→this can be dismissed immediately, of course. Agreed?: Who is the "Mailed Fist"? |
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 325: | Line 325: | ||
::::So this guy was a scientist but is not now ... was he actually "in charge of NASA" or is that crap? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.149.36.207|81.149.36.207]] ([[User talk:81.149.36.207|talk]]) 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::::So this guy was a scientist but is not now ... was he actually "in charge of NASA" or is that crap? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.149.36.207|81.149.36.207]] ([[User talk:81.149.36.207|talk]]) 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::::: Hard to know. Certainly many climate-folk he claims to have been in charge of have never heard of him. I wrote more here [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/01/does_anyone_care_about_theon.php] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
::::: Hard to know. Certainly many climate-folk he claims to have been in charge of have never heard of him. I wrote more here [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/01/does_anyone_care_about_theon.php] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::[[User:William M. Connolley|William]], in [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/01/does_anyone_care_about_theon.php your blog article], when referring to this wikipedia article, did you really say |
|||
::::::: ''(note, BTW, how the poor dear septics don't even bother trying to edit the page any more, having been crushed so often by the Mailed Fist):'' |
|||
::::::Maybe people really want constructive edits instead of the continuous edit wars? Maybe some people think that using the talk pages to discuss ideas will help the '''Mailed Fist''' think before simply reverting everything? Or perhaps you are just gloating because you have won? |
|||
::::::And then, at the bottom of your blog about Dr Theon, you call [[Roy_Spencer_(scientist)|Dr. Roy Spencer]] "a wacko". And why? Just because his data doesn't agree with your CO2 theory? I am sure that if you could prove his positions (plural) wrong, then you wouldn't have to call him names. [[User:Q Science|Q Science]] ([[User talk:Q Science|talk]]) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Editing lead == |
== Editing lead == |
Revision as of 07:02, 1 February 2009
Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Global Temperature graph
Perhaps this has been discussed before. Regarding the global temperature graph, how about including NCDC and GISTEMP temperature trends along with the HadCRUT data currently displayed?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmb92 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- The graphs produced by any of the the global data sets are almost identical. So it doesn't make much sense to show more than one. -Atmoz (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course they would be better if they actually showed the cooling in 2008! 88.109.43.47 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Great morality! Since you think a bunch of different things look alike, let's just only go with the one you choose! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.25.11 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, first of all the nasa.gov graphs do indeed show the 2008 cooling, but frankly a single year of relative cooling is completely irrelevant. Second, 208.104.25.11, your position on this is absurd. There are thousands of potential graphs that the page could use, but any legal, accurate, and useful graph from an accredited source will do. These graphs observed temperature changes; they aren't biased or debatable. Seeing as how the graphs are nearly the same, there is no reason to display both. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Improving Signal to Noise Ratio
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We need to resist the urge to all re-say the obvious and just point people to previous discussions.
Folks, its all jolly good fun pointing out the errors in peoples ways, but it does fill up the talk page. I think we need to resist the urge to all re-say the obvious and just point people to previous discussions. That way discussion aimed at actually improving the article won't get lost William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Name one example of "discussion aimed at actually improving the article", please ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, theres ... no ... then .... no .... errr? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Improving the article requires there be paragraphs that say there are some number of non-specialist scientists who think that the science is not being properly interpreted (human-induced global warming is not proven?) and climate specialists don't suffer from alarmism. Until that happens, people like me will be tempted to suppose this article suffers from bias though for no understandable reason. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Its already there - read the lead: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings,[10] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[11][12]" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think I can see the problem - it's this phrase in the lead here: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings,[10] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[11][12]".
- So the word individual has been used to stigmatise quite large numbers of scientifically minded people and make it seem as if their views are marginal, while the article is written on the basis that scientists working on the problem all agree there really is a problem and it's right to be alarmist.
- The trolling I can see is a small number (is it three?) of long-standing editors determined to make this article biased. I just looked at what people were saying in the last month (it's hidden away[1]). It's obvious that there are lots of scientific people (1000s?) who dispute (and some who think they can disprove) the alarmism, and lots of potential editors who would like to properly balance this article. Global Warming may be real, but a close look at what's going on here makes it look like a scam. I'm not the only person who thinks so, far from it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is your definition of "scientific people"? You might want to take a look at scientific opinion on climate change to get an idea of how well-supported the mainstream (IPCC) position is. "Individual" is not stigmatizing - I'm an individual, and proud of it - but entirely correct. And your use of the term alarmism is a bit troubling. The mainstream position is not particularly alarmist. See the FAQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Its already there - read the lead: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings,[10] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[11][12]" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Improving the article requires there be paragraphs that say there are some number of non-specialist scientists who think that the science is not being properly interpreted (human-induced global warming is not proven?) and climate specialists don't suffer from alarmism. Until that happens, people like me will be tempted to suppose this article suffers from bias though for no understandable reason. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, theres ... no ... then .... no .... errr? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Stephan – I’m sorry, thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of related professionals does not correlate with “individual”. Be it the current large number of scientists that have recently come out against the AGW theory (as discussed here and data provided many times) or the large number of likeminded professionals as referenced in the Oregon Petition, “individual is a miss characterization. < Mk > 68.56.189.91 (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The main problem with the debates in the now-archived portion, which I tried to iterate ad nauseum, is that the majority of those disputing global warming entered the talk page debate with either (a) dubious sources, (b) a lack of understanding of climate science, (c) a deep belief that global warming is not an issue, (d) a lack of politeness (which likely alienated some of those who opposed their views from trying to objectively work with them), or some combination thereof. The best way to go about things would be for those with disputes to put them on the table with links to good scientific sources, and for a respectful discussion to occur in which changes may occur to the article. In that way, an adequate discussion can be built, and whatever the result, there is a general benefit of knowledge that can most likely be built into the encyclopedia. It is a slower way of going about things, but I think that especially on a topic like global warming, where opinions are strongly held, forcing debates to be about some concrete piece of scientific evidence would be both useful and important. Awickert (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Let me look at that map of the Near East again..." ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- The main problem with the debates in the now-archived portion, which I tried to iterate ad nauseum, is that the majority of those disputing global warming entered the talk page debate with either (a) dubious sources, (b) a lack of understanding of climate science, (c) a deep belief that global warming is not an issue, (d) a lack of politeness (which likely alienated some of those who opposed their views from trying to objectively work with them), or some combination thereof. The best way to go about things would be for those with disputes to put them on the table with links to good scientific sources, and for a respectful discussion to occur in which changes may occur to the article. In that way, an adequate discussion can be built, and whatever the result, there is a general benefit of knowledge that can most likely be built into the encyclopedia. It is a slower way of going about things, but I think that especially on a topic like global warming, where opinions are strongly held, forcing debates to be about some concrete piece of scientific evidence would be both useful and important. Awickert (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Quick question. Given that "troll" is generally recognized as being a term of derision with the intent to insult the one or ones being referenced here (who are by definition wikipedia editors), does this section violate WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, possibly WP:SOAP, and/or any number of other related policies? --GoRight (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please help me to understand why? I mean this seems to be a clear case of a WP:NPA violation against some subset of the contributors here. Why do you think it is not? And the entire need for such a section seems questionable if one adheres to WP:AGF. Why do you believe these editors are acting in anything other than good faith (which is pretty much implied by the use of the term "troll")? I think some explanation here would benefit those involved and perhaps improve the situation overall, which I assume is the ultimate goal here, correct? --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- True, but if people feel offended by the title, it would be easy to re-name it to something that's more polite and still states that this is basically a "re-boot from generally unproductive discussions" Awickert (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, refer to improving the signal-to-noise ratio if you like. The purpose is to clear rubbish from the page and make room for discussion of the article. --TS 00:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- (@Stephan) See, now this is the type of response that makes it all so confusing for people. You have chosen to focus on the "P" part of that, which would seem fine with me but for some reason when I used the term "AGW scientologists" I was told by some prominent contributors to this very page that THAT was a WP:NPA violation even though there was no specific "P" there either. Indeed, this point was recently brought up in an WP:AN discussion started by Raul. Can you please reconcile these two positions for me, if you can? I am sure that other editors on this page would be interested in the response as well in the interests of avoiding WP:NPA violations all around. --GoRight (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- True, but if people feel offended by the title, it would be easy to re-name it to something that's more polite and still states that this is basically a "re-boot from generally unproductive discussions" Awickert (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please help me to understand why? I mean this seems to be a clear case of a WP:NPA violation against some subset of the contributors here. Why do you think it is not? And the entire need for such a section seems questionable if one adheres to WP:AGF. Why do you believe these editors are acting in anything other than good faith (which is pretty much implied by the use of the term "troll")? I think some explanation here would benefit those involved and perhaps improve the situation overall, which I assume is the ultimate goal here, correct? --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ironically, this is turning into voidness. ¿What does scientologists, trolls and the "P" part has anything to do with improving the article?. --Seba5618 (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The Hadley Centre Albatross
As many people know, I have made many graphics related to global warming, including the introductory chart in this article which is based on data from the Hadley Centre. As some of you know, I also sometimes make imagery for commercial publishers (books and things). A while ago, in relation to a different project, I had an extended discussion with the Hadley Centre regarding their position on commercial use.
The Hadley Centre position, in a nutshell, is that their data is free for private and scientific use but that the commercial use of their data may entitle them to royalties. [2] [3] (page 2)
Their documentation leaves something to be desired. In particular, they distinguish raw data (by which they basically mean weather reports and unfiltered measurements) from "added value products" (which includes basically everything where Hadley Centre resources were used to collate, condense, and interpret the data). But the gist of it is that they believe Crown Copyright gives them control over how the data in "added value products" are used.
This is an unusual position from my point of view. US law does not allow one to control scientific data through copyright. However, the UK is generally amongst the most permissive of nations when extending copyright to all works. Quoting from UK copyright law: "The UK copyright distinctively emphasizes the labour and skill that has gone into the work, which is why some of its basic principles are referred to as the 'Sweat of the Brow' doctrine. This stands in contrast to the usual emphasis on creativity..." Not being an expert on UK law, I can't claim to know if the Hadley Centre position is correct, though I will concede that "labour and skill" is involved in creating a global temperature record. In my discussion with them, they clearly believe they are entitled to financial compensation for the use of their data in commercial imagery. (As an aside, their licensing fees are reasonable and non-discriminatory, so it isn't much of a hardship for real commercial projects.)
However, if one accepts their position, then one is basically forced to conclude that plots using their data are necessarily non-commercial (at least within the jurisdiction of UK law), and hence not "free" in the sense Wikipedia intends.
As a result of this, I have basically decided not to use Hadley Centre data in any future imagery I create for Wikipedia. I hope to provide replacements for all the major images using Hadley Centre data before too much time passes.
