Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Another fact

Another fact is that the relation from natural CO2-emissions to human is by 97:3!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.53.229.105 (talk • contribs)

That's not true, as can easily be found by checking numerous sources on the Carbon Dioxide article. Do you have a source for this dubious "fact"? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Than maybe the article about carbon dioxide is wrong?! However it is maybe 300000000000t to 30000000000t (Bill Bryson - a short history blablabla { I don't know the english title]). The relation 97/3 I is from this source: http://www.cicero.de/97.php?ress_id=1&item=1890

...it is written in german, just search in the article for the number 97.

The Wikipedia article is correct, but your source is wrong. There is a lot of documentation available that will demonstrate the inaccuracy of that statement. (My German is only mediocre, but good enough to get the gist of that article without resorting to Babelfish.) I like Bill Bryson, but I wouldn't trust him for facts about climatology. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay... it doesn't make any sence to discuss here. You wanna play god and think you can change the climate. Terrible, buy Toyota Prius and think you save the world, "dumm aber glücklich"...

...okay, what do you think is more on this planet: Live or industry? And live needs and produces CO2. It is a logical fact.

Yes, things in nature produce more CO2 than human industry. But that does not render the contribution of industry insiginificant. If you ask me, something more telling is the fact that during the cretaceous there was five times the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but life on earth was thriving regardless. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I doubt this claim that things in nature produce more CO2 than human industry. Even if it were true (and I've seen no evidence that is and plenty that it's not), we're talking about the change in CO2 concentration which is almost completely due to human influence (including agricultural practices, which some might argue is "nature"). Read the article on Carbon Dioxide before you try to argue that human influence is negligible. As for your "telling" fact, consider that life back then evolved in those conditions. So, it's pretty much an irrelevant fact, not a "telling" one. (The timescales involved are radically different.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC AR4WG1 report gives a good diagram of carbon fluxes in section 7.3. Gross natural fluxes are estimated at 90 GtC/yr for atmosphere-ocean and 120 GtC/yr for atmosphere-earth. Net fluxes, pre-industrial, are around 0. Industrial contributions are about 7 GtC/yr, with half of that being taken up for a net of around 3.5 GtC/yr. So plant respiration etc. does produce large amounts of CO2, however, the natural sources are balanced by sinks such as photosynthesis etc. Hal peridol 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Hal, for the correction, and for the clarification about net fluxes. For those who don't think humans are responsible for increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, I have no idea how you explain this image in your head. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

the only direct measures we have for atmospheric CO2 exist from the past 50 or so years. everything else is via proxies. none of those proxies can provide a glimpse of atmospheric CO2 levels that can be pinpointed to an interval of 50 years or less, can they? how do we know that there haven't been similar, extremely short term (in geological time) spikes or dips in atmospheric CO2 that have been masked by the inherent interval inaccuracy of the historical proxy record? Anastrophe 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

something else to ponder: where do our industrial CO2 emission derive from? burning oil. fossil fuel. fuel that came from the accumulation of formerly living things, that accumulated - dead - and after millions of years became oil. what is the source of the carbon those living things came from? hmm. must have been environmental. at times in the ancient past, there were orders of magnitude more 'free' carbon on the surface of the earth than there is now - else where would all that carbon in oil have come from? burning oil is releasing back into the environment carbon that's been sequestered by natural forces. Anastrophe 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at carbon cycle. Carbon is sequestered and released via tectonic processes - over many millions of years. There have been periods with much more and and less atmospheric CO2 than now. But these were periods with very different climate, and the changes between them were slow enough to give ecosystems the time to adapt. All of human history is not even noticable on the geological time scale (well, there may be a miniscule layer with some weird isotopes if someone digs in 50 million years). Now we are releasing carbon sequestered over millions of years in mere centuries. Earth will survive this, the question what this will cost us... --Stephan Schulz 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't disagree in principle. however, as with my earlier comment, i question the validity of drawing conclusions about the CO2 rise over the last fifty years of direct measurement, when - if i recall correctly - ice core records have an inherent 'fuzz' of a minimum of 150 years due to permeability of the ice structures until sufficiently compacted. that would implicitly flatten out spikes and dips in CO2 levels in time domains shorter than that interval. yes? Anastrophe 00:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Article should discuss the warming bias of poorly sited stations

The article also needs to discuss the controversy around the apparent warming bias in the temperature record. [1] Surfacestations.org is doing the work to determine how good or poor the quality of the U.S. network is and then they will go global. Earlier studies have shown more than 12% of stations had a warming bias of more than 3 degrees. If that is averaged out over the globe, about half of the perceived warming is just artifact of poorly sited stations located over parking lots or next to buildings. This is definitely something the article should discuss. RonCram 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

See prior discussion on this very topic. Note also the strongest warming is in subarctic continental areas; I will be eager to see the photos of parking lots and buildings in remote corners of Siberia. Raymond Arritt 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be excellent to discuss the accusations of bias, along with the explanations of how such effects are accounted for and how satellite data dispel such concerns. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If the satellite data dispels such concerns. Others have argued that the satellite data contradicts global warming. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in recent times, no. There was a discrepancy between satellite and ground measurements, but the satellite temperature record has been corrected a number of times as problems were discovered, and even the most conservative current version by Spencer and Christy shows significant warming. There are some minor remaining questions (depending on which version you accept), but extremely few now claim there is no warming. Also note that a couple of studies on the UHI have been done, and all found it insignificant in the overall temperature record. --Stephan Schulz 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept that, but this is where I have a problem. I know that this is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, but the pictures speak pretty loudly. What measures are being specifically taken to counter faulty data collected from sites like this? Simply writing it off as negligable when up to 12% of these sites are not up to code is not a good answer. You seem to be closer to the actual research techniques than I am, so I was wondering if you could help me find out what countermeasures are in place. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not being "simply written off". Several methods have been employed to measure the UHI. Comparison between urban and rural stations show no significant difference.

I don't want to split your comment up too much, but I thought I should mention this: the graphs shown in that blog are accurate. This is the GISS data for Marysville, CA (urban); and this is the data for Orland, CA (rural); 50 miles away. They show a very significant difference (over a full degree celsius), and the former is the one exposed to the heat island effects described in the blog. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and according to that very blog, that is the worst station they found. Hansen did just this comparison systematically, and found that 42% of the urban stations had a downward trend compared to surrounding rural stations. Thus, a lot of the effect seems to cancel out. Also, of course, there are many stations which are not urban. --Stephan Schulz 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons between windy nights (which should carry away excess heat) and calm nights show no difference. The surface and the satellite record are in good agreement.

Also note that the plural of anecdote is not data, even if the anectotes are illustrated with pictures. There are certainly be stations that have problems, but then the effect can go either way, and as far as we can tell, has no significant overall influence. See our own article on urban heat islands, especially the section relating it to global warming. --Stephan Schulz 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look, but stories like the one above are pretty hard to dispell. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but they are just that: Stories. Only a systematic comparison can tell us the overall effect. They were made, and found no significant influence. --Stephan Schulz 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

one of the problems i have with the 'windy night, calm night' comparison is that it does not seem sufficiently systematic. if the extent of the comparison really was that simplistic (the link to the Nature article in urban heat island is broken) then it ignores critical issues such as the direction of the prevailing winds relative to the location of the temperature monitor within the city. a monitor that is urbanized, but near the western edge of an urban area, where the prevailing winds at night tend to be out of the east, will show a signature of heat carried past it from the city, while if the prevailing winds are from the west, over what may be a rural area, the signature will be quite different. but perhaps i've had too much coffee. Anastrophe 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a new article on Urban heat island denial. There's also the mysterious increase in the net adjustment of the surface temperature record from around zero in 1900 to around +0.5F in 2000. Given an obvious increase in the UHI effect we would expect the adjustment to be downwards. What is the explanation for this? Iceage77 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of arguing and re-debating the issue of global warming, we should focus on accurately and proportionately representing what reliable sources have to say on the matter? MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed material

I'm putting some material here that was removed from the article (quite rightly) because it was out of place. But it's well referenced and maybe should be included elsewhere. Here's some removed by User:Jcc1...

However, on November 30, 2006, The Hon Greg Hunt MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for Australia said: "First, climate change is both real and soluble. The deniers are wrong: that is, those who argue there is insufficient evidence. The doomsayers are also wrong: that is, those who argue that we are coming to an unavoidable and catastrophic end." The New York Times reports that in the U.S., "The climate here has definitely changed. Legislation to control global warming that once had a passionate but quixotic ring to it is now serious business. Congressional Democrats are increasingly determined to wrest control of the issue from the White House and impose the mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions that most smokestack industries have long opposed."

And some removed by me: I can see how this related to the "Political pressure on scientists" section, because it concerns an alleged pattern of antiscience policy by the Bush administration, one example of which is GW. But we shouldn't go into a big discussion about that in this article. A one-sentence summary with a link would be fine, with the bulk of the material better placed here, here, or here. And now the removed material:

In 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) inspector general had determined that the EPA's regulation of mercury emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees. It has been alleged by that, under the Bush Administration, EPA has begun to rely less and less on its scientists and more on non-science personnel. The EPA has recently changed their policies regarding limits for ground-level ozone, particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and lead. New policies will minimize scientist interaction in this process and rely more on policy makers who have minimal scientific knowledge.

--Nethgirb 09:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

More to be removed: (1) The debate section. Every controversial topic has been debated over and over, so that's not notable. I do think it's a useful resource. I suggest putting it in the External Links section, where there is already a link to an older debate between Hansen and Michaels, so it would fit well. (2) The section "LEDC's development", because it is entirely unsourced. Any objections to either of these, please speak up. --Nethgirb 06:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no objection I've done this.--Nethgirb 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That was short. I would agree to your edit regarding the debate section if you would be consistent and do the same with the betting over global warming stuff, whose relevancy can hardly be higher than that of an actual debate about the science. --Childhood's End 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the betting section is more notable, because betting on the outcome of a controversy is fairly rare; usually it's not possible to bet on the "right" answer to a controversy. There are a lot of debates about whether gay marriage should be legal, but you can't really bet on it. Note that both the debate and the bets relate to the science—that doesn't make one or the other notable or non-notable.

I am, however, open to being convinced that the betting section is non-notable. Also, it could be shortened. --Nethgirb 20:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable, I dont know. Some will find it notable as you might expect. But I dont think it really is relevant. Some people will bet for fun, others will refuse bets because they're not gamblers, while others will refuse because while they doubt AGW, they might still believe the Earth will keep warming due to natural causes, etc. This section, looked at with a cold eye, really tells little about the controversy or about the participants' positions/beliefs. At least the debate was entirely about the subject of this article. --Childhood's End 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some noise in the signal. But in my opinion, some signal remains; and just the fact that it can be bet on, and actually some bets have been accepted, I think is notable. Yes, the bet is only about future temp rise, not directly about the cause—but future temp rise is entirely relevant to the subject at hand (not just partially relevant as you imply). --Nethgirb 08:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing my point at all but I did not expect to convince you. --Childhood's End 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Human CO2 emissions vs. atmospheric increase?

Does anyone know of data which compares historical rises in atmospheric CO2 levels to human emissions of CO2? I've found that atmospheric levels are usually quoted in ppm by volume, while human emissions are quoted as Million Metric Tons, and this makes it difficult to compare the two. I did some rough calculations myself (here) but I haven't been able to find any sources which either confirm or debunk this. Any help? ... Seabhcan 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your arithmetic is off but you don't give enough details for me to find the error. (And besides, I'm disinclined to give the steps in detail here because I sometimes assign this calculation as a homework problem...) Suggest you have a look at greenhouse gas, where sources and sinks are discussed. Raymond Arritt 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)You might take a look at this [2] or this [3] (references are provided therein) which gives the numbers in petagrams of carbon: "For example, during 1980 to 1999, fossil fuel burning was 117±5 PgC, and the carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans were 65±1 and 37±8 PgC, respectively. Thus that leaves 15±9 PgC that has been taken up by the land." Or, from the IPCC, "Assuming emissions of 7 GtC yr–1 and an airborne fraction remaining at about 60%, Hansen and Sato (2004) predicted that the underlying long-term global atmospheric CO2 growth rate will be about 1.9 ppm yr–1, a value consistent with observations over the 1995 to 2005 decade." (see p. 139 here).

If I had to guess, I'd say you didn't convert correctly from metric tons of carbon emissions, to parts per million by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere (you certainly need to know more than just the mass of the atmosphere to do this). --Nethgirb 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies - I was having trouble getting to grips with the science on my own. I've now fixed the graph (here) and it makes much more sense. ... Seabhcan 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"annual human emissions vs annual human emissions"? huh? Anastrophe 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, copy & paste error. Thanks. ... Seabhcan 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

New section on criticisms of the temperature record

I added a new section on the work of Roger Pielke, Stephen McIntyre and Anthony Watts.

Criticisms of the temperature record

Roger A. Pielke and Stephen McIntyre have been critical of instrumental temperature record and adjustments to it. Pielke has published articles about poor quality siting of weather stations. As a result Anthony Watts began an all volunteer effor to document the quality of these stations and developed SurfaceStations.org. [4] More than 250 stations have been photographed and documented. Many of them do not meet the standards for good quality stations and introduce an artificial warming bias into the temperature record.

Stephen McIntyre found a significant error in the instrument temperature record kept by GISS. [5] GISS has admitted the error and credited Stephen McIntyre for finding it. [6] The error affects temperature record from 2000 through 2007. By correcting the data set, 1998 and 2006 are no longer the warmest years in the U.S. Now 1934 is the warmest year and the 1930s are the warmest decade of the 20th century. [7]RonCram 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen plenty of discussion on this bias. It seems to me that many editors made good points that the bias can go either way. GISS did admit the error, but the rest of the statement seem not supported so I reverted. Brusegadi 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, please indent to make it easier for readers to follow. If you have been following the Instrumental temperature record, you will know that 95% of poorly sited stations have a warming bias. Please read the links before reverting. RonCram 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The only source for the 1934 'warmest year' seems to be the blog, and that is not a reliable source. I think the discovery of the error could go in, but the 1934 seems like a stretch (I will check further on the warming bias deal.) Brusegadi 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now please point us to the study saying "95% of poorly sited stations have a warming bias". Unfortunatly you cannot because its your own WP:OR - and neither supported by Pielke Sr. nor (i believe) Watts. Try to keep your own POV out - Ok?

As for the "significant error" - good for McIntyre. But it doesn't belong here - both because of WP:Undue_weight and because the text is not supported by reliable sources. (the NASA one is the only source valid here). Take it to McIntyre's own article if you believe it notable enough on his bio. --Kim D. Petersen 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The material doesn't even make sense. If the error "affects temperature record from 2000 through 2007," why is it that 1998 is no longer the warmest year? Last time I checked, 1998 was before 2000 and thus should not be affected. Raymond Arritt 00:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, at least your comment makes some sense. Actually, I asked McIntyre the same question. McIntyre was using a golf metaphor when he announced the changes by NASA. He said 1934 came up with some late birdies. I still do not understand what that means. I am not sure McIntyre understands NASA adjustments either. It almost seems like NASA had found some other error and was lumping it in with the error McIntyre found to correct them both at the same time. Raymond, you probably know Jim Hansen. Why not ask him why they made the changes to 1934? Maybe he will tell you. Regarding ClimateAudit being a RS or not, I would have to say it is reliable on McIntyre's view. NASA admitted McIntyre found the error. Keeping McIntyre's comments out of the article makes no sense. RonCram 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, do you seriously doubt McIntyre's numbers? GEEZ. Here is a google cache version of the old version of GISS. [8] Here is the corrected version. [9] Double check McIntyre if you must but do not say his blog is not a reliable source. RonCram 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, its all about the quality of the source, and the blog was not good enough, thats all I am saying. Brusegadi 03:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Errors are found and corrected in data records all the time. We don't include every instance in Wikipedia, only the ones shown to be especially notable by a reliable source independent of the subject. The latter qualification obviously excludes McIntyre's blog. Raymond Arritt 02:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, the correction is obviously notable and will get a great deal of media attention in time. This is simply a delaying tactic. RonCram 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The "delaying tactic" is that done by McIntyre et al., who are trying to delay action on fighting climate change as long as possible so that their financiers (see http://www.exxonsecrets.org and http://www.sourcewatch.org for proof) continue to support their junk science.Iceberg007 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several criteria for notability in Wikipedia, but "Ron Cram says it will get a great deal of media attention" isn't one of them. Or are you arguing that we should set policy aside in this case? Let's wait and see. Ideally, McIntyre will write his results up as a note to a journal (GRL gives a fast turnaround) so that its significance and validity can be established. Raymond Arritt 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, okay fine. It is my opinion that McIntyre and NASA agreeing was adequate as a reliable source. The correction is noncontroversial. And no one who understands the issue could argue that the correction is not important. If you insist on waiting for an RS independent of the subject, I will wait. While you and I may disagree alot, I do think you are a fair person. RonCram 02:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Should I understand from RA's previous comment that we should now use only sources that are independent from the subject? Does it go both ways? Are IPCC reports independent from their conclusions? --Childhood's End 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I do not even know what to say to you. Your claim of undue weight is completely unworthy of you. If you do not understand the importance of the 1930s being warmer than the 1990s, then you do not understand anything about climate change. This correction completely invalidates numerous peer reviewed studies based on these numbers. And you do not think that deserves mention in an article discussing controversy around the science of global warming? Kim, you are making it harder and harder to assume good faith. RonCram 02:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, you continue to revert the entire entry even though a good portion of it is noncontroversial. If you really think a portion of the entry does not meet Wikipedia policy, delete that portion and not the entire entry. You are not acting in good faith. RonCram 02:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Ron - I don't want to interject myself into this, but from my perspective, some information concerning temperature record criticism is reasonable, e.g.

Roger A. Pielke and Stephen McIntyre have been critical of the instrumental temperature record and adjustments to it, and Pielke has criticized poor quality siting of weather stations. In response, Anthony Watts has begun an all volunteer effor to photographically document the siting quality of these stations.

However, the above comments are correct that ClimateAudit is not an independent source concerning McIntyre's findings, and the addition of this information should wait on commentary by reliable and independent sources on the correction and its implications. Hal peridol 02:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal, you have every right to comment. No need to apologize. I just told Raymond I would wait. There is no question the media will pick this up, probably before the end of the week. I won't have to wait long. In the meantime, would you mind restoring that portion of the entry you think is valid now? I would appreciate it. RonCram 02:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did add the information to his biography article. Kim suggested it belongs there and I agree. I will not add it elsewhere until there is a third party reliable source. For now, just using NASA and ClimateAudit. RonCram 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal, thank you. I will accept that for now. RonCram 03:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quickly reading makes me think that thats good.Brusegadi 03:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually NASA did update its table here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt and it shows the anomaly for 1934 to be greater than the anomaly for 1998.Jmsseal 02:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Global warming just won't cooperate!

