Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EastTN (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 2 December 2009 (→Featured Article Review: Hm - part of my comment didn't go through last time). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There is a request, submitted by AaThinker, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "This is a long-time featured article about a vital topic covering several prominent Misplaced Pages projects.".

Template:Spoken Misplaced Pages In Progress

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96Auto-archiving period: 7 days

faq page Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the for references at the bottom of the FAQ. Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change? A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by over 99% of publishing climate scientists. See also: Scientific consensus on climate change Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place? A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)." Q3: Can't the increase of CO2 be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans? A3: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics, including academically trained ones, they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives: Current human emissions of CO2 are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. This is easily seen in a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels. Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels. If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or in other words, less basic). Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it? A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum. Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated? A5: Two reasons: There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like the Global Warming Map, are static, meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly. However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get", meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations. Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import. Q6: Isn't climate change "just a theory"? A6: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess, but a scientific theory, roughly speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven, but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense), but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess. Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO2? A7: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years), so when methane emissions are reduced the concentration in the atmosphere soon falls, whereas CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles. See also: Clathrate gun hypothesis and Arctic methane release Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled? A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change. This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change. Q9: Did climate change end in 1998? A9: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998. More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out; thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement? A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name." Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD. While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice sheet, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference: A map of the Eastern Settlement A satellite image of that area today A map of the Western Settlement A satellite image of that area today A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists? A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and it has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years? A12: Measurements show that it has not. Claims that global sea ice amounts have stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice amounts. Arctic sea ice cover is declining strongly; Antarctic sea ice cover has had some much smaller increases, though it may or may not be thinning, and the Southern Ocean is warming. The net global ice-cover trend is clearly downwards. See also: Arctic sea ice decline See also: Antarctic sea ice § Recent trends and climate change Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming? A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming. The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, such as a short nine-paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975. (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.) The author of that article has repudiated the idea that it should be used to deny global warming. Q14: Doesn't water vapour cause 98% of the greenhouse effect? A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO2 or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms, any excess water vapour is removed by rainfall, and any deficit of water vapour is replenished by evaporation from the Earth's surface, which literally has oceans of water. Thus water vapour cannot act as a driver of climate change. Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will however allow the atmosphere to hold more vapour. This will lead to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, whereas water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends. See also: Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)? A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming. A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "'His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,' said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that 'the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.'" There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change. This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices. Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates. Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit – it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Misplaced Pages's own article. See also: Climate of Mars and Extraterrestrial atmosphere Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money? A16: No, Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses. Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work. There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming. Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data. Scientists could get paid to study climate even if global warming did not exist. Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity? A17: It does, but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction. Q18: Should we include the view that climate change will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe? A18: This page is about the science of climate change. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying. Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) important? A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world, which include most large cities. Earth's climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e. the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the higher absolute temperature but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate and the related effects on human societies. The IPCC AR6 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change. Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is/was Scibaby? A20: Scibaby is/was a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,027 confirmed sock puppets, another 167 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them. Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer-reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...? A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:IINFO) of the What Misplaced Pages is not policy. Q22: Why does the article define "climate change" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before? A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "climate change" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. The article Climate variability and change deals with the more general concept. Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that climate change is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays? A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment: Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires: Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation, These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN), The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and Cloud cover on Earth must be declining. Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step." Q24: I read that something can't fix climate change. Is this true? A24: Yes, this is true for all plausible single things including: "electric cars", "planting trees", "low-carbon technology", "renewable energy", "Australia", "capitalism", "the doom & gloom approach", "a Ph.D. in thermodynamics". Note that it is problematic to use the word "fix" regarding climate change, as returning the climate to its pre-industrial state currently appears to be feasible only over a timeframe of thousands of years. Current efforts are instead aimed at mitigating (meaning limiting) climate change. Mitigation is strived for through the combination of many different things. See Climate change mitigation for details. References ^ Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020. ^ "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020. Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help) Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009. Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009. "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007. Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467. The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012. "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009. Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017. The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða. "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009. Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64. Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek. Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008. Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes. Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN. "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011. Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

	Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 4, 2007 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Weather Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Geology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arctic High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Misplaced Pages". The Denver Post. (none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

Template:Weather-selected

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Too much influence on Earth?

There seems to be a lot of information on Global Warming on earth in this article but it seems to discount Global Warming that is affecting other planets as well; notably Mars. --RobertGary1 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems that this article is focused on the theory of man made global warming often credited to Al Gore, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Perhaps this article should be renamed and a new article on Global Warming could discuss things generally, explain AGW and link to the AGW article. Then again, the media only covers AGW and calls it Global Warming so wiki accurately reflects most peoples current understanding. A neutral POV article on global warming would point to the research by the Danish scientists who linked hundreds of years of sun spot data directly to observed temperated changes. Thus, the warming detected by our satellite and infra-red devices on other planets are logically explained by the same sun spot (electro-magnetism) variations.

--Knowsetfree (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Global_warming/FAQ before posting well meaning but not well informed comments such as this. --BozMo talk 07:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice new pic

