Talk:Climate change

Oregon Petition

the oregon petition is a petition that (http://www.petitionproject.org/) has been signed by 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with PhDs, which states that they do not believe that human caused global warming is not going "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." its a really big consensus, much larger than the IPCC's 2,500 scientists, some of which dont even agree with the "consensus solution." If this article so willingly quotes the IPCC, surely at least some of the Oregon Petition should be quoted. Nicholas.tan (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha! You wish! Unfortunately, the high priests of the new ecofascist religion will not countenance such apostasy. ^rossnixon 01:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A disbelief in "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere" is entirely consistent with the findings of the IPCC. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is 11 years old

31,072 of what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.180.90.87 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The original survey was over a decade ago but they sent out the cards again this fall. The wording was exactly the same as the previous cards, including the suggestion to get more cards to give to others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus is (POV) I think a fair and balanced sentence should be added to the scientific consensus sentence in the green house gases section, the strength of the words used can be debated but I would at least like to see a source to the petition project which holds 9,032 PHD scientists who disagree with the notion that the green house gas effect is causing appreciable or catastrophic harm to our environment. It also includes up to 31,000 other signatures which have varying levels of education from America alone, from B.S. to Masters to PHD. In terms of PHD's alone, this number is roughly 5 times the number of scientists on the IPCC report, which if the sentence is based on scientific consensus on that report alone, contains a heavy bias and thus makes the article (POV) instead of (NPOV) Further, there are world wide petition projections which are revealing even larger numbers of scientists who disagree with the IPCC's statement, and anecdotal research into how the IPCC is run suggests rather minority opinion affecting the tone and content of the report rather than a wide variety of actively involved collaboration - this is of course speculative and with few sources, so like I've said in the beginning the strength of the wording can be debated to put in (NPOV) but as it stands now without reference to the petition project, it is (POV) and violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflamable dog (talk • contribs) 14:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The scientific opinion is based on research published in peer reviewed journals, not on arguments by authority. So, whether or not you have a million professors who believe in something is irrelevant as far as the scientific consensus is concerned. In theory, you could have a large body of scientific evidence for something published in peer reviewed journals, written by people with no formal education. Then that would be a scientific consensus too.

So, what would be relevant is a list of 31,000 peer reviewed articles, not 31,000 signatures of people. Count Iblis (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not related words: consensus from latin "con" with sensus" minded. English: "Same-minded" if you wish to portray your view then please take out the word consensus and say, "a percentage of papers say" not "scientific consensus" which seems to imply the opinions of scientists are yielding to absolute facts and theory as we would see in evolution or gravity. The opinions of scientists in this field vary widely and are no where near a consensus, and a large number seem to disagree with the IPCC conclusions, even within the IPCC itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflamable dog (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that no harm is done in simply putting in the fact that a petition project was started in America and garnished almost 10,000 PhD level signers, if nothing else this may remove a bias from potential readers to read the word, "consensus" and believe a ubiquitous opinion of scientists. This is within the realm of NPOV and to say otherwise certainly reveals a strong bias of opinion of an objective thinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflamable dog (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

pdf posted today (11 Dec 2008) on the US Senate minority website, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84 with statements from hundreds of climate scientists opposing the consensus. It has links to numerous peer-reviewed journals, and there are a lot more on the website itself. A lot of it is based on new data. Insisting that there is a consensus here because it was said so a couple of years ago seems to me to be a willful denial of reality. I am not sure that you could find as many scientists in favor of the supposed consensus as there are against. 162.129.251.22 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just cite directly from the peer reviewed papers. What matters is what the peer reviewed papers themselves say. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

May I just say I disagree with Count Iblis on this one. While it is true that academics work, by convention, through a process of peer review, there is no reason why this vehicle must always be construed as the definition of a "consensus", nor do peer reviewed journal articles equate to an indisputable truth. I too have just read the Senate Minority Report and there is enough evidence to discount the claim that "consensus" exists to the extent that this article currently claims. - 15 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.129 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing "will" back to "is expected to"

