imported>Nereo Preto |
imported>Sandy Harris |
| (344 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{checklist | | {{subpages}} |
| | abc = Global warming | | Rather surprised to find no comments on such a potentially controversial topic. I've edited this fairly aggressively and welcome any comments. There are some broken links still, and some updates would be appropriate.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 13:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
| | cat1 = Earth Sciences
| | :I don't get to follow this debate much, but do I understand correctly that the terminology is turning toward [[Global climate change]] rather than Global warming so as to not confuse those who don't understand why they might be getting colder. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
| | cat2 =
| |
| | cat3 =
| |
| | cat_check = n
| |
| | status = 2
| |
| | underlinked = y
| |
| | cleanup = n
| |
| | by = [[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 08:23, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Climate change?==
| | ::I've made a redirect, but they may be two different things, so feel free to correct me. The question is whether we would want to move this article to [[Global climate change]] instead. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
| Shouldn't this be under "climate change"? This may be purely semantic, but if global warming is a cyclic phenomenon, then it seems we would only have periods of of warming, followed by periods of stabilization, followed by more warming (i.e. it would only ever get hotter). But this article describes periods of worming alternating with periods of cooling. Since it would be wasteful to have a separate article on global cooling, one article should address both under a holistic title. Cheers! [[User:Brian Dean Abramson|Brian Dean Abramson]] 23:47, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| :When I think of 'global warming' the evidence for warming being related to human activity comes to mind, rather than the general phenomenon of cyclical warming. Shouldn't this page more obviously point to information about current climate change? [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 00:22, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | | :::I think that 'climate change' is a vague term which most often pops up to appease global warming deniers. It shouldn't be used unless the article is about all forms of change in the climate - natural or unnatural, cooling or warming, pressure patterns for whatever reason, etc. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::You're both right, of course. Perhaps an article on [[climate change]] or [[climate cycles]] would be better than what I have. As for the role of human activity, I propose an article on [[Anthropogenic global warming]] which would present the most popular current theories; and which would present any evidence in favor of these theories, as well as any facts which contradict them.
| | == Climategate? == |
|
| |
|
| ::But Larry said it's controversial, so should we even get into this at all? I'm a new writer here, and maybe I should wait until I have a few "approved" articles under my belt before tackling a hard subject like this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:09, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| | Why is there no mention of this controversy? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy]. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :::Clearly your history precedes you ! But i'd say there is no harm in getting started. The climate editors can always choose not to approve it, right? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 10:15, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | | :Not sure whether or how to handle it. This refers to a Wikileaks release of leaked e-mails from staff of the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia between academics involved in climate research, They included e-mails that were extremely disparaging about skeptical scientists, e-mails that favoored resisting calls to make all data and analyses openly available, and e-mails that discussed ways of presenting data to most effectively highlight the climate changes - these e- mails used words like "trick" to describe presentational techniques. After the relevations there were several inquiries into the CRU that endorsed the science and the conclusions but criticised the lack of openness. It's an issue about the politics/sociology of science, but I guess I thought it really doesn't cast any light on global warming - unless you're a conspiracy theorist.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
| :Is it really controversial, though? It is a subject that has been heavily politicized in recent years, but that's not the same thing. This isn't my field, but it's my impression that whatever scientific controversy there may have been is all but settled. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 09:37, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::If it had been settled, then there would be no more controversy. The reason some people are still touting anthropogenic global warming theory over the scientifically established natural warming theory, is that the science of natural warming is not settled. Some very prominent journals have even taken stands against natural warming; one even refused point blank to publish an anti-anthropogenic paper - after it had passed peer review - on the grounds that would be "of no interest" to their readers. | | ::It depends whether this article is about the science of global warming and whether it's happening (clue: yes) or whether it is really about the way the debate over global warming has occurred. I think the former for the reason Gareth points out above. The UEA 'controversy' could be covered elsewhere in an article about the political responses to global warming. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::When the facts are all laid out clearly, then the theories which are shown to be in accordance with the facts will eventually become accepted. Until then, wishful thinking, prejudice and partisanship will prevail. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:54, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | | ::::The scientists in question above were investigated and their data was found to be sound. Unfortunately, scientists and mathematicians use the word "trick" to mean something different than lay persons. For example, for very small angles, sin(theta) ~= theta, a valid true "trick" that physicists use very often when the fourth or fifth decimal place does not matter. It was this type of trick that they were referring to. As scientists, they did try to present their findings in the most favorable terms, but did so in a mathematically and scientifically reliable fashion. As to withholding some data, that is also valid as they are working on long-term projects, and the collection of that data was expensive and will be used in the future. It is true that they used less than flattering terms to describe some of their adversaries, but whose email is completely PC these days? That is merely unprofessional behavior brought into the light. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :::I agree - "settled" is a loaded term which implies that no open questions rationally remain on the subject. As an example, I'd say it is "settled" that the Holocaust occurred in Germany in the 1940s, and anyone who denies that it happened is speaking irrationally. Likewise, it is "settled" that temperatures are rising, and I think we can all agree that humans necessarily have some impact on this, but it is not "settled" whether the human contribution is akin to throwing a bucket of water into a rainstorm, or whether it ''is'' the rainstorm. I am inclined to think it is the latter - but I have no expertise in climatology! [[User:Brian Dean Abramson|Brian Dean Abramson]] 11:11, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | | :::::Not to mention there has been numerous investigations done: by the university, by the British government (through the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) and by Penn State, which have said it was all manufactured. Nothing wrong with having an article on it ([[Wikipedia]] does) but probably not something to be focussed on heavily inside the main global warming article. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 09:08, 11 May 2011 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| ::::Well, let's not say "settled" (= it would be irrational to question it) but "there is a growing consensus among climatologists" (this is either factual or not, and is capable of being documented). I don't think the choice is between "facts" and "partisanship" -- the Earth's climate is an enormously complex thermodynamic system, and as we seek to understand its workings, it's to be expected that there will be some differences in inetrpretation among experts who study it. We can't speak of "facts" here in any absolute sense, but we can accurately report how current climate data is collected, analyzed, and used to support the prevailing views out there. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 11:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| | == Plausible-looking criticism == |
| :::::The basic concepts of global warming are well-agreed upon within the scientific community. There is no question among them that the Earth's global mean temperatures have been rising since the mid-1800s, humans are the primary cause of this warming, and continued warming is expected given the current trends. None of this should be downplayed in this article. My regards, [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 22:22, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| Given that this issue is not settled even though some sources report signficant asymmetries of opinion, any science historian could tell you that these issues have a shelf life. Bias is another problem. If someone argues against an issue and that opinion is unpopular, chances are it will either be invalidated or supported. My point, call it a bias if you will but those biases are an integral part of science. My solution is that the various approaches be dealt with and their positions be identified. This will ensure that the articles--which will get rather large unless broken up into schools of thought--will not have a shelf life. In other words, there is no reason why we can not track the arguments. They are part of the history of science and the very nature of enquiry. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 15:55, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| | I am not certain this is valid, but it seems worth pointing out. [http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 20:45, 9 May 2011 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| == Fred Singer ==
| | :Looks like the usual denial to me. Now if it were from a site called, say, environmentalpost.com... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 21:34, 9 May 2011 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| I don't think that Fred Singer (see a brief outline on him [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer here]) should be quoted -- or if so, should be the ''only'' one quoted, about climate change. Though he clearly has some scientific qualifications, he's a bit out of his field, as well as far, far out of the current scientific consensus among climatiologists. Of course, in the interests of neutrality, his views may well deserve mention somewhere in this entry, but not as a sole authority. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 10:42, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| | == Doonesbury == |
| | | [http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/09/25] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 04:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
| :He has a PhD in physics, and he got the satellite program that records earth's climate from space. He also writes clearly, has published peer-reviewed articles, and is retired. He is beholden to no one, and no threat of "withdrawing funds" can influence his work.
| |
| | |
| :We can also quote active university scientists like [[Richard Lindzen]] (MIT) and [[Sallie Baliunas]] (Harvard).
| |
| | |
| :The latest poll I saw of climatologists indicates much less than overwhelming support for anthropogenic global warming theory.
| |
| :*A 1997 survey by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44 to 17 percent. [http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA218.html]
| |
| | |
| :Better yet, we can check the papers these scientists cite in the popular treatments and double-check everything. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:49, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Well, a PhD in physics doesn't necessarily a ''climatologist'' make, though it may make a perfectly good physicist. But my understanding of our [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|neutrality policy]] is that we should reflect the current state of knowledge in the field, state where there are well-known points of disagreement, and if two reasonably valuid sides are seen to exist, say as much and give some account of each. I don't think we're in the business of conducting polls among scientists (or interpreting such polls); that's not how scientific knowledge works. The entry should outline the nature, hsitory, etc. of global climate, show significant recent research, and summarize the range of views -- not excluding, but certainly not focusing exclusively on, global warming skeptics. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 11:08, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::p.s the poll you cite was conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think-tank that lobbies against those who feel global warming is a problem. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 11:11, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::::I think Singer can be quoted, but the article should note his obvious bias. Indeed, Singer is a very knowledgeable man while egregiously biased and narrow-minded. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 17:56, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Useful links == | |
| | |
| There are good starting points for this argument. Two I may suggest are:
| |
| | |
| [http://www.realclimate.org/ Real climate], a blog held by top-level scientists, some involved in the IPCC (link below)
| |
| | |
| [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html The IPCC 4th report], document of a panel, including the best climate scientists around, on the current state of knowledge about recent global warming.
