Talk:Global warming

Global warming

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

This article talk page is now under dispute watch

See CZ:Dispute Watch. You're going to have to start using the {{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!  :-)

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. --Larry Sanger 07:17, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

So we must suggest a different and specific change in the article's text to dispute the content herein? Benjamin Seghers 09:20, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Yep. But notice that the change can be: delete it. --Larry Sanger 09:22, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Global warming and hurricanes

Proposition: 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. Benjamin Seghers 12:43, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Actually this is as good as any a place to suggest that CITIZENDIUM try to avoid becoming political. Tropical storm experts tend to state categorically that there is no anthropogenic connection to the increase in Atlantic hurricane activity but rather it was an expected development due to the known cycle of climate. Studies suggest that as the Earth warms (completely disregarding whether the warming is natural or anthropogenic), while increased sea surface temperatures will produce more favorable conditons for storms to form and develop, along with this will come stronger winds at higher altitudes which will rip developing storms apart and prevent them from organizing into hurricanes. After the active season that included Katrina many ill-advised claims were made that linked stronger and more frequent storms to alleged anthropogenic warming yet in the seasons since Katrina observation suggests such claims are completely unfounded. Otherwise we should have had a similar, if not worse season BUT WE DID NOT. If you are really interested in learning the facts about this issue, start with these papers:

Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005 Roger A. Pielke Jr.; Joel Gratz; Christopher W. Landsea; Douglas Collins; Mark A. Saunders; and Rade Musulin

Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Back to 1900 Christopher W. Landsea

Reply to “Hurricanes and Global Warming—Potential Linkages and Consequences” ROGER PIELKE JR.; CHRISTOPHER LANDSEA; MAX MAYFIELD; JIM LAVER; AND RICHARD PASCH

Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones? Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff

It is indeed unfortunate that, due in large part to sensationalistic journalism and poor science in the first place, erroneous beliefs such as those that suggest there's a clear anthropogenic signal in hurricane strength or intensity get started in the first place.

USER: GREG HARRIS ...said Greg Harris (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

Who's discounting anything? Who's being political? Are you making this statement because of the existence of this article? --Robert W King 18:21, 30 January 2008 (CST)

Seems you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. To answer your last question first - of course not. Global warming is an important topic. We need to have an unbiased, reasonable presentation on the subject. However, since you brought it up, I see the same obvious extreme alarmist bias in this article that one finds in similar Wikipedia articles and a lack of any reference to the large body of more sensible literature giving alternate explanations (i.e. other than it's anthropogenic and we're doomed) and discussions regarding this topic.

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

My initial impulse was to simply "mercilessly" edit the existing article to resolve it's obvious major flaws but, since I am NOT prone to acting emotionally without thinking, I thought perhaps I would start by discussing matters here first and then, hopefully after we found some consensus, I might indeed proceed to make some edits to the existing article but not without first attempting to share my thoughts with others interested in it and to attempt to read theirs as well.

Given the response maybe just going ahead and doing edits without discussing them first would be the best way to go after all. ...said Greg Harris (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

