Talk:Climate change/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Scibaby developments

See discussion here Raul654 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a follow up note on the above -- now, when Scibaby makes certain edits, you guys should see (in the page histories, user contribs, and watchlists) his edits tagged with the phrase "Possible Scibaby sockpuppet" or "Probably Scibaby sockpuppet", depending on which filter he trips. Raul654 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of a sock tripping the tag. (The second "Probable" filter is currently disabled while Dragonsflight optimizes it) Raul654 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. Thanks for setting this up. The technical evidence helps confirm suspicions raised by other means. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we probably need to have a discussion about that. I'd like to see a better justification for presence of two filters. These are technically complex filters and the Abuse Filter as a whole is already pushing against some fundamental performance limits. I'd prefer either one complex filter (which is the current situation) or two relatively much simpler filters. Dragons flight (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

205 is the simple filter. Without getting into a discussion of the specific ruleset, I don't see how you can make it any simpler without substantially reducing its usefulness. 206 is the one that's supposed to be more complex.

As I write this, the abuse filter dropped 1 out of the last 1,441 actions (0.07%), so I don't think we're pushing the limit yet. And I think Scibaby's repeated disruption on GW articles more than justifies the presence of two filters. Raul654 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday afternoon (sometime after you wrote 205 / 206) we were dropping 20% of actions. Since then ~20 filters were turned off to get the condition limit back under reasonable bounds. Dragons flight (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I don't know much about Scibaby though. I'm sorry to ask, but can someone get me up to speed? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Carbon sequestration

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an approach to mitigation. Emissions may be sequestered from fossil fuel power plants, or removed during processing in hydrogen production. When used on plants, it is known as bio-energy with carbon capture and storage.

Added image in the section "Mitigation". Talked about it before, neared consensus, but didn't act on it, back in June.[1] Tried to touch off on: mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering—in the caption, but it could be better. Wording is taken from the linked articles. Here's the diff.[2] ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Important new evidence of warming

A Canadian astronaut has visually verified that the ice caps are smaller than when he last viewed them from space (12 years ago). Should we include this evidence in the article? 18.100.0.132 (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but nah; that's a qualitative observation and while it makes a good story, there are many quantitative observations with much shorter measurement frequencies. Awickert (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Q&A Sun Changes Question

on Q12: "Are changes on the sun responsible for planetary warming? (No.)" - shouldn't this include a reference to solar variation since that article is specifically pointed at this issue? Also, that article appears to attribute about 20% of the climate changes to solar changes, which in my book is still a "No." but maybe a "No, but," 216.255.104.61 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Also, while I haven't logged on my account in a few years, I am not a sock puppet. I'll post while logged in from now on. Ignignot (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone is in the process of reorganizing the FAQ. I like the new format with drop-down boxes but I don't think he or she has properly summarized the questions and responses in all cases (such as the one you point out). When the reformatting is done I'll go back and reword things a bit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The FAQ is a great tool for summarizing the huge amount of discussion that has taken place on this contentious article, and I'm glad it is getting attention. Good luck rewording it. Ignignot (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very narrow and one-sided FAQ answers. The lack of balance argues strongly against the AGW bias to all but the most gullible readers. Looks like the AGW-ers are circling the wagons. Is this desperation preceding annihilation?Dikstr (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You miss-spelled "factually and well-sourced". Of course, the FAQ has been here for years, it's just now been moved into the header by some otherwise uninvolved Wikignome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Writelabor. What do you guys think about placing the "References" in a collapsible box? Or collapsing the FAQ box as a whole? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing the whole FAQ including the references would be good (though I don't know how to do it). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Notice

Please retain this notice for at least 2 weeks to allow interested parties time to see it. I feel that editors who are interested in Global Warming or Climate Change related articles may also be interested in participating in the following RfC: RfC: How should this page be disambiguated? --GoRight (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Caused by the human bodies?

How much of the CO2 in the earth's atmosphere comes from the CO2 producing human bodies of earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

None, essentially. The CO2 humans breathe out is created from atmospheric Oxygen and complex Carbon compounds the body dismantles to generate the energy that keeps it alive. Those complex Carbon compounds have been built ultimately by plants using photosynthesis, pulling CO2 out of the air and releasing Oxygen. It's only a cycle, there is no net addition of CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See carbon cycle. Besides the point, an individual human emits about a kilogram a day,[3] don't know the variation. There's an estimated 6,707,000,000 population as of July 1, 2009—so that's about 6,707,000,000 kilograms of CO₂ a day. Remember that populations change with time (and season, metabolism, ect; but don't know the variations). So making a rough estimate, entered in world population from 1960 to 2005, made a least-squared logistic regression, and integrated from 1960 to 2009, got 2.369565E+11. Multiply this by 365, that's 8.5304E+13 kilograms since 1960. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge into economic and political debate

Cla68, there's duplication in the section "Skepticism".

• The setence added to the lead and the first sentence in the section states "A small number of scientists or political figures dispute all or some of the generally-accepted consensus on global warming science." Went over a sentence similar to that before in February,[4] for example in the first paragraph in the lead, for the consensus to be "endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science" the dissenting "number" of scientist would in fact be "small". Those "political figures" who dispute the generally-accepted consensus are not small.
• The last sentnece in the paragraph "According to the newsmagazine Frontline, many of these scientists work or have worked for organizations that have received donations from large energy corporations." reiterates the last paragraph in the section "Economic and political debate" flipping from perspective of the energy corporations to the scientists "[...]have downplayed IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections[...]"

The section can be encompassed by the "Economic and political debate" (which used to be called "Controversy") either as a subsection if it grow to be large enough or integrated into the prose. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Diff.[5] Not a lot I can merge though, sorry for your hard work, it was still interesting though. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not all skeptics are funded by energy companies. Freeman Dyson, for example. So I readded a shortened paragraph noting that and moving the wikilink to that section. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Global Temperature versus Carbon Dioxide

Please repost the historical graph showing global temperature and CO2 plotted together on the same graph versus year. The historical graph shows the relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide. After posting the graph for years, Why was the graph deleted?

Also please update the historical graphs of global temperature. Why do all the graphs stop at year 2000? This is 2009 already. Is the information that stale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.241.52 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which graph you are talking about - possibly File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png? It's used e.g. in Greenhouse gas and in Climate change. Most of the graphs are actually fairly current. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit on economics

I've revised the section below:

Some economists have tried to estimate the aggregate net economic costs of damages from climate change across the globe. Such estimates have so far yielded no conclusive findings; in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (tC) (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide), with a mean of US$43 per tonne of carbon (US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide).[79]

One widely publicized report on potential economic impact is the Stern Review. It suggests that extreme weather might reduce global gross domestic product by up to one percent, and that in a worst-case scenario global per capita consumption could fall 20 percent.[80] The report's methodology, advocacy and conclusions have been criticized by many economists, primarily around the Review's assumptions of discounting and its choices of scenarios.[81] Others have supported the general attempt to quantify economic risk, even if not the specific numbers.[82][83]

I didn't like the way the IPCC SCC estimates were given without the caveats presented in the Report. My revision is below:

The IPCC report presents the aggregate net economic costs of damages from climate change across the globe (discounted to the specified year): in 2005, the average social cost of carbon from 100 peer-reviewed estimates is US$12 per tonne of CO₂, but the range of these estimates is large (-$3 to $95/tCO₂). The IPCC's gives these cost estimates with several caveats: 'Aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions and populations and very likely [greater than 90% probability] underestimate damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts.'