I am reverting

Increasing global temperature will cause 

to

Increasing global temperature is expected to cause 

in the lead section. First, neither phrase is supported by the reference. (I searched the paper for the term "sea level" and it was not found.) Second, the rest of the wikipedia article uses the phrases "may cause" and "anticipated" to describe sea level changes. Therefore, it is my opinion that "will" is a little too strong. Q Science (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's the rest of the article that's incorrect by using "may." The fact that "increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise" is a simple consequence of the equation of state for sea water: if temperature goes up, sea water becomes less dense (i.e., expands), so that sea level must rise. (Note we could say with equal certainty that "decreasing global temperature will cause sea levels to fall.") The only way to avoid an increase in sea level is if there's no warming. What I tried to do with the edit was to separate out the certain consequences of global warming (increase in sea level, changes in precip) from the less certain ones. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

But warming oceans should also produce more ice in Antarctica. I don't know what all the models predict, but it seems reasonable to assume that the net change in sea level is uncertain. On the other hand, if you make the entire article self-consistent with at least 2 references, I won't object. Q Science (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Be aware things that "it seems reasonable to assume" sometimes don't work out on closer inspection ;-) cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris in this case. Although it's impossible to make any certain (as in 100%) predictions about the future (as one might argue is implied by 'will'), it is common to use 'will' for things that are uncertain but probable enough. Indeed it's pretty hard to be absolutely certain about anything, not only the future. Saying 'it may' or 'anticipated' etc on the other hand underlines the fact that the outcome is uncertain (e.g. more uncertain than when we would use 'will'). Saying that global warming will cause the sea level to rise seems pretty reasonable in this case. It may feel safer to use 'it may' all the time, but that could be just as misleading as always using 'will'.
—Apis (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I just edited it back to "will". This is in the introduction, and as such should be as concise as possible, and the agreement seems to be directing the language towards "will" here on the talk page. If there are other sections of the article that need changing, then we should do so, but I'm not sure what Q Science meant by "make the entire article self-consistent with at least 2 references." - Enuja (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 coldest this century, 21st century shows cooling - no longer accurate to talk about warming in the present tense!

In light of the recent announcement from the met Office, I can see it is no longer accurate to talk about active warming because the trend this century has been for cooling now resulting in [2008 being the coldest year this century].

Therefore it is clearly false and against against Wikipedia rules to to keep referring to "warming" in the present, at least without qualifying it in such a phase as "long term warming" or "warming over a period of many decades". I therefore suggest that any reference to warming in the present tense is either changed into the past tense or replaced by a truthful phrase such as one of the above "long term warming trend" so that the reader is not misled into believing that the actual current trend (in terms of decades/years) is warming.

Bugsy (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking an article that says that global warming is still real is not consistent with changing the disambiguation-related text at the top of the article to say "that occurred at the end of the 20th century". How about making the disambiguation text at the top of the article say "This article is about the recent increase in global temperature. For other periods of warming in Earth's history, see Paleoclimatology and Geologic temperature record"? - Enuja (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that it is pointless me participating in this discussion as the article has been locked by Billy Connolly - and the chances of him ever admitting that global warming has stopped is zero, so, I'm wasting my time here!Bugsy (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the article is semi-protected. You and I both just edited it. It's been semi-protected since October 14. Here is the article protection log. [1] - Enuja (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if you could disprove anthropogenic climate change, you can't disprove the fact that human beings exist and use the resources of the Earth unsustainably. There is alot that needs to be done. Devote your time to something more educative :] Help us! Nick carson (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The ice sheets at both poles are melting. What happens when you drop ice cubes into a drink? And later, after the ice has melted?

Cold water continues to upwell from the deep oceanic currents, while warmed water is being drawn into those same currents to create a reservoir of warmer water that will eventually surface. Anarchangel (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny, the ice extent gets quite alot of coverage on less-than-hysterical sites which keep linking to graphs showing global ice extent growing due to a solid positive trend at the south pole. But hey, "the polar caps are melting!" is a cool scary catch cry. Jaimaster (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that this has any place here - but global sea ice extent is not growing. Antarctica is growing, yes, but by less than the arctic is declining.[2] (0.06 mio. sq. miles growth vs. 0.51 mio. sq. miles decline annually) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on trend length of course. Still invalidates the pluralised catch-cry :) Jaimaster (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The trendlength here was over the entire record. And i really wonder what that invalidates... The arctic is receeding by >7 times more than what little the antarctic is gaining. (which btw. is so little that within the errormargins - it could just as well be declining). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The invalid statement being "the polar ice caps are melting", per the bolded plural. Not really in dispute. If I select say, a rolling couple-year trend and show since 2002 (being the latest 20% of the entire record... point is the "entire record" isnt exactly much basis anyway) we get a very steep pos trend at the south pole and an overall pos trend. Statistical manipulation? Of course it is - no more so than showing a 45* incline keeling curve, however. Jaimaster (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

