Talk:Climate change

Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Global Warming FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion. Also bear in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about global warming. This page is only to be used for discussing improvements to the Global warming article. Thank you.

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February–August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February–April 2005 April–June 2005 May–October 2005 October–November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January–April 2006 April–May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August–October 2006 October–November 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 February–March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 (2) April 2007 (3) April 2007 (4) April 2007 (5) April 2007 (6)
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

What, no "Criticism" section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottle says:

9:32 AM

Hey, can we stay on topic? Which is, "Global warming is caused by the cosmological constant."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Main articles: Global warming controversy, Politics of global warming, and Economics of global warming

See also: Climate change denial

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

AEB (criticism section)

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

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

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

"And I'm not a Republican."

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

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

It is most certainly NOT straw man:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Koutsoyiannis et al.

There's a new paper out criticizing the reliability of GCM models as predictive climate tools. I've not had a change to read through it thoroughly, but it looks interesting, and certainly relevant to this topic. The full text is available here:

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671

I would suggest that a brief mention (on the order of a sentence or two) in this article would be appropriate, with perhaps longer discussion in the Global warming controversy article.

As always, I won't make any changes until people have had a chance to respond here.

J. Langton (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't "a new paper" out. Its not finished (the deadline for discussion is 1 feb 2009). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree here. It's already been through the peer-review process; it's been accepted as a "Rapid Communication" to Hydrological Sciences. Without being particularly familiar with this journal, I can only guess that this is pretty much the equivalent of a Letter. The fact that the topic of the paper is still "open for discussion" and that the authors intend to continue to update this work does not detract from the fact that it has undergone peer review and has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. As such, it clearly satisfies WP:RS, and it is clearly worth mentioning in this article, although not at any great length.

J. Langton (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be mentioned here. The paper concludes that climate models are not accurate on points that are not relevant for global climate prediction, so it is a technical issue specific to climate models. I'm not an expert in this field, so I don't know if the conclusions of the paper are difficult to reconcile with other results. Count Iblis (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange, others have cited the study as essentially garbage canning GCMs usefulness for climate change prediction entirely. Jaimaster (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article itself doesn't make that statement, i.e. it doesn't show that because the GCMs don't perform well on the local level it must necessarily be the case that its predictions for the average global temperature are false. Even if it were to contain an opinion of the authors along these lines, then that would have to be balanced against other peer reviewed articles that have investigated this issue and arrived at a different conclusion. Count Iblis (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure that I'm aware of other studies that show long-term GCM accuracy at the local level. (They could well be out there; maybe I've just missed them.) Secondly (and I know this is true in models of exoplanetary atmospheres; I don't see a reason why it wouldn't apply to Earth GCMs as well), it's much easier to get the global mean correct than it is to get local accuracy, because local errors are diluted when you take the average. So only looking at global mean quantities is a considerably lower hurdle. However, significant deviations at a scale larger than a few grid points falsify the model, thereby rendering the conclusions regarding the behavior of globally-averaged quantities highly suspect.

Now, have the authors actually shown significant local variation? There might be a couple ways around it: if, for example, a model predicts some variation X at point A, and measurements show some completely different variation Y at point A, but it turns out that the model predicts Y at some point B close to A, then your model's still on solid ground. So the results would be more convincing if they were looking at local variations in the context of an overall global map. Even still, the paper clearly undercuts current models, and I'd be pretty wary of dismissing its results as "not relevant for global climate prediction." Especially when so many of the actions proposed to mitigate AGW are based on its local effects. J. Langton (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"This article is about the current period of increasing global temperature"