I thought the phasing of 'many economists' criticising the Stern Review is vague and not justified based on the citation given. I changed this to be more specific, ie. some actual economists who have criticised the Review. For balance, I did the same for economists supportive of the Review:

One widely publicized report on potential economic impact is the Stern Review, written by Sir Nicholas Stern. It suggests that extreme weather might reduce global gross domestic product by up to one percent, and that in a worst-case scenario global per capita consumption could fall by the equivalent of 20 percent. The response to the Stern Review was mixed. The Review's methodology, advocacy and conclusions were criticized by several economists, including Richard Tol, Gary Yohe,Robert Mendelsohnand William Nordhaus.Economists that have generally supported the Review include Terry Barker,William Cline,and Frank Ackerman.According to Barker, the costs of mitigating climate change are 'insignificant' relative to the risks of unmitigated climate change.

Enescot (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up the prose. Cut out the confidence interval. You got this from page 22 of the SPM didn't you? The wording echoes it. I'm not an economist, but prose seems off. I'm reserving judgement for the second paragraph. Boris can you review this? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's from page 22. Why did you cut out the IPCC probability assessment? Enescot (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We made the decision last month to cut all the probability assessments actually.[6][7][8] Looks like they're running a significance test. Boris might have a better answer, but very likely/90% certainly/probability/confidence/whatever looks like a one-sided confidence interval or 1 minus alpha. Alone it's rarely descriptive and more often misinterpreted than useful. In my opinion, a p-value would be better. The caveat is a hanging modifier, they tell you that it's underestimated, but not by how much. SPM is Summery to Policy Makers, you need to watch out when they're being political. They left it as a hanging modifier without telling by how much because it's probably not important economically or scientifically, but useful politically. I liked how you attributed the IPCC, didn't catch that; however the previous version seems better. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I didn't like the previous edit at all. I don't see the use in giving the social cost of carbon figure without some explanation. In my opinion, I would say that other issues are far more important than SCC estimates, namely:

• the uneven distributional impacts of climate change
• the difficulty in monetising/valuing damages of climate change

I added the IPCC quote to give an indication of these problems.Enescot (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the caveats are important. Rather than taking snippets from the IPCC, how about cutting it down to "These estimates mask uneven distributional impacts and do not include the costs of non-quantifiable impacts." ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the IPCC assessment of non-monetised impacts should be mentioned, i.e.,

It is likely that the globally aggregated figures from integrated assessment models underestimate climate costs because they do not include significant impacts that have not yet been monetised

I've rewritten the paragraph so that it contains no quotes. IPCC report page numbers are in brackets:

'One measure of climate change impacts is the social cost of carbon (SCC) {p821}. The SCC is a global aggregate estimate, and based on the marginal impact of emitting one more tonne of carbon (as carbon dioxide) at any point in time. The mean peer-reviewed SCC estimate is US$43 per tonne of carbon, with a standard deviation of US$83 per tonne {p813}. These values are from 2007 IPCC Assessment Report. SCC estimates are calculated using integrated assessment models. Not all climate change impacts are included in these models, and as a result, the true costs of climate change may larger or smaller than predicted. The IPCC concluded that climate change costs were probably underestimated by integrated assessment models {p813}. One problem with global aggregate estimates, like the SCC, is that they do not indicate of how the impacts of climate change will be distributed. According to the IPCC report, climate change impacts would likely be unevenly distributed between developing and developed countries {p795}. With modest warming (2 degrees Celsius global mean temperature increase above 1990 levels), many developing countries would be expected to suffer net negative market sector impacts, while net positive market sector impacts would be expected in many developed countries. Some population groups in developed countries are vulnerable to less than 2 degrees Celsius of warming. With 4 degrees Celisus of warming, net negative impacts would be expected in many developing and developed countries.'

References:

• Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer, A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez and F. Yamin. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds. (2007). "Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Cambridge University Press.
• Yohe, G.W., R.D. Lasco, Q.K. Ahmad, N.W. Arnell, S.J. Cohen, C. Hope, A.C. Janetos and R.T. Perez. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds. (2007). "Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Cambridge University Press.

Enescot (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The last half of the paragraph is page 796, right? Sentence one and two could be merged and articulated, don't assume the reader already knows what "aggregate estimate" and "marginal impact" is, the interpretation "as the marginal benefit of reducing carbon emissions" may be clearer. Move "These values are from 2007 IPCC Assessment Report" to the top, sticking in the middle seems odd. Need someone with more experience to really vet this, waiting for Boris to weigh in. Otherwise it looks good, thanks, you did good. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. The last paragraph's based on p796. The temperature is wrong in the last sentence, it should be Above 2-3 degrees Celisus of warming, net negative impacts would be expected in many developing and developed countries. Enescot (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The prose could be thinner, clearer, Wikipedia is not a mirror to the source, you're not trying to please an expert, in that sense we're articulators; make it make sense, make it clear. It's also a work in progress. You're capable. If you believe it's ready, please do. It could be better. Finish it up, post it, I'll give it a spin, and then back to you, how does that sound? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

India Throws Monkey Wrench into West's Global Warming Agenda

In bold defiance of the global-warming agenda, India is making it known that it rejects the science underpinning anthropogenic (human caused) climate-change theory. [9]. Which makes it rather difficult for wikipedia to pretend that there is some kind of universal consensus. 88.109.45.213 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What a quality source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

IP, that's not a reliable source. Once that information is in a reliable source, it can probably be added to the Global warming controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean: Once a pro-global warming "scientist" decides to publish it in peer reviewed by other pro-global warming "scientists". The fact is that a government representing a major portion of the world's population has decided that they disagree with this whole article and you guys think you have the right to deny readers of wikipedia their right to know the full facts about the subject both scientific and political - you take the biscuit for your audacity! 88.109.45.213 (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "MacedoniaOnline.eu reports[...]" Here's the article New America was citing,[10] although Maceodonia seems to be on the other side. You're right, there's no universal consensus, what's your point? Also, Jairam Ramesh, as quoted said "We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere" and "Science has its limitation. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience." He's talking about political action to reduce emissions, he's not rejecting "science underpinning anthropogenic climate-change theory". ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your link is dead. Again, if any national governments are rejecting, in whole or part, the IPCC's consensus opinion on climate change, and it's noted in a reliable source, then add it to the global warming controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, India’s rejection of AGW science is very appropriate for the Global warming controversy article. It definitely should go there. This article is primarily about the science of global warming. Keep in mind that Jairam Ramesh is expressing his government's position, whereas the Indian National Science Academy, which is the premier scientific society representing all branches of science in India, strongly supports the scientific consensus on AGW. They are 5 time signatories of the Joint science academies' statements. --CurtisSwain (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Its simply negotiation strategy, as a precursor to the negotiations in Copenhagen. India of course wants to get out of targets as lightly as possible, so it rattles with the sables beforehand. Nothing in it indicates that India is breaking with the IPCC consensus, simply that it wants low targets. (its the usual confusion, being against Kyoto is not being against the science, and IPCC != Kyoto) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that mention is made in this article that India and China make similar contentions with regard to Kyoto. But if India now considers the science behind Kyoto as flawed, then its contentions become quite different. Not sure this article can reject this developement outright. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be ignored as long as there is no change in the scientific opinion as reflected by the contents of the relevant peer reviewed journals. Count Iblis (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So your position is that the article can misrepresent India's stance because "there is no change in the scientific opinion as reflected by the contents of the relevant peer reviewed journals" ? --Childhood's End (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does the article even present India's stance, let alone misrepresent it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Presented in the second and third paragraphs, here. They are not misrepresenting anyone's stance AFAIK. The Indian science academies can say that GW is occurring, and the government can come to their own conclusion. The former is represented on the scientific opinion page, the latter should probably be talked about on the global warming controversy page. Awickert (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think CoM and I are talking about this Wikipedia article, not the Macedonia Online article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oooooooh. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