"Very likely" as opposed to 100%

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? Benjamin Seghers 14:02, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Ben (Benjamin?), I am still assembling research for the counter-point. I have already identified several peer-reviewed papers which do not support some of the claims of Global Warming alarmists. However, one of of the founding arguments I'm running across is that the IPCC is fundamentally biased due various reasons. How do we expect to address those claims? I'm trying to run through Larry's new dispute resolution formula on other pages, but I've not gotten a good enough handle on my argument to approach the article sentence by sentence. I'm not a "global warming scoffer", but rather an ardent neutrality proponent. Thus, I'd sure appreciate some help "writing for the enemy" as they say. Please let me know if you are interested in collaborating on that effort. If so, I'll start sharing some of my research. Will Nesbitt 14:30, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Mr. Nesbitt, I don't get exactly what your counter-point is. Are you trying to negate everything in the article? There are many (scientific) papers that do indeed differ in conclusion with some of the IPCC's. I haven't really found any that in fact attack the IPCC as biased or fundamentally flawed. It's a body of scientists that synthesize a multitude of scientific papers into their Assessment Reports. I'm sure there are editorials or blog postings out there, but that's another thing. That said, I am sure there are genuine and bona fide critiques of the organization. But I think if we want to discuss the IPCC in that light, it should be done on the IPCC's own article. I'm for anything that will make this article neutral, but at the same time am opposed simply trying insert obviously flawed points or arguments in attempt to make it seem as if this were some 50:50 argument. Elsewhere, I've been labeled as one "writes for the enemy," whether correctly or not, simply through the introduction of scientific thoughts that do not mesh with the majority or some other. You and I are interested in the same objective, but we have to be careful to do so in the correct manner. For example, just above I'm suggesting we move from the absolutism currently in the sentence and go to the more appropriate and veracious language. I am also interested in exploring more in depth the roles of global warming and hurricanes, as pointed out above. It's just a matter of being neutral rather than countering each claim as false, because the latter is not neutral. Benjamin Seghers 15:37, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Proposition: 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? Benjamin Seghers 14:02, 5 August 2007 (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. Will Nesbitt 09:39, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

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)." The box doesn't appear in the SPM, but I was able to find it in chapter 1 of the WGI contribution to the AR4. It states:

Box 1.1: Treatment of Uncertainties in the Working Group I Assessment

The importance of consistent and transparent treatment of uncertainties is clearly recognised 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 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 assessment .1 This box summarises the way that Working Group I has applied those guidelines 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. Two primary types are ‘value uncertainties’ and ‘structural uncertainties’. Value uncertainties arise from the incomplete determination of particular values or results, for example, 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, for example, 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. A different type of uncertainty arises in systems that are either chaotic or not fully deterministic in nature and this also limits our ability to project all aspects of climate change.

The scientific literature assessed here uses a variety of other generic ways of categorising uncertainties. Uncertainties associated with ‘random errors’ have the characteristic of decreasing as additional measurements are accumulated, whereas those associated with ‘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. Specialised statistical methods based on quantitative analysis 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 scientific understanding and the likelihoods of specific results. This allows authors to express high confidence that an event is extremely unlikely (e.g., rolling a dice twice and getting a six both times), as well as high confidence that an event is 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 in practice.

The standard terms used to define levels of confidence in this report are as given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note, namely:

Confidence Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct

Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance

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

Note that ‘low confidence’ and ‘very low confidence’ are only used for areas of major concern and where a risk-based perspective is justified.

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 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:

Likelihood Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome

Virtually certain > 99% probability

Extremely likely > 95% probability

Very likely > 90% probability

Likely > 66% probability

More likely than not > 50% probability

About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability

Unlikely < 33% probability

Very unlikely < 10% probability

Extremely unlikely < 5% probability

Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability

The terms ‘extremely likely’, ‘extremely unlikely’ and ‘more likely than not’ as defined above have been added to those given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note in order to provide a more specific assessment of aspects including attribution and radiative forcing.

Unless noted otherwise, values given in this report are assessed best estimates and their uncertainty ranges are 90% confidence intervals (i.e., there is an estimated 5% likelihood of the value being below the lower end of the range or above the upper end of the range). Note that in some cases the nature of the constraints on a value, or other information available, may indicate an asymmetric distribution of the uncertainty range around a best estimate. Benjamin Seghers 11:32, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Dispute Watch cancelled

The CZ:Dispute Watch experiment failed interestingly--so this article is back to usual. Just bear in mind we are still operating under CZ:Professionalism as well as CZ:Neutrality Policy. Among other things, this latter means that it is not CZ's official view that global warming is caused by human beings. We are officially agnostic (not skeptical--there's a difference!). We can, of course, report the facts about the proportions of the relevant experts who believe this, though--and the grounds on which they've issued their findings! --Larry Sanger 05:27, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