This headline is misleading. It should read: "This article is about the theory regarding a current belief of increasing global temperature" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.90.132 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree. By the 3rd or 4th line it had already jumped on the theory that man has caused global warming. This is completely irrelevant. The article should deal with the wider aspects of Global Warming from a planetary phenomenon not social. How did Venus end up with runaway global warming? How does this compare to Earth? As it stands it's propaganda -- Finalreminder (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, "....the theory regarding a current belief of increasing global temperature". So, not even about "a current belief of increasing global temperature", but the "theory" about that "belief". So, that clearly is a psychological topic that has nothing to do with the physical theory of global warming. Count Iblis (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe not "....the theory regarding a current belief of increasing global temperature", but i think the header should be changed. according to global temperature reports, the planet has been cooling down over the past few years. http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/july-2008-update-on-global-temperature-ncdc/ whether this is a long term cooling, or short to be followed by long term heating, only time will tell. But our current readings show the world to be cooling down, not heating up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parischampagne (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You wont get far on a 5 year trend. Check back in 2012. While I agree that it is POV to have the article discussing the theory AGW as post-tense reality (notice especially that AGW links to this page) pointing out that only Hansen's "adjusted" temperature log shows warming 2002-2008 is too flimsy to change the lead, and you would get significant resistance from many regulars here to even adding it a section, or even merely updating the temperature graphics to include the recent plateau (or include a graph of sat data, both of which are less alarming than the two surface sets). Jaimaster (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Temp graphic is uptodate 2007, as 2008 isnt over yet--207.161.31.216 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(One of the) temp graphics is... (just inserting a word you omitted) Jaimaster (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quote from the IPCC report. This represents the consensus of dozens of the world's experts on climate change, and it thus somewhat more reliable than a blog posting somewhere or other. Let's not try and pretend that climate change isn't a real phenomenon, happening now.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average
air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice and rising global average sea level

IPCC report 2007 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am about to add yet another comment here that I expect will soon be erased because it is an 'Incovenient' truth. The bottom line from all the reading and research I have done on this issue is that the mechanism which is supposed to cause man made global warming, called radiative forcing, is based only on a computer simulated model which has no real world statistical data to back it up. The conclusion can only be that the few thermographs which I posted on this talk page and were removed by the editors had more data than is presented in the radiative forcing article. For those of you that read this I will say goodbye for now because I don't think anyone will let this comment ride.Hotflashhome (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The original comment is absolutely correct - "global warming" without any qualification should refer to any planet at any point in space-time. Most of space-time is inaccessible to us, at least in practice, but for example an article titled "Global warming" should at least include the timing, cause(s) and progress of GW on Venus and at various times in the Earth's history when geochmical and fossil evidence indicate that GW probably occurred.

Of course that's only logic. I don't expect it will change the content of this article or lead to most of its current content being moved to e.g. "The debate about contemporary global warming on Earth". -- Philcha (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Already covered in the FAQ. [2][3][4] Raul654 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What specific parts of my last comment are covered in Talk:Global_warming/FAQ? -- Philcha (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What the FAQ has to do with your comment is that it debunks the canard that global warming has anything to do with planets other than earth. Raul654 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the article at this page name should contain all of the information at Geologic temperature record, Paleoclimatology, Climate change, Solar variation and much of the information at Atmosphere of Venus? This article is already pretty long, so I don't think it makes sense to make it longer. We've got to chop up the information into digestible pieces somehow, and this article is already very much a summary; trying to cram more subjects into it would make it necessary to make the summaries very very brief. People do use the phrase "global warming" to refer to the recent and projected future climate change; check out the first references in this article. The naming conventions suggest that we use the most common name for a topic in the article title, and that we use multiple articles to cover large topics. If you've got a specific idea about re-organizing this set of articles, by all means, please bring it up here. But please address the other existing articles on this range of subjects in your re-organization; this single article can't handle the entire set of related topics. - Enuja (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well what would make most sense to me would be to have an overview article at "Global warming", which covered all aspects of global warming - i.e. whenever temperatures increase across a globe, such as Earth or Venus. Each section of this would probably merit its own article, for example "The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus", "Contemporary global warming", and "Global warming events in Earth History". You are quite right that all the pertinent points of the articles you list above should be mentioned in this article, but of course there isn't the scope to present all of the gory details here: that's what the more focussed articles should be for. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So why does my description of the recent global temperature changes keep getting deleted?

If as stated at the top of the article: "This article is about the current period of increasing global temperature." Then why does my straightforward description of recent global temperature changes [5] keep getting deleted?? ~~ Rameses (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have not yet deleted it, but I would do so because it is wrong, or at least misleading. Global warming is not a primarily generic term, but describes a process has been ongoing for about 100 years, and global cooling is not a generic term either, but usually refers to the 1970s perception of a long-term cooling that never manifested itself. The graph is perfectly understandable without your commentary - as you yourself write, your addition is straightforward. So Strunk and White would apply even if the description would be correct.[6] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the article reads: "Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation." This is a flawed statement as the current period of global warming clearly only extends from 1998 back to 1977. Before that there was an even longer 31 year period of global cooling from 1945 to 1977. If you do not want this information under the graph then I guess it belongs in the first paragraph? ~~ Rameses (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is that interpretation of the temperature trend derived from the predominant view appearing in reliable sources on the topic, such as articles in academic journals? Or is it your own interpretation of the data? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• I suggest you look at the graph again, and do some reading, especially about noise and trends. Also find some reliable sources. If you are in doubt: any source that claims "global warming stopped in 1998" is not reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Effects on Global Warming of Drilling for Methane Hydrates

Methane Hydrates have been an area of interest to oilmen since the seventies. The clamoring to be able to go into environmentally sensitive areas and drill for them has been noisome since the eighties. The Japanese spent the nineties mapping them and building the rigs to go after them offshore. Present estimates of their extent are something like 10^16 cubic tons. In 2000 the US passed a methane Hydrate Bill encouraging their exploitation which has already begun in the artic. According to the USGS the problem with using them is that the release of methane into the atmosphere is 10 times as damaging as CO2. Other sources such as the IPCC say 25 times as damaging. Their release due to the present levels of warming in Siberian bogs is already causing accelerated warming beyond what anyone expected for another two or three decades. Recent massive releases off Santa Barbera and North Carolina are making oil companies push for permission to go drilling for them regardless of the cost to fish stocks, reefs, or global warming. Why is there almost no discussion of them in this article 69.39.100.2 (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See Clathrate Gun Hypothesis to which this article is linked. --BozMo talk 11:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it before I commented above. I'm just curious why people don't make the connection between offshore drilling and offshore drilling for methane hydrates (or clathrates). Its clearly not the oil and gas that are big attractions or the reason the MSM is getting all hot and sweaty pushing for it, and yet all this article has to say about this imminent planet killer is a relatively uncommented link? 69.39.100.2 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article reflects a consensus of attention given in the scientific literature. We may well make the connection and have concerns but the job of Wikipedia is to reflect consensus not form an independent opinion. Were some of the authors here to write editorials Methane Clathrates might feature more but there is also an element of it being something which was briefly over-estimated as a novelty problem and people need to catch up on its importance. At present it isn't very attractive to develop because as for all gas transport is an issue: therefore it is not an immediate source of greenhouse gas except via the possible gun. --BozMo talk 18:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is in need of updating

Okay i know it's bold to edit this article as my first but you have to start somewhere...

I was quite surprised to see, that the article refers to an IPCC report from 2005 that says that the sea level would rise several meters. The new 2007 IPCC report says that sea levels are only expected to rise between 0.22 til 0.44 meters by the mid-2090s above 1990 levels.

I couldn't edit the article so i hope someone here sees my post, and that we can bring the entire article up to date.

Lau Joergensen (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrected according to AR4 - which says 0.18 - 0.59 meters. (Fig SPM.3). Note that this is excluding rapid dynamic ice changes - which is the reason for the lowering. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that the main reason for the predicted sea level rise was thermal expansion? Any chance you could clear this up for me? Deamon138 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For historical sea level rise you'll want the IPCC Working Group I report, chapter 5 which is on oceans and sea level. Note esp section 5.5.6, "Total Budget of the Global Mean Sea Level Change." The Cliff's Notes version is that about half of recent sea level rise has been due to thermal expansion. For projected sea level change see Chapter 10, section 10.6. The fraction of sea level rise attributable to thermal expansion varies between about half and 2/3, depending on the emission scenario used. As Kim notes, rapid ice changes are omitted so the IPCC estimates are inherently conservative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My CNs in the FAQ

I have added some CNs in the fact. In many cases I am not challenging the statements but if this is to be the end-all repository of common responses to the FAQs, it seems to make sense to have references for the more significant claims being made there, IMHO.

The FAQ also has the following statement:

If you have documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or if you have other information that meets standards of verifiability and reliability and no original research consider adding it to the article.

Emphasis is mine. As we all know there is a de facto ban on using anything but peer-reviewed sources so perhaps this statement should actually reflect that fact?

Also, I note that the material contained in these responses to the questions is completely one-sided. Do we have a situation here where skeptical views from peer-reviewed sources need not apply? This is how it appears at any rate. Perhaps that is just my perspective. --GoRight (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations are good. Some of the cn tags are unnecessary (e.g., they are attached to points that are clarified a couple of sentences later), but it would be good to fill in the others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)