May i just point out (amongst other errors you make), that 2008 most certainly won't be the coldest this century (as you claim the source says), that seems to be a (nother) misreading of yours.... 2000 was colder. (hint: "since" usually means that the year compared to is outside the envelope). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WikiPedia, the 21st century began on January 1, 2001 Q Science (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. And should have know better, since every programmer (should) know(s) that year 0 didn't exist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also like to think about it this way: Since the IPCC made a firm prediciton of between 1.4 and 5.8C of warming the world has cooled at a rate which would give -1.4C of cooling in the same 110 year period. It is unfortunate, that there is this common confusion between what uninformed people expect the century to begin and the actual date the 21st century really began. However, whilst I was out celebrating 2000 like everyone else, the correct date is 2001 unless or until there is some international agreement on dating and/or a worldwide body responsible for setting dates that makes a clear statement that the start of centuries will from henceforth be redefined to start on the 00. 88.110.190.9 (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the southern ice sheet is stable. Hadn't looked at the chart until then; it shows the ice sheet varying around a slightly rising mean, or median, w/e they are using there. So does anyone know the comparative means/medians of temperature variations between the southern hemisphere and the northern? My hypothesis would be expecting colder northern temperatures than southern ones. Anarchangel (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Southern Hemisphere warms more slowly because it has relatively little land. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I am puzzled to see a thread in this talk page which argues the existence of global warming is incorrect claim. It is shocking to see argument in favor of global warming denial. Range and severity of a plant disease increased by global warming, global warming will severely affect the aquatic ecosystem. So many studies prove the existence of global warming, I find the claim that global warming is non-existent quite ridiculous. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So a couple of studies showing what will happen to plants or the aquatic ecosystem if the temperature increases by x more degrees somehow prove that man made emissions are causing not only most or all of the increase in temperature recorded since the end of the little ice age, but will cause further changes, possibly catestrophic and well above an extrapolation of the mentioned recorded increase?

No wonder you are puzzled. Jaimaster (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, i can say that i'm puzzled about the amount of strange conclusions you derive in your reply, which were not even remotely suggested by OC. Can we all now take a minute and read WP:SOAP, and stop this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange conclusions? OC Said they are puzzled that people still doubt AGW. They listed two reports on the potential effects of GW, then stated "so many studies prove...". Hardly a "remote" suggestion. I dont really see the link between soap boxing and pointing out incorrect grandoise statements such as this or "the polar ice caps are melting". Jaimaster (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes ice caps are melting [3][4]. Disputing this claim does not make any sense. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

CO2 data out of date

The CO2 concentration increase since pre-industrial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Greenhouse_effect -31%) is out of date. We're now at ~36% and climbing - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html. How do we get clearance to update this locked article? MonoApe (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not locked, only semi-protected. Nearly everyone can edit it - if you cannot yet, you will be able to do so shortly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unable to edit due to problems with my login - now resolved. I've updated the article as per suggestion. MonoApe (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Economic and political debate

I recently came across THIS article on the US Senate website, and I felt both the source and the content would likely merrit mention under the Debate section. I am aware that it would primarily fall under the article Global warming controversy, but perhaps a brief mention that current and former UN IPCC scientists now chalenge the consensus view of the causation. --Coldbourne (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a political hack report already debated in several threads over at talk:global warming controversy. It has no value at all as a scientific source, and hence no place in this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, it is not necessary to be a "scientific source" in order to fall under the catagory of Political Debate. I see we are yet again getting on the merry-go-round of POV Non-notable sources. Please find me a recognized external source who also shares this POV with you. Until such time I am afraid that I am going to have to consider your statement to be unfounded and based strictly on personel opinion, and thus baseless. The question was posed in order to be discussed, not dismissed. Cheers. --Coldbourne (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats to discuss? Its not a reliable source to anything other than Sen. Inhofe's opinion. It lacks any form of review or checks/balances which are required to be considered reliable. So Stephan's dismissal is quite correct. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And just to add: Political debate must also follow the guidelines set out in WP:WEIGHT, and i shouldn't have to point out that Sen. Inhofe's opinion is a fringe in the global political debate on this subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming is a theory

It should state in the article that Global Warming is theory and not a solid fact as the article seems to suggest. Kluft (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Global warming is a theory in the scientific sense, in that it is well supported and has survived numerous attempts at falsification. It is also a fact, in that thermometers don't lie. It would be doing our readers a major disservice to suggest otherwise. So thank you for your suggestion, but consider it rejected. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Global warming is a theory that made its first scientifically testable prediction in 2001 in the IPCC report. That report predicted that temperatures would rise by 1.4-5.8C. This was the first scientifically prediction that was capable of being tested, and as the scientific method requires, whether it was "falsifiable" depends on how well its predictions compare with real data. (not against computer models). The question any decent scientist should ask themself, is "how good does this prediction of between 1.4-5.8C warming in 110 years appear to be". The answer is that far from warming, worldwide temperatures have fallen with a trend that suggests -1.4C of cooling. Whilst 7 years of cooling trend is too short to say conclusively the theory has been proven to be false, I think saying "it is well supported" is a slight overstatement to say the least, given the fact the prediction has singularly failed to predict even the sign of the temperature trend let alone its absolute size. 88.110.190.9 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have a logic failure. If the question is, how good does this prediction of between 1.4-5.8C warming in 110 years appear to be then the answer is "please wait for 103 years" William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent consensus building. Kluft - the warming is a fact; the cause is what the theories address. Unfortunately many users are unable to understand this distinction. Jaimaster (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "thermometers don't lie", but an awful lot of them appear to be located in questionable places. On occasion, it appears that some data has simply been copied from one year to the next. And there are probably lots of other errors. Granted, the known errors are not enough to question the current cooling trend (over the last 7 years), or the longer warming trend (since 1980), but there are still a lot of monitoring sites that the skeptics haven't been able to survey. In addition, over 70% of the Earth is monitored by satellites and that data is highly questionable (according to NASA). Q Science (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I rephrase the original statement.

Man made Global warming is accepted and can account for approximately +0.6 deg C. Catastrophic warming forecasts created by positive feedback is a theory.

And from this article which I take from the main page it makes the theory bunk. We can not have catastrophic warming with a run away effect at the same time we have cooling of the oceans.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

OxAO (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of "catastrophy"? See the FAQ. The current effects of global warming are already quite catastrophic, but very diffuse. "We're all going to die" is not something that is seriously suggested by the IPCC or any scientific organization I'm aware of. And the article you cite does not say that "the oceans are cooling", but that the sea surface temperatures in some areas may temporarily decrease very slightly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

“This page is about the science of global warming. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe.”

“Climate model projections indicate that global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.”

These two statements are contradictory.

If the planet rises in temperature 1.1 deg C per hundred years then eventually the human race and ever living thing on the planet will die. The Earth will be a sister planet to Venus. Catastrophic Positive feedback theory is a run away effect it has no end to how high the temperatures will go.

From the article: “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade”

This is again contradictory to the run away effect created by the positive feedback theory. A good example of positive feedback is turning a bowl upside down then put a ball on top of the bowl. Then you push the ball off the slope and the ball will pick up energy as it falls.

If we have cooling in the middle of the positive feed back that would mean the ball is no longer falling down the slope.

02:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is a catastrophe id love to live in your utopia. Jaimaster (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because it does not currently directly affect you or me does not mean it is not happening. That's why I asked about the definition of "catastrophe". Was the 1996 Everest Disaster a catastrophe? The Galtür Avalanche? The Collapse of the World Trade Center? Global warming has easily killed more people than either of these so far. What is more, we are currently living through a major extinction event that is at least partially caused and accelerated by global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Global warming has easily killed more than 2,753 people? Show me the body bags. To borrow a certain journalist's response to this sort of claim, "name just 10". Ill settle for a source for 10 deaths where the cause of death is undisputably "global warming". Jaimaster (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the idea that "if warming happens then eventually every living thing on Earth will die", assuming it isn't clobbered with a doomsday asteroid at some point, eventually all life on Earth WILL be wiped out as our Sun changes. Long before it even incinerates the planet as it reaches red giantism, it will eliminate the oceans and make the planet incompatible with life. The planet is doomed whether we drive hybrid cars or not. Whether humans will have survived long enough to develop the technology to find another place to live and survive by that point is another question.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Amphibians are the primary targets of the latest extension. Global Warming Link To Amphibian Declines is in Doubt

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112113708.htm

03:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by OxAO (talk • contribs)

As you well know, few things are undisputable. Weather events are only probabilistically correlated with global warming. The 2003 European heat wave is generally considered to be at least partially caused by global warming, and has caused at last several thousand deaths. So has the 2006 European heat wave. And that is for major industrialized countries with an excellent infrastructure and easy access to good health services. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There were never any heat waves before global warming? I find this argument hard to take seriously. If the Earth was cooler, the weather would certainly be different. But there will always be freak weather and people dying from it. CO2 is plant food, not a satanic gas. The idea that the natural temperature is perfect one is a form of natural worship. According to the graph of satellite date, the temperature is same now as it was in 1980.[5] Kauffner (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there will always be freak weather. But one of the predictions of the IPCC is an increase in the frequency and severity of freak weather events. CO2 is both a toxic poison and a necessary component for life - as is Oxygen, by the way (if you ever dive on Nitrox, don't exceed an Oxygen partial pressure of 1.6 atm). It all depends on the concentration. CO2 is well below the direct toxicity level for humans (though not necessarily for certain corals), but it probably is much higher than it ever was in the Holocene, and it is rising faster than at any other time we can make reliable claims about. As for the "optimal temperature" red herring, see the FAQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

”But one of the predictions of the IPCC is an increase in the frequency and severity of freak weather events.”

Lets think about that for a second. For example: How are Hurricanes in the gulf of Mexico created? Real generally when there is a large difference in temperatures between the weather at the equator and the weather farther north. Right?

No offense, but -- wrong. Baroclinity (i.e., horizontal temperature contrast) produces vertical wind shear, which is well known to inhibit hurricane development. See e.g., here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is warmer weather in the north that would mean a more balanced temperature with the weather at the equator, in other words at it gets warmer there would be less sever storms.

There is no logic to their argument.

OxAO (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Why do they claim as it gets warmer that there would be greater severity of the storms?

Mostly because of greater low-level humidity, promoting moist convective instability. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of logic to it -- providing you understand the physics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Id have said enhanced by rather than caused by myself. There is little doubt the extra temp made those heat waves kill more than they might have in say, 1950. How many? And how do they balance against a similarly extrapolated guesswork number of lives saved by warmer winters since 1980? :) In any case I still disagree on catastrophe. A positive feedback cycle kicking off would be a catastrophe, but we havnt seen that yet... as far as I am aware the numbers on extinctions are similar extrapolated guesses to the "death count" of AGW / salt / passive smoking / ozone depletion / DDT bans. No bodies, just guesses. Jaimaster (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This article explains the difference between theory and fact quite well. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you smoke and you get lung cancer, then you still cannot prove that the smoking caused the lung cancer in your case. So, despite the fact that it is now undisputed that a large fraction of all lung cancer cases are caused by smoking, no one can point to any particular case of a lung cancer that was caused by smoking. Count Iblis (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. What you can do, however, is look at the rate of cancer in non-smokers and smokers of similar demographic backgrounds and create an estimate. Any attempt to apply this to the rate of death by natural disaster since 1980 compared to before is going to be rendered completely meaningless by more modern disaster response greatly lowering the casualty numbers per similar disaster. Since AGW is caused by industrialisation, and modern disaster response is a result of industrialisation, AGW saves lives! (poor link, but amusing). Jaimaster (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A lucid summary by David Evans of the case against man-made global warming - and why the theory still has its fierce propagandists:

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? ...

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming…

We have been observing temperatures in the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes - weather balloons with thermometers… The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. ..

Human carbon emissions were occurring at the time but the greenhouse effect did not increase. Therefore human carbon emissions did not increase the greenhouse effect, and did not cause global warming…

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth’s temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes....

(But) by 2003 it had been established to everyone’s satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes… So the ice core data no longer supported AGW.