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml (An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, by D. M. Murphy et al.) apparently contains: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif (ref'd by http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm). We should include it somewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice find Will, but probably too soon to include just yet. It was published just last month and has yet to be cited, and don't we usually let new research "marinate" at least a few months while it goes through the comments/response cycle?--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, just bringing it up before I forget William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned this under #NASA research in journal Science indicates role of methane in global warming underestimated. :-) -Atmoz (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The page that shows the graph has a 2007 comment on a 2009 paper. (Seems like a red flag to me.) Also, I object to graphs that are missing a proper zero. Q Science (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What would be a "proper zero"? -Atmoz (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a delta graph. Perhaps something indicating the total number of joules in the ocean, or the number of joules absorbed and re-emitted each year. I also object to using joules since most other climate change data uses watts per square meter. Q Science (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a time integrated, full volume measurement. I don't see how watts per square meter could even possibly make sense. Its more equivalent to measuring a temperature change than an energy flux. Dragons flight (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if x joules are added each year, divide by the number of seconds in a year and by the surface area of the ocean to determine equivalent Watts per square meter. This way, it is would be obvious how significant the energy increase is. Numbers without a reference are useless. Q Science (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes you could figure out the net flux at the boundary, and that's a related quantity, but that's not what they purport to characterize and it seems less useful to me than the integrated long-term change. It's like comparing the rate CO2 enters the atmosphere to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Both are related but I'd say the later is far more informative, and the quantity of more direct utility. Same thing here. The accumulated change is far more instructive than the flux. But if you want to scale 200×10 J to something, I'd suggest a more interesting benchmark is that this is equivalent to heating the whole ocean by ~0.035 C. Dragons flight (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, temperature would also be a useful benchmark. My point was really that delta joules has no meaning unless there is a value associated with the zero. My preference would be to use several different equivalents so that more people can correctly interpret the data. Q Science (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Like Misplaced Pages, skepticalscience.com updates their pages with new information as it becomes available. Dragons flight (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Global warming peaked in 1998

The following discussion 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.

FAQ Q3 says it all. Has there been an outbreak of dyslexia?

See:- ] Global warming peaked in 1998 despite CO2 levels continuing to rise. Where then is the cause and effect of CO2 causing global warming? Any chance of a mention of this in the article?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know all about that, thanks. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q3 --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a biased article and the FAQ is biased too.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This article and its editors make a point to exclude anything which contradicts the IPCC, an organization known for its alarmism and use of fudged data. This is contradiction with Misplaced Pages's standard on neutral point of view and should be corrected. Global warming, if it is defined as "the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation," then it hasn't happened since the late 1990s. There's nothing you can do to change the facts. Sorry. Macai (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the temperature data? Short-term cooling has occurred repeatedly within an overall warming trend. There is nothing to suggest that the current slight cooling is any different. Mikenorton (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming that global warming is false. I do, however, recall claiming that global warming hasn't progressed since the late 1990s, and I do recall citing that claim very well. Do you have any beef with the claim itself? Aside from it making global warming look bad, of course, since I think we can all agree that we want to keep this encyclopedia neutral, and without political bias. Macai (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I presume that you still haven't actually looked at the data yet. The smoothed average (used to remove the effects of annual variability) has yet to show a fall. However, even if it does, it will be some time before it's possible to say that there has been any change to the overall upward trend. Compare data for the last few years with other periods where the average has taken a brief downward turn. Mikenorton (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not claimed a fall. I have claimed a lack of increase in temperature. Stop misrepresenting my argument. Refute the claim that the temperature has not gone up since the late 1990s or concede. Macai (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The data refute your claim that this is anything significant enough to be mentioned in the article, I don't need to. Only the long term overall trend matters here, short period variability is irrelevant. Mikenorton (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Short term period variability is not irrelevant to "the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation", which happens to be Misplaced Pages's own definition of global warming. Are you suggesting that Misplaced Pages's opening sentence is incorrect? Because a good way to make the claim irrelevant would be to simply change Misplaced Pages's definition. I do not intend to come off as snide, but this is a valid suggestion given the context of the article. Macai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

You've still not looked at the data have you? Obviously this article is referring to the overall trends in temperature over periods of tens of years. Do you think that we should describe every yearly change here? Anyway I will not waste my time further here. Read the FAQ, look hard at the relevant data and stop edit warring on the article. Mikenorton (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it started in the "mid 20th century", I'll say it started January 1st, 1950. Okay, so "global warming" as defined by Misplaced Pages has gone on for just under 60 years - it's about a month off. Now, for just about 12 of these years (also about one month off), the phenomena hasn't happened. (12 / 60) x 100 = 20% of the time it is supposedly happening, it isn't happening at all. This is hardly short term, and this is hardly not noteworthy. If you disagree, at what point would it become noteworthy? 50%? 75%? Would it ever become noteworthy? Put a number on it. Macai (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, a point to point comparison of global temperatures from 1998 to 2010 indicates a cooling trend for the past twelve years. However by doing so, your argument ignores the surrounding data points, and makes fallacy inappropriate generalization. You're also right that short term variations is not irrelevant, but in the wrong sense. Climate isn't year by year, it's a trends that evens out the variations, and you can't do that with two points, which is why in terms of linear regression you can use the correlation coefficient "r" and run a null hypothesis test something along the lines H₀: r=0, and H_a: r>0. This is a really cheap way of doing it (please don't laugh guys), but that's the idea. I know you don't like the IPCC, and I can help you look for another scientific source if you want, but figure b page 32 of the Technical summery gives you the "number" on it. They used the Monte Carlo method, I think looks like a binomial distribution, but the number is "virtually certain" or >99% that there has been an increase in temperature. Climate models such as HadCM3 using SRES are the "projected continuation". Please join the discussion down the page, they're on the same topic you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaked information about scientists making up global warming data

The following discussion 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.

Time to take this discussion to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, where discussion of coverage of the incident is more appropriate.