That's a curious statement, Dr. Sanger. Either way, I don't believe it ought to be the purpose of any encyclopedia to "take sides." We ought to simply report the facts as they are presented in the scientific literature, and let them speak for themselves. Benjamin Seghers 09:14, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps you misunderstood me, Ben. I agree that encyclopedias should not take sides, and indeed that was my point. Moreover, I of course agree that we should report the facts as they are presented in the scientific literature. (How else?) To all this I am adding that it is our policy to attribute the view that global warming is caused by human beings to its adherents, instead of simply asserting it ourselves. Moreover, we will acknowledge and fairly, without asserting to be false, characterize views that are in disagreement with this. And we will also fairly characterize how the skeptics have been received by the larger scientific community. In short, we will fairly represent the entire dialectical situation--without, indeed, not take sides. This sort of thing is explained in painful detail in Neutrality Policy. --Larry Sanger 10:17, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

OK, thank you for your clarification. Benjamin Seghers 10:20, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

QUOTE:

it is not CZ's official view that global warming is caused by human beings

UNQUOTE

Gee, the whole thrust of the article suggests otherwise. Why is that?

I try to answer to the comment above, made by Greg Harris.

The problem is, scientific literature is stating -almost all of it, I mean- that Global warming is anthropogenic. Thus, a fair explanation of facts must leave most of the space to the scientific "view" of Global warming, otherwise the article is badly biased. Citing Larry's post above:

we should report the facts as they are presented in the scientific literature.  (How else?)

Please sign your posts in talk page(s) with four tildes, e.g., using the botton on top of the sandbox.

Hope my answer was useful. --Nereo Preto 12:37, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Big changes

Raymond, those were some pretty big changes to the article; can you elaborate on some of them? --Robert W King 22:21, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

I've reviewed the edits, and they all look like good edits to me. Most of them appear to be changes in grammar that don't really affect the content, but rather create a better flow. Benjamin Seghers 22:42, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

I defer to this edit: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=100168595

The following were removed:

• Future CO₂ levels are expected to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.
• Although the net effect of clouds is one of the main uncertainties in present day climate models, cloud feedback is second only to water vapor feedback and is positive in all the models that contributed to the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]].<ref name=soden1/>
• A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the [[stratosphere]] while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. [[Ozone depletion|Reduction of stratospheric ozone]] also has a cooling influence but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s. Observations show that the lower stratosphere has been cooling since at least 1960, which is inconsistent with the solar variation hypothesis.<ref>{{cite web| title=Climate Change 2001:Working Group I: The Scientific Basis (Fig. 2.12) |url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-12.htm| date=2001 |accessdate=2007-05-08}}</ref>
• Also on this edit, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=100163876, "species extinctions" was removed.
• on http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=100148308, it was changed from "Some other hypotheses have been offered to explain most of the observed increase in global temperatures but are less broadly supported." to "Some other hypotheses have been offered to explain most of the observed increase in global temperatures but these are not broadly supported in the scientific community."

They seem pretty significant--I'm wondering why they were removed?

Hi Robert. The article started as a fork of Wikipedia's article on global warming. The Wikipedia article is excellent, amd it seemed best to start from a sound base. Previously the Citizendium was being built from scratch but that clearly wasn't working. I've been tweaking the article little by little to tighten the wording (verbosity is a near-universal problem at Wikipedia) and otherwise improve it. At least, I hope I'm improving it.

