Talk:Climate change/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions about Climate change. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

→

Not sure if this has a home on this page

But I found it pretty startling and applicable to the topic. Shows that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is markedly higher now than at any point in the past 650,000 years.

Taken from Timeline of glaciation.

Recent decades vs. the dawn of human settlement

The first paragraph defines the scope of the article as climate change in "recent decades" but a huge amount of space near the top of the article is dedicated to a review of "the present to the dawn of human settlement" -- why is that? Shouldn't that ancient stuff be moved to climate change? 75.18.200.11 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's quite an awkward section, because it mostly discusses temperature of 1850 to present, which is long after the "dawn of settlement." There's some small bits on the MWP and Ruddiman's hypothesis. At any rate, it provides some useful context, even if not appropriately titled. ~ UBeR 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to figure out the actual difference between global warming and climate change or global climate change. Well, I see that global warming is a sub-set of global climate change, but I think the issue is, at its heart, the contrasting view of global climate change due to man or due to natural phenomenon. (This, of course, separates industrialized man from nature...a concept in and of itself that is worthy of discussion). My point is that the articles don't distinguish themselves very well, in my opinion. --Alex.rosenheim 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the stuff on the Ruddiman hypothesis was put in by someone a few months ago and wasn't deleted because it's a genuine scientific hypothesis and there were bigger problems to deal with at the time. I think it's a distraction and would be happy to see it deleted. Raymond Arritt 13:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Extent to Which Humans are Involved

I know I am opening myself up for major attack here, but there is a video (Watch at Google Video) from the BBC that disputes that claim made in the sentence under "Cause" that reads: detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[8] identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence.

No dispute on Global Warming, just disputing the extent to which humans are involved. The video is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based on what they had seen in An Inconvenient Truth.

It would be nice if the Global Warming article cited some of the dirty misdoings of the IPCC that are cited in this video, before offering IPCC findings as scientific consensus. Shaunco 07:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The video comes from WagTV and director Martin Durkin, broadcasted on Channel 4, not the BBC. We actually have an article on it here. For further information, you might want to read global warming controversy. ~ UBeR 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anybody want to respond?? My question is: in this "neutral" article, how come only one side's ideas are displayed when reputable scientists in films such as this have a different idea? Is it because your precious majority? Please read my comments in "POV in Intro" as dismissal to that. The Person Who Is Strange 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot mention the "Great Global Warming Swindle" on this page as evidence against global warming as this film has been so ridiculed by the media -- it would be like using Hitler's comments that all cities should have efficient public transport as an endorsement on the public transport page. The film "Great Global Warming Swindle" is currently undergoing an independent investigation as to whether the producers of it "distorted or misrepresented their known views" (i.e. included blatant lies). One scientist interviewed for "Great Global Warming Swindle" as a "Global warming skeptic" said he was completely misrepresented (in the film) and called the film "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War II.". Rnt20 08:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Should have a "Critique"-section

Hello.

The ice caps are melting on Mars as well. This article should feature a section where critique is featured.

Later...

This is earth, not Mars. wise guy. John 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that the ice caps are melting on other planets as well could signify that this is not human activity, at least not completely. The Person Who Is Strange 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link

I don't want to be lynched. Please be kind. I am running http://www.lifetut.com. It's a news hub about global warming. I do it in my spare time (I spent most of my working time working on Free Software Magazine). Do you think any of you (editors)would consider adding a link to lifetut anywhere in Wikipedia, in some Global warming article? I created lifetut because I became interested in Global Warming, but didn't find any decent news hub... so, I created one!

If not, that's all good. If yes, fantastic. Keep up the good work! :-D (Moved at the bottom of the page - silly me) Tony Mobily

Jumping the gun with "China the no. 1 emitter"

While China may have become the no. 1 emitter in 2006. The data that quoted is to premature to be used here. Reading the MNP press release [1] which is the one that the newspapers are referencing - we find that its a preliminary result based upon incomplete data and trend analysis:

The estimates of CO2 emissions do not include emissions from flaring and venting of associated gas during oil and gas production and CO2 emissions from deforestation/logging/decay of remaining biomass and are calculated using default CO2 emission factors recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 emissions from underground coal fires in China and elsewhere are not included either. The magnitude of these sources is very uncertain; according to recent research CO2 emissions from coal fires are estimated at 150-450 megatonne CO2 annually in China.

Please wait for the official data to come out. Its a good headliner - but not certain enough to be used here yet. (and for that matter unverified by other agencies). --Kim D. Petersen 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Also note that the same source KDP references (and which is the original source of the material in the article) says "Energy statistics for fast changing economies such as China are less accurate than those of traditional industrialized countries within the OECD." Obviously if current trends continue, China will take the unenviable #1 position soon, but it is premature to state that it has yet done so. Arjuna 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Even (especially?) the guardian is guilty of climate sensationalism. We have to follow up media sources as a rule. Bendž|Ť 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks. I know this came as a shock, but China is now the number one emitter of CO2. All sources pass WP:V and it would be to wikipedias disgrace to not have the most up to date information. Prester John 05:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

PJ, it's unfortunate that apparently you do not understand the meaning of what was previously discussed. At such time that the data showing China to be the #1 emitter is clear and verifiable it will be perfectly appropriate to update the article to reflect that fact. But to do so now is clearly premature. Arjuna 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is nothing to suggest the Netherlands government is lying. THIS is the data showing China to be the number 1 emitter. It passes WP:V and should be included. Prester John 05:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

First: Its not the Netherland governments data (its from an analysis bureau (the (MNP)). Second: the MNP itself is stating that the data is incomplete, and may not be correct. Have you actually read the press-release? (here it is again) --Kim D. Petersen 06:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've read it. The best bit is the huge title, also included in the conclusion. It says; China now no. 1 in CO2 emissions; USA in second position. That's pretty much the clincher, that and the fact that multiple news agencies have ran with the story, all of them reputable and satisfying WP:V. Despite the reports conclusion and this phrase; The energy data annually published by BP appear to be reasonably accurate, you still claim the report is "incomplete". This is your own Original Reasearch and has no business in wikipedia. Nowhere in the report or in any verifiable news agencies does it suggest that this report is incomplete.Prester John 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Its possible that China is the no. 1 emitter - under all circumstances it will be if not in 2006 - then this year or the next. Thats not the issue. The issue is that the report as stated is preliminary, and based upon simple trend-analysis, as opposed to verified numbers. It might be correct. I'd even give that its likely to be correct. But that does not make it fact. To state is as fact is WP:OR. I do not know why you want to jump the gun - but i suspect that it has nothing to do with verification or adherence to simple fact-checking - please show me wrong :-) --Kim D. Petersen 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For some reason you (Mr. PJ) persist in your mistaken assertion. Although you seem to think you are rather cleverly ambushing the AGW camp, this is in fact a rather banal issue. In fact the AGW group is in full agreement that the issue of China's emissions is indeed critical to reducing global carbon emissions, and whether they become #1 today or 3 years from now is irrelevant. KDP has made the case that this material does not belong in the article (yet). Q.E.D. At this point, to the other editors, I would suggest that further discussion of this issue with Mr. PJ falls under the category of WP:DFTT. Arjuna 07:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Arji, what makes you think this assertion is mistaken? It is not my assertion, it is the conclusion of this agencies report, taken to be reputable enough to be run by several respectable news carriers around the world. Naming me a troll is a classy touch, and calling for all dialogue with me to cease should be grounds for your indef banning from wikipedia.

The fact that you and Kim don't believe the conclusions does not matter, the evidence passes WP:V and WP:RS. The evidence has been released to the media and no-one of repute (That's not you Kim BTW) has challenged the validity or accuracy of the study. The fact that the study doesn't include Chinas massive underground coal mine fires only helps the conclusions of the report.Prester John 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is wrong to assume that PJ is trying to "cleverly ambush the AGW camp." (Maybe those are PJ's motives; maybe they aren't.) A real problem which should be considered is that a part of this article states, as fact, that the United States is "the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter."

While the data are still preliminary, there is legitimate and well-documented reason to doubt that this statement remains true. There ought to be some kind of acknowledgment of this in the article. Perhaps an interim compromise could be to say instead something like: "Among the nations of the world, the United States and China are the two largest emitters of greenhouse gasses." -- Racemose 10:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the article charts a current event, there's no need to report every speculation up-to-the-minute. Nobody expects an encyclopaedia to be that current, because we'd never get any of the important stuff done around here we reported every media incident (which we don't: this is clearly being selected as a case against the AGW camp). We record China as responsible for the most of the increase in green house gas these days, let's let folk put two and two together and wait for an update from peer reviewed science. Bendž|Ť 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if that sense of currency is really normal for Wikipedia then I agree. I don't know if anyone saw this, but there is still a statement in the article that someone has tacked on to the end: "In 2006, China overtook the U.S. in emissions of CO2." Is there anything that can be done to remove that? I think it's ~~inappropriate, and~~ in the wrong place in any case. But the article currently says it is semi-protected. -- Racemose 13:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. I added the China info back with suitable qualifiers and disclaimers.Kevinp2 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the deal with William_M._Connolley reverting this change and justifying it by saying "Wiki is not a newspaper (have you tried wikinews?)". The Main Page of Wikipedia has a section called In the News, consisting of articles updated with current events. In April, Wikipedia was recognized for the quality and timeliness of the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre which was updated hundreds of times a day as new information became available. To say that Wikipedia must not contain up to date information because it hasn't become stale enough is lame and not at all consistent with the rest of Wikipedia practice. I have suitably qualified this information to clearly state that it is an estimate by one agency. The text of my edit is clearly factual. Readers can clearly read the disclaimers and decide what they want for themselves. Suppressing this edit amounts to suppressing this information. I don't really care what the motivation is, if any, for suppressing this but it is wrong and should not stand. I am cool with someone else rewriting it still further and qualifying it still further, but simply suppressing it is not an option. At a later time, if the information turns out to need correction, it can be done at that time, and immediately so. Until then it is factual and pertinent and should stay. Thanks, Kevinp2 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am coming from the List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions article. There is a line that says: "The United States is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases." I find the above line the most problematic because the latest data says that it is not true. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should contain only contain blanket assertions about the present that are both backed up by reliable sources and not contradicted by other reliable sources. At the very least both sides of a discussion need to be presented if there is a dispute amongst reliable sources. I do not understand what is wrong with citing the finding of the The Netherlands Environment Protection Agency. They are a scientific agency. Their finding is not disputed. So why not state it - especially when many have predicted an imminent overtaking of the USA by China. I am ok with it being couched in a manor that the data is preliminary - but I do not think it should be ignored.

As far as the issue of other pollutants I quote from the Guardian article: The new figures only include carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires.

Dr Olivier said it was hard to find up to date and reliable estimates for such emissions, particularly from countries in the developing world. But he said including them would be unlikely to topple China from top spot. "Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions."

As far as the problems people have with the Dutch report - unless there are reliable sources who comment upon it, one cannot simply exclude it because problems one has with it. Doing so is original research. Given that many reliable sources state the findings of the Dutch report as fact it should be at least included in Wikipedia. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch data are preliminary, unverified, and as the Dutch agency who submitted it freely acknowledges, may be inaccurate. See comments by KDP above. This article is about verifiable statements regarding GW -- it doesn't include the latest papers on the science until such research stands up to peer-review and verification. Why should statements about emissions levels be any different than that standard? It should stay out until independently verified. Arjuna 20:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is this policy that requires that a Wikipedia article source from only peer-reviewed articles? If this was applied to some abstract or arcane claims about this (or any other) subject, it might be one thing. Bear in mind that this is a significant development, and seems to be going unquestioned by the rest of the world. While you wait several months for a peer-reviewed article to confirm these findings (which most people expected to happen sooner or later), Wikipedia will peddle obviously stale and incorrect information. Qualify the findings by all means, but don't suppress them. Kevinp2 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough the data that is linked in the press-release - does not support the claim that China is no. 1. It places China at 5.68 Pg while the US is at 5.75 Pg (which btw. is a reduction in emissions - and (imho) a far bigger news-byte)?? --Kim D. Petersen 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The spreadsheet that you linked to says "Regional CO2 emissions from global fossil fuel use, 1990-2006". The press release points to an additional amount of CO2 emissions due to cement production. I have not looked deeply into this but this seems to put China over the US by a bit. Kevinp2 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the general reticence in declaring China to be the number one emitter. They have over 1.3 billion people and their economy has been growing around 9-10% a year. They are building power plants, cars and cement factories at a rapid rate. All the experts agree that they are due very soon to overtake the USA. The question is precisely when. There is a reliable source that says that this has already happened. It's not shocking - its to be expected as I have just said. It sounds reasonable. Many major secondary sources (which is what Wikipedia prefers - see Wikipedia:No original research) have accepted it. So why not accept it? I have not read one article in a reliable source that disputes it.

