Talk:Climate change/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

National Resources Stewardship Program

The National Resources Stewardship Program writes,

Four hundred and forty million years ago, when CO2 levels are estimated to have been more than 10 times today's, our planet was in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods. There is no meaningful correlation with temperature in the geological record.

Over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a remarkable link between temperature and CO2 . Yet, these records consistently show that temperature rises some 800 years before CO2 rises, not after it.

Even over the past century the CO2/warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human-produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly. In all these records there is no evidence to show that CO2 has ever acted as a climate driver or even as a significant secondary effect to accelerate climate warming.

Is there any merit to this? ~ UBeR 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, its a std.skeptic set of half-truths William M. Connolley 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to explain? ~ UBeR 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that they try to use the Ordovician/Silurian boundary nearly half a billion years ago to throw doubt on the current CO2/temperature link should be enough to determine that this is pure rhetoric. At that time, there were no multi-cellular land plants (i.e. the carbon cycle was very different), the composition of the atmosphere was very different, all the continents formed Pangaea, which was sitting on the south pole, and the sun was measuarably fainter. And the CO2 concentrations still dropped by nearly half (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm during the glaciation), a fact that one assumed might have slipped in there somewhere. --Stephan Schulz 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how serious you were about it. On the ice cores: there is a lag relation but its n ot as clear as they assert. Since the entire process takes 5kyr+ the ~800 start lag doesn't matter too much (in fact it makes sense: the default assumption is t change leads to co2 change leads to t in a feedback) William M. Connolley 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that this article be modified to account for the video whose url in provided below. Unless, the data on temperature leading CO2 levels by a couple of hundred years and that the production of gammas in the sun will enhance cloud production which reduces the temperature provides suspicion that the co2 levels are diving anything. This article is fanticy without seriously addressing these variables. Also, the economic issue which is damming in its indictment of the global warming community needs to be addressed herein. It must be identified as a political issue--no longer a scientific issue,it must make prediction in the near future that can be measued, perhaps something like the average temperature for 60 days in England, New York state. Who has the most accurate model?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=enJustthefactmam 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)User:Charles Vairin

Errrm, who are you? JTFM or CV? Anyway: why would we modify the article because of a very poor quality TV prog? If you have any interest in the science concerned, try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/, or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/co2_and_t_again.php for just the CO2/T point. As for the politics: the Kyoto treaty exempts developing nations. You knew that, of course, not least because the programme mentioned it. Oh? whats that? The programme *din't* mention that fact? How very curious - don't you think it is of some relevance? Is it possible that the programme might be somewhat selective and perhaps even unreliable? William M. Connolley 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG William!! I was so much drowned by all the scientific mistakes or 'distortions' that I completly missed that one! Maybe that's why they've put it at the end of the 'documentary' (I barely dare to use the term), knowing that most people would be already too anesthesized by the rest to notice. Thanks for waking me up ! :-D Galahaad 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming vs Global Warming Theory

I am just curious why this wiki is not titled with "Theory." If you type "Global Warming Theory" into the search, it brings up the "controversy" page. While I feel that it can be argued as to the extent of global warming that has occurred (I'm not favoring a side either way here, folks), it seems as though the idea of the earth's temperature increasing to the present date has been extrapolated and blended with the theoristic models which attempt to predict future scenarios.

Please do not read this wrong: I am not implying that the models don't have substance or are incorrect. I am just saying that these ideas need to be presented correctly. Here is an example: for many years, the atom was thought of as "plum pudding model"; that gave way to the Bohr model, which gave way to quantum model. In our schools, these are presented as truths, as they can meet certain expectaions when tested against current beliefs held by scientists; everyone at the time thought the Bohr model was correct. The truth of it is, these are just THEORIES. Highly provable theories, but theories none the less.

I just feel that there should be more information in the article, including the title, that future modeling is a scientific conjecture, like most things in science.

I hope this makes sense, and hopefully this is not redundant.

Rich 70.91.186.249 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "theory" is so ambiguous that it's best avoided altogether. In popular usage it's often taken to mean little more than a guess; in a scientific context, it's something quite different. See theory. Raymond Arritt 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:WTA#Theory.--Stephan Schulz 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid of this, as I am (obviously) a new poster. We are dealing with semantics. Can we please address the meat of my concern, which is that the article blends the ideas of what has been documented in the past with the future models, which are all guesses. Perhaps I am incorrect in this, but future models are guesses, right? No one has created a crystal ball to see into the future yet? It seems that there should be some disambiguity.

BTW, thank you for the information regarding "theory." It was a refresher.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.186.249 (talk • contribs).

The Wikipedia naming convention is to name the article according to the most common usage. The Googlewhack is 37,000,000 to 108,000 for plain global warming. The term is indeed used for the current warming period, including both the already realized warming and the future projections. But no, these projections are not "guesses" any more than I guess that a dropped stone will fall to the ground. The models make assumptions abou emission scenarios, and the physical simulation has certain known limitations. But they are much more reliable the a guess. See e.g. James Hansen's predictions from 1988 that hold up very well. And climate models have been enourmously improved since then.--Stephan Schulz 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm—comparing the IPCC's estimated (guessed) predictions to physical laws. Sketchy. I don't think 70.91.186.249 is here to imply that global warming is merely a guess. Indeed, they have stated that to label a simple guess as a theory is incorrect; it's not incorrect, however, to label a theory as a theory. ~ UBeR 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Projection (per M-W.com)-"an estimate of future possibilities based on a current trend." Future models ARE an estimate/projection/guess. The(my) issue is that NOBODY, save your chosen diety, knows with certainty what WILL happen in the future. And to presume/present(in the article) that we can predict results (accurately) from a highly complex system lacks intellectual integrity. It should not matter WHAT the IPCC has found; this is not a stump for the IPCC. It is a source of information to be shared.

I will resign this issue and leave it to those with more fortitude, as I can see that this, like other volatile socio-political issues, is going to desolve into semantics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.186.249 (talk • contribs).

Obviously Rich is correct Global warming is a theory as is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. He is also correct that the current computer models are in a very nascent state. All of these models end with the Earth's oceans boiling away or freezing solid within a tiny geologic timespan (a geo-second). Clearly if after 50 years of weather modelling, we cannot predict the weather 3 months from now with any level of certainty then we cannot predict the entire planet's weather or climate 100 years nhence. ~ Rameses 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I noticed your claim that Hansen's predictions have held up very well. I do not believe that is true. Willis Eschenbach reviewed this claim (which was difficult because Hansen does not practice science and make his data and methods available to other scientists). Willis determined the values by digitizing the graph. He learned that the four curves do not start from the same point (which sounds to me like an intentional deception). When the four curves are begun at the same point, the temperature is seen to rise less than even the lowest of Hansen's scenarios (in which anthropogenic C02 production stopped in 2000). You can read the analysis and comments from other scientists here. [1]

Why should they start at the same point? Models published in 1988 would not have set out to match just the value in 1959, but rather minimize the error across the whole interval upto 1988. Some years are too high, some are too low, but that's to be expected. Forcing any single year to match should be expected to only increase the error for other years. Dragons flight 05:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What he said ;-). Also, GISS and HadCRUT3 use different averaging algorithms, giving somewhat different results. As for your claim that "Hansen does not practice science and make his data and methods available to other scientists" - huh? What do you think the paper is? And how old it is? I certainly don't keep my raw test data longer than a few years - it becomes completely unmanagable even today. And if by "methods" you mean "computer programs": Those don't grow on trees. They are the result of a lot of hard work, and part of the "means of production" of a scientist. It's great if they can be made available (I do, but then in computer science the code is often not just a tool, but part of the result), but very many don't, and expecting them to do so is not different from expecting Paul Otellini to give away the detailed layout of the CoreDuo for the asking. --Stephan Schulz 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, perhaps you are unaware of the controversy over the tendency of climate scientists not to properly archive their data and methods. Steve McIntyre has been talking about this for a while. Normally peer-reviewed journals require scientists to archive their data. Several of them have chosen not to waive their usual standards for climate scientists. That is bogus. Evidently, the US government has awarded funding to climate scientists and gave them an exemption from the usual requirement of making the data and methods available. This is also bogus and will probably result in a FOIA law suit. Making the code available is a slightly more complicated issue, but not much. When it comes to code, scientists have the choice of publishing their results (and making their code available for others to examine) or not (and using their code for whatever commercial pursuit they wish). That is their choice. The "means of production" argument is a red herring. RonCram 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I don't know if you have ever published in a scientific journal. I have, and at least in computer science there never has been such a requirement. In very recent times, reviewers, including me, have often suggested to make data available on the web for papers with a heavy experimental component. But before the web took off, that was just not practicable, and it still is rare. And again, the scientific result is not the computer code, but the methods implemented in it (which should be described in the paper or the references). Reproducing a result does not mean "I take the same code as someone else, and rerun it on the same data" (as computers are deterministic, we know what will happen), it means someone else reimplements the described methods independently (hopefully avoiding different bugs) and getting sufficiently similar results. A computer program is not "a method", it is a tool (and an implementation of a method). I don't understand your FOIA comment - this applies only to direct (US federal?) gouvernment agencies, not to most scientists. The "US gouvernment" is a very sloppy term. It's not a monolith, and usually does not award funding to individual scientists. Are you talking about funding agencies like the NSF? Finally, your comment about code is not true. That may be so in Richard Stallman's universe, but currently there is no requirement for scientists to publish their code. Wether there should be is an interesting question that warrants an independent discussion (It helps transparency, but it probably reduces the quality, if not the quantity of review, and it encourages free riders. Also, licensing issues may make this impossible in many cases, as most code is not written from scratch). However, to reiterate: Currently there is no such requirement or expectation. That is a classical red herring. --Stephan Schulz 10:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you can view Science's policy here. [2] All of the science journals have a similar policy AFAIK. The code is important because it is very difficult to reproduce someone's result without it. How is one to know what kind of "fix" is in the code? How can scientists evaluate the "flux adjustments" or "parameterizations" or other factors designed to make the simulation look like it is related to the physical world? What if scientists want to apply the same code to a different data set? The US government has many agencies that fund research, a total of some $2 billion going into climate research each year. You should read the data archiving policy of NSF. [3] In it you will find the NSF expects researchers to make their code available to other scientists. So you see, my comment is not from the world of Richard Stallman, but of Karl Popper. As I said before, any researcher who is not archive his data, methods and even his code is not doing science but pseudo-science. The climate journals and other accomplices in this crime against science should be ashamed of themselves. RonCram 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sul(ph|f)ate

