Talk:Climate change/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

87 % of Americans don't believe in man made Global Warming

Guess what that means! Wikipedia is officially endorsing a minority fringe viewpoint in this article, which must be corrected--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not endorsing anything, it is summarizing global warming as it is described in reliable sources. What 87% of Americans believe or not is not really relevant in a world of 6 billion, but it might still be interesting to see your source. --Stephan Schulz 23:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

87% of Americans don't believe in evolution either. Or know who Jack Straw is. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Bendž|Ť 08:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. you asked for it. (No offense intended for the knowledgable American minority.) Bendž|Ť 08:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as beliefs are backed up by a reliable poll, they can be mentioned. ^rossnixon 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fallacious to say that since 87% of Americans don't believe in global warming, it's a majority. First, the world is not America. Second of all, I would assume this poll surveyed lay-people, not those who have seen the evidence and have had the ability to make up their own mind (although I'm not sure of the research methodology for that poll). DanielRoseMQ 04:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the linked-to poll does it say 87% of Americans don't believe in man-made global warming. Titanium Dragon 10:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a basic question. One of the poll questions was: Which of the following does NOT contribute to global warming? 1. Greater output from the sun 2. SUVs 3 Rice Paddies.

The correct answer is 1. But if the sun did have greater output, it would contribute to global warming. I can test this simply by going out at night and the day and measuring the temperature. No sun = cold. Sun = hot. These are awfully crappy questions. --Tbeatty 05:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The question was not which of these CAN contribute to global warming (all -can-) but which one IS NOT contributing to global warming (greater solar output). Its a fine question, you just aren't reading it correctly. Titanium Dragon 09:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the correct answer is 2 - SUV's ... unless you already "believe" that increased CO2 causes global warming. Regardless of your position, "increased CO2 causes GW" is still a theory. Actually, I've been looking for acticles explaining exactly how increased CO2 will warm the atmosphere. I would appreciate any links you have. Q Science

Take a look at e.g.: http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html

If you've ever noticed how hot greenhouses get in the summer, you should get an idea of how it works. Carbon dioxide has similar optical transmission and infrared absorption to glass, so obviously it will have a similar effect to a glass greenhouse. 149.217.40.222 11:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Live Earth

Live earth is sponsored by MSN. With out corporate media Live Earth would be nothing. It would be a midweek pub event between karaoke and bingo at best. Give me a break already. 2 billion viewers, every single carrier part of a corporation. Bands signed to corporate labels. Public relations executed by the largest corporations on our dear Earth. Not corporate media though, alrighty. I guess it does blow apart the idea that manmande global warming advocates are somehow the 'little guy' fighting against 'the man'. Live Earth = pure corporate media propaganda. --Dean1970 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dean, thats indirect, and a reversal of the causal chain. The concerts were not arranged by the sponsors - nor was the media attention promised before it happened. There is no doubt that it was good P.R. for some companies (and a good thing for the Nielsen ratings)- but that doesn't make the show a P.R. stunt for the companies. As for your last comment - that is pure WP:OR and WP:SOAP - something you should leave at home. Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dean, if you write "corporate media does XX", you imply that they act in concert, or at least in unison. Fox News, for example, has been downplaying global warming for a long time, as has been the Washington Times. Your argument is analogous with claiming "African Americans are endorsing Harry Potter" just because it's on Ophra's. --Stephan Schulz 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you know, I could accuse you of using OR. MSN = corporate media. Every single carrier is part of a corporation. I even checked their website and Chevvy!!!! had a sponsored link...2 clicks away from an SUV if you please! Just what we needs, more smog! It was a corporate event with corporate hospitality packages to keep the lear jet trotting types away from the plebs. Corporate Media, everything about it was Corporate. If it was a concert organised with a reverse theme (in aid of dispelling the man and global warming connection) there would be NO objections about calling it a corporate media event aimed at confusing 2 billion potential viewers about the much vaunted consensus. --Dean1970 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Original research my a*se

