern_Hemisphere_ice_versus_irradiance

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Northern_Hemisphere_ice_versus_irradiance_.png A direct comparison: since 1953 solar average historic high and sudden acceleration of ice decrease. Here are sources from two images buiding this image:

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent, since 50's has markedly decreased with peaking of average solar irradiance (highest 55yr amount for over 400 yrs) [36] from where gives National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA original data and University of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences image: [37] Solar irradiance: [38]

May soon be renamed to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Northern_Hemisphere_ice_versus_irradiance_1953.png Smithsoni0201 (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to tell us? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 00:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That since 1953 ice suddenly began melting at greater rate as solar maximum began. What's wrong with images on global warming page? Who/what is Scibaby sockpuppet? Smithsoni0201 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but there are copyright concerns with this image. The image documentation states that NASA is the source, but it's pulled from UIUC's website. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant NOAA not NASA, how to take that part off? Smithsoni0201 (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you are a new editor, you may want to check out WP:SYNTHESIS Cheers, Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that one out. What about the two images from page Seasonal extent 1900-2008.jpg and SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif? First gives context to melting, from half century constant then 20% to 50% loss within several decades. Second shows the mid-century and on of global warming and apparent solar forcing concurrent. Seems important overall.Smithsoni0201 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby, global warming is controversial, very controversial, as you can imagine, some people are well, they get banned for edit warring or some other offence, create multiple accounts, which furthers their offense, and so on; ignore it. These two images right?[39][40] They're interesting, the first, which is from the University of Illinois, might have some use in Arctic shrinkage, not sure about the second. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So scibaby generic is sorta like sci-ence baby-sitted -ish :)> I'll try the first in Arctic shrinkage, they've little earlier than 1979 and on images. The second: Solar variation has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Forcing_GISS_model.gif but the pages to info about their method are out, and the .1 .2 scale seems less than that from [41]. There is a note at the bottem of that page from 2006(!). Could someone check that out, if it checks out would it be alright if I replace with mine coving 1610 on? Smithsoni0201 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides copyright (should get that worked out, how did you get it?), I don't see why not. Start a new thread in Talk:Solar variation, give a short intro, and make your bold edit to the article. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)