Should this be mentioned here? Saw it on AP a bit ago. Thank you so much, I like my sugar with coffee and cream. 05:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to the topic covered in telegraph.co.uk above.--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would vote in favor of inclusion. My recollection of the newspaper and television coverage was that there were 3 particularly important elements. First, there were eMails wherein anthropogenic (man made) global warming AGW proponents were organizing to delete emails wherein certain topics which could harm public perception of the AGW theory. Second, there was evidence of adjustments made with the intent of hiding or reducing the observed temperature declines since 1998. And third, there was collusion by AGW proponents to try to harm the professional standing of periodicals which published evidence or papers harmful to the AGW theory. But perhaps it would be better, at least initially, to start with an article on what some have been calling "ClimateGate". Actually, I didn't search maybe there is one. Because AGW has some really fervent supporters, as well as detractors, direct editing to the article should be done carefully after discussion here, And with carefully cited references. --Knowsetfree (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole article on the subject at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. This article is about the established science. The existence and causes of current global warming are beyond doubt, not a 'theory' that can be shaken by a few e-mails whatever their content, even though some non-scientific bloggers and unscientific journalists would like to believe otherwise. If we see some scientific bodies of national standing publishing alterations to their existing very clear positions in the light of these e-mails, then those changes will be covered here. See also Scientific opinion on climate change for more detail about the actual current position. --Nigelj (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on this particular controversy (Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident). It seems to me that it might be worth a sentence or two in the Debate and Skepticism section of this article, with a link to the main article on the incident. EastTN (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It has had no influence on the position of any scientist or scientific organization, i.e. its irrelevant for the state of the science. It also violates WP:NOTNEWS. I think it lives more comfortably in global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If there is anything relevant to climate science here, then the situation would evolve similarly to the Jan Hendrik Schön case. You could then get all the relevant news from the scientific journals. Count Iblis (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If there is reliable information that refutes the findings of this article's topic, then it is relevant to be included. If not, then we are only doing what the Climate Change scientists are being accuased of, which is suppressing information.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• But in this case, there is no information refuting the findings of this article's topic. There is no suppression of information going on here, as the hacking incident is clearly visible and available as a separate article on Misplaced Pages. One might argue that it constitutes a POV fork, but I can't see how. The incident has had zero effect on the science of climate change. The only place it has had any effect is in the controversy. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)I fully agree, and I don't think anybody here disagrees. But there is no "reliable information that refutes" the description in this article, or at least not in the CRU emails. What there is is a lot of smearing and some confirmation bias by conspiracy nuts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Global warming controversy is the obvious place for that.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The particular section we're talking about is Debate and skepticism - not the sections dealing with the science of global warming. This section summarizes the material covered in the Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming articles. It seems appropriate to have a dedicated article (Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident) that discusses it in detail, a section in the Global warming controversy article summarizing the material and then a sentence or two with a link in the higher level summary in this article (Global_warming#Debate_and_skepticism). The issue isn't one of refuting the scientific material in this article, but of providing a good summary of the global warming debate - and making it easy for readers to find other Misplaced Pages articles that address related topics. To do that, a straight up sentence or two describing that this particular twist in the debate has occurred and linking to the appropriate article seems appropriate. (As for NOTNEWS, it's clear that we don't have the final answer on what the e-mails mean or how they were obtained yet, but it's highly unlikely that this incident won't be a part of the debate for years to come.) EastTN (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No. This is plain recentism. The political debate has been going on for more than 20 years. The CRU emails have been published not even a week ago. I'd say the odds are better than even that not a single person has read all the emails yet. It's a hot topic today, but not even a blip in the big picture. If this still is considered significant in a few months, we can add something. But now it just does not warrant the attention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I cannot disagree with Herr Dr Schulz on this. highly unlikely that this incident won't be a part of the debate for years to come is one of the oddest opinions I have seen since being told by the Sunday Times that the Hitler diaries would transform our view of WW2.--BozMo talk 21:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll defer to whatever consensus develops here, of course. But do you really think this is incident isn't going be part of global warming skeptics' rhetoric for a long time to come? I just don't see them dropping it. Whatever the truth and appropriate context may be, some of the emails simply make too good sound bites for critics to ignore. EastTN (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, they'll use it as long as the creationists will use the Second Law of Thermodynamics and moon dust - that's just part of their normal repertoire. The question is if anybody will still be listening. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? "the Second Law of Thermodynamics and moon dust"? Go on, enlighten me chez moi if needed. Mind you I am not sure I have met a creationist... aren't they a myth invented by Richard Dawkins? --BozMo talk 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody listening now? -Atmoz (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, who would listen to stories like this anyway? --Childhood's End (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You refered to them being part of "the debate". If you meant "the debate amongst Aliens abducted my dog conspiracy theorists and other TSSOAPs" whereever they hang out then I defer to your opinion. If you mean any serious scientific debate I haven't seen anything in them yet which will last a year but as has been said perhaps there is something substantial to come. --BozMo talk 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the public policy debate that is played out in legislatures and the media. That's somewhat different from the scientific debate, but equally important. I don't doubt that the emails may be of little or no value to the scientific debate, but from a public relations standpoint they look terrible. Rightly or wrongly, some of them create the appearance that efforts were made to influence the peer review process. This has the potential to undermine, in the eyes of legislators and the public, the credibility of the science. That seems certain to affect the public debate, even if there is no affect on the scientific debate. That is significant, because it is the public policy debate that will determine what the world actually does, or doesn't do, about global warming. EastTN (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This post by Monbiot may help explain my point. Regardless of the exculpatory details, the emails and the way they have been handled are damaging to the public perception of climate science. EastTN (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The e-mails show that CRU and company are misusing the peer review process to get skeptics fired and keep them from being published. To the extent that AGW is "scientific consensus", "settled science", and all that, it is because of this political manipulation. Does anyone think that evolutionary scientists plot against creationists this way? Kauffner (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary scientists would certainly object to creationists publishing nonsense in high quality journals. Count Iblis (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course they would. But one would hope that they would trust the peer review process to work and not try to short-circuit the process. In the legal realm, we insist on a full and fair trial, even if we know the criminal involved is guilty as sin. That's not just for the benefit of the accused - it's also for the benefit of the process and also for all of the rest of us. If the peer review process is weakened, it ultimately hurts everybody. Forget the skeptics - if well-known scientists really have manipulated the peer-review process, from whatever motives (good or bad), they have hurt you and they have hurt all of their colleagues. EastTN (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