It seems the climatologists are a bit frustrated by the weather. It just isn't getting hot enough for them. The last few years have been disappointing. 1998 is still the warmest year on record. (Although not in the U.S., Stephen McIntyre found an error and NASA's corrected temp record shows 1934 to be the warmest year in the U.S.) Now the climatologists are admitting that no new global temperature records will be set for the next few years, but boy is it going to get hot after that!! Read the story for yourself. [10] Now, I ask you, is this science? We are often told (and Roger A. Pielke says this is a ridiculous scientific claim but I hear it all the time) that it is easier to predict the climate than the weather. If so, shouldn't the accuracy of the climate predictions be better? Can a weatherman predict the weather three weeks from now? Of course not. How can they say that, over the next few years, weather is going to mute global warming? Aren't they really saying that natural variability of the climate is greater than they expected? Why not just admit the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has turned to the cooler phase and we will not see warmer temps for a while? Well, if they admittted that they would have to admit we will not see warmer temps for probably 30 years and that will not scare people enough! I need some help trying to figure how to put this in the article, but this kind of unscientific attempts to save a theory on its last legs is just amazing to watch. RonCram 02:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the talk page guidelines recently? MastCell ^Talk 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I am asking for help on how to discuss this controvery in the article. I suppose you are trying to say that I have allowed my personal views to be seen. But this is an article on a controversy. In global warming articles, every editor's personal views are known. Here's the FOXNews piece on the same study.[11] Note that Smith is willing to discuss El Nino but does not mention PDO. RonCram 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you address, specifically, how you would like to incorporate this source into the article? I brought up the talk page guidelines because your initial comment consisted largely of spinning your wheels, replete with rhetorical questions, in a manner more fitting for a blog than an article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 03:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It obviously needs to be discussed in the "Controversy concerning the science" section. But I'm not sure if it should be in section 2.6 "Predictions of temperature rises" (in which case we could also discuss how climate predictions are wrong more than half the time) or whether this deserves it own section - maybe titled "Response to falling global temperatures." What do you think? RonCram 03:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the sources you've cited sounds controversial. The articles just detail an apparent improvement in our understanding of patterns of short-term warming. The "controversial" aspect is in the way you're spinning it, which is original research. MastCell ^Talk 03:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. Should this not matter? I mean, surely if the above is true we would not experience hotter temps for a while; but that does not invalidate the theory og agw since we could have had even colder temps without the anthro forcing and once we go back to the warm phase we will observe even hotter temps... I mean, are this not two different forcings we speak of? Just a thought. Brusegadi 06:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

RE placement of the material: one of the options Ron proposes is obviously inappropriate. --Nethgirb 07:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can add this new research to the article until you've read it. Most of Rons questions above, and the link to the newspaper, indicate that he hasn't. Its available from [12] . Since the new article clearly believes in climate models and their projections, I'm not clear why Ron thinks its going to help him William M. Connolley 08:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

William, it will help because it is such obviously bad science. Brusegadi does not seem to understand that scientists really do not understand how much of climate variation is due to natural causes and how much to mankind. This is the main objection of all of the skeptical climatologists, including Pielke. They all agree that the affect of CO2 is overrated because we are underestimating natural climate variability. But Mastcell is correct. It is probably too early to put this into the article at this moment. But it won't take long. The debunking should happen pretty quickly.RonCram 14:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So, how coud they have made these predictions for the next decade ? Count Iblis 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is what I mean. Most natural forcings are cyclical so they tend to cancel out in the long run. The anthro CO₂ forcing is in only one direction so it should matter more in the longrun. I see it like the Keeling curve. The variations move you up and down in periods, but the anthro component moves you only in one direction. Brusegadi 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The best analogy I've heard is that it's like rolling loaded dice. You can't tell what the next roll will be, but you know the odds have changed. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Khandekar annotated bibliography

I propose that the discussion of the Khandekar paper in the article be removed, because (1) it is not peer reviewed and (2) it is not sufficiently notable to have been discussed or critiqued in any reliable sources, with the exception of WMC's blog (google search results). The current state of affairs is not good -- we're critiquing the works cited by a particular paper. That level of detail is not appropriate for what is at most a minor paper. --Nethgirb 18:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no objection, I have cut it to here:

In February 2007, environmental consultant Madhav Khandekar, in reaction to the Oreskes survey, issued an annotated bibliography of 68 recent peer-reviewed papers which he claims question aspects of the current state of global warming science. However, a number of cited articles appear in the journal Energy and Environment which does not appear on the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Also, many of the articles cited have been refuted by contemporary research, such as those on solar variation which has been rejected as the cause of the current warming by Lockwood and Fröhlich (2007). Khandekar also frequently mistakes climate change with climate variability, as he often cites single climatic events, such as El Niños and takes short-term climate irregularities to try to prove that global warming is not occurring.

--Nethgirb 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, its NN. Sorry for making it a bit more notable, but someone has to trash these things William M. Connolley 15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics 2

In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion[28][29][30] and to discredited scientific theories such as eugenics,[31][32] phlogiston,[33] and miasma.[34]

Eugenics is not a scientific theory. It may not be a politically correct term, and some people may associate it with racism, but that doesnt make it scientifically discredited. I'm removing this again. Jcc1 01:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Eugenics is not a scientific theory." quite right. but that's not what the section of the article said. it quite correctly identifies it as a discredited scientific theory. at one time, it was a scientific theory. the basis for removal is incorrect. if the section of the article said "In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion and to scientific theories such as eugenics, phlogiston, and miasma", you'd have a basis. i'm restoring it. Anastrophe 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now let's see whether it is a scientific theory, discreted or otherwise. Here are some reliable sources from a google search:

• "It was an optimistic school of thought with a profound faith in the powers of Science. The trappings of science, anyway. Even in its day, many people saw that eugenics was a dubious discipline, riddled with inconsistencies." (From PBS, "Eugenics movement reaches its height" [13])
• "A broad-based social, political, and scientific movement ... Their understanding of the principles of genetic inheritance led eugenicists to conclude that genetically defective members of society -- including the "feeble-minded," criminals, the sexually wanton, epileptics, the insane, and non-white races -- were rapidly out-reproducing the "normal" members of society at an alarming rate." (American Philosophical Society [14])
• "The interesting aspect of the eugenics movement is that it was mainstream science. The Passing of the Great Race was reviewed favorably in the journal Science, by MIT geneticist Frederick Adams Woods. Every genetics textbook of the era advanced the case of eugenics, showing how genetics could be used to solve social problems, if we simply believe everything geneticists say, give them lots of money, and not worry too much about individual civil rights, and the poor training and track record of geneticists in that area." (J. Marks, U of North Carolina at Charlotte [15])
• The wikipedia eugenics article refers to it as a "social philosophy" (see that page for an external source from which that definition came)

So what I see is that all of the sources refer to eugenics as a movement or philosophy. It appears to have been supported by scientists of the day; and to have used arguments based in scientific theories; and to have been cited as a social application of scientific theories. But none of this is the same as saying eugenics was ever itself a scientific theory. I haven't yet seen a source that refers to eugenics as a scientific theory, discredited or otherwise. We shouldn't call it a theory unless we have sources to back that up. --Nethgirb 07:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. Yet, since Lindzen says it, do we somehow compare them? Upon reading a portion of the material, he is making the comparison not just between theories, but between the ideas of using science for political purposes. Since this article is about the controversy, which includes politics, does it not merit inclusion, at least under some more general ground of comparison? Brusegadi 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested comparing them on some more general grounds. Since more people complained about changes I decided to be bold and give something new a try. Do you think its ok like that? Basically, to keep it simple I just mention that they have drawn parallels between the two. The interested reader can click on the references. I did not want to go into detail because it might be undue weight.Brusegadi 08:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm wondering if nethgirb is being ironic in including the third entry and highlighting only the word 'movement', while ignoring the rest of it. let me repeat the section with different editorial emphasis:

"The interesting aspect of the eugenics movement is that it was mainstream science. The Passing of the Great Race was reviewed favorably in the journal Science, by MIT geneticist Frederick Adams Woods. Every genetics textbook of the era advanced the case of eugenics, showing how genetics could be used to solve social problems, if we simply believe everything geneticists say, give them lots of money, and not worry too much about individual civil rights, and the poor training and track record of geneticists in that area." (J. Marks, U of North Carolina at Charlotte [92])

that section counters nethgirb's argument, it does not advance it. it clearly states that eugenics was indeed a science at the time. what i find further amusing is that while editors are fighting hard to have the eugenics mention removed because 'it wasn't science', nobody has yet removed the references to phlogiston and miasma from the sentence. are we to understand that the editors who believe eugenics should be removed because 'it wasn't science' then believe that phlogiston and miasma are science? it would seem so, since nobody is fighting to remove them. exactly the same arguments apply to those theories as to eugenics: in their day, they were science. when the theories were disproved, they became either failed theories or discredited science, as you wish. Anastrophe 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The question of WP:WEIGHT also applies. PS: Is your "shift" key broken? Raymond Arritt 16:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

it is a single sentence in the article, so it hardly violates WP:Weight. PS, in editing articles, i suppose your 'query' about my shift practices might be appropriate. are there such editorial restrictions in discussion? gracious, i hope not. in any event, i think WP:Tend to your own business please probably applies. Anastrophe 20:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not everything belongs in the article; only the most prominent points need be mentioned. PS. There's no strict rule about using the shift key, though an attitude that "I expect you to consider my points, even though I can't be bothered with the minimal effort of using conventional punctuation" is rather arrogant. Raymond Arritt 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

bringing it up in the first place trumps me in the arrogance department. but pray, what do your personal jabs at me have to do with improving the article? Anastrophe 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You can drop this past vs. present distinction—no one is arguing with you about that. The quote doesn't run counter to my argument. I repeat: It appears to have been supported by scientists of the day; and to have used arguments based in scientific theories; and to have been cited as a social application of scientific theories. But none of this is the same as saying eugenics was ever itself a scientific theory. If we have to pick one word to describe eugenics, "movement" seems to be much more appropriate than "theory". --Nethgirb 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm having difficulty understanding what part of "it was mainstream science" isn't clear here. it seems to me this is historical revisionism - if a past scientific theory is later discredited, then we rewrite history to claim that it never was a scientific theory. perhaps the motivation is to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that scientists can as much be racists, or simply deluded, as everyone else. Anastrophe 20:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I am making two points. (1) None of the sources refer to eugenics as a scientific theory, which is a term with a specific meaning [16]. So use of the term theory is not supported by the sources we have so far. (2) As shown by the sources I've found so far, the term eugenics encompasses the whole eugenics movement, including non-scientific social constructs such as sterilization and encouraging certain people to reproduce more. Referring to the whole movement as a scientific theory is not correct. --Nethgirb 02:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of phlogiston, miasma and eugenics. Only two of the three get called theory.Brusegadi 19:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm not a huge fan of the notion that 'if it says it in xyz wikipedia articles, it supports what this wikipedia article is trying to establish'. by this logic, one could go to the miasma article, and claim 'the global warming controversy article says it's science, so we'll make this article conform to that'. heck, i might as well do so, based upon this time-slice of this article's history. recursion can be dangerous. Anastrophe 20:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does this article say that miasma is science? One of the persons quoted in the global warming controversy article made a comparison between the two, thats all it says. Anything else is stretching things. So, yes, you could go and write in the miasma article that there is a sentence in the global warming controversy article about skeptics comparing the two... I dont see what you ought to accomplish with that. Also, articles are not supposed to contradict themselves, hence the existence of templates in case they do. Since they are not supposed to contradict themselves calling things here by different names (unless its a quote of sorts) is wrong. That is why I resort to other articles, because we are not supposed to contradict them. Brusegadi 04:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

you've missed my point. wikipedia isn't a reference for wikipedia. that only two of the three 'get called a theory' in their respective wikipedia pages is meaningless, since wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anastrophe 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not using it as a source. I am saying that we cant make contradicting claims in wiki articles. The wiki article on eugenics calls it a philosophy. If we call it a scientific theory then the articles would not be on the same page so we would have some fixing to do; if we want the encyclopedia to be consistent that is. From what I have read miasma is a theory that failed. Eugenics is not a theory that failed; it is an application of theories that was deemed wrong when done on humans. (They do it on endangered eagles at some zoos though, a computer pairs up the eagles whose genomes have been mapped so that genetic variability in the offspring is maximized...) I will step back from this since it seems that we have assumed some different things from the start and will likely not get anywhere. Humbly, Brusegadi 06:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To be a scientific theory, it would need to make falsifiable claims. I don't think it does, because, "we ought to breed people for certain attributes," isn't falsifiable because it's just an opinion. ←Ben^B4 03:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure why this keeps coming up. it was a scientific theory in its time. it is now discredited, therefore it is no longer a scientific theory. that doesn't change the fact that a great many scientists investigated it, worked on it, proposed explanations based upon it, etc, in its time. that it serves as an embarrassing footnote that shows that scientists are fallible humans like the rest of us is the likely reason that its former 'scientific' underpinnings tend to be swept under the rug. Anastrophe 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a few things that are not falsifiable that are nonetheless presented as 'scientific' through these articles, but I will not develop futher so that I am not called a time-waster or contrarian. The point remains that eugenics was considered a scientific theory at the time, just like some other non-falsifiable theories are nowadays. --Childhood's End 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion:

In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion[28][29][30], to the scientific movement of eugenics,[31][32] and to discredited scientific theories such as phlogiston,[33] and miasma.[34]

It captures the essence of the original and has the added benefit of being factual. I think the point that Anastrophe and Childhood's End is missing is that there is a difference between something being a theory, a hypothesis, or a movement. Any of these things can be a part of "mainstream science" and accepted by most scientists. Most scientists dislike the use of nuclear weapons. That doesn't make that dislike a "scientific theory". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good compromise I guess. --Childhood's End 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ben for the summary and compromise, which looks good. I would suggest a slight modification to improve accuracy:

In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion[28][29][30], to scientific support for the eugenics movement,[31][32] and to discredited scientific theories such as phlogiston[33] and miasma.[34]

...since we shouldn't imply that eugenics was only a scientific movement. --Nethgirb 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

that's a fair compromise. Anastrophe 00:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Nethgirb's.Brusegadi 00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we appear to have achieved consensus on this (!!) I've implemented the change. --Nethgirb 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim Ball

I'm removing the characterization of Tim Ball as being a critic who denies that the Earth has warmed significantly, due to the following statement he made in an interview in May:[17] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that. I've never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO₂ being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (it's at about 15:30 into the audio interview).

I'm also tweaking the article to remove any idea that there's still a scientific controversy about whether the Earth is even getting warmer, due to the lack of any remaining notable climate scientists who still believe that the Earth isn't even getting warmer. MrRedact 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing him is probably an improvement just because Ball seems like more and more of a nutjob, on the fringe even for a skeptic. But he's lying in that quote, he certainly has debated whether there is warming, and he's done so recently:

• November 2004: "(The world's climate) warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." [18]
• August 2006: "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." [19]
• Feb 5, 2007: "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." [20]

--Nethgirb 20:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just very bizzare. Maybe he adapts his message a bit to his audience at the time? MrRedact 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I copied the contradicting quote to the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Believe_global_warming_is_not_occurring page LetterRip 05:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just seen "Swindle," and from the graph therein presented (which I hear has been shown to be relevent up to only 1988, I think) it seems that global temperature took a dip for about forty years before starting to rise again. When he said in 2004 "it has cooled down" does he mean that it cooled down for a period of forty years, or does he mean that it is cooler now in 2004? Perhaps he meant simple, as he said, "it has cooled down," which it did do up to the late 70's? I mean if he said "it has cooled down and then from the late seventies it has heated up again" he would be right, and that is what he seems to believe from the quote below. --Timtak 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Who knows what he meant. But note that TGGWS graph is junk. A better one is Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png. And from that, "cooling from 1940" is wrong - the obvious reading is warming from 1950 with after a 10-y warm blip centered around 1940. But there is no need to press that interpretation - mostly what I'm saying is don't trust TGGWS graph, even the - ahem - corrected one William M. Connolley 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another interpretation could be that global temperature fell dramatically around 1940 and did not rise back to the 1940 level until about 1979 -- almost 40 years later. At the same time this cooling occurred, anthropogenic CO2 was rising rapidly, as industrial production went into full gear during with WWII. Also when the globe was warming from 1910 to 1940, industrial production was meager; autos weren't even widely used until about 1920, after Henry Ford pioneered mass production in a modern factory; and that was primarily in the U.S. A reasonable person might conclude that there is a less than perfectly linear relationship between CO2 and global warming, at least during periods of similar length. Oh yeah clearly Tim Ball has no credibility.

Freedom Fan 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable person might conclude that there is a less than perfectly linear relationship between CO2 and global warming - well I certainly would - does that make me reasonable? William M. Connolley 08:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's test the hypothesis that you are reasonable: Is it possible that a similar 40 year respite could be starting right now? Similarly do you believe that the governments of the world will ever repeal their economy-destroying carbon tax gravy train even if we experience a prolonged cooling period? Freedom Fan 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost anything is "possible" but I believe not. Do you want to bet on cooling? Thought not William M. Connolley 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a pretty good correlation between Sun variations and temperature rise for the first half of the 20th century. The cooling between the 1940-1970s is said to be because of sulphate aerosols, but neglects similar cooling in the Southern Hemisphere where sulphate emissions were minimal compared to the North.[21] It's hard to measure the Sun's impact on the 1980s-current warming because of multiple factors, such as ozone depletion in the stratosphere, etc., but most will agree anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary cause. ~ UBeR 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New research from Roy Spencer

Dr. Spencer has just published an article in Geophysical Research Letters which should be discussed here. The research calls into question a key component of global warming theory which may change the way climate models are programmed to run. [22] Global warming theory predicts a number of positive feedbacks which will accelerate the warming. One of the proposed feedbacks is an increase in high-level, heat trapping clouds. Spencer's observations in the tropics actually found a strong negative feedback. This observation was unexpected and gives support to Richard Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming." [23] Spencer expects the finding to be controversial. Under what section should this be discussed? RonCram 11:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that Pielke has blogged on Spencer's paper. [24] Pielke notes that Spencer's work is in line with the work of Dr. De-Zheng Sun from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory who concluded “The models tend to overestimate the positive feedback from water vapor in El Nino warming” and “The models tend to underestimate the negative feedback from cloud albedo in El Nino warming.” Dr. Sun's study is not yet published but his PowerPoint presentation can be found here. [25] RonCram 13:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just found a blog entry by Spencer on Pielke's blog. [26] It is an interesting discussion of feedbacks and how they are diagnosed. I am certain this will also be controversial in climate science. RonCram 13:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Spencer himself acknowledges that he does not know if the results apply to global warming, and since we already acknowledge uncertainties of cloud-based feedbacks, there is nothing to add. If the result solidifies and we have a reliable source that discusses the overall effect for global warming, we integrate the result. I'm a bit sceptic in this case - my question is why climate models are as good as they are at reproducing current warming if they model this effect incorrectly and it is significant. --Stephan Schulz 14:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, is Pielke a scientist in a climate related field? Knowing that he is not, why would we even bring him up here, unless it is about political/vested interest motivations? --Skyemoor 12:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"...expects the finding to be controversial" explicitly means that it isn't controversial (at least for the moment), and doesn't need to be included in the article. Jcc1 08:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not yet persuaded that it does not deserve to be in the article. Spencer's paper relates only to the tropics, but that is a large region and will have an affect on global temperatures even it if it not found to happen at other locations. Plus, Spencer's conclusion that the models overestimate the warming from high-level clouds is confirmed by Dr. Sun's research. This is contrary to the status quo and is automatically controversial. However, we may want to wait until Dr. Sun's paper is published. RonCram 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we do not have to wait for Dr. Sun's paper. I just found another peer reviewed paper (this one by Karner) stating that climate is dominated by negative feedbacks. He states:

The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Journal of Geophysical Research [27] RonCram 11:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the HO-83 Hygrothermometer