India and China have had the position that while developed countries should reduce warming, their own development should not be hampered because the west had the opportunity to go through the industrial revolution without worrying about the atmosphere, and now they should have the same opportunity. Their conclusion is that if there is too much CO2 currently in the atmosphere, then the west should reduce it because they are by far the primary cause. Personally I think that is a negotiating position which will be smacked down by de facto import tarrifs in Copenhagen this year. Ignignot (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should tell India's prime minister that his country now rejects the science behind climate change. It seems he didn't get the memo.[11] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea level rise and ice sheets

I'm concerned about the information given in the article about sea level rise, i.e.,:

Additional anticipated effects include sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 meters (0.59 to 1.9 ft) in 2090-2100 relative to 1980-1999

The article does not mention that these IPCC estimates do not include 'future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow'. In my opinion, I don't think the estimates should be given without explaining this caveat. Enescot (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's there, described in retrospect. At the bottom of "Climate models", "observed Arctic shrinkage has been faster than that predicted." It's implicit, arctic shrinkage corresponds with sea levels. Whenever there's extrapolation, there are a lot of caveats. There are also other predicted effects besides changes in sea level. Too much weight probably, footnote? It belongs in the main article, BTW. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Enescot. I don't think that we should mirror the IPCC's approach and be way off with our number and include a little caveat. Pfeffer and others attack this problem. I suggest we use 0.8 meters, which is the average of the low scenarios that they ran. We should then have a footnote that gives the IPCC's numbers and their caveat about ignoring glacier dynamics. Awickert (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Debate and skepticism grammar error

Under "Debate and Skepticism", the final sentences of the first paragraph are grammatically incorrect.

Under "Debate and skepticism", the third sentence of the first paragraph is currently gramatically incorrect as written. A corrected version might read: "The exemption of developing countries from Kyoto Protocol restricions has been used as part of a rationale for non-ratification by the U.S. and criticism from Austria."

Thank you kindly. Because there is more than one rationale, I further changed it to "The exemption of developing countries from Kyoto Protocol restrictions has been used to rationalize non-ratification by the U.S. and criticism from Austria." Awickert (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I rarely look at the political / economic part of the article. (It turns out there were more grammar errors there.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Temperature Anomaly

The article uses the phrase temperature anomaly a number of times on graphs but does not define the term or obviously link to anything that explains what this is. A casual reader cannot tell what kind of measurements represent 'anomalous' deviation, and from what norm they are calculated. Is is possible for somebody with knowledge in this area to add an explanation? Mrstonky (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point; I've noticed that the term "anomaly" is confusing to laypeople. I'll try and reword. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Southern Oscillation effect on tropospheric temperature

Kauffner found Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature and added the following (which was immediately removed).

A recent study found that 72 percent of global temperature variation since 1958 reflects the influence of a Pacific Ocean weather cycle called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation.

I agree with Awickert that it is too soon to place this in the lede. Q Science (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Q Science. To explain myself:

(a) I generally give an article at least a few months to marinate through the popular press and comments/response cycle

(b) I thought that its inclusion should be done correctly; as it was it was well-written and cited, but it was in a unrelated part of the lede, not mentioned in the body, and said only what the popular press said about it, making me think that the article is worth a read to make sure that they got it right. (I'm just a cynic - too often the news makes any new study on GW become a proclamation of doomsday and anything saying that it is complicated become definitive evidence against it.)

So I suggest time and reading. Awickert (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that the test of time is important for all findings, new or old. The problem with summarily excising new information or ideas from Wikipedia, whose source is a respected peer reviewed journal, is that it gives the appearance of censorship by those more motivated by political than real science.Dikstr (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to realclimate that paper is nonsense. Or at least their conclusion. See here and here Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 09:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Citing the view of a blog-site like RealClimate in a discussion of the merits of the Maclean et.al. paper, published by a respected peer reviewed journal, makes the argument for suppression of its findings in Wikipedia appear very weak indeed unless specific issues are raised.Dikstr (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

TO be fair the paper seems to be mainly ok but the headline conclusion not really supported in the paper content. Anyway agree not here not now--BozMo talk 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate accused the study of ignoring the overall temperature trend. I don't see any overall trend in the radiosonde data they used,[12] so I don't see why this issue would invalidate the study. Kauffner (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Climate modelers acknowledge that their models do not adequately hindcast average global temperatures from 1950 to 1990 and apply a human influence factor to make up the deficit." How on earth did such an idiotic statement get past the reviewers??? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The authors of the study have admitted that the press release was misleading and their study has no bearing on any long-term temperature trends, just short term variability. See [13] (and similar comments by the authors at RC and WUWT). Also, a number of responses are being penned for the next issue of JGR, so I'd wait a bit on this one. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How on earth can Wikipedia expect anyone to contribute to this article when even the discussions are censored to remove posts referring to peer reviewed articles. 88.109.180.222 (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has all the hallmarks of a group of priests discussing whether an article on satanism should be included in the church magazine. For years the people who have made this article so un NPOV have insisted "it has got to be peer reviewed". Now there is a clear article that has been peer reviewed, you now introduce a new criteria which can be summed up as: "it must be reviewed by the general consensus". This is not a balanced article, the editors are universally hostile to any suggestion that mankind is not warming the globe and no doubt this comment will be removed simply for pointing out that the whole editing process falls fould of the first edict of Wikipedia: NPOV. 88.109.180.222 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"... even the discussions are censored to remove posts referring to peer reviewed articles" - when?

Part of the peer-review process is that of replies to the article. My policy on any article is to give it a few months to get that process out of the way. Also, there seem to be allegations that the popular press is misrepresenting the article. This is one of the big things that I wanted to make sure of before it was put in. Would you like a copy of the original article for your own perusal?