While a defensible case can be made that the hacking incident and the subsequent fall-out may damage public perceptions of science, it is not relevant to this article because the incident has no bearing on the science. --TS 16:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The section of this article we're talking about is Debate and skepticism, which summarizes the material covered in the Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming articles. That section does not deal with the science of global warming, but rather with the policy debate, public opinion and skepticism. As an aside, the incident may already have had an impact - look at this WSJ article (and this Telegraph article). It seems to me that if this has the potential to kill cap and trade in the U.S., then it's certainly relevant to a discussion of "Debate and skepticism." EastTN (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity - are you aware of how many times Inhofe has made similar comments? (ie. unrelated to CRU). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think we should hold off on this. At the moment it appears to be a simple stunt by someone in an attempt to derail the Copenhagen talks. If it has that effect or if the climate change bill fails in the Senate then it may happen that we will be including references to reliable sources attributing these failures to the hacking incident. At the present time it's impossible to say, and since this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper we should wait and see. As Kim suggests, Jim Inhofe's opinion of Cap and Trade isn't new. --TS 18:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Inhofe has been trying to kill cap and trade for a long time. The point is that this has now become a now become a notable part of the debate. We may want to dismiss it as a "stunt," and the timing may well be intended to derail the Copenhagen discussion, but the scientists involved were indiscreet enough to commit to email statements that are genuinely embarrassing (I recognize that we don't have the full context, and that emails are often written "in the heat of the moment," but some of this stuff flat out looks bad). As I said, I'll defer to the group consensus, but I think you're just kidding yourselves if you don't believe this will have a significant affect on the public policy debate and the credibility of climate science over at least the mid-term. This isn't science - it's politics and public relations. It's too early to know exactly how it will all play out, but it's not too early to see that this is a significant PR setback (especially given how poorly it's been handled). EastTN (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It may well be that it will have a lasting impact on public policy debate (personally i doubt it), but that is not something that we determine (see: WP:NOTCRYSTAL). The Inhofe claim is non-notable since Inhofe claims such again and again (which was why i asked if you were aware of how often he comes with such claims) - perhaps the wolf is really coming now - but Inhofe has yelled "Wolf!" too many times. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NOTCRYSTAL is the right analysis. This event has already occurred, and the coverage in newspapers of record from more than one country make it quite clear that it's notable and already a part of the policy debate. Like I said, I'm willing to wait, but I suspect we're running a real risk of basing our analysis on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than on the merits of the sources. EastTN (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. What you are talking about is impact in the political debate. Such impact can only be determined in hindsight. Its impossible at this moment to determine whether this particular case will have an impact or not - thus to determine it, you are projecting your personal opinion into the future. (thats the crystal ball part). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's too easy. Take the U.S. healthcare reform debate for example. We don't know whether it will pass or not (that would be the Crystal Ball part), but it's clear that the cost issue is an important part of the debate (we can absolutely nail that down with reliable sources right now). You don't have to wait to find out who wins the debate to identify the issues that shape the debate. Beyond that, it ignores the nature and seriousness of the charges. We didn't have to wait for Ken Starr to finish his report and for the impeachment attempt to fail to know that the Monica Lewinski scandal was going to be a notable part of the Clinton presidency (despite how fervently the Clintons must have hoped it would go away). Frankly, I think it's politically naive to imagine that this is going to be a three day wonder that won't affect both the public's trust in climate science and the policy debate. We've already seen enough - again, in newspapers of record on both sides of the Atlantic - to know that's not true.EastTN (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is likely to be a game-changer, from what we've seen of it so far. From the fact that some researchers said some potentially embarrassing things in private emails that have been taken out of context in a predictable manner, to the possibility of this becoming more than a nine-day wonder, is something we shouldn't speculate on. We'll know more about this question in due course as it plays out. Meanwhile there's no hurry to add material. We can afford to wait. --TS 05:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a judgment call, and as I said, I'm willing to follow the consensus. I do think, though, that given the information we already have it's quite naive to even hope this is going to be no more than a nine-day wonder. We're not just talking about "some potentially embarrassing things" - we're talking about statements that, regardless of the context or circumstances, on the surface at least seem to indicate an unwillingness to release scientific data even in response to a freedom of information request, a desire to keep reports that drew other conclusions out of the IPCC process, and a desire to manipulate the peer review process. It hardly matters that the CRU now says that it will release the data. As far as the policy debate is concerned, the "scandal" has never really been about the data - it's been about the credibility of the scientists and the process. Our science and technology have become both advanced and specialized enough that we really cannot hope to stay current in more than our own specialty. What that means is that legislatures and the public do not make decisions about issues like global warming based on the data and the science, they make their decisions based on the word of the scientists. From that standpoint, it really does not matter whether anything in the emails casts doubt on the data - what matters for the public discourse is whether it creates doubt about the ethics of the researchers. I'll say straight up that I am not qualified to understand whether the data adjustments discussed in the e-mails were appropriate or not - but I am able to understand the inappropriateness of manipulating the peer review process. And that's the basic problem here - 99% of the public are in the same boat I am. We're not going to understand all of the details of the science, no matter how carefully you try to explain it to us, because we don't have the time and we don't have the background. But we do have to decide whether we believe it - and ultimately, that means we have to decide if we trust the scientists. That's why this is damaging - the issues raised strike at the heart of that trust. It may not change the science, and it may not ultimately be a "game-changer" for the debate, but it is damaging in an important and significant way.EastTN (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a Christian Science Monitor article that illustrates my point about public trust.EastTN (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You must feel pretty strongly about this EastTN. The issue is trust, and when such situations strike so strongly at its heart, it must be infuriating. But I wonder. Maybe the real issue isn't about who to trust. Maybe the point is to plainly give people the power to understand for themselves. I will tell it won't be easy, but I don't think this should be an excuse for giving up. There is a division that runs between the scientific community and general public, and there are two bridges: the first covered in mud has forgone its foundation, the second is under-construction. Do the builders of the second mirror what the first have done? It would be accomplishing nothing new, and standing on nothing sound. The original issue was science, politics is second, and I think we're forgetting that. How about you EastTN? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm routinely a part of the peer review process within my own field, and I understand the importance of peer review to the credibility and integrity of my chosen profession. I've also had to deal with the political process many times during my career. It's never just about the technical issue, unless you truly are in an ivory tower and don't care about what happens in the real world. It's easy to say "give the people the power to understand for themselves." We should make every effort to inform the public, but ultimately, they must decide whether or not to trust the experts (and which experts to trust). I'm well educated, but I'm simply not qualified to make judgments about the quality of an atmospheric model. If I were, I would not be qualified to make judgments about the Congressional Budget Office's estimates of the likely impact of the Obama health care plan. Those who can reproduce the CBO work aren't qualified to review the adequacy of the safety rules for nuclear power plants, or the construction of the new Boeing Dreamliner, or judge the safety of genetically modified crops. Trust is vital in a society as complex as ours, and far too many people distrust science as it stands.