| |
| | |
| Both are pro-anthropogenic, I don't know links to contrarians.
| |
| | |
| --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 11:33, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :A more more moderate Web site on the topic of global warming [http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ World Climate Report]. They're not contrarians, ''per se'', as they do accept the basic notions of global warming. However, they have serious doubts about the expected effects and the amount humans have contributed to global warming. The site, like RealClimate, is run by scientists. I don't think there are any serous Web pages or blogs that explicitly deny global warming that warrant mentioning, but I could be wrong. Cheers. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 22:29, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| [http://www.realclimate.org/ Real climate] just posted a terrific list of links for beginners-to-experts who want to learn about Global Warming [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ here]. I will take advantage of these links for a few edits in the next few days. I'll work on historical record first. --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 10:26, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I need some help about copyright. Does someone understand if we can use figures from the IPCC reports? Copyright infos are [http://www.ucar.edu/legal/terms_of_use.shtml here], but I'm not sure it says we can post their figures in our article. Any ideas? --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 03:40, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::I doubt you'd be able to use them from that site. However, there's quite a few free images at http://www.globalwarmingart.com/. ~ [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 12:35, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Scientific opinion ==
| |
| | |
| There's an article at Wikipedia summarizing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change scientific opinion on climate change], that might be worth consulting. If nothing else, it illustrates that there is widespread support in the scientific community for the idea that human activity has had a significant effect on climate change. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 11:41, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :I don't think we should rely on wikipedia for anything. Also, should we be considering scientific "opinion" or "evidence"? Things can be observed and recorded but to have an opinion is another.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:23, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::I don't think anyone is ''relying'' on Wikipedia here for anything beyond a handy summary of the current views of the major climatologists and professional associations. The sense of "opinion" here is expert, reasoned opinion consistent with a reading of available data, not the scientists' personal opinions. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 12:31, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::Ok, just wanted a clarification. All is well. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:40, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Proposed move==
| |
| | |
| {{civil}}
| |
| | |
| could we all start to re-write what we said here please?
| |
| | |
| == Possible layout ==
| |
| | |
| To get this article started, we should probably start with a good layout. I propose the following:
| |
| | |
| *'''Intro'''
| |
| :Summarizes the entire article concisely.
| |
| *'''Attribution'''
| |
| :What causes global warming?
| |
| :*'''Greenhouse effect'''
| |
| ::A bit on the GHE
| |
| :*'''Sun's role'''
| |
| ::A bit on the Sun's role as discussed in the scientific literature and in adherence with the [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|neutrality policy]]
| |
| *'''Effects'''
| |
| :What has global warming caused and what can we expect from continued warming?
| |
| *'''Mitigation'''
| |
| :Discussion of mitigation
| |
| | |
| Thoughts? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 00:30, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Great!
| |
| | |
| :This implies we are talking of "recent global warming", and not about natural climate variability in geologic times. I believe it's the right direction.
| |
| | |
| :May I suggest to add a brief chapter about natural climate variability, as seen in geological records (e.g. the Vostok ice core, but much older examples also exist). Also, [[Greenhouse effect]] already exists, so we might keep the chapter short and give a link. --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 03:01, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::Yeah, I think a good summary of previous [[climate change]] would provide some useful context. We could also summarize the [[greenhouse effect]] article to briefly explain how it works and its relationship to global warming. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 10:43, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Outside views of this article ==
| |
| | |
| For those just tuning in, you may want to look at this [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/citizendium_crp_or_what.php harsh critique] of this global warming article, based partly but not entirely on an earlier version. See also the comments discussion there. [[User:David Hoffman|David Hoffman]] 18:43, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :Indeed, bur Dr. Connolley fails note this article is less than a week old. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 20:18, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| I'm afraid those guys are fundamentally right. Our article is still too weak to compete with hundreds of other entries available in the web. We are talking here of an hot argument, the IPCC 4th report (the ultimate source for this topic) is about 1000 pages of good science about global warming and is available for free in the web. We are offering a mere half-a-page, with statements far from state-of-the-art here and there. It should be my duty to edit "less gently" (a comment in the blog cited above), but -for personal reasons-, I'll be able to work on it only after May, 24th (sorry).
| |
| | |
| On the other hand, the article is just started and we desperately need some climatologists. I'll post there, hope they understand.
| |
| | |
| Thanks to all contributors, anyways. Continue to be bold... and read the IPCC report. [[Ciao]]! --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 01:58, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :I'll Try working on it more in the mean time. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 13:15, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::One of the problems is assuming that the UN can be the ultimate source of scientific truth. What makes anyone in this project regard their IPCC assessments as authoritative? One assessment is contradicted by the next. Scientists quit after having their work misinterpreted. Unauthorized changes are made in a draft after it is approved by scientists.
| |
| | |
| ::Science is not determined by voting on it. We get our scientific knowledge when researchers allow their data and methods to be examined by others. If no one can replicate their work, it's considered "[[junk science]]" and discarded, like [[cold fusion]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:42, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::Science is determined by the scientific method -- a method which, contrary to some of the rhetoric here, quite often produces results which do not conform to the desire for absolute truths either way. The common statement about scientific theories, "it's just a theory" demonstrates the fundamental misunderstanding at work. With as enormously complex a system as earth climates, there are bound to be different theories, models, better or worse sources of data, and a certain level of indeterminacy as with any such massive array of thermodynamic systems. Nevertheless, there is a very clear and solid scientific consensus at the moment that human activity is a significant factor in the current warming trend. What we need to do is not to quote polls, but to have one, and preferably more than one, credentialed, representative climate scientists working on this entry. Their expertise will better address these issues than all of the well-meaning discussion by those of us -- myself and Ed Poor included -- who are not experts in this area. Otherwise we risk having an entry that others will point to as a source of embarrassment. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 14:50, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::::Mr. Poor, the scientific academies of every industrialized nation and then some have recognized the IPCC as consensus builder. But do not be mistaken, the IPCC is not making their information up. The information presented by the IPCC is the independent research of hundreds, if not thousands, of leading scientists and published in renowned journals such as ''Science'' and ''Nature''. If you're looking for evidence, look at their papers. It's becoming rather robust and clear. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 17:46, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::I'd rather you would summarize the "evidence" of those papers and place them in the article. The endorsements of the academies on this point are not relevant, unless you want to argue that when the same academies endorsed [[eugenics]] it made any difference.
| |
| | |
| ::::If something can be stated clearly, and then compared to observed facts, it is a scientific theory. All else is [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::On the contrary, Ed, there are many things that can be stated clearly, but where the preponderance of the evidence may take some time to become clear. For example, Einstein's theories of relativity, for instance, were very readily and clearly stated, but we are still today, as we have for more than a century, finding new ways of understanding them through different kinds of observations and experiments. As for your ''ad academiam'' attack, saying that because academy 'X' once endorsed exploded idea 'Y" that we should just dismiss their views forever on all issues, that's just a sort of posturing, not a real argument. In cases where there is a clear preponderance of informed, expert scientific views, as published in refereed journals, as there certainly is in the area of climate change, we should certainly say so, explain why the vast majority of people who have studied this field have this view, while at the same time of course acknowledging that there are some dissident views out there. A true scientist is always open to having her/his views changed by new studies, new evidence -- but we, as an encyclopedia, have a duty to represent the ''current'' state of knowledge here accurately. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 17:52, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::This discussion shouldn't go too much in the direction of what science is I think. Can we go back to the reliability of the IPCC reports? My point of view is there is not, at present, any other source as authoritative as the IPCC. Reasons are (1) the wide range and number of scientists involved; (2) the huge literature called in support of the report; (3) the positive feedback from policy makers, who were instead expected to reject the results because of their unconveniency.
| |
| ::::::I'm not saying that the IPCC report is perfect (science never is), but I couldn't find anything better in the web or in the scientific literature. If better or complimentary sources really exist, they should be suggested in the /* Useful links */ section, so the post can become a useful help for contributors.
| |
| ::::::For what references are concerned, the best article should refer to scientific publications directly rather than to summarizing reports, even if the last are good as the IPCC report is. At the moment, however, the IPCC report is the best review of climate science around. It is reasonable that contributors will find much easier to refer to the IPCC report, and track down citations only in a second time.
| |
| ::::::--[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 03:57, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| What a laugh. I was pointing out the fallacy of [[appeal to authority]], but instead *I* got slammed with a [[personal attack]] in the form of a false accusation of [[argument ad hominem]]. How desperate are the pro-AG warmers?
| |
| | |
| And what happened to "Let's tell both sides of the story?" Are we trying to create a "consensus article" here? Or a neutral one?
| |
| | |
| I have several questions:
| |
| #Larry, does the Citizendium project endorse any particular form of The Scientific Method? If so, which one?
| |
| #If not, then is it the policy of this project merely to list the individuals and groups which endorse or condemn the various viewpoints on political controversies? And does this include political controversies over what the '''scientific facts''' are; and over which theories explaining these facts are true or false?
| |
| #In other words, do we take a "Scientific Point Of View" like Wikipedia, where our project endorses whatever some percentage of scientists or preponderance of scientific groups says?
| |
| | |
| I have a few comments. I would hope that if we as writers with some lay background in science cannot agree on (1) what the facts are or (2) what theories best explain these facts - then we would simply express the major points of view '''without''' drawing any conclusion about which should be considered the most correct '''at all'''.
| |
| | |
| I daresay we can't even agree on what percentage of climate scientists agree with, are undecided on, or disagree with ANY of the various points in the global warming controversy, such as:
| |
| #Was 1999 the warmest year in recorded human history?
| |
| #*Or in the last 1,500 years?
| |
| #Was there a worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]], as the UN's assessment previously stated?
| |
| #*Or is arch-AGW advocate [[Michael Mann]]'s [[hockey stick graph]] correct, as the UN's more recent assessment stated?
| |
| #Has there been significant, periodic, natural warming (and cooling!) over the last 900,000 years - all over the world (not just in Europe)?
| |
| #If the "climate models" are correct, should we see more warming in the middle atmosphere than at the surface?
| |
| #*If so, but we don't see this, does this mean the models are wrong and AGW is unproven (or even disproved)?
| |
| #*And if that would disprove (see [[Falsification]]) the AGW theory, what sort of warming has been observed in the middle atmosphere compared to the surface?
| |
| | |
| Note that I am not asking what the various contributors to this article believe, nor am I asserting anything or arguing anything myself. I am only wondering aloud what proportion of climate scientists have taken a position for or against these ideas (or have declared themselves undecided).
| |
| | |
| Democrats and Greens (see also [[Environmentalists]]) state that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" on all these points - or at least on the overall conclusion. Republicans, conservatives and several independent apolitical scientists say (1) that there is NO CONSENSUS among scientists about these points and (2) that there are dozens of peer-reviewed, published scientific papers in leading journals that DISPROVE each of the key assumptions of the pro-AGW arguments.
| |
| | |
| Larry, maybe I was wrong to open this Pandora's Box. Maybe Citizendium is not prepared to handle one of the world's top political controversies. Maybe we can't agree how to write about it. Maybe NPOV can't get us to '''agree to disagree''' even about whether the global warming issue is "political" or "scientific", let alone whether there is a "scientific consensus" or "the science is not settled".
| |
| | |
| I did not intend to open a can of worms. If you want to me shut up (or withdraw the article), I'm willing to do so. In fact, I'll do whatever you tell me while I'm here. I'm an "ignorant, easily led Christian", so just give me my orders! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:53, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| {{nocomplaints}}
| |
| :Mr. Poor, maybe if you did not delete the science section, you may have very well found your answers. First, however, 1998 (not 1999) is said to be the warmest year on record, but this was also the year of a rather extreme El Niño. For this reason, 2005 is typically regarded as the warmest year on record. Second, It's unlikely the MWP was in fact global. And if you consider the WMP be to be a period of typically higher temperatures, then, yes, it did occur. Third, of course. No one disputes this. It bears little relevance on the Industrial age warming, however. Fourth, if the models are incorrect, this does not mean global warming isn't happening, no. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 12:15, 28 May 2007 (CDT) (Edit: Sorry, forgot to sign.)
| |
| | |
| ::I'd like to answer some points raised above. First of all, could the previous comment be signed please? I assume you forgot the signature in absolute good faith, of course! It's just "you" is an impolite way to call you... (I suppose you should cancel this line as soon as you post your signature) (...so it was you? Sorry if I called you "you"...)
| |
| :::Was there a worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]], as the UN's assessment previously stated?
| |
| ::As far as I know, no. The MWP seem to be not global in extent, but actually this is a very difficult issue. The main reason for this difficulty is, the climate shift called Medieval Warm Period seem to be much smaller than, e.g., the present one, hence the difficulties in characterizing it.
| |
| :::Or is arch-AGW advocate [[Michael Mann]]'s [[hockey stick graph]] correct, as the UN's more recent assessment stated?
| |
| ::Yes it is, substantially. There were problems raised with the statistics used to build the curve, but further investigations ended up witht the conclusion that yes, the "hockey stick" is the temperature curve you get from land-based and satellite instrumental data. cf. Hopkins, 2007 - Climate sceptics switch focus to economics, Nature, v. 445, pp. 582-583.
| |
| :::Has there been significant, periodic, natural warming (and cooling!) over the last 900,000 years - all over the world (not just in Europe)?
| |
| ::Not sure about their global significance, but yes, Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles exist. As many other natural climate shifts, even more terrible. This, however, has no bearing with the issue of Global warming. After the 8200 y bp event, climate (as described by global temperatures) was rather stable. The first substantial shift in global temperatures begun with the 20th century.
| |
| :::there are dozens of peer-reviewed, published scientific papers in leading journals that DISPROVE each of the key assumptions of the pro-AGW arguments
| |
| ::One should start with a citation, and show how it compares with other papers. But for my understanding of literature, there are hundreeds of papers disproving each of these negative analyses.
| |
| ::More generally, there is no problem in discussing science. A good start might be posting a comment on a specific topic (e.g., role of solar forcing? One of the most controversial points) and how it could be shown to disprove AGW. Such post should be supported by literature, papers are better than web pages because were peer-reviewed, but a good web page could do it as well in the beginning. Then of course the scientific argument is to be discussed scientifically. It cannot be like "someone say this, we must let him room in the article". If "someone"'s points were then disproved by scientific argumentation in published papers, mr. "someone" is not worth a citation. Can we agree on this?
| |
| ::--[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 12:12, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Stay focused on the issue==
| |
| Hi all, I have removed some content above just so we can get a fresh start. I am making no judgements concerning content, but see that perhaps some miscommunication may be occurring. Please keep it professional. No-one expects everyone to agree, but lets keep the tone scholarly and the only arguments should be those related to global warming please. This is not a warning to anyone in particular at this point. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 20:37, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Snowball earth ==
| |
| | |
| I thouht that the snowball earth theory was still somewhat controversial. We need an expert in this field to clarify this beore we include snowball earth in the article. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 15:37, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :It's sort of controversial, but I think you'll find most scientists agree with the major parts of the theory. At any rate, I'm sure there are proper references that could be found for sentence. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 16:43, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| It's not my field, so I'll certainly defefr to th judgement of others, but I wonder if the article shouldn't say something like "it is widely accepted that..." (with appropriate references, of course). [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 18:12, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Snowball Earth is not so important. It is just I thought we need some extreme example to clarify how climate changes naturally. That huge glaciations occurred in the Precambrian, this is pretty much accomplished. That all the planet was covered by ice, this is still disputed (central parts of the oceans may have been still exposed). Anyone having another good example is welcome to change the sentence! --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 11:39, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Page move + Ed Poor ==
| |
| | |
| It looks like we have a lot more than we bargained for, unless the Citizendium higher-ups actually do act as they say. Needless to say, we ought not let [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page Conservapedia's] administrators make this encyclopedia their mirror. I find Ed Poor's edits rather unconstructive, heavily biased, and without foundation. Apparently, science has no involvement in global warming. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 20:57, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Climatology as a science ==
| |
| | |
| #What are its accomplishments, if any?
| |
| #Which of those accomplishments, if any, have achieved practical use in the world outside the science?
| |
| #Is it more than just a bunch of people studying computer models (which it sometimes seems to be)? What are the accomplishments of those models, if any? How do they compare with the accomplishments of other computer models?
| |
| #Has the field had any scandals like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk THIS] scientific one and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellesiles THIS] scholarly one?
| |
| #What guards against such scandals in climatology?
| |
| | |
| In other words, why should non-climatologists give climatology any credibility, how much credibility should they give it, etc.? [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 20:51, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I don't see the point of attacking an entire field of study here -- the false claims of two scientists ought not indict an entire field! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 21:00, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Hey, I'm just asking about the field, which doesn't seem to be a very solid one. [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 21:05, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I'm not a climatologist, but I had to read some scientific papers by climatologists. I don't think the value of an entire field of science is worth a discussion, though. Some climatologists did interesting works (at least from the point of view of an academic like me), some of these works are even exciting. I suppose some climatological papers are crap, but hey, crap creeps out from everywhere if you look close enough!
| |
| :I'm not sure practical applications are necessary to say a science is good. Take Einstein's general relativity: awfully good science, but no practical applications...
| |
| :And, finally, about what guards against scandals in climatology. Well, every scientist do. Scientists want to publish papers. If there's crap around, the easiest way to publish is to comment on that crap. I believe bad science has always a hard time to survive, science is in fact continuously under scrutiny. "Bad" science that survived for long wasn't probably so bad, or problems were so difficult to spot that even the authors couldn't see them. Another classical example: Newton's physics was substantially wrong, but it took Einstein to get it (more) right. It was science, though, and good science of course.
| |
| :--[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 01:45, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::What separates climatology from astrology? Both study natural phenomena, then make predictions about the future. There is no doubt that astrologers basic data are accurate; the movement of the stars and planets has been studied for centuries, and the observations are not open to question. By comparison, climatologists' data is very, very shaky. (Studied by not-so-solid methods, studied not very long, not universally agreed on, etc.) I leave it to others to show the validity of their predictions from this not-so-solid data, but my sense is that those predictions are less reliable than those of astrologers.
| |
| | |
| ::What separates climatology from Newtonian physics? The measurements of Newtonian physics are accurate, repeatable, and independently verifiable by almost anyone. Those of climatology are not. The practical applications of Newtonian physics are legion, and prove the validity of the science. As far as I know, climatology has a zero on that score.
| |
| | |
| ::When writing articles based on the work of climatologists, one should avoid starting from "climatology is believable because it is a science" as far as I can see, it is not a very solid one. Its accomplishments are analogized [http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/ HERE]. [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 06:57, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::I don't believe that it's within the purview of an encyclopedia to reject an entire field of scientific study. Astrology is not science, or even a pseudoscience, really, the comparison makes no sense. Climatology seems less "reliable" than Newtonian physics because it is *much* harder to limit the variables and the systems (chemical, thermodynamic) are many orders of magnitude more complex than, say, a simple mechanical system such as a wheel on an incline. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 07:15, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::I'm not attacking climatology, or rejecting it. I'm just asking to see some of its accomplishments. That should be easy, shouldn't it?
| |
| | |
| ::::Not only does climatology ''seem'' less reliable than Netwonian physics, but as far as I can tell, it has no practical accomplishments whatsoever. Complexity doesn't excuse that. Obscure journal articles don't make up for it.
| |
| | |
| ::::The comparison with astrology makes considerable sense: both fields study data from the world of nature, and then they make predictions based on what they see. (And, as stated above, astrological data is orders of magnitude more precise, reliable, and widely-agreed-on than climatological data.) What doesn't make sense is giving unconditional credibility to climatological predictions because they are "scientific." What IS it that makes them credible? [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 08:39, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :::::Well basically everything we know about climate comes climatology, and that's quite a bit. We now understand historical climate fairly well, and we're able to predict future climate fairly well. Climatology has already identified global warming and have identified it as a big problem; it's now up to the rest to listen to them. They identified gaping holes in our ozone, and that problem has been exceedingly reduced. Climatology has brought benefits to agriculture, and other areas that impact everyday life. You may want to read [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm this]. You might get something out of it. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 12:12, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| : Two examples. Predictions on global warming 1988 match actual global warming: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
| |
| : A second comes from deep time. Using GCM, Kutzback and Gallimore (Kutzbach, J.E., and Gallimore, R.G., 1989, Pangaean climates: Megamonsoons of the megacontinent: Journal of Geophysical research, v. 94, p. 3341–3358.) suggested that huge monsoons were active at pangean times (e.g., Permian, Triassic, Jurassic). Later, geologists found evidence that monsoons were present in the tropical belt of Pangaea, even in localities where they shouldn't have been found with monsoons as strong as today (e.g., Dubiel, R.F., Totman Parrish, J., Parrish, J.M., and Good, S.C., 1991, The Pangaean megamonsoon – evidence from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Colorado plateau: Palaios, v. 6, pp. 347–370; Loope, D.B, Rowe, C.M., and Joeckel, R.M., 2001, Annual monsoon rains recorded by Jurassic dunes: Nature, v. 412, p. 64–66). Note that I'm not climatologist, so I have immediate access to a rather limited set of examples.
| |
| : I suggest we should stop discussing the merits of climatology here.
| |
| : About astrology, data of course are good, as they are astronomical data and predictions, the problem with astrology is that the way data are interpreted brings to wrong results. Astrology is not science because wrong results are not a problem to astrologists. In science, wrong results are real problems and imply either the data were wrong, or the interpretation (or the theory used for interpretation) is wrong. But, again, this has nothing to do with Global warming.
| |
| : --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 11:30, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Controversy ==
| |
| | |
| Well, I suppose the article move was inevitable! My own view is that the claim that global warming is controversial is itself controversial -- but I'm going to bow out of this whole area and go back to work in the fields of literature and history -- where, at least, I know a hawk from a handsaw! I hope and trust that others at CZ will bring enough expert opinion here to, as it has in other instances, manage the admirable and difficult balaning act of blending expertise, neutrality, and scope of views [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 20:59, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == "claim"? ==
| |
| | |
| Global warming is a solid fact, it ''does exist'' and the scientific community does agree it exist. The temperature did rise, and it was because of carbon emission. It's undeniable and common-sense. Please move it back to "global warming", we have to do better than Conservapedia, alas! [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 21:25, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :Agreed - and I was about to do so, but Larry beat me to it. :-) Can we please avoid moving controversial pages without discussion. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 23:57, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Ed's 'Global warming period' article==
| |
| Everyone have a look at [[global warming period]], which Ed Poor has recently created. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 23:59, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Notice that Ed took the science section from this article and created the [[Global warming period]] to separate the two. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 00:04, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :The article has been deleted. --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 01:31, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Moved back ==
| |
| | |
| I've moved the article back to "global warming" from "global warming controversy." Obviously, it is possible to discuss any controversy about X in an article about X. We might have, in addition to [[global warming]], an article about the controversy surrounding global warming. But whatever we do, we won't simply redirect the former to the latter, so that there is no more to be said about global warming than the controversy. That in itself is quite obviously contrary to our [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]].
| |
| | |
| I've taken a break today (Saturday) and am just checking in before going to bed--or else I might add more here. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:59, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I've reverted edits of 27/05. Sorry for the drastic move.