However, I am somewhat disappointed with this conclusion since there are several reasons for preferring the Hadley Center temperature series to the major alternatives (e.g. GISTEMP and NCDC), namely a somewhat longer record and better track record at avoiding embarrassing errors. Dragons flight (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I see the potential problem. But by that same reasoning, we could not freely quote the King James Bible (still under crown copyright), or its many derivatives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- What "we" do is yet to be determined. What "I" intend to do is to stop releasing imagery under my name that has an ambiguous status in the UK. Dragons flight (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I fully understand, and of course it's entirely your decision. But HadCrut is the best data set we have, and you are the best visualizer. It's sad that we loose this great resource due to an unfortunate and unclear legal situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- IANAL. But to me the last part of the PDF (on scientific cooperation) reads like the GPL copy-left. As long as its for a scientific purpose, and that the results of the scientific purpose (ie. enriching (such as making a graph)) is available under the same copyright. (ie. can't be commercialized) Then we can use it. That would be compatible with the GPL requirements for Wikipedia - but again IANAL. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if Stephan's legal interpretation is correct, but if it is, then it certainly is not Wikipedia compatible. Specifically, you are not allowed to limit what you can do with Wikipedia content to certain endeavors (like science) while prohibiting it from being used in others. That simply isn't free enough for our purposes. It's an extremely unfortunate situation with no good choices (except to get them to change their policies). Raul654 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia, as far as I understand it, applies copyright according to Florida law, where non-creative collections of data are not protected (to my knowledge). So legally we might be in the clear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if Stephan's legal interpretation is correct, but if it is, then it certainly is not Wikipedia compatible. Specifically, you are not allowed to limit what you can do with Wikipedia content to certain endeavors (like science) while prohibiting it from being used in others. That simply isn't free enough for our purposes. It's an extremely unfortunate situation with no good choices (except to get them to change their policies). Raul654 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- What "we" do is yet to be determined. What "I" intend to do is to stop releasing imagery under my name that has an ambiguous status in the UK. Dragons flight (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Enwiki requires that content be free in the US. Commons requires that it be free in the US and in the country of origin. Dragons flight (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which means that we are good, as far as I can tell. The country of origin of the images is the US (or is it?), where you prepared them from data that is free in the US. Of course this gets lawyerly ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Enwiki requires that content be free in the US. Commons requires that it be free in the US and in the country of origin. Dragons flight (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Met Office have always been a bit cr*p like that; its the govts fault; they want them to look nice and commercial, and try to earn money, even in situations where there is no possible hope of earning money, and it costs more to try to earn the money that it would to just give the data away. They do (or did) similarly dumb things with their climate model. So it goes William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Current Data
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See FAQ entry: "Image X needs updating"
Might not the article benefit by having some reference to current data on Global warming? I don't seem to see much in the article dated to observations since 2005 and most go back to research done at the end of the last millenium. Rktect (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
2009 Updates Needed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New FAQ entry: "Image X needs updating"
I've noticed that nearly all the evidence presented in charts and from panel rulings has upper limits of 2004 or 2005. I believe the charts need to be updated with the newest information, since it is hard to show a trend whilst in the middle of it. Besides, updated information may paint a clearer picture of the theory itself. If you can find more up-to-date information, then work it into this existing article. --Triadian (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- This keeps coming up. A new FAQ entry would be advisable. Raul654 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OR and WP:NOT#NEWS should cover it. In terms of climatology, four years is the blink of an eye. --TS 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I might suggest that the mean temperatures 1994-2004 image is the source of the problem. People see that particular figure and conclude the data is out of date and should be updated. I realize this figure is here to show that the last 20 or so years are significantly warmer than the previous (even if its a 10 year interval), and that a 1998-2008 interval would show no real difference if compared to the same time period as 1994-2004 (just by eye balling the temperature trend).... but I believe this is the source for all those update the data comments. --Snowman frosty (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Etymology
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(A) "Global warming" was not coined in soylet green. (B) There is no need for an etymology section. Raul654 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This article [5] says the first use of the phrase "global warming" was in a 1973 movie called Soylent Green. Is that true? The article also discusses whether to call the phenomenon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- No. I don't know what is the first use, but on December 21, 1969 the NYTimes wrote: "Physical scientist J O Fletcher warns man has only a few decades to solve problem of global warming caused by pollution", so clearly the phrase "global warming" is at least that old. Dragons flight (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The term "deniers" needs to be debated
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not the correct place to discuss global warming in general, or the meaning of the word "denier", which does not appear in the article.
The term “denier” is often used in discussion of this article as well as related material in WP. In the current environment I have a question as to how one should interpret the use of this term ? Does denier refer to:
1.) those persons denying global warming is occurring ?, or…
2.) those persons denying global cooling is occurring ?, or…
2.) those persons who deny that the cycle we are experiencing is a recurring natural cycle (such as defined by Milanovich), or…
3.) those persons who do not deny global warming, but deny the AGW (man-made or induced global cooling) theory ? < Mk > 68.56.189.91 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- See Denialism for a description of the term and its application. The words "deny", "denier" and "denialism" are not used in the current revision of the body of this article, though some of the references use the terms, and there is a section hatnote reference to another Wikipedia article called Climate change denial in which denialism in the context of global warming is discussed. See WP:NOTFORUM for an explanation of why this isn't an appropriate place to get into a discussion not directly related to the content of this article. --TS 17:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Global Warming vs Global Warming theory
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Covered in the FAQ Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This seriously needs to be changed back to Global Warming Theory. Just stating it as fact is unscientific and is further supporting the poor journalism and research that revolves around this issue.--Baina90 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What?^ --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
^Can you be a bit more specific? Changed "back"? The warming is a fact, the explanation is a "scientific theory". This is a well-defined term that is quite different from the vernacular use of "theory" - one reason why "theory" is a word to avoid. --Stephan Schulz
FAQ explination irrelevant
I understand why my point was archived and not open to further discussion. However, the response which is given by the FAQ is simply irrelivant. It states that "the warming is a fact". This I don't dispute, but the Global Warming Theory concentrates on man-made CO2 as the cause for this warming; this is theory.
I realise that I may be coming across as a far-right extremist, I can assure you that I am not, infact I am far from that. The point which I am trying to make is that the title should concentrate on the reasons for the warming and NOT the warming itself.--Baina90 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, this article deals with the phenomenon itself and the different theories that try to explain it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
"Global cooling" should be added to the See Also for historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thustrae (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's in the infobox at the end of the article, together with a lot of other and at least equally important links. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with Baina90. This page deals exclusively with the scientific theory of anthropogenic warming. I would suggest that changing the name to 'Global warming (Anthropogenic)' and the first sentence to 'Global warming is the human induced increase...'. These two changes will contribute to the public understanding of what this article is about; while not diminishing the scientific status. --Gonardia (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Technically, this page describes various aspects of global warming, including its definition, nature, extent, and probable causes and consequences. The latter are described in a theory very much still in development, but that it is anthropogenic is nearly universally agreed-upon, which is why the vast majority of the article describes it from that point of view. The article does present dissenting opinions, but it gives them proper weight. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Typo
In the phrase such as the Ken Caldeira the word "the" should be removed. 192.55.54.37 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Carl D
"Unduly Optimistic?"
The last sentence in the first paragraph of this article now states:
"However, there is significant evidence that the climate models currently in use are unduly optimistic, as they fail generally to include non-linear effects such as the clathrate gun, which may lead to runaway climate change."
I object to this statement residing there and certainly object to it being unsourced. Given the information preceding it, it is a pretty bold claim that needs strong, legitimate sources to back it up. If nobody adds sources, I definitely think it ought to be removed. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that present generation models don't include clathrate gun and the like, but the "unduly optimistic" wording is inappropriate. You can fix it yourself, if I don't do it first. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
True, but good luck getting it changed. They locked this article and the people that control it are unlikely to make any changes. This totaly defeats the point of an open source "free" encyclopedia.--Baina90 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless it supports the global warmers hysteria in which case a whole different set of rules apply 88.109.43.47 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I pointed out that he was quite welcome to make the change himself, so your "locked" accusation is mystifying. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The page has already been satisfactorily changed; thank you. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was entered yesterday at 7:35, 27 January 2009 by Andrewjlockley. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the need for citations. However, IMO this is a classic case where a 'fact' tag should have been used instead of an edit. I've now put a whole slew of citations in, and edited the text to make similar points to those which were stripped. Hopefully there will now be no arguing, but please feel free to put in more citations if you don't think 6 is enough.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- An edited draft is not a reliable source. This article is about Global warming, not about the IPCC, so having a sentence about the process of creating IPCC reports and details about problems with the IPCC reports should absolutely not be in the lead section of the article about global warming. In the text of the article about global warming, yes. In the lead of the various IPCC articles, yes (I'm not sure which article, though). Personally, I don't think it makes sense to use large numbers of sources in the lead is not appropriate. Put one good source in the lead (for information that should be in the lead) and the detailed sources in the body of article. If you contribute to Wikipedia, you must be willing to have people edit your contributions or disagree on the talk page. - Enuja (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I've removed some of the sources used that I did not think were reliable (we're pretty big sticklers for using reliable sources, by which we mean in part "no news articles or blogs" when editors put in things critical about climate change. We must have exactly the same reliable source standards no matter the "perspective" of the sources or how they are used. I don't think the press release is a reliable enough source, but I'm not editing it out myself because I want to get a consensus on this talk page before making any major changes to the lead section. The Calthrate gun hypothesis is mentioned in the next paragraph. I think that the structure without Andrewjlockey's recent contributions to the second paragraph of the lead is a much better structure. Paragraph 1: definition. Paragraph 2: actual temperature changes, scientific consensus on broad outline of views. Paragraph 3: remaining uncertainties (which are Andrewjlockey's recent contributions to the second paragraph). Paragraphs 4 & 5 Adaptation and mitigation. Let's keep the intro as straightforward, simple, readable, and broad as we can. The details should go into the text of the article and into the more detailed articles. - Enuja (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I used the press-release as it's a lot more digestible than a raw paper. I don't agree that the IPCC process shouldn't be commented on here. The IPCC is seen as the most notable global standard for Global Warming projections, but its process means its conclusions are out of date by several years. It's absolutely essential' that the recently-identified risks of runaway climate change are mentioned in the lead of this article otherwise it will seriously misinform readers. I'll have a go at cleaning up the other issues you mentioned to make it compact and readable. BTW, multiple citations are already used in the lead, so I don't see why you singled out my edits for amendment.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, I've tidied it up. I think it's clean, compact, adequately referenced (for a lead) and it reflects the consensus without ignoring the worrying recent evidence. Hopefully people will agree this is basically OK for now - until the next batch of terrifying data comes out! Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with citing sources is this: although a press release is more readable, an article as controversial as Global warming should maintain the gold standard of having only peer-reviewed scientific publications as much as possible. If this gold standard is not upheld, every agency that issues press releases - or worse, ever news agency - becomes fair game, from the apocalyptic to the "global warming isn't anthropogenic" to "it isn't happening".
- On another note, I deleted a sentence from the part of the lead edited by User:Andrewjlockley, as it basically re-stated the previous sentence.
- Awickert (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The current 6 paragraph lead is too long, and the 2nd paragraph is individually too long. Andrewjlockley, this article is in no way, shape, or form the "most important" article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used as an forum for advocacy. I disagree that details about the IPCC report are important on this article. It is far too easy to conflate the actual concerns and science about global warming with a particular organization's periodically released review document, and talking more about the IPCC reports contributes to a conflation of the IPCC with the actual phenomena and science. The IPCC reports are useful review documents, and I think it makes sense to use them as major reliable sources for this article, but detailed discussions of the process of IPCC writing should go into the IPCC articles, not this article. Because this is a high-traffic featured article, I strongly suggest that we use this talk page, not the actual article page, to come up with consensus language for the lead section of this article. I'm going to revert the lead, and then start a new section below to work on the draft of the lead. I changed my mind. I invite anyone to work with me on a draft of lead section on my user sandbox. - Enuja (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC) edited 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll help. And perhaps the box at the top of the talk page that states that potentially contentious edits should be discussed first should include any edit of the lead section. Awickert (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever 'used the article for advocacy' - I've just tried to make sure that glaring omissions in the lead were corrected. The point of a lead is to give an overview, and missing out things like adaptation and feedback effects do no-one any favours. Also, the lead should make clear the 'special status' of the IPCC as the overarching scientific body on the matter, and clearly indicate significant criticism of its work. You can't comprehensively cover the issue without doing so. I'll have a go at your sandbox thingy in a minute. Oh, and if anyone can point out a more important article on wikipedia, then I will happily eat my hat. And coat.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that the "glaring omissions" you are citing haven't reached consensus like the other materials there. Furthermore, it falls into the category of details rather than generalities. Even if the most dire predictions were used, the actual science behind those predictions should be described later on.
- Oh, and "importance" is a difficult concept to define. If you mean "importance" in terms of the subject material, I would contend that the article on the universe would be more important. If you mean ontological or epistemological importance, well . . . the pages on ontology or epistemology are probably more important, as are most other articles in the philosophy portal. If you mean "importance" from a utilitarian, educational standpoint, people are likely to learn more from academically-related articles than from polarizing issues like global warming. If you mean "importance" from a personal safety standpoint, I would contend that the individual can do far more in improving their personal safety and health with articles such as obesity. If you mean from a global safety perspective, more specific pages on how to control and stop global warming are far more useful, as may weapons regarding atomic bombs and nuclear war be. Global warming is important, but it's all in the eye of the beholder. Eebster the Great (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
this can be dismissed immediately, of course. Agreed?
I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss The Register Jan. 28, 2009
Dr John Theon, the retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs who supervised James Hansen -- the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention -- has come out as a skeptic about man-made global warming. "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is... http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=10044&m=12472 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Seba5618 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Er, why? (Original article) Given the man's credentials maybe a little more engagement is called for. Am I missing something? Rd232 talk 15:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Has he published his findings in a peer-reviewed journal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean has he published his findings in a global warmers journal? 88.109.43.47 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "a global warmer's journal". 'Boris' is talking about a peer reviewed scientific journal - you know, the place scientists publish science. Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, if you track it back further, it boils down to two fairly innocent if slightly sceptical email blown out of proportion by Inhofe's media machine[6]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "a global warmer's journal". 'Boris' is talking about a peer reviewed scientific journal - you know, the place scientists publish science. Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean has he published his findings in a global warmers journal? 88.109.43.47 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Dissent among scientists is normal. If all other climatologists completely agreed with Hansen (and most do not) then this would be a significant news story. It wouldn't be something to put into this article, but it would be a story. --TS 07:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- However, this isn't a case of disagreement amongst scientists. Theon stopped being a scienitst ages ago, and is retired even from his admin role William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that he's no longer publishing research. It's not as if this was somebody with a new dataset or an improved model, just a guy who has "kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles." Incidentally the site in the above link seems to be borked, so here is the original Register article, which I now see simply parrots some nonsense from Senator Inhofe. --TS 12:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- So this guy was a scientist but is not now ... was he actually "in charge of NASA" or is that crap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hard to know. Certainly many climate-folk he claims to have been in charge of have never heard of him. I wrote more here [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- So this guy was a scientist but is not now ... was he actually "in charge of NASA" or is that crap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that he's no longer publishing research. It's not as if this was somebody with a new dataset or an improved model, just a guy who has "kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles." Incidentally the site in the above link seems to be borked, so here is the original Register article, which I now see simply parrots some nonsense from Senator Inhofe. --TS 12:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- However, this isn't a case of disagreement amongst scientists. Theon stopped being a scienitst ages ago, and is retired even from his admin role William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Editing lead
The lead section of this article has recently undergone significant changes [8], and I think it needs more discussion and more work. Since this article is high profile (so a bad idea to do lots of draft-style back and forth editing on the article page) and the lead section is so stuffed full of references and the like, (so, not so easy to work on directly here on the talk page) I think it makes sense to use a sandbox to work in. I've offered up my sandbox as a place to work. We've already gotten started, but I suggest that we use this talk page (improving the article is what it is for) to discuss the collaborative changes we're working out in my sandbox. So, everyone is encouraged to go there and edit, and to discuss here the whys and wherefores of particular changes when the edit summary field isn't enough. Handy link: Wikipedia:Lead section
So, to dig in: Andrewjlockley, why the fact tag on the simple, declarative lead sentence that defines global warming and summarizes the article?- Enuja (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing it, I just think that declarative statements need citationAndrewjlockley (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's OK without citation, so long as the info supporting it is covered in the rest of the lead. Awickert (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the lack of citation makes it clear that this is just a summary, just a definition. Essentially, all of the citations in this article back that statement up. Putting a single citation there would invite putting lots of citations there to fully explain the sentence. The fact that it is a declarative sentence is not, to me, convincing that it needs a citation. - Enuja (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's OK without citation, so long as the info supporting it is covered in the rest of the lead. Awickert (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added the very basics of global climate determination to the front of the second paragraph, because I feel that the numbers up front lead readers to glaze over the entire paragraph, and I think that starting out with the very basics is helpful for the naive reader (who we should be targeting this article to, especially as it's the top level article). - Enuja (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the numerical data is best in the body not the leadAndrewjlockley (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with you on this as well. Global warming something in which people are interested in solid numbers, and as such, they should be in the lead, just like a researcher would put numbers for main results in an abstract. Awickert (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- The numbers have been there a very long time. I think it would take a strong argument to convince people to get rid of them entirely. I wouldn't mind if there were absent from the lead, but I'm pretty happy with simply putting them in the second sentence of the second paragraph. - Enuja (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with you on this as well. Global warming something in which people are interested in solid numbers, and as such, they should be in the lead, just like a researcher would put numbers for main results in an abstract. Awickert (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I like Enuja's rearrangement of material - it's more or less exactly how I thought it would make sense to me, when I looked at it.
- I have a question about references: if there is a scientific article and a generally-accessible digest of it, should I list both reverences (1 for verifiability and 1 for accessibility)?
- Awickert (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would add a link to the digest from within the first reference, that way you only need one reference.
—Apis (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)- Brilliant! Thanks, Apis O-tang. Awickert (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would add a link to the digest from within the first reference, that way you only need one reference.
- That's what I do but Enuja's doesn't like it and edits' it outAndrewjlockley (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's true, I don't like multiple citations in the lead, but I could be convinced that they made sense. What I was primarily objecting to was three references that were all the opinion of the same person! One guy, on a book tour, and it gets three separate references in the lead section? That's not okay. Books are sometimes reliable sources, sometimes not, and I don't know if the book in question is reliable or not. I do know we try to avoid news stories, much less book interview news, as references on this article. - Enuja (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- The lead section of this article has recently undergone significant changes which I've largely reverted [9] for reasons which I hope the edit comments make clear William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley I thought we'd agreed that we were going to use the sandbox. I'm going to patially revert them pending agreement on the sandbox version.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me, Andrewjlockley. You've just told a long-time editor and defender of this page that he acted in bad faith. [NOTE: Andrewjlockley removed this section while I was replying.] Do you think it could be possible that he just didn't look at the talk page? Or that he wanted the version in the interim to be like the earlier version until your edits could be decided upon? You see, this started when you added information without discussion to a high-profile controversial article, and while I've been working with you assuming in good faith that you just didn't look at the talk page and were trying to make it better, what he did is no worse than what you did, and is common in an article where changes need to be discussed. Awickert (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not remove comments you make on the talk page, even if you regret making them. It makes the conversation disjointed and not make sense. See Talk_page_guidelines. Awickert (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I now know TP etiquette better. Thx! However, I just edited it, I didn't remove it. I did so before anyone had replied - just a minute or so after a uploaded the badly-written version. Apologies for any offence caused. I don't fully agree with the comment about 'what he did is no worse than what you did' - as I didn't undo anyone's edit when it could have been edited or fact-tagged instead. I've been sticking to the sandbox like a house-trained puppy :-) There's a whole 'runaway climate change' article that can be edited if the concept is controversial.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good - just think before posting in the future - I guess I looked at the page at just the wrong time. The issue is that you added material to the lead section a controversial article without discussion on the talk page first, proper academic citations, or spotless grammar and writing, and with language that (at least, I felt) had some elements of non-neutral climate change activist rhetoric. Now, for example, if claims with the same quality of citations and slight POV were brought up in the lead that said "climate change=lie", it probably would have been undone on sight. So what I feel like is going on is that the lead was brought back to how it was before, until the new sandbox version can come out. Sorry if you feel offended - but the problem is that this is a hugely trafficked page, and the lead section is the most often-read, so it shouldn't be edited without significant thought. Awickert (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken, my work was probably not impeccable BUT the original article ignores geoengineering, runaway climate change and Arctic shrinkage that the IPCC didn't predict. As a whole, it was basically out of date. I think the sandbox article I read a few days ago was a lot better and I hope we can release it soon.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (I meant lead not article when I said out of date)Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK - I'm sure everything will be better in the future. As the last note on this, though, your userpage talks about your personal interest in geoengineering and runaway climate change, so the insertion of a bunch on that into the lead section seemed POV-ish as well, especially considering the aforementioned issues and because runaway climate change is sort of a more extreme misfortune, and (I'm sure you can correct me on this) as far as I know, we're not sure if it will happen and how much it will run away to.
- Take heart though - other than this article, what I've done on Wikipedia (mostly geology) is much simpler, and you sort of jumped into the Amazon's piranha swarm naked by editing a controversial lead right off the bat :). And on another note, I've just finished editing (to my like) the intro. Of course it's toned down, I'm used to writing dispassionate science, but hopefully you can bat it around back to me and we'll get something good.
- Awickert (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've finished editing the lead to my ±happiness, other than the tags. Anyone want to take it up after me? Awickert (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be some confusion here. I thought we'd agreed that we were going to use the sandbox - no. At least, if you're interpreting that as "no edits to the lede here until we agree on the new sandbox version". To be clear, I never agreed to such and wouldn't; I explicitly reject any such idea. And that's true even if by "the lede here" you mean the one I reverted to. Continuing: the original article ignores geoengineering, runaway climate change and Arctic shrinkage that the IPCC didn't predict. As a whole, it was basically out of date. The RAC page is in desperate need of work; I've made a few comments on the talk there, but it needs much much more. Depending on how you define it, its either not going to happen, or just be part of the normal process of cl ch. Throwing in a ref to the scarily-named page in the lede is unacceptable. geoengineering is a minority curiosity at the moment. It deserves a very brief mention, no more.Arctic shrinkage isn't a great page either, overenthusiastic. The idea that the IPCC is out of date is simply wrong; it's being pushed by some people; but then again, others push the idea that IPCC are a bunch of alarmists, and we don't take them seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we should keep the lead section as-is (without recent additions by Andrewjlockey) until we come to a consensus here on the talk page. William M. Connolley's edits were entirely consistent with this approach. As far as the long-term usefulness of this [10] sentence: I've been playing around with the words, and I don't think that explicit scientific criticism of the IPCC belongs on this article: that belongs on the IPCC articles. I've kept "and many climate models omit possible positive feedbacks" in my recent edits, and I think that fits. But the rest of it is essentially off-topic in the lead of the top-level article about the IPCC. What specific arguments do you have to keep it, Andrewjlockey? Do you like the edits I've made, with just keeping the mention of positive feedbacks? We do have this whole article, and as many articles as we care to write, to put as much information as we can about run-away positive feedbacks. That doesn't mean the details should be in this lead. - Enuja (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect to User:William M. Connolley, the science simply does not support your arguments. A detailed and well-referenced critique of your position is made in the Arctic shrinkage and Runaway_climate_change#Current_risk sections. I accept that the runaway climate change article needs work (the current risk section is actually well referenced and carefully tested). The Arctic shrinkage article has been scrutinised by field experts. The simple facts are:
- The IPCC ignored significant feedbacks, especially methane (because their review process is very conservative)
- Their conclusions are therefore failing to predict real-world changes
- The evidence strongly suggests that geoengineering is the only way to prevent the total loss of Arctic sea ice, and the consequential outgassing of methane and resultant +ve feedback.
- Whether you regard this outgassing as the start of a 'runaway' event or not, it's undeniably a positive feedback effect.
I'm not here to state anything that isn't supported by science, but the coverage of global warming on wikipedia is sadly well behind the current scientific evidence. We must not let peer-reviewed scientific evidence get stripped out of the article just because it doesn't conveniently fit with the notion that the IPCC got its sums right last time. The evidence of the Arctic alone clearly demonstrates that the IPCC was in some respects wrong. This is an article about climate science, not about how great the IPCC are. Right now I'm having a go at the new lead. I think it's a massive improvement and with a bit of tweaking I'm sure we can get broad consensus. I really hope no-one then tries to revert it back to a time when the science wasn't as gloomy as it clearly is today.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't saying that positive feedbacks could make things much worse cover all of this current scientific evidence? Yes, the IPCC is conservative. Why do we have to have details about this in the lead section of this article? Differences between observed and IPCC-predicted Arctic shrinkage, naming specific positive feedbacks, and putting uncertainly about local effects in two places are things that I do not think should go into the lead of this article. - Enuja (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've had a go at the sandbox. Doubtless it can be improved, but I think it's got a reasonably neutral POV whilst not ignoring the severe effects predicted or hypothesised. It also mentions the latest data on the Arctic, which is vital as it shows the IPCC was too optimistic. I agree that it would be a lot simpler if the IPCC and the latest science agreed with each other, but they just don't! We must reflect that.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that we should use up-to-date peer-reviewed science instead of the IPCC ... when we mention that specific science. As one example, on Arctic_shrinkage, we should discuss the difference between IPCC models and measured arctic ice extent. However, using the more up-to-date science is not a relevant argument when we are talking about what is the correct level of detail to include in the lead section of this article. - Enuja (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm somewhat skeptical of the suggested massive changes in response to global warming - mainstream climate scientists who I know don't expect anything like ocean anoxia or shutdown of the thermohaline, and the jury is still out on runaway change. It may have been suggested/speculated, but I just don't think that suggestions/speculations should be in the lead. Awickert (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that we should use up-to-date peer-reviewed science instead of the IPCC ... when we mention that specific science. As one example, on Arctic_shrinkage, we should discuss the difference between IPCC models and measured arctic ice extent. However, using the more up-to-date science is not a relevant argument when we are talking about what is the correct level of detail to include in the lead section of this article. - Enuja (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've had a go at the sandbox. Doubtless it can be improved, but I think it's got a reasonably neutral POV whilst not ignoring the severe effects predicted or hypothesised. It also mentions the latest data on the Arctic, which is vital as it shows the IPCC was too optimistic. I agree that it would be a lot simpler if the IPCC and the latest science agreed with each other, but they just don't! We must reflect that.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I created a talk page for the sandbox where I'm going to be reviewing changes and writing notes, because I feel like with 3 of us intensively editing it, toes are going to be stepped on and confusion will ensue (a big section of mine was removed, for example, and then some of the concepts partially added back) unless we keep clear, very specific communication about additions and deletions. I'm going to be using that page for very specific things, while the discussion here seems to be more general. Awickert (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Organization of article
While looking at the general organization of the article for editing the lead, I realized that I think a different order makes more sense. Our current organizational scheme is
- 1 Greenhouse effect
- 2 Solar variation
- 3 Forcing and feedback
- 3.1 Climate variability
- 3.2 Feedback
- 4 Temperature changes
- 4.1 Recent
- 4.2 Pre-human climate variations
- 5 Climate models
- 6 Attributed and expected effects
- 6.1 Environmental
- 6.2 Economic
- 7 Adaptation and mitigation
- 7.1 Mitigation
- 7.2 Geoengineering
- 8 Economic and political debate
- 9 Related climatic issues
How about
- 1 Greenhouse effect
- 2 Temperature changes
- 2.1 Recent
- 2.2 Pre-human climate variations
- 3 Climate models
- 4 Forcing and feedback
- 4.1 Climate variability
- 4.2 Feedback
- 4.3 Solar variation
- 5 Attributed and expected effects
- 5.1 Environmental
- 5.2 Economic
- 6 Adaptation and mitigation
- 6.1 Mitigation
- 6.2 Geoengineering
- 7 Economic and political debate
- 8 Related climatic issues
I think that temperature changes and climate models should be on top (as important, and helpful for understanding the other sections) and that solar variation should be tucked into "forcing and feedback" (as it's a forcing). What do you all think? - Enuja (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see what your point is. My issue in thinking about this is that the solar-greenhouse forcing is what I find as the good first-order way of thinking about the problem, and so it seems intuitive that it goes first. I wouldn't mind temperature changes to be discussed without causality first, though, but I think forcing and feedback should be before climate models, as (shoot, repeating myself) they are the good basic backbone details of climate models. Just my 2 cents. Awickert (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Awickert. I would think the "Adaptation and mitigation" section should have a section on adaptation and a section on mitigation, but maybe that's just me... Geoengineering would then be mentioned under mitigation and not as a separate section. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Andrewjlockley's proposed changes are below. I undid them because he changed them above, which took Enuja's work out of context. Awickert (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
He said:
- 1 Greenhouse effect
- 2 Temperature changes
- 2.1 Recent
- 2.2 Pre-human climate variations
- 3 Climate models
- 4 Forcing and feedback
- 4.1 Climate variability
- 4.2 Feedback
- 4.3 Solar variation
- 5 Attributed and expected effects
- 5.1 Environmental
- 5.2 Economic
- 6 Responses to global warming
- 6.1 Mitigation
- 6.2 Geoengineering
- 6.3 Adaptation
- 7 Economic and political debate
- 8 Related climatic issues
- Geoengineering isn't considered mitigation by most commentators. I've changed the structure above.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- IPCC Working Group III and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program think that geoengineering is an aspect of mitigation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - I will do further work on that point BorisAndrewjlockley (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we have any kind of consensus to change any of the rest of it (Adaptation/Mitigation/Geoengineering or the order of Forcing and feedback, Temperature changes, and Climate models) but I don't see any disagreement about putting the Solar variation section under Forcing and feedback as a subsection. I'm going to integrate the "Climate variation" paragraph with into the section of "Forcing and feedback" before subsections (getting rid of "Climate variation" as a titled subsection). "Solar variation" will be the first subsection, followed by "Feedback" as the second subsection. I will do this after one or two days unless someone has another comment here. - Enuja (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, and makes sense: climate variation as main theme, then 2 sections about it. I'm not totally sure, though, what is mentioned under "feedback": is it only the permafrost? Because if that's it, then we could re-title the section. Awickert (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've checked. Technically, geoeng by greenhouse gas remediation is mitigation, geoeng by solar radiation management is adaptation. So really it makes sense to keep geoeng separate, which is how it's usually considered. I've clarified this point on the adaptation to global warming and mitigation of global warming pages. You can't lump all of geoeng into either, as that's just plain wrong. Can we get the structure into the sandbox, as I can't keep track of what people are meaning about it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
First Graph
The first graph in this article should be updated to show the 0.325C temperature anomaly from Hadley Center for 2008. Dan Pangburn (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, now that the data is finally in we should do that. But see Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#Image_X_needs_updating and Talk:Global_warming#The_Hadley_Centre_Albatross on this page. Our preferred volunteer has pointed out that the Hadley data is not free (in the GFDL sense) in the UK (although we believe it is free in Florida, where the Wikipedia servers are located), and thus has unvolunteered. We need to find someone with similar skill for this year's update. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am willing to create the same graphic with GISS data this weekend (I need to do that for my own website anyway). I'll let others decide whether they prefer that approach, or if someone else wants to take responsibility for making Hadley based graphics going forward. Dragons flight (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)