You seem to be focusing on isolated words that were removed and not on overall context. Most of the edits removed things that were redundant with what had been said before (or was detailed later). For example, in the bit about "ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land use", fossil fuels and land-use change already were mentioned. I didn't think it necessary to state fossil fuel use would continue as this seems obvious absent some geopolitical calamity or revolution in technology. By omitting this, the text that remained had a clearer focus on uncertainty in emissions, which was the main substantive point. Regarding "species extinctions", this is more controversial than the other effects in that sentence. Finally the bit about "other hypotheses" corrects an old Wikipedia edit war. "Less broadly supported" can imply a position held by a significant minority, but that's not the case for the any of the alternate hypotheses. The weight of the literature in the field shows a broadly-accepted dominant hypothesis (effects of increased greenhouse gases) and a range of tiny-minority hypotheses. Raymond Arritt 09:50, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Moving away from Wikipedia

Currently, this article reflects the Wikipedia article with a few changes. The changes are not substantial, however. If we ever want this article to be recognized as a fine piece of work--the result of Citizendium's vision and contributors--we need to make it our own. We cannot ever achieve "approved" status with a Wikipedia duplicate. This page outlines a way we can begin this process. Benjamin Seghers 21:19, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

The Wikipedia article is very good and while it can of course be improved, I'm not convinced of the value of being different for the sake of being different. As for my own involvement I'm willing to steer things along and provide advice where needed but do not want it to be "my" article. Raymond Arritt 23:27, 10 November 2007 (CST)

But who says Citizendium users can't make a better article? To ever be considered a good article on Citizendium, or "approved," it has to be written by its users. Obviously, yes, we need more contributors. There will also be a lot of same information and surely it will take time. But I feel with a little bit of effort and motivation we can make a pretty decent global warming article independent of the Wikipedia article with similar or superior quality. We have a lot of great authors and editors here, so I think we can make it happen. Benjamin Seghers 00:28, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Let me put it in a different way.

1. Is there any part of the WP article that might be improoved significantly? E.g., past climate change may be less developed than other parts...
2. Is there any part of the WP article which may be rephrased to be more understandable from the non-specialist, or which literary style might be improoved?

Instead of starting from scratch, we may add to such parts, and make a significant difference while remaining in the frame of the very good WP article. Raymond, I think you know the contents in WP better than all of us. Any ideas? --Nereo Preto 05:46, 11 November 2007 (CST)

revert 31/01/08: explanation

I reverted all changes by Greg Harris, made 31/01/08. Sorry for this drastic choice. I'll try to explain.

Greg Harris Made several changes all at once in this article, which is about an extremely sensible topic. I believe changes to this kind of articles must be discussed and introduced gradually, and must be supported by valid references.

I surfed all edits I reverted, and I found them supported only by web links rather than peer reviewed literature. Some of the statements are false. Some of the statements use a non-appropriate language, in the sense it is not scientific nor it is cool, which is instead important in the context of this article. Most of the sentences are aimed at allowing space to a minoritarian and ill-informed component of the scientific community, a space which is not proportional to the real balance of positions. Many of the sentences discuss the politics, of the public understanding, of Global Warming, instead of Global Warming itself. Overall, the result of edits was a biased article (in my view of course, but I remark my view is supported by the overwhelming majority of to-date peer-reviewed scientific literature).

As a concluding summary, I have no objections in discussing all proposed changes, but I ask, for technical reasons, they are introduced one at a time, and are supported by peer-reviewed scientific literature.

--Nereo Preto 12:15, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Constable note

Hello Nereo. To make sure everyone is on the same page, I wanted to make sure you were aware that User:Greg Harris had made some comments further up this page under the hurricane section before making his edits, but he had not signed his discussion. As he is a new user, I assume he will get the mechanics down in no time. Meanwhile, you are the editor on this page and have editorial control at this point and as far as I can tell everyone else holds author status. I will not comment on content and remain constable. Everyone, please keep your posts concerning article content and work hard not to characterize other contributers or their work in a negative light. I will leave it to you. --D. Matt Innis 12:24, 31 January 2008 (CST)