| |
| :The edits, however, mostly introduced statements which are substantially wrong. It was easier for me to start over from a reasonably good version rather than edit all.
| |
| :The text in [[Global warming period]] is now back in [[Global warming]]. The article [[Global warming period]] should thus be cancelled, also because there is no such thing as a ''global warming period''. I kind-of understand what the concept is meant to be, but than either his name is ''greenhouse world'', or (if the concept is simply a period of time with average high Earth's temperatures) the concept is not worth an article.
| |
| :Please, discuss changes so strong as these before edit. Addition is easy to manage, but all these changes of titles and mixing-up of parcels of text are hardly edited or reviewed and may even be took as vandalism.
| |
| :Won't revert a second time, but I'd like to avoid this article becomes a battleground. If changes are introduced as single corrections or additions, BETTER IF SUPPORTED BY LITERATURE, discussion will become much easier and cool. Thanks in advance.
| |
| :--[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 10:57, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Dr. Preto, thanks for explaining the reversion. I thought I should clarify: as an Earth Sciences editor, you are within your rights to cut the science section if in your opinion it would be easier to esier to start over from scratch.
| |
| | |
| You are also in your rights to make the decision to delete an article, particularly if "there is no such thing as" the topic of the article. See [[CZ:Article Deletion Policy|Article Deletion Policy]]. Please simply leave a message on the article's talk page, or send a mail to constables@citizendium.org. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:12, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Thanks Larry, I did it already. --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 11:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Facts, please... ==
| |
| | |
| The article says that global warming (in the narrow meaning specified in the article) "...is believed to be mostly attributable to human activity." IMHO, that phrase should be struck, at least until the not-yet-completed "controversies" section is in place. There are two problems with it: 1) the unattributed, weasel-worded (WP definition) "is believed to be," and 2) the unreferenced "mostly".
| |
| | |
| It is equally true to say "...is believed to be attributable to natural causes, with perhaps (but this is not settled) a small component due to human activity." [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 13:12, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :No it wouldn't, the former statement is quite easy to reference, unlike the latter. I'll add references in a bit. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 13:24, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::It would help if we all could see a summary of the accomplishments of climatology, examples of climatological work that has found practical application in the non-scientific world, etc. I'm no climatologist, but from all I can see, it's a pretty accomplishment-free field. From what I can tell, its practitioners mostly study computer models, then publish papers about it. Unfortunately, their papers are great fodder for propaganda. [[User:Louis F. Sander|Louis F. Sander]] 13:53, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :::Well then I hope a knowledgeable author begin working on [[climatology]]. I'm sure a more astute studier of climatology can answer your questions for you, but I assure you it is a very scientific field of the natural sciences. Also, not everything is model-based in climatology; a major part of it is based on observation, theory, repeatability, and prediction. It does, after all, follow the scientific method. But like I said, I'm sure a more knowledgeable person would be glad to help you. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 14:06, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == A modest proposal ==
| |
| | |
| I suggest that we keep this article politics-free, and focus primarily on the science. There's a lot to more to say about global warming in the scientific aspect, probably because global warming is independent of one's political ideology. Or at least can we complete a fairly stable scientific article, and then perhaps start working on the politics and other controversial aspects? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 13:30, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :I agree, and probably we should have a separate article on [[Politics of global warming]]. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 13:30, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| I am compelled to agree with you both. Sorting out the political from the substantive would be a good way of alerting the reader to the differences and their possible motivations, i.e. their political origins. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 15:59, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I have to disagree. Since anthropogenic global warming has policy implications (or so many believe), the politics of global warming is an essential aspect of any discussion of global warming: I dare say that it is, after all, the political aspects that make us all care about it. It is highly unlikely that "global warming is independent of one's political ideology," if by this one means that one's stance on global warming is likely to be independent of one's ideology. I doubt this very much. Anyway, there should be at least a brief section, even if most of the politics & policy is shunted off elsewhere. By the way, I would say the same thing with regard to [[intelligent design]]--there should be a section about the movement in the main article. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:33, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::I would not be completely opposed to discussing some political aspects of the controversy surrounding global warming. However, I don't necessarily agree the politics is what makes people care about global warming. I think it's the effects and the results of said warming that gets people's attention. And what I meant by "independent of political ideology," is that global warming will remain a fact whether you're liberal or conservative. Science is blind in this respect. You can be conservative or liberal as you want, and the science behind global warming isn't going to change. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 17:23, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==The politics of global warming==
| |
| This section reads as if the USA is the center of the universe. :-) Do they have a Democratic Party in the UK and Belgium?
| |
| Might be a good idea to simply begin by referencing the topic as say "In the USA . . . ." --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 16:58, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :I agree we should not be so American- or Western-centric. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 17:24, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::Maybe we should add mentions of the Kyoto Protocol in a global perspective, it's an international treaty. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 17:31, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
