Talk:Climate change

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)

Percentages of Greenhouse effect per gas

This figure shows the level of agreement between a climate model driven by five factors and the historical temperature record.

The numbers given for the percentage of the greenhouse effect caused by each atmospheric gas have a number of problems.

"Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F). 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."

1: You can't simply ignore clouds' effect. They have a DRAMATIC effect on the temperature, both due to Albedo (which tends to cause mild cooling during the day) and due to heat retention at night. Anyone who has gone outside early in the morning after an overcast night and compared the temperature with a morning after a clear night can feel the difference without even resorting to a thermometer.

2: The ranges are ridiculously huge. They are probably exaggerated due largely to ignoring clouds' effect on temperature. Of the gasses listed, Water Vapor is the only one that varies significantly from region to region. Even Carbon Dioxide is almost invariably 0.039% to 0.04% of the atmosphere. The only places where CO2 could comprise 26% of the Greenhouse effect, is in Deserts, where the humidity is so low there is almost NO greenhouse effect. Anyone living in or near a desert can testify as to how cold it usually is in the morning.

3: No explaination is given at all on what CAUSES the ranges to vary so much, particularly for the gasses whose percentages in the atmosphere are relatively constant.

In conclusion, I think this presentation of "Percentage of greenhouse effect" information is confusing, misleading and irrelevant. A better measure would be to show a graph, plotting Greenhouse Effect against Humidity, with a line showing the effect of each gas contributing to the whole instead of as a percentage, and showing the total overall effect. On the graph, the contributions of all of the other gasses would be shown as they are, a constant, while the contribution by Water Vapor is what actually varies.

Redwood Elf (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a WP:RS I guess that would be OK. Though it doesn't sound like a very sensible graph to draw, so my guess is you won't find such source William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about something that looks like this image, right? We were just talking about it two threads up in #Images. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is the image that RE means. I think he wants a picture demonstrating that CO2 is trivial compared to WV :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I am looking for a graph demonstrating that the contribution of CO2 and the other "Trace" greenhouse gasses are more or less constant, while the contribution of water vapor is highly variable. Redwood Elf (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm no mind-reader, but perhaps the ideal solution for RE would be inclusion of something on the spatial heterogeneity of the water cycle and its response to warming, while citing the importance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas.

What I'm wondering about is the 33 degrees C part; I think that's just doing the blackbody radiation balance, which is simplest, but in reality, the resultant increased ice cover due to decreased temperature would drastically increase non-GHG albedo. That means that T would actually be much lower than the 33 degrees C below present-day T due to a likely-total snowball Earth. Does anyone else think this is an issue and we should recalculate? I guess it's probably fine as-is, unrealistically but conventionally assuming present-day albedo for both situations. Awickert (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the calc is usually done assuming no change in albedo. No atmosphere would mean no clouds which would also dramatically affect the albedo William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it is conventional. I was assuming a no-major-GHG atmosphere; athough a snowball Earth would not have a very active hydrologic cycle and therefore probably very few clouds, I'd assume that the high ice albedo would dominate. Anyway, should probably leave as-is for convention. My rambles of insomnia... Awickert (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the original question: As explained in the main article, greenhouse gas, the range is not a sign of real variability, but of the definition of the contribution. The effect of any particular gas depends on the mixture of gases, the effects do not simply add up. Water vapor, for example, would retain 70% of the heat if it were the only greenhouse gas and the rest of the atmosphere was transparent to IR. It contributes about 36% in the current mix. Likewise, if CO2 were the only greenhouse gas, it would account for (about) 26% of the current effect, but in the real atmosphere, it only accounts for 9%. The reason is that the gases absorb in overlapping ranges - a photon that already has been absorbed by H2O cannot also be absorbed by CO2. Should we make this more explicit in the article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your description of the 36% is wrong. Personally, I've long felt these ranges (sourced only to RealClimate, as far as I know) are hackish. Rather than doing these include it/don't include it psuedo-experiments, it would be much more informative if a climate modeler actually reported figures for total infrared energy absorbed for each atmospheric component in the current atmosphere, but I've never seen anyone take the time to break out those numbers. Dragons flight (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I thought it was referenced to Ramanathan&Coackley(1978)[1] table 6? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  The approach is similar but the gases considered and numbers obtained are different. Dragons flight (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• DF, are you sure? I always interpreted "take a radiation model and remove each long-wave absorber [...] and see what difference it makes to the amount of long-wave absorbed" as a way of determining the effect of the gas in the current atmospheric mix. But as always, I'll be glad to learn something... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  It is the same overlap problem, but in the opposite direction. If you take water vapor out of the atmosphere (for example), and then ask how much is the greenhouse gas effect reduced, then you have a problem because some of the energy that had been absorbed by H2O still get absorbed by the other gases. In other words this estimate is necessarily lower than the percentage of energy actually being absorbed by H2O, because the overlap bands allow some of the energy it would have absorbed to be captured by other gases. Just as the observation that water vapor alone could capture 70% of the thermal radiation is an overestimate of its activity in the current atmosphere, noting that an atmosphere without H2O captures 36% less energy is an underestimate of the fraction actually captured by H2O. The actual amount of energy captured by H2O vapor is probably close to the average of these two limits, but I've never seen anyone really do the estimate the right way. Dragons flight (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• "methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent"

Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't find this range in neither one of sources cited.--Adi (talk) 15:47, 19 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)

Referencing problems

Possible problems I have identified.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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)

11. 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.
12. 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)

13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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)
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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))
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Observations show that temperatures in the stratosphere have been steady or cooling since 1979, when satellite measurements became available. This should have a source.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Social and economic effects of global warming may be exacerbated by growing population densities in affected areas. This needs a source.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. "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.
33. One widely publicized report on potential economic impact is the Stern Review. A source is needed to establish it was widely publisized.
34. 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?
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Australia announced its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2008 Source is needed.
39. 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
40. 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?
41. Reference formatting could use some work. There are several sources that are used multiple times, but are not condensed under named ref tags.
42. 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.
43. 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?
44. 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.[2] The public figure is Obama.[3] ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
45. 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.[4] ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
46. 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".)
47. 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"[5]; as a secondary source, Thaindian news talks about it and the google test tells me its a top searched item [6]; 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,[7][8] 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)

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[9]. They update it every year. In every version, the last two to three years of the trend line is always left off,[10][11] 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.

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)

• 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 [12], [13]. --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)

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)

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,[14] 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 score 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)