I returned the article to the version just prior to Greg's edits so that everyone may start their discussion clean. --D. Matt Innis 12:55, 31 January 2008 (CST)

migration of disease-causing insects, etc

To the authors, this is a really great piece of work so far. Kudos. I would like to suggest a section regarding the migration changes in insects and animals, and the earlier spring time in many regions. Of particular note are the disease-causing insects, such as mosquitos, that spread Dengue fever, etc. Italy just saw the first occurance/outbreak of Chikakunga (spelling may not be quite correct). Seems the climate warmed up enough a few years ago enough to make the climate habitable for the mosquitos carrying that disease. I have no plans to work on such a section myself right now, but I may attack it later if none of the current authors get around it. David E. Volk 13:33, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Is there any evidence to suggest that the trash buildup in Sicily is a contributing factor? --Robert W King 13:37, 31 January 2008 (CST)

I reckon we already discuss vector ranges, though not thoroughly. Perhaps having sub articles (e.g. Effects of global warming) like Wikipedia does would be helpful. Benjamin Seghers 16:35, 31 January 2008 (CST)

It has nothing to do with the trash buildup. Formerly, temperatures were too low to sustain the mosquitos (one particular type). We are seeing a similar thing in northern Mexico and southern Texas with more cases of Dengue fever. For comparison, the West Nile virus in the US was simply an importation issue, not a temperature change issue, and hence it raced across the US in a few years. David E. Volk 17:39, 31 January 2008 (CST)

TOC

Recently Mr. King moved the table of contents to right side of the article, putting it under the picture. In my opinion, I think this looks awkward—more so than the whitespace that was removed. The problem, I think, is that it cuts down into the sections just below the introduction. I guess it just doesn't take my fancy; I wonder what you guys think. Benjamin Seghers 16:42, 31 January 2008 (CST)

You can change it back, it's not like the article is locked :). I just wanted to see what people thought. I think it's better because it provides better visual flow after the lede, that's all. --Robert W King 17:24, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Wired/nature article for evaluation

Here's the nature/wired link:

• http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7178/abs/nature06422.html
• http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/warmer-atlantic.html
• http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/30/warming-hurricanes.html (from discovery)

Unfortunately I don't have access to Nature, but there's some quote in the Wired blog post.

--Robert W King 17:53, 31 January 2008 (CST)

I think this relates to my earlier proposal to discuss global warming's role in hurricane frequency and intensity a bit more thoroughly than it currently is. I don't think using Wired, even as a summary, would be a good idea though. Benjamin Seghers 18:11, 31 January 2008 (CST)

I didn't imply that you should; I just wanted to provide places where to find the original source. --Robert W King 18:25, 31 January 2008 (CST)

I do have access to Nature. May I help? --Nereo Preto 01:48, 1 February 2008 (CST)

If you can somehow acquire the text to the above article linked as an abstract and disseminate it to those who are interested in receiving it, that would be great. --Robert W King 08:40, 1 February 2008 (CST)

There's a discovery.com synthesis of the same article, but I don't know if referencing discovery is ok? I don't know how discovery is judged as a source. --Robert W King 10:41, 1 February 2008 (CST)

What I can do is to personally send the article to collegues for study purposes, that is, by e-mail. That's a copyright issue. If one of you collegues ask for it... --Nereo Preto 12:01, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Unfortunately I don't know enough about this subject to be able to digest the information. The washington post today also mentions another article published in Science that looks at global warming vs. draught conditions in the western United States. The only reason I'm pointing these articles out is because I think they may be relevant, and hoping someone will go in there and evaluate them. --Robert W King 12:42, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Well, articles about Global warming are published weekly perhaps, though not always in Nature and Science. Global warming is a hot topic (eh eh...). It might be impossible at the moment to keep up with the literature. I might take care of reading the most relevant articles, and mark those which are worth a line here. But I wonder if this is actually a priority. Anyways, just in case, remember I have a subscription to Nature (about Science, I have to check). --Nereo Preto 03:54, 2 February 2008 (CST)

I have access to Science through our library. I do not think that popular media (such as Wired) should ever be used as a source for this topic. I've seen climate change articles in the mainstream press make mistakes as basic as confusing "latitude" with "altitude." (Only the order of the first two letters is different, so they must mean basically the same thing, right?) Raymond Arritt 00:03, 3 February 2008 (CST)

(Luckily, now anyone visiting our articles, latitude and altitude, will perhaps know the difference.) Benjamin Seghers 02:20, 3 February 2008 (CST)

Why no mention of the eminent scientists who have disputed the IPCC report?