Fox News lol. Murdoch is a global advocate my dear friend. That guy knows where the bread is buttered. --Dean1970 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Murdoch flip-flopped only recently. That's why I used the past tense. "Every single carrier is part of a corporation" - which means all media is corporate media by your definition. But then the term is superfluous. Also, you need to distinguish between "x is an instance of Y" and "x is Y". --Stephan Schulz 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I did distinguish, I inlinked corp media to live earth. And it being sponsored by the corp media doesn't make my edit OR. btw, 2 billion don't read the washtimes or watch oprah. My perspective is no way near the examples you cite. --Dean1970 18:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you did, which is nonsense. We have an article on corporate media, so your link is at best misleading. And the claim is still OR. Where is your source? --Stephan Schulz 18:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we also have an article on musicians. Can we not arrange the text to mention LE directly rather than indirectly? I don't think corporate or musicians really fits William M. Connolley 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, Live Earth is sponsored by msn. Msn is corp media. The sentence includes "groups emphasizing the risks". Corp media is a fair description. btw, external links on live earth carry links to corporate websites promoting the event, theres a source for you. And i'm pretty sure that list can be updated with even more corp media links. Like I say, if the event had a reverse theme, this article would cite the 'corp media'. I was born at night, but not last night. --Dean1970 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of "corporate media" is as spurios as your speculation. The Great Global Warming Swindle, promoted by British Channel 4, does not mention "corporate media" on its page. And again, support by some corporations does not imply involvement of "the corporate media". What you have is not a valid source, but a textbook example of original research, and one that very nicely displays why we don't allow that. --Stephan Schulz 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

tggws wasn't broadcast live to 2 billion people. The corp media was involved in Live Earth. Look at the external links. Its been promo'd in nearly every newspaper from tabloids to broadsheets for weeks. record labels are OWNED by corps who own a lot of the carriers. It was a corporate media event. Corp media brings perspective. --Dean1970 19:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if that were the case, what on Earth does it have to do with Global Warming? Little guy v. Big guy is irrelevant. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably because there is a perception that linking the pov of manmade GW with corporate media is thought of as being an unflattering association at best, and an attempt to be damning to the whole POV of at worst. Liveearth is the currently most visible and wide reaching media platform to the masses and its probably thinking that calling it a corporate media event who somehow detract from its perception of significance.RCHM 13:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, "Live Earth," one of the biggest jokes in history. However many million viewers around the world getting off their couches, traveling in their SUV's and gas-guzzling cars, to attend a concert which used tons of energy to maintain lighting, amps, instruments to promote a viewpoint which contradicts the aformentioned. Irony? --EchoRevamped 06:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually someone did the sums, and pointed out that 150 million people staying at home to watch Live Earth on the TV saved us from a lot of carbon dioxide emissions. A thousand times fewer people actually visited the concerts. Rnt20 11:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Live Earth was the worst joke I've ever seen. It was a corporate event intended to get Al Gore elected, and some SUVs sold.

USA

I suggest create Global warming in USA and global warming in transport. --HybridBoy 13:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

With China overtaking the US in CO2 emissions, it would seem rather biased to make an article only on the US. This article seems to cover all bases as-is, at least in my opinion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Industrial emissions of United States, or something like that?--Steve, Sm8900 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 13:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure i understand. what's wrong with creating an article focused on only one country? we can always create further articles focused on other individual countries. So once we create the USA article, we could also create a China article, India, etc etc. --Steve, Sm8900 13:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

All of which would simply reiterate the points already being made in this article. Creating separate articles for individual countries could be misconstrued as a bias against that particular country, and would imply that those countries are the only contributors worth mentioning, despite this being on a global scale. Besides that, there is the question of how we would go about selecting which countries to make articles for. For example, Russia and the EU rate higher for CO2 emissions than India, which has only 0.1% more emissions than Japan. If we were to create these articles, then where would the cut-off point be, the minimum degree of emissions to warrant an article? Would the criteria be on a per-capita basis, or by percentage of worldwide emissions? Both approaches present inherent flaws. But in the end, the most important question is this: How many articles would we end up needing to create in order to maintain balance, and who would monitor all of those articles? There is already an article which covers this very subject without singling out any particular country. I suggest we leave it at that. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Personally, I disagree with you, although you do make some very valid points. I would like to give others a chance to reply, if anyone wishes to. It may be that most people here would agree with your viewpoint. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a regional approach, northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere, land, ocean, certainly North America, Europe and Asia compared to South America, Africa, Oceanasia and the Middle East would be interesting. Rktect 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a foregone conclusion that there would be more emissions in the northern hemisphere than the south simply because there is more landmass in the north, hence, more humans. That elementary deduction could be noted in a single sentence in the present article, if it even warrants one. But it has also been pointed out that CO2 does not hover over the place it was produced, it spreads out homogeneously in the atmosphere. Global warming is not a local phenomenon, hence the name.

There is already an article which lists countries by emissions, and breaking that down further (if we were to maintain balance) would require the creation of too many articles to maintain. Remember that the original suggestion was to create an article laying blame solely the United State; in light of China's upcoming status as the world's number-one emitter, this was clearly a POV gesture. With that in mind, and considering the potential for abuse, I fail to see any need to get more specific than we already have. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that maybe we should not object to others' proposals merely because "it would be too much work" to maintain. The whole point of Wkipedia is that having all of these participants means we can be bold, so we can lay out some ideas and try them out, not stop them before they start,

As far as laying blame, I don't think that was an aspect one way or the other. The point is to document any significant entities, as it is would be with any topic. in this case, the USA is one of the word's most significant sources of emissions. it is not a question of blame, merely a point of documenting the world's advanced industrial societies. An article about the US might also show how much the US has done which is positive in this area. --Steve, Sm8900 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And the point that I am trying to make is that, if such things are duly noted both in this article and mitigation of global warming, there does not seem to be a reason to create a whole other article to repeat the same points. But once more, the question arises of how many nations we would have to make articles for, and where the cut-off point would be. Some nations are bigger emitters, some are doing more to fight global warming, and some fit in both categories. How do we decide which are significant enough to warrant an article?

I should note that I am not trying to cut off or dismiss anybody, I am just saying that I don't see how this could be done without upsetting balance. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I don't think you're trying to cut off anyone either, merely trying to make some points.

However, doing one article on the US doesn't seem like out of balance. You're right though, that if we do want balance, it would be hard to do an article for each country. Maybe we could group them by region and socieconomic status. So there would be one for major industrialized West European countries, one for North America, one which would might include Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Scandinavia, etc, one for Russia, one for China and India, one for SE Asia, one for Brazil, one for all other South American countries, one for Central America, etc etc. Doing so would capture some real economic realities, while still looking at a variety of regions at once. It could also document some emerging trends. How does that sound?

That sounds good, but maybe in the process we could look at some actual attempts at mediation, from a how's that goin for ya perspective. I hear a lot of talk but I'm skeptical because I don't

know of more than a few hundred projects worldwide that are actually funded and working and most of what is proposed, ethanol, cafe standards, carbon taxes, nukes etc; are not gonna work. Pumping carbon back into the ground from coal plants? putting solar cells and wind turbines on every roof? maybe everybody either bicycles to work or telecommutes? Rktect 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I should note, i'm not saying I can work on all of these, but the issue here is the best overall method to attain some sort of balance. --Steve, Sm8900 18:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're onto something now. Maybe doing one focused on developed nations, and one on developing nations? The classification (first/second/third world) is already defined, and there could be no accusation of hand-picking nations. Maybe in those articles we could have subsections focusing on efforts in individual regions/continents, but making and maintaining two or three articles would still be preferable to six or more. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

sounds good. I should probbbly note I can't really work on all this, but I do want to discuss possible ideas. i do see one possible problem though. how do we decide which countries are developed and which aren't? Is China developed? Are India and Brzail developed? Maybe we should just stick to regions? --Steve, Sm8900 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of it is that the developed/developing classification is already defined by the UN. In this scale, countries like Japan, France, and the United States are on a high level of development; Russia, China, and India are on a mid-level of development and so on. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Math

Rktect: Just want to make sure you understand that Exponential polynomials are polynomial with respect to the input and not exponential. A relationship is said to be polynomial in x if it can be expressed as $\sum _{i=0}^{n}C_{i}x^{i}$ (where n is arbitrarily large, but finite). Usually, we focus on only the last term in that summation (since for large values of x it will dominate), so you can just use $x^{n}$. A relationship is exponential in x if it can be written as $a^{x}$. If the relationship is $a^{x}+x^{n}$, then it is still said to be exponential, because for large enough values of x, the exponential term will dominate. I hope this clears up some things. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben, you took the word right off my keyboard. To repeat it once more: none of the exponential polynomials described exponential gowths. --Stephan Schulz 09:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a point we are missing is that only in pure mathematics does an exponential curve go to infinity. In a reality biased world it may better fit a Bell Polynominal or exponential polynominal

Models of global warming can be complicated. Where you have the Siberian bogs outgasing methane which warms the atmosphere which melts the bogs which releases the methane you have a double exponential function, a function with two exponential terms, with different exponents. Trying to make all the different ways you can model the data simple enough to talk about seems to lose something in the translation. As I recall there are dozens of exponential functions whose infinite series can be written as continued fractions and more that can be played with using matrix algebra about which I have forgotten more than I knew to begin with. Rktect 05:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A double exponential function is a constant raised to the power of an exponential function. The general formula is $f(x)=a^{b^{x}}$, which grows even faster than an exponential function. For example, if a = b = 10:

The exponential function e^x can be defined in a variety of equivalent ways, as an infinite series. In particular it may be defined by a power series:

$\,e^{x}=\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }{x^{n} \over n!}=1+x+{x^{2} \over 2!}+{x^{3} \over 3!}+{x^{4} \over 4!}+\cdots$

or as the limit of a sequence:

$\,e^{x}=\lim _{n\to \infty }\left(1+{x \over n}\right)^{n}.$

In these definitions, n! stands for the factorial of n, and x can be any real number, complex number, element of a Banach algebra (for example, a square matrix), or member of the field of p-adic numbers.

Thinking about it in terms of autocad, mathematica, pythagorean triangles, unit fractions, continued fractions and all the other tools there are to work with you can get a series of exponential arc curves to fit curve, spline or nurb just about anything. For example: b5(x) = x5 + 10x4 + 25x3 + 15x2 + 5 (8) Rktect 14:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rktect, I suspect we're talking past each other, as I think you understand the topic and are just choosing to be more colloquial and less pedantic. However, just to be certain, I want to reiterate my statement for polynomial functions "where n is arbitrarily large, but finite", in an effort to point out that the power series expansion of an exponential function does not mean that it is equivalent to a polynomial function. Also, none of this has any real bearing on the very real fact that climate is changing faster now than we have any record of it changing in the past. (I want to make sure that you understand that I am arguing pedantically and not essentially.) That said, I believe that Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate as possible, and colloquialisms should only be allowed in the context that they are specifically recognized as such.

Also, for the author who wrote "only in pure mathematics does an exponential curve go to infinity", I'd like to point one other area where that (essentially) happens - computer science (both in theory and in practice). If you're not familiar with P, NP, etc., you'll just have to trust me on that one. :) Again, as with Rktect's point, the essence of your comment remains valid. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ben. My impression is that for science to consider a model valid it has to be able to make predictions which match observable data. We need a baseline as a control to which we can then add or subtract spikes due to some of the suprises like methane releases, the effects of phytoplankton dieoffs, running out of fossil fuels, melting icecaps, and their synergystic effects and then all of that needs to be overlaid on normal cyclical curves representing everything from seasons of the year to ice ages.Rktect 11:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't one expect non-analytical behavior for many quantities of interest in climate change? E.g. sea level rise will accelerate when ice in Greenland starts to melt. If you are below some threashold, then this doesn't happen at all. Sea level rise is then caused by thermal expansion. A Taylor expansion around $T=0$ will thus not converge to the correct answer above the threshold. Count Iblis 13:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ice in Greenland has started to melt and sea level has started to rise due to rising temperature and expansion of its volume according to its coefficient of expansion. I would expect those things are modeled along with other observable effects. Its harder to include in the model the little suprises that nobody knows about yetRktect 00:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD Climate change denial

An act of Climate change denial denial by the skeptics?  :) Count Iblis 14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find some sign of good faith in that snarky comment, but am unable to. Can someone assist? Anastrophe 18:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kinda looks like humor to me. See the :) - usually implies humor. Calling a humorous comment snarky on the other hand... Aw well - roll on. Vsmith 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fresh from CNN

CNN reports unilaterally that global warming is a "boogeyman" hell bent on destroying cherished freedoms of great America. Look at the bottom paragraph: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/10/fa.lundberg.qa/index.html

No wonder the so-called "rest of the world" hates USA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.68.145 (talk • contribs)

Right... what you are reading is an interview with someone who does survey's of gas/petrol prices. It's their personal opinion. It is nothing official. It's POV - not fact. Scarian^Talk 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)