See Talk:Global_warming/OldTalk5#Standards_.26_Chemical_names for the discussion last time round. Anything new? Different numbers of people on either end? William M. Connolley 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming from Britain, I can understand why you would like to use British English. Only four people, including Connolley, suggested or implied that sulphate should be used. This is not a great number. The consensus was based upon the fact that the original spelling was sulphate, and that for that reason alone we should leave it. It still stands, however, the IUPAC suggest using sulfate. This is a scientific article, so lets keep it as scientific as possible. Also note, this article is using American English. It would seem redundant to use American English in everything except for the very word that IUPAC has already suggested as spelled with American English. It's also rather redundant to use sulphate in one part of the article and then sulfate in another part of the same article. ~ UBeR 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind much either way. If left alone, I spell it sulphate, because it's obviously the correct thing to do ;-), but the IUPAC and Wikipedia MOS weigh in on the other side. Is this article really American English? I've become rather desensitized about the issue (my books are half/half), and probably write a Frankenstein dialect myself... --Stephan Schulz 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article started out in BE but has tended to drift toward AE, probably because there are more of us then there are of them... I have a slight preference for maintaining the original convention but don't care much either way. (Stuff like this crops up all the time. In the Beatles Project there's been a huge brawl over whether it should be the Beatles, or The Beatles. Some people take things way too seriously, imo.) Raymond Arritt 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Following up, I just noticed that the AR4 SPM mixes British and American spelling. Raymond Arritt 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to U for repeating the old talk. Is there nothing new? Then it should stay (and the latterly added s.a. get converted to ph) William M. Connolley 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you get angry when no one agrees with you? ~ UBeR 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in an article that is not definitively British or American, Wikipedia policy is to go with whatever the article's primary author used. In this case, that's BE. Raul654 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. --h2g2bob 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The MoS states, "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes)," and, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)" Currently, everything is written in American English, save the word "sulphate" used once in this article, with that spelling. So... You could change the entire article back to British English, as that is what was used for first two edits (in 2002), prior to Ed Poor (major contributor to the early article) who began using American English. Next, the MoS states, "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated." Finally, it says, if those above things don't apply, then go to the first major contributor's edit. So you're right in the sense that it does indeed state that; you're wrong in that sense that that is the one we should follow first. ~ UBeR 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is no longer a question of British v American spelling. IUPAC determined the spelling should be "sulfate" long ago and even British chemistry books and journals use this spelling now. The latest revert to "sulphate" should itself be reverted. "Sulphate" is just archaic. --Bduke 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Still stand by my arguements from '04. Support IUPAC and spelling consistency in science articles. GHGs are chemicals and atmospheric chemistry does have a bit to do w/global warming :-) Cheers, Vsmith 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if you fail to strongly support William in every detail, you will be kicked out of the conspiracy! We may even be forced to retract your Cabal Membership and invalidate your secret decoder ring! --Stephan Schulz 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no - not my ring! :-( Vsmith 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just reviewing old talk and find I've missed this :-(. We really need this page organised better William M. Connolley 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Date CO2 last higher than today

I found a 'citation needed' for the claim that CO2 was last this high 40 million year ago (mya). I did a google scholar search, and the top ranked article (widely cited) was Pearson and Palmer 2000 in Nature. However, looking over their graph in figure 3b (for those fortunate enough to have full text access) they have a data point something like 440 ppm for 24mya. This is their oldest data point in the more recent series; they have a 'no data' gap between 25 and 39 mya, then a separate series ranging much higher from 40 mya going back (into the 1000+ppm range). Anyway sorry if anyone had a strong basis for the 40 mya figure and just didn't have the ref handy, but this article has a pretty clear peak at 24 mya that's higher than today (if not higher than many projected 21st century increases).Birdbrainscan 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference of couse is that the 300ppm(?) jump in C02 that happens back then didn't occur in just 50 years. What is the point of trying to find time of highest co2 level. Level of co2 won't show if we are effecting the natural level significantly, we have to look at the change in co2, has there been such rapid change thta we have seen in the last 50 years?--155.144.251.120 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as we know, the sharpness of the rise in CO2 is unprecedented. It certainly is in the last few thousand years. But the farther back we go, the coarser our temporal resolution goes. We simply cannot plausibly isolate any given 100 year span 500 million years ago. --Stephan Schulz 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any doubt, at all?

Re the people intent on recasting this issue as a "theory" and not a "fact": Of course, out of the 6,000,000,000 people on this earth, ONE person will be a scientist who disagrees with global warming. As a study showed, however, out of 928 RANDOMLY selected, peer reviewed science articles pertaining to global warming, NONE of them discussed it as anything but fact. Why do these people wish to recast global warming as a "theory", and get people not to act? Do you not care about your children's lives? The science is HARD fact. No buts, ifs, or conditionals about it. Rather than listen to the media about whether it's true or not, simply look in science journals. Almost 50% of all news media articles wrote about global warming as a "Theory" and "unconfirmed", even though 0% of scientists took this view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.36.80 (talk • contribs).

Yes. There is doubt. Consensus and conventional wisdom are historically inaccurate in many cases....and downright tragic in others. I've witnessed the consensus on silicone breast implants, IUDs, salt, eggs, fat, etc. To have doubt about the HYPOTHESIS!!!! of significant global warming due to human causation (the "null hypothesis", by the way), one simply needs to look at science and history together. I don't specifically need history, however, anyone who knows history knows that it is a living thing and that experts and consensus groups have a pretty colorful tradition.

As for the science, we don't even need to mention the data to find serious flaws. The absolute discarding of the scientific method with respect to the latest, fashionable societal self-hatred trend is simply disgusting. Theory, hypothesis, the rejection of the null hypothesis......what happened to the delineation and careful use of these terms?

Does anyone remember what a THEORY is???? Does anyone recall the rigor necessary for the establishment of a theory? Good God!(my little joke). Seriously, at best we're talking hypothesis here. No one denies that the earth is warming. OK. What is the earth's temperature supposed to be doing? Remaining stable? Are "scientists" really serious when they allude to this? REALLY?

I don't know what the answer is. You know what else? No one else knows either. There's the doubt, and I'm quite confidant in it. It takes me about 5 minutes of simple researching to REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS YOU SHOULD SHUT UP. Let's see......anyone care to venture what apocalyptic "theory" we'll be discussing 10 years from now?

Shame on us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpgerber (talk • contribs)

Sadly, people do not seem to understand what a theory is. Read the following definition from Wikipedia: In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Please note that gravitation is still only a theory. Global warming certainly has not yet risen to this level of proof. Global warming is simply a hypothesis until proven scientifically - which will take many years from the current nascent state of the science. ~ Rameses 06:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing specific things about the article. If you wish to discuss / shout in caps about the topic of the article, you probably should head to a venue more appropriate for that. —AySz88\^-^ 17:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to 24.61.36.80 Hysteria is not the scientific method and many reputable scientists disagree with the consensus.SmokeyTheCat 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to SmokeyTheCat, by my calculations that still leaves the number of "reputable scientists" disagreeing with the warming theory consensus at less than 1%, based on the number of reputable scientists involved with the recently concluded U.N. study. I thought that was the point of it, to finally determine what the collective scientific minds of the planet thought. So far, I only see a handful of remaining skeptics, not counting Fox News.

To disagree with "Handful of skeptics" There are many scientist and climatologists who reject global warming. http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm Check that site out and tell me that global warming is fact. Gavinthesavage 23:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've seen that. Now check out Oregon Petition for a description and some critique of that project. Note that it's also 6-8 years old; a lot has changed. (Incidentally for other editors: I reverted the addition of a link to the petition in the intro of this article a few days ago.) bikeable (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Touche` How about past scares? Like global cooling, global climate change? And has anyone heard of the global 1500 year model? I realize that something is happening to the earth, but just because Al Gore says people are the cause of doesn't mean I believe him (a joke don't take that seriously) . I'll find more information about this 1500 year cycle. Gavinthesavage 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Past climate predictions

I see the article has a section on "History of Warming." However, I was wondering if anyone thinks it might be of value to have a section also on the "History of Climate Predictions" or some such similar title? Below is a collection of various climate predictions (both for heating and cooling) going back to 1923 which should be useful in the event anyone is interested adding such a section.

I don't see what relavance it has to global warming. Global warming is based mainly on C02 output. Until the mass exponential increase in the number of coal burners there were constantly people finding different cyclical changes as mentioned in all your links below. Surely there is a an article where such history would fit better, perhaps even make history of earth climate prediction?

NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINES

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead - May 21, 1975 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D137B93C3AB178ED85F418785F9

REPORT THE ARCTIC IS GETTING WARMER; Explorers and Fishermen Find Climate Moderating About Spitsbergen. FIRST NOTED ABOUT 1918 Old Glaciers Have Disappeared - February 25, 1923 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F13F7395516738DDDAC0A94DA405B838EF1D3

MACMILLAN REPORTS SIGNS OF NEW ICE AGE; Explorer Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers -- Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical - September 28, 1924 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C14FB3C5B12738DDDA10A94D1405B848EF1D3

AMERICA IN LONGEST WARM SPELL SINCE 1776; TEMPERATURE LINE RECORDS A 25-YEAR RISE - March 27, 1933 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FF3D5E1A7A93C5AB1788D85F478385F9

Google Books:search results

"...there are unmistakable indications that the earth's climate is getting colder." from Editorial Research Reports By inc Congressional Quarterly, 1986 http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22climate%20is%20getting%20colder%22

"World temperatures rose sharply in the latter half of the decade, ... It would appear that at present world temperatures are falling" -- Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society---1940 http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22world%20temperatures%20rose%20sharply%22

"There is some evidence that our climate is getting colder..." Sciene magazine, 1944 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01644869&id=NcgCAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&pgis=1

"There is evidence that the worlds climate is getting warmer" ---1950 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01259095&id=s5gFAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world's+climate+is+%22&dq=%22world's+climate+is+%22&pgis=1

"The Acrtic is getting warmer" http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=arctic+is+getting+warmer&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=

"The Arctic is getting cooler" http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22arctic%20is%20getting%20colder%22&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

"Both the USA, where certain States have been suffering a drought, and the USSR, where the climate is becoming colder... " Assessing the New Political Trends, Dublin, 1976 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02509012&id=se_N25iAuv4C&q=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&pgis=1

The late astronomer Sif Fred Hoyle suggested in his 1981 book Ice: the Ultimate Catastaphe, that the earth was on the verge of a new ice age. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0826400647&id=BXkWAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world+temperatures%22&dq=%22world+temperatures%22&pgis=1

"But of course the increase in atmospheric CC>2 didn't stop in 1950; it continued, and even accelerated. Yet since 1950 world temperatures have slacked off" --- Climat, Man, and History, 1970 Climate, Man, and History - Page 410 http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22Yet%20since%201950%20world%20temperatures%20have%20slacked%20off%22

"The high and low temperature records of the Na-tional Weather Service used by The World Almanac tend to support the theory that the US climate is cooling ..." The World Almanac, 1975 http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0911818030&id=AYtpIEmY7tMC&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1

"Since 1960 there have been indications that the North American climate is cooling slightly" http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC06072187&id=OJoJAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1

Delta x 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation styles

The sections "Climate models" and "Other related issues" are not using <ref> tags like the rest of the article. Anyone up to fixing them? -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try working on it tomorrow (i.e. later today, March 4th), if no one else does. ~ UBeR 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Great :-) I have a feeling this will be fixed up quickly. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I got a few done. There's nine more, but I will be gone for a bit. If no one else does, I'll change them to footnotes later tonight. ~ UBeR 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten them all into to footnote style references, except for one. The one I did not change had a non-functioning link. I put a note to the editors beside it. Hopefully someone can find the relevant paper. ~ UBeR 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this "theory" is wrong

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Mars has "global warming" on the same scale as earth... only it doesn't have people.