Let me first say that I have an open mind on the subject of Global Warming and have not yet been convinced by the arguements pro or con the subject. However, I do wonder why this article makes no mention whatsoever of the scientists who dispute the findings of the IPCC:

• For example, Frederick Seitz, past president, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University who has helped to sponsor a petition signed by approximately 19,000 signers. Qualification to be a signatory to the petition requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. The petition sponsors have publically stated that the costs of the petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized.

• Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been quite outspoken in disputing the global warming theory.

• "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2007; 12(3), 79 is avilable online here and presents extensive data that dispute the IPCC findings.

I believe that, in all fairness, this CZ article should include some discussion of the above scientists (and others) that dispute the IPCC findings. - Milton Beychok 14:22, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

Alas, this is such a hyper-politicized issue that I almost feel like there's nobody who could produce a truly dispassionate survey of the situation. There are papers on all sides; people saying the models are flawed (and reminiscent of Aristolean epicycles) because they don't take into account e.g. variations in cloud formation in the upper atmosphere caused by varying solar particle output (think cloud chambers), yadda-yadda-yadda. Like you, I'm not convinced by either side - which is in itself a 'side', I guess. Sigh, dumping all that CO2 in the atmosphere has to be having an effect - but the atmosphere (and associated systems which are influencing it, like the oceans, but also the physical layout of the planet) is such a complex system that I'm dubious we can sort out its natural variability (which was, prior to the arrival of large numbers of humans, very substantial) from human impacts. J. Noel Chiappa 15:16, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

Well, Milton Beychok, this article is pretty much a copy-and-paste of what Wikipedia has--minus any edits since it was copied here. This is one reason I have vouched for Citizendium to have its own, independent article written by members of this Web site. On Wikipedia, they do have a hyperlink within their global warming article that directs to an article on individual scientists who differ with the IPCC, including the people you mentioned above. Citizendium does not. That is fine though. This article is about global warming itself and not any particular individual. In that respect, I invite you to write a biographical and encyclopedic article for Citizendium on whoever you feel merits one. However, I do not think this article in particular should be overly-focused on a minority--a few individuals--but rather the the current scientific understanding of what is global warming. If you would like to contribute information in this regard from any of the particular people you listed, please feel free. But I must advise, or at least ask, that you use information from only appropriate and reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed journals that pertain to this subject (i.e. not a journal for physicians and surgeons). Benjamin Seghers 15:41, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

Benjamin, in my comment above, I did not say the CZ article should be overly-focused on the scientists that dispute the IPCC findings. What I did say was that the article should include some discussion of the scientists who dispute the IPCC finding.

Perhaps, I am being too sensitive, but you seem to have disparaged the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons". Tell me, in all honesty, have you taken the time to read and study that article thoroughly before disparaging it? Also, those 19,000 signers of the petition sponsored by Frederick Seitz surely must constitute more than "a few individuals" as you described them. Regards, - Milton Beychok 16:23, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

Okay, let me rephrase. This article should not focus on the opinions of a minority, but rather the current scientific understanding of what is global warming. This article should not focus on any one particular individual. As you see, there is discussion on our current understanding of the interaction the Sun plays with our current warming, and that is all that is necessary, in my opinion.

Further, my goal was not to disparage the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. You may review its various publications and determine its merit on your own basis. I was, however, was trying to point out that the relevance of a journal for physicians and surgeons is far removed from this topic.