Stephen McIntyre has just posted on the HO-83. In the early 1990s, USHCN began changing weather station instruments over to the HO-83. Numerous peer-reviewed studies documented the warm bias this instrument change caused, including at the infamous Tucson weather station run by the University of Arizona Department of Atmospheric Sciences. The Tucson station is built on top of a parking lot and shows the greatest warming of all stations in the USHCN. Now it seems this artificial warm bias is not due just to the poorly sited station but also to the change to the HO-83. One peer-reviewed study says "the HO-83 maximum temperature readings at Tucson were probably too warm by 1-2 deg C on sunny, light wind days." McIntyre lists eight different peer-reviewed articles that discuss the warm bias caused by this change in instruments. [28] There are so many controversies here it is difficult to discuss them all. First, we have no indication NASA GISS has adjusted for this warm bias. Second, NASA GISS does not release its data, methods and code so others can check their work and determine if this was handled correctly. Third, was this instrument change done intentionally to create a warm bias in the record? Fourth, was the warm bias left intentionally uncorrected to allow the warm bias to remain in the record? A degree or two here and there introduced over a period of time creates a step-wise warming bias. This is a controversy that will not go away until NASA GISS releases all of the data, methods and code (just as the new "America COMPETES Act" requires). RonCram 04:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Watts has commented on the HO-83 saying: Given that the problem went undetected for 4 years in Tucson, and the high temperature records there stand, it stands to reason that the HO-83 has contaminated part of the USHCN and GISS record in other instances for perhaps as long or longer. [29] RonCram 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This just a local US problem or are these things widely used? --BozMo talk 05:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, it is unclear how widely used they were in the 1990s. Some of them were exported. According to Anthony Watts, the ASOS Hygrotherm (the newer version Raymond mentioned above) is used in only 64 of the current 1221 USHCN stations. [30] The HO-83 was used for a number of years. Comrie's paper was evidently written in 2000 and the HO-83 seemed to still be in use in Tucson. What is intriguing here is Hansen's 2001 adjustment raising US temps in the 1990s by 0.3C when he obviously knew the network had a warm bias from the HO-83. These adjustments (especially when Hansen will not turn over his data, methods and code like a scientists should) seem ripe for mischief. This is a big part of the controversy. RonCram 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very old news and well-documented. Problems with HO-83 bias due to poor ventilation were recognized fairly quickly, back the early to mid-90s I think, and the instrument was redesigned to greatly improve ventilation (denoted HO83m or something like that). One must be careful to note replacement of the HO-83 with the HO-83m, as failure to do so can produce an erroneous cooling trend since the warm bias is removed. It's curious that some folks seem to be interested in errors of only one sign and not the other... Raymond Arritt 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you are not thinking this through clearly. When a warm bias is introduced from bad instruments, two things need to happen: Instrumentation needs to be upgraded and the warm bias needs to be adjusted out. When the new instrument is introduced, there is no "cool bias"- only a restoration to normal temps. If one were to adjust for a "cool bias" because of a change to a more accurate instrument, you would be restoring the warm bias in the record. I hope this clears it up for you. RonCram 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what Raymond is saying is that the HO83 had a known bias of, say, B. So, they would adjust their data by 'subtracting' B from their recordings. If you begin to use the HO83m you no longer have the bias of B. So, you have to be careful to not subtract N from HO83m because if you do you end up introducing a bias of -N. Brusegadi 15:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, the problem is that there is no evidence GISS ever adjusted for the warm bias to begin with. It is erroneous to claim a "cooling bias" if the warm bias was never adjusted. RonCram 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not so. You'll get a spurious warming trend when you introduce the faulty thermometers, and an equally spurious cooling trend when you replace them with good ones. The temperature will be ok afterwards, but the trend is still wrong (as e.g. in "there has been no warming since 1998" ;-). --Stephan Schulz 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a usenet discussion. Without sources, you cannot edit the article, so the discussion is irrelevant. Take it to a blog somewhere William M. Connolley 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

William, you deleted a section because it did not advance the article. Fair enough. By why leave Stephan's comment which also does not advance the article and is demonstrably wrong? RonCram 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Shaviv

I feel that the new addition may not be appropriate per WP:RS. I mean, on one side we have a published paper (from what seems to be a highly regarded publisher) and on the other we have a blog. Is there a better source for Shaviv? I will not remove because I may be alone on this, but I do feel that a more reliable source is in order. Brusegadi 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am dubious about it. It isn't even S's blog, but Lubos reporting on S, and we don't even know he is doing so accurately. I would be inclined to remove/shorten William M. Connolley 08:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thats why I ask again, is there a better source for Shaviv? Otherwise, as it stands, the paragraph gives undue weight to a blog posting. Brusegadi 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - We have no way of validating if this really comes from Shaviv - and this fails all rules for WP:RS. WP:SPS exceptions do [ins: not] come into play here, as 1) Lubos is no expert by SPS 2) Lubos is citing someone else without a proper reference (instead of givin his own view) 3) Shaviv's own blog doesn't contain this. I suggest removal as well. (Nb: i've looked for this "memo" on the net - but cannot find anything except Lubos). --Kim D. Petersen 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with axing it for now - in general, this article needs better attention to quality sourcing and fewer such subpar sources. MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

causes

another potential cause that has been recently identified is

"A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts" http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf

"The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."

It would be good to add something about it under (potential) causes. LetterRip 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

LetterRip, I agree. One of the problems with the AGW groupthink is the lack of acknowledgement of natural climate variability. Global temps go up and down over time. This peer-reviewed research is another in a line (see Bratcher and Giese 2004) that shows PDO looms large in natural variability. RonCram 01:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

restructuring

I've reverted the recent set of edits by 4.246.206.171. I think the restructuring only made the article more disorganized, and there's no need to label each person a "skeptic" when this is clear anyway from context. If you disagree please discuss. --Nethgirb 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all clear from the context which is "Funding for promoters of the theory". Do you actually think that the fact that every one of those seemingly average and objective "climate scientists" is actually a global warming skeptic is not relevant to their statements that people 'like them' studying the issue are really in it for the money? Why of course it is! The problem is that most people coming to that section are probably not going to know that because there is nothing there that reveals it. Also it's conceivable that people looking up info on GW will not read the whole article which, by the way, only mentions three of the six who comment in this section as skeptics (though of course they all are). For example, when John Christy says "We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to climate scientists" the average person probably won't know that though he appears to be speaking for promoters of AGW science with his use of the word "we", which implies that he is just another one of them, that he's actually not at all. This is a classic case of disinformation. At the very least a statement should be made that those making the claim that climate scientists are in it for the money are a handful of professional skeptics which are themselves on industry payroll. I'm going to put some kind of clarifier back in.

Also what I read here are losts of claims. Kind of a tit for tat for all the verifiable evidence that the promoters have accumulated to show that the skeptics are on the company dole. 4.246.201.150 06:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right that it's worth pointing out at least once in that section. (Also, I agree that these are a bunch of unsubstantiated claims...but it's a notable part of the controversy that the claims have been made.) --Nethgirb 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

4, John Christy is a mainstream climate scientist and a contributing author to the IPCC. As such, he also benefits from the panic about global warming. It makes it easier for him to get funding for his satellite research. Christy is skeptical but is not one of the those who has taken money from the oil industry. Your claim that he is putting out disinformation is just false and contrary to WP:BLP. Most of the recent peer-reviewed research by skeptics is authored or co-authored by government scientists who have never taken money for the oil industry. They also have benefitted from the global warming panic. Climate studies are being funded now that never would have been funded before. RonCram 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

John Christy is a member of groups that are funded by big oil such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Independent Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, and the Heartland Institute. So in that sense he is being funded by them. As Integrity in Science says:

"The Associated Press ran a story that appeared in the Indianapolis Star and several other papers last week that cited global warming skeptic John Christy but failed to mention his long involvement with conservative think-tanks supported by money from the energy industry. In an article about the development of global warming "hot spots," AP cited Christy's belief that concerns about an increase in heat-wave related deaths due to climate change were without foundation. The widely used wire service identified Christy only as an atmosphere sciences professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, but did not note his frequent appearances and published work for the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Independent Institute - conservative think tanks that receive funding from ExxonMobil and other energy companies" [31]. Also [32].

Funny that all these professional skeptics seem to be associated with rightwing think tanks? Like the old saying goes "If you lie down with dogs..." 4.246.207.63 05:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Christy is careful not to take money from or allow others in his research group to take money from oil companies. His research has never been funding by oil or coal. I typed Christy's last name into Integrity in Science and got nothing. I typed "global warming" as a topic and got 14 names. Many of these received funding years and years ago and have not taken a dime since. Your favorite topic - that skeptical scientists took money from the oil industry is out-of-date. It is not happening anymore yet the these scientists continue to be skeptical on global warming. Try digging up dirt on recent authors of skeptical peer-reviewed research, like this paper [33] or this one [34] or maybe this one. [35] You are trying to beat a dead horse.RonCram 12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that he took money directly from oil companies. But then again, who knows? These things are rarely admitted upfront as in the case of Patrick Michaels or Michael Fumento (2006 in both cases [36][37]), etc. Maybe they're just being more careful these days. The Integrity site is not all encompassing as it says "Exclusion from the database should not be interpreted as the absence of corporate ties". Also, I am not claiming that all skeptics are funded by big energy. It's usually been just the big names with the biggest mouths connected with rightwing think-disinformation-tanks, or as the American Petroleum Institute proposed, "as many as 20 'respected climate scientists'" [38][39][40]. If it wasn't happening anymore (and I'm not at all sure tht's the case) it might be because even Exxon is now admitting that AGW is occurring. However that is not reason to not document what disinformation they have contributed massively to. [later note: they still contribute to thinktanks that have distorted the science, $230,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2006, $85,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute in 2006, $30,000 to the Independent Institute in 2005, etc. according to ExxonSecrets. They continue to fund a host of other groups that seek to confuse the public on the issue according to Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air] 4.246.206.184 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you have bought into the PR the alarmists want you to believe. Yes, Exxon/Mobil did fund some research years ago. But when it was used the damage the credibility of researchers, researchers began to refuse the money. None of the top climate skeptic researchers have taken money from big energy for years. Big energy also gave some money to some think tanks that held conferences and things but that is getting pretty far afield. For example, Cato Institute is interested in lots of different subjects and they get money from lots and lots of different people and organizations. It is pretty ridiculous to think Christy or other skeptical researchers should have known that some of the funding came from big energy. I do not know much about Marshall Institute or the others, but I would not be surprised if it was the same thing. As far as I know, these think tanks have not distorted the science as much as the IPCC has. You should read Pielke's blog on the IPCC's distortions if you want the facts. You talk as if ALL climate skeptics are on the take. You write: Maybe they're just being more careful these days. You are guilty of wishful thinking. You have no evidence to back your hopes. Most of the skeptics who have published recently are well-respected government scientists. Have you bothered to read any of the studies I linked to? RonCram 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are guilty of typical rightwing spin which is basically to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the face of contrary evidence. You say none of the top climate skeptic researchers have taken money from big energy for years, and later "You have no evidence to back your hopes" yet I just provided you a link to evidence that Patrick Michaels took $100,000 from an coal company as late as 2006 when it was discovered. Even Exxon has admitted that it funded 6 or 7 skeptic groups as late as 2006 [41] (groups that it's very likely the big names in professional climate skepticism are associated with) though now it says it has cut ties to them. Of course there are still plenty of others to fill in the gap left by Exxon, as in Michaels case. What, you're not talking about the usual suspects, the Michaels and Singers etc? Well those are the ones which have dominated the skeptics side for a decade or so. Also, in searching I found that there were lots of other groups and individuals they funded as well such as the "Scientific Alliance" [42]. The fact is that you don't know who may be funded by big energy with conflicts of interest but given that it still happens, as evidenced by the two examples I gave in my last comments, it's not outrageous to speculate that it may still be occurring. Cato Institute is interested in lots of different subjects and they get money from lots and lots of different people and organizations. Yes I know. Like Phillip Morris. It is pretty ridiculous to think Christy or other skeptical researchers should have known that some of the funding came from big energy. I do not know much about Marshall Institute or the others, but I would not be surprised if it was the same thing. Yeah right. They could not have possibly known even though it's been shouted from the rooftops for many years now. What do you take readers here for? Your excusal of deliberate disinformation by scientists and PR firms on the take with the statement, "As far as I know, these think tanks have not distorted the science as much as the IPCC has" speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned. 4.246.201.6 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be making a big deal about $15m or so provided by Exxon to sceptics. How about the $50bn provided by governments to pro-AGW scientists? Iceage77 08:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you see, that money, however much it actually is, goes to proponents (there happens to be a whole lot more pro-AGW scientists to fund because that's where the science is) and skeptics alike (as Christy and Lindzen could tell you). If you have a reasonable hypothesis for why some aspect of AGW is wrong you'll likely get the funding. That's how science works. Of course if the hypothesis just spouts already discredited ideas then one likely wont get the funding and he/she can then sulk off and whine about bias in the scientific establishment. That's a whole lot different from some industry which has a huge financial interest in a certain outcome of the debate funding professional skeptics to come to its conclusions. Its very much like the professional creation "scientists": they get funding from the donations of outside fundamentalist groups to find and publish reasons why they believe evolution theory is wrong. And they similarly complain about bias in science when they find they can't get their pet ideas published. I'm not going to claim that the system is perfect, that's rarely the case where humans are concerned, but it's a whole lot more objective than the Exxon method (which by the way was only one funder of the skeptics). 4.246.203.252 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This conversation started out as somehow relevant to the article, but it seems to have degenerated into an argument. Please read WP:SOAP. Brusegadi 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Apologies. 4.246.202.168 20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize since nothing here is to be taken personally. If there are no objections, I recommend trimming this section to leave only what is relevant to the improvement of the article. Brusegadi 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Patrick Michaels has not published any peer-reviewed literature contrary to AGW for a long time. RonCram 04:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's this. Be sure to also read the rebuttal by Knutson and Tuleya. ("Michaels et al., exclusively emphasize uncertainties that lead to smaller future changes" gives an idea.) Raymond Arritt 05:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually theres a lot. I've narrowed the list down to 2004 - 2007 [43]. Seems that he's jumping on that air conditioning/adaptation is a solution band wagon [44]. To Brusegadi, agreed. I also think that the funding for skeptics section should be tidied up. Someone might also consider a separate page just on funding issues (I don't want to do it though). 4.246.200.70 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You narrowed the list from 2004-2005. Michaels has not published anything since 2005. The article Raymond linked is Michaels lastest (December 2005) and relates to a periperal issue of AGW and hurricanes, more Chris Landsea's area of expertise, and does not deal with any of the central issues of AGW. Michaels is not a major player in the AGW science debate. 4, attempting to sling mud at skeptical scientists publishing peer-reviewed science today by talking about how Exxon gave money to a minor player years ago is just bogus. I am not against Michaels being mentioned as taking money from Exxon, but let's not pretend this is some kind of wide spread practice by skeptical scientists. Remember WP:WEIGHT. RonCram 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Michaels has not published anything since 2005" I can't understand why you keep making these absolutist comments that are without foundation and easily checked out. See this article. So what's that publication date ... ah, yes, May of 2006. I also found some articles in Energy and Environment but I don't think that's peer reviewed. Perhaps he ended there when the money from Exxon dried up. These people (not just Michaels) deserve to have mud slung at them as they took money to obfuscate the issue and had they not we would most likely have been well along in the solutions phase. You may call them minor players but they played a big role, one which continues to echo and influence. And just because some may not be publishing in peer review journals does not mean that they've stopped using their name and credentials to continue to disinform in the popular press. Furthermore, it may well be continuing. 4.246.205.10 03:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I missed one. But again, the 2006 paper is about tropical storms and warming. It does not address any key issues of AGW. Michaels is not a key player in the AGW science debate. At one time Sherwood Idso was a key player in the science debate and he took money from big energy, but that is ancient history. In terms of the science debate, this is not a current issue. You are suggesting skeptics like Michaels could be using their influence to disinform the popular press. If you believe the article would be helped by showing some examples of this, then put some examples forward so we can discuss them. I think you are focused on this issue because you are looking for a reason to dismiss skeptical scientists rather than come to terms with the science. RonCram 04:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, as Brusegadi stated, I'm going to try not further turn the talk page into a debate. But if you doubt what I said about them using popular media, and recently, then look it up, it's there. They've made a name and they're still cashing in. No offense but suffice it to say that you've been reckless about just about everything you've said here. 4.246.205.10 05:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Talk page is about making the article better. We cannot edit the article without citations. I'm inviting you to provide citations you may want to use in the article so we can discuss if they are appropriate for inclusion or not. RonCram 05:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hint. There are at least two examples mentioned in the article. Here's one [45]... 4.246.207.156 14:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hint, you have to provide a source demonstrating that a particular comment was disinformation. RonCram 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No I don't. The link I provided is enough - i.e. hired guns are being used as sources for the popular media - they are still profiting from their ill gotten reputation as I stated. Furthermore I think it wise to consider any utterance from the mouth of such a scientist for hire as suspect. 4.246.204.62 04:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not shown that all of the people listed have taken money from big oil. You have not shown they are "hired guns." You have not demonstrated anything said was disinformation. All you have proven is that you are distrustful of all skeptics based on the fact "some" took money for their research. This is a logical fallacy. Come back after you have had a class in logic.RonCram 04:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So you have no problem with the fact that they are using scientists on the take. Fine. 4.246.204.62 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

4, I do not know anything about you except what you write here. I want to be respectful, but you seem to have trouble with facts and logic. I do have a problem with people who lie for money. You have not proven that anyone has done that. In years past, Idso and Michaels have taken money from big oil and published peer-reviewed research. I feel certain Idso regrets doing that and Michaels may. They regret it not because they actually said anything they did not believe, but because it gave people a reason to be suspicious of their motives. But you are trying to paint all skeptical scientists with this brush that they are "hired guns" putting out disinformation. You have not put forward any evidence other skeptical scientists are taking money and putting out disinformation. You are just assuming their guilt and putting out disinformation yourself. These comments of yours border on being slanderous. I ask you to respect WP:BLP.RonCram 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"you seem to have trouble with facts and logic" "you are trying to paint all skeptical scientists with this brush that they are "hired guns" putting out disinformation". Okay without prolonging this debate I think that you are having some comprehension problems here. I will C&P my previous comments again for you. "I am not claiming that all skeptics are funded by big energy. It's usually been just the big names with the biggest mouths connected with rightwing think-disinformation-tanks". I also said "The fact is that you don't know who may be funded by big energy with conflicts of interest but given that it still happens, as evidenced by the two examples I gave in my last comments, it's not outrageous to speculate that it may still be occurring". I stand by that. 4.246.200.53 06:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New entry on unexplained adjustments to temp record

The new entry reads:

While McIntyre was investigating the claim that GISS software was able to "fix" any problems with data due to poor quality stations, McIntyre found an error in the US surface temperature anomaly record kept by GISS. GISS has acknowledged the error and incorporated a correction in their data set. After the correction, the U.S. temperature record does not show a warming trend after World War II. McIntyre then began a series of blog postings based on "Where's Waldo?" detailing his search for a warming trend in the rest of the world (ROW). Some of these posts deal with unexplained adjustments by GISS.

Stephen McIntyre is the one who broke the hockey stick and discovered NASA's error. His statistical ability is well respected. If blogs are ever used to discuss the viewpoints of scientists, and they are, then ClimateAudit is a reliable source of McIntyre's views. This is a short entry and is not WP:WEIGHT.RonCram 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not particularly short, includes irrelevant details, and appears to be written only from McI's point of view. He found an error; ok, but was it significant? The claim "After the correction, the U.S. temperature record does not show a warming trend" is unreferenced. And who cares that M began a series of blog postings, and that he considers some adjustments "unexplained". All those factoids serve to show is that McI thinks there are problems with the temperature trend. But we already knew that. Yes, he is a prominent skeptic and his opinion is relevant—but his opinion on the topic, along with Pielke's, is already mentioned in a note of appropriate length. Quite frankly this reads like a list of McIntyre's personal gripes. --Nethgirb 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• One problem is that you do not write it up as McIntyre's POV, but use the neutral editorial voice. Your presentation is also uncritically repeating a POV. McIntyre found the discontinuity. His speculation about the error was total nonsense. Another problem is the original research in "After the correction, the U.S. temperature record does not show a warming trend after World War II.", which is pure baloney, and, so far, unsourced. Finally, you give undue weight to both McIntyre and, in particular, his cherry-picking "Waldo" campaign. CA maybe a borderline RS on McIntyre's POV, but it does not remotely qualify as a RS on anything else. --Stephan Schulz 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UclaimTC)

• Just to reiterate the problem with "After the correction, the U.S. temperature record does not show a warming trend after World War II", not even McIntyre is making this claim, AFAIK. That's pure POV from the editor. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan's point about the neutral editorial voice is well-taken. I welcome a change of wording and may take a stab at it myself. (As a side note, McIntyre was exactly right about the error he found, but this has nothing to do with this entry.) Regarding the U.S. not showing a warming trend, how can anyone deny that when the warmest year in the U.S. was 1934? This was exactly McIntyre's reason he began looking for a warming trend in the ROW. See this. [46] RonCram 02:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I changed a few words to show this is McIntyre's POV. The key points are very succinctly stated. I do not think I can make any shorter without losing key facts.RonCram 03:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis) [47]. Take a look at that graph 4.246.205.10 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the editors of these articles are aware the GISS calls 2005 the warmest year globally and that CRU says 1998 is the warmest year globally. The question is: Where is the warming happening if not in the U.S.? The CRU does nor archive data, methods or source code. The GISS does not release their source code but they do archive their data and provide sketchy details of their methods in peer-reviewed literature. Naturally, McIntyre and others have focused on the GISS data since that is available. RonCram 05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Think harder. 4.246.205.10 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

4, I am sorry if you were not able to follow me. Everyone knows about the graph you posted. Do you understand how the temps from the surface network are turned into this graph? They use grid cells. The grid cells are 5 degrees by 5 degrees, little squares across the surface of the globe. It does not matter how many surface stations are in a particular grid, each grid is weighted equally. Global temperature is not uniform and neither are trends. The trend might be going up in one place and going down in another. McIntyre is looking for regions where the trend is up. The trend is not up in the US, Africa, South America, or Antarctica. Where he does find an upward trend, such as the former Soviet Union, he also finds a number of unwarranted (or as yet unexplained) adjustments. McIntyre cannot think of any physical theory that would explain the adjustments. GISS certainly has some explaining to do. RonCram 13:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"The question is: Where is the warming happening if not in the U.S.?" ... "The trend is not up in the US"" What gives you that idea? [48]. 4.246.207.156 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

4, here is the data you are looking for. [49] Even the NCDC (a unit of NOAA and not NASA GISS) admit that 1934 was very warm. According to USHCNv2, 1934 comes in second place behind 1998 by 0.03C. But five of the top ten hottest years were in the 1950s or before. Not exactly the same kind of warming trend supported by the global graph you posted above. The temps in the 1990s and 2000s were very much in line with temps in the 1930s to the early 1950s. McIntyre has reposted some graphs of US historical temps put out by GISS (Hansen) in 1999 and 2001. In 1999, Hansen said 1934 was the warmest year. By 2001, Hansen made some "adjustments" to the temp record and 1998 is suddenly the warmest year. Then McIntyre found an error. GISS corrected it and now 1934 is the warmest year in their dataset. Check out the images here. [50] Now, do you really see a warming trend in the U.S.? RonCram 20:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

When I see five of the top ten hottest years on record have been since 1990 I see a trend, but hey that's me. Note this comment, "Both data sets also show that the past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record". A quick read of the second link finds this, "While there are undoubtedly 'good' reasons for these adjustments (and I am not here arguing the point one way or the other), the net effect of the adjustments has been to consistently lower temperatures in the 1930s relative to more recent values". Fair enough. But I think you misunderstood. I was not contesting the 1934/hottest year issue which I think is kind of silly as we're talking about a difference so small that's it's well within the margin for error (and how do we know just how accurate those weather keepers and their instruments were in the 30s anyway and how well distributed?). Anyway, I was simply showing that the U.S. has been warming like much of the rest of the world (in general) in answer to your question "Where is the warming happening if not in the U.S.?" But I'll not belabor this issue as these types of arguments tend to go on and on. 4.246.204.62 03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is a disaster of WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Accordingly I've deleted the whole thing. Raymond Arritt 05:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, not true. Everything was sourced so it cannot be WP:OR. This is a discussion of a controversy, so it cannot be WP:SOAP. Since the article deals with a controversy around the science, it has to explain both sides or it is not WP:NPOV. (Note -NPOV is a good thing.) The article currently accepts the temp record uncritically when, in fact, this is a major part of the controversy. Since this is the only section on warming trends in the rest of the world, it cannot be said to be excessive WP:WEIGHT. We already know that ClimateAudit is a reliable source for McIntyre's views, so WP:RS does not apply either. Perhaps you should try WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RonCram 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I slept on it and I think I realize now why you think keeping this section would be POV. I think it is because the AGW side does not yet have a response to McIntyre's studies published from a RS. But that is no problem really. Just ask William Connolley to write something up on his blog responding to McIntyre's "Where's Waldo" series and then we can include the section and a response. It should not take William long to come up with a response. RonCram 13:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps Gavin at RealClimate will provide one.RonCram 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a lot more basic than that. I simply don't agree that McIntyre's every utterance is so deserving to be proclaimed from the rooftops that we can cast aside Wikipedia policies on undue weight, reliable sources, and the like. Raymond Arritt 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you cannot prevent the skeptical viewpoint about unwarranted adjustments because of undue weight. The article does not deal with this issue anywhere. Nor does the article deal with the fact a warming trend is not observed in large areas of the globe. These are important facts in the debate. ClimateAudit is RS for McIntyre's views. Now, you may not like McIntyre, but his views are important to the scientific debate. When GISS has to make corrections because he found an error, that tells you he is doing something right. If you are not wanting space for a response (something I was willing to give), then I think you will need to go back to WP:IDONTLIKEIT because none of your other reasons hold any water.RonCram 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No Warming Trend in the U.S.

We should expand the section regarding the controversy around regional warming trends or lack of same. For evidence of no warming trend in the U.S., I suggest we use this image. [51] Then we can discuss McIntyre's findings of no warming in Antarctica, Africa or South America supported by the links above. I am still hoping Connolley or Gavin Schmidt will write some kind of response to McIntyre to make the entry as NPOV as possible. However, the article should not have to wait an unreasonable period for a response. There is a possibility no one will try. After all, when McIntyre is right, he is right. RonCram 21:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

GW is not uniform. Why are you obsessed by the US? Try http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-9.htm if you're interested in the distribution of T trends. If McI can't find warming in S Am or Africa, then he has falsified the above picture, which would be interesting. And trends are too short to be in the above but there are definitely bits of it that are warming. But I'm not sure which bits of McI-ism you're referring to William M. Connolley 21:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I knew you were the right man for the job! I already volunteered you to write a rebuttal to McIntyre's "Where's Waldo" series. Where's Waldo:Antartica #1 Where's Waldo:South America Waldo in Africa Waldo in Bagdarin, Siberia Since there is no warming trend in the U.S., McIntyre went looking for it in the rest of the world (ROW). He cannot find a warming trend in Antarctica, Africa, South America and he finds unwarranted adjustments in places where the trend is found, such as the former Soviet Union. Would you please write a response to McIntyre and publish it on your blog so this article can link to it? :) RonCram 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. What interesting new things do you think McI has discovered about warming, or lack thereof, in Antarctica? As for S Am, he (and you) should look at the IPCC pic I supplied. Or if you want a regional average picture, then SPM 4 will be helpful. It seems to me that neither McI, nor you, are being serious, so I can't see why any of this should be included. Have you considered the Onion instead? William M. Connolley 22:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So you want me to help you write your blog posting? Did you bother to read the McIntyre posts? Let's start with Africa. Knowing that adjustments to the temp record can be problematic, what is the solid bedrock from which to begin? McIntyre chose to look at station histories in Africa with data from 1931 (so it picked up the warm period of the 30s) and ending after 1990 (so it would pick up recent warming). In an effort to avoid UHI, he selected only rural stations. His selection process yielded a grand total of 10 stations. Some of them had decades long gaps. Several of these stations show the 1930s to be warmer than the 1990s. Overall, they show the 1990s to be within normal climate variation with no consistent warming trend. If there is something wrong with McIntyre's thought process, the images he produced or the way he approached his search for a warming trend, you can point in out in your blog. I am certain McIntyre will provide you with his data, methods and source code if you request them. RonCram 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at data from small numbers of weather stations separately, then the signal from climate change will be burried in the natural fluctuations. Count Iblis 01:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a little puzzle for Ron (and anyone else who's watching). Let's suppose the world is divided into 10 regions. None of these regions have the present decade as its hottest period of the past century. Is it possible for the global mean temperature to have the present decade as its hottest period of the past century? Raymond Arritt 02:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I will be interested to see Ron's reply --Nethgirb 02:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, first it will depend on how the global mean temperature field is calculated and second on how you define "present decade" and "past century." First, if you use the current grid cell method, yes. It is possible the grid cells will show a warming trend where the larger regions do not. It would depend upon the distribution of the temperature stations. However, would you consider a warming trend to be robust if the regions as a whole do not show warming? Most likely not. Second, since the "present decade" is not a part of the "past century," I was uncertain if this was a trick question or not. You seemed to think you had something up your sleeve. But in my answer above, I presumed you were speaking in the normal sense of comparing the last ten years to the 20th century and answered accordingly. RonCram 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) :Not a trick question at all. Just a straightforward problem in arithmetic. Your response was... interesting. Raymond Arritt 04:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting? I thought it was fairly straight forward. How would you answer your own question? RonCram 04:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For a start, the "distribution of the temperature stations" is irrelevant. Do you see why? Raymond Arritt 04:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I take a stab at it? Yes, if taken together (the global mean) those ten years are the hottest decade of the past century. IOW, even if some areas are cool while others are warm or hot the average global temperature is warmer than any previous decade because more of those regions reported warmer temperatures than before. 4.246.204.62 05:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, no, the distribution is entirely significant. In McIntyre's approach, he took all of the stations with a country code of 200 or less, yielding all of Africa and a few islands. McIntyre then selected only the rural stations, but since this is a math problem - let's say all of the stations were long term stations (a pure fiction as we know) and most were high quality. So in the region, you have, say, 1000 stations in the Africa dataset. Now, if you took the land area for Africa and divided it up into grid cells, how many would you have? I am too lazy to figure it out right now, but let's guess 200. Now let's say 80% of Africa's surface stations are in just 20 grid cells. Then we would know a couple of things. 1. The climate trend (if any) in those 20 grid cells would be far more robust than in the remainder of the continent. 2. We would also know only about 200 surface stations are available to provide data for the remaining 180 grid cells. If these 200 stations and 180 grid cells have problems at the microsite (see Pielke's photos of African surface stations), then a warming bias is introduced. So when you look at regional database of 1000 African stations, you do not see a warming trend. However, when you look at the grid cell data, you see 20 grid cells that are not warming and 180 that are warming. So is the warming trend robust? Not at all. So, you see, it is completely about the distribution of the temperature stations. RonCram 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Raymond Arritt 15:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, yes. Now it is your turn to answer your question. This should be entertaining. :)RonCram 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer is essentially as given by 4.246.204.62 above. If you know how to use a spreadsheet, I can walk you through an example. Raymond Arritt 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I know how to use a spreadsheet. I await your example. This should be amusing.RonCram 20:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Make 10 rows. Call these the decades. Make 10 columns. Call these the regions. Set up an eleventh column to give the average across each row (i.e., global average for the decade).

Start by putting a value of 1 in each cell. (Verify that the global mean is 1 for each decade.) Then put a value of 3 in a different cell (region) for each decade except for the last decade, because we don't want the last decade to be the warmest for any region. For the leftover region that doesn't yet have a warmest decade, stick the 3 in any decade except the last. If you've done this right you'll have 8 decades with a global mean of 1.2, another decade with a global mean of 1.4 (the one with two regions at 3), and the last decade will still have a mean of 1.

Now put a 2 in the last row (decade) for all the stations.

The warmest decade for the global mean is now the last decade (mean = 2) but no single region has the last decade as its warmest. You can play around with the numbers a bit, but the outcome is the same: the trend for the mean doesn't depend on which decade is the warmest for any given region. Raymond Arritt 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Raymond, I understand your perspective now. In my example, I explained how a particular region does not have a warming trend when all the stations are considered together but does show a warming trend under the grid cell method. That example could work in all ten regions, but yields a result that is not robust in any region. In your example, the final decade is warm in every region (but not the warmest in any region) but still yields the warmest global mean temp. Are you volunteering to William with his blog post now? RonCram 23:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

CountIblis, McIntyre's approach was an attempt to find a warming trend among the very best station records. He selected rural stations covering from 1931 to 1990, even if they had gaps. With no trend present among the best stations, any warming trend found in Africa appears to be the result of adjustments to the temperature record and not from measurements themselves. See the section above about Hansen's "Bias Method." It explains how Hansen adjusts the long term records using shorter term records. When you understand how this is done, you can see the potential for error and mischief is quite large.RonCram 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Ron's answer gets approximately the same grade as this one --Nethgirb 09:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL Nethgirb! I've seen that clip. The best description I heard was that the question "stupefied" her. I would agree. If she wasn't completely lacking in sensibility prior to the question, then the question must have done the trick. Ok, Nethgirb. It's your turn. Raymond refused to answer. Let's see if you are up to the challenge.RonCram 15:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb, here in the States we have a comedy improv TV show called "Thank God you're here!" In one scene, the comedienne was put into the role of a beauty contestant and was asked "If given the power, what one thing would you rid the world of?" She paused then said "Well, I've never really liked dry ice." I nearly died laughing! RonCram 15:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a more compact answer, if you pretend that the question asked for 2 regions instead of 10. (The principle's the same of course.) The temperatures over the ten decades are:

• Region 1: 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2
• Region 2: 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2

So the first two decades have a global mean of 1.5 but the last has a global mean of 2. Actually, it could be even more extreme:

• Region 1: 3, -3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2
• Region 2: -3, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2

...so that all decades except the last have a global mean of 0. --Nethgirb 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hansen's "Bias Method"

With unintended irony, Hansen has named one of his methods the "bias method" and described it in his 1987 paper. McIntyre examines his paper, Hansen's description of the method and compares the method to the more widely used "anomaly method." [52] Hansen's "bias method" is not used in statistics and it appears Hansen has something in common with Michael Mann. Neither of them are statisticians, yet both have tried to innovate new statistical methods. Mann failed and it appears Hansen has as well. I think this should also be discussed in the section describing the controversy about unwarranted adjustments to the temp record. RonCram 21:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, McIntyre is not a statistician, either. He is a former mining executive. He may have taken statistics in university, but so have Mann and Hansen. Otherwise, Mann and Hansen wouldn't have the positions they maintain. Iceberg007 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what your working definition of "statistician" is. McIntyre has already proven his ability with statistics. He has published articles in peer-reviewed journals based on his analysis. He has found statistical errors made by both Mann and Hansen. When it comes to statistics, I would trust McIntyre over any climate scientist. Mann, on the other hand, has admitted that he is not a statistician. I would guess that Hansen will soon be making the same admission. RonCram 03:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a very weird system here. McKitrik, of the McKitrik temperature scale, who does not know the difference between degrees and radians, and who doesn't know a thing about sampling and independence, is a statistician because "he has published articles in peer-reviewed journals based on his analysis", while Mann and Hansen, who have also published many articles based on their analyses (and in high-class journals, not E&E), are less trustworthy because Mann is honest enough to admit that statistics is not his main occupation? --Stephan Schulz 06:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you seem to have a selective memory today! McKitrick is not the subject, it is McIntyre. McKitrick is the academic, McIntyre is the statistician. While E&E is peer-reviewed, they have a habit of seeking out reviewers who are skeptics of global warming. McIntyre also published in GRL, which is very well respected. [53] In the GRL paper, the statistical analysis was the essence of the paper (not an afterthought or a tool to make a case). BTW, I do not fault Mann or Hansen for attempting to innovate new methods. I fault them for not checking with a statistician before sending it in for peer-review. The peer-review system is just not good enough to find problems like those introduced from new statistical methods. It is too much work and the reviewers are not paid for their time. Mann and Hansen should have asked a real statistician to check it out first. RonCram 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not selective, but Freudian. I mixed up the M&Ms...they are nearly indistinguishable anyways. --Stephan Schulz 01:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, they are very different people with very different talents. But they are often confused.RonCram 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly we can all agree with your second sentence. Raymond Arritt 02:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, Ron, McIntyre is not a statistician. He is a former mining executive. Also, about the centering business of which you speak being flawed in the "hockey stick" study, Wahl and Ammann (2006) have refuted these claims here: [54]. Iceberg007 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought all Mann used was PCA. Am I confused? Brusegadi 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, I may not be the best person to answer this but I will give it a try. The principal components analysis (PCA) was new but so was the decentering Mann used. It was the decentering that McIntyre, von Storch and Zorita claimed created the artificial hockey stick even when trendless red noise was fed in as data. Von Storch and Zorita seemed to think the artificial hockey stick did not really "matter" because the result was already contaminated from the PCA. McIntyre thought they were both big deals. Stephan, based on the email from Zorita did I describe that correctly? RonCram 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, also McIntyre pointed out that the bristlecone pine series is not a temperature proxy and should not have been used. At the request of Congress, the NRC reviewed the debate and agreed with McIntyre on this issue. Unfortunately, the bristlecone pine series is still being used by climatologists. Von Storch and Zorita have said McIntyre may be right about the bristlecone pine series but they have not checked it out. RonCram 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that when fed random data the algorithm used by Mann produced hockey sticks but they were 'insignificant.' I believe it had something to do with some eigenvalues being too small (I have only worked with PCA once in image compression, and I do not remember very well what can go wrong... sorry). What I recall M&M doing was changing the labels in the graph to hide this. The hockey stick obtained by Mann et al. was 'significant'. Brusegadi 04:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New editorial on the latest peer-reviewed research

Mark Morano has written a new editorial discussing his view of the latest peer-reviewed research on global warming and its impact on the science controversy. [55] I think this can probably be useful to explain some of the key points. RonCram 19:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoted a Motl. Dismissed. Raymond Arritt 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you still have not answered your own question. Why are you ducking it? :)RonCram 19:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This "study" was refuted by Naomi Oreskes, which can be seen here: [56]. Iceberg007 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Rebuttal requires evidence to be presented. It is tough to judge if CEI used info that may be considered evidence so it becomes very subjective and brings forth problems of weight. The 'evidence' is only taken serious by few. Thus, I did what is normally done with External Links; I used appropriate material from the linked page to describe the link. Brusegadi 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

but you are using only one, narrow definition of the term. in common usage, rebuttal can be the presentation of a counter argument or it can be the presentation of counter evidence. as it was originally phrased, it was utterly non-controversial and NPOV. i'm amused by the parade of suddenly urgent reversions that even this became controversial.Anastrophe 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The current is more descriptive. Brusegadi 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to Raymond. I just noticed that you are removing links and I inserted one as a counter to the prior one from CEI's Marlo Lewis in the Media section. According to Curt Davis, CEI is distorting his research [57]. Remove if you need. 4.246.203.85 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New research by Stephen Schwartz

Stephen Schwartz of the Environmental Sciences Department/Atmospheric Sciences Division of Brookhaven National Laboratory has just released a preprint of an article accepted for publication by Journal of Geophysical Research titled "Heat Capacity, Time Constant and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System." Quote:

ABSTRACT. The equilibrium sensitivity of Earth's climate is determined as the quotient of the relaxation time constant of the system and the pertinent global heat capacity. The heat capacity of the global ocean, obtained from regression of ocean heat content vs. global mean surface temperature, GMST, is 14 ± 6 W yr m-2 K-1, equivalent to 110 m of ocean water; other sinks raise the effective planetary heat capacity to 17 ± 7 W yr m-2 K-1 (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). The time constant pertinent to changes in GMST is determined from autocorrelation of that quantity over 1880-2004 to be 5 ± 1 yr. The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K. The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2. For this forcing considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m-2, and other forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 ± 1.0 W m-2. [58]

Schwartz goes on to say that the value found for climate sensitivity is well below the current estimates as publicized by the IPCC. RonCram 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Schwart is wrong: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html William M. Connolley 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, James Annan is wrong. Schwartz used a new method in his analysis, incorporating ocean heat content into the time series rather than just relying on surface temps (because we all know the surface temp record has major problems). Pielke has been promoting ocean heat content as a better metric. Schwartz's new method resulted in a different relaxation time and therefore a different climate sensitivity for CO2. It is significant that Spencer has just reported observing a significant negative feedback in the tropics which would explain why the relaxation time is different that expected. RonCram 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

blogs are now reliable sources? Anastrophe 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not adding it to the article page, so I don't see a problem. The point is that this well-written blog (a) underscores some flaws in Schwartz's article, and (b) leads one to believe that an official rebuttal (or even a retraction from Schwartz, who by all accounts is well-intentioned) might be soon forth-coming. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The blog is as reliable as a quote from its author. I've never understood why people think publication in blog format is different in terms of reliability than publication in any other venue without editorial control. --Nethgirb 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki uses blogs. In this case, though, the question is whether an untested newly published piece should be included. This is inevitably a value judgement. My judgement is that it should be left out. JA is certainly correct that S has got his uncertainty ranges wrong, which means that (using the rest of S's stuff) his values for sensitivity overlap the "official" ones. He is very likely right about the timescales too, in which case the entire thing falls apart William M. Connolley 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

William, if this were the Global warming article I could agree with you. However, this is the Global warming controversy article. And, as we have discussed before, it is not right for you (an advocate for one side of the controversy) to decide what information the other side of the controversy decides is controversial. Since this article has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, I rather favor the reviewers over the blog you cite. There is no question this research by Schwartz should be in this article. The only questions have to do with where it should be discussed and how much space should it be given. RonCram 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron, is your argument that any and every peer-reviewed article should be mentioned here? Raymond Arritt 04:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, no. It is my argument that pro-AGWers (such as William and you) cannot decide what information is appropriate to represent the anti-AGW side of the controversy, just as you would not want me to decide what information the pro-AGW side can put forward for their side of the controversy. It is foundational that each side gets to determine and express their own positions. If others from the anti-AGW side disagree with me that this should not be part of the article, then I could accept that. RonCram 05:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia is not a forum in which you (as a representative of the "anti-AGW side") select which sources you wish to emphasize to make your case. WP:WEIGHT should be assigned to these primary sources on the basis of their acceptance among experts in the field, as demonstrated by reliable secondary sources. There's a reason why WP:NOR cautions against citing primary sources in isolation - they are too easy to cherry-pick. MastCell ^Talk 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, I think you misunderstand WP:NOR. Peer-reviewed publications are not "primary sources." Primary sources include first hand lab notes or field notes made by the researcher. Peer-reviewed publications are "secondary sources" because they analyze data and draw conclusions. The papers also have to be reviewed by others who are not close to the research and so not a "primary source." In general, the pro-AGW side is well represented in various articles on Wikipedia. There is a strong feeling these articles are not NPOV. Since Wikipedia has decided to have an article on "global warming controversy," the anti-AGW side, at the very minimum, needs to be able to define its own position. RonCram 05:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, on scientific topics, original research papers written by the authors reporting their own results are primary sources. Secondary sources are review articles, textbook chapters, expert committee or organizational recommendations, etc which summarize and synthesize a number of primary sources. This is spelled out in WP:MEDRS, for example, and it also makes sense intuitively - the importance of individual studies and papers is appropriately determined by experts in the field, not by individual editors selecting them to advance a point. MastCell ^Talk 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the argument that the "anti-AGW side" needs space to define its arguments without interference goes against the basis of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not re-fight debates; it's not a place for each side to "put its best foot forward" in debate. Wikipedia characterizes debates; therefore, as WP:WEIGHT indicates, significant minority views (such as the "anti-AGW view") are described in the context of their acceptance by the mainstream, not in isolation. MastCell ^Talk 06:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MC has got it right here. We are all working towards the common goal of making the article accurately document the global warming controversy. Ideally, as editors, we should be objective rather than taking sides; and certain editors don't have editorial privledges over certain parts of the article just because of the views they hold. --Nethgirb 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I previously suggested this guideline: Only include opinions/arguments that have been expressed by two or more independent notable sources. The hope is to weed out tiny minority opinions since we just don't have space; and I think this would also be useful in filtering (using WMC's words) untested newly published results. --Nethgirb 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell and Nethgirb, where are you getting this viewpoint that peer-reviewed research is precluded? Certainly not from common practice as peer-reviewed research is cited all the time. Certainly not from WP:NOR because it does not mention peer-reviewed papers. It mentions lab notes and field notes. Here is a quote that provides first principlees:

Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.