There are many ways to express your above points without being condescending; please refrain from doing so again: politeness = effectiveness. Awickert (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit window readability

Boris, I keep seeing you adding a spaces between the <ref> tag and the citation template. Are you having trouble reading reading the wikicode? If that is case, there are three methods that I am aware of:

1. The first is the least invasive, if you are using Firefox, Google Chrome, or Safari to browse the web; you can enable WikiEd by going to "my preferences", under the tab "Gadgets" (far right), and by check the box under "Editing gadgets": "wikEd, a full-featured integrated text". When this is enabled, it'll highlight the Wikicode making it much easier to read, here's an example.
2. The second is to add a space between the vertical bar ( | ) and the preceding parameter. I've seen this method on Virus.[14] It doesn't necessary entail greater readability, at least not in my opinion, it stretches out the paragraph.
3. The last method is to switch to the much shorter {{Cite doi}} where available; checking back on it, the "no edit" feature we've talked about before is now available.[15][16]

ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually what I want to do is to not read the references. When editing the actual text all the markup makes it very difficult to follow sentence structure and the like. So what I'm doing is setting off the refs so my eye can more easily skip them. (On the occasions when I do want to read the wikicode it's not too hard.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiEd then. Cacycle just added a new feature that'll collapse the references, hiding them from view. Made a quick screen cast for you.[17][18][19][20][21] If you need help just ask, let's get this fixed once and for all. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a big help. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to lead

"...such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation..." change to "...such as fossil fuel burning, farming, and deforestation..." also note that the english translation of the chinese version of global warming includes farming as a direct cause in the lead section.

References:
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/332331_agfuel20.html
http://www.acoolerclimate.com/causes-of-global-warming.html
Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources you cite are not sufficient to establish the point. The first one is an opinion column by a non-scientist (his doctoral degree is in Greek history) and the second is an anonymous web page. If you can find journal articles, synthesis reports, or other reliable sources we can revisit the issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, Darkohead, what are you up to?

What is going on here?

17:44, 9 August 2009 Count_Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (96,421 bytes) (Undid revision 307004759 by Darkohead (talk)) (rollback | undo)

17:30, 9 August 2009 Darkohead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (96,380 bytes) (Undid revision 307003862 by Count Iblis (talk)) (undo)

17:24, 9 August 2009 Count Iblis (96,421 bytes) (Undid revision 307003556 by Darkohead (talk)) (undo)

17:22, 9 August 2009 Darkohead (96,380 bytes) (undo)

I'll ask the two users concerned to come to this talk page and explain. --TS 18:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Darkohead removes links and puts a new link in to "polical controversy" without explanation. I'm not sure what is going on here, perhaps Darkohead is a Scibaby clone, perhaps not. Anyway, I was too busy to argue about this (a more severe problem has surfaced on the entropy page, it appears that someone tried to deliberately edit subtle nonsense in that page to prove the point that wikipedia is unreliable) and I would not have reverted anymore as there are plenty of other editors who keep an eye on this page. Count Iblis (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shift from 1970s ice age to current warming

To help calibrate the reader, I added this passage which discusses the shift in climate science over the last 30 years:

"These recent conclusions are contrasted with earlier peer-reviewed climate studies published by NASA, which indicated increasing levels of aerosols in the atmosphere could reduce average global temperatures by 3.5°C with the potential to “trigger an ice age.”."

Vertpox (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This edit presents a grossly misleading view because it contrasts a global consensus with a minority view represented here by a single paper cherrypicked from a 1971 issue of Science. --TS 07:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Science is a reliable source, so just make it clear in the text that it was just Science magazine and, apparently, NASA promoting the theory that the earth was in immiment danger of a new ice age. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That statement shouldn't have been in the lede anyway. I restored it but placed it in the footnote. If someone wants to add a section to the article about how the Global warming theory appears to contradict the Global cooling theories of the 1970s, then it can go there. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please remove it altogether until we have discussed it? It is still grossly misleading, no matter where it is placed in the article. --TS 07:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rasool/Schneider paper does not make a contrasting claim, anyways. If it did, relying on a single paper when we have overviews would be WP:UNDUE anyways. Reverted. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should display the FAQ more prominently. --TS 07:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 wants Global cooling William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you brought it up...there probably should be a section in the article on the Global cooling controversy and its relation to GW. The fact that a mainstream magazine like Science was warning of an impending ice age only 30 years ago is notable enough to be mentioned. I'll write something up, perhaps a section of two paragraphs, and put in the article within a few days. In the meantime, would someone please restore the footnote that was deleted, it didn't misrepresent that NASA paper. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Science was not "warning of an impending ice age", and neither were Rasool and Schneider. They analyzed the effect of two different, but somewhat related pollutants on the climate. "If X then Y" is a prediction, not a warning, and certainly not the unconditional warning that would be a "contrast" to the current (well, slightly refined, but essentially stable since the late 1980s) opinion. I haven't followed the scientific debate closely, but AFAIK, R&S is still mostly valid (if superceded by better models). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you're saying should probably be included in the brief section on global cooling as long as it's supported by a source and is not synthesis. Having a brief, but adequate, section on global cooling should cover the issue appropriately. Cla68 (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What about a section on Thermal Underwear as well? A brief, but adequate, section should cover that issue appropriately too. Or is that a different but related topic? Seriously though this article is way way too long. Why not suggested some serious parts we could prune out first before adding other material adequately covered elsewhere. --BozMo talk 11:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 - look at the FAQ under global cooling, or the global cooling article as WMC said. The article that you are referencing is about an effect that is a potential area for geoengineering as well. Basically, even in the 70's it was generally held that you couldn't get global cooling from aerosols blocking short wave radiation unless you were doing it on purpose. Ignignot (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Should we include every viewpoint that can be documented in one source? That's going to make for an awfully long article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(just pondering atype here) If the viewpoint is sourced content that you'd expect a comprehensive encyclopaedia to cover then, yes, presumably. However, Global Warming, being 'the issue' for humanity at this epoch, is going to have an awful lot of content. I start to wonder if the 'Global Warming' article shouldn't actually be short in terms of it's OWN content, and basically be a narrative index to a hundred or so GW related articles.

To put it another way, by being overly concerned by the length of the GW article, as a reason to not incorporate content in the encyclopaedia, are we missing the forest for the trees? - sorta thing?--Jaymax (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually - the article basically is that already EXCEPT perhaps in the 'skepticism...' part, which is not up to the same standard. So above comment applies, but perhaps the 'denier' aspects need more attention from rational authors to make sure there are appropriate, well referenced (from here) articles to cover (fully, rationally) these related topics (cooling scenario etc) that keep coming up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 23:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

chart in mail article is not labled correctly

The chart labled

'Global mean surface temperature difference from the average for 1961–1990'

shows data from 1861, the coldest period of the 'little ice age' to some time this century. The chart is not labled correctly and is misleading. It should be removed.

You misunderstand. The caption is saying that the baseline temperature represented in the graph (the 0-degree anomaly) is based on the average temperature over the period starting in 1961, not that the graph charts temperature starting in 1960. (Plus, the graph starts in 1880, not 1861.) And generally when images have bad captions, we fix the captions instead of removing the image. — DroEsperanto (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of good evidence for man made global warming. I feel that the data should be presented clearly and unambiguously and should leave no room for doubt and accusations of inaccuracy.

Some data sets may not fit perfectly with the hypothesis. e.g recent temeperatures have been falling since the el-nino highs of '98. Rather than running away from this, all data should be presented accuratly and these anomolies explained. I am fed up with hearing conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.137.74 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're referring to. What data isn't presented accurately and what anomalies are unexplained? The fall in temperatures since 1998 due to El Nino is explained in the article. — DroEsperanto (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its in the FAQ on top of this page - Question 8. Please see that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why has this page been locked?

Not only do I see perfectly good comment being removed by certain editors, but now they have the gall to lock the page to censor legitimate discussion. This simply isn't acceptable, particularly as there appears to be absolutely no comment as to why and for how long this lock will happen. Bugsy (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is not locked. It's not even fully protected. As for the rest, what's uncear about "16:31, 16 August 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) m (57,696 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Talk:Global warming": Scibaby socks. ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC))"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, it wasn't really a "legitimate discussion": many of the users taking part were either sockpuppets or single-purpose accounts who were just trying to push this issue, not constructively contribute to the encyclopedia. This has been a frequent problem on this talk page, so the protection level was increased. — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that if you "accept good faith" and work toward a "Neutral point of view", then you will find most of the antagonism will disappear. Personally having read as widely as I can on the subject, there is absolutely no doubt that the article fails to reflect the real position and wholely fails as a good wikipedia article. And until certain people accept that the alternative view has a legitimate right to put the evidence supporting its point of view in wikipedia I'm certain you will need to keep this discussion page like the article locked to prevent justifiable attempts to bring the article in line with wikipedia policy on neutrality. Afterall how is it possible to have an article on "present global warming", which doesn't mention that this century its been cooling at a rate of -1C/century? Neutral Point of View? Only if the only viewpoint you accept is those who believe in manmade global warming! Bugsy (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "the real position" and how does it differ from the scientific opinion on climate change? Do you have any remotely reliable source for "a rate of-1C/century"? Of course, I've been measuring the rate of cooling here in Karlsruhe as -8°C per day (well, since yesterday), so should I go buy snowshoes on Saturday so I can still move around on Monday? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion was introduced by a banned editor and comprises an attempt to inflate the opinion of the writers of a single paper to an unrealistic level. The article already covers the limitations of climate modelling, as those who have read the article thoroughly are well aware. We should continue to discuss whether climate modelling is covered adequately, but we should not pay undue attention to single papers in doing so. --TS 00:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Climate models are incorrect

What is the best way to incorporate the findings from this recent Rice University study in the highly regarded journal Nature Geoscience? It indicates "theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record" and that "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/07/could-we-be-wrong-about-global-warming.html Canonical Assembly (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What it appears to say is that models designed to explain what we know about the current behavior of earth's climate cannot account for some ancient earth climate events. That's certainly an indication that we have a lot to learn about paleoclimatology (just as we're still learning about the modern climate). To say that the climate models are incorrect is not enough: it is more accurate to say that they do not adequately explain ancient climate events. That puts things into perspective, I think. One question that occurs to me is: why would we expect them to? --TS 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What they seem to indicate is that climate sensitivity is pushed higher by additional feedbacks. Anyways, the paper is here, and very different in tone from the blog. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's an interesting paper. The blog article is only interesting for how much context it omits in an attempt to simulate a very narrow ontological debate over global warming. --TS 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wait a bit, and the authors will end up on Inhofe's "List of scientists whose research we can misrepresent even against their explicit protests". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed...the most interesting excerpt from the paper indicates: "Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding of the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations. This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change." We should capture this in the article, as it really offsets the notion of a "consensus". Punch & Judy (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. We can leave Inhofe and his friends to do the cherrypicking, I suspect that all we as an encyclopedia need to do, at most, is to add an entry to the FAQ. This is no different than when a hole in a chronometric model stands to be exploited by some creationist. --TS 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One paper saying "our models are flawed" does not equate with "offsetting the notion of a 'consensus'". Any deduction that this study is at odds with the stance that current global warming exists and is caused by humans is purely WP:Original research, and even if it did say that, to use that to contradict the assertion that there is consensus on the issue would also be WP:Original research and undue weight.— DroEsperanto (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You fail to understand how scientific research works if you simply disregard research that fails to uphold the current belief. Hell if that was the case then we would never have accepted Einstien. Arzel (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No one has indicated we need to include deduction or synthesis. Let's let the facts speak for themselves...these climate researchers indicate that climate models are compromised by our current understanding of these fundamental processes. Why can't this been included in the article? There are many lesser conclusions/observations highlighted in the article. No one is trying to misrepresent what they are saying in this current paper. It seems that these conclusions simply go against the prevailing POV on this page.Wyplash (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph under climate models could be expanded with more refs to be a fuller discussion of their qualities and drawbacks instead of a few-study he-said-she-said sort of deal. Awickert (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone that has done significant simulation analysis, if you are unable to accurately replicate an existing system, then the ability of that simulation to make implications about changes to that system are seriously flawed. Arzel (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It does seem that the quote from this peer reviewed paper:

"Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding of the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations. This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change."

should be included in the article. Where is the best location in the article to place this key quote? Samuel Belkins (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be some controversy over the models used to predict climate change, even among scientists who generally agree that global warming is occuring. Cla68 (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread strains Assume good faith, in my opinion. One single paper pointing out the problems in fitting current climate models to paleoclimatology scenarios is, firstly, of very limited significance to current climatology by its very nature, and secondly it is but a single paper. Nobody writing on this thread can be in any doubt about these facts.

Our section on climate modeling emphasizes the tentative nature of such models throughout, and (to give just one example of the extensive caveats in the article) baldly states that:

Current climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate.

(emphasis mine)

Continuing to act as if material from one single paper on paleoclimatology should be reflected in this article in gross violation of our Neutral point of view policy, especially on due weight, takes this thread into the realms of WP:FORUM, by raising a false issue for discussion, for no encyclopedic purpose. --TS 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Effects by temperature increase

Nowhere is a list given of the real-life effects whe can expect at a temperature increase per 1°Celsius.

Eg with +1°C, the almost complete collapse of the Great Barrier Reef, and ?% decrease of coral reefs worldwide, and a number of island nations submerged by rising sea levels. A 2°C rise would be accompanied with heatwaves, and increased drought around the world. The 3°C threshold would bring about the complete collapse of the Amazon ecosystem, and the threat of conflict over water supplies around the world. Heatwaves would be even deadlier.

See also: http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2005/Limits_to_warming.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.58.244 (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's mostly because it is extremely hard to predict specific local effects from a change in a global average temperature. Ignignot (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To expand on this, what I mean is that it is very hard to say something like, "there will be less rain in Albaquerque," but reasonable to say, "there will be more severe droughts, but we aren't sure where it will happen." Other, wider effects like sea level rise are difficult to predict due to feedback effects and the complexities of phase changes. And expressing it as a function of specific temperature rise is even more problematic. Ignignot (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

New material published by Meehl today

I added a new Science article as a reference in Global warming#Solar variation, presently reference number 41. Reference name is "Meehl_08_28_2009". The article appears to pull together a number of previously hard to explain concepts. I'm not at all an expert in this subject but I thought perhaps the regular editors might be able to use it. Regards to all.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to this interesting paper. However it doesn't really apply in the context where you've used it, because the paper is about responses to the 11-year solar cycle and not an explanation for global warming. See especially the last sentence of the paper. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Need help with Footnote B

I recently updated the list of scientific societies and academies of science that have endorsed the basic conclusions of the IPCC (there are now 77). Some of the organizations do not have wikipedia articles, so I used external links to their web pages. That worked fine for most of them. However, when I tried to include the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and the European Federation of Geologists, it screwed up the entire footnote. So, I left those two organizations out. I've looked through Wikipedia:Footnotes, but still can't figure out what the problem was. Would someone with more wiki-wisdom then I be willing to insert the two organizations into Footnote B?--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

forcings

should we express the numbers for AGW in terms of W/m2 rather than, or as well as degrees c? This seems common in papers, and the forcing is changing far quicker than the temp (as you'd expect). Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There's not a one-to-one correspondence. I think that for a general interest article like this it would be an unnecessary complication. We've seen that readers have a hard enough time even with relatively simple quantitative concepts, like distinguishing temperatures from temperature changes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorsement list

On the above topic of scientific society endorsements, some of them seem irrelevant (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Society of Microbiology) and kind of remind me of Inhofe's list. Is there any compelling reason why these should stay? — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of purpose and degree. It's fine to note that the pediatricians and so forth have a certain view in an article devoted to giving the views of professional societies on a given topic. I commend Curtis for his diligence in compiling such a thorough list. But not all animals are created equal in the larger context. The question then becomes where to draw the line: do we restrict ourselves to professional societies in the earth sciences, or to the earth sciences and broader physical sciences, or what? This would likely be one of those drawn-out arguments that goes nowhere. To sidestep the issue I suggest that we focus on science academies: something like "Every national and international academy of science that has issued a statement on climate change concurs with the findings of the IPCC." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would the American Academy of Pediatrics feel a need to publicly support the IPCC's stance on global warming? Does any reliable source speculate on the motives for why professional organizations with no clear connection to climate science would feel the need to issue public statements of support? Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask them, or read their complete statement to see if they explain. Speculation by Wikipedia editors on this point would neither be helpful nor in keeping with policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I asked if there were any reliable sources commenting on it. Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's because pediatricians apparently feel that the effects of global warming are a threat to childrens' health. Since the cultural and political aspects of global warming have ended up being placed in a separate article, then perhaps the pediatrician's endorsement should go there instead of here. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"feel"? Interesting choice of words about a statement from a scientific society. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

... and one not found in the linked article (well, according to Safari search and my eyeballs). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well the association then asks its members to help "educate" elected officials about the coming danger. See where this is going? Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I do not see where this is going, could you elaborate/spell it out - particularly interesting would be what it has to do with the article at hand. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I for one see where this is going. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources indicate that the pediatrician's endorsement of global warming appears to fall under political or social motivations, not because pediatricians have actually been involved in the research and experimentation that led to the IPCC's statement on the issue. Therefore, the more appropriate place to mention their endorsement is in the Global warming controversy article. Now, I don't believe that the controversy article should be separate from this one, but since it is, we have to make these kind of decisions on where to put this kind of information. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you say that in general the views of those not "involved in research and experimentation" on climate change should be given less weight than the views of those who are so involved? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on here. The lead paragraph of this article summarizes the conclusions of the IPCC, and then states, "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 70 scientific societies and academies of science..." The American Academy of Pediatrics is one such scientific society. Their policy statement [22] was published in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics, which, apparently, is "among the top 2% most-cited scientific and medical journals" [23]. It is also supported by a technical report [24] (also published in Pediatrics) that examines in further detail the negative impact of climate change on children's health. Given that one of the major concerns about AGW is that our changing climate is having, or will have, an increasingly negative impact on humanity, including human health, and that the AAP is "an organization of 60,000 pediatricians committed to the attainment of optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults[25], I see reason not to include them in a list of concurring scientific societies.

Additionally, I have to disagree with Boris's earlier suggestion. If we focus on just the academies of science, then we're leaving out some highly relevant organizations like the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union. I mean, when the AGU endorses the conclusions of the IPCC, that's very pertinent. Likewise, the fact that the world's largest federation of scientific organizations (AAAS) has issued a concurring statement is also highly illustrative of the degree of legitimacy the AGW theory holds within the scientific community. --CurtisSwain (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No one's arguing with the accuracy of the statement, but with the relevance. The purpose of the "endorsed by 70..." is to show the level of scientific support for AGW. However, the the American Pediatric Society played as much a role in developing scientific consensus as Al Gore did. If we're going to include important people/organizations who endorse the AGW model (but who are in no way qualified to verify the research themselves), we should include all of them; but of course, that would be a never-ending list, so let's just keep it to pertinent scientific societies and academies of science.— DroEsperanto (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we need some cutoff point. Do we use only Atmospheric/Ocean sciences organizations and national academies? Do we also include solid Earth science / sed/ice record people? If so, we must include a number of organizations that support only that more research should be done. One one hand, people would argue that the AAPG doesn't have a say in modern climate change; on the other hand, one may argue that the AMS has an interest in more funding for its members. The National Academies seems a decent cutoff, and as a counterpoint to Curtis' argument, I would think that if we include AGU, we would also need to include AAPG unless we start waving caviats. Awickert (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are some very good points, and they've made me go back and re-read that first paragraph. I see now (duh) "basic conclusions" refers only to global surface temperature increase and it's causation, and not to negative impacts. I've always thought the whole AGW theory had three components: (1) the climate is heating up, (2) human activities are causing this change in climate, and (3) this will negatively impact human beings and other forms of life. And, it seems to me the 3rd component is the most important. After all, if AGW didn't have negative consequences, there wouldn't be much cause for concern, and isn't that what WGII is all about?

However, since the first paragraph currently makes no mention of impacts, then, yes, footnote B should not contain concurring bodies who's science doesn't deal specifically with temperature increase and causation. Remaining bodies could be all the academies, and Earth sciences as well as American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, and American Physical Society. Earth sciences, of course, involve everything from Atmospheric chemistry and Meteorology to Oceanography and Geophysics. And, yes, Petrology too. Chemistry and physics is, of course, so fundamental it has to be included. To address Awickert's concern's, perhaps the end of the first paragraph could look something like this:

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. A small number of individual scientists and a few scientific societies dispute the consensus view.

Linking twice to the "Opinion" article might be a bit redundant, but the second link to the "Noncommittal" section takes readers right where they want to go. Maybe there could just be another footnote listing the AAPG, AGI, etc. instead.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But the non-committal societies don't dispute the consensus view. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Darn you Steve, always the stickler for accuracy. Okay, how about...

"A small number of individual scientists and a few scientific societies don't endorse the consensus view." ?--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

new clathrate research

where to put this? http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039191.shtml Best in this article, or in clathrate gun, climate feedback, etc.? Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look especially exciting, and is currently uncited, and only publiched in August. Best left for at least 3 months before we consider it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I also have problems seeing what it has to do here, especially since the paper states that the methane release to the atmosphere is minimal. The plumes do not reach the surface.[26]. So it certainly doesn't belong here, or in clathrate gun. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've glanced through it, and I got the impression that the authors suggest the majority of methane observed does not come from clathrathes, but from geological sources. So I would certainly wait for more definitive research before putting it anywhere. WP:NOT#NEWS. Please note how the Cabal spreads panic and promotes alarmism once again! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The authors suggest that warming is responsible, and the effect could magnify to Tg scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjlockley (talk • contribs)

Except that they also say that its unlikely to reach the surface - i cite (emphasis mine):

The release of tens of Teragrams of methane per year would be a notable fraction of the annual global atmospheric methane flux of 500-600 Tg yr-1 (Houweling et al., 2006) and comparable with the 20-40 Tg yr-1 estimated for methane flux from all geological sources on land (Etiope et al, 2009), but it is unlikely that more than a very small fraction of the methane in the observed plumes reaches the atmosphere directly. The acoustic images of the bubble plumes show very few that reach the sea surface, and even for these it is probable that nitrogen and other gases would have largely replaced methane in the bubbles during their ascent. (cf. McGinnis et al., 2006).

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You sought advice but ignored it. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we would be better off including this: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/09/uniform-prior-dead-at-last.html William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's valid to include as a cite. Even if the routes to the atmosphere are indirect, or only result in release of CO2 not methane after methanogenesis, it's still notable. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it? How much of the carbon ends up in the atmosphere? (hint: The article doesn't say - but it does say that it is very little). You are forgetting that the CO2 will most likely be dissolved into the water, and not end up in the atmosphere at all). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, even if it's dissolved in the ocean, it will eventually inhibit the efficiency of the ocean as a carbon sink - at the latest after 800 years or so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

future changes

worth incorporating? http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038932.shtml Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting paper, but I'd say its too detailed for any of our articles. Also, we should apply the 3-6 months rule, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

CO2 is not the only cause of climate change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/sep/11/co2-other-cause-climate-change

I've started a new section, because the previous one had got tied up with the unwikipedia issue of whether a specific scientist was a reputable source rather than whether reports produced by around a dozen newspapers constituted sufficient reason to include this widely reported news story in the article. Now bearing in mind that the prime requirement of wikipedia is to inform the reader in a neutral way of the position on this subject and it is specifically NOT A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL and being peer reviewed or even liked by fellow professionals is not a criteria for wikipedia, it does seem from the widespread reporting that this prediction of cooling requires to be included alongside the fact that the world is currently cooling.

81.170.1.80 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia also requires that information come from reliable sources, and in terms of science, research published in peer-reviewed journals with many citations is the most reliable source. News tends to cover science rather poorly and is subject to a man bites dog bias; having a story that says "Scientists maintain global warming consensus" isn't newsworthy, although "Lindzen claims earth is actually cooling" does. Although I don't see what your point is regarding the article you linked, because that information is already in the article ("The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent[not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[19][20]) — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK, that is easy: no. Needs to be in decent journal. If it isn't, its not science William M. Connolley (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See upstairs. BR --Polentario (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from simply being an opinion piece, the Guardian article says nothing about global cooling. It's main point is that nitrogen compounds, tropospheric ozone, and black carbon contribute to global warming. But, those contributions are already covered in this article, so it's not even offering anything new.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The main point is about nitrogen compounds, tropospheric ozone, and black carbon contribute to global warming contributing nearly 50% of global warming. Suppose its true, statements like The .. IPCC concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity .. caused most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century. The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterwards have to be mollified, to say it at least. So far no mentioning of Latifs oceanic currents btw. I assume the article writes only about anthropogenic warming (which again conflicts with the supposed IPCC view here) and doesnt take into accound that various human contributions provide a cooling effect. -Polentario (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mollified? Are they angry? Latifs stuff isn't mentionned because it is tosh and has been ripped to shreds William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You havent answered to the point about the guardian, I assume its right then. Interesting, probably Monbiot is in vacation.

Is Latif still allowed to talk or travel to the UK? Williams gross story about tosh and Latif being tarred and feathered is proably the normal Realclimate procedure, however now expanded on former consenti. On thios side of the channel he's still alive, allowed to research and not being treated as an outlaw at all. -Polentario (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you wish, but in order to maintain the integrity of this article we have to rely on legitimate science. We can't just take unsubstantiated assertions made in opinion pieces and "suppose it's true."--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Latifs science stuff being tosh and ripped to shreds is a rather strong opinion. Its mainly about politics, not science (to quote Pielke sr and jr). Lets see how strong the political consens will be in Stockholm. --Polentario (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Public growing more skeptical of global warming claims

On the global warming page, there is a mention of Gallup Poll results. There is a current Gallup Poll indicating "The number of Americans who say the media have exaggerated global warming jumped to a record 41 percent in 2009." What is the best way to integrate these results into the article?

The article is here....http://www.lvrj.com/news/52828402.html Chaucer Bolays (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference to a Gallup poll is to illustrate differing awareness of global warming across the world. Attitudes will vary in any one country, and historically American public attitudes have been ambivalent to say the least. There is probably an article into which US opinion on global warming can be integrated. --TS 04:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent results from NASA's Aqua satellite - Dr Roy Spencer

I've moved this discussion to Talk:Climate_sensitivity. It was duplicated there, and clearly belongs there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Now removed [27] by the originator of the discussion [28] in favour of a new discussion there William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lovelock's new book

I understand that James Lovelock's new book The Vanishing Face of Gaia states that climate change is irreversible and that humans are facing an unavoidable catastrophe that will kill millions, if not billions.(AFP-Jiji, "Scientific Community prays that Lovelock is wrong about warming", Japan Times, Sep 21, 2009, p. 7.) He is a notable scientist in the climate change topic, and his opinion is different from the IPCC's stance that global warming is reversible if action is taken to reduce greenhouse gasses. Should Lovelock's opinion be noted in this or any of the other warming articles? Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that the IPCC's view is that global warming is reversible by reducing greenhouse gases? Citation of a source to that effect would be helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's what the article says:

“ 'I have the highest respect for James Lovelock' said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose report serves as the scientific benchmark for the U.N. climate talks. 'But so far the evidence that we have passed the point when things become irreversible is still very small and highly improbable. I think if we take action now, we will be able to stave off major disaster' he said. ”

I assume Pachauri is speaking on behalf of the IPCC with that statement, although I could be mistaken. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a working link to the full story? I don't know whether Pachauri is formally speaking on behalf of the IPCC in this case, or what the phrase "things become irreversible" might mean. With no context it's hard to understand what's going on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The AFP article is here - the context is that Lovelock thinks that abrupt climate change is inevitable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that Lovelock's position is a minority one (see fringe), as the article also states, and that you are inflating his (Lovelock's) importance... as far as i can tell every time Lovelock has been raised, that has been the view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand right you are saying that his opinion is not notable enough to be included? Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Global warming controversy would be a better place for this. You could add Lovelock's opinion, the response from Pachauri (whatever it means), and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IPCC report contributors challenging the notion of consensus on global warming

Just another Scibaby sock - DNFTT! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I added the following entry, to better highlight the IPCC contributors who are challenging the notion of consensus on global warming: Several prominent contributors to recent IPCC reports are critical of the claims of consensus on global warming. One contributor, Dr. Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France stated in testimony to the United States Senate "…such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and skepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse.". Similarly, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, indicated “Claims of consensus…serve to intimidate the public and even scientists” and are “a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.” Thank you. Grace Xu (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Please check the FAQ on top here. Individual opinions on science do not belong in this article, where it is undue weight. There are several sub-articles for stuff like this (Politics of global warming, Global warming controversy etc). This particular submission would have its place on Climate change consensus (where if i'm not mistaken - its already mentioned). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Ms. Kim. Per your advice, I removed the individual opinion quote by China bureaucrat Qin Dahe. Thank you very much. Grace Xu (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Try Mr. instead (if you insist on being formal). And see below. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Grace Xu