I am aware of Dr. N. Robinson and am familiar with Dr. A. Robinson and Dr. Soon. I am also familiar with the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, as well as their supposed collection of signatures. However, I must point out some obvious flaws in the petition. Ignoring obviously questionable names, Scientific America reckons about 1,400 Ph.D.s comprise the list. Likewise, Scientific America deduces about 200 of the legitimate doctorates support the petition. While fairly notable, the number is hardly significant in relation to the total number of climate researchers. Ultimately, however, this petition lacks any scientific backing, process, verification, or publishing, so I will remain suspect until that is remedied. Benjamin Seghers 17:42, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

Benjamin, is Scientic American making a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegimate" doctorates or is that your wording? You have the right to remain suspect of anything you wish. However, your suspicions aside, this CZ article should in all fairness include some discussion of the fact that some eminent scientists dispute the findings of the IPCC. That is my last word on this subject and I don't intend to continue debating with you. Good luck on your university majors in international business and economics. Regards, - Milton Beychok 00:51, 29 March 2008 (CDT)

Thank you. I would just like to point out that we do mention in the introduction that there are dissenting scientists. Benjamin Seghers 13:33, 29 March 2008 (CDT)

No, there isn't any mention of that. It states what the prevailing view is, and mentions that there is political and public debate about what actions should be taken. I personally believe what Milton is suggesting is right on target with CZ:Neutrality_Policy. Whether or not you are suspect of the criticism, does not change the fact that it is there and it bears mentioning. --Todd Coles 13:51, 29 March 2008 (CDT)

I am sorry. I must correct myself. As noted above, most of this article is copied from Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article does mention there are individual dissenters, which is what I was referring to. I was under the impression that was also copied here, but it was not. I apologize. Benjamin Seghers 14:37, 29 March 2008 (CDT)

The only one in your list who has published meaningful commentary is Lindzen. Seitz was a solid-state physicist who never published a single peer-reviewed article on global warming (or atmospheric science in general, to my knowledge). "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" sounds impressive but in reality is the house organ of a political group that takes the view that HIV doesn't cause AIDS; the Food and Drug Administration is unconstitutional; etc etc. And even if it was a mainstream journal, ask yourself why a journal of "physicians and surgeons" publishes articles on the physics of climate. Raymond Arritt 04:48, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

Decisionmaking and Dispute Resolution regarding Articles

Hello gentlemen. Thanks for working together on this article. Obviously, it can be a contentious article, but it doesn't need to be. I hope you find this to be of help to you in your continued effort to build a quality article in a professional manner. --D. Matt Innis 07:32, 29 March 2008 (CDT), acting as constable.

IPCC Projections

I was wondering if it was possible to post the variance (it might be too much to also include the level of confidence) in the IPCC report for future climate change? Statistics is a very touchy subject, and I feel it's misleading when an exact value is reported. Trevor J. Norris 21:47, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

In the IPCC, you will find the projections of 1.1 to 6.4 centigrade for the decade 2090-2099 relative to the two decades 1980-1999. The IPCC says this is the likely range, meaning the likelihood is >66% based on "expert judgment." Because the IPCC uses "likely" for this likelihood, so too does the article, though "between 1990 to 2100," is not necessarily correct. Benjamin Seghers 13:52, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

The 1990-2100 is where I was getting confused. When you say that the total average will be between 1.1 to 6.4 higher by the year 2090-2099, to me that makes a lot more sense. Maybe we could pose exactly what you wrote, "'...the projections of 1.1 to 6.4 centigrade for the decade 2090-2099 relative to the two decades 1980-1999." or something like that. I think it removes any type of ambiguity. Trevor J. Norris 15:15, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

Nevermind it. I went back and reread the article. It made sense now that you explained it. Trevor J. Norris 15:18, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

I've edited the article to reflect our source, the SPM. Benjