Talk:Global warming: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Benjamin Seghers
imported>Sandy Harris
 
(142 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box|auto=long}}
{{subpages}}
{{checklist
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)
|                abc = Global warming
: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)
|                cat1 = Earth Sciences
|                cat2 =
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = y
|            cleanup = n
|                  by = [[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 08:23, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
}}


== This article talk page is now under dispute watch ==
::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)


[[Category:Dispute Watch]]
:::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)


See [[CZ:Dispute Watch]].  You're going to have to start using the {{tl|prop}} template in the way that page describes, illustrated here: [[Talk:Oriental (word)]].  We're testing out a dispute resolution idea, but I'm taking the test seriously.  From now on, disputation on this page must be on-topic, and on-topic means (1) aimed at a specific proposition, (2) the proposition must concern ''the wording of the text,'' and (3) engaging in a dispute, as opposed to how to characterize the dispute, is off-topic.  Call it the Anti-Bloviation Rule!  :-)
== Climategate? ==


Note, for this topic in particular, that how much dispute there is about this topic is itself (pretty obviously) a matter of dispute. So we must not take a stand on ''that'' dispute, but must describe it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:17, 3 August 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)
:So we must suggest a different and specific change in the article's text to dispute the content herein? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 09:20, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


Yep. But notice that the change can be: delete it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:22, 3 August 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)


== Global warming and hurricanes ==
::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)


{{prop|I think we should expand on the role of global warming on hurricanes. I think this one area of higher amount of debate in the scientific community, with regards to how large an impact sea surface temperatures are having on intensity and frequency of hurricanes across the globe (as opposed to more natural factors, such as wind shear, for example). I don't know exactly what should be written, but there is much to say about the issue. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 12:43, 3 August 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)
Benjamin, please use {{tl|prop}} if you want to make an argument--please rewrite the above (and then feel free to delete this) so that it is in conformity with [[CZ:Dispute Watch]].  Thanks. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:33, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
:I'm not really disputing anything (just a suggestion), but if you say so. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 14:07, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
::The question is whether your suggestion amounted to a contentious claim, i.e., whether anyone can be expected to take issue with it. It is easy for me to imagine someone taking issue with whether there should be more here about the role of global warming on hurricanes. Hope this helps. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:26, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


''I've deleted a discussion that did not begin with a proposition.  The Dispute Watch is very specific on this point.  You can restore it if you add the proposition. Thanks. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:15, 6 August 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)


== "Very likey" as opposed to 100% ==
== Plausible-looking criticism ==


{{prop|Our intro reads, "The prevailing scientific view, as represented by the science academies of the major industrialized nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is that most of the temperature increase since the mid-20th century has been caused by increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations produced by human activity." I wonder if it should say "is very likely caused by increases in atmospheric . . ." so as to mimic the IPCC language that suggest 90% certainty rather absolute certainty? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 14:02, 5 August 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)


: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'd like to see the math formula that led a precise percentage of certitude, mainly because I doubt it exists. *smile* However, I would prefer that we quote the IPCC rather than state this as a matter of fact. We know that this is the IPCC's position. We don't really know if they are correct or not. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:39, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
== Doonesbury ==
:Well, in the AR4 SPM, the footnote reads, "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%. (See Box TS.1.1 for more details)." I was unable to find Box TS.1.1 in the SPM, but after some Internet searching I came across the following:
[http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/09/25] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 04:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 
"Box TS.1.1: Treatment Of Uncertainties In The Working Group I Assessment
 
"The importance of consistent and transparent treatment of uncertainties is clearly recognized by the IPCC in preparing its assessments of climate change. The increasing attention given to formal treatments of uncertainty in previous assessments is addressed in Chapter 1, Section 1.6. To promote consistency in the general treatment of uncertainty across all three Working Groups, authors of the Fourth Assessment Report have been asked to follow a brief set of guidance notes on determining and describing uncertainties in the context of an assessment1. This box summarises the way in which those guidelines have been applied by Working Group I and covers some aspects of the treatment of uncertainty specific to material assessed here.
 
"Uncertainties can be classified in several different ways according to their origin but at least two different types should be recognized. Value uncertainties arise from the incomplete determination of particular values or results, e.g. when data are inaccurate or not fully representative of the phenomenon of interest. Structural uncertainties arise from an incomplete understanding of the processes that control particular values or results, e.g. when the conceptual framework or model used for analysis does not include all the relevant processes or relationships. Value uncertainties are generally estimated using statistical techniques and expressed probabilistically. Structural uncertainties are generally described by giving the authors’ collective judgment of their confidence in the correctness of a result. In both cases estimating uncertainties is intrinsically about describing the limits to knowledge and for this reason involves expert judgment about the state of that knowledge.
 
"Although the terminology used is not always consistent, the science literature assessed here uses a variety of generic ways of categorizing uncertainties. Random errors have the characteristic of decreasing as additional measurements are accumulated, whereas systematic errors do not. In dealing with climate records considerable attention has been given to the identification of systematic errors or unintended biases arising from data sampling issues and methods of analysing and combining data. Specialized treatments of uncertainties have been developed for the detection and attribution of climate change and for producing probabilistic projections of future climate parameters. These are summarised in the relevant chapters.
 
"The uncertainty guidance provided for the Fourth Assessment Report draws, for the first time, a careful distinction between levels of confidence in our scientific understanding and likelihoods of specific results. This allows authors to express high confidence that an event is very unlikely (e.g. rolling six with a dice three times in a row), or about as likely as not (e.g. a tossed coin coming up heads). Confidence and likelihood as used here are distinct concepts but are often linked.
 
"The standard terms used to define levels of confidence in this report are as given in the Uncertainty Guidance Note, viz:
 
"Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct
"Very High confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
"High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
"Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
"Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
"Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance
 
"Chapter 2 of this report uses a related term “level of scientific understanding” when describing uncertainties in different contributions to radiative forcing. This terminology is used for consistency with the Third Assessment Report and the basis on which the authors have determined particular levels of scientific understanding uses a combination of approaches consistent with the uncertainty guidance note as explained in detail in Chapter 2, Section 2.9.2 and Table 2.11.
 
"The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:
 
"Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
"Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence
"Very likely > 90% probability
"Likely > 66% probability
"About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
"Unlikely < 33% probability
"Very unlikely < 10% probability
"Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability
 
"In order to provide a more specific assessment of detection and attribution of key aspects of climate change Chapter 9 of this report augments the likelihood scale above with additional terms 'Highly likely' to indicate a greater than 95% likelihood of occurrence, and 'More likely than not' to indicate a greater than 50% likelihood.
 
"Where values are specified in this report as a central estimate with a plus/minus range, then by default the range represents a 95% (2-σ) confidence interval. Exceptions to this are noted in the text." [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 11:32, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 23:48, 25 September 2011

This article is developed but not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Video [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  The increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Earth Sciences [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive:  1, 2, 3, 4  English language variant:  British English

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.Gareth Leng 13:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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. D. Matt Innis 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
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. D. Matt Innis 14:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
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. John Stephenson 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Climategate?

Why is there no mention of this controversy? [1]. Sandy Harris 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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.Gareth Leng 09:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
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. John Stephenson 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
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. David E. Volk 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2011 (CDT)

Plausible-looking criticism

I am not certain this is valid, but it seems worth pointing out. [2] Sandy Harris 20:45, 9 May 2011 (CDT)

Looks like the usual denial to me. Now if it were from a site called, say, environmentalpost.com... Ro Thorpe 21:34, 9 May 2011 (CDT)

Doonesbury

[3] Sandy Harris 04:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&oldid=26798"