The assertion that it is no verified and thus should not be used in an article is also bizarre. The New York Times prints things and we accept it. We don't ask for verification. Once a reliable source says something we accept it unless its disputed by other reliable sources or unless it sounds absurd. This sounds reasonable and many secondary sources accept it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One other point: If there is good reason to believe that China is the number one emitter of carbon dioxide then one cannot state that the USA is the number emitter unless acknowledges that this position is no longer obvious and incontrovertible and that there is evidence to the contrary. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 02:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Relax. To paraphrase your own words, I do not understand the impatience in declaring this a fait accompli. The disagreement is in whether that source is definitive as to the data used and thus the timing of the "actual" cross-over, and by their own account there are uncertainties in their projections. This is reason for pause. KDR stated it well in saying that "the issue is that the report as stated is preliminary, and based upon simple trend-analysis, as opposed to verified numbers." Let's wait to see if the numbers hold up to scrutiny before stating it as definitive fact. Arjuna 03:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanding a bit on this. I've not been involved in this discussion because it all seems rather pointless; i.e., whether China emits a couple percent more than the U.S. or a couple percent less, so that one or the other is the larger source by some small and highly uncertain margin. Those who are invested in it can sort it out however they like. If the material is added we need to point out that because CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime, instantaneous emissions have little to do with who is causing most of the warming -- it's the cumulative emissions over a long period of time that matter. As Jim Hansen and many others have pointed out, the cumulative effects of past emissions from U.S. sources mean that the U.S. will be the main cause of warming for decades to come, even though China has surpassed (or soon will surpass) the U.S. in current emission rates. Raymond Arritt 03:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what this has to do with the simple statement of a finding that as of 2006, China is the single largest national emitter of CO2. Unless it is more important to blame the US for global warming. Is that what this is about? Kevinp2 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem as well. If the focus is to prevent ~~global warming~~climate change, should'nt we focus on the emissions occurring now rather than on past emissions? I also have this feeling that for some reason, it seems important for some climate folks that the USA remains the worst bad guy... --Childhood's End 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The US is now down as historically the greatest producer of CO2. There's a mention of the Dutch dossier on greenhouse gas, but that's all these findings warrant: a mention, not a re-writing of all three pages. If there are any other statements that claim the US is the current greatest emmitter, we can play them down as well. Bendž|Ť 07:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, well put. Thanks to Bendzh for the compromise wording. Can we please move on now? Arjuna 07:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The US is down as "historically", why isn't China down as "presently"? The rationale on offer for not citing several media sources is the same given by these human rights champions in Beijing [2]. 2005 Environmental sustainability index has China ranked @ 133 out of 146 nations (US @ 45). The ESI is a composite of many factors. China is the greatest producer of co2, AGW camp claim manmade co2 is the main cause of warming....goodluck with climate-action protests in Tiananmen Square! --Dean1970 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Because cumulative emissions are what causes global warming. Scientific journals are publishing new papers every day, and there's a reason they don't use BP data; BP have a vested interest in diverting attention away from the emissions they cause and so are unreliable. Bendž|Ť 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From Sci-Tech Today: China Overtakes U.S. as No. 1 Emitter of Carbon Dioxide

"John Christensen, head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development in Denmark, said the figures did not come as a surprise.

"The Dutch agency referred to BP statistics, which is the standard reference tool. We have no reason to doubt that the numbers are right. We have no reason to doubt the methodology," Christensen said. "It's been stated many times that China will overtake the U.S. in emissions." "

"Fatih Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based International Energy Agency also said the findings were not surprising, given China's economic growth of more than 9 percent annually over the past 25 years."

Here is the head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center accepting these numbers. This a very strong augment for their inclusion.

From BBC News: China building more power plants

"China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said."

Again these numbers are accepted by an expert on the subject. Again this is a secondary source - in line with Wikipedia's policies. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 11:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Christensen is accepting that the numbers are probably correct - just the same as we do. That still doesn't make the numbers more than what we've already established. Focusing to much on this is WP:Undue weight to a preliminary study. (Just a side-note: Christensen is head of one of many UNEP research centre's - don't inflate his importance). --Kim D. Petersen 12:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Wouldn't the more relevant numbers here be the per capita production of total greenhouse gas anyway rather than the national production of just CO2? Per capita because the only purpose in gathering these kind of simplified stats is to do with the capacity and motivation of the individual to change (based on national pride or whatever: I am guessing that goverments themselves don't get guided by Wikipedia which is an encyclopaedia hence aimed at individuals) and the "dirty" US citizens have far more capacity to improve than the Chinese, cos they polute five times more at present? The per capita US production is about 5 times the chinese one isn't it? Or not. Maybe. --BozMo talk 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"because the only purpose in gathering these kind of simplified stats is to do with the capacity and motivation of the individual to change" - perhaps this is not the purpose of Wikipedia - to serve as a motivator for individual change - perhaps it should just serve as a factually correct encyclopedia instead. If this is your intent in editing Wikipedia, then you are pushing a POV. Incidentally, this suppression of these numbers seem to be widespread. I just found these numbers suppressed in the article on Energy Policy of the United States.Kevinp2 13:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. The statement was tentative as I am personally unsure whether a factual correct encyclopaedia inevitably has a target audience in its ontology; which is for people. However I cannot see your argument against this or that you claim to have one. I haven't seen any numbers suppressed here mind you. Except that the one millionth to two millionth digits of pi are cruelly not included in Wikipedia even though the except value of pi has a direct impact on human existence, presumably this is because of the lack of relevance to the individual. The various different ways to skin a cat in terms of number 1 and number 2 need equal weight. --BozMo talk 13:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. And in the meantime, Wikipedia is providing factually incorrect information to its readers Kevinp2 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia isn't a public relations organ of the Chinese govt. They run things in Bejing (very effectively I might add). They've allowed their country to be flooded with factories so everymart can sell plastic spiderman lunchboxs for a few coins. Not wikipedia's fault. China is the new number one polluter, the biggest producer of co2, they can own it by stating it as verified fact on wikipedia. --Dean1970 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor of course should Wikipedia pander to US feelgood about trying to believe it reasonable that 5% of the world's population produce 25% of the polution, nor should it disguise this with less relevant stats. --BozMo talk 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir, theres no 'feelgood' on my part about china overtaking US as co2 polluter with their slave factories. As for the economics, the facts and figures....I just don't get that angle when it comes from very public climate activists "the % this and the % that" to swerve any blame from china. --Dean1970 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So this is what all the fuss is about. People are afraid to admit that China is the number one polluter because they think it might let the USA off the hook and demotivate it to reduce emissions. Uh huh. Well now I at least understand all the reticence. Look, out job on wikipedia is to report the facts and not launch crusades. Of course putting the per capita emissions is also important. However just because a fact is uncomfortable we should not try to sweep it under the carpet. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Custodiet - no that is not the case (although i cannot speak for Bozmo). Shall i count how many times during these discussions that i've (and others have) said that "It is quite likely [that the US is the no. 1 emitter]" or words to the same effect? The culprit is that these data are 1) unconfirmed 2) preliminary 3) based on incomplete data. Its to early.... How long do we have to wait for the complete figures - or a confirmation? Months is my guess. --Kim D. Petersen 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And for these months, Wikipedia will provide incorrect information to the public while the rest of the world has pretty much accepted these findings. Kevinp2 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way you have a chance of stating incorrect information. There is no difference. --Kim D. Petersen 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Better to say that China is the number 1 emitter which is probably true than to say the USA is the number 1 emitter which is probably false. Waiting for conformation of something does not mean that we put out information on Wikipedia that we suspect to be wrong. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 15:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newsagency - its an encyclopedia. What should be here is the confirmed factual information, independent of political implications. This information (while likely correct) is not factual - yet. When it becomes fact - it goes in. Why is a couple of months so damnable? - this information has been on the page for years, whats a couple of months going to change? I suspect that some people here are trying to push an agenda - but its not easy to see who is who. There are reasons to push from either side, apparently. Let me state my opinion (note: opinion): I don't give a flying fuck about whether the US is the main emitter or China is. I care about the encyclopedic content. In my opinion (note again: opinion) we are all responsible for these emissions - and we are all responsible for reducing them. --Kim D. Petersen 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Now Kim, that is very interesting. Are you suggesting that something that is not established fact should not appear on WP? That would have you support the deletion of quite a lot of IPCC material : [3] Perhaps you would like to recant one of these two positions? --Childhood's End 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"When it becomes fact - it goes in.". Really? from the article: (with my emphasis)"Positive feedback effects such as the expected release of CH4 from the melting of permafrost peat bogs in Siberia (possibly up to 70,000 million tonnes) may lead to significant additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions[19] not included in climate models cited by the IPCC." and "However, other phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950," and "Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available". I could go on and on with examples of text from the article that use speculative wording rather than factual wording, and that's because a great deal of this is not incontrovertible fact as yet. A citation in the article that preliminary data suggests that china has passed the US in gross GHG output is absolutely appropriate based upon the precedent of the numerous other speculative statements in the article. Anastrophe 15:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep - we include scientific data,theory and hypothesis', that are verified and have stood the test of time. Try to include a completely new paper - you will find that no matter what "side" it takes - it won't be accepted (search the archives - you'll find a couple). The above things that you mention are of the "stood the test of time" and "verified" category. There is another difference here - that i hope you can follow: CO2 emissions are measured data and the data is validated by various agencies - the latest validated figures are from 2003 or 2004. This current report under discussion has neither held the test of time - nor has it been validated. Currently its an interesting study which is (imho) likely to enter the article in a few months. And contrary to what people below are speculating on - i do believe that it will be included then. --Kim D. Petersen 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't see china reducing their smoke stacks anytime soon. --Dean1970 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless we are here claiming that all the major newspapers have a weak editorial review process, I think that from the moment that a report is universally accepted by reliable sources, it should be reflected through WP. That it may not be factually correct is quite irrelevant since any other report can be, IPCC reports included. Despite this, we present the IPCC reports as the current understanding of the actual state of things regarding climate forecasts. If WP is to be consistent rather than an agenda-driven magazine, it should reflect the most recent accepted state of things regarding emmissions that we have. --Childhood's End 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The major papers do, indeed all the media does have a tendency to uncritically report stuff like this. Wiki should report "the most recent accepted state", which means not reporting them the moment after they appear in the papers but giving them a week or a month to settle. Why are you in such a hurry? William M. Connolley 16:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm in no hurry. Just saying that if you wait a week or a month to update Wiki, it will mean that Wiki will be outdated by a week or a month compared with the rest of the world, with no evidence at all to support that this universally accepted report is wrong. --Childhood's End 16:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate for wiki to be a month behind on items of this kind. For scientific papers I would argue for a longer period - 6 months at least - since replies to those take a long time. Sadly there is no hope for that being accepted William M. Connolley 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am overall sympathetic to this view. I'm notably satisfied that you would not support KDP's assertion that the report should not be taken into account because it is not established fact. --Childhood's End 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also somewhat sympathetic to waiting on scientific data. However often when information gets old its easy to forget about and is less likely to get included. I do wish there was a mechanism for scientific data included in wikipedia to be reviewed some period of time after its initial insertion to see if it has been challenged. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you CE for completely ignoring almost every comment i've written here, and focusing on a single sentence. For the record - i'm completely in agreement with WMC here. --Kim D. Petersen 20:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On the 'attributed and expected effects of global warming' malaria and dengue fever are cited. This isn't a fact according to this chap [4]. --Dean1970 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to restrict wiki from reporting anything that any one person disagrees with, it will be empty William M. Connolley 16:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

he seems to know his onions about the subject pretty well. wp is about fact. nothing goes in unless its fact. --Dean1970 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The precise year (be it 2006, 2007 or 2008) when China overtakes the USA in terms of emissions is not particularly important. That said, I have noticed a worrying tendency in Wikipedia for people to perform "attack jobs" on various articles from reliable sources because they don't want certain information on a Wikipedia page. That is censorship and it is an oxymoron in an encyclopedia. If a few reliable source states fact X and no other reliable sources rebut it, one cannot perform one's own critique on the articles and use that as a basis for exclusion from Wikipedia because that is original research. One of the reasons why original research is banned is because often people have personal agendas in pushing one position or another. Indeed some crafty people try to exercise a point of view in an article by obstructing the inclusion of new information with an article.

Think all of this doesn't happen? Well the global warming sceptics do it all the time. They question the data. They want verification. They ask for more time. They say not enough years have passed yet to validate the global warming hypothesis. They say that there is not enough consensus. They say that we need to wait for more data. In other words they play some very elaborate games. We must not play their games either. Sure some truths are inconvenient. I do not think we would be having this discussion if new data came out and said that roads last longer if they are 0.25 inches thicker. People have agendas. It is useless pretending that it is not inconvenient for China to overtake the USA. It is deeply worrying because the greater China and India's emissions are relative to the USA the harder it is to make a cogent argument for the USA to cut back its own lesser emissions. But this is a resource where we put out information regardless of its political consequences. It is sad to see thinly veiled arguments about needing further verification when it is quite obvious that it should be included in Wikipedia under its own policies given the number of reliable sources who have mentioned China's new top spot in emissions and given the credence by experts. As Al Gore would say, this is an Inconvenient Truth. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I decided that this analysis may be wrong. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a worthy post. It certainly generated some good points which were worth thinking about. --Childhood's End 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly to 'counter' the 'china may have surpassed the US in greenhouse gas emissions' claim, the factoid that the US has some nominal fraction of the population of China is now repeatedly being pushed as having some meaning: "however, since the population of the U.S. is less than one fourth that of China, U.S. emissions are much greater on a per capita basis.". This is an irrelevancy, and intended clearly to 'scold' the evil americans for creating so much pollution. It ignores that the creation of greenhouse gases in the US is not purely a function of overweight white males driving 2mpg SUV's with special smog-enhancers attached. It ignores factors such as the proportion of the population engaged in "industrialized" activities (which in a broad way benefit people across the globe) vs purely subsistence farming. China's industrialization is moving forth with almost no visible effort towards ethical stewardship of the earth. The smaller population of the US contributes more per capita to the world at large (in goods, services, technology, invention, clean water, charity, etc etc etc) than does china. shall we add that to the article to 'counter' the scolding? No. The article is about global warming, not who warms it the most. The question of 'who produces the most greenhouse gases per capita' isn't directly relevant to the article. By the way, how much methane do 1 billion people create per day in the crapper? is it more than what 300 million people create? just curious. Anastrophe 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You may find this, this and this humbling. Bendž|Ť 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bendž, please don't insert "‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}" in other people's comments (as you did to Anastrophe's comment of 05:33.) It is contrary to Wikipedia talk page guidelines. --Racemose 10:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If per capita emissions are meaningless, then national emissions are also meaningless. Since that's not the case, both metrics are needed in order to provide meaning to emissions data. --Skyemoor 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the first one, one para reads - "Wang Tongsan, a senior Chinese economic forecaster and member of the committee overseeing implementation of the current five-year plan, said that the Chinese government did not have a policy of pushing exporters to focus on markets other than the United States. He attributed the rise in sales to developing countries to the strong entrepreneurial talents of many Chinese." - it's hard to compete with these entrepreneurs [5]

2 & 3 answer what I know. China is not going to curtail its pollution output (it may pay lip service here and there, but scratch the surface and that's all it is!).

China is presently the biggest producer of co2 <<< There are reliable sources making this claim. Agree more data needs to filter through, but its hardly 'jumping the gun' adding a brief detail about this event in the article. --Dean1970 09:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nature [6] has accepted the prima facie findings that China is the number one emitter of carbon dioxide (with the caveats about accuracy). Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 12:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nature is a RS, it is used on articles related to GW. --Dean1970 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the statistic of CO2 emissions per unit of economic output be a better measure than CO2 emissions per capita? The former would tend to better reflect the relative "greenness" of economic production, while the latter doesn't factor this in. It's silly to compare the per capita greenhouse gas output of China with the US when we know they are on far different economic footing. After all, I don't think anyone is suggesting we cut economic production in pursuit of reductions in greenhouse gasses. I'd really like to see some of this data and have it reflected in GW articles. 71.217.95.80 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New section proposal

Anyone up for starting a new section of the article discussing the benefits of global warming? Tom e r ^talk 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That would belong in Effects_of_global_warming i believe. And adequatly summarized here according to weight in the section Attributed and expected effects --Kim D. Petersen 19:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Too much negativity. Personally, I'm enjoying global warming. Tom e r ^talk 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Good, write a blog. Bendž|Ť 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Right here?

Tom e r ^talk 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

☹ Bendž|Ť 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Any other useless pointers today? Tom e r ^talk 07:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎

Unfortunately Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ has transmogrified and no longer satisfies its original purpose: the page now lists people who have no disagreement at all with the second para of this article; hence the link appears inappropriate. The best solution would be to fix the sci oppos page; however rampant wikilawyering there renders that unlikely William M. Connolley 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, "scientists opposing" has veered so far into neverland that people want it to include James Hansen. Raymond Arritt 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anything will be resolved here then. "A few individual scientists disagree with some of these conclusions as well" <<< this very small sentence in the opening para sparked an edit-war over one word - "few" versus "several"... deary me. Theres no chance then of adding an inlink (in the forseeable future) to an article covering scientists who don't agree (to varying extents) with the consesus. Shame. It's a great thing about Wiki, reading about an interesting subject and being able to use the inlinking to learn more about it. Theres a line in some movie that comes to mind, about people who would argue over the colour of........ --Dean1970 17:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could link to the global warming skeptics category instead (but not great). --BozMo talk 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to make the sci opposing page sane again William M. Connolley 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that the phrase "A few individual scientists disagree with some of these conclusions as well", with the link, implies necessarily that all the scientists mentioned in the linked article disagree specifically with the second paragraph. I think the link's purpose is to direct the interested reader to an article where he will find relevant information in that regard, and indeed, this article has such information, plus just a little more (3-4 scientists disagreeing with the usefulness of climate models, which is relevant info in this article). That's all, really, and I think the link should stay. --Childhood's End 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Complementary to above, per policy, we are encouraged to (should) create links to:

Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully
References to a page with more information

I dont think the linked article should be delinked only because 5-10% of it is not directly related to the discussed aspect of the subject. --Childhood's End 17:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Inline links should be accurate. As for linking to relevant and related subjects - see that large box at the bottom of the article. --Kim D. Petersen 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks more like your own opinion that inline links should be 100% accurate. As I said above, the linked article is probably 90 to 95% relevant to what this sentence says and is what the reader expects to find if interested to know more. Removing the link because 5-10% of the article is not directly relevant (it is indirectly) is not consistent with WP rules and common standards. --Childhood's End 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

CE there is no such WP rule - this is a case of editorial disagreement. I do not agree with you - and think that the other article should be made usefull again - so that the link can be reinstated. Work on that instead. The opposers article should not be 90% real sceptics - it should be 100% real sceptics, so that the article 1) lives up to its name 2) can be linked again as an example. As it is now, a link would be misleading - which is not a good position. --Kim D. Petersen 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, once again you're mixing your personal views with objective decision-making. You think that the other article is not useful right now, and you think that it includes false sceptics (names?). You chose to restrain "real sceptics" to those who disagree with the warming attribution, and you think that a scientist telling us that today's climate models are no better than Antiquity's oracles should not appear in the other article. But that remains only your view and it seems to me that opinions about climate models are just as relevant for the reader than opinions about warming's attribution. So, all in all, you're opting to delink because of personal views, while I stand for status quo because your reasons are limited to personal views. --Childhood's End 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And your reasoning, by contrast, has nothing to do with your personal views? Interesting argument. Raymond Arritt 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you wouldnt read what comes above the comment right above what you are about to post, but if you had done so here, you would have noticed not only a reference to WP policies and common standards, but some reasons that have nothing to do with personal views (in short: need for 100% accuracy is stated nowhere, and the article is what the reader expects to find as it mostly contains (90-95%) what the sentence describes). --Childhood's End 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble here is that even if i agree with you that accuracy isn't a specific factor in wikilinking. I think that whether or not things are misleading are a specific factor in wikilinking. (example: "A lot of advocacy groups support whaling" - would be extremely misleading... This one is not of that caliber - but is still misleading in more or less the same way) --Kim D. Petersen 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot think of a more irrelevant example than the one you provided. Now that we (perhaps) agree that absolute accuracy isnt a specific factor in wikilinking, let's ask ourselves if the normal reader would find it misleading to be referred to Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ while reading that "A few individual scientists disagree with some of these conclusions as well". Raymond Arritt may think that it is only my personal view, but I am quite confident in supposing that this would not be seen as misleading for a wide 'consensus' of normal readers and that they would expect to find this information if they wanted to know more after reading this phrase. --Childhood's End 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why no "Controversy" Section?!

Just because Al Gore says that all scientists agree on global warming doesn't mean that it becomes a fact.

There are many, many holes in the Global warming theory.

The Earth has been warming for the past 20,000 years (the peak of the last ice age)

It has not been proven that CO2 concentrations affect atmospheric temperature. In fact, there is mounting evidence that temperature affects Co2 concentrations.

No reliable climate record exists past the last 100,000 years. Keep in mind that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Computer climate models are so ridiculously flawed it's not funny. Ever got caught in the rain without an umbrella after the Weather Channel predicted sunny, blue skies?

These are only a sampling of problems with the global warming theory. I strongly reccomend a "controversy" section. 12va34 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these points. No one ever mentioned them before. Raymond Arritt 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read this FAQ, 12va34. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC is unreliable. It doesn't use the opinions of enough scientists. Whose to say that the majority of scientists aren't slanted to the left or simply hopping on a bandwagon. Just because the IPCC isn't bribing them, it doesn't mean that someone else isn't. 12va34 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on their opinions, we can read their papers instead, which is what the IPCC does William M. Connolley 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also have to say that to successfully and discretely bribe several hundred scientists from all over the world would require a quantum leap in corruption technology... --Stephan Schulz 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be all that hard. We bribe politicians and judges, lawyers, cops, people we do business with... scientists and universities trying to identify funding to do research aren't all that fussy about where the money comes from and what the conditions of the grants are. Scientists take money from the military to research weapons and then keep their research secret. The idea of being able to influence an enemy's weather or otherwise affect its crops is not beyond the pale for people who are willing to develop chemical biological and radiological weapons, improve an industries effectiveness at getting other peoples oil or coal or gas out of the ground, or find better ways to build a nuke plant on a beach they know is going to eventually be flooded. The social psychology necessary to bribe all the worlds scientists is long since established in the hundreds of think tanks that study our problems and make policy.Rktect 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the package will arrive at the Mesa Lab at the bottom of the outside stairwell</color>

Straw man. To note that there are millions of dollars available for global warming research is not to imply a conscious conspiracy. Iceage77 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet, in reading many comments and contributors here and related articles, they are totally content to claim the exact thing happens with any cited scientist who show data or voice opinion contrary to the idea human contributed global warming, and ties to 'big oil' and whatnot. And it doesn't appear anyone has made quite the same degree of rebuke in such cases. Conundrum, possibly. Completely irrelevant to the wikipedia article, of course, but telling of the forces at work.RCHM 03:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Although it's very unlikely that all of them are bribed, it's very possible that some of them were. The Dems controll congress, don't they? 12va34 16:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous... 2 points: 1. Science is international 2. democrats are now in control - who was last in control? And for how long? --Kim D. Petersen 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on whether you are thinking globally or just in the United States. I think its laughable to claim the Dems are in control, both Republicans and Dems are politicians. Its not a coincidence that more of them come from the entertainment industry than from climate science.

When it comes to who is really in control in the United States, certainlly the Federalist Society, the Project for a New American Century, The Heritage Foundation, and the people from Big Oil, the MIC, and the International Corporations who control them; the vested interests of religion and state use the institutionalization of people to good effect.

Business interests like us to believe we have to work for a living. Religious interests like us to believe that if we break their rules it goes on our permanent record.

The idea that we live in a Democracy where everyone gets to vote for electors but the candidates who get funded to run are pre selected by pundits, and the final decision can be made by five men... seems like it might deserve a different caption.

Globally any society where you are encouraged to stay in school and rack up debt until fully indoctrinated with beliefs which are daily reinforced by media its not even necessary to bribe people, its just necessary to change the tape thats programming them.Rktect 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keyword: SOME. 12va34 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Be aware of the Chicago Sun-Times

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

This article contains a number of summaries from Geophysical Research Letters, the U.N. Climate Change panel, the UNIPCC etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs)

The first one, purporting to come from J Climate, is clearly faked William M. Connolley 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this may be the Journal of Climate article referred to: "Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin" --Britcom 09:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, they may be referring to this article, which mentions "the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas". Of course that is an extremely selective ("wrong") reading, and once more shows the danger of quote-mining. I cannot access the full article from here to check for the exact quote, which may well be a fabrication. --Stephan Schulz 09:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Heres the complete paper. And of course there is no such quote. --Kim D. Petersen 09:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Its definitely faked (or, if you wish to be charitable, misattributed) [7] William M. Connolley 09:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The exact quote is here. The quote appears to be taken from an Environment News story about the JoC article. Both the Sun-Times article and the Environment News article appear to have been written by the same person; James M. Taylor, though the misquote could have been the Sun-Times editor's fault. --Britcom 09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an atrocious misquote, but the JC paper does establish the Himalayas as an exception rather than the rule with regards to GW. We know to disregard the alarmists, right? The science speaks for itself. Though surely it's not been counterproductive, I've now been put off ever seeing Al Gore's film, as propaganda is propaganda, no matter what it purports. With the anti-AGW's however, the maxim "keep your enemies close" comes to mind. Bendž|Ť 10:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the Himalaya show exceptional behavior in some aspects. The overall temperature is rising there as well. And the overall glacier loss is real - the paper discusses only regional variations. This is science in action - as we dig deeper, we know more. Gore's movie has some shortcomings (as William will tell you with gusto), but you cannot really criticize a movie released in May 2006 for not taking notice of a paper published in September 2006. --Stephan Schulz 10:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread. I'll be in a meeting with Hayley Fowler next week, and will mention the, er, "misquote" to her. Raymond Arritt 18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink to article not matching anchor

As we've said rather often now at present the link implies it links to scientists disagreeing with some broadbrush statements in the intro which amount to being skeptics but it links to a page listing many people disagreeing on much more techincal IPCC points. Fix and then link. --BozMo talk 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Raul654 13:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy/paste case already made as well as this comment. --Childhood's End 15:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.... The biggest point not listed?

I think the biggest point in the alarmist argument is not listed in the opening statements. The whole argument is about whether the warming is caused by humans polluting, or natural (cycles), or the result of volcanic activity, solar shifts, or other causes. Can someone please include it in the opening paragraphs please?U236 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lyokha, you'll find the phrase "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" in the first paragraph, a whole section on the causes and an article on attribution of recent climate change. You may also be interested in the F.A.Q.. Bendž|Ť 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

soryy i guess im retarded and didn't know what anthropogenic means. Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood

Intro Definition

First of all, I believe that global warming is being aided by human activity. However, I am concerned that the definition in the intro of the article is not correct, or misleading.

"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."

I call into question the "in recent decades" part of the definition. Since global warming has in the past occurred, and since the scope of this article isn't limited to recent decades, why is the definition itself limited? It is a definition to "Current Global Warming Trend" and not a good overview of Global Warming in general. DPK99 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)DPK99 7-5-07 4:39PM ET

We have discussed this before, although that discussion has vanished into the archives. The term "global warming" has become a standing phrase that is used overwhelmingly to describe the current episode of warming. Also see WP:COMMONNAME. --Stephan Schulz 21:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved for the debates, but I would have to disagree about the term global warming being used overwhelmingly to describe the current trend. Even if it were, I don't think that warrants the introduction on its wiki to only limit the term to the current trend. This only leads people to believe the wikipedia is ignoring global warming as part of a natural occurrance, and plays right into the hands of those who dispute the human activity is the current primary cause. 68.162.151.157 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)DPK99

Well, back then several people did Google counts both on the web as a whole, and on Scholar only. The result was not remotely close. We do have the section on terminology explaining various terms, though. --Stephan Schulz 06:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming / Solar Variation

I edited the solar variation area of the global warming page to account for more recent information, showing that solar variation is not a strong factor in the increased rates of global warming. The study shown in Nature at the end of 2006 pretty well put the issue to rest among climatologists.

DNA: why?

I took out:

Recent DNA tests from ice cores in Greenland suggests that the climate in Greenland was much warmer than previously thought. The research uncovered genetic traces of butterflies, moths, flies and beetles. The DNA dated between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago and may be the oldest yet recovered. Though due to uncertainties in interpreting the age estimates, scientists can not rule out the possibility that the newly found DNA dates to the last interglacial, 130,000 to 116,000 years ago.^[1]

on various grounds. Firstly it seems to be very new - its rather a good idea to let this stuff become clear over time. Secondly it has no clear scientific source. Thirdly, as written it omits the lack of DNA found further north, and gives the impression that all of greenland was forest covered (where did the plural on cores come from in the above?). And fourthly, I don't see why this is better than the d-o-18 and borehole thermometry from various greenland cores. It seems like excess detail William M. Connolley 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So I'm confused. Is this being used to say that Greenland was warmer? Or that it hasn't been this warm in 450,000 years? Or that it may have been this warm in the interglacial period? --Tbeatty 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's bona fide but has no place in an article about recent climate change. Vikings were not on the scene! It could go in the paleo- climate change article. Bendž|Ť 08:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[Potential battleground removed again - feel free to replace this with a more less inflammative version of the pertinent points--Stephan Schulz 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)]

The point, Dr. Schulz and Tbeatty, is that the paper found that during the last interglacial ~120 kyr ago there was not as much melting of the Greenland ice as originally thought by people who study climate, such as William M. Connolley. Second, it showed there were plentiful forest and animal life in at least the central to southern parts of Greenland some time between 450-800 kyr, which is also counter to what most people who study climate, such as William M. Connolley, thought (i.e. that it was warm enough for this type of biodiversity and life). It was published in Science, which is a real scientific source, counter to what William M. Connolley claims. One thing he did get right was that, out of the small amount of samples, no DNA was found in the northernmost parts of Greenland. It should thus be clear why William M. Connolley feels uneasy about such findings of fact. ~ UBeR 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your apparently psychic insight into another editors thoughts. --Kim D. Petersen 00:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you find a deviation of fact in any of the above? ~ UBeR 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, your mind-reading is wrong, as I've said before [8], as are your claims about my claims about sources. PErhaps more importantly, all this is a total waste of time as *nobody* seems to be suggesting it should go back into the article William M. Connolley 08:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not mind reading. It's a fact most people who study climate thought there was much less ice in Greenland during the Eemian than this study suggests. It's also a fact most people who study climate did not think that it was warm enough 450-800 kyr ago to support the biodiversity the research also suggests. ~ UBeR 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it do any good if anyone did suggest it go back it in? No, don't think so. Editor's can't even inlink the biggest televised mass media event in the history of mankind to "raise awareness" about global warming on an article about...erm, about global warming.

Uber, I don't think it is surprising that Southern Greenland was deglaciated and forested during some previous interglacial. The main surprise is the suggestion that it wasn't deglaciated during the last interglacial. Dragons flight 00:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy. And I agree, what the research finds is surprising. The implications that it has as it relates to the sea level rise during the Eemian are interesting, and suggests we ought to consider different sources for much of the rise in sea level, such as perhaps the Antarctic. Whether it has implications on today's warming and speculated sea level rise due to the instability of Greenland's ice, we'll see, but it's rather doubtful. ~ UBeR 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

what caused the warming? --Dean1970 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orbital forcing. ~ UBeR 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem so. --Dean1970 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, know what? Antarctica was once covered in forest. The middle of Australia once had huge swathes of tropical forest and swamps, and all I can say is so what? It really has nothing to do with the current debate. --Michael Johnson 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Earth's climate is not steady. And yes, it is not because of humans. --Dean1970 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that these past changes have occurred over thousands of years, from natural causes, while this change is taking place over a couple of generations, and is caused by human activity. --Michael Johnson 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Natural causes can be proved. Human activities cannot. (imho) Humans vs Solar system, no contest. --Dean1970 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Both can be "proved." ~ UBeR 14:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(imho) (my personal opinion), solar activity is the main driver of temp on Earth (in the past, and in the future) than humans. but each to their own. welcome back, UBeR! --Dean1970 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, science trumps personal opinion. And I won't be staying long. ~ UBeR 18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry to hear that --Dean1970 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I like having UBeR around too but Dean 1970 tell me about your personal opinion: is this religious, political, gut instinct or based on some data somewhere? Do you just not trust the scientists? Please explain I would love to believe something so comforting. --BozMo talk 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I place (imho) on talk pages as stating my opinion and not a fact. I may not AGREE with scientists, politicians, journalists or even people for that matter but they're entitled to their opinion. It shouldn't bother you too much to know this. p.s. sticking to the article, why is inlinking live earth so bothersome? I didn't see that you started a new thread on the matter as there was one already open, so no, I didn't ignore your comment, I was pressed for time yesterday. And inlinking it had nothing to do with google anchoring. --Dean1970 19:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I agree with you that UBeR leaving (or devoting less time to wikipedia) won't improve matters on this subject. I may not always agree with him and for all I know (and I don't) he believes that humans are responsible or partly responsible for global warming, but regardless, he is far more rational (than you or I and many others) when it comes to "both sides of an issue" being heard. --Dean1970 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS

So, there's been some back and forth regarding inclusion/ommision of the title, as well as some barbs back and forth regarding how it should be characterized. I've never seen the thing. i've never seen An Inconvenient Truth. There's fiction, non-fiction, and "documentaries" as far as i'm concerned, and it's not a bad place to start. Both TGGWS and AIT are both opinion pieces. "Fact" and "Truth" are better referred to as "Fast" and "Loose" when it comes to such things, since they are not held to any objective standard for presentation of reality. I'm put in mind of the intro title in the movie "Fargo": "THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.". The movie is, of course, a complete piece of fiction from first to last frame. But most viewers took the filmmakers at their word that they were being told "the truth".....Perhaps it would be best to simply leave both entries uncharacterized, so that the reader may come to their OWN conclusions, without the content being further editorialized? Anastrophe 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but these movies are not remotely comparable. AIT has been universally described as an excellent and fair description of the state of science on global warming, with only very minor problems. TGGWS has been repudiated even by one of the participants and has been criticised as crap by so many scientists that it's not even funny any more. --Stephan Schulz 00:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I get nervous when people say "universally described" over such a contentious issue as global warming especially whrn the protagonist is a politician. There are certainly aspects of climate change that are disputed and that's what creates movies like TGGWS. --Tbeatty 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no serious scientific dispute about the core issues of climate change at the level presented on AIT. See scientific opinion on climate change. Science being what it is, there will always be progress, which involves invalidating or refining previous hypotheses. But TGGWS has not brought up any valid scientific points but rather presented (or reiterated) completely bogus claims, most of which had been long refuted. Indeed, some points could not be refuted before TGGWS was shown, because they only "invented" the graphs for the movie...--Stephan Schulz 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen either film, but the refutations seem pretty weak from a scientific point of view. The problem that I see is that the argument presented by TGGWS appears to appeal to lay persons sense of proportion which may or may not be true. For example, CO2 emissions by man is compared to other sources including animals, decaying leaves, etc. It also shows data that says CO2 lags temperature. This does not rule out anthropogenic warming but it appeals to the public that has been overwhelmed with CO2 graphs. The refutation is that of all the CO2 sources that dwarf mans contributions, the scientists only refute volcano data (does that mean that decaying leaves exceed human CO2 production?). The other big problem were dates on a graph. That seems pretty lame. In the same article, the IPCC chief says that he also uses the lagging CO2/temperature graph in his classes. This seems to be science that is not presented to the public regularly as it would confuse the causal relationship of CO2 to GW. So on the one hand we have TGGWS appealing to lay people "common sense" and on the other we have a pretty lame refutation by the scientists TGGWS criticises. Neither scenario leaves me with a warm and fuzzy. Given the politics on both sides, it appears there is probably a middle ground. --Tbeatty 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS was full of junk. They lied to you about basic and obvious things like where the CO2 comes from and what the temperature record actually is. They also lied to you about harder to understand things which takes a bit more effort (on your part) to understand exactly how they were lying. You are using "pretty lame" as a substitute for "I couldn't be bothered to understand" William M. Connolley 08:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I read our article on it and the external articles provided. I gleaned the IPCC disputed volcano contributions of CO2 (but they didn't sdispute the other sources of CO2 mentioned). I gleaned they got the dates wrong on a graph and that solar activity may not correlate to rising temperatures passed 1987. Is there more? It doesn't appear to be in our article. A lot of "I don't like how it portrayed us" but the criticism is short on facts. I would be interested in hearing a more technical refutation but I haven't seen it. --Tbeatty 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think there is serious scientific dispute about global warming. The core issue you mentioned above that is presented to the public is that the planet is warming, CO2 is increasing, man has contributed to CO2 increases. I think the dispute, and it is real, valid and scientific, is the level to which anthropogenic causes influence global warming. The secondary dispute, related to the first, is the effect that global warming will have on the planet. I have recently read a report about the cloud cover models. Depending on the model, increased temperature increases water vaor which may or may not increase cloud cover. The models vary in whether this will contribute to more warming or less warming. The report I read is that IPCC only chose the increased warming models. I don't understand why and it hasn't been adequately explained to me why only the warming models would be chosen if scientists believe that there is range. --Tbeatty 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

all that said, i still contend that editorializing external links is silly. no reader is harmed by the inclusion of a link to the page for TGGWS, no more so than they are harmed by a link to AIT. the reader may come to their OWN conclusion after following the respective links.Anastrophe 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

External links are subject to policy guidelines as well. Weight comes to mind here. --Kim D. Petersen 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"no reader is harmed by the inclusion of a link to the page for TGGWS" - I dispute this assertion. TGGWS is propaganda intended to con people into thinking there is scientific dispute about the existence of global warming. We do readers of this article a disservice by linking to its article. It's quite possible an impressionable reader on this article might follow that link to the TGGWS article and believe that the claims made in the film have some truth to them, rather than being pure fiction. Raul654 01:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get that impression from our article. It appears that it raises questions about the influence man has on Global warming, not a refutation of global warming. Specifically, whether the contribution man has on Global Warming is as large as is being presented by the government. Considering that the IPCC even has a range of temperatures and a range of rising sea levels, it would seem this debate is going in scientific circles as they believe different factors have different influences. Also, it appears the lack of complete refutation and the admission by the IPCC chief that he shows the same lagging CO2 graph seems problematic. According to our article, the data, if not the conclusion, has support of a number of scientists. --Tbeatty 01:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people believe that 'man made global warming' is hyped up propaganda (different strokes for different folks) --Dean1970 03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about what people believe, but the science behind it. I'm more concerned that there are politics from both sides trying to gain the upperhand by claiming either it's political propaganda or it's completely settled science with no element with no differing scientific viewpoints. There are certainly elements of both and it should be covered using reliable sources and NPOV. --Tbeatty 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

which then argues for the exclusion of both TGGWS *and* AIT, because unless i'm mistaken, the title of the latter rather paints the matter as settled science, n'est ce pas? Anastrophe 03:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Anastrophe. We can't shelter people from TGGWS, as they'll come across it sooner or later, and all the better if it's from our article. But whether either are relevent to this article is another matter. There are already links to them on Global warming controversy. Bendž|Ť 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS is junk, and shouldn't be linked from here. AIT is not equiv to TGGW, and excluding one does not exclude the other. Whether AIT should be linked is another question William M. Connolley 08:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree TGGWS is complete trash. Entertaining but trash. --BozMo talk 09:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS though not perfect, is far more truthful than anything that the UN or Democrat politicians spout forth. ^ross ^nixon 11:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if that's your yardstick, it's pretty hard to best TGGWS in dishonesty. I'm using the scientific opinion, as described by the IPCC and confirmed by a large number of respected scientific organizations and independent literature evaluations as my yardstick, and TGGWS falls depressingly short. --Stephan Schulz 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DING! And with that comment, reality has left tbe building. Raul654 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS though not perfect, is far more truthful than anything that the UN or Democrat politicians spout forth. rossnixon

Ross, this is the Wikipedia of the real universe, not that of the Rightwingoverse :) Count Iblis 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So the gist of this conversation is: Everything that doesn't fully verify the global warming theory is junk? And everything that does (AIT) is suddenly "universally" accepted? [Incivility removed] The Person Who Is Strange 16:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the page, because that would show you that you are wrong William M. Connolley 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tidal forces

Suggested addition

Tidal forces contribute to ocean currents, which moderate global temperatures by transporting heat energy toward the poles. It has been suggested that harmonic beat variations in tidal forcing may contribute to variations in climate.[[9]]

Michael H 34 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Sorry, but this is an extremely obscure approach, and the authors themselves say that " It is difficult to suppose that this is of sufficient amplitude, and associated with sufficient climate perturbation, to account for the millennial vaiiability.", i.e. they think this effect is unlikely to contribute to global warming. I think listing this here at all is giving it undue weight. --Stephan Schulz 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also it has nothing to do with currents: its about vertical mixing William M. Connolley 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

City Development

What about the fact that in the past 50 years or so there has been a great increase in the development of cities. More glass, metal, and stone building have been put up and now cover much more space than previously before. These materials all absorb heat and as a result must attribute to an increase in temperature in locations around the world. If you look closely at the 1995-2004 Mean Temperatures picture in the article you can see that the majority of areas with 1-2 degree increases are in regions of great economic development (during the past 50-80 years) while the oceans and antarctica in general show little to no heating, and in some places cooling. Has this been taken into account?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.245.246.6 (talk • contribs).

I have to say that I see nothing like this in the figure. Neither inner Asia nor the Arctic have seen massive development. The oceans usually show less heating because of the massive thermal inertia of 5 miles of water. It takes a lot of time for them to reach equilibrium. --Stephan Schulz 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Those portions of the Ocean which are not so deep are warming faster. Heat can be transfered to and from the oceans by all the usual mechanisms but certainly currents like the Gulf Stream are a factor in its diffusion. I would also argue that places which even a few years ago remained in the same uninhabited form they had enjoyed throughout mankinds existence on the planet are now covered with buildings.

The surface area (4 PI r^2) for the earth is 197,398,547 square miles surface area of which 3/4 is ocean so the 1/4 that remains 49,349,637 square miles surface area is distributed among 6,000,000,000 people comes out to 5 1/4 acres each. In the United States most of us own less than that but since an Al Gore sized solar house consumes half an acre, by the time all of us become enlightened we may easily have 20% of the land mass of the planet covered with roads, warehouses, office buildings, housing, industry, fields, mines and things other than forests having negative effects on the climate.Rktect 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Although it could be argued that these "hot spots" over urban areas are attributed to increased manufacturing, you bring up a valid point. Buildings, parking lots; practically any artificial structure is going to collect and store more heat than, say, a field. I would think that this effect would have already been accounted for in the climate models, though. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See Urban heat island. Yes, this is a known and well-analysed effect. Its overall effect is marginal and already accounted for. It has nothing to do with the large-scale distribution of warming as seen in the image.--Stephan Schulz 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

it's being looked into [10] [11]--Dean1970 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That first blog is pretty funny. ~ UBeR 20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the two blogs and raise you three peer-reviewed papers:[12] (full paper here - it's 6 MB, though), [13], [14]. --Stephan Schulz 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It's a sad thing if those are being compiled to our temperature records. Hmm. The machine512 06:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Did you actually read any of the papers I linked to? --Stephan Schulz 08:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to pay for my subscription? I must not be an "expert" if I don't subscribe to Nature or AMS Online Journals. I guess your sources win because they're so good only the few can actually read them. The first one, which I can actually access makes quite a few statistical generalizations and unverified assumptions (e.g. "Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions."). Zoomwsu 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A picture speaks a thousand words. And theres quite a few of them. --Dean1970 09:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The plural of anecdote is not data - not even if the anecdote is illustrated.--Stephan Schulz 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Those "blogs" are actually documenting the data for individual climate monitoring stations with GPS, photos, measurements and other objects that may influence sensor readings. The studies you link to count the number of lights on at night and apply some arbitrary "urban" or "rural" formula. Those articles may be "peer reviewed", but any idiot can see what the quality research is. Zoomwsu 04:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All consensus information to be removed

If all the scientist in the world thought that man's contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had no relation to the greenhouse effect, that wouldn't make it true. This article should present the studies and the refutations. Not start out with a bunch of babble about who agrees with what conclusions and who doesn't. Karbinski 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Citation #1 is invalid, needs to be fixed. Not that a summary for policy makers of an unreleased report created by a political body deciding on matters of fact by commitee (regardless of member credentials) is worth much. Karbinski 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Science is [not!] decide by how many people believe in a particular theory, but it certainly says something about what is common knowledge. What Wikipedia is here to do is report what is being reported by reliable sources, and we're not here to judge or make truth values. Second, the SPM is in fact a summary of a report that is published. ~ UBeR 02:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Science is not decided by how many people believe in a particular theory (maybe the editor meant to type that?). To report what is being reported by reliable sources cannot be achieved without judgement. And the only standard by which to make such judgements is truth. For the purposes of reporting on science, we need to look for converging body of evidence (no implication that this isn't what editors have done, nor that all editors are good at it).

As for the report, its content is decided by comittee, which means that it is inherently unreliable as it is not a product of science but of politics. To cite the report's summary is only to stretch the unreliability even farther. At any rate, I see that the link has been fixed.Karbinski 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The greenhouse effect is well known and agreed upon; it is known that adding large quantities of carbon dioxide to the atomosphere will increase global temperature, and that global warming is man-made is the consensus of everyone knowledgable in the field. If you don't like that particular source, you're welcome to find another, but there's no reason to disregard that source. Titanium Dragon 01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

According to this policy I have not heard of before, one simply adds what one wants using a poor source, and then the onus is put on others to find a better source. Correction: The onus is on the contributing editor to improve the article and its veracity, not inject their own premises and demand others find supporting material. It is disingenuous to state or imply there is a massive consensus and that everything claimed is well known and simultaneously be unwilling to link our users up with any supporting evidence. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Karbinski 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit was reverted without discussion or comment. Where the IPCC gets its science = needed citation. The SPM is unreliable as it is authored by committee and it does not source any studies (If it does and I simply couldn't find any --> problem solved --> import the reference).Karbinski 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as vandalism and will do so again. It is simple blanking vandalism: you have removed well sourced text (the IPCC is well established as a RS). Please don't repeat it William M. Connolley 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism? well established as a RS? Its a summary document, not even a source. Please don't repeat your revert. Your original action (revert) smacks of disregard for wikipedia community in favor of arrogance. For example, you didn't even comment that you thought it was vandalism implying due to *your* personal ownership over the article your actions need not be, I'd say justified, but not even communicated to the rest of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karbinski (talk • contribs)

IPCC is an RS; your edit was blanking vandalism; this isn't even a content dispute; please try to be serious William M. Connolley 22:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the serious points I made were addressed. Simple sweeping swipes coupled with auto-revert was the method employed (including Mr. Connolley's most recent, politely delivered, argument from intimidation above - serious). It really is quite simple, the IPCC SPM is a dead end reference. However, if the SPM has any veracity, there should be a bounty of science behind its content. My point is the article is weak for resting on the SPM and not the underlying science. Due to a kind of mobbing I won't be able to pursue this improvement except by digging up the hard science references myself. If the SPM helped in finding that information it *would* be a good source. It does not help, and *is* unreliable. Karbinski 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The SPM is a convenient overview. Everything in it is sourced from the coresponding chapters, which are also available. It provides refs into the chapters - for example, figure SPM 1 directs you to chapter 6 figure 4, where you'll find the detailed sources William M. Connolley 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

All unscientific claims to be removed

"An increase in global temperatures may in turn cause other changes, including sea level rise, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation resulting in floods and drought." Does anyone actually look at the citations? This fabirication (unless verifiable) is supported by a news story about changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation resulting in floods and drought in a specific local at a specific point in time. Perhaps I could link to a news story about any arbitrary concrete event, claim that global warming "may" cause such events, and put the claim somewhere in the first four paragraphs of the article, undisputed. I think it would be better to remove those claims with no verifiable scientific support.Karbinski 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The only error in this case is the "may"; the sentence should say that an increase in global temperature will cause an increase in sea level rise and changes in precipitation. In this case it's basic physics (e.g., thermal expansion of sea water, and the exponential increase of saturation vapor pressure with temperature). Exactly how big the sea level rise will be and where precipitation changes will occur is less certain, but they will occur. Raymond Arritt 13:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research is not considered valid verification. Since the above claim is unverifiable as of yet, it will have to be removed (as it should never have been accepted). If some reliable sources that detail how an increase in global termperature will cause these effects they should be used. Until then, such poorly presented claims should not be presented at all to maintain NPOV. Karbinski 23:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the wiki rules only non-trivial statements need to be sourced. We don't need to refer to primary school physics textbooks all the time. Count Iblis 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim is not trivial even if qualified with "all things being equal." To say it is trivial is to imply a gross over-simplification of climate. Although Count Iblis' correct observation is appreciated, this particular claim must be supported or axed. The existing source is so improper I am going to go ahead and edit it out. Karbinski 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a valid criticism. The operative words are drought and flood. There is no indication that "thermal expansion" of the oceans will do anything of the kind. Heating also increases evaporation so as long as we're guessing about "primary school physics" we might as well postulate that the increased temperature will increase evaporation and rainfall just as it does on the equator. If you would like to to your own experiment, fill a large pot of water and increase the temperature by 5 degrees. Measure before and after depth. Or better yet, go to beach in February and July, measure the water temperature both times. Then look for flooding. That thermal epansion thing isn't really that big a deal and it seems to be trivial everyday knowledge that proves it such as the variable seasonal water temperature that far exceeds even the direst change in global temperature. --Tbeatty 06:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quit trolling. If you have a problem with the source, find another one; these consequencies are EXTREMELY well known and are in numerous sources. Sea level rise is a major issue, and is one of the early dangers of global warming. It has been well known for a long time. Beyond the thermal expansion of sea water, there's the major issue of the land ice on Antarctica and Greenland melting and raising the sea levels significantly. If you don't know that, then you probably shouldn't be editing this article. This isn't a fabrication; this is well known. Titanium Dragon 01:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when is scrutiny trolling? Popular notion isn't fact, lets get some scientific sources and weed out the speculation. The machine512 05:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sea level is a big issue. Projections however are all over the map. From zero to 22 inches. --Tbeatty 06:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the paragraph. Karbinski 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sea level is a big issue but the reason projections are all over the map is that it will vary all over the map. Sea Level will be affected by subsidence, by water temperature and the relative coeficient of expansion. In the northern hemisphere the temperatures of air and water are projected to be higher because of that being the source of most of the emmisions causing the temperature to rise. many projections assume mitigation. Mitigation as presently proposed is minimal due to the cost. IPCC projections of costs are tied to when we start and what target we choose. Maintaining a level of carbon concentration we can live with is going to be difficult if we continue to use automobiles whose Cafe standards allow SUV's to be rated as within the average of the manufacturers fleet. Its also clear that the modeling which has been linear based on the past, will be different than the exponential modeling based on future projections. As it is observed that the rate of increase is increasing at an increasing rate we will see projections of a few inches in a century become projections of a few meters in fifty years and then the models based on the synergistic changes of other system variables will become a realiztion that there is a break point when the jig is up and the game is lost. An increase of a meter along with increased storm activity, storms surges breaching barrier islands and flooding will make many coastal regions and urban areas uninhabitable.Rktect 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And Bob's your uncle! Anastrophe 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree that the modeling is showing global warming is

increasing exponentialy?Rktect 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but that graph sort of reminds me of the ACT question about the kid who thought his growth would continue in a similar pattern and he would be 20 feet tall by age 50. If the scenario presented in the models is truly the case, then why (since C02 has been at much higher levels in the past than it is at present) would this "exponential warming" have ever stopped in the past? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The warming isn't exponential. The observed warming is close to linear in agreement with theory. Roughly, the temperature responds as the log of CO2 concentration; roughly, CO2 is increasing exponentially; put them together and the log of an exponential gives you -- bingo -- a linear trend. Raymond Arritt 02:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The warming/cooling has remained within the same range for millions of years. Right now except for the global warming, we would be going into a cooling phase so the warming is countering that plus rising above the normal range for warming by about 6 degrees C. Rktect 00:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate link

I don't often go past 1RR but I have just reverted the Live Earth link out for a second time (third in fact). Linking to an example under an anchor text is inappropriate and too spammy. The only reason I can think of which may be behind this is to try to get the WP page on Live Earth to win the google search for the anchor term: as such it is way out of order. This comment on an edit summary was ignored. --BozMo talk 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was just trying to inlink the largest televised event (to raise awareness about GW, in case you didn't know) in the history of mankind to the sentence in the section that goes along the lines of "groups and entertainers (I prefer corporate media) who are raising awareness about the risks blablahblah".

From there the reader can learn more about Global Warming and follow the examples of the 'entertainers' and maybe even take the 7-point pledge or whatever to save the world, or control the weather for the next hundred years or whatever.

Nothing to do with google. --Dean1970 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

References

The References section is all jacked up. Just bringing it to general attention, I'm not sure how to fix it. BURNyA 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Trend in temperature fluctuations?

The weather is supposed to become more extreme due to climate change. Suppose we fix some time scale $\tau$ and define averages as $<X(t)>={\frac {1}{\tau }}\int _{t-\tau }^{t}X(t')dt'$ . Then define the squared temperature fluctuation (at some fixed location) as $<T^{2}>-<T>^{2}$ and average this over the weather stations and satellite data etc. Does this quantity show an increasing trend? Count Iblis 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Will people stop reverting my CORRECT correction!!!????

I keep changing the first sentence to read, "Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans." which is the correct way it should be. Not "the increase... in recent decades and its projected continuation". This is a very serious difference, as one is a scientific definition, and the other, regardless of whether it is true or not, IS NOT a definition. "In recent decades" has no relevance to what global warming means, as GW is a phenomenon that has happened before in history (e.g. when Earth emerged from the Ice Ages and Little Ice Age), regardless of whether there's a scientific concensus that people are causing it this time. Will people stop reverting it without reason or debate on the subject? Thank you.Nufacion 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you had checked the Talk page first.... See the last discussion here (just 7 days ago). This article is about the current warming - Climate change is about the warming/climate change in general. --Kim D. Petersen 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See this thread. Arjuna 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be a correct definition William but its misleading if you don't point out that by taking an average, some places, such as the northern hemisphere and the artic, that are much hotter than average or normal may suffer greater effects making the IPCC report actually rather conservative.

Also its wrong to limit a discussion of global warming to the current warming or past warming or climate change as its the projections or models of future warming that have the most importent consequences for mankind.Rktect 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Solar contribution conclusively refuted

Is is possible to finally get rid of the solar contribution section in this article in light of the study refererenced in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm ? U236

No. Even if the effect of solar variation on Earth's temperature is less than that of CO2, the effect is far from negligable. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Forsters says :"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," and Lockwood concludes that: "This should settle the debate,". Sounds pretty definitive and they did the leg work to back it up. Your "far from negligeble" claim is now offside. So respectfully much more is required than a "no"

I'd like to have this ripple through the zillions of global warming pages that refer quizzicaly to the solar variability boogeymand and the cosmic ray canard.

Can we have consensus that there is no more ambiguity on these two specific issues anymore?

U236 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See here. William Connolley has already included the source that you are referencing in the article. I should think that the refutation he provided would be adequate, rather than deleting the entire section. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this will do for now. I'm sure William is already busy propagating these findings where appropriate. U236 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that something with a bit more rigor than a blurb on BBC news would be necessary. The article is actually pretty thin on specifics, for example there's not a single mention of what they derived their measurements from. The only accurate - that is, not affected by global weather itself - means of measuring solar output would necessarily be from instrumentation in solar orbit. Yet i'm pretty sure such instrumentation has only been available for a few decades. Another issue, unaddressed, is the observed global warming on Mars....But let me put it this way: Recently there was some discussion about a study that had shown that China had surpassed the US in GHG emissions. Inclusion of this was fought vigorously, because the results were 'too new' and since wikipedia "isn't a news service" there was no urgency in adding it. Seems we have a double-standard here - this article is all of two days old. Anastrophe 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

i see per the above note that the actual paper is available. i presume it covers the specifics regarding instrumentation. is still question why this paper isn't "too new" for inclusion...Anastrophe 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Had it said something surprising - i'd agree with you (about it being too new). But this paper merely confirms (and expands) what we've already heard from Foukal, Solanki, West and so on. Never mind the hype of the paper on BBC :-) --Kim D. Petersen 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

the same criterion for china surpassing the US in GHG emissions applies. it is not particularly surprising, and has long been predicted. I still fail to see the difference. The only people who would be surprised that China has surpassed us would be those who are a) unaware that china is aggressively industrializing at an unparalleled pace, b) unaware that china is exempt from kyoto, and c) believe the US, as an evil empire, must inherently always be the biggest producer of (xyz) bad thing in the world. IMNSFHO, of course! Anastrophe 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Two different issues - but lets take the other one (again). The China surpassing US was a preliminary projection based on incomplete data (not as in this case - actually peer-reviewed and based on real data) - and to say that "China is the largest emitter..." would be incorrect - as this is not factual. To say that "China's CO2 emissions are expected to exceed those of the U.S. within the next few years (and according to one report may have already done so[71])." is correct and factual - and was eventually decided. It was btw. a bit surprising that it might have happened in 2006 - the projections were that it would happen between 2008-2010 (iirc). The real surprise in the study is that the US apparently has reduced emissions in 2006. --Kim D. Petersen 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The data on which the claim is made is widely used and reliable data. I really don't think this is a surprise to anyone, except for the people Anastrophe listed above (I would add the Chinese as well, as I think they're just in a state of denial). ~ UBeR 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is one paper, and should not be included until there is more consensus. I have seen many times references removed from this article for papers (even peer reviewed ones) that cast some doubt on an aspect of global warming because it is the only paper etc. Same standard needs to apply here.Lucid-dream 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, William M. Connolley is quick to jump on recently published papers if they fit his agenda, but adamantly opposes them if they challenge his idea of reality. Not much we can do about it, however. ~ UBeR 02:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Global Warming has been going on for longer than the 20 to 40 years mentioned. I suspect it's a range because it can't be eliminated. Secondly, solar effects are widely believed responsible for the medieval warming period. Also, the article confirmed cosmic ray effects on cloud formation and since cloud formation is probably the biggest unknown in global warming models, it seems a little premature to remove it. I would like to understand why the "Clean maritime air" theory of cosmic ray cloud formation proposed by the author is no longer valid considering that the earth is 70% covered by oceans. --Tbeatty 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Um...because we have no "clear maritime air" anymore? Cloud condensation requires only extremely minute amounts of aerosols, and we are blowing so much of them into the air that the effect of radition (if any) is negligible. --Stephan Schulz 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case, we would have seen cooling similiar to the sulfate induced cooling seen previously. --Tbeatty 06:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact that sulphates are neither the only aerosols we emit nor the only ones that serve as condensation nuclei, and that different kinds of aerosols have different effect on the climate, we do. Aerosol contribution is estimated to be -0.5 K without cloud effects, and -0.7K through cloud effects (with rather large error bars). But sulphate aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime, while CO2 has a long one. Hence sulphate concentration is roughly proportional to current emission (the growths of which has been reduced by anti-acid-rain legislation and other environmental laws in the West, and the near-total collapse of industry in the Soviet block), while CO2 accumulates over time. CO2 alone is now estimated to contribute +1.66K, and the other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are on top of that. See Fig SPM-2 in the SPM. This (a bit older) image shows the development of various forcings over time. --Stephan Schulz 07:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the cloud formation itself is part of the cooling process. So if cosmic ray induced cloud cover is replaced by particulate induced cloud cover, the net effect is similiar and the reduction of "clear maritime air" in this context is semantic. About the graph: Isn't it inconsistent with the arguments now being made? For example, it says the solar forcing is 0.2C. and volcanic is -0.15C. This seems to contradict what was stated earlier to refute TGGWS 1) that solar variation is negligible and 2) volcanic contribution is negligible. --Tbeatty 07:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Either your understanding or your recall is incomplete. Volcanic CO2 emissions are negligible compared to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Volcanic aerosol emissions are not. Aerosols from a single eruption have a (rather short-term) cooling effect. So periods with high volcanic activity are somewhat cooler. The IPCC table lists forcings compared to pre-industrial times (1750, IIRC). There is a strong possibility that some of the warming in the fist half of the 20th century is solar, but consensus seems to be that for the more recent warming that effect is indeed negligible. --Stephan Schulz 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I thought the the claim was that Volcano's didn't contribute to warming. But it's clear that volcanic contributions do contribute to global warming. Or rather, there is a forcing function related to sulfates and aerosols that have a historic average and reduction of that from the mean may contribute to warming. --Tbeatty 07:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your understanding of basic math. Now look at this graph again, and you will see that the effect is very sporadic, that it is not very large, and that it is responsible for short term variability (in technical terms, "it makes the line all wiggly"), but does not significantly ~~effect~~affect the longer-term trend. And it has been slightly negative since about 1960, right through the period of significantly increased warming. In other words, it currently contributes to warming like a weight belt contributes to buoyancy. --Stephan Schulz 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you've mastered the ad hominem before you have mastered the use of "affect" vs. "effect". That aside, the mean of volcanic contributions are not determined over a century. What is interesting from the graph, though, is the significant warming from 1910 to 1950 without a significant change in the forcing functions. --Tbeatty 07:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my English. You might want to work on your Latin, though. The warming you are talking about is adequately explained by the individual forcings - solar and ghg are up, and the volcanic aerosol contribution is recovering from the effect of three large tropical eruptions in 1902. --Stephan Schulz 07:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the text and the graph say that very little of the 1910 to 1940 warming is GHG. Solar is the main component that is different. Also, the solar contribution was higher in 1994 than it was at the 1940 peak. --Tbeatty 16:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

UV light itself can cause clouds to form - no aerosol required Q Science 19:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot added

I added MiszaBot to this talk page. This bot will automatically archive any topic over 30 days old from now on. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And here I thought this could be the first talk page to reach 1MB of fresh material.-Wafulz 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Is everyone ok with that here? Occasionally, these discussions do seem to remain relevant even after 30 days. --Steve, Sm8900 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We can always reconfigure it if there are complaints. But I was noticing that there are conversations at the top of the page that nobody had contributed to since the middle of May, and the page takes long enough to load as it is. I ran the idea of botting this page past a couple of admins, and they supported it. If it causes any problems, though, we can just change the settings so it does it bimonthly instead of monthly. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Expected and Attributed Effects

The first paragraph in this section requires either heavy revision or outright deletion. It basically rehashes the points made in the rest of the section. The content is as follows:

Though it is difficult to connect specific weather events to global warming, an increase in global temperatures may in turn cause other changes, including glacial retreat and worldwide sea level rise. Changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation may result in flooding and drought. There may also be changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Other effects may include changes in agricultural yields, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the range of disease vectors.

This was originally placed as a separate section called "Other Effects" immediately following the introduction to the article, but does not introduce any new material or cite any sources. I merged it into the section it is in now because it had no reason to be where it was, but due to the above rationale, if it cannot be incorporated into the rest of the section then I move to delete the paragraph entirely. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been some discussion about this before. The references are in the linked-to "see main" article. People are of mixed minds wether they should be replicated here - so far no one has bothered or succeeded. Removal certainly would be very premature, given that the sources are one click away. --Stephan Schulz 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that, and I do not suggest the removal of the section by any means. I just don't see the need to have a paragraph that summarizes the section, followed by three more paragraphs that tell the exact same thing in a less-condensed manner. Either one or the other, but not both. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"although temperate regions are projected to experience some minor benefits, such as fewer deaths due to cold exposure.[48]" This line made me chuckle. This section suggests that the long term effects of the current trend in global warming will be overwhelmingly negative. This section does not feel neutral.--12.206.104.132 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

global warming faster than average in the northern hemisphere

T is increasing at a faster than average rate in the northern hemisphere not just because of CO2 emmissions but for all the reasons given in the article including methane releases in Siberia. Rktect 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

wrong/misleading; as I say: discuss on t:GW not here William M. Connolley 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the IPCC, Overpeck and Weiss and others its a fact. It makes sense because the oceans and atmosphere don't immediately distribute the same temperatures world wide. Some places have higher concentrations of emmissions and thus are warmer. The northern hemisphere is one of those places. It sounds like you are thinking of this in terms of water seeking its own level. I put up some references and graphic presentations in the part of the article which was discussing this. Please give me some references for why you think the global average temperature is experienced everywhere, rather than varying by region.Rktect 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation here only muddies the waters further. As best I can tell, you seem to think that warming should be greatest near the places with large greenhouse gas emissions (I think that's what you mean by "ommissions"). This is completely wrong for long-lived greenhouse gases and mostly wrong for short-lived greenhouse gases. Sulfate cooling effects are indeed greatest at locations near and downstream from the source but again those are cooling effects. Yes, warming is greatest in the Northern Hemisphere, but that's mainly because land warms faster than water and the NH is where most of the land is -- nothing to do with emissions. Raymond Arritt 02:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

RA is correct William M. Connolley 08:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The unanticipated release of stored in the tundra methane is new information taken directly from the IPCC. They know that concentrations of greenhouse gases are greater in the northern hemisphere for a variety of reasons, this included. The graphics in their latest report show this in a much clearer manner than the presentations from earlier reports you have on the page. Essentially this page turns the clock back to what was known in the mid nineties. You are not addressing the point that as the IPCC graphics make clear methane is being released from Siberia, due to melting of the tundra, synergistic effects like changes to the surface albedo are affecting the reflectence of the heat back out of the atmosphere vs its absorbtion.

The grand-daddy of subsurface sealed ice layers is a very large structure in Siberia called the ice complex [Hubberten and Romanovskii, 2001]. The most important means of eroding the ice complex is laterally, by a melt-erosion process called thermokarst erosion [Gavrilov et al., 2003]. The ice layer is exposed to the warming waters of the ocean. As the ice melts, the land collapses, exposing more ice. The northern coast of Siberia has been eroding for thousands of years, but rates are accelerating. Entire islands have disappeared in historical time [Romankevich, 1984]. Concentrations of dissolved methane on the Siberian shelf reached 25 times higher than atmospheric saturation, indicating escape of methane from coastal erosion into the atmosphere [Shakhova et al., 2005]. Total amounts of methane hydrate in permafrost soils are very poorly known, with estimates ranging from 7.5 to 400 Gton C (estimates compiled by [Gornitz and Fung, 1994]).

Rktect 10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding vast quantities of text here and address RA's point: do you think that warming is greatest in the NH because GHG concs are largest there? This is what your text added to the GW page appears to imply, and its wrong. There are (many) other problems with your text but it seems best to sort this out first William M. Connolley 11:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets stop editing and discuss here. tell me why the IPCC is wrong about methane making the northern hemisphere warmer than average why its updated graphics shouldn't be included in the article and why the research from 2005 shouldn't take priority over the research from 1994.Rktect 12:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question, do you even understand it? Why is the NH warming faster? Because it has more land than the SH. Are GHG concs substantially larger in the NH than SH? No William M. Connolley 12:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can you reference where in the latest IPCC report it says that is the exclusive reason? What I have been reading suggests that methane releases from seabeds may exceed land releases. Methane may have much worse effects than for example CO2, but its the human activities in the northern hemisphere that are the primary catylst for the release of the Co2 whose effective warming of the northern hemisphere is releasing the the methane. As a second point the IPCC says that its releases from urban industrialized land rather than merely land which is causing the problem. Its human activity compounded by synergistic affects from nature as a response to human activity.Rktect 12:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question. Let me repeat it: do you think that warming is greatest in the NH because GHG concs are largest there? William M. Connolley 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Now answer my question and tell me why the IPCC is wrong about methane making the northern hemisphere warmer than average why its updated graphics shouldn't be included in the article and why the research from 2005 shouldn't take priority over the research from 1994Rktect 13:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you don't understand the science, which makes the remaining points moot. Please also tell us where the IPCC says methane makes the NH warmer than the SH. Raymond Arritt 13:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

IPCC projections for GGH show CO2 concentrations could reach 1000 ppmv by 2100 they reach the point where holding it to linear increase is no longer possible by 2030. Methane concentrations 25 times worse than CO2 concentrations are now at 2000 ppb and will reach 3750 by 2100 based on the 1994 data and thats increased dramatically by the 2005 data. No2 concentrations will be at 450 by 2100

Here is where the methane is discussed in summary... IPCC projections for GGH show CO2 concentrations could reach 1000 ppmv by 2100 they reach the point where holding it to linear increase is no longer possible by 2030. Methane concentrations 25 times worse than CO2 concentrations are now at 2000 ppb and will reach 3750 by 2100 based on the 1994 data and thats increased dramatically by the 2005 data. No2 concentrations will be at 450 by 2100

1. Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase Increases in greenhouse gas concentrations since preindustrial times (i.e., since about 1750) have led to a positive radiative forcing2 of climate, tending to warm the surface and to produce other changes of climate. There is evidence that tropospheric ozone concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere have increased since preindustrial times because of human activity and that this has resulted in a positive radiative forcing. This forcing is not yet well characterized, but it is estimated to be about 0.4 Wm2 (15% of that from the longlived greenhouse gases).

If carbon dioxide emissions were maintained at near current (1994) levels, they would lead to a nearly constant rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations for at least two centuries, reaching about 500 ppmv (approaching twice the preindustrial lets compromise these are ecerts from the excert Rktect 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[cut spam - WMC] Rktect 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No - we didn't ask where methane is discussed, we asked where the IPCC says methane makes the NH warmer than the SH. Please provide evidence of that, not an indiscriminate dump of IPCC William M. Connolley 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - I'm replying to Rktect as well) So, you have found nothing that attributes differential warming of the north and south hemispheres to methane or differences in methane concentration. Methane has a medium atmospheric lifetime, enough than it is usually well-mixed in the atmosphere. The uneven warming of the hemispheres is adequately explained by the thermal inertia of the larger southern oceans, and, as far as I'm aware, that is the standard explanation. Nothing in the document you quoted suggests something else. --Stephan Schulz 15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also got a lot to do with things like positive feedbacks from reduced snow cover, vegetation stress (which increases the Bowen ratio), etc. but again nothing to do with regional differences in concentrations of GHG. Raymond Arritt 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the IPCC presentations I put up? Its rather dramatic, more so than the older versions.

Northen hemisphere warmerthan average. The IPCC says methane is 25 times as potent as CO2 in its effect as a greenhouse gas in causing warming. The 1994 data of the latest IPCC report doesn't demonstrate this as well as the 2005 data because the effects of the soviet tundra melting was something that really had not yet been studied then. If you agree that the Northern Hemisphere is hotter than average, thats good, others apparently don't. That skews all the articles projections as they are designed to report a global average but ignore the much more dramatically severe effects on the northern hemisphere.

we are looking at dramatic temperature rise 2 degrees C by 2040 which melts the icecaps and 6 degrees C by 2100

The fact that most of the research reported was done in the mid 1990's also skews the results relative to what is being reported now. Even with that resulting in an overly conservative article its still a fact that the costs to mediate this by the end of the century are projected by the IPCC to run into the guadrillions by the end of the century, most of which cost will be expected to be paid by the modern industrial nations who caused it.

warming trends as of 2000

some IPCC models show temperature rising by up to ten times IPCC projected averages

exponential nature of the increase

Northern Hemisphere sea level rise is related to above normal temperature

change in methane abundance shown here is up to 200 times less than 2005 projections

the costs of mediation Rktect 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

None of this supports attributing increased NH warming to ***emissions in those regions*** rather that thermal inertia. How many people does it take to revert or comment adversely to give you a clue that the majority are against what you have been adding? Your first sentence is misleading and why add things before Terminology? crandles 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is simply that warming in the Northern hemisphere is above average. Its cause is human activity which causes emmissions and other things. If you take the emissions caused by humans out of the picture you wouldn't have Global Warming. That is what the IPCC spokesmen and reports have said and that is what their data support. All the data and graphics come from the IPCC report which is a consensus document of the worlds scientists studying global warming. Citing the IPCC is neither OR nor SYN. Most of the reverts have been by one user with whom I have been discussing this here on the talk page. The reason for putting it before terminology is that it should be a part of the definition of global warming (its not uniform or average so defining it as average is misleading) I'm compromising to make a minimal change to clear that up. I'll take a look at the first sentence before putting it back and see if I can figure out what your issue is.Rktect 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To be precise: The primary cause of global warming is the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. But the primary cause of the imbalance in temperature increase is the natural geography of the Earth, and man-made effects are only marginal. --Stephan Schulz 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this conceivably of enough interest to include in a main article? Only because of erroneous argument on cause: so we don't want it in. --BozMo talk 17:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The primary cause of global warming is human activity, and its synergystic effects. The effects are neither global nor uniform. In regions where the imbalance is caused by human activity we can do nothing and the problem will correct itself.Rktect 12:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes in the atmosphere

Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all long-lived greenhouse gases.
"Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values." The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb). The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use, but land-use changes also make a contribution. The primary source of the increase in methane is very likely to be a combination of human agricultural activities and fossil fuel use. How much each contributes is not well determined. Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial value of 270 ppb to a 2005 value of 319 ppb. More than a third of this rise is due to human activity, primarily agriculture.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rktect (talk • contribs).

Please let us discuss this further. I think we all agree on the following points:

Various greenhouse gases have increased due to anthropogenic activity.
This leads to a positive forcing, i.e. the atmosphere warms.
Methane is a greenhouse gas and has (over a 100 year time span) a global warming potential that is about 25 times greater than CO2, i.e. a given amount of methane contributes about 25 times more to warming than an equal mass of CO2.
Methane contributes significantly to global warming. However, there is much less methane in the atmosphere than CO2, so CO2 still is the dominant GHG forcing.

I don't know if you are aware of/agree with the following facts:

CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime (centuries to millenia). It is chemically mostly stable. It is well-mixed in the troposphere, i.e. local differences are not very significant and mostly temporary.
Methane has a shorter atmospheric lifetime (about 12 years) and decomposes into water and CO2. This time frame is still sufficient that it is well-mixed in the atmosphere.
Ozone in the troposphere has a very short lifetime (about 22 days). It is not well-mixed, but mostly concentrated where it is created - primarily by the interaction of sunlight with anthropogenic pollutants, in particular hydrocarbons and NOX as produced by most combustion engines. Since these pollutants are primarily produced in industrialized countries, tropospheric ozone concentrations are higher over the northern hemisphere. Tropospheric ozone contributes a small positive forcing (but then aerosol emissions are also concentrated in the northern hemisphere, and are the most significant negative forcing).--Stephan Schulz 12:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For millions of years, Methane levels were around 750 ppb. Now they are knocking on 2000 ppb because of the greater than average warming in the northern hemisphere melting the permafrost in Siberia. This is an example of synergy not WPOR|SYN. It doesn't matter how long methane or other emmissions remain in the atmosphere if their levels are maintained by human activity during a period when other long lived GHG's like CO2 are pushing us over the edge. The sources of methane had been thought to be primarily due to increases in domesticated flora and fauna in order to feed a starving third world. Now its being realizd that melting permafrost is responsible for a large amount of the increase. The amounts of methane and nitous oxide are increasing at an increasing rateRktect 17:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are still wrong. Firstly, methane varies during the glacial/interglacial cycles. It is however true that during the holocene methane was quite constant. Now methane levels have gone up, but the reason (as you yourself quoted above) is The primary source of the increase in methane is very likely to be a combination of human agricultural activities and fossil fuel use *not* permafrost melting. William M. Connolley 18:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at your contribution:

The IPCC defines Global Warming as... the page already has a definition of GW, we don't need a repeat. And in fact the IPCC *doesn't* define GW [15], it doesn't really use that term
but some regions of the Earth have an above average increase... true, but fairly obvious. However the article could possibly do with a discussion of regional T variations
The IPCC attributes Global Warming to human activities... this is a less nuanced (and therefore incorrect) restatement of a part of the page intro
and at the poles, is increasing I've already pointed out to you that this is false; the SP temperature isn't really increasing
...at an increasing rate and I doubt this too.

You simply cannot stuff inaccurate unsourced stuff like this into a mature article and hope to have it remain William M. Connolley 18:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition of Global Warming as an increase in average global temperature misses the point that where it is above average the warming is occuring at a faster rate and having synergistic effects which will have to eventually be included in the modeling.

Average is average so some areas will show above average and some less than average - wow big deal. crandles 13:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Where human activities are out of balance with the rest of the planet the synergistic effects these activities are having goes beyond just burning fossil fuels. Overfishing the oceans combined with polluting them is projected to have terminated most of the life in them before 2050. Like the northern hemisphere it deserves its own section. The oceans generate a large part of the oxygen that makes it possible for human activity to continue, so depending on how you you look at it that could be either very good or very bad.

Where you say the SP temperature isn't increasing how do you account for the observed melting of the ice at the poles. If you google earth Greenland you can see for yourself the difference in satellite photos over the last six years.

like you can see it in [16] crandles 13:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That increase of 1 degree over 30 years in Antartica compares to 3 degrees in 40 years in Siberia Rktect 14:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The ice in the artic and antartic Rktect 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Methane concentrations are increasing due to increases in agriculture to feed increases in people and emmissions from melting permafrost and seabed emmissions. The first was expected, the last couple a bit of a suprise. Recent studies show concentrations have gone from a stable average of about 700 ppb to knocking on the door of 2000 ppb. Methane is 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as co2 so rapid increases in its concentrations might be considered alarming.

methan concentrations by latitude

methane sources EPA c 2001

methane siberia concerns c 2006

An estimated 500 gigatons of carbon have been flash frozen in yedoma regions, and 900 tons in permafrost worldwide. This large store would more than double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere today if it is released.

tipping point ..... It is feared that Siberia's thawing lake region, which comprises 90 percent of the Russian permafrost zone, will release methane into the atmosphere at a rate that will overwhelm human actions to curtail carbon dioxide emissions.

As the permafrost thaws as a result of global warming caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, large quantities of methane are released. When methane gets out it causes more warming in a vicious cycle, and the release of even more methane, and so it goes on. Scientists refer to this as a positive feedback loop.

Chris Field, director of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, says "that's the thing that is scary about this whole thing. There are lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off."

Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University describes permafrost melting as an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible". He says the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt in the last three or four years.

Larry Smith of the University of California Los Angeles, has estimated that the western Siberian bog alone contains 70 billion tonnes of methane, which is 25 percent of all methane stored on the land surface worldwide.

Siberia has warmed faster than anywhere else on Earth - average temperatures have increased 3°C in the last 40 years.

Rktect 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And you prefer to accept what is being said by an environmental organisation whose business is to whip up concern rather than the scientists who are trying to study the situation impartially? If you prefer to believe them that is your choice but for a NPOV wikipedia article your views are going to be downweighted because it appears you are choosing to believe what supports your already formed opinions rather than viewing things critically. crandles 13:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC is not

an environmental organisation whose business is to whip up concern

but rather an organization of scientists developing an International protocal on Climate change. From time to time some its contributing authors publish updates in various science journals. I cited the IPCC, Wikipedia, the EPA and Terranature all of whom represent an emerging consensus in the period 2001-2006 on a new threat. The IPCC data is the oldest dating to the mid nineties.Rktect 14:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I thought all those quotes under Terranature were all coming from Terranature. I fully agree that IPCC is an appropriate reliable source. Nevertheless IPCC reports are long and easy to quote-mine. Ensuring that you are not giving a misleading impression by taking things out of context is not easy. Sorry but I think you have demonstrated that well. crandles 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The quotes under terranature were from terranature, the other sources were cited immediately above that without quotes.Rktect 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentence

~~The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750.~~

~~Can we have the specific level of atmospheric concentration? Also, the sentence is lacking a citation. RedRabbit1983 14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Sorry. I should have read a little further. RedRabbit1983 14:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an opinion, not vandalism, please don't delete.

Everyone "knew" in the 1970s that the planet was fast on its way to an ice age. Now everyone "knows" that the planet is fast on its way to being like Venus. Just something to think about. And, yes, I stole that quote, I forgot the name of the user.

Wrong on all three counts (everyone didn't think the planet was fast on its way to an ice age; no one thinks the planet is "fast on its way to being like Venus"; and it isn't worth thinking about). Raymond Arritt 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

1870s maybe? When the Thames was freezing over. --BozMo talk 07:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. How can I make a change to this article. Thanks. Anthony R. Hansen User:Anthony R. Hansen

Same way you edited this page. Hit the edit tag and start. --Michael Johnson 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, you appear to be a new user. This page is protected from editing by users who have been registered for less than 4 days, as a protection against vandals. You may have to wait a few days. --Michael Johnson 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The conditions we will encounter due to global warming in our lifetimes are worth talking about

In the sixties the people who were studying this were called futurists. There were a small handful of them. It was the Carter administration gas crunch that got people talking about the what if's. Both fire and ice were considered.

As late as the nineties Woods Hole was looking at data that suggested ice melt from Greenland could affect the salinity of the ocean causing the Guf Stream to stall off New England affecting the fishing on Georges Banks and the temperature in Europe.

Current projections do show that some regions, such as the northern hemisphere, may experience temperature increases with synergistic effects that can no longer be checked by mediation.

The IPCC projects if we started now and tried to hold emmisions to concentrations of 500 ppmv to prevent the ice caps from melting it would cost 1800 trillion dollars. Combined with Peak Oil raising the costs of mediation above that and the resultant political resistance to meaningful action the projected levels go to 1750 ppmv by the end of the century.

At that point most of the earths cities, which for transportation reasons tended to be founded on coastlines, are under water.

Global Warming is in effect a death sentence for most of the sentinent life on the planet. Since its human activity that causes global warming the chances are that whether or not temperatures reach the surface temperature of Venus there won't be anybody here to record it.Rktect 11:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, global warming is a death sentance that will end all life on earth. Just like anthrax was. Just like the bird flu was. Just like Y2K was. Just like mad cow was. Just like robots taking over the world was. Don't you people realize that politicians and the media make up "end of the world" scenarios whenever it suits them. Remember all the duct tape and plastic sheeting you bought a few years ago so you would be safe from a chemical/nuclear attack? 75.2.219.195 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We have seen three decades of cooling and two of warming, and post-war industrial production only really took off at the beginning of the cooling period. Since then, earth's average temperature has risen 1.3 degrees farenheit (give or take half a degree). That much is agreed upon. But keep in mind that at any given time, Earth's atmosphere is composed of roughly 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. CO2 makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere. Venus, on the other hand, is 96.5% carbon dioxide and 3.5% nitrogen, with 92 times the atmospheric pressure of Earth and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead. This essentially makes any comparison between the two the astronomical equivalent of Godwin's law.

So don't take this the wrong way, Rktect, but espousing wholly unrealistic doomsday predictions accompanied with ludicrious comparisons does not exactly bolster one's credibility in the eyes of other editors. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The only sure thing is change, but normally things like climate change are not rapid. If the oceans die as projected before 2050 from overpopulation causing overfishing, polution and warming, rising sea levels drowing reefs and so forth, and the forests are all cut down to grow cheeseburgers and fries then there isn't going to be a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere any more and that change could be quite rapid.

Once we get to where gas is $5 then $10 then 50$ a gallon and people resort to burning wood in the winters until there are no more winters... , the oxygen in the atmosphere is going to be replaced by carbon diode, methane, and nitrous oxide rather quickly. When it gets to the point where you realize global warming is not a lot of hype and you can't afford the gas to commute to work, and if you couldd the cities are all under water so there is no place to go, no stores with milk and cat food cause truckers can't afford the gas to haul it what then?

Backing up one extreme prediction with another does not add strength to an argument. The idea of the oceans dying before 2050 is a new one to me, but it sort of reminds me of the prediction that the lowland gorilla was supposed to be extinct by the end of the 1980's. I don't give any credence to such extreme predictions (and, apparently, neither do the scientists at the IPCC). Earth has seen far greater dangers in the past, and the current global warming trend must be kept in perspective: we are talking about a change of one degree farenheit over the course of a hundred years, which is nearly half of the entire time that comprehensive records of temperature have even existed. Perhaps what has set me against the idea of anthropogenic global warming the most is the vehement opposition against any dissenting opinion. If the science behind it is so solid, then opening it to scrutiny would serve only to solidify it.

Subjecting science to scrutiny is encouraged. If you haven't heard of the oceans dying and don't know the reasons start reading - Google Results 187,000 for oceans dying 2050.

coral dying on Great Barrier Reef

Threats

fishery crisis

Dying Oceans

Oceans dead by 2050 Rktect 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And no, I do not deny that the earth is warming, but it takes more than projections, models, and doomsday scenarios to convince me of such things. I came to the determination that the earth has warmed by looking at hard data recorded in the past, and even though there are problems with some of that data, the warming trend is undeniable. Still, what I doubt is that the anthropogenic influence is as strong as some groups would have us believe. To see what I mean, I would recommend looking at page four on this link. And keep in mind that during the triassic period, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air was nearly five times higher (see image) than it is now, and life on earth was thriving regardless. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

a change of one degree farenheit over the course of a hundred years
Now lets not pretend small changes in temperature cannot create big differences here on Earth. Take for example the Little Ice Age, a period marked by temperatures just 1.8 to 4 degrees F cooler than today. The results were devastating. The Vikings in Greenland were killed off because of the frigid temperatures (though they didn't necessarily have to). Frost Fairs took place on the Thames. The Black Death claimed millions of lives. Disease run rampant during this time. Famine killed countless amounts of people. On the other hand, during the Medieval Warm Period that occurred just before the Little Ice Age, also marked by just a small amount of degrees increase, there was amazing prosperity (which why it is also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum). The Vikings found lush green lands in Greenland. England was growing vineyards that rivaled those of France. The diseases that plagued them previously virtually vanished. Crops and populations flourished. So just small amounts of change in temperature can have real effects that can impact the human life in substantial ways. Just small changes in temperatures have the potential to change the course of history (e.g. the French Revolution or the 30 Years' War). We are creatures of our climate. How it changes directly changes what we do and how we do it. Anthony R. Hansen 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I thought Black Death was a summer disease which backed off every winter when the rat populations dropped? --BozMo talk 14:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now while I can't tell you a whole lot about Black Death, the problem was exacerbated by the way in which people of that time conducted their lives as direct result of the colder temperatures. May I also suggest Dr. Fagan's "The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History." Anthony R. Hansen 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That is one IPCC scenario. It assumes we are willing to spend 1800 trillion on mediation to hold emmissions to 500 ppm. If we choose not to spend the money, then at the other extreme of IPCC scenarios we have 1500 ppm and six degrees Celsius. With that increase the poles melt, the sea levels rise, the cities flood, the crops fail, the oceans, die; etc; Global warming is caused by humans. Taking the perspective that we can continue to do nothing and the problem will take care of itself may be accurate, but that sort of Gaian solution probably isn't in our best interests.Rktect 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And at the same time, it isn't in our best interests to bankrupt ourselves trying to turn our industrial and agricultural infrastructure on its head. If we were to decrease production in agriculture, it is certain that people are going to die. If we do not, there is a very slight chance that people might die, according to the most extreme of the IPCC scenarios. All I am saying is that these predictions have consistently proven to be overblown, and it is not good practice to assume the most extreme scenarios are the only ones that will come true. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A man is pointing a gun at you. There is a chance he may murder, death, kill you if you don't hand over your wallet.

That was an entertaining movie. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You just left the bank and your life savings are in there. Your choices are bankrupt yourself or die. Its about the same with global warming. You can choose to believe the gun isn't loaded, keep doing buiness as normal, be bold, refuse to turn your industrial and agricultural infrastructure on its head. Maybe you will die but there is a chance you are right and then you get to keep your money. Unfortunately it isn't entirely your choice. If everyone doesn't cooperate everyone dies. Its sort of like turning an oiltanker or an express train headed for a collision with a passenger train...It takes awhile to change direction, if you haven't begun yet, your choices are reduced. Rktect 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively you may be right, the predictions may be overblown. Theres no need to worry or concern yourself about it, you can do nothing and the problem will take care of itself. I figure all the people of the book are ready for their rapture and then all the godless Republicans will find their numbers so diminished what with one thing and another they will become an endangered speciesRktect 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So I see. When all else fails, resort to a personal attack.

No personal attack was intendedRktect 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. This is a controversial subject, but in the future, let's all try to keep our tempers in check. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not try to compare Earth to Venus. I have tried to avoid bringing up the hackneyed and (in some cases) discredited talking points that have reared their heads again and again on this discussion page. I have been trying to maintain a rational, scientific debate; and I would appreciate if you could return the courtesy. If we are going to argue science, then by all means let us argue science.

Lets discuss scienceRktect 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

With that being said, there are flaws in your analogies. First off, we do not know in this case if the man has a gun because, in the past, global warming has proven beneficial for humans (as Anthony Hansen just pointed out).

Lets start with the EPA's 15" rise in sea level projected for 2025. The EPA tends to be a bit conservative, something to do with censorship of reports and funding as with NASA. None the less 15" of sea level rise over the next 18 years will kill more people around the world thean the Holocaust of the last century. If some scientists projections are correct it will be 3', if others are correct it will be 5 m, and it will continue until both poles are completely melted.Rktect 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Steven put it better than I did on your talk page:

"The EPA paper is not from 2007, but from 1988. You seem to have mixed up the various IPCC ranges. Hansen does not give a range, but an example calculation with an admittedly arbitrary choice of a constant. And the behavior of the ice sheets is largely unknown - Hansen is one of the most aggressive proponents of fast disintegration of large ice sheets, and he again only warns against the possibility. And the 6 degree warming (in fact 6.4 degrees) by 2100 is the most extreme IPCC scenario, assuming both extreme emissions and high climate sensitivity." ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I also believe I mentioned Godwin's law earlier :)

Secondly, I do not disbelieve global warming; only the extent to which anthropogenic elements have influence over it. And third, I have never said that there is nothing we can do about it, or that we should do nothing about it. I for one support the expansion of renewable energy, but we need to keep our heads about it. For example Ethanol, in my opinion, is a total waste. It is a travesty that we are turning food into fuel when people are starving to death worldwide, made even more pointless by the fact that any benefits from cleaner emissions are offset by the increased use of fossil fuels by the farming equipment used to produce more ethanol.

We agree about ethanol, I presume you are egually thrilled with the effectiveness of Cafe Stadards, carbon trading, mediation and poor people who can barely feed themselves building solar houses.

Yeah, that about sums it up :) ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, in regards to our earlier discussion on oceans, I appreciate the sources you provided. Although some were just links to activist sites, there was useful information in the others that I had not heard before. Though I feel that records have not existed long enough to draw any definitive conclusions, it appears to be something I will have to do a bit more research on. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Research is good.

Yes, it is. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Global warming is just a bunch of hype, like 75.2.219.195 pointed out. The democrats make the stuff up to scare us into voting for them, while the economy goes down the tubes. I lived through the 70's and remember distinctly all the global cooling hype. It's time to face facts: This is a science in it's infancy, and the economy is of too much importance to risk. 12va34 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the snark tag. Rktect 23:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Science doesn't take political sides. Ignore the media and the politicos, and just look at the science. You'll come up with a different conclusion. Anthony R. Hansen 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Dr. Hansen. Its hard to strip the media and politics from the science when NASA funds are being cut for satelites to provide the raw data for analysis and directors in charge of providing funding are being appointed based on their political loyalties, and whether or not that changes is based on how the media covers it.Rktect 18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Or course science takes sides, it depends on who is funding it most of the time.

This is a talk page dedicated to improving the article. Please provide peer-reviewed references to bolster your claims, though make sure that you avoid using tiny minority opinions. Please see Scientific opinion on climate change. --Skyemoor 19:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite data source

Where did "Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F)" come from? Whose data is this and how was it extrapolated? If not cited, this should be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.169.189.226 (talk • contribs).

It's from the IPCC AR4 SPM referenced a half-sentence down. --Stephan Schulz 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting artic ice link

[17] Is ther is a way to use some of the data from this web link for this article? It shows really well that arctic ice is decreasing rapidly.

I like it but how about finding a second source for collaborationRktect 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am all for finding a second source but I do not have any other site. They mention where they get their data: "Snow and ice data provided by the National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA". I looked at their web site and I couldn't find anything about the ice right away (but it's a big web site) [18] Maybe you can find something there. Hifisoftware 00:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here found something: [19] But it's nowhere as easy to read as charts on the original link. Hifisoftware 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for kicks, check out this link while you're at it. It has some interesting GISS charts. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

^ ABC News: DNA Test Indicates Very Green Greenland [20]

[1] ABC News: DNA Test Indicates Very Green Greenland [20]

[1]