Talk:Global warming

Climate change?

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! 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? John Stephenson 00:22, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

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.

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. --Ed Poor 09:09, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

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? Chris Day (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

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. 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.

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. --Ed Poor 10:54, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

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! Brian Dean Abramson 11:11, 10 May 2007 (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. Russell Potter 11:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

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, Benjamin Seghers 22:22, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Fred Singer

I don't think that Fred Singer (see a brief outline on him 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. Russell Potter 10:42, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

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. [1]

Better yet, we can check the papers these scientists cite in the popular treatments and double-check everything. --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 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. 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. Russell Potter 11:11, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Useful links

There are good starting points for this argument. Two I may suggest are:

Real climate, a blog held by top-level scientists, some involved in the IPCC (link below)

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.

--Nereo Preto 11:33, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

A more more moderate Web site on the topic of global warming 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. Benjamin Seghers 22:29, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Real climate just posted a terrific list of links for beginners-to-experts who want to learn about Global Warming here. I will take advantage of these links for a few edits in the next few days. I'll work on historical record first. --Nereo Preto 10:26, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Scientific opinion

There's an article at Wikipedia summarizing 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. 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.--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. Russell Potter 12:31, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Ok, just wanted a clarification. All is well. --Robert W King 12:40, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Proposed move

I propose moving this article to Climate cycles. --Ed Poor 09:22, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I would urge that CZ users have a look at the discussion on the Wikipedia entry for "Climate Cycles," on which Ed Poor appears as "Uncle Ed" -- it seems clear that, on Wikipedia at least, the use of this article was to create a highly one-sided view of climate change and global warming issues. I would be strongly opposed to such a move here at CZ. Russell Potter 11:34, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I do not "appear" as Uncle Ed at Wikipedia, that's merely how I sign my talk page comments. My user name at Wikipedia is Ed Poor - same as here.

And I do not want a one-side view of anything: I just want to ensure that all the science is included, and that no scientific view is censored merely because it differs from a popular political position. If there is a scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming which is consistent with actual observations (or proxies), then I'd like our article to show it. If a theory is not falsifiable, it can be mentioned but should be labeled as pseudoscience. --Ed Poor 21:31, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it appears Ed Poor has been reprimanded at Wikipedia for contentious editing and has taken biased stances on global warming and related articles. However, this should not serve to repress him at Citizendium in any way. We ought to consider all controversy at Citizendium fully and diligently. Any article on climate cycles should discuss the historical climate variations as they naturally occur throughout the history of Earth. There still should be an article global warming, however, which discusses recent trends in climate observations, which are attributable to human activities. The scientific literature treats "global warming" as a phenomenon stimulated by human activity, and "climate change" as a natural phenomena mainly related to orbital forcings; Citizendium should be no different. Benjamin Seghers 22:56, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

That may be, but renaming this article "climate cycles" is hardly the same thing as starting a sepatate article on climate cycles. A more logical thing to do (and I'm not advocating it!) would be renaming an article on global warming "non-cyclical climate change". As it stands, the article isn't really this, either. Greg Woodhouse 23:52, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, it appears this article deals mostly with historical trends, which would be more appropriate in climate change, because climate change is not specific to contemporary trends, unlike global warming. This, a bit deceiving for an article titled "global warming," in my opinion. Benjamin Seghers 00:12, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

May I suggest to let the article develop further, and take a decision only after? If it is going to be mostly about anthropogenic global warming, it might maintain his title, if it is going to talk about natural climate variability, it would be better named "climate change". --Nereo Preto 05:35, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

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 neutrality policy

• Effects

What has global warming caused and what can we expect from continued warming?

• Mitigation

Discussion of mitigation

Thoughts? 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. --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. 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 harsh critique of this global warming article, based partly but not entirely on an earlier version. See also the comments discussion there. David Hoffman 18:43, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Indeed, bur Dr. Connolley fails note this article is less than a week old. 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! --Nereo Preto 01:58, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

I'll Try working on it more in the mean time. 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. --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. 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. 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. --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 knowldge here accurately. Russell Potter 17:52, 25 May 2007 (CDT)