I have reverted an edit in which Grace Xu removed the following two paragraphs:

The Tibetan Plateau contains the world's third-largest store of ice. Qin Dahe, the former head of the China Meteorological Administration, said that the recent fast pace of melting and warmer temperatures will be good for agriculture and tourism in the short term; but issued a strong warning:

"Temperatures are rising four times faster than elsewhere in China, and the Tibetan glaciers are retreating at a higher speed than in any other part of the world." "In the short term, this will cause lakes to expand and bring floods and mudflows." "In the long run, the glaciers are vital lifelines for Asian rivers, including the Indus and the Ganges. Once they vanish, water supplies in those regions will be in peril."Global warming benefits to Tibet: Chinese official. Reported 18/Aug/2009.

The reason given for removal seems odd. --TS 14:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason seems to have been WP:POINT. I agree with your reinsertion.. While Qin may be the one we quote for this information, he/she is certainly not the only one who is stating this, and it is of course a summary from Effects of global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree: I see Grace's point about individuals, but it is clearly not just that individual (after Google and Google Scholar searches) so I will be adding more sources to that section. It might also be better to paraphrase the quote so we can stick all the appropriate refs by the material that they support and to avoid giving undue weight to one individual. Awickert (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the removal. This article is already too long, and this seems a little too detailed for an overview article. It's okay to split out sub-topics per WP:SUMMARY. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[Trim to remove stuff irrelevant now that GU is confirmed as a sock - William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)]

Mojib Latif, member of IPCC, Earth is cooling

This German scientific advise about the next cooling phase of the climate in the world, based on the North Atlantic Oscillation

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he said.''

--Bentaguayre (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Vair exciting. I'm missing the bit about cooling that you put in your headline, though William M. Connolley (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the cooling, or slowing, of the NAO simply mean less heat transfer from the equator to the North Atlantic, and isn't that a concept that's been around for a number of years?--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming NS hasn't totally garbled this, then the NAO stuff leads to a global change in temperature, which would presumably involve some intereaction with the ocean. But the idea that there is natural variability on top of the long-term warming trend is nothing new William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The guy two doors down the hall went to the Geneva conference. I haven't spoken to him yet (it's a holiday here in the Land of the Free) but it will be interesting to compare his impressions with the NS report. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello William, in the same article

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Yes guys, this has been pointed in the past. The question is, Latif, a man of the IPCC, now agree: 1. The warming has been caused too by natural proccess, 2. The natural forces are stronger than human influence, and tend to cool the planet in spite of the human activity.

This point of view is certainly new in a IPCC's man, and certainly can be a powerful hit to the hypothesis of a global warming based mostly in the human activity.

--Bentaguayre (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the source. He's not saying that humans don't have influence or that their influence is unimportant; he's saying that short-term natural changes may temporarily cool the planet in spite of human influence. There's a huge difference. — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bentaguayre did not misinterpret Latif nor did he say that 'humans don't have influence or that their influence is unimportant'. In your apparent over-eagerness to defend the AGW position you have misinterpreted Bentaguayre.Dikstr (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually what he says is clearly that "the jury is still out" on the relative weights of the different inputs. Arker (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The main points of Latif talk about two things:

1. Warming phase: "the jury is still out", that mean he agree about more influences in the warming than the human ones, obviously he show doubts about the predominance of human activity in the proccess. 2. Cooling phase: yes, with your words "short-term natural changes may temporarily cool the planet in spite of human influence."

--Bentaguayre (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You've now added the bit about cooling. Well done. It doesn't matter though, since NS isn't much use as a source. No, I don't trust it to quote anyone accurately (cue usual complaints). FWIW, this (I think) is a reference to the "recent" (about 6 months ago) study in which AWI ran a poor model and got poor answers; can't find the ref - anyone remember? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Sorry - but no. Short term climate variations can and will at times overwhelm long term changes, thats basic, the immediately known phenomena are El Niño/La Niña's. This doesn't in any way or form influence whether or not anthropogenic changes are dominant or not. And Latif agrees completely on this. Here's a nice german interview with Latif on the same study. [29]. To state that Latif "how doubts about the predominance of human activity" is wrong plain and simple. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice quote from Latif: „Die globale Temperatur wird trotz der kurzen Atempause bis 2100 deutlich höher sein als zu Beginn des letzten Jahrhunderts“ (trans: Global temperatures will, despite a short breather, by 2100 be significantly higher than the beginning of the last century). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Found it, thanks to a secret admirer. This is the Keenlyside pap. [30], [31], [32]. They wimped out, of course. Maybe some of our local septics would care to step up to the plate? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• in the German lemmata, any characterisation of Latif as Mainstream is now already reverted as NPOV ;) Doubts about the predominance of human activity in the prediction and in the past 30y years are clearly expressed by Latifs geneva speech. Btw: I found it quite interesting that there might be other reasons for changes in local oscillation (somewhat has to start them, right?)
• Vieira, L. E. A., and L. A. da Silva (2006), Geomagnetic modulation of clouds effects in the Southern Hemisphere Magnetic Anomaly through lower atmosphere cosmic ray effects, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14802, doi:10.1029/2006GL026389. Zhang, M., and * H. Song (2006), Evidence of deceleration of atmospheric vertical overturning circulation over the tropical Pacific, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L12701, 18
• Ken Carslaw Atmospheric physics: Cosmic rays, clouds and climate Nature 460, 332-333 (16 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/460332a; Published online 15 July 2009 --Polentario (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I loved this comment: '"In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office.' This clearly shows that they are still using schoolboy statistics and have no idea that long term noise will be larger in scale than short term variations. 79.79.246.21 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"In candid mood, climate scientists avoided blaming nature for their faltering predictions, however. "Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts," said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK." - does that mean they have finally realised that people like the Met Office might say they can predict the climate but 100% of those predictions have been high. That's about as probable as tossing a coin heads all the time! 79.79.246.21 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," sounds fairly standard stuff. I'd ask you why you object to it but I know you won't ahve a reply and this will just degenerate into the usual chit-chat William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Latif has already published his point several times but not with the big noise around it. http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?id=1183&L=1#11038, interview wise he was always a big contender of mainstream http://www.sonnenseite.com/Interviews,Mojib+Latif-+Climate+change+has+to+have+top+political+priority,74,a7484.html (the interview is on Franz Alts web page, a christian conservative solar industry lobbyist and was printed in Enercons customer journal, Germanys leading producer of wind energy plants, honni soit qui mal y pense). Basically, Latif is practically very much on Pielkes side concerning the importance of local risk studies (compare the Kiel model) but never before came so clearly that sceptics might be right for the next decades. BR --Polentario (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Latif is completely mainstream on the standard climatology regarding global warming, which you will easily find out if you read any of his books on the subject. That he has a distinctive stand on the NAO and temperature predictions over the next 10 years is something else. Nils Simon (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)