So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW… (S)cientists were being paid by governments to research the effects of human-caused global warming… AGW grabbed control of climate funding in key western countries… The alarmists are full time, well funded, and hog the megaphone.

DDB (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

< What is very clear to this reader is that messengers Kim D. Petersen, William M. Connolley, and Stephan Schulz have no tolerance for rational discussion on this subject. Unfortunately the gates they hope to hold shut are soon to overflow. The real data is showing cooling temperatures, cooling oceans, correlation with solar activity, not CO² and a larger collection of scientific minds questioning IPCC perspective. The climate is surely changing is this regard. > < mkurbo@comcast.net > Do your own research:

http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2008/9/10/melting-arctic-sea-ice-and-global-warming-hype.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.76.30 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wont be suprised to see that comment deleted, but I must say (and me as a dirty sceptic to them, at that) until such a time as peer reviewed scientific literature says what the blogs say, this article will - quite rightly mind you - reflect the existing literature. Like you I am quite confident that the day will come that the existing versions of this article can be pulled out of the wiki logs for some /point /laugh, but that day is still years into the future.

If you really want to help, instead of posting talk page rhetoric, find AGW related articles and try and prune back the rubbish-based alarmist hysteria that occasionally creeps in. For example, if a certain hysteric's recent "research" about how merely burning coal will "very likely" turn Earth into Venus to creeps in, be around to make sure it gets put back into the trashcan it belongs in, per wp:undue. Jaimaster (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Snow in Vegas

So how do you explain this? --Underpants (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the FAQ. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Dr. Jeff Masters addresses this issue well in a recent blog entry. Not sure if this is helpful or not but I thought I might add a link.

"Record snow events inevitably bring comments like, "so what happened to global warming?" First of all, no single weather event can prove or disprove the existence of climate change or global warming. One needs to look at the entire globe over a period of decades to evaluate whether or not climate change is occurring" http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1167&tstamp= —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-a-x (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC) The expression "Cherry Picking" comes to mind when people read admonitions about single events and then dismiss decade long data. DDB (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As with just about every discussing regarding global warming, there is a significant amount of quote mining, or in this case, numbers mining. Several feet of snow over several decades would indicate to me that Las Vegas needs to open a ski resort. I actually saw a snowstorm in South Florida many years ago, but global warming wasn't a worry back then, it was whether we were heading for a new Ice Age. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sea Level RISE/FALL

Sea level rise due to glacial melting but what happens after all the ice melts? More water in the air causing more global warming and lower sea levels? Or am I missing something? TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes - you are missing something (several things actually) The first one is that if Oceans warm - then the sea levels will rise, because of thermal expansion. The second is that while the atmosphere would be able to contain more water vapor, it wouldn't be able to contain that much. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a valid question highlighting that the research/modeling is so much guess work. In Australia the CSIRO said several months ago in a report that its modeling suggested petrol would rise from $1.50 to $8 in less than ten years. The figure is counter to any historical situation and it appears as if it will be just wrong .. suggesting that the models predicting the weather next century are similarly mistaken. It may well be that sea levels are falling because it isn't warming globally. Of more concern for model devotees should be that the sea levels are not significantly increasing, but may be decreasing. DDB (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Climate models do not predict what the price of petrol is or will be. And sorry - sea levels are rising globally.[6] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ddball is using the pathetic inaccuracy of one CSIRO model to highlight that other disaster-predicting CSIRO models probably arnt worth the magnetic media the code is stored in. Sea levels have matched the temperature trend plateau of recent times. Jaimaster (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really wondering how you can call it a "pathetic inaccuracy", when if you read the summary [7], the premise for a $2-$8 price hasn't happened? The question asked was "if peak oil happened in the near future, what would the result be?" - since peak oil hasn't happened - how can you be cock-sure that its a "pathetic inaccuracy"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil was not mentioned in the media reporting of the study Jaimaster (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Glacial melting causes more earthquakes

Hi. There's this link from NASA that glacial melt in Alaska has spawned more earthquakes: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0715glacierquakes.html . Can this be added to either this or a GW-topic article? I realise discussion on this topic on Wikipedia previously has been controversial, but this is not a study and comes from a reliable source, please comment. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty well known that glacier retreat causes rebound of the earth's crust (glacial isostasy, or glacial rebound). Is there a journal article on this work? Press releases aren't the greatest sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)