Bottom line, I would suggest two things: 1) The nature of this incident, and the coverage we've already seen, makes it clear that it's going to a significant and likely ongoing bone of contention in the public policy debate, because it goes to the heart of the public trust in climate science and climate scientists that's at the heart of that debate. 2) The public policy debate is relevant to the Debate and skepticism section of the article. If you believe that the science suggests that action is necessary, then isn't it important for readers to understand not only the science, but the political process and debate over what actions will or will not be taken? EastTN (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And no I didn't say politics were unimportant, only "second". Without the science, climate politics would collapse; but without politics, science would still stand. If you want someone qualified, ask WMC or SBHB, WMC worked on climate models back in the day, SBHB wrote most of the "Climate models" section. Does the incident belong in "Debate and skepticism"? So far it's only been an embarrassing event; and there won't be an impact, defined as policy, until Copenhagen. Can you wait another week or two? By then you'd have a really good concrete case, and you wouldn't need to beg the question by assuming this event significant either. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that this event and the discussion of it should be moved into a minor and less-central article. George Monbiot, one of the foremost climate change journalists in the UK, has described the release of these emails as, 'a major blow... could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them... There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.' He also comprehensively demolishes some of the arguments above which try to minimse the importance of these discussions to the credibility of climate change science: 'Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.'

Clive Crook, the highly-respected FT and former Economist journalist (a supporter of action against climate change) has said: 'this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu. It goes to the core of that process. One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence... Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods–notably, peer review–that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days?'

The response of editors here to downplay and sideline the importance of all this is unencyclopedic. This decision must be revisited and there must be notation of these activities in the this main article. FinScribe (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? What about the falsification by industry groups for the last 20 years, the politicization and manipulation of scientists from the denier community or the deliberate distortions the other way? Won't that fundamentally alter the process? Guess what - it has, to the point that for most people who were convinced that AGM is real, the bar to disprove it has been raised very high because of the orchestrated and malicious campaign to destroy it. At such, one incident, even with 'well noted experts' is not enough to change things. You'll note that the Copenhagen conference is still going to occur. You'll note that there are not scientific papers suddenly published now that that 'the floodgates have been opened'. Yes, there has been manipulation of the peer review process.

Now that it has been exposed, let us see peer reviewed papers using the RIGHT process disprove AGM. Or do you expect us to believe that one hack placed on a russian website suddenly disproves 20 years of science?

This information does not belong in this article until it shows up in a peer reviewed journal. If you think you can change the perceptions of society to make climate science 'psuedo science' then maybe that might hold water, but guess what - it doesn't. And I'm not holding my breath either. Manticore55 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

delete most of

The IPCC concludes that most of the .... change to The IPCC concludes that the observed ... delete most of would make the lead read so much easier and better. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

...and wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the IPCC is currently being discredited it might be less embarrassing for the wiki editors to remove all references entirely, except as a footnote to the hoax perpetrated as a result of science being dominated by carpetbaggers imho. DDB (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And since when is the IPCC being discredited? (even if we go by the email "scandal", its a teeny tiny part of the IPCC, and not even a base evidence point). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't anyone use adverbs anymore?Dikstr (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No. We can write good without 'em. Awickert (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment

Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment just got created. It can't live as it is now. It probably needs to die as OR. Just drawing this to your attention in a neutral and unbiased fashion. See-also the authors other edits William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Uncertainty", "Climate", and "Assessment" should all be lowercase, WP:NC. Beside that it's also been deleted for copyright infringement. Hello WMC :), it's been a while. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference Keenlyside/Latif

The following discussion 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.

The paper is unclear as to whether the predicted steady temperatures will be one year or ten, and the discussion has since dried up

From this to this version the Keenlyside/Latif Nature article was mentioned, I've unhidden it again. --BernhardMeyer (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I refer to this sentence in the section "Climate models":

A 2008 paper predicts that the global temperature may not increase during the next decade because short-term natural fluctuations may temporarily outweigh greenhouse gas-induced warming.

Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian had hidden ("commented") it in the latter version, using WP:COMMENT. The action of hiding it was hardly noticeable, see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=314468535 --BernhardMeyer (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I've ripped it out entirely. There is no reason why we should be referring to this one minor paper William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hide the decline? --BernhardMeyer (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently you "hid the revert", with a misleading edit-summary. As WMC said it is a minor paper, and one that has (according to Mojib Latif himself been severely misused) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Did I "hide the revert" if I reinserted an improved version of the text which W. Connolley had deleted and if he after deleting it had made another minor edit 2 minutes later so that I was not able to revert it directly?

2.Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive. And like Nsaa I am confused about how people act here.