Journal of Geophysical Research is a reliable publication. Even Stephen Schwartz could cite his work on Wikipedia now that it has been published.

Regarding the second point, perhaps I did not express myself well earlier. I am trying to put Wikipedia readers first here. This is not about me trying to win the global warming science argument. That argument will eventually be decided (in favor of one side or the other) by the science. This article is supposed to present to students and others both sides of the scientific debate regarding global warming. If the article does not present both sides, it is not NPOV. When you have editors on one side who feel strongly that their position is the right one scientifically, then they cannot see the point the other side is trying to make. Also, if scientific papers from one side are ignored in order to try to maintain the viewpoint that no scientific debate exists, that is also POV. A scientific debate exists and more peer-reviewed anti-AGW papers are being published all the time. It is essential that this article includes peer-reviewed papers that discuss the scientific uncertainty around global warming. RonCram 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ron. Mind if I chime in?

There is a political controversy over whether there is still any scientific debate over global warming. Among college-educated U.S. voters, there is a 50-50 split over "what the science says". Democrats believe (75% or 3 out of 4) that there is no scientific debate and that the science supports AGW theory. Only 1 out of 4 Republicans (23%) agrees with that position.

The whole problem, all along at Wikipedia, about describing the global warming controversy, is that the Environmentalist side (which supports Kyoto) insists that there is no controversy, while the other side (Kyoto opponents) insists that "the science is not settled" and that there is significant controversy within science itself about it.

The disputing parties can't even disagree on how much support each side has. Perhaps one (or both?) sides is hoping to profit from the bandwagon effect. If they can convince the undecided that "everyone is on this side", they can get people to jump on the bandwagon.

Anyway, what we need to do at Wikipedia is to summarize each side's argument. What precisely is the side claming? What evidence do they give for there claims? Who else agrees? --Uncle Ed 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As important as US opinion is in this context; I feel that it may be misleading to use it to see how much weight any given side has specially since other countries seem to be leaning towards understanding that there is a consensus. Brusegadi 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for chiming in. It is true that some people claim there is no scientific debate. Whether this is political posturing or just being uninformed, I do not know. The issue would have to be decided on a person by person basis, but I do not want to judge motives. Wikipedia is supposed to inform people of the facts without unduly pushing one POV. Keeping out scientific research that supports the anti-AGW position is not NPOV. RonCram 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who does not support the Kyoto Protocol, but who thinks the science is settled (and that AGW is real and a problem), I'm going to have to disagree with you, Ed. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit similar to the case discussed here. You don't want to include "the latest breaking news" in wiki articles, because often it is wrong. What happens is that the fact that a certain result is "breaking news" (in the public media, the blogosphere, not the scientific community) at all is precisely because it contradicts established science, making it highly likely that it is flawed. The problem one faces is then that the wiki rules for Original Research would make it difficult to include such a result in a acceptable way. Count Iblis 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

CountIblis, thank you for joining in. I am uncertain of your exact view though. I agree that a newspaper article about a scientist's claim of a new discovery may be problematic because it could be a complete hoax. However, if I understand your comment correctly ("not the scientific community") you do not seem to have the same problem with a peer-reviewed paper. Or is it your view that WP:NOR precludes citing peer-reviewed papers? If that is your understanding, I ask you to reread WP:NOR. RonCram 16:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BenHocking, the Kyoto protocol does not enter my thought process here at all. The question is: If you believe the "science is settled," how can you trust your own judgment about scientific papers that disagree with your view? Whenever you see scientific papers come out that are contrary to the AGW view, is it your goal to suppress them? Or, are you willing to allow Wikipedia readers to read about the science so they can decide for themselves? The only way this article can become NPOV is for the science of the dissenters to be aired. Don't you agree? RonCram 16:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The larger issue is this: there are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research articles on global warming. New ones are published almost daily. How does Wikipedia decide which, of these innumerable primary source peer-reviewed articles, are notable enough for inclusion? RonCram is proposing, if I understand correctly, that individual editors (preferably those of a particular POV) should pick and choose which journal articles deserve mention. I would argue that the heart of WP:NOR is that the scientific community of experts, rather than individual Wikipedians, should guide us as to which articles are notable and deserve particular mention. The scientific community's opinions on such matters are best found in secondary sources - that is, expert panel recommendations, review articles, textbook chapters, organizational position statements, etc. MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you write "there are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research articles on global warming." While this may be true, it is irrelevant. We are talking about articles relating to "global warming controversy." A good many articles on global warming (I would say most) are non-controversial. An article like the one by Schwartz is controversial because it reaches a very different conclusion about climate sensitivity than current estimates. The question really is: "Do we allow editors like William Connolley (a strong supporter of AGW) to decide what information students and others can learn about the scientific debate about global warming?" I would suggest that you would not want me to write the main article on global warming because I think the science backing it is flawed. In the same way, you would not want William Connolley to decide what points from the anti-AGW scientific viewpoint are valid. To be honest, I do not understand why this concept is difficult to follow. RonCram 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron, please read WP:WEIGHT. Then re-read what you have just written above. Then read cognitive dissonance. Raymond Arritt 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, okay I reread them. What is your point? Are you trying to say there are no peer-reviewed papers against AGW? Are you unaware that a growing number of skeptical scientists are making their views known and publishing peer-reviewed papers? RonCram 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on Raymond's comment, Ron, you're suggesting that papers which reach minoritarian conclusions are inherently more notable and deserve special mention, as opposed to the large volume of "non-controversial" evidence. WP:WEIGHT would suggest the exact opposite. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that non-controversial evidence is due more weight on an article about the controversy than controversial evidence? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, I have to agree with Ben Hocking. Non-controversial global warming information is summarized in numerous articles on Wikipedia. In addition, Politics of global warming has its own article. This is the one article devoted to the controversy regarding global warming science. If Wikipedia readers want to learn what elements of global warming science are debated, they should be able to find it here. What is the point of having this article if all of the pro-AGW editors vote to suppress peer-reviewed research that is contrary to their position? I would suggest you read WP:WFTE. It is not a guideline but it is a fine essay. If you cannot write in a way to explain another camp's position, the least you can do is allow the camp to speak for itself. RonCram 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron, if I saw multiple papers in climatology journals disagreeing with the science, it would change my opinion that the science is settled. However, I don't see that. As for a paper (in any reputable peer-reviewed journal) that challenges part of AGW, my goal is definitely not to suppress them, in general. (This would also be true if it were multiple papers.) OTOH, if it's a brand-new paper and there's reasonable expectation that it will be retracted, then I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. That said, this same rule should be applied to the other side of the argument (or any side of any argument). So, hold on to this argument (however one does such things), and if you see a situation in reverse, you should definitely bring up the conflicting standards. Unlike others, I do not feel that WP:WEIGHT, however, necessarily applies to brand-new research in an article like this one (i.e., not focused exclusively on the science). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How much controversy has that particular paper caused in the political arena. In order to be included that paper should have enough weight within the science community (I leave the determination of that to those of you who have followed that closely) and how much political controversy it has caused. On the second, I have not heard much about it but I may be mistaken. Ciao, Brusegadi 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben Hocking, I appreciate your statement that you would not attempt to suppress peer-reviewed papers even if they were contrary to your position. I wish more in your camp were of the same attitude. Regarding your view that this paper may be retracted, I do not see that as a likely possibility. The paper has already gained the support of Roger A. Pielke and several other scientists. Pielke is highly esteemed by climatologists on both sides of the debate. Regarding your advice, I do not see how bringing up conflicting standards would be successful. For example, Pielke and his co-authors have already refuted Peterson's 2006 paper and Parker's paper yet these papers are still firmly relied on in many Wikipedia articles. The most I have been able to accomplish is to get the Wikipedia articles to mention that Pielke has published peer-reviewed articles which do not agree with Peterson and Parker. Naturally, I would not attempt to stop anyone from linking to a reliable source that disagreed with the paper by Schwartz. That is what an article about "global warming controversy" is about - providing to readers the science behind both sides of the debate. It is unfortunate that the pro-AGW camp are attempting to suppress this peer-reviewed article. RonCram 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, the Schwartz paper has created a great deal of interest and publications in both the scientific and political realms. Lots of bloggers are talking about it. You can find them by googling "Schwartz" and "climate sensitivity" on the same line. Pielke blogged on it here from a science perspective. [59] A US Senator's office blogged on it from a political POV. [60]RonCram 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Participants in the controversy

The opening line currently reads:

The global warming controversy is a dispute in which some participants, most of whom are not climate scientists, question the validity and implications of scientific results obtained by climate scientists concerning global warming.

This sentence structure is awkward and the content is misleading. Evidently, the intent is to point out that the majority of climate scientists hold the majority opinion in the controversy. (Does that really need to be stated?) While I believe this is true, I am certain the current reading is not the best introduction to the article. Another point is that the controversy is about the science and both climate scientists and other types of scientists are involved in questioning the validity of the results. I do not know of any reliable source that has numbered the major skeptics and decided if the majority are climate scientists or not. Certainly, the vast majority of the most recent skeptical peer-reviewed research has been published by climate scientists - Roger A. Pielke, Roy Spencer, Stephen Schwartz, Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. The only other major skeptic who is not a climate scientist is Stephen McIntyre. I will attempt to fix the introductory sentence. RonCram 05:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While it is great to be bold, I am concerned that the edit will start some reversions. I have reverted it, hoping we can reach a consensus here before making such a drastic change to the article. In terms to the substituted sentence, (see my revert here), I am concerned that the prominence with which scientists are noted is npov, since the question of whether the science is disputed is one of the issues addressed in the article (and to my read, indicates it is not substanitally disputed, which is consistent with my understanding of the science). I feel we can do better than providing an answer to a question in the opening line (is the science disputed?) which is called into question and answered in at least a more nuanced way (in the sense it is open to different interpretations) in the article. I agree, however, that the wording as it stands is a bit awkward and could be improved, so it is great to call attention to it. --TeaDrinker 06:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My change was not drastic. The drastic change was the one that started talking about the participants as if they are not climate scientists. The participants are discussed later in the paragraph as being politicians and organizations. While that is true, this article is about the science. A number of peer-reviewed articles have been published recently by skeptics. Pielke has published on the Urban Heat Island effect (refuting Peterson and Parker) and why we need better information regarding the surface network. Pielke has also published on the importance of using ocean heat content rather than surface temps as a metric for measuring climate change. Schwartz published on a new method to measure the relaxation response (and therefore the climate sensitivity to CO2) using ocean heat content rather than surface temp record (the surface temp record has many significant problems as Pielke and McIntyre have pointed out). Spencer published recently on his observations of a significant negative feedback in the tropics that is not modeled by any of the computer models. (BTW, this previously unknown negative feedback was hypothesized by Lindzen but unconfirmed until recently and could explain why scientists have been so wrong on the relaxation response before). McIntyre has found errors in the way the surface temp record is handled. While his research has not been peer-reviewed, one of the errors he found was admitted by NASA GISS and others have yet to be answered. There is no question that the science is in controversy. See Wikipedia's list of skeptical scientists. [61] I am reverting back so readers will know this article is about the controversy regarding the science. RonCram 18:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel like getting too involved in yet another controversy, but I trust all sides will benefit from seeing what your change was to:

The global warming controversy is a dispute among scientists, corporations and politicians about the science of global warming.

At the very least, I doubt few would argue that his statement is false. (I could be proven wrong, of course. For one thing, it could be argued that it's about "the science and implications of global warming as well as the cost of dealing with it". Different people have different gripes. Sometimes the same people have different gripes.) Whether or not it is better, I'll leave for others to argue. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppose some climate scientists disagree. Then Ron's statement is logically true because he needs to provide at least one such scientist in order to meet the existential quantifier and he has provided more than one. Yet, to merit inclusion in wikipedia, the logical validity of the staement may be necessary but not sufficient. Which takes me to; do you think that you have enough climate scientists on your side so that your sentence passes WP:WEIGHT. What percentage of the climate science community takes on those views? Finally, are the skeptics cohesive enough to be considered a single view or are they attacking the theory from such different angles that we would have to consider each one on an individual basis; thus further lowering the weight. Brusegadi 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I said I wouldn't get involved, but I'm just making a little point and not really arguing pro or con. Ron's statement would still be true if one were to assume that you have climate scientists and politicians arguing against corporations and politicians. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that we are interpreting the statement differently indicates that there is room to fix it a little more. Make it more precise. I'll wait for more editors to come by before making changes. Brusegadi 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, perhaps you have not read my previous posts or the links to the peer-reviewed research written by these skeptics. Please do a little more reading. There are climate scientists on both sides of the debate. In my opinion, the better climate scientists are all skeptics, including Pielke, Spencer, Christy, Schwartz, Svensmark, Lindzen and McIntyre. Some may not like my inclusion of McIntyre, but he has published in peer-reviewed climate journals.RonCram 18:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just think that looking at sheer numbers and focusing on climate scientists may violate WP:Weight. If you focus more on politicians and others then, as Ben said, you might be ok. Doing this will require a few touches. On your above comment you mention something about the 'quality' of the researchers. As subjective as it may be, if you can establish that they are indeed better researchers then weight may be met. I find that unlikely. Yet, I do not know much about the 'quality' of climate scientists so, again, I will wait for more knowledgeable editors chip in. Brusegadi 19:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it by making it vaguer. The more details, the more points of contention. Note that this article is mostly not about the science as even a perusal of it table of contents will show. Raymond Arritt 19:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely NPOV. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Granted, the more points the more problems. Brusegadi 19:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, of the five key points in the Intro, three of them have to do with the science. For readers who want to read about the political controversy, they can read Politics of global warming. This article should be devoted to the controversy around the science. There is plenty of science controversy to discuss. But I am willing to accept the Intro as it stands.RonCram 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hansen "frees the code"

Stephen McIntyre announced that Hansen has finally released the code.[62] McIntyre has been requesting the source code used to construct global temps from GISS for some time. Contrary to the standards of science (see Pseudoscience), Hansen had refused to release the code until now. [63] Without doubt, the fact GISS had to admit McIntyre found an error put additional pressure on GISS to release the code. This is a significant development in the controversy. It will give McIntyre more information and many people expect more errors to be found. While Hansen's action is a step forward, Phil Jones of CRU still does not share data and code and so this will continue to be a controversial issue. The article does not deal with it in any way at this point and it needs to. RonCram 06:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You can write about it in the article about Stephen McIntyre, or you could create a new article devoted to the dispute McIntyre has with Hansen about the data. It seems to be a notable thing in the climate-skeptic sector of the blogosphere. In this article we cannot give too much weight on the opinions of one person (but it can be mentioned briefly). Count Iblis 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine a brief bit might be appropriate in the James Hansen article, as well. Of course, due care must be taken to keep it NPOV. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

General comment

It's been a while since I read this whole article from beginning to end. I'd not realized how awful it is. Raymond Arritt 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I agree with that. I would much rather see the political stuff merged into the Politics of global warming article. If we focused just on the science controversy, it could be turned into a decent article. RonCram 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be good for a start. Raymond Arritt 01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know anything about merging articles or portions of articles. Is it a long process? RonCram 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly so, its a bit of a free for all. I've just improved it a bit :-) William M. Connolley 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

America COMPETES Act

Someone requested more info about the provision of this act requiring government scientists to provide data and methods. Here's a quote from the Act:

SEC. 1009. RELEASE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH RESULTS.

(a) Principles- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the heads of all Federal civilian agencies that conduct scientific research, shall develop and issue an overarching set of principles to ensure the communication and open exchange of data and results to other agencies, policymakers, and the public of research conducted by a scientist employed by a Federal civilian agency and to prevent the intentional or unintentional suppression or distortion of such research findings. The principles shall encourage the open exchange of data and results of research undertaken by a scientist employed by such an agency and shall be consistent with existing Federal laws, including chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code (commonly known as the `Bayh-Dole Act’). The principles shall also take into consideration the policies of peer-reviewed scientific journals in which Federal scientists may currently publish results. (page 11 of 208 of the Act) [64]

BTW, COMPETES is capitalized because it is an acronym for "Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science." RonCram 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not an acronym, but a propagandistic backronym ;-). Anyways, it looks like this is mostly hot air. Note "overarching principle" (i.e. nothing concrete), "encourage the open exchange" (i.e. not require it). It also only applies to federal research agencies. I welcome the sentiment, but I doubt the effect. I fear this will add another bureaucratic layer and have the opposite effect ("before you publish, it has to be vetted by our open access officer. Oh, for vetting that incenvenient piece of research he will have time in 2013, unless his dentist's appointment gets into the way"). But maybe I'm just cynical. --Stephan Schulz 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To me this looks more significant a provision than you acknowledge. As an authority-giving clause, this means that principles will be developped and issued, and that these principles will have to require the open exchange of data and results. The language is quite clear despite some appearance of looseness. It actually looks like after Enron - the SEC was 'invited' to develop regulations that would 'encourage' some practices... This translated into SOX. --Childhood's End 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that William has removed the section on data archiving and sharing saying that it is not a major part of the controversy, only my pet. This is not true. Congress had to request Michael Mann to testify and turn over all of his records before they could get information that should have been turned over previously. Congress also passed the America COMPETES Act setting up a process requiring government scientists to archive and share data. If it is a big enough deal for Congress to get involved, then it is a big deal. I know it is an embarrassment to William and his friends, but facts are facts. Refusal to turn over data and methods is not right. This is a major part of the controversy. If they would turn over the data and methods, maybe the skeptics would be convinced. They will never be convinced without it. It would contrary to science to be convinced without seeing the data and methods. RonCram 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you're ranting again. And no, glaciers *don't* break off and form sea ice [65] William M. Connolley 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

William, you are being insulting. If you are trying to make me think you are delusional, it is not working. I did not say sea ice breaks off to form glaciers, glaciers break off and become sea ice. One of the news articles you deleted was about Greenland's glaciers and they do break off into the sea. RonCram 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

?!?Wot are you on?!? Where does sea ice breaks off to form glaciers come from? And no, glaciers don't break off to become sea ice, which is what I criticised you for. Glaciers break off into the sea - buts that a different matter William M. Connolley 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I must say that imo, once this issue deserved Congress attention, it certainly became more relevant and of the essence of the Global warming controversy than betting over global warming or passive smoking... --Childhood's End 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lindzen funding sources

Recently this was deleted:

as well as funding from federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]], and [[NASA]].<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203_2001GL014074.pdf | title=Reconciling observations of global temperature change | last=Lindzen | first=Richard S. | authorlink=Richard S. Lindzen | coauthors=Constantine Giannitsis | date=2002 | journal=Geophysical research letters | volume=29 | issue=12 | pages=24-26 | accessdate=2007-09-10}}</ref><!-- See acknowledgments on last page -->

A request was made to bring to the talk page for re-adding (actually, it should have been brought to the talk page before deleting, but I have no interest in an edit-war), so I'm doing so. The claim was that it wasn't clear that the source backed up the claim, but if you look at the acknowledgments on the last page, it clearly says:

This work was supported by grants ATM9813795 from the National Science Foundation, DEFG02-93ER61673 from the Department of Energy, and NAG5-5147 from National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I feel that this supports the sentence quite amply. Thoughts? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The user may have skimmed over it too fast and not noticed it. Brusegadi 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pielke and sea ice

Ron insists on re-inserting an edit that looks barking to me: "arctic sea ice is approaching its record low, but its current level is within natural climate variability". First, Pielke doesn't say "within natural climate variability" or indeed anything very similar to it, AFAICS. Second, Pielkes original post was on the 10th of Aug and can (just about) be excused noticing that the very data he was relying on said it was already a minimum. But now the ice has declined even further, there is no doubt that "is approaching" is simply wrong: it *is* a record low. We don't have to print everything RP says, especially when its obviously false. RP knows precious little about sea ice, as evidenced by his "Antarctic" comments in the same post William M. Connolley 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. If the record low is an outlier then being close to the record does not imply being within natural variability. Including it constitutes WP:OR. Furthermore, if we already have a new record-low inclusion of that paragraph is not correct, as William Connolley points out. Ciao, Brusegadi 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

William, Pielke makes clear from his post that he prefers the site you linked to because it is updated daily. Your conclusion that Pielke would write about a daily website without looking at it for two days seems ridiculous to me. There is no question Pielke has read it just prior to his post because he is talking about the news media picking up the story soon. Pielke does indicate that sea ice will continue to shrink since it is still summer and he provides a link to another website which is updated weekly.[66] The NSIDC website says the previous record was set in 2005. If the article says sea ice has reached a record low, it also needs to mention when records began to be kept so readers will know these types of measurements were not made in the 1930s. Pielke's view that sea ice low is due to regional warming and not global warming is a common view among skeptics, including Syun-Ichi Akasofu - the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center. I used Pielke's quote because it is more recent and directly applicable to the current situation. RonCram 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Still makes no sense at all. Pielke is getting data from his preferred site, which says that sea ice has just reached a record low, and you insist he knew that, and he writes a post saying "approaching a record low"? Its obviously wrong. We could perhaps put it on the Pielke page as an example of his errors; but there is no point putting it in here. I notice you haven't troubled to defend your inventing of the stuff about within natural variability William M. Connolley 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, William, it is not obviously wrong. The data from Cryosphere Today is great data, but the data only goes back a short time. They did not take those measurements in the 1930s when the previous low happened. Pielke is also exactly right about the question of arctic sea ice melt being from regional or global warming. I have referenced the images from Cryosphere Today he used for Southern Hemisphere. In addition, I referenced a Letter to Nature that points out the high natural variability of arctic sea ice and how changes there do not conform to expectations of global warming. Since this article is about the science controversy, it is important these views are made available to readers. RonCram 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring for a moment your WP:OR regarding 1930 (which neither Pielke nor anyone else but you mention). Where do you get the information that the 1930s should be the "previous low"? (Chapman and Walsh(1993) as well as Vinnikov et al(1999) seem to disagree .... a lot). --Kim D. Petersen 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the Vinnikov paper but I know that 1934 was the warmest year in the U.S. in the 20th century. 1934 was also the warmest year in Europe, if you only count the rural stations. 1934 does not show to be the warmest in Russia, but the Russian temp histories are not reliable. To reach a record low in sea ice melt, you need warm temperatures and you need the arctic to be in a warm period of its 8-10 oscillation. Since the entire decade of the 1930s was warm, one of those years had to be in the warm period of the regional oscillation. I think it is clear from Pielke's writings that he is aware of some measure of sea ice that showed it to be quite low in the 1930s. I do not know what measurement that could be. Obviously, it is not the satellite method currently being used. RonCram 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Energy and Environment journal rejects Schulte's consensus article

see here Count Iblis 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

World Conference on Research Integrity to Foster Responsible Research

European Science Foundation has reported on the "World Conference on Research Integrity" which met in Portugal from Sep 16-19. It was organized by the ESF and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity. [67] They discussed two incidents touching on global warming - the misrepresentation of the examination of station history in China and the NASA error found by Steve McIntyre. The misrepresentation regarding Chinese station histories is an issue being pushed by Doug Keenan. Keenan has accused Wang, a co-author of Phil Jones, of unethical behavior. [68] Both of these issues were originally raised by Steve McIntyre. [69] It seems misconduct by climatologists to push an alarmist view of global warming is becoming a more important issue all the time. The article should discuss this. RonCram 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Happens where you least expect it. Brusegadi 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, climate science is a field with one of the worst reputations regarding unethical behavior by scientists. This is mainly due to their refusal to provide data, methods and code so other researchers can reproduce their work. Almost whenever this info is provided, errors both intentional and unintentional are found. Lindzen is correct to be negative about the state of affairs in climate science. RonCram 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's funny... a few years back it was secondhand-smoke researchers who, we were told, had a horrible reputation for unethically bending the data to support their "alarmist" views on the harms of passive smoking (cf. anything by Steven Milloy). Now it looks like climate scientists have surpassed even that ethical low point (cf., well, anything by Steven Milloy). It's almost like there's a pattern er something... though I'm sure more study would be needed to establish one. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Never mind... that was probably better kept to myself. MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I wish you hadn't done that... now I feel obliged to ask Ron to stop ranting, again. Ron, please see WP:SOAP and try to use the talk to discuss improvements to the article William M. Connolley 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the substance: why should this article discuss the conf? According to their prog [70] they have nothing to say about climate, but a lot to say about medical. Why not try over there? William M. Connolley 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

William, if you read the article I linked to, you would see that climate issues were discussed just as I wrote. My earlier comment was a response to Brusegadi since he seemed to think that climate science was a rare place to find unethical behavior. The two fields with these greatest number of these kinds of problems seem to be medicine and climate. My post is all about making the article better. Unethical behavior is a major part of this controversy. RonCram 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

William, Howard Alper specifically pointed to medicine and climate science as fields with ethical issues. [71] I have to agree with him. RonCram 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

List of...

Ron added the good ol' list of sci... [72]. As has been said often before (usually to a chorus of yes-we-know-that) that page can't be used to assess scientific opinion, because it includes people who are clearly no longer scientist, and scientists with no climate expertise at all. Until that page gets cleaned up, leave it out of things like this William M. Connolley 19:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I completely disagree. The list is a good list of scientists including many eminent who are "Professor Emeritus" of climate science. To say they are no longer scientists is just bogus. RonCram 04:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be a bit not pc for some, but on the topic of Emeritus professor's views... A friend of mine studies physics and he mentioned that (he read it somewhere) in physics the new 'consensus' tends not to be established because scientists change their minds. It basically happens because all those that believed in the old stuff die. I thought it was funny. Brusegadi 04:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I will revert your edit because the article you link to is not primarily about climate scientists. To be more precise, most of them are not either not climate scientists or not engaged in current research. Also, I think there is a thread about this in the archives. Brusegadi 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, this article is about the controversy regarding the science. It is completely POV to give readers access to the majority view and not give access to skeptical scientists. The list of skeptical scientists includes both climate scientists and other types of geophysical scientists. It is not a list of social scientists or some other unrelated field. Give me the date of the archived discussion and I will read it.RonCram 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, just a question -- do you know what "emeritus" means? Raymond Arritt 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you really need to stop treating me as if I am uneducated. Maybe I am just in a bad mood tonight, but I am beginning to find your questions offensive. Of course I know what "emeritus" means - not every retired prof is given the status of "emeritus." This is a title of honor and usually means the prof still keeps an office at the university, at least the ones I knew did, even though they do not have any teaching responsibilities. These older gents have tons of wisdom and are often asked to attend meetings with contributors to the university. BTW, instead of insulting me with these silly questions, you ought to start paying me for all the things I have taught you. Without me you would not know about the data archiving policies of AGU - or how the distribution of weather stations could yield a non-warming trend overall but still show a warming trend using the grid cell method. RonCram 06:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The practice varies, but at most universities "emeritus" simply means retired after a certain minimum period of service. It's not usually a "title of honor" as you say. Raymond Arritt 13:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, that is nonsense. I defy you to name me one university (in the U.S.) that has such a practice. RonCram 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look under emeritus here you will see that it does not say anything about "achievements" and that the title is "customarily awarded" to faculty that is retiring after 15 years of service. You do not have to be a full professor so associates may get it too. Finally, right under "18.4 Retired Faculty" emeritus is used interchangeably with "retired faculty." What I did not know is that it could also be awarded to people doing mostly administrative work. For those of you who like to learn about places other than the United States, Cambridge has definitions for some slang terms they use; including one that seems right on for this "argument." Brusegadi 23:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first link, I'm wondering if Ron will accept such a reference to an obscure backwater college. Raymond Arritt 23:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And Cambridge? Isn't that Europe? Where everybody is a socialist weeny?--Stephan Schulz 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He can always say that it is a school for liberal potheads... :) Brusegadi 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bellamy is no longer a scientist, not because he's emeritus, but because he has switched to PR. But also, the list contains many scientists with no climate expertise, and hence doesn't belong under the heading "sci cons" William M. Connolley 13:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Laxon et al.

As far as i can see the insertion of a paper by Laxon et al(2003), is misrepresenting the results of the paper (by cherry-picking a quote):

However, researchers claim computer models predictions poorly represent observed changes in arctic sea ice.

'The observed variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, which shows that the sea ice mass can change by up to 16% within one year, contrasts with the concept of a slowly dwindling ice pack, produced by greenhouse warming.

This makes us think that Laxon et al are arguing against the previous paragraph, which as far as i can see is entirely wrong. If i read the paper correctly - then Laxon et al. are arguing that the melt is being underestimated by models (corresponding well with the former paragraph) - not that it is being overestimated as the text implies. (i'm btw. a bit confused about what this is doing here - since it seems more appropriate elsewhere - and looks to me to be an "invented" controversy). --Kim D. Petersen 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kim, you seem to be confused by many things. If you read the paper in its entirety, you would the authors are convinced the arctic sea ice melt is not related to global warming but to natural climate variability, including sometimes longer summer seasons. They see an eight year oscillation between longer and shorter summer melt seasons and they also see a much greater variability in arctic sea ice on an annual basis than the computer models show. This is further support of Pielke's position that arctic sea ice melt is related to regional warming and not global warming. Pielke's comments continue to be germane to this aspect of the scientific controversy. If you still want to delete this section, I suggest you try WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RonCram 14:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead, how about a short summary in the style of "However, in light of recent studies and observations made in Antartica, some scientists argue that Arctic ice melting is attributable to regional warming instead of global warming (refs)" ? --Childhood's End 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That would implicitely accept a broken use of language. Global warming and local warming don't conflict, one is an expression of the other. I could just as well claim that the "arctic sea ice is not melting, just some chunks of ice swimming in the arctic ocean". --Stephan Schulz 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You can obviously have ice melting because the region has warmed without it being a consequence of planetary warming.... That does not mean that global warming and regional warming are conflicting. --Childhood's End 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused here, where exactly does the Laxon paper argue against global warming or argue for local variability? It actually does the opposite. Its stating that the circulation issues have little effect - and (again from my reading) that the GCM's are understating the consequences in loss of sea-ice. The actual cherry-picked quote is even further misrepresenting since the current melt is way beyond 16% (annual variation) - since its currently more than 20% below the last record.... --Kim D. Petersen 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You should read my proposal as "Provided Ron is right"... But at least Pielke seems to make the suggestion no? --Childhood's End 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron misrepresents the paper; if we could stop to talk about it he might learn but I don't have high hopes. Peilkes views are simply silly in this instance. Things don't belong just because Pielke says them - this article is about the controversy in general. You need more people saying this wacko stuff, *then* it can go in. This is "depresys" Smith, BTW William M. Connolley 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I resent you saying I am misrepresenting the paper. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of my statements have been accurate. Laxon, Peacock and Smith write: "However, it is unclear from model results whether ice thickness is controlled mainly by changes in thermodynamic (radiative or thermal) forcing5, or by dynamic (ocean and wind stress) forcing7." [73] Thermodynamic forcings may be global but dynamic forcings are more closely related to regional climate. They also write: "The majority of Arctic Ocean models suggest that variability in Arctic ice thickness occurs on decadal timescales5,6,9, and is caused mainly by dynamic forcing6–8." They write: "However, numerical simulations of ice thickness are undermined by uncertainties in the representation of physical processes9, and by differences in methods used to couple the ice, ocean and atmosphere12, resulting in significant discrepancies between model simulations of ice thickness evolution14." Here they admit the models are not very good. They also write: "The lack of continuous large-scale thickness measurements means that conclusions drawn from numerical simulations regarding the variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, and the processes that control it, remain untested3,12." Here they admit that we simply do not have much data about sea ice in the past. Pielke writes that we are "approaching" record lows and he must have a reason for his view. No doubt Pielke has the 1930s in view as the time period of the previous low but satellite records were not kept at that time. To make a big deal out of the current level of sea ice is unscientific. We do not have enough data to make claims about record lows in arctic sea ice. RonCram 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Resent all you like, it doesn't change your inability to learn, though your ablilty to read Pielkes mind is impressive. But I agree, making a big deal of the current Arctic sea ice is a bad idea - see the current t:GW or indeed http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/09/betting_on_sea_ice.php William M. Connolley 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

William, you are just being pejorative. You did not attempt to deal with any of the facts I presented so you did not support your claim regarding my "inability to learn." I accurately represented the paper which shows the authors are not convinced the level of sea ice is related to global warming. Your blog link does not really deal with issue of regional vs. global warming. You only project that next year will not set a new record. It seems a safe bet to me. Let me know if you get any takers. RonCram 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For more on arctic ice in the 1930s, you can visit the Arctic Warming website that summarizes a number of research papers. See specifically this. [74] It is pretty clear that arctic warming and sea ice melt has considerable natural variability. RonCram 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Predictions of global warming are not based on scientific forecasting

J. Scott Armstrong has presented on this issue. I just recently found his presentation online. The PowerPoint (in pdf form) is here. [75] Video of him making the presentation is here. [76] Armstrong audited IPCC chapter 8 and found 72 principles of scientific forecasting were violated. I believe this was discussed here before. Why is it not in the article? If there was a reason, I have forgotten. RonCram 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is an extremely important criticism of the IPCC methodology. Further coverage here [77]

BadCop666 08:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If I can point to him again, David Orrell makes a similar claim, and few would say he's not an authority in this regard. You can take a glimpse at [78]. --Childhood's End 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher, Miner's Strike, Nuclear Power, Global Warming

Margaret Thatcher's initial interest in Carbon Dioxide emissions (and eventually, Global Warming) was motivated by long-term strategic concerns for British Capitalism - in particular, energy stability following the miner's strike of the mid-1980's - and NOT by concerns for the environment. Stimulating public concerns around atmospheric pollution was seen as the key to her pro-nuclear policies - which was to be promoted as a clean alternative to energy production which was heavily reliant on burning fossil fuels.

I believe this important point should be included as context to Margaret Thatcher's 'interest' in global warming mentioned at the beginning of this article.BadCop666 07:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Given Thatcher's reputation, the above makes sense to me; but for the sake of verifiability do not forget the sources. Take care, Brusegadi 07:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

== Sources ==

Global Warming: How it all began [79]

Documentary - The Great Global Warming Swindle (further details pending)

BadCop666 08:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Which are both unreliable sources according to WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed, haven't had time to get to the library yet, school holidays, so late next week I'll track down some of my biblio's 121.72.242.32 06:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim Hansen's earlier prediction of coming Ice Age

Interesting opinion piece in the Investor's Business Daily based on a story in the Washington Post in 1971. [80] Recently, global warming alarmists have tried to distance themselves from the prediction of a coming Ice Age back in the 70s. But it is hard to distance your camp when one of the leaders of the current alarmism was a leader of the Ice Age alarmism. I think this deserves to be in the article. RonCram 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See talk:James Hansen and try to centralize the discussion in one place, please. --Stephan Schulz 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I do not see the point in that. This is relevant to both articles. Different editors are involved in the two articles. Everyone should be involved in the discussion. RonCram 14:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And they can now all go over to talk:James Hansen so that we do not need to copy and paste the same arguments all over the place. --Stephan Schulz 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, Stephan, your request is nonsensical. Arguments (reasons for inclusion or exclusion) will differ depending on the article. Each article has its own discussion page for a reason. RonCram 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is sound reasoning in general. In this particular case, however, the source you cite is simply wrong, as explained at Talk:James Hansen. An unreliable source has no place in either article. --Stephan Schulz 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If the argument was about weight or relevance, you'd have a point Ron. However, that article is inaccurate as the talk page on James Hansen's page shows. There's no point in having two separate discussions about the accuracy of the claim. It's either accurate or it's not (it's not), irrespective of which article we're talking about. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so your real argument (for both Stephan and Benhocking) is that this published (and reliable) source is wrong and you do not want to have to explain this on both pages. At least now you have explained your reasoning. But your reasoning is still not valid because it has to be explained to two separate groups of editors. After a quick glance through the Talk page on James Hansen, I am not convinced the published source is wrong. It may be possible to convince me, but it has not happened yet. RonCram 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Both sets of editors can go read it over there. Surprisingly, you don't need a permit to read other than your normal pages on Wikipedia. And I suggest you take more than a "quick glance" over there and read how your obviously unreliable (why am I even discussing this? It's an editorial by someone who has not an inkling of science) fourth-hand source mangles the third-hand source (a recent Washington Times article) until it is unrecognizable. You can than see how the third-hand source misrepresents the second hand source in various ways, but in particular by omitting that Hansen's program was not a climate program, but a program that simulated how aerosols shatter sunlight (and developed for the analysis of clouds on Venus). The second-hand source, this 1971 Washington Post article describes this reasonably well, but of course oversimplifies the first-hand Science paper. --Stephan Schulz 23:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, okay so now you are saying you do not want Hansen's name mentioned in relation to this article? Even if I agreed with you, and I do not yet, that still would not preclude these articles from mention in this article on global warming controversy. I think it is important that fossil fuel burning has been the predicted cause of both global cooling and global warming. First, scientists claim fossil fuels cause aerosols that will cause an Ice Age. Then, they claim fossil fuels cause greenhouse gases that will overheat the Earth. And you do not think that is important to this debate? RonCram 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I did a little research on Rasool. He was a colleague of Robert Jastrow with whom he co-wrote a book on the atmosphere of Venus. Venus must have been an important topic of study at the time because Hansen wrote his computer program with its initial application on Venus. It seems to me to be a complete jump in your logic to assume that Hansen was not involved in the application of his computer program to Earth's atmosphere. Hansen was working with Rasool on the atmosphere of Venus and when Rasool decided to look into Earth's atmosphere, one would naturally believe Hansen was involved in the application to Earth. The importance of Hansen's contribution is seen by the fact Rasool went out of his way to comment on Hansen's contribution. RonCram 12:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hansen was main developer of the software. Judging from the time period, I would guess that IBM wrote the compiler. So IBM was responsible the global cooling scare too, right? Raymond Arritt 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense, Raymond. Was IBM a physicist working on atmospheric issues involving aerosols? No, I didn't think so. I cannot imagine Rasool publishing a result involving Hansen's software without asking Hansen to look over this new application of his software and see if any errors were made in the new application. And you cannot imagine it either. RonCram 13:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You may very well be right, Ron. However, do you have any reliable sources beyond pure conjecture that make this point? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I do not think the article needs to make this "point." The article only needs to state that NASA scientists published a prediction of global cooling and they credited James Hansen for developing the software that made their prediction possible. That is a clear statement of the facts. Nothing more is warranted. RonCram 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is covered in much more depth on the Talk:James Hansen page. If you read the discussion there, you'll note that what you said isn't exactly correct. It's definitely not germane to this article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, what did I say that is not correct? I read through the Hansen Talk page and I saw arguments that claimed Hansen's contribution was not significant. I saw ridiculous analogies comparing Hansen's software to Microsoft software, but the authors did not credit any other software for making the study possible. They credited Hansen's software. On what basis do you think this is not germane to this article? RonCram 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to Hansen's reply. Hansen wrote an algorithm that they modified for their use. Here's what Hansen said about this:

“ What was that program? It was a ‘Mie scattering’ code I had written to calculate light scattering by spherical particles. Indeed, it was useful for Venus studies, as it helped determine the size and refractive index of the particles in the clouds that veil the surface of Venus. I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols. But Mie scattering functions, although more complex, are like sine and cosine mathematical functions, simply a useful tool for many problems. Allowing this scattering function to be used by other people does not in any way make me responsible for a climate theory. ”

Hence, the IBM analogy made earlier was quite apt. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, the analogy is not apt. The code Hansen wrote was written specifically for atmospheric studies. It was specialized software and no reasonable person would question the fact R and S talked to Hansen about their application of it. However, I agree that Hansen is not responsible for the theory since his name is not on the article as co-author. Above I wrote: "The article only needs to state that NASA scientists published a prediction of global cooling and they credited James Hansen for developing the software that made their prediction possible." I still do not see anything wrong with that statement. RonCram 00:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, he didn't write the software, he wrote one component that was used by it. That's what I mean when I said you're not exactly correct. Regardless, that he wrote that component is definitely not notable here, is it? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the section "The evolving position of some skeptics"

The content of the section does not match the section heading and is very poorly written. A great deal of the section is criticism of skeptics and people saying they should stop being skeptical, but not much on skeptical scientists actually changing their position. If there is something in this section worth saving, please point it out. A portion of it seems to be discussing adaptation so it seems that may belong in a different section or a different article. The section on Lindzen might be interesting if I could figure out what is being said and who is talking. There are so many quotation marks and people quoting people that it is nearly unintelligible. I believe an end quotation mark is missing but am not certain where it goes. The stuff on the Bush Administration probably belongs in the Politics of global warming article. Will someone please more familiar with this section take a look and see if you can make this better by shortening it and tightening it up? RonCram 13:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no one spoke up for this section, I deleted it and placed it in the Talk page of Politics of global warming. They can discuss it there and use any part as they see fit. RonCram 12:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed your deletion. Certainly a partisan one I'd say. How about just removing all the parts that you don't like. Ah well. 69.107.224.129 05:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

McIntyre has completed a U.S. temperature series reconstruction using CRN1-2 stations

Based on the work of Anthony Watts, Stephen McIntyre has completed a reconstruction of U.S. temp history using only those weather stations identified so far as meeting the requirements to be CRN level 1 (excellent) or level 2 (good) stations. [81] McIntyre writes:

So what does my calculation using CRN1-2 data look like: see below, which includes a 2007 estimate (using the 2006 difference between the CRN1-2 and NOAA to estimate 2007 CRN1-2 from the YTD NOAA results.) In this calculation, the warmest year remains 1934 by a margin of nearly 0.2 (enough to be “statistically significant” according to things that GISS has said, then 1921, then 1998, then 2006 in fourth place. Values since 1998 have been at uninterrupted high levels. Looking at the graph, it’s definitely noticeable - but is it the sort of change that’s inconsistent with the sort of stochastic behavior in the early part of the series - hard to tell here. If you cut the series off in 1997, you certainly wouldn’t have noticed anything odd about the 1990s. You can sort of see in retrospect why MBH98-99 were so excited about how warm 1998 and in such a rush to include it in their article. The main verification issues right now is why the ROW history is so different from the US - is it climatic or nonclimatic? And can one tell?[82]

McIntyre points out that this temp series is only for the U.S. and not the world. The benefit of McIntyre's work is that it is completely open. He explains every step and provides all of the code so other statisticians can see what he is doing and they can explain why they think different approaches may be better. At least one other statistician is running his own temp series and McIntyre has included it in his post marked as "Vliet minus CRN1-2 TOBS (SM)." Vliet is a poster known as JohnV. McIntyre's openness is in stark contrast to the unscientific refusal of NOAA, GISS and CRU to provide all of their data, methods and code. Slowly, the the data, methods and code information has been leaking out and allowing this kind of reconstruction. If the rest of the world (ROW) has microsite issues (and apparently they are greater outside the US than inside), the global warming may be much less than currently thought. RonCram 12:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My question is, regardless of whether certain stations are removed, is there still a warming trend? I'm sort of playing around with the idea that if not for the aerosol cooling that followed I wonder if the thirties might have seen the beginning of a runaway greenhouse effect, but perhaps it was just delayed. Anyway, just the ramblings of a non-expert. 69.107.224.129 05:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity

I re-removed

Skeptics have a problem with this method because of its dependence on surface temperature history, a metric they believe has a significant warming bias as seen above. Roger A. Pielke proposed using ocean heat content as a more reliable metric than surface temperature to observe climate change.

because (a) P isn't talking about CS (b) septics often do have problems with the CS, but generally not for the reasons given. If you want this para in, or something like it, you need to find their true reasons. Lindzen often quibbles CS, but not because of the T rec.

I also took out:

These values are generally obtained by estimating the change in Earth's radiation budget and comparing it to the warming surface temperatures observed over the 20th century.

because it looks to me somewhere between a gross oversimplification and wrong. Certainly some of the work does this, but not enough to say it is generally done. See for example http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf page 716 William M. Connolley 13:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

William, the text you removed did not claim Pielke was referring only to CS. Pielke claims that ocean heat content is a better metric overall and he has specifically approved of Schwartz's approach using ocean heat content to calculate CS. Do you feel the article needs to reference Pielke's blog on Schwartz? We can certainly do that. The other section you removed should have been modified rather than deleted. (BTW, you meant page 718) Estimates of CS are commonly based on instrumental observations and these are most commonly surface temps. Can you suggest a wording you think would be more accurate? RonCram 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In the publication you ref, P is not talking about CS, merely pushing his faavourite metric. The text doesn't belong here. If you can find P proposing other ways of estimating CS, they might belong, depending on what they are. Thanks, yes I did mean 718. Estimates of CS are commonly based on instrumental observations - who says so? In fact most are based on models, as the IPCC sez.

But the main problem remains the unsupported assertion that skeptics have probs with the estimates of CS because of using the T rec. It isn't true. You need to use a notable skeptic of CS (perhaps Lindzen) not non-notable such as P, who doesn't publish on CS William M. Connolley 13:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

William, the article does not claim Pielke is writing specifically about CS but he does support Schwartz for using ocean heat to calculate CS. I can change the wording to make this clear and provide the citation for Pielke supporting Schwartz. The models are tuned so they fit the surface temp record. If they don't fit, they are not good models. So even the models estimates are based on T. Schwartz is the skeptic I have in mind. So, can you suggest a wording you would find acceptable? RonCram 17:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Related controversies

The "Related controversies" section is outrageously biased. If such a section belongs in this article (which I doubt) then it should also cover "related controversies" involving global warming's true believers. If it's necessary to highlight a link between global warming scepticism and a rejection of peer-reviewed studies of passive smoking and of the role of CFCs in depleting the ozone layer, it's equally necessary to highlight a link between global warming activism and a rejection of peer-reviewed studies of GM foods, whaling, selective logging and the eco-advisibility of scuttling the Brent Spar oil platform - all of which controversies found or find Greenpeace (which for some reason is quoted in this section) on the wrong side of the science. The whole section should be deleted, in my view - especially as this article is currently being edited to remove political aspects of the global warming controversy. Vinny Burgoo 17:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with this section either. The larger point is that the whole article is a mess -- it's a dog's breakfast of charges, counter-charges, The Gospel According to Steven McIntyre, irrelevant tangents, and whatever else someone with a particular POV felt like throwing in. Raymond Arritt 17:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen McIntyre, please. And the man is merely a saint, not a messiah. [insert winkie thing] Vinny Burgoo 18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vinny. The article would be greatly enhanced by removing this entire section. RonCram 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's gone now - though I didn't really mean to delete it. My connection to Wikipedia was playing up and ... Anyway, it's done.

Its back, since I've restored it. There is no consensus to edit the article to remove politics - this seems to be a Cramism William M. Connolley 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It should definitely be removed. But if it stays we should at least mention the recent study in Nature showing that the previous science on CFCs and the ozone layer may have been completely wrong. [83] Iceage77 19:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel like fighting that particular one, start at ozone depletion (and read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/uncertainty-in-polar-ozone-depletion/langswitch_lang/in too) William M. Connolley 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WMC: RealClimate has a known bias towards reality, and we all know that reality has a liberal bias! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing from your link shows that the previous science may have been "completely" wrong. Again, I love the skepticism of some 'skeptics.' One study in thousands finds something different and they immediately jump on the wagon and do not consider that the probability of one study being wrong is much greater than the probability of thousands of studies being wrong... Brusegadi 01:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate has a known bias towards climate change alarmism, funded as it is by an environmental PR organisation. I would agree however that reality has a liberal bias, being a liberal myself (a real one). Iceage77 22:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course, more evidence that GW "skepticism" is actually ideologically driven wishful thinking, based on credulous acceptance of each new talking point that appears to reinforce tightly held priors.JQ 00:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Global warming theory has been 100% embraced by the left as a cover for their failed authoritarian ideology. Iceage77 00:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Iceage77 gives more evidence that the issues are closely related, both in terms of the scientific issues and the people involved.JQ 22:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Its funny. My little sister thinks the right is the authoritarian one... She grew up under GW Bush. Brusegadi 08:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ozone depletion is perhaps relevant. Passive smoking has nothing to do with global warming. Iceage77 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about global warming, it is about the global warming controversy. The global warming controversy is not a controversy within the climate science community. It is a controversy in which people motivated mainly by interests other than scientific curiosity dispute the results of the climate science community. The very fact that passive smoking has nothing to do with the science of global warming makes it relevant for this article as it shows that many of the leading skeptics have a history of being involved in controversies in which they as non experts disputed a scientific consensus. Count Iblis 23:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you are wrong. This article is about the controversy within the science community. See my comment below.RonCram 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Who elected you dictator of the page content? William M. Connolley 11:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As Vinny states, the entire section should be deleted. The section is about guilt by judgment association. Because Singer, Seitz, Milloy and Michaels were wrong on both issues people want to paint the camp of skeptical scientists with the same brush. Look at what John Quiggen wrote above. This is giving people an excuse to disregard the science done by skeptics. A few other people were wrong about one or the other issue, but that happens. No one is right about everything. But Singer, Seitz, Milloy and Michaels are not even leaders among the skeptics. The best skeptical scientists are Pielke, Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, Schwartz, Svensmark and probably Shaviv. This section does a disservice to readers if they are led to believe this list is not credible because the Singer, Seitz, Milloy and Michaels group have taken money from Exxon and Phillip Morris. This article is not about PR. It is about providing a service to readers. It best belongs in Politics of global warming. RonCram 11:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

many of the leading skeptics have a history of being involved in controversies in which they as non experts disputed a scientific consensus. I agree with this line of reasoning as it provides the readership with a measure of the veracity of those involved in the controversy. --Skyemoor 11:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A measure of their veracity? That's a bit harsh. How about "a measure of their credibility"? Vinny Burgoo 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. The "Related controversies" part should be removed as pure manipulation and propaganda, and an example of proponents of this theory at trying to discrediting critics. But if some of the critics has been wrong before, that is no relevant reason not to belive that they are wrong on this issue. Everyone of us has been wrong before. That does not imply that everything everybody says is wrong.--85.165.87.54 07:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider the probability of them taking such minority views in more than one occasion, it is small enough to merit inclusion. Now, each time they take minority positions in terms of the science but "majority" positions in terms of concentrated money interests (read tobacco, oil companies.) Finally, what about the fact that the controversies involved different fields of expertise. First they argued over the effects of tabbaco and now over the effects of ghgs. So, do you trust a guy who takes a small position view twice (small probability), is wrong one of the times, there is a good chance someone is paying him to take the position, and he is not arguing over matters that include his field of expertise...? I say the section is highly relevant. Brusegadi 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Section

I am restoring a section deleted by Ron Cram, The Evolving Position of Some Skeptics, first because the was no consensus, in fact he was the only one who seemed to want it gone. Second because it was apparently user 4.246 who contributed that section March 4-8 of this year, and to which others contributed, according to the history. Now I may be off here but I note that Cram had some disputes with user 4.246 as seen above and which, perhaps, Cram felt obliged to stike back on by deleting the entire section? Anyway unlike Cram which states that it is "off topic" on the Talk page of the Politics of Global Warming article where he put it, "very poorly written" and "nearly unintelligible" he says above, I think that it lays out a nice deliniation between the mitigators and the adaptationists and explains the politics behind the latter position and is obviously part of the controversy. If others in the pro-GW camp feel that it should be deleted then it can be but it simply looks like bias for one person from the opposite camp to remove it for questionable reasons. Perhaps if 4.246 happens to see this he/she might comment... 69.107.224.129 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NASA scientist claims CO2 is not a problem

I just read the abstract of the S.I. Rasool article in Science discussed above. It is interesting because the abstract makes the same claim regarding CO2 that many skeptics of global warming also make. Here's the quote:

It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. [84]

Most skeptics believe that whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened. It is interesting that Rasool also agrees that CO2 is not a problem. RonCram 12:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a tense problem. That was from 1971. This is all on global cooling anyway William M. Connolley 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is not news. The effect of adding CO₂ on forcing is logarithmic, IIRC. (William will correct me if I'm wrong.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I am well aware it was from 1971. However, I have never seen any science to refute this finding and I know a good many skeptics who continue to hold this position. Ben, thank you for pointing out that it is not news. The article should have included this information long ago. I added it. RonCram 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, the logarithmic effect of CO2 was known to Arrhenius in 1899, has been known since, and it is part of the IPCC consensus. What this has to do with " whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened" is unclear, though. CO2 has "only" increased a bit more than 30% compared to pre-industrial times. It's projeced to go much higher. And of course we are not in temperature equilibrium with respect to current forcing, either. --Stephan Schulz 13:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, if Arrhenius knew of the logarithmic effect in 1899, that only confirms that this should be discussed in this controversy. The controversial part may be the "whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened," but it is clear that Rasool did not see CO2 as a problem in the future. There is no reason the logarithmic nature of CO2 should be left out of an article on the controversy about global warming. Please explain that to Kim. RonCram 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the logarithmic nature is not controversial at all. That's why climate sensitivity is given in degrees Celsius (or whatever unit of temperature) per CO2 doubling. CO2 grows exponentially - temperature grows linearly. Or, equivalently, linear increase of CO2 causes logarithmic increase in (equilibrium) temperature. And your summary of the abstract is almost entirely wrong. At least the abstract does not say that "CO2 is not a problem", it contrasts the logarithmic influence of CO2 with the different behavior of areosols. --Stephan Schulz 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The contribution of CO2 to warming isn't even logarithmic--it's asymptotic. The physical process by which CO2 contributes to warming is the absorbtion of photons in a certain frequency spectrum. An infinite amount of CO2 cannot absorb more than 100% of those photons. This means that a mathematical model that assumes (or posits) a constant increase in temperature per doubling of CO2 systematically overestimates the CO2-dependence of temperature. User:QBeam 10:33 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.238.2 (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This argument is somewhat oversimplified. Furthermore, it is wrong. See Weart's excellent treatment of the subject here. Raymond Arritt 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly oversimplified. I've ignored the fact that the contribution to the greenhouse effect per photon absorbed is frequency dependent. That makes it quite a bit harder to compute the real effect, but it doesn't undermine the basic thesis. Neither does your cite. Photon absorbtion cannot exceed 100%, ergo, there is an upper bound on the amount of greenhouse effect that is possible. QED. User:QBeam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.84.86 (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The first part of your statement is true, but the second is not. If 100% of all photons are absorbed, the temperature of the earth will rise without limits (think about it - photons coming in from the Sun, but none are leaving). --Stephan Schulz 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The model used by R+S in 1971 is very primitive; its not a GCM, its a 1-d RC model. It was "refuted" a long time ago. In fact its self-refuting: as they say in the paper, the model is only suitable for studying small perturbations, but they use it for large ones. I recommend reading note 3 to the article. As everyone has pointd out to you, the logarithmic nature is well known; its in all the current GCMs; the results you refuse to believe incorporate it; it is not in dispute William M. Connolley 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan and William, your comments show that you are either unfamiliar with the arguments of the skeptics or you are being intellectually dishonest. The fact the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics can be seen here. [85] [86] Now, if you already knew of these arguments, you are being intellectually dishonest in saying this is not part of the controversy. You may disagree with Motl and Junk Science, but you do not have the right to say their arguments do not exist. RonCram 13:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you are confused. Neither of us said that the claim of logarithmic increase is not "part of the controversy". We said that the fact is not controversial. Everybody with a modicum of knowledge agrees (that, interestingly, seems to exclude Lubos, who uses an self-invented oversimplified model which results not in logarithmic increase, but in a hard asymptotic cap) about this. The fact that skeptics tout this well-known fact, fully accounted for in current models, as a big flaw in the theory, should tell you something about intellectual (dis-)honesty. But back to the topic: What does the Rasool&Schneider paper have to do with this? --Stephan Schulz 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I am not confused. The difference between "controversial" and "part of the controversy" is too fine a distinction for an honest man. Let us put away distinctions between synonyms. Regarding current models, they are worthless - as Orrin Pilkey, J. Scott Armstrong and many others attest. In addition, current models do not model the negative feedback found by Roy Spencer. Perhaps most importantly, the models are checked against global surface temp series by CRU or NOAA. Now, due to the work of Anthony Watts, Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke, we know these global temp series probably greatly exaggerate the amount of warming in the 20th century. This preliminary indication is in accordance with the much lower climate sensitivity published by Stephen Schwartz. Like many things in climate science, I do not think most climate scientists understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2 well. I think Rasool understood the issue better in 1971 than most climate scientists do today. RonCram 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Like many things in climate science, I do not think most climate scientists understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2 well." That's either astonishingly ill-informed, or astonishingly arrogant, or both. Ron, your tendency to give condescending lectures to others, while at the same time making it clear that you are unable to grasp even the simplest quantitative concepts, is wearing thin. Raymond Arritt 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, it is possible I am both ill-informed and arrogant but my opinion of climate scientists stands. When I began my study of climate, I did not have this opinion. It has been formed only after reading about their poor quality science and their antics to cover it up. However, this discussion really is not furthering the article. I suggest we go back to the discussing the article and making certain the views of both sides of the controversy are presented. RonCram 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd like Ron to find one — just one — climate scientist who he thinks doesn't understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO₂. Since he claims that "most" don't, this should be easy for him to find. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Benhocking, I would say any climate scientist who thinks CO2 is a major problem does not understand the issue clearly. Am I able to explain their error quantitatively? No. But their results do not make sense. More to the point, as a Wikipedia editor, I do not have to explain this. Wikipedia has to represent both sides of the controversy. The proper response here is to find a citation for readers to go to that would explain the error the skeptics are making. That is how we provide a service to readers, not by trying to censor out arguments if you don't like them. RonCram 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not for censoring this information, but I am in favor of providing it accurately. Unlike you, I believe this will make the critics who make this argument look uninformed. I won't argue why the climate scientists "get it", as I don't expect it'll do much good. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(dedent) Ron, if you are not confused, I am confused. Above, you claim that the fact that "the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics" makes the logarithmic influence of CO2 on temperature part of the controversy. By doing so, you are using an inclusive definition of "part of the controversy", assuming that anything said by either side is part of the controversy, even if it is not in dispute. But by my understanding, to be actually controversial, a statement must be in dispute between the parties. The logarithmic effect of CO2 is not in dispute. Do you understand the point that I tried to make above? The very definition of climate sensitivity as the temperature reaction to a doubling of CO2 implies a logarithmic response. Every scientist who accepts this definition (and that includes everyone in rough agreement with the IPCC) is aware of this fact. --Stephan Schulz 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction, the logarithmic influence of CO2 on long-wave emissivity isn't accepted just by those "in rough agreement with the IPCC" but by anyone working in the field whether they are pro- or con-IPCC. It's simply a basic fact, measurable in the laboratory and derivable from theory, like water having a dipole moment. Raymond Arritt 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, perhaps I did not write clearly enough for you. I should have written "the effect resulting from the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics." Please excuse the ellipsis. I assumed it was clear from the context. The fact atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic is not disputed. What is disputed (and therefore part of the controversy) is whether this logarithmic effect will prevent a doubling of CO2 from having a major effect on climate. Each new molecule of CO2 in the air has a decreasing effect. This is well established. Motl, Junk Science and Rasool all argue that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a problem because of this. Rather, Rasool feared a coming Ice Age. A large minority among the skeptics also fear global cooling - which if you look at the history of the planet would appear to be the more reasonable possibility. RonCram 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For this wiki article, the old article by Rasool is not relevant anyway. We have to focus on the controversy as it exists today. The current article does mention that some dispute the consensus figure for climate senisivity. New input by skeptics today about this issue can be mentioned. Count Iblis 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Rasool is not relevant. His analysis was once the majority opinion and many of the older climatologists still think this is correct. RonCram 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When was it ever a majority opinion? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the reality-based community, never. Raymond Arritt 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, it was the majority opinion throughout the 1970s. I remember the first time I heard a news story on global warming in 1979. It was very much a minority opinion among climate scientists at that time. Many of them were still fearing global cooling. Check out the opinions of the retired climatology profs. It is difficult to find some of them but the more honored professors, the "Professor Emeritus of Climatology" are easier to find. Almost all of them still hold to the opinion that CO2 is not a big problem. Check out these guys: Antonino Zichichi, Hendrik Tennekes, Reid Bryson and George Kukla.RonCram 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

When are you going to stop equating "emeritus" with "honored"? In most cases it just means "retired after X years of service." Five years of service and retiring at age sixty or older is enough at this two-bit liberal arts college,[87] while an obscure tech school just says "a professor who retires becomes professor emeritus."[88] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond arritt (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you are sadly mistaken that "Emeritus" is not a title of honor. There are tons of professors who are retired without the title. Use a dictionary to check the honorary status of "Emeritus Professor." Or click this link.[89] —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonCram (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on the links he has provided to several of the best schools in the US (in the US per your request!)???? I believe he gave links showing that in Harvard and MIT Emeritus is NOT honorary. I gave links showing Brown and Cambridge (yeah, Cambridge is not in the US, just to give the communist perspective...) This post about Dr. Arritt being "sadly mistaken" precedes another post about Benhocking being "confused". Fellow editors like Raymond Arritt and Benhocking are very intelligent and highly qualified. It is unlikely for them to be "sadly mistaken" and "confused" so often; specially when they take the time to provide evidence on such simple matters as the Emeritus status that as far as I know is given to anyone who manages to stay in the department... Think of it this way; every department thinks they are the best, so if you manage to stay with them until retirement; they say you are Emeritus... Finally, I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just saying that if you are wrong then typing around telling people how mistaken they are may seem a bit arrogant... Brusegadi 02:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, I remember asking for links but I never did see them. Can you direct me to this link? Just for my own knowledge, did you click on the link I provided? I may be a tad older than Raymond and Ben and practices may have changed since my time. "Emeritus" has always been a revered title and the dictionary still indicates it is so. It is difficult for me to think this has changed but I am willing to look at the evidence. In my experience, most retired profs no longer maintained a relationship with the university while "Emeritus" profs continued to maintain an office and keep up on literature in the field. They would also attend fundraising functions for the university to rub shoulders with donors. RonCram 12:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I will post the diffs on your talk page. Brusegadi 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If it were the majority opinion in the 70's why were there so few journal articles published about it? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, you are confusing the view that rising CO2 would not be a problem because of the logarithmic effect and the view that global cooling was coming. The first viewpoint was widely held. Most climatologists at the time thought climate was governed mainly by natural forces and that mankind's perturbations would not be catastrophic. A minority group thought global cooling was coming.RonCram 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the only one of those who appears to be significantly "honored" is the first one, and not in the field of climatology, but in subnuclear physics. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, we should give credit where it's due. The other three were good scientists in their day. Henk Tennekes was (is) a great boundary-layer guy but never had anything to do with climate as far as I know (the upper limit of his time scale of interest was basically the diurnal cycle). Bryson was one of the leaders in looking at the interface of climate and society. Kukla is the only one of the three who could be considered a climatologist in the modern sense of someone who looks at the physical processes involved in the dynamics of climate. Raymond Arritt 03:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant no insult to those guys, I was going completely off the wikilinks Ron provided and know nothing else about them. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I appreciate your attempt to credit these skeptical scientists but you really are discounting their contributions. Take Reid Bryson for example. He did much more than look "at the interface of climate and society." You make him sound like Roger A. Pielke (Jr). Here is a quote from Bryson's bio: "His best known laboratory works are in development of new approaches to climatology, such as airstream analysis and quantitative, objective methods of reconstructing past climates. He has also developed computer models of climate: the past history of the monsoon in Rajasthan, model simulation of Pleistocene ice-volume and Pleistocene climatic history. He recently published a model simulation of the West African Intertropical Convergence position and rainfall for the past 20-40 millennia, and has now extended that work on high-resolution climate modeling to specific archaeological sites and in montane regions. He is also working on three books." [90] Not bad for an Emeritus Professor killing time playing checkers. Henk Tennekes is a computer modeling guy using computers for meteorology and he has worked with computer models for climate. Tennekes knows all of the weaknesses of GCMs and how impossible it is to model climate 100 years in the future. [91]RonCram 13:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Funding for skeptics

I've made a few changes to the Funding for skeptics section. In particular, I've clarified the nature of the IREA (they're a co-op, not a power producer themselves) and removed some of the more questionable phrasing ("to confuse the issue"? we can't say that in the article, only quote it) and also replaced the quote from an article that paraphrases the UCS report with a quote directly from the report itself. I'll be happy to discuss these changes with anyone who has a problem with them. --Sapphic 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Logarithmic effect of increasing CO2

Raymond deleted the following section saying that it was unsalvageable.

===Logarithmic effect of increasing atmospheric CO2===

Scientists on both sides of the controversy agree that increasing atmospheric CO2 has a logarithmic effect, meaning that the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This happens because the spectral bands where CO2 is active will eventually reach a saturation point.

The dispute arises regarding how fast the effect of new atmospheric CO2 is dropping and when the atmosphere may be effectively saturated. The majority of climate scientists believe rising CO2 is a long way from saturation. Many skeptics believe saturation is much closer or may already have happened and will prevent any catastrophe from global warming. Swedish astronomer Lars Kamél writes:

'The main reason why CO2 can only have a small impact on the climate of the world is called saturation… Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has exactly one important spectral line in the infrared part of the spectrum. This line is clearly saturated. If you increase the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, not much will happen.

Most climate scientists disagree with this assessment believing that the decreasing impact of CO2 is offset by the exponential rise in CO2 since World War II.

I am willing to admit that it may be poorly written, but it is a viewpoint of the skeptics (held at least by some of the minor scientists on the skeptical side, such as Kamél, Milloy and Motl). I do not know of any skeptics who have attempted to refute this viewpoint. What is the basis of excluding a minority viewpoint when that viewpoint is well sourced? RonCram 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that its meaningless. Once we're all agreed its logartithmic then everyone not mathematically incompetent agrees that it doesn't saturate, since the log function is strictly monotonically increasing - there is no asymptote. Since CO2 is (roughly) increasing exponentially, and since we all know what log(exp(x)) is, were all agreed that the CO2 forcing is increasing roughly linearly. So, as long as we point out the obvious - that this "log implies saturation" stuff is incompetent - I see no reason why it shouldnt go in. But it can't go in as anything that makes sense, because it doesn't William M. Connolley 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This sentence: "Most climate scientists disagree with this assessment believing that the decreasing impact of CO2 is offset by the exponential rise in CO2 since World War II" is wrong, as it suggess that climate scientists do agree with the reasoning about saturation in principle. However, the reason why climate scientists reject this argment is because the reasoning is flawed. I think that Real Climate explained in detail why saturation does not happen some time ago. My favorite way of explaining it is much simpler simpler than their explanation (I'm not a climate scientist, but I think that my argument makes it clearer that some basic physics is ignored by simplifying the problem):

Suppose you look at the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth from space using some satellite. If there is equilibrium the total amounbt of infrared radiation that escapes from Earth per unit time is the same as the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth from the Sun. Now let's add greenhouse gasses. Then, after the new equilibrium is reached, we must again find that the total amount of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth is the same as the total mount of radiation absorbed by the Earth from the Sun. If the latter hasn't changed, the former won't have changed either.

So, basically nothing seems to have changed. However, the infrared photons have some scattering lengh. When the satellite looks into the atmosphere, the photons it sees have last scattered off molecules at a certain height above ground in the atmosphere. The spectrum of the photons corresponds to the temperature of the layer from where they escape into space. E.g. if you look at the Sun, the energy distribution of the photons follows the black body spectrum at the temperature of about 6000 K because the photons you see have last scattered from ions in a layer just within the Sun in which it is 6000 K.

Now, when you add greenhouse gasses that will absorb a lot of infrared you'll shift the layer from which the photons escape upward. The higher you go, the colder it is. However, as argued above, in the new equilibrium as much energy must be emitted in the infrared as was emitted before. This means that it must become a bit hotter at these higher layers from where the radiation is now emitted.

Clearly, the flaw in the saturation argument is to pretend that the infrared photons that escape to space originate from the ground. They ignore emission in the atmosphere while not ignoring absorption. But in thermal equilibrium at point in the atmosphere, the CO2 must emit as much radiation as it absorbs at any wavelength (principle of detailed balance). So, basically, the skeptics look at this problem from the wrong end where would you have to take more factors into account to correctly describe what is going on. This then gives them more room to deceive lay people into thinking that climate science is wrong. Count Iblis 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I came to the Talk page to say what William and Count Iblis already said: logarithmic functions don't saturate as they have no asymptote. Ron, this is the fundamental problem: lay-people who don't understand what a logarithmic function is misinterpret it to mean that there's some sort of asymptote (even if they don't know what an asymptote is). I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with a Ph.D. in any scientific field who would make that mistake, though. I'd also point out that Lars Kamél works in astrophysics and does not appear to have any scholarly knowledge of climate science. As far as I can tell, I see no evidence that he has a Ph.D. or equivalent in any field. He's not listed on the People at the UAO page, so it's quite ambiguous. Finally, his saturation comment is not referring to the logarithmic curve of CO₂ forcing. Frankly, it seems he knows as little, if not less, than I do about the topic. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I appreciate your perspective that you see no reason it should not go in. Since that is true, please help me explain it properly. Count, thank you for your explanation. I cannot properly evaluate some of your statements but I assure you my intent is not "to deceive lay people into thinking that climate science is wrong." I truly do not believe that is the intent of these skeptics either. They come to this position honestly, even if they may be wrong. I again point out that the position of Kamél, Milloy, Motl and others is essentially the same position Rasool and other NASA scientists held in 1971. What has changed since then? If there is no asymptote, does that really change the fact that at some point new CO2 will make no meaningful change to the climate? RonCram 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, if you care about the science please read this article which explains the saturation argument in educated-layman terms. I suspect your response will simply be the usual "but Kamél, Milloy, Motl say..." but some of those following along at home may find the article helpful. (Oh, and you do know that referencing Milloy doesn't help your case, right?) Raymond Arritt 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If Ron doesn't know what a logarithm looks like (or Lubos :-) then logarithm will help William M. Connolley 19:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, thank you for the link. I have read it before but needed to read it again and was planning to look it up. I know nothing about Milloy but know you hold a similar opinion of Motl. I don't have a "case" since I am not a scientist. I am merely trying to represent for readers what the skeptics believe. I am not aware of any top notch skeptic writing about saturation. I would feel like the viewpoint was much stronger if it was endorsed by Pielke, Lindzen, Christy or Spencer. The interesting thing to me about the saturation argument is that it always seemed to be the majority view long, long ago. Weart makes it sound like the saturation viewpoint had been abandoned prior to 1971. I am certain that is not true since Rasool still held it at that time. I am still not certain what science came out after 1971 to convince Rasool. Nor am I absolutely sure that Rasool was ever convinced. RonCram 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

William, thank you for the link. I should have known to look it up in Wikipedia. I cannot say I fully understand it yet, but it appears that skeptics and alarmists are calculating the logarithm with different bases. One can flatten out much more quickly than others. RonCram 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you dont understand it yet. Which base you use makes no difference to the degree of saturation William M. Connolley 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What then does the curve of the logarithm represent if not the level of CO2 and a measure of its radiation?RonCram 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Errrm... this isn't a great place for a basic maths lesson. If you don't understand logs, then trying to invent explanations like using different bases isn't going to help you. The curves are all similar. None of them saturate, whatever base you use William M. Connolley 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will give Ron one quick logarithm factoid: the only difference between bases is a constant multiplicative factor. (log_n(x)=log_n(m)*log_m(x)=log_m(x)/log_m(n)) Hence, a change in base is not going to change the shape of the curve. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I not a better mathematician. The point is that skeptics and alarmists see a completely different curve at work. The skeptics see a curve that has flattened out considerably (essentially saturated) and the alarmists see a curve that still has a signficant rise. I do not think readers need to be become mathematicians to understand the concept. RonCram 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up too easily on the math. If you didn't get my point above, something I could have emphasized was that log_n(m) is just a constant number (equal to 1/log_m(n)), independent of x. So, log_n(x)=(some number)*log_m(x). Hence, changing the base only changes the scale of the graph and not the shape. Does that make sense?

Whether the curve still has a significant rise depends on multiple things, partly the nature of x. If x=e^t, then log(x) = log(e^t) = t. Hence, if forcing is logarithmic with CO₂ concentration, but CO₂ concentration is exponential over time, then forcing is linear over time. Obviously, CO₂ concentration can't be exponential forever, so some room for disagreement can arise over how long one expects it to be exponential—or to what degree it approximates an exponential rise.

A final problem, of course, is that many of the more vocal skeptics aren't scientists at all. Most of these skeptics probably understand the math no better (and possibly worse) than you do (or, hopefully, did). For those who aren't following the journals, it can be difficult to separate the scientists from the interested laypeople. (E.g., I really hate it when people use Al Gore to try to critique AGW theories. He's not a scientist, and shouldn't be treated as one.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron is probably right: the skeptics really do see the curve flattening out to saturation. But they are of course wrong, on this as on so many other things William M. Connolley 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't the shape of the actual curve. That's pretty clear from the basic theory of the greenhouse effect. The problem is that the models are using approximations of that curve, based on assumptions about where on it we are. For very low concentrations of greenhouse gasses, the temperature response is approximately linear. For very high concentrations, the CO2 dependence of temperature is approximately zero. The way to tell which approximation is valid (if either) is by looking at the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are presently being absorbed. (That's an oversimplification, actually--what you'd really want to do is a frequency-dependent integration, since photons' energies vary with their frequency.) My understanding is that, presently, approximately 85% of those photons are absorbed--mostly by water vapor--which strongly suggests that the assumptions in most IPCC models are not properly accounding for the saturation effect. It therefore appears to be a significant driver of most computer models' lack of predictive power. User:QBeam 11:20 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007

You need to read up on how models actually parameterize long-wave radiation, instead of just guessing. A good example is the NCAR CAM3 model (the atmospheric component of the NCAR Community Climate System Model). See Collins et al. (2006), J. Climate, vol. 19, pp. 2144–2161 and especially references it cites on details of the parameterization. Raymond Arritt 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This argument is a good illustration of why the climate models have zero predictive power. In this thread, you have someone arguing that saturation is impossible because logarithmic functions don't have an asymptote. That is a circular argument. The greenhouse function isn't really logarithmic, precisely because there is a real world asymptote on the greenhouse effect. It is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons in a given spectrum. Any model that uses a function that does not reflect that fact will systematically over-estimate the greenhouse effect. Which, incidentally, fits the imperical data; the models have been overestimating future temperature changes for years now. User:QBeam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.84.86 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats not true. If the logarithmic goes from 1 to infinity [1, inf) (non-saturable) then you can have a distribution of photons absorbed that goes from [0, 100%). So, your cumulative distribution will approach 100% absorption asymptotically. This is because the the two spaces are homeomorphic, [1,inf)~[0,100%). What this means is that logarithmic functions have an asymptote, but it is positive infinity :) Also, read Stephan's comment above. If 100% were absorbed the earth would keep heating up unbounded. Brusegadi 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's really no point in arguing this, because it's based on fundamental misunderstandings of how the radiation parameterizations in climate modeling are constructed. It's rather like an argument that modern automobiles are wasteful because they don't burn their coal efficiently. Please read the Collins et al. (2006) paper that I cited above for an example of a radiation parameterization in a present-generation climate model. Raymond Arritt 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the choice of the term Logarithmic is incorrect, it should have been Exponential Decay. Note that many exponential curves do have asymptotes ... and light absorption is one of them. Given a column of gas, a change in its length (or concentration) will have a linear change in absorbance (A=-log10(I1/I0)). However, this is *because* the change in the amount of light transmitted is exponential (T=I1/I0=exp10(-klc)) (Beer's law). The reference given above for logarithmic curves provided correct, but somewhat incomplete information. I suggest contrasting "Exponential Decay (increasing form)" and "Logarithmic Model" at http://www.richland.edu/james/lecture/m116/logs/models.html From what I've read, it appears that the troposphere is saturated with CO2 and that the stratosphere is not.

I also disagree with the statement made above

But in thermal equilibrium at point in the atmosphere, the CO2 must emit as much radiation as it absorbs at any wavelength

That is absolutely not true for any gas that has more than one infrared absorber - the heat absorbed by any molecule adds kenetic energy to the entire mass of the atmosphere and any emitter can create a photon. Q Science 07:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the radiative energy transfer and the effect on temperature. Of course the amount of light transmitted through a semi-transparent medium decays exponentally with the opical thickness of the medium. But If Earth stops emitting any radiation (while still absorbing some), it's temperature will rise without limit. For the second part I think you misread this. It's talking about the integral over all wavelenghts, and in that case is indeed true, although not necessarily the most clear formulation. --Stephan Schulz 09:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Q Science in thermal equilibrium the principle of Detailed balance holds. Anyway, what I wrote above was a simplified thought experiment that addresses specifically the flawed saturation idea. Instead of considering the real atmosphere of the Earth, you can just as well consider a hypothetical atmosphere containing some greenhouse gas that is optically thick in all wavelengths in the infrared. This only exaggerates the supposed saturation effect. However, per my argument presented above, you don't get saturation. Count Iblis 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the Earth emits thermal radiation with a Black Body distribution. The graphs I've seen show that one of the water vapor absorption bands is near the Black Body peak frequency and the CO2 emission band way off to the side. Because of this distribution, it sort of makes sense that increasing CO2 will increase its emission more than it increases its absorption. If true, then Detailed balance should require a temperature decrease so that the black body peak frequency moves closer to the CO2 absorption band. At any rate, this is why I was questioning the way that was written. Q Science 08:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)