So much for this crap junk science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 March 2007

Read page 2 of the article. --Stephan Schulz 08:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Human stupidity never fails to amaze me. Ugh. Specusci 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the whole "global warming" theory. I don't appreciate that Wikipedia users have not shown the other side of the story to us. This is a serious failure on their part and has turned me off wikipedia.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says National Geographic New February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural -- and not a human-induced cause -- according to one scientist's controversial... http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=6484&m=12472 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 March 2007

I suppose what we really need is to duplicate earth so we have one as a control and keep humans on the other. Then we can see if it's really true or not. In the mean time there's a lot of mud slinging and emotion for a disputed scientific theory and I really think the main page should indicate the dispute more clearly. MatthewFP 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 (Britain) to air documentary challenging anthropogenic warming

Did anyone see this Washington Times article about the upcoming British documentary "The Great Global Warming swindle" (deleted link to copyright violation - see WP:EL and WP:C) which airs Thursday March 8, 2007? It should be very interesting viewing, regardless of which side one is on (personally, I'm on the "side" of whatever is scientifically demonstrable). Here is the trailer from Channel 4. Delta x 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that this "documentary" presents the opinions of nine dissenters above the consensus view of 2,500+ scientists, the trailer and the article don't appear to have much more than solar variation which is too weak to explain observed warming, name calling, and the usual uncertainty games. The producer is a professional idiot sensationalist according to multiple independent sources. James S. 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just finished watching it, came to wikipedia to see what was written here.... Docomentary was very interresting and well presented.Certainly has made me question the science behind the cause of the current warming, which the program did not contest. Sunspot activity and the delay of temp rises compared to increases in CO2 levels (Temp rise leads to more C02) were the main 2 points made against the current dogma. The problem doesn't seem to be as clear cut as the media would have you believe. Ryanuk 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the media (including the very documentary you viewed) give much too much weight to the few remaining sceptics. I suggest you read more about the actual science. This article is a reasonable start. Also look at attribution of recent climate change, which has some information on the various forcings (which include most prominently solar, aerosols, and greenhouse gases). Finally, you might want to look at the latest IPCC report SPM (linked from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). In short, everything you mention is known and has been taken into account. And using the word dogma in this context is extremely unwarranted. --Stephan Schulz 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Was it really unwarrented? Its a widely held belief. Has it been proved beyond doubt? Ryanuk 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks James for the articles. "Idiot" seems a little strong. However, Durken's credibility does appear a bit suspect, given that the folks at Channel 4 were "forced to issue a humiliating apology" as a result of some of his earlier works. One wonders why Channel 4 would be opening themselves again to the possibility of even further humiliation, unless they believed this time Durken had something truly meritorious to present. At any rate, I for one am looking forward to seeing what, if any, solid scientific data he brings to the documentary in support of the thesis that natural, and not human causes, are behind global warming. It think it'll be interesting. Delta x 09:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

s/idiot/sensationalist/, thanks. The show, according to those who have seen it, presents no alternative hypotheses other than solar variation. What they won't say is that the probability of observed warming being due to solar variation instead of atmospheric CO₂ increases is less than 1%. That carbon dioxide traps reflected infrared radiation and forces it into atmospheric heat is a proven, demonstrable, fact, as sure as gravity. The variation of solar radiation has not been measured for long, but we know enough to tell that it wasn't enough more than it used to be a decade ago to cause the observed warming, with a very high degree of certainty. James S. 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

there is a way we can stop global warming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.182.171 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, convert to 75% wind, 25% hydroelectric power, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Good luck on getting the developing world in on that. We can kiss our icecaps and Florida goodbye, and say hello to stronger storms every year for 300 years. Those cold war bomb shelters that got built might have been worth it after all. James S. 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course James. If you'd watched the documentary, you'd know that the Earth's weather events are caused by the disparity in temperatures between the equator and the poles. If the poles warm faster than the equator, then extreme weather events will be less likely to occur. However, you're on a dogmatic rant, so don't let science get in the way.... Grimerking 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the documentary is probably going to fall upon deaf ears - some of the arguments given against attributation of climate change with CO2 emissions were pretty convincing - particularly the section on the ice cores and the fact that CO2 increases following temperature increase, not preceding it, and the fact that the graphs showing the correlation between the rise in CO2 level and Arctic temperatures over the past century are much less convincing than the one correlating the same temperature variations with solar variation (are these explicitly compared anywhere on Wikipedia?) QmunkE 22:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at the aptly named attribution of recent climate change. It has a diagram with the major forcings and the resulting overall temperature change, including solar, greenhouse gases, and sulfate aerosols. If someone claims that a single forcing (i.e. solar) can explain the climate change, he is either ignorant or lying. --Stephan Schulz 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This graph isn't the one that they used to demonstrate (that one is based on a model which some of the scientists in the film strongly criticise) - the one they used was actual temperature variation at the poles (measured, not predicted) against solar activity (measured, not modelled) and also compared it to carbon dioxide increases (not "greenhouse gases" - as explained in the documentary and articles, water vapour is by a long way the dominating greenhouse gas). The correlation between solar variation and temperature change was much closer than the correlation with CO2 increase. QmunkE 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just trimmed The Great Global Warming Swindle and edited for NPOV Mostlyharmless 10:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, some of you will be interested in reading a very nice (and very critical) review of the Channel 4 documentary by George Monbiot, here. bikeable (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommended replacement of effects

These subtractions from the effects sub-article should be emphasized in the main article if you want the financial community to pay attention. What is says is if governments divert 1% of domestic products to mitigation (presumably through clean technology subsidies) then they can avoid a 25% up to 20% loss in an increasingly sooner time frame. Xferacct 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this for the simple version? Xferacct 05:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This "simple Wikipedia," I'd say, doesn't quite cut it as a reliable secondary source. ~ UBeR 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you on that, UBeR. --BozMo talk 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the source for the 1% now saves up to 20% later claim. James S. 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Who reverted the page?

Last night I added a couple of {{fact}} tags (seen as {{Fact}}) to the article in the "causes" section where citations are needed to validate and support the material. But today I see those tags have been removed. The "causes" section begins by offering two opposing views in the first two paragraphs. Each paragraph needs citation tags to show that those views are based on something other than the writers opinions or beliefs on those two views. --Clayc3466 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference for your first tag. The second tag really should be multiple tags for the individual alternatives, since they are separate mechanisms. Raymond Arritt 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the question "who reverted the page and why" please see the page history. The reason for the revert given was "Rv. fact tags, references are in the linked sub-articles and in the text below (the lead just summarizes))". --BozMo talk 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't really be those refs in the intro - they belong on the sub pages linked William M. Connolley 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree references in abstracts are always bad form and in summaries in WP the same rule should apply. It isn't hard to find the basis for everything said and that should do. --BozMo talk 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with putting refs in the intro. This is far from an abstract of a paper made to be published in a journal. ~ UBeR 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry/favour

I am only doing this to one of the 4000 articles we are including, sorry (actually maybe two). This version of this article: [4] is about to be put in a fixed static schools copy of Wikipedia which based on last year will run off at least 50,000 times (see Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. The static 2006 online version gets about 10,000 unique IP hits a day so its worth getting right. If anyone (and I include of course the "group" of people who often disagree with me) could check for errors or obvious bits to remove I'd be grateful: the easy things to do are delete sections/strings or choose a better version. I have volunteers checking all the articles but they've ducked out of this one (and a couple on Islam). --BozMo talk 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did just a quick check, especially to find out if the new references are already included. It seems like there are none at all in that version - is that intentional? --Stephan Schulz 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Its rather hard to tell - you can't give us a diff from the current version, or tell us which version is was taken from? Also (though I'm sure you fix this somehow) none of the refs are there...) . I think I prefer the current intro... William M. Connolley 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) I will get the date and version (about 2 months ago). I need to fix references, but that's hard work in algo terms. References are a real pain from Wikipedia because there is no consistency across articles on what they are called. In this article the references are called Notes (!*&^%^$)... why not "References". "Notes" generally refer to "See Also" internal links on WP which for a selection ends up consisting of a list of dead links: hence "notes" got deleted. Sometimes references are called references sometimes citations sometimes further reading. Hmm. Might be better to just pick a recent version. --BozMo talk 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My concerns begin with the first sentence (!) since it doesn't include the "projected continuation" bit. A more recent version would be good. Raymond Arritt 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so this one [5]? --BozMo talk 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be better. A couple of Qs: shouldn't the page contain a link back to the wiki GW article; and ideally to the version it is from, too? Or is that too much work. As to fixing the [n] refs... what do you do about that? Remove them, or put the hrefs inline, or wot? William M. Connolley 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The version is an offline DVD (or 2 CD with only thumbmail images) primarily, or was intended to be and has had wide use in the developing world. The position on link back and attribution is a bit more complicated than some people make out but we've agreed on improving this versus 2006 (actually mainly on images... the slightly more official 0.5 version isn't really licence compliant but its surprisingly hard work to comply) and in return we've been given permission to publish under the WP logo. The DVD will include a list of all the contributers to WP but not the page histories, which is what the German release did. Whether the static online version should have a clickable link to WP is a moot point: some of the child friendly classifiers insist no links to unsuitable sites (and WP is porn of course). However, I was a bit stunned by the popularity of the online version (partly I think because it delivers pages much fast than WP does) though so I need to think. At the same time getting about 15000 pages of written material hand-checked is a headache enough. Which brings us on to how to handle references offline (since they are links often). Deleting and refering to WP is the easiest fall-back: rendering all the links as text URLs in the "reference" section is possible and depends how many iterations it takes to get it right. In the end its for children and probably too complex to need references but it would be nice to have them anyway. --BozMo talk 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: In the interest of consistency, is anybody opposed to a change from "Notes" to "References"? Suprisingly, the WP:MOS is mostly silent about this. It mentions both "Notes" and "References" briefly, but it leads by example. As far as I can tell, "References" is much more frequent overall, as well. --Stephan Schulz 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No. But if we revert back to nice in-line refs the section wouldn't have to exist :-) William M. Connolley 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are too many jokes I could make now, so I'll leave it at "pftrrrt!" ;-). --20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

End of Global Warming (UK Channel 4 Documentary)

As I watch channel 4 on climate warming, I can see why the pro-global warming people are so very worried to allow any real debate. Ha ... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... !

Hilarious, see Talk:Global Warming#Channel 4 (Britain) to air documentary challenging anthropogenic warming above. G-Man * 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished watching the documentary. The whole 'man-made' global warming story is a lie. There is no consensus. The IPCC is a load of crap. Scientists are censored at the request of politians and NGOs. Can we please now balance this funking article? I am placing a NPOV tag on this page. Any removal will be an act of vandalism under Wiki rules. Grimerking 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So one funky TV documentary with no detailed references has more weight than the considered and referenced opinion of thousands of scientists? Wow....--Stephan Schulz 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And all the lemmings were right as well?

I disagree and am removing the npov tag. --TeaDrinker 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Someone beat me to it. I can't really imagine how a teevee documentary could potentially negate the science cited in the article. --TeaDrinker 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'd come here and found the argument for both sides laid out based on the evidence then I'd agree with you. What we have here is a political scandel not a scientific one .... there are a group of people using the scientists for political reasons - unfortunately, most scientists don't have the necessary training to understand the socio-political system in which they work - so it's really easy to manipulate them! 88.110.230.109 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Man I came here to see whether it refuted any of the claims. I don't see any, I thought channel 4 would be a lot of "there's a lot of uncertainty", in fact it was full of very compelling data. Scientists aren't infallible - and at the end of the day I'm inclined to believe those who don't just go along with the crowd. Besides, I've seen how scientists will mix fact and opinon as if it all were fact - and funnily enough they get paid much better if they "enhance" the facts to suit the current political climate. As I read a lot of history texts, what was beginning to dawn on me was the number of texts talking about massive cold and hot periods in the past, and how the same time periods were being portrayed by climate "scientists" as being "Normal". Someone is not telling the whole truth .... and now we know who it is!

Wouldn't want to be a climate scientist right now - prospects for future employment look pretty gloomy - if I were a climatologist I'd jump ship ASAP before the rush! 88.110.230.109 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was quite amusing as a TV show (i.e. it was crap enough not to be serious or annoying) anyway it didn't seem to negate any of the article: the main thrust seemed to be the Al Gore was wrong about the ice records because warmth drives CO2 not the other way round. Don't see that "central premise" appearing in this article or did I miss it somewhere? --BozMo talk 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems we'll have this whenever some cranks come up with something claiming to 'debunk climate change'. It happened with Christopher Monckton's daft report a few months back. Of course some of the world's top scientists on the IPPC are wrong, and a bunch of mavericks with a proven anti-enviromentalist agenda are right. G-Man * 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How are they 'proven anti-environmentalist'? One of the contributors was the co-founder of Greenpeace. Admit it, you haven't even seen the documentary. Much easy to smear the opposition than actually learn something new, isn't it? Grimerking 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh. Let me guess. Its that 'patrick moore' idiot right? The dude is a professional anti environmentalist whos infamous for being opposed to all forms of environmentalism whilst pointing out he was involved briefly with greenpeace some 20 odd years ago. He's a professional con-man. Ten years ago he came to perth , claiming logging was necessary to 'fix' the environment. All expenses funded by the local timber mill. He runs a company that specialises in 'debunking' environmentalists for a fee. No he's not credible at all. 58.7.0.146 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there's Martin Durkin for example, the show's producer. who's previous documentary was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading and misrepresenting facts [6]. Of course if you want to believe people like that over the vast majority of world scientific opinion, you are of course perfectly welcome. G-Man * 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how dumb can those IPCC scientists be? Instead of getting the true story from Channel 4, they waste their time reading books and journal articles and stuff. Raymond Arritt 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How dumb, pretty dumb if their science doesn't stand up to some very simple scrutiny! There was once a group of scientists that believed in phlogeston, another group believed in the ether, another group believed in lamarks theory of "evolotion", through the history of science there have been scientists who have gone up a dead alleyway only to come out years later looking very sheepish. I was convinced by the evidence on the Channel 4 program, most other people will have been as well - the evidence was afterall compelling. Let me summarise the argument here - temperature has risen, CO2 levels have risen, therefore CO2 causes temperature rise. But when I saw the very close correlation of sun spot activity with temperature, and the lag between temperature and CO2, then I knew something was seriously wrong with the idea of manmade global warming! I can see the R&D funding on global warming starting to dry up even now! In 3-5 years, they'll be a fraction of the funding and it might be possible to edit this article without some idiot reverting before the enter key rises. 88.109.250.241 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CO₂, temperature, and sunspot activity since 1850

If the only thing suggesting warming might result from atmospheric CO₂ was the historical correlation then you might be on to something, but that's far from the truth. Indeed, warming as a result of atmospheric CO₂ were known long before those correlations were ever known. The reason we expect CO₂ to produce warming is basic physics with regard to absorption spectra (energy from the sun passes through due to it's frequency, while heat radiated back from has a different frequency, is absorped, and trapped). And as to correlations between sunspot activity and temp, try the last 50 years - obviously sunspot cycles have an effect, but it seems the CO₂ trend is at least as important. -- Leland McInnes 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Leland, look at the graph you included. Sunspot activity rises before temp and co2. The program discussed whether there was a delay in rising sunspot activity and rising temperatures. There may be a few years before the temp of the earth reacts to the increased activity, they pointed at the oceans taking a long time to warm and cool. Also, if you look at your own graph, temperature rises before CO2 levels rise during the last 40 years or so. Maybe temp rises result in more co2 being released by natural means? Ryanuk 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice idea that the current temperature rise is a delayed response to the sun spot peak in 1960, but you'll need more than that - if you offset the sunspot data appropriately for the recent temp. rise and sunspot peak to align appropriately you end up with temperature lull around 1890 aligning with a sunspot peak from 1840-1850, so you've just given yourself something different to explain away. I also have to say I'm not sure what you mena by temp. rising before CO2 for last 40 years - CO2 is steadily increasing throughout the entire graph. As to CO2 increase being natural - that's easily disputed via isotope analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The results are that the recent increase is quite clearly anthropogenic. The climate is complex and many factors affect it. It seems clear that sunspot activity has some effect. It is not at all clear, however, that it provides any better explanation that CO2. -- Leland McInnes 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanaition and plot. As you mention, it would seem that both CO2 levels and sunspot activity affect the climate. The suggested mechanism in the documentary was interesting, "the climate was controlled by the clouds, the clouds were controlled by cosmic rays and the cosmic rays were controlled by the sun. It all came down to the sun." While this explanation is perhaps over-simplified (there was some more detail in the documentary), does the concept broadly agree with your understanding of how sunspot activity influences the Earth's climate? Chrisnumbers2000 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people won't have actually seen the stupid thing, very wise of them, but if you care for a few notes then see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_great_global_warming_swind_1.php William M. Connolley 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to GW fanatics, listen to climatologists: Global warming: the bogus religion of our age Arvin Sloane 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[incivil comment removed - Arvin Sloane 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)]

The article is by Lindzen and only mentions the documentary in passing - he shows no sign of having seen it, but reiterates his usual blabla. I fixed the syntax of your link, but check the semantics. Do you really want to link to the comments section? --Stephan Schulz 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[incivil comment removed - William M. Connolley 12:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)]

[removed - WMC] (BTW, nobody asked you to "fix" anything. Next time, please refrain from changing other people's comments without solicitation.) Arvin Sloane 11:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your link was physically broken, as it had an extra http:// in front. Fixing such an obvious error is accepted Wikiquette. I suggest that you put a comment next to your errors if you want them unfixed for some reason. Lindzen used to be a respected scientist, and has done a lot of good work in the past. "World-reknown" is a bit strong for my taste - before his denialism, I doubt many people outside his specialty have known him. Anyways, regardless of his past contributions, in this article he really is repeating his usual "blabla", and there is no reason to give it more respect than it deserves. Some examples might be enlightening:

• He dismisses most of the instrumental temperature record, but is happy to accept measurements from 1780 to claim that Greenland has not significantly warmed since then.
• He still seems to ride an interpretation of the satellite temperature record that no-one seriously believes - not even Spencer or Christy. But then he is so vague about it that it is unclear what exactly he thinks.

--Stephan Schulz 08:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I watched the programme and found it quite interesting. I think on the whole it's a good thing to have the debate. And I think journalists (and some scientists) are guilty of exaggeration. However it struck me even at the time how one-sided it was; a lot was irrelevant. Who cares what percentage of the atmosphere CO2 is? The question is what effect it has. It also appeared to suggest that believers in human generated global warming ignored all other causes of global warming. In particular, they never looked at this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png which I found online when looking for it again today, and which to me is the crux of the argument. The political argument I found somewhat ludicrous. Are you seriously telling me that the environmental lobby has stopped Africa industrialising? And solar power can be present in places without a National Grid or gaslines.

Anyway, it's good that we talk about it and get a good understanding, and there are many areas that still need to be understood. But one sided polemics like this don't help. Building better models and understanding the risks and consequences of different actions helps.

End of Global Warming (UK Channel 4 Documentary)

As I watch channel 4 on climate warming, I can see why the pro-global warming people are so very worried to allow any real debate. Ha ... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... !

Hilarious, see Talk:Global Warming#Channel 4 (Britain) to air documentary challenging anthropogenic warming above. G-Man * 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished watching the documentary. The whole 'man-made' global warming story is a lie. There is no consensus. The IPCC is a load of crap. Scientists are censored at the request of politians and NGOs. Can we please now balance this funking article? I am placing a NPOV tag on this page. Any removal will be an act of vandalism under Wiki rules. Grimerking 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So one funky TV documentary with no detailed references has more weight than the considered and referenced opinion of thousands of scientists? Wow....--Stephan Schulz 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And all the lemmings were right as well?

I disagree and am removing the npov tag. --TeaDrinker 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Someone beat me to it. I can't really imagine how a teevee documentary could potentially negate the science cited in the article. --TeaDrinker 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'd come here and found the argument for both sides laid out based on the evidence then I'd agree with you. What we have here is a political scandel not a scientific one .... there are a group of people using the scientists for political reasons - unfortunately, most scientists don't have the necessary training to understand the socio-political system in which they work - so it's really easy to manipulate them! 88.110.230.109 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Man I came here to see whether it refuted any of the claims. I don't see any, I thought channel 4 would be a lot of "there's a lot of uncertainty", in fact it was full of very compelling data. Scientists aren't infallible - and at the end of the day I'm inclined to believe those who don't just go along with the crowd. Besides, I've seen how scientists will mix fact and opinon as if it all were fact - and funnily enough they get paid much better if they "enhance" the facts to suit the current political climate. As I read a lot of history texts, what was beginning to dawn on me was the number of texts talking about massive cold and hot periods in the past, and how the same time periods were being portrayed by climate "scientists" as being "Normal". Someone is not telling the whole truth .... and now we know who it is!

Wouldn't want to be a climate scientist right now - prospects for future employment look pretty gloomy - if I were a climatologist I'd jump ship ASAP before the rush! 88.110.230.109 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was quite amusing as a TV show (i.e. it was crap enough not to be serious or annoying) anyway it didn't seem to negate any of the article: the main thrust seemed to be the Al Gore was wrong about the ice records because warmth drives CO2 not the other way round. Don't see that "central premise" appearing in this article or did I miss it somewhere? --BozMo talk 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems we'll have this whenever some cranks come up with something claiming to 'debunk climate change'. It happened with Christopher Monckton's daft report a few months back. Of course some of the world's top scientists on the IPPC are wrong, and a bunch of mavericks with a proven anti-enviromentalist agenda are right. G-Man * 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How are they 'proven anti-environmentalist'? One of the contributors was the co-founder of Greenpeace. Admit it, you haven't even seen the documentary. Much easy to smear the opposition than actually learn something new, isn't it? Grimerking 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh. Let me guess. Its that 'patrick moore' idiot right? The dude is a professional anti environmentalist whos infamous for being opposed to all forms of environmentalism whilst pointing out he was involved briefly with greenpeace some 20 odd years ago. He's a professional con-man. Ten years ago he came to perth , claiming logging was necessary to 'fix' the environment. All expenses funded by the local timber mill. He runs a company that specialises in 'debunking' environmentalists for a fee. No he's not credible at all. 58.7.0.146 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there's Martin Durkin for example, the show's producer. who's previous documentary was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading and misrepresenting facts [7]. Of course if you want to believe people like that over the vast majority of world scientific opinion, you are of course perfectly welcome. G-Man * 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how dumb can those IPCC scientists be? Instead of getting the true story from Channel 4, they waste their time reading books and journal articles and stuff. Raymond Arritt 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How dumb, pretty dumb if their science doesn't stand up to some very simple scrutiny! There was once a group of scientists that believed in phlogeston, another group believed in the ether, another group believed in lamarks theory of "evolotion", through the history of science there have been scientists who have gone up a dead alleyway only to come out years later looking very sheepish. I was convinced by the evidence on the Channel 4 program, most other people will have been as well - the evidence was afterall compelling. Let me summarise the argument here - temperature has risen, CO2 levels have risen, therefore CO2 causes temperature rise. But when I saw the very close correlation of sun spot activity with temperature, and the lag between temperature and CO2, then I knew something was seriously wrong with the idea of manmade global warming! I can see the R&D funding on global warming starting to dry up even now! In 3-5 years, they'll be a fraction of the funding and it might be possible to edit this article without some idiot reverting before the enter key rises. 88.109.250.241 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CO₂, temperature, and sunspot activity since 1850