3. Where does Latif say that it was misused? Would it mean that he does not confirm it?

--BernhardMeyer (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find it if we must. But the main point is: this is a minor paper of no great significance. We don't pick out other minor papers to add to that section. Is there some special reason why you find this paper especially interesting? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there some special reason why you want to exclude it?--BernhardMeyer (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No. It is but one of hundreds of thousands of papers all of which aren't relevant ot important enough to include. there is nothing special about it. Now, how about you actually answer the relevant question, which is why this should be included? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, reverts should be marked as such (with rv in front) Edit-summaries must be comprehensive - yours wasn't.

2. Sorry but that particular Arbcom items is misused whenever someone finds consensus against him/her. WP:WEIGHT is still the major policy to follow. (and that is what is being cited as the reason for not including it).

3. Read the Mojib Latif biography (where it is sourced).

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• When someone's presenting a reliably-sourced journal article neutrally, the burden should be on those removing it to show why it shouldn't be included (inaccurate, redundant, particularly minor or technical). For the particularly legalistic, WP:FACR requires featured articles to be comprehensive. The analysis by Latif doesn't seem to be in the article yet - and it's certainly an interesting, on-topic analysis which is not minor (in the technical sense of narrow details). Bernard, I would feel comfortable putting the information back in. If there's continued resistance, appeal to WP:RS/N where you should be supported. II | (t - c) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going the inclusion route on this one. It's gotten cited in 24 other articles, and is a year and a half old. It doesn't deserve its own paragraph, but why not put in a sentence that says something along the lines of, "Over the next decade, natural variability may outweigh greenhouse warming"? Awickert (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply because it would be wrong. The forecast was only up to 2015 (and that doesn't make it the next decade), you are confusing media reads of the paper with the paper itself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate nature abstracts; I should stop thinking they have any relation to the articles. The abstract says "decadal"; the plots in the article only stay flat to 2010 actually, so actually indeed only one more year of predicted steady temps. But then the text says to 2015 so now I'm completely confused and have tentatively decided that the article is self-inconsistent. I've stricken my previous comment. Awickert (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Keenlyside is about the AMO. From 3 works that cite K:

• Decadal time scale variability, such as predicted weakening of the Atlantic overturning circulation (Keenlyside, et al., 2008)...
• As far as the is concerned, skillful initialization may be possible up to a decade or so (Keenlyside et al. 2008), although multidecadal skillful initialization has not yet been demonstrated.
• However, it should be noted that the North Atlantic Ocean is a region where natural hydro-climatological variability is large (Keenlyside et al. 2008).

If K needs to be added somewhere, it should be in Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. -Atmoz (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sort of with Awickert. The abstract says "Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade". I'll admit that I can't really follow the paper itself: the graphs with stable/declines only go to 2010 , and the graph which goes to 2020 shows an increase . Don't understand it. Feel free to remove. II | (t - c) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't room in this section on the GW page for all the papers on climate models. K et al. just isn't a very good paper, as noted above and at RC etc. If we wanted a paper on prediction of decadal trends, the Doug Smith et al. paper is far better quality. But it doesn't say anything of interest to the skeptics so you've never heard of it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I nearly forgot: we should take out Douglass et al. too, cos that is junk William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is true – For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures

The following discussion 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.

Another debate the could have been avoided if only people would read FAQ Q3.'

According to this article "What happened to global warming?" (http://www.webcitation.org/5leUd5b2a) BBC states "But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures." and from Der Spiegel we have this article Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out (http://www.webcitation.org/5leUpWdnY) which states "why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.". Should not this be worked into this article? Nsaa (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See Question 3 in the FAQ. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? I have read the FAQ and agree on the methodology Talk:Global_warming/FAQ describes. Please read the source again given. In Spiegel article they state "Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.". Nothing about only using 1997/98 to get a declining trend. So please, this is NOT relevant point for this case. Nsaa (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have truly read and understood all of the answer to Question 3 in the FAQ, then what do you make of this statement? "Choosing this abnormally warm year as the starting point for comparisons with later years produces a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produces a warming trend...Another important point is that 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out." If there is some other point to this, I don't see what it is. --TS 19:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You quote something from where? Not one of the articles I quoted from above. Again both sourced say something else than what you assert. We have two very reliable sources stating that we "For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures" and "why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.". This has clearly a place in this article and normaly removing well sourced information like this is "8) It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive. For the last couple of days when I first encountered these environment articles I've seen so much of this that I'm really confused about how people act. Nsaa (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of the amount of controversy involved, we reference only peer-reviewed scientific sources here; you would not believe how much the press gets wrong, and almost everything is spun towards one extreme or another. Although it may be obvious that temperatures have been rather stagnant in the recent past - let's say 8 years or so, saying 11 falls into the El Niño trap - using newspapers is a slippery slope to getting every unqualified opinion written down here (as indeed here they say 11, which is cherry-picking). If you need help obtaining scientific papers, leave me a message. But, looking at plots, the present-day stagnation doesn't look significantly different than previous noise in the data, so it could be that scientists haven't written a whole lot about it yet. But I don't really know; I haven't read much myself, Awickert (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources covering the controversies over the science and the peer review process itself as certainly appropriate to include. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh... could you start a new section as to not hijack the conversation? Danke, Awickert (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As an compromise: Ok then we should state that this is a statement from two journalists referring to a couple of scientist (""At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact.""). This is as correct as it can be. Ok? Nsaa (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That just doesn't have anything to do with the warming since the middle of the 20th century - nor does it have anything to do with the expected increase. Its not even climate - its temperature fluctuations, which are rather normal, both with and without global warming. And if you'd read abit on Latif, then you'd have noticed that what Latif says is that while its having a "breather" (because natural forcings at the moment are negative), the anthropogenic forcing is still increasing, and that every such period of plateau-ing will be followed by accelerated warming (ie. to catch up to the forcing). That is also what FAQ Q3 states. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Global warming peaked in the late 1990s, and I can source it

The following discussion 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.

See FAQ Q3. It isn't just about 1998, it's about claims based on carefully selected subsets of the data.

I've made the edit pointing out that global warming has peaked in the late 1990s. However, it got reverted by Atmoz as seen here . My sources were the British Broadcasting Corporation and Der Spiegel. As far as I'm concerned, these are both valid sources as per WP:RS News organizations. I'd like a direct answer to this question: would you consider either the BBC or Der Spiegel unreliable news sources? Macai (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC and Der Spiegel are not reliable sources for scientific statements, especially not if there are no peer reviewed articles that make similar statements. We cannot assume that statements made there about scientific matters are correct or not misleading to such a degree that you could rely on such sources without much problems. It doesn't mean that everything they write is suspect. Count Iblis (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, neither, is the IPCC, but that's another debate to be had. Anyway, WP:RS#News organizations says that reliable news sources are welcome. Misplaced Pages's policy does not say anywhere that scientific claims must be backed by peer reviewed sources, and therefore they don't necessarily have to be backed by peer reviewed sources. Now, then, is either the BBC or Der Spiegel reliable...or not? Yes or no, please. Macai (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, to both sources. They are not science. See also the above, as well as the FAQ Q3. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant they aren't scientific. It's no biggie, though. Anyway, they don't have to be scientific, just mainstream to be reliable. Any other objections? Macai (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be discussed? -Atmoz (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As many as is required for someone to give a valid reason to remove material with citations to reliable sources. Macai (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Search the archives here. See this. And remember that the press screws it up a lot. 1998 was the warmest year on record, but not due to global warming. Neither is the IPCC - no, the IPCC is a reliable scientific source, and is actually a rather conservative organization. Awickert (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In the quest for NPOV it can be a never ending back and forth. This page, as it is now, is wieghted toward the dogmatic "it's warm and getting warmer" POV. Dogma and wikiarticles are like trying to push two magnetic poles together, it just won't work. This page needs more text on the other side, that questions the data, indeed, it needs more on the very fact that people question the theory of 'global warming'.

This is fine, so long as they are reliably sourced in scientific publications. If the restriction to the scientific articles is an issue, the reliable source noticeboard is the place to go. Awickert (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The IPCC bases its conclusions in part on the Climatic Research Unit, which is known for conspiring to exclude contradictory data. The IPCC is not a reliable source until it does so. Sorry.
2. Misplaced Pages's policy explicitly states that I can post claims from mainstream news organizations. Since you don't get much more mainstream than the BBC or Der Spiegel, you can't say they're not mainstream sources.
3. Even the CRU says I'm right:

The warmest years were 1999 and 1990 with an anomaly of 1.16C and again 2005 is not distinguishable from this value given the uncertainties in the data.

As you can see, even the CRU claims the warmest year was in the late 1990s. What were you saying? Macai (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We were saying: See FAQ Q3. You may also want to see WP:RS#Science article in the popular press. You may also want ponder why Latif isn't a global warming sceptic, and that he doesn't say that global warming peaked. (there is a not very subtle difference between current temperature record having a peak in 1998 and global warming having peaked) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. FAQ Q3 does not address Misplaced Pages's policy. It also has nothing to do with the claim. The claim is not that there has been a cooling trend, the claim is that global warming has reached its current peak in the late 1990s, and it has.
2. WP:RSE#PSMM does not mandate that you exclude news organizations, only that you present the scientific consensus on the issue. In my edits, both are presented.
3. WP:UNDUE does, however, mandate, that all significant viewpoints be represented in the article. The idea that global warming has stopped in 1998 is a significant viewpoint. Therefore, it needs to be represented in the article.

Any other objections? Macai (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you've missed it, despite the headlines none of your two articles state that global warming has peaked. At any given time there will be a "current peak", and such a peak is rather uninteresting for climate (which is long term averages). It does mandate that when we have scientific sources (which we have), then news reporting isn't as reliable. And finally your argumentation is not a "significant viewpoint" (that stands as your own personal assertion), that global warming should have "stopped" is simply scientific non-sense, since global warming isn't that detailed (try reading what Latif has written on this - he is saying the exact same thing as me), and is an argument from ignorance (thinking that global warming must give a monotone increase). Try to actually read and attempt to understand FAQ Q3. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The fact that at any given time, there will be a "current peak" does not invalidate the fact that the current peak is 1998.
2. Since the current peak happened over a decade ago, that represents about 20% of the total time global warming is supposed to have taken place so far. You want to omit 20% of global warming's history and call it "uninteresting"? That's you, not me.
3. Find me a scientific source that says the current peak of global warming is something other than the late 1990s, and then you'll have a point. As it stands right now, there is a claim made by mainstream news organizations (which are welcome), and no peer reviewed scientific source to trump it or claim that it's simply not true.
4. If mainstream sources and a huge portion of the population do not constitute a "significant viewpoint", what does?
5. I don't recall claiming that global warming stopped. Please don't put words in my mouth, Kim.
6. FAQ Q3 talks about cooling trends and the year 1998. It does not talk about global warming's current peak and 1998. The two are not the same topic. Sorry.

Any other objections? Macai (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, several. But i'm of the impression that you are not willing to listen. "Current peak" is uninteresting. None of your sources say global warming has peaked. And climate is average over decades (trends) not from "last peak", no popular opinion is not a "significant viewpoint" on science. The peak/cool argument is the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Low on time, but yes. Temperature peaks. Global warming is only one term that influences temperature, and there is no indication that this has peaked yet. Awickert (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence the use of the term "current peak". While Robert Wadlow is the tallest man now, someone might grow taller than him in the future. Likewise, while global warming's current peak is 1998, that peak might be topped in the future. Any other objections? :) Macai (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I may have written too quickly, because your response is not to what I was trying to say (though I agree with what you say). My point is to differentiate global warming, which is a trend, from temperature, which is what is measured. Awickert (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious objection on weight. We have an opening summary supported by " basic conclusions..endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" and you are seeking to vary the text based on much less substantial sources (single papers and reporting of single papers). For me interference with the opening on those grounds is so far out of line as to be clearly disruptive. Changing wording further down the article looks a bad call but not so obviously bad as to count as disruption.--BozMo talk 19:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

But my text doesn't actually contradict those sources. All I put there was the current peak of global warming. Macai (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It may have passed you by - but none of your references state that "global warming has peaked". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC article says:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

The other says that temperature has not climbed since the late 1990s. So, yes, they do substantiate the claim that it peaked. Sorry. Macai (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, why is everyone so hung up on 1998? CRU lists 1998 as the hottest year, but both NOAA and NASA GISS consider 2005 to have been slightly hotter than 1998. In all three cases, the reported uncertainty is larger than the difference between the years, so any ordering is only a best guess to begin with anyway. Dragons flight (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside to an aside, given the recent hullabaloo regarding CRU, you'd think there would be interest in using a different temperature metric since the CRU one is clearly biased. Perhaps the JMA one. Their highest temp anom was 1998 too. They're probably in on the conspiracy with CRU to end global in 1998. -Atmoz (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why we need scientists and mathematicians: to analyse complex, error-prone, noisy, disparate datasets, to sort out statistical significance from random artefacts and anomalies, to quantify and allow for superimposed cyclical trends (space weather, ocean circulations etc). If journalists could do all this in their heads, they would be Nobel Prize winners, not journalists. If we want to distinguish what is known from guesswork, we must focus on peer reviewed science and meta-analyses. --Nigelj (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Because they're smarter than you. They've got a science degree! Macai (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a pro-creationist rap? Well, there's a first for me. Yeah, I try not to lump global-warming deniers in with creationists, but sometimes it's hard. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not a creationist, nor do I deny evolution. I just think the premise that people with degrees in scientific fields are somehow magically the only people able to rationally interpret data, even complex data, is absurd. Macai (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The protagonist in the L. Ron Hubbard "Invasion Earth" books made the same argument. "It's circular logic, just because someone is a psychologist the evilz psychogolimsts prevent anyone from knowing the truth." The character spends 8 books trying to get a college degree because 'that's the only way the world would take him seriously.' Not that Scientology has any stake in undermining science or anything. Manticore55 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate, etc.

• Ho hum and la de da, as per usual on Misplaced Pages we have a cohort of editors protecting this page from factual observations that disturb the article's premise, and removing easily sourced material by claiming that it is "unsourced". Nope, I'm not gonna stick it back in. Nope, I'm not gonna argue. I'm gonna wait. After years of covering up the truth (please, don't tell me they didn't cover it up.. "cover" means "hide"... and they hid...) the CRU has flatly admitted deleting the data that its reputation is built upon. ASSUMING that the scientific community has any integrity (which does indeed require a bit of hopeful thinking and a minor leap of faith), the "consensus" meme will need to be discarded... in a couple months... and this article can be edited to better reflect reality. Meanwhile: you can have your little edit wars for now. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cute. I'm in a cohort now? I wasn't aware. I believe that this is my first edit to this article or anything related to it? I also don't really have an opinion on global warming...

Ho hum la de da, as per usual on Misplaced Pages we have a mob of Libertarian Creationists whack jobs protecting their fragile mind set and beliefs at the expense of actual science. Sounds like this "rationality" meme will have to be discarded since AGW deniers are unable to be convinced of anything, no matter what the proof. Right up there with Birther's really. Seem like bad faith? So was your comment. Manticore55 (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, on to the content. Perhaps it should be shortened—to not give the information undue weight—and sourced... Near as I can tell, the entire rest of the scientific community supports still this. One organization's failings and lies != all of the research conducted about global warming is not true. (of course, it doesn't mean that it is true, either) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a section about the climategate, fast!!!! More than 2000 google news sources and counting, forbes, new york times, telegraph. Our wikipedia cohorts will now ban all publications and declare that IPCC is the only reliable source in the planet? That is a really big joke... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

More exclamation points are always a sign of carefully considered posts. WP:NOTNEWS, and this article has, for a long time, concentrated on the scientific side. The science is as solid today as it was two weeks ago, and more solid that it was a year or 5 years or 10 years ago - when, btw, the basics of climate change caused by antropogenic greenhous gases already was well understood. The correct place for public hubbub is global warming controversy, or, in this case more specifically Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, in case you missed the point, the point is that the science is mysticism (or something devised by P.T. Barnum) rather than science. The research results were cooked; the data was tossed. No science here folks. Move along. Nothing to see. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, mysticism is mysticism. Most libertarians believe that Jesus is coming to save them and that they can live in their own little frozen 1797 bubble and that polluting the planet has no consequences. They hate the idea that they are responsible for anything but themselves. Manticore55 (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific literacy does not come for free, but the investment is well worth it. See Dunning–Kruger effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Now if we could only get all of the AGW scientists to read that article and see themselves, maybe they would come out and admit what the rest of the world is now seeing. The science today....is complete BS, based on presumption of a theory with statistics manipulated to fit that theory and collusion of scientists to keep all opponents to that theory out of the scientific literature. The limited evidence that CO2 has contributed to global warming has been shown to be a complete and utter lie. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Weather articles
• Top-importance Weather articles
• Unsorted weather articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• FA-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• FA-Class Geology articles
• High-importance Geology articles
• High-importance FA-Class Geology articles
• WikiProject Geology articles
• FA-Class Arctic articles
• High-importance Arctic articles
• WikiProject Arctic articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press