If the only thing suggesting warming might result from atmospheric CO₂ was the historical correlation then you might be on to something, but that's far from the truth. Indeed, warming as a result of atmospheric CO₂ were known long before those correlations were ever known. The reason we expect CO₂ to produce warming is basic physics with regard to absorption spectra (energy from the sun passes through due to it's frequency, while heat radiated back from has a different frequency, is absorped, and trapped). And as to correlations between sunspot activity and temp, try the last 50 years - obviously sunspot cycles have an effect, but it seems the CO₂ trend is at least as important. -- Leland McInnes 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Leland, look at the graph you included. Sunspot activity rises before temp and co2. The program discussed whether there was a delay in rising sunspot activity and rising temperatures. There may be a few years before the temp of the earth reacts to the increased activity, they pointed at the oceans taking a long time to warm and cool. Also, if you look at your own graph, temperature rises before CO2 levels rise during the last 40 years or so. Maybe temp rises result in more co2 being released by natural means? Ryanuk 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice idea that the current temperature rise is a delayed response to the sun spot peak in 1960, but you'll need more than that - if you offset the sunspot data appropriately for the recent temp. rise and sunspot peak to align appropriately you end up with temperature lull around 1890 aligning with a sunspot peak from 1840-1850, so you've just given yourself something different to explain away. I also have to say I'm not sure what you mena by temp. rising before CO2 for last 40 years - CO2 is steadily increasing throughout the entire graph. As to CO2 increase being natural - that's easily disputed via isotope analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The results are that the recent increase is quite clearly anthropogenic. The climate is complex and many factors affect it. It seems clear that sunspot activity has some effect. It is not at all clear, however, that it provides any better explanation that CO2. -- Leland McInnes 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanaition and plot. As you mention, it would seem that both CO2 levels and sunspot activity affect the climate. The suggested mechanism in the documentary was interesting, "the climate was controlled by the clouds, the clouds were controlled by cosmic rays and the cosmic rays were controlled by the sun. It all came down to the sun." While this explanation is perhaps over-simplified (there was some more detail in the documentary), does the concept broadly agree with your understanding of how sunspot activity influences the Earth's climate? Chrisnumbers2000 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people won't have actually seen the stupid thing, very wise of them, but if you care for a few notes then see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_great_global_warming_swind_1.php William M. Connolley 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to GW fanatics, listen to climatologists: Global warming: the bogus religion of our age Arvin Sloane 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[incivil comment removed - Arvin Sloane 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)]

The article is by Lindzen and only mentions the documentary in passing - he shows no sign of having seen it, but reiterates his usual blabla. I fixed the syntax of your link, but check the semantics. Do you really want to link to the comments section? --Stephan Schulz 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[incivil comment removed - William M. Connolley 12:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)]

[removed - WMC] (BTW, nobody asked you to "fix" anything. Next time, please refrain from changing other people's comments without solicitation.) Arvin Sloane 11:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your link was physically broken, as it had an extra http:// in front. Fixing such an obvious error is accepted Wikiquette. I suggest that you put a comment next to your errors if you want them unfixed for some reason. Lindzen used to be a respected scientist, and has done a lot of good work in the past. "World-reknown" is a bit strong for my taste - before his denialism, I doubt many people outside his specialty have known him. Anyways, regardless of his past contributions, in this article he really is repeating his usual "blabla", and there is no reason to give it more respect than it deserves. Some examples might be enlightening:

• He dismisses most of the instrumental temperature record, but is happy to accept measurements from 1780 to claim that Greenland has not significantly warmed since then.
• He still seems to ride an interpretation of the satellite temperature record that no-one seriously believes - not even Spencer or Christy. But then he is so vague about it that it is unclear what exactly he thinks.

--Stephan Schulz 08:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I watched the programme and found it quite interesting. I think on the whole it's a good thing to have the debate. And I think journalists (and some scientists) are guilty of exaggeration. However it struck me even at the time how one-sided it was; a lot was irrelevant. Who cares what percentage of the atmosphere CO2 is? The question is what effect it has. It also appeared to suggest that believers in human generated global warming ignored all other causes of global warming. In particular, they never looked at this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png which I found online when looking for it again today, and which to me is the crux of the argument. The political argument I found somewhat ludicrous. Are you seriously telling me that the environmental lobby has stopped Africa industrialising? And solar power can be present in places without a National Grid or gaslines.

Anyway, it's good that we talk about it and get a good understanding, and there are many areas that still need to be understood. But one sided polemics like this don't help. Building better models and understanding the risks and consequences of different actions helps.

--Merlinme 14:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Merlinme - good comments! The link between sun-spot activity and atmospheric water vapour (aka cloud), was new to me and clearly provides and alternative causal relationship which better fitted the evidence than man-made warming. From my own point a view, its a bit worrying, because I've been concerned for a while that fossil fuel depletion is happening faster than global warming. As long as people are worrying about global warming, they are naturally reducing fossil fuel use, but now that global warming has been discredited, it will mean that anyone who now says "... but we still have to conserve because fossil fuels are running out", will be tarred by the same brush. But I feel so stupid for believing in global warming in the first place. It wasn't a week ago that I was saying "the scientific evidence was compelling" ... it's just like the millenium bug again, everyone was talking about how bad it was going to be, and then suddenly one day, it just seemed to go away and a lot of people were left with egg on their face - for one thing, I'm going to have to write a few letters to the papers to balance all those pro-Global warming ones from around a decade ago - plus, I'll be a lot more careful before believing fossil fuel is going to run out!!!!!

The scientists I know agree that this documentary did a better job of representing the science than Gore's documentary did. But they also said the documentary should have left off the political charges, which came off sounding rather... lame.RonCram 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Global warming has been discredited because of one dubious documentary? I don't think so. G-Man * 21:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds wrong. Are any of them going to speak? Will they defend failing to mention aerosol cooling? William M. Connolley 17:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing is clear: this Wikipedia article and its fanatical guardians are a perfect example of how and why Wikipedia cannot be considered as a reliable source of knowledge. Arvin Sloane 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article The Great Global Warming Swindle needs a lot of work - it's a POV fork at the moment, stating false and misleading claims uncritically. Mostlyharmless 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article The Great Global Warming Swindle is about a documentary film of the same name. It does not claim to be a scientific article. It is simply describing a film in which there is a lot of current interest (as you can see above). As long as it describes the claims made in the film, it should not be censored using the excuse that these claims are not scientific or are being stated uncritically. ~ Rameses 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, it does make a number of scientific claims, draws conclusions from these, and these are stated uncritically in your version of the article. Mostlyharmless 23:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, the article makes no scientific claims - it simply describes the documentary film and the claims made in it. ~ Rameses 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An article on films, books, movies, etc, should have claims cited, be neutral, be uncritical, and be accurate as to what the work is about. An article on a pro- neutral- or anti-AGW documentary subject should state what the work is about, and not read like an editorial, a critical review or a soapbox for what's in it subject-matter wise. I could complain all day long on what a load of crap documentary x or y or z is, but that's not the purpose of an article, is it? The links to the sources and the hyperlinks to other articles can be used so people can find out if something is useful or not. It's not the writers job to do it for them. Research that turns up 100 critical reviews and 2 supportive reviews (or vice-versa) or 50 people that hated it and 1 that loved it (etc etc etc) can be cited to show <whatever> as long as they're cited according to existing rules and have as much of an NPOV as possible. If you feel strongly about something one way or another, you probably shouldn't really be writing an article in an encyclopedia about it. Sln3412 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! Edit: Reminds me, of course, of these lines: "It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." ~ UBeR 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't there a proper mentioning of why solar variations affect global temperature so much? There's plenty of hard evidence pointing to the effect cosmic rays have in cooling the planet and towards the variations amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth atmosphere as being the principle climate driver. CO2 and other greenhouse gases (apart from water vapour) are not as effective as global warmers as an increase in solar activity, magnetic field strength of the earth and our position in the galaxy. Because of the unusually high CO2 in the atmosphere and it's apparent effects we should still cut CO2 emissions and reserve the oil though ;-) Here's a very thorough article from Geoscience Canada if you're not convinced of the cosmic nature of the earth's climate - [8] Dansphere 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I propose we start looking for a way to give scientists the finger (The Sixth Finger [9] that is) so that they’ll have the capacity, as (benevolent) brainiacs, to fully comprehend the intricate complexities of climate behavior --- just a little levity folks! Delta x 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan evaporation

As global warming increases, it is generally expected that the air will become drier and that evaporation from terrestrial water bodies will increase. Paradoxically, terrestrial observations over the past 50 years show the reverse. Pan evaporation has actually been decreasing worldwide.70.56.91.246 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not drier - RH should stay about constant (so in fact the air should become wetter in absolute terms) William M. Connolley 13:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"As global warming increases" you mean "if global warming increases" ... following the link with sun spot activity rather than CO2 - it now looks like the whole basis of global warming is in doubt! 17:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It really does not matter what causes the so-called global warming. The question is, should the pan evaporation paradox be listed on the front page with all the other counter-theories like increases in solar activity... 01:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The pan evaporation measurements are data, not a "counter-theory." Raymond Arritt 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a measurable fact, not theory. As such, it should be included in the global warming article. kgrr ^talk20:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But its not true that all facts belong in the article, and I don't think this one does. Its in the sub-article; its all too easy to bloat the GW article with useful facts William M. Connolley 20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan evaporation is prima facia evidence that global dimming exists. You can't deny the measurable facts. And such, the observation is not a theory. I think it must be mentioned. kgrr ^talk21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing prima facia (sic) about the relation to global dimming. Although the instrument is simple, its physical meaning is complicated. Pan evaporation depends on variables including wind speed, radiation, and vapor pressure deficit. See for example here and here. Raymond Arritt 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To add: k added Scientists regard the pan evaporation data as the most convincing evidence of global dimming - this isn't true. As the GD article sez, the evidence is from radiometers, as you'd expect William M. Connolley 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK argue with the BBC. They are the source of your "conspiracy". I quoted a reference to my source. I will tell you it's because the Pan evaporation experiment is very accurate, simple and repeatable. Don't get me into an RV war. I will win. kgrr ^talk21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is best discussed at talk:global dimming first. But since you've been so unpleaseant ab out rv'ing, I have William M. Connolley 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Added text from C4 documentary

The references provided for the text I removed (diff), added by Evolutionyu (talk · contribs), come from a channel 4 documentary. Channel 4 is not a reliable source, and is very light on details. The site does not appear to

• name who came up with these ideas
• provide references to the source material used
• provide any supporting evidence (not verifiable)

In short, C4 are just trying to boost their ratings again, and this is not science. --h2g2bob 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is the same Channel 4 which brought you "Dr" Gillian McKeith. --h2g2bob 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on a classic example of [Ad_hominem] h2g2bob Candy 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Channel 4 wouldn't be the source, per se. The source, of course, is the documentary and the scientists featured within. ~ UBeR 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is yet more clap-trap from certain people. It is not up to certain self-professed experts to tell us who is or is not experts - that clearly amounts to "original research" & "personal opinons". As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is neutral and any notable source is worthy of inclusion irrespective of personal opinions of anyone here. By any definition, evidence presented on a mainstream channel of authority in the UK is authoratative and worthy of inclusion. Mike 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The documentary supplies names, references and facts, if that is not available a number of British newspapers have also commented on it, I am wiling to get a list of soruces. From your points I can tell you actually haven't seen it. I suggest you actually watch it before making edits. Channel 4 has escellent documentaries (especially when compared to ITV/BBC, they are also put on prime time too) so please think twice begfore attacking the soruce. THe documentary was fully backed and was not 'light' on evidence. Evolutionyu 17:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In this corner, we have several thousand scientists who have written several thousand articles in peer-reviewed journals. And in this corner, we have... a television documentary. I don't know how to respond to a proposal that those two bodies of evidence are comparable. Raymond Arritt 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The prog was junk, and I haven't seen anyone even attempt to defend it against the obvious attacks. For example, the "politics" bit at the end says the enviros are suppressing Africa. No mention was made of the fact that Kyoto exempts developing countries William M. Connolley 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

William, you haven't a clue have you! It may be your opinion that it was junk but that is of no consequence here. It has no impact on this article - Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions but for a record of worthy sources and to be frank your opinions are not worthy.Mike 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the gratuitious unpleasantness. Your failure to defend the prog substantively is noted. Wiki uses *reliable* sources: that involves judgement as to what is reliable. One test is does the source stand up to scrutiny? In this case, the answer (as you've just demonstrated) is no; which is why it doesn't appear. Furthermore, C4 is not a "channel of authority" and nor did the prog produce evidence: it produced opinions William M. Connolley 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

William what seems to bother you the most is that the program interviews climate experts: DR BEATE LIEPERT, PROF GRAHAM FARQUHAR, DR MICHAEL RODERICK, DR PETER COX - the same ones that write the journal articles. It's your opinion that their interview is not valid to be quoted in the Wikipedia pieces - Global warming and Global dimming. Is their expert opinion not valid because it was on TV instead of a journal?? Please read up about NPOV again before you push your admin rights aroundKgrr 22:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not on GD now - we're on TGGWS. Try to keep up! William M. Connolley 22:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't see the documentary, but did snoop around the website quite a bit. To be honest, I'm quite interested in their ideas, but there's no references on the website to anything: not to other websites, let alone journalists. I didn't spot any names (except one, who wasn't explicitly linked to the claims made on the site). I don't mind inclusion of this material, if it's got a good source. --h2g2bob 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

An update, for those trying to keep up with this rapidly-evolving situation: Channel 4 now describes its program as a "polemic". Raymond Arritt 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 called it polemic from the get-go. And polemic doesn't necessarily equate to "bad." Einstein was polemic. Nicola was polemic. So lets not try to twist things into something they're not. ~ UBeR 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, articles on films, books, movies, etc, should have claims cited, be neutral, be uncritical, and be accurate as to what the work is about. What we think about it is not important; putting in neutral verifiable credible information on the work is. Whatever the information is. So it's crap (or not). Put it in there. The show exists, right? It's been written about, right? Put it in the article. Sln3412 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is this program for everyone to see, and to judge for themselves. Those who claim that it contains no scientific evidence are brazen liars. I don't know how Mr, Connolley is capable of looking into his mirror. 66.82.9.87 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted link to copyright violation per Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Raymond Arritt 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response under "IPCC", below for my well sourced rebuttal to this program. 66.82.9.87, please do not spam your posts. We do read it even if you post it once. --h2g2bob 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship by Ignorance

The attack on Channel 4 is typical of the attempts being made to censor genuine comments. Channel 4 is a highly respected TV channel in the UK, producing the most credible news programme of all those presented on British TV (including the BBC, in my opinion). Presumably the above comments are made by anonymous "editors" who come from outside the UK, and are ignorant of the TV Channel. I saw the Global Warming programme and was impressed by the range of scientific opinion it presented. Good TV should stimulate discussion of controversial topics, especially global warming, despite the clamour from eco-fascists and gullible politicians. This story has not yet fnished and has a long way to run, and Wiki does not need censorship!

Peterlewis 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The TV show had nine dissenters, didn't it? How do you feel about the fact that the TV program didn't give a voice to the 2,500 climate scientists who think those nine are simply wrong? Do you think that you should be reading the peer-reviewed scientific literature instead of watching TV when trying to understand controversial scientific issues? James S. 16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Specify the "nine dissenters". We in the UK have had so much of the global warming propaganda that people are turning off the whole debate. TV programmes are debating fora, to stimulate discussion. You probably come from somewhere else where debate is squashed. In the UK we believe in democratic debate, so that controversial topics can be aired and debated. The Channel 4 show showed scientists who were part of the alleged 2500 consensual climate scientists, but who declned to accept either their conclusions or their ludcrous proposals on energy matters.

Peterlewis 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One scientist featured, Carl Wunsch said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme,[10] calling it "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[11]. Mostlyharmless 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It goes further than that - according to the Independent Television Commission, "Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them… as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs." The issue is covered by Ben Goldacre here and here. --h2g2bob 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the ITC remarks were about an earlier show by the same producer. But given Wunsch's protest we may hear similar statement on the present show. It will be interesting to see if other scientists feel they were misrepresented. Raymond Arritt 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. You're right. Just watching the program now: it makes some points which are quite valid (such as funding, which worries me too; and use to oppress the 3rd world, as if the politicians need an excuse). But the scientific evidence presented is in my opinion misleading. --h2g2bob 04:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I did watch the program, I thought it was interesting, but extremely one sided, i.e. a polemic. It misrepresented the case of people who believe in man made global warming, it contained quite a lot of material which was supposed to be relevant but wasn't (i.e. how much CO2 is in the atmosphere; what matters is what effect it has, not the absolute quantity.) Some of the suggestions, e.g. that the global warming debate was stopping Africa industrialising, just seemed ludicrous to me. However it made two valid points: a) in the last major case of global warming, according to the ice core record, the warming started 800 years before rises in CO2 (and warming is known to increase CO2 levels because of changes in ocean chemistry); and b) a lot of people's jobs now depend on global warming existing and being created by human action.

I for one would like to see the 800 year point made in the main Wikipedia Global Warming article (e.g. the temperature record), or perhaps one of the sub articles. As far as I can tell it is true. It does not necessarily disprove man made global warming, because the first 800 years could have been caused by another process, and then CO2 could have accelerated the process in a feedback loop. If we are to have an honest discussion about global warming then I think we need to talk about these things and attempt to explain them, not ignore them.

I don't think any more weight needs to be given to the programme than that however, as it was made by someone who is known to be biased and who has previously been severely criticised for distorting people's views. He appears to have done it again to some extent in this programme as well, looking at Wunsch's comments.

--Merlinme 12:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the 800y stuff is that while its a nice skeptic talking point, it has no scientific validity (ie, you won't find *any* scientific papers arguing that 800 lag implies anything about current warming) William M. Connolley 12:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"No scientific validity" is surely too strong. For example, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ (and the comments which follow) discuss it with some seriousness. When we're dealing with something as complicated as the atmosphere which evolves over thousands of years, and we only have a few decades of modern data which appear to show a correlation between manmade CO2 and warming, then surely correlation vs. causation has to be considered?

--Merlinme 12:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a common misperception that the correlation of CO2 and temperature is used as "proof" or evidence for the causal relationship. But that is incorrect. The causal relationship follows from the emission and absorbtion spectra of the the earth, the sun, and CO2, and was known long before any measurements could be made to confirm it. The fact that CO2 and temperature are strongly correlated in the paleo record just confirms this relationship. --Stephan Schulz 12:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but it's surely relevant that the most recently observed case of global warming in the ice core record was instigated by a non CO2 cause? The main argument is about the extent to which recently observed warming is caused by manmade CO2 vs. other causes. --Merlinme 13:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? If you could find a sci paper discussing possible relevance, then yes it would be. The RC piece you linked to discusses why it *isn't* relevant. All I ever see from the skeptics is "T lead CO2 in the ice cores; therefore CO2 doesn't cause GW today". This is just not an argument, its two things thrown together. Have you ever seen a more coherent version of this that makes logical sense? William M. Connolley 13:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about the argument I just constructed: the most recent cause of global warming in the ice core record was not caused by CO2, therefore have we fully discounted other causes when considering what is causing the current case of global warming? Look, I'm attempting to play devil's advocate here. I want there to be a sensible discussion of why the ice core record does not mean we can ignore CO2. But I'm sure I'm not the only person who wants this to be explained. Ice core records are frequently given as evidence that high CO2 = high temperature. If the high temperature comes first, is this a sensible way of presenting the ice core evidence?

--Merlinme 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the current article has science in it, not non-science. You're arguing for a section discouting various myths about GW. Which might well be reasonable. Well... how about "It is sometimes asserted that because ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 800 years at glacial terminations, CO2 cannot be causing temperature rises today. This is a logical non-sequitor; and as far as can be told CO2 *was* involved in temperature rises during deglaciations: but they were triggered by other factors [12]. As far as can be told, this has no relevance for global warming today"? William M. Connolley 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the alternative view, no matter how ludicrous it may, or may not be perceived, should be included in the article? As long as there is evidence to back it up (which it appears there may be having discussed it above), then it at least warrants a mention on the article. 500 years ago, Galileo was quashed due to thinking that Earth wasn't at the centre of the Universe. The two have similar circumstances. No matter how ridiculous an idea might be perceived, it merits a mention for the fact it is an ongoing theory into global warming, whether it is a scientific theory or not. The article is about Global Warming, not Scientific Theories regarding Global Warming. Whilst the programme may well have been biased, there's no reason for the wikipedia article to be too - if it only protrays one of the sides, then the article will be biased towards the CO2 theory. On that basis, I think this alternative merits inclusion. Alex Holowczak 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, what's needed is a serious scientific reference that gives the idea credibility. We can't include every idea that appears in a TV show. (By the way it's probably best to refrain from the Galileo Gambit). Raymond Arritt 21:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares, there is now a section "Arguments which dispute attribution to CO2" on the "Attribution_of_recent_climate_change" page. It was originally created by William M. Connolley as "Myths of attribution". I've attempted to rewrite it to present the argument more fairly, although I still think it is essentially wrong. Merlinme 10:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is this program for everyone to see, and to judge for themselves. Those who claim that it contains no scientific evidence are brazen liars. I don't know how Mr, Connolley is capable of looking into his mirror. [Deleted link to copyright violation per Wikipedia policy.] 66.82.9.87 22:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response under "IPCC", below for my well sourced rebuttal to this program. 66.82.9.87, please do not spam your posts. We do read it even if you post it once. --h2g2bob 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

talk page length

A bit of track but this talk page is exceedingly long. Is it possible that the rate of archiving can be increased? For anyone trying to look at recent updates and debates on the main article this lot can be a bit daunting. --Chickenfeed9 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. ~ UBeR 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also begin to expect reoccurring discussions, almost verbatim, to take place, as it is the norm after archiving. ~ UBeR 01:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Growing Backlash

The NY Times today has an interesting article on the growing backlash against overzealous statements about global warming. It is especially critical of Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth and the way it tied global warming to hurricanes. A middle ground is emerging between the Warmers like Al Gore and the Skeptics like Benny Peiser. The scientists in the middle are demanding more accuracy in statements about global warming and less hype. I think this article may deserved to be mentioned in the article. [13] RonCram 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. The article takes Peiser as a credible source on existence of a consensus. Raymond Arritt 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I have spent much time in Northern Canada hoping global warming would kick in as soon as possible, I was astounded at how many errors there were in Gore's book. Apparently the publisher who printed it doesn't have a science editor to clean up the zingers. Among other things, Al talks about the "drunken trees of the tundra". But there are no trees in the tundra by definition. Tundra is the zone where the climate is too cold for trees to survive. Then he has pictures of buildings collapsing because of melting permafrost due to "global warming". Building in permafrost is not easy. If you build a basement, the heat from it melts the permafrost and it sinks into the ground, as in the picture. If you build a multi-story apartment, you have to drive piles right to bedrock to prevent it from melting the permafrost and collapsing, as in the picture. And then, there's the mountain pine beetle, which according to Al is killing the "spruce" trees because of global warming. Al is unclear on the difference between pine and spruce. Since my back yard is an official pine beetle control zone, let me explain. The lodgepole pine is fast-growing, short-lived tree that doesn't bother to fight off beetles because it thrives where forest fires regularly destroy all the trees and kill all the beetles. The first tree to bounce back is the lodgepole pine because the heat from the fire causes the seeds to germinate. If there are no forest fires, the spruce will take over. The real problem here is that a century of controlling forest fires has resulted in huge numbers of overmature pines, which is not the natural condition of the forest, and so the pine beetle is killing them in drives. If you want to fix the problem, toss a match into the forest and restore it to its natural state. My solution, since I don't want to burn down the house, is to plant spruce between the old pines. The above is just a sample of the misinformation, it's a book written by a politician for political reasons. RockyMtnGuy 04:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A Simple Analysis

The normal CO2 rise between a glacial period and an interglacial period is about 100ppm, the associated temperature rise is about 18-20 degrees F as best I can tell from the article's graphs. The current CO2 level appears to be another 100ppm above the normal interglacial level. Why has the temperature not risen a proportional amount (another 18-20 degrees F) instead of a degree or two? Tobyw 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rate of sea level change graph shows quite rapid melting from early on.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png Tobyw 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Because the ice ages were caused mainly by slow variations in the Earth-sun geometry, not by CO2 (though CO2 was involved in feedback effects). See Milankovitch cycles for details. Raymond Arritt 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure thats really right, though its part of it. Another part is that we haven't finished responding to the raised CO2 - we have another degree or so to go. Another is that the forcing is like log(CO2) not linear. Another is that the *global* changes were more like 4-5 oC (?) - not sure about your numbers, maybe for Greenland? Another is that the glacial sees vast ice sheets over N America which have a big feedback effect William M. Connolley 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who wants a fair summary of this whole issue should find a TV programme called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - Channel 4 aired it in the UK on 08/03/07.

And then what should they do with that laughable rubbish (which I enjoyed of course) in order to get to this fair summary you are refering to? --BozMo talk 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This TV program is not a "laughable rubbish." It is a documentary quoting several top-notch scientists, specialists in climatology, demonstrating the futility of emotional fanatical environmentalism in the face of facts. Anyone interested can judge for themselves here: (link to copyright violation removed - see WP:EL) 69.19.14.34 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Betting on Global Warming

Can anyone tell me where I can bet a few hundred pounds on Global Warming not happening? 88.111.137.110 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Weather Betting Information

Standard markets for betting on the weather are temperature markets, where punters back predictions for the temperature in a given month. Options include exact prediction or backing a temperature range, for example x degrees or higher/lower. Given the nature of the market, betting options are seasonal with top temperature prediction being the standard during British summertime to be replaced by lowest temperature markets in winter. Also look out other weather specials such as the occasional average rainfall markets. As we began to suggest above, not every bookie will offer markets for weather bets. In fact, out of all the bookies we checked, only one site had such markets. .... Pity about that! 88.111.137.110 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Willam has a standing offer at User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change. --Stephan Schulz 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why Mars has Global Warming? Is it because of Martian SUV's or because of Al Gore's mansion? [| National Geographic]

It does not, read the second page of that article.--Stephan Schulz 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is an example of why many people consider Wikipedia and its so-called NPOV a joke. 70.108.101.57 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. --Stephan Schulz 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't really a joke, but the Kyoto Agreement has its humorous moments. After reading the latest International Energy Agency forecast, I added a few sentences to the article pointing out that China (exempt from Kyoto) is going to become the world's largest emitter of CO2 either this year or next, and China and India (also exempt) are going to account for 80% of the increase in world coal use for the next 25 years. So, if you believe in the greenhouse effect, put your money into beachfront property in Alaska, because Kyoto ain't gonna stop anything. RockyMtnGuy 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only not going to stop anything (because of China and India and Russia and other things) but would cost the United States such a huge amount of money for very little back. Which is why the US refused to sign it, as they should have refused. Kyoto is counter-productive. Ever notice it's the large industrialized countries that do a lot on their own to make things cleaner and then are asked to pay more to make things cleaner for the poluting countries? "You make so much money, it's only fair." is not a good argument. Help your economic rivals by doing things they don't have to and making them more competitive? That's crazy. Everyone on this planet would be hurt by Kyoto, for nothing. Why does everyone want to make things worse in the name of making them better? What kind of lunatic wants to spend billions of dollars to freeze Co2 and put it in underground storage tanks? We'd be better off jetisoning this kind of nonsense unreason and pay attention to the real problem -- the population size and power of fanatics, and fanatics possibly getting nuclear weapons. You think Co2 (you know, the stuff plants breathe) and methane (you know, the stuff animals expel) are bad? Try a 5 kiloton detonation in Frankfurt or a suitcase full of powdered nuclear waste in The Tube's air system. Sln3412 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The US did sign the Kyoto treaty, of course. And the rest of your contribution is similarly informed.--Stephan Schulz 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This "article" (editorial) makes a mockery of Science

(Look at what the cat dragged in)

"The vast majority of climate scientists in the world seriously and objectively studies what it is that influences global climate changes. We don't hear as much from them in the media as we do from the far smaller but also far more vocal minority of climate scientists who make a living by publicizing alarmist and often outrageous claims about man's detrimental influence on the global climate. ...Objective scientists find that the evidence supporting a man-made global warming trend is at best skimpy.""Global Warming Explained The solar constant isn't constant. The sun is a variable star" (HTML). Bruderheim REA. Retrieved 2007-03-14. So according to the wast "silent majority" of climatologists don't believe in global warming. The rest are ones cashing in on spreading alarming propaganda. Don't you wish you could edit their web page and insert a in several select places? Kgrr 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is this program for everyone to see, and to judge for themselves. Those who claim that it contains no scientific evidence are brazen liars. I don't know how Mr, Connolley is capable of looking into his mirror. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 66.82.9.87 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response under "IPCC", below for my well sourced rebuttal to this program. Let me say that director Martin Durkin actually IS a liar. See also this article in The Telegraph for how he deals with criticism by name calling. Finally, 66.82.9.87, please do not spam your posts. We do read it even if you post it once. --h2g2bob 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Man made C02 emissions as percentage of total world emissions

Will someone find a pie chart or facts showing man made C02 emissions as a percentage of the total C02 produced on earth? i.e. including sea, other animals, volcanoes, etc.

I heard on the Channel 4 Global Warming program that man made C02 emissions are actually only a small fraction of total world C02 emissions and so we think we control the situation with greenhouse gases whereas actually we only have a miniscule effect compared to nature... I think hard facts on this issue would be worthwhile for the debate. GJ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.101.189 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

As with many of the statements in TGGWS documentary, this falls into the "true but irrelevant" category. The natural sources and sinks are (for all practical purposes) in balance. Fossil fuel burning adds a source term but not a corresponding sink, so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Also measurements of changes in the isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 confirm that fossil fuels are cause of increased CO2. There are plenty of uncertainties in the science of climate change -- but the reason for the CO2 increase isn't one of them. Raymond Arritt 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You can find more at Carbon cycle, including a nice diagram. Man-made emissions are somewhere in the 2-4% range. However, they make up about 160% of the actual surplus (the 60% are currently absorbed in various sinks, mostly the ocean). --Stephan Schulz 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I intepret what you said as the carbon cycle being steady state. Will the surplus fossil fuel burning generated CO2 not find a 'sink' to maintain stedy state? What mechanism has caused CO2 concentrations to be within a narrow channel, unlike the current trend caused by fossil fuel generated CO2? Furthermore, how can we say with certainty, temperature is a function of fossil fuel CO2 concentrations? In other words, how will the fossil generated CO2, that is as you say represents a relatively small portion of CO2 emission into the atmosphere cause such a dramatic rise in temperature as the models predict? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Much is explained in the global warming article itself, as well as related articles such as greenhouse gas. Your colleagues at PCMDI can fill in details. Raymond Arritt 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Climate models can only validated by actual temperature measurement

I consider myself neutral on this subject. I have sifted through the scientific literature and popular media and nothing I've seen proves or disprove the theory of anthropogenic warming beyond doubt. And don't forget, amongst all the arguing--only experiment can dispell doubt. With a large and complex system such as our climate with many coupled variables it makes it impossible to perform a controlled experiment in the laboratory at this time.

And unfortunately computer models, such as the various climate models, do not generate experimental data because they depend on assumption. Furthermore it's impossible to predict how these assumption interact. Computer models in general are notoriously unreliable and therefore should not be trusted until validated by experiment. Remember, models are written by programmers (the same people who write windows and computer viruses). Programmers are human. As we all know humans make errors, much of them unforeseeable. That’s why software development has a critical step known as beta testing where ‘debugging’ occurs. With scientific models the important debugging feedback loop is generated by comparing the model to the experimental data. Several generations of bugging are required to develop a robust model of any scientific phenomenon. Therefore to validate the climate models we must measure the climate itself. Unfortunately it seems this will take a long time.

How long is uncertain. In terms of geological reconstructed temperature data we see significant temperature changes occurring in frequency of at least hundreds of years. That's quite a long time to wait to validate a model. After including error in this reconstructed data and any incorrect assumptions and the correlation length will grow further. Since we are only now in the early stages of this grand climate experiment it is hard to imagine how any conclusions can be written in stone.

Simply looking back at the history of science you'll see many popular theories later disproved and mostly forgotten over a generation. Therefore it should not surprise us if the current popular theory of anthropogenic 'green house' CO2 caused warming, which this Wikipedia article claims as the consensus view, to be disproved by experiment and mostly forgotten as other have in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

By that sense then, the article will be updated accordingly when the future comes. Most of the data is concentrated on current data, not expected future data. Just by trend alone, we can make some inductions. So it would be nonsensical to forget about the article and theory of global warming simply because there's a possibility of being "disproved by experiment" (because it hasn't yet). ~ UBeR 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You say Just by trend alone, we can make some inductions, however there's a problem with using trends to predict future behaviour. The difficulty is that you have to assume a causal relationship. The climate change data shows a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, but that's a long way short of a demonstrating causation. Of course you can hypothesize a causal relationship via a model such as greenhouse warming, but how do you parameterize that model when all you've got is the same data, which shows a correlation, that prompted you to consider a causal relationship in the first place? Fizzackerly 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Climate models don't work by extrapolating past trends. The radiation parameterizations are based on line-by-line absoroption/emission properties of radiatively-active gases as can be measured in the laboratory. The relationship of CO2 to temperature then is a result of the physics, not an assumption. Raymond Arritt 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

128.115.27.10 hardly sounds like a 'neutral' person, as he/she strictly toes the skeptics argument line. They didn't even sign their name... Skyemoor 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The comments by 128.115.27.10 sound reasonable and sensible to me. I work in the area of structural failure, and predictions of the lifetimes of oil rigs, buildings and bridges is fraught with problems, even in the rather short time scales of decades. A finite element analysis can be way out if the data input is flawed, and just the same applies to global warming models. What if new phenomena are discovered in the interim which throw the calculations? Caution is needed in interpreting the results of computer models, especially in view of the fact that short-term models used to predict the weather are frequently inaccurate, despite the hype by meteorologists.

Peterlewis 06:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A great deal of caution is used with these models. If a number of reputable engineers told you that they had computer models showing that a bridge you'd designed was unstable and would collapse, would "let's wait and see" be the right response? More generally, this is a scientific question about how to deal with situations where n=1 and can never be greater than one. Experiments cannot be performed as we would require of physics or even biology. More precisely, they can be performed exactly once, and then you'll have to live with the results. bikeable (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Akward temp formatting

Right now we have our temperature format as # °C/F. Just wondering why this is, as it is most typical to have as #° C/F. All of the sources for this article either have it like the latter or no space at all. I suggest we use the latter of my examples. ~ UBeR 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just flipped through a dozen or so articles from several journals in the field. Most don't use a space. I found one that uses # °C. I'd prefer no space, but don't particularly care as long as it's consistent. Raymond Arritt 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Solar

I have rewritten and considerably compressed the solar section. Please complain here. It was far too bitty, with too much detail that ought to be in the sub article. This was prompted by, and overwrote, Dansphere's changes: apologies (on which subject, Image:Cosmic_rays_and_temperature_showing_recent_anomaly.JPG looks like a copyvio) William M. Connolley 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"It appears likely taht solar variations..." Typo, plus, "It appears likely that...", isn't a formal scientific writing style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

IPCC

Given some of the accusations and counter-accusations surrounding the IPCC, don't you think that the IPCC material belongs in Global warming controversy instead of in this article? --Don't lose that number 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The IPCC, like the UN, has an official consensus status despite sometimes getting into contraversy. --BozMo talk 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Official consensus status." Heh. ~ UBeR 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the proof there is a consensus? I demand proof, socialist liars. 20 signatures from socialist beaurocrats is not a consensus. 70.176.5.79 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is this program for everyone to see, and to judge for themselves. Those who claim that it contains no scientific evidence are brazen liars. I don't know how Mr, Connolley is capable of looking into his mirror. [deleted link to copyright violation per Wikipedia policy] 66.82.9.87 22:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, consider that some of the graphs are doctored,[14] some other data is from a source which has well known inaccuracies,[15] yet more data is many years out of date,[16] one of the scientists claims to have been misrepresented by the program,[17] and director Martin Durkin has previously been in trouble with TV regulator Ofcom over another documentary on gloabl warming 10 years ago, the result of which Channel 4 had to make a prime time apology.[18] Further notice the large number of good-quality references in my statement, and notice the utter lack of any supporting evidence on the Channel 4 website.[19] In the words of Marcus Brigstocke, "someone's pants are on fire. Who's are they? They're Martin Durkin's." --h2g2bob 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this pseudo-science is not legitimate. They admit in the document they have not provided any of the data but have only "collected" it. Why not just stick with primary sources rather than some pseudo-governmental group. Please leave the science up to the scientists, not the politicians. Without this "source" much of the argument fails70.20.192.207 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent findings section

I tried to create the following section today. it was deleted. Is there some reason that some people seem unable to accept this kind of section? I thought others' ideas were welcome at Wikipedia. Thanks.

Recent Developments and Findings

Note: In addition to being a scientific concept, global warming is also a societal issue. This section will be for documenting various recent findings and statements by various groups. If you prefer to focus on the scientific aspects, then that is fine. However, please do not veto others' ideas about might be valid here. Thanks for your help.

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who deleted it, but suspect the problem was that the section contained no actual information. By the way, don't use language like "this section will be for..." in the text visible to the reader -- include it as a comment, if necessary. Raymond Arritt 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. That's a valid question. Once I added the section, I added a recent finding by the NOAA that Dec 06 -Feb 07 was the warmest winter on record. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I've deleted the section. The first part, an editorial comment, does not belong on the article page, but only onto this talk page. If you feel you need it on the article space, format it as an HTML comment <!--- Like this --->, so that it is only visible to editors, not to readers. "Recent developments" is not a good title, as a) what is recent changes permanently (and this is not WikiNews), and b) its bound to become an unorganized list of vaguely related points, with few of them put into a suitable context for interpretation. Temperatures of a single winter, for example, are suggestive, but irrelevant for global warming. That's why I suggested (in my edit summary) to put it into instrumental temperature record, an article that deals with just these measurements. I think a section on extreme seasons and years would fit in very nicely there (2007 is warmest winter, the 10 warmest winters were in the last 12 years, 1998 and 2005 are the warmest years, and so on). --Stephan Schulz 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stephan. thanks for your reply. i understand your point. however, my point is that we could use a section for societal issues and developments, along with the more scientific sections. So that's why it seems fine to have a section which tracks these; it would not be simply semi-related points, but it would be valuable for tracking societal developments, which are extremely relevant to this issue. --Steve, User:Sm8900 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A "Recent findings" section is a bad idea. If there are any noteworthy recent findings, they can be incorporated into the article accordingly. That's not to say, of course, that other issues unrelated to the scientific prose cannot be discussed. ~ UBeR 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

'a) what is recent changes permanently' I know of a recent idea that changes, It's called global warming and it is so recent that we haven't proven what causes it yet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.133.59 (talk • contribs)

I understand. However, I would still like a recent developments section, which can reflect new events in societal, political and organizational areas, along with scientific areas. --Steve, Sm8900 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it can be integrated. ~ UBeR 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy pages recommend that "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." What's current is constantly changing and thus will quickly become obsolete. As UBeR and others have already mentioned, important new findings are better integrated into the article as appropriate. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

terminology and AGW

Just to explain my recent edit... I was redirected to this article from a search on AGW, which, it seems to me, is the precise term in use in the community of climatologists to refer to the current warming. So I found it a little jarring to read that 'global warming' is both the common and the scientific term in use. Simply not true, though of course scientists will use the common term when talking to the public and among themselves informally. Also, the standard convention when referring to a term as a term, rather than to its referent is to enclose the term in single quotes. Baon 17:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I should add that I examined the cite given and found no evidence that 'global warming' is a scientific term. The cite seems to be only a support of the anthropogenic claim. Baon 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Double quotation marks per MoS and formal American English. ~ UBeR 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Both terms are used in the scientific literature (as will be confirmed by a quick search on "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming"). "Global warming" (with "anthropogenic" usually implicit) is more common but "anthropogenic global warming" is useful especially when there is a specific need to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural components of the warming. Raymond Arritt 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, the results for the former search loses about 20,000 articles when the word "anthropogenic" is not included. ~ UBeR 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I get about 90000 hits for "global warming", 411 for "anthropogenic global warming" (and 22600 when searching for individual words, not the whole phrase). All on http://scholar.google.org, of course. On Google it's 67,000,000 vs. 100,000. Did you mix up scholar and Google proper?--Stephan Schulz 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he means "global warming" but with a negative on "anthropogenic", like this. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Stephan Schulz 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a little unfair, however, since it eliminates things with "global warming" and "anthropogenic" anywhere, while presumably we want to eliminate things that have the exact phrase "anthropogenic global warming" like so: [20]. I have no idea exactly what's happening with the count there, but it is interesting (probably some sort of Google artifact). -- Leland McInnes 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the original point, we've established that "global warming" is indeed commonly used in the scientific literature. Move along... Raymond Arritt 20:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Guess I'm a little out of my depth. But no one changed it back, so I guess my edit wasn't too atrocious. Someone did replace the double quotes. My read of the MoS is actually italics, not double or single quotes. Sorry, I wasn't aware of the MoS. Baon 04:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are all the older predictions?

Every 2 months the Popular Science magazine would come out with a new doomesday global warming graph. In one issue from the early 1990's we should be 10-20 degrees warmer by 2007. Where are all the older predictions?

These older preditions would serve a comedic value to a particularly bland subject, I think this is essential to the entire subject to get more people interested in Global Warming. 70.176.5.79 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Popular Science magazine, but early 1990's predictions as reported in the scientific literature weren't anywhere near as dramatic as that. The best sources for the older predictions are the previous IPCC reports, available here. Raymond Arritt 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading about Global warming in an old magazine in the loo it was talking about 70m rise is see level - I've left it there where it can serve some useful purpose. Future psycologists are going to have a field day looking at fear and dread produced by a few early daffodils! Mike 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation

Check out the wiki article on disinformation. It will explain the whole Global Warming hoax...--68.80.207.22 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. When I tried to point out that Global Warming is a disinfomation hoax, my post was immediately removed. It's a shame people blindly follow the masses without actually doing the research. 70.20.192.207 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ref 31

Please can I have the page number where the claims attributed to this reference are? I can find China overtaking the USA "by 2010" but not the other bit? I think it might make more sense to include some of the other figures about the percentage of the worlds CO2 from other sources? --BozMo talk 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I, too, found the bit saying China would be world leader in emissions before 2010. Sentence was changed to reflect this. ~ UBeR 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

Roughly thirty years ago, weren't the majority of scientists running amock, crying out about "global cooling" and how it was going to kill us all? That happened sometime int he 70's. The Earth must have heated up awful fast. And what happened to the hundreds of millions killed from global cooling? Didn't happen. Global warming is a natural occurance, and nothing we can do can decrease or increase the amount of cooling or warming of our atmosphere. Hate to burst you hysterical nutjobs' bubbles, but no matter how many "green" vehicles you make factories pump out, no matter how many poor, starving Africa-Americans you kill by forcing them to switch from oil/coal-based energy sources to solar energy sources (seriously, shame on you for forcing them to use solar energy), it won't change the fact that global warming is not a threat and it will not kill millions of people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.114.83 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 March 2007

You need to read global cooling William M. Connolley 09:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Dr. C - That's not much of an answer: the article you linked is hard to read.
2. Unsigned - This really should be discussed in Global warming controversy, if at all. In general, the discussion page should focus on suggestions to improve the article. Your assertions that 'Global warming is a natural occurance' and that there's 'nothing we can do' will be relevant to this discussion if you provide what we like to call "secondary sources". Please supply a verifiable source for these viewpoints, otherwise they cannot go into the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 March 2007

I've clarified it a little, but its basically pretty easy to read. But if you want something simpler, then "no" is the answer William M. Connolley 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Description, But Where's The Action!

To complete this entry, it should have references to the various movements/standards designed to reduce our collective impact on the environment. Examples are Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or TurnLeaf Green Office Standards. Thoughts?

There's a small "Mitigation" section in this article. ~ UBeR 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, i suggest you look at Mitigation of global warming. thanks for suggesting. --Sm8900 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My view

I strongly think that global warming is a fact, and a proven theory. There's been strong evidence on both sides of the topic, but yet, I think it is pretty obvious that the side in favor of global warming has stronger evidence of it. Obviously, there always will be doubters, but eventually there HAS to be end to the debate. And as time passes by, it really seems like everyone agrees with global warming. I'm not exactly an expert on this, but I have heard from people I know, that generally every country agrees that the earth is warming, and that humans are causing this. Also, I consider it a fact because of the weather I've had where I am. In the winter of 2007, temperatures should obviously be cold, with a high temperature at about 40 degrees. However, in January, there was a span of about 1 and a half weeks where the high temperautures were in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s. Moreover, there should be about 30 inches of snow where I live. However, it is March 23, 2007, and we have had less than 15 inches of snow this winter. I don't think such conditions are simple heat waves or coincidences.

P.S. This is my first time trying to sign a message, and I'm sorry if I didn't do it right.

Asiansaxboy101 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Asiansaxboy101Asiansaxboy101 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you got everything right except you haven't read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. If you're here to help edit the article, though, you are welcome. --Uncle Ed 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Asiansaxboy101, talk pages are reserved for discussions about improving the current article. Every once in a while discussions can go on a tangent, or usually serve no purpose than to . On busy pages such as these, we try to limit that to the absolute minimum. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia though! P.S. Wikipedia will automatically sign your name and date for you if you simply type four tildes (~~~~) in a row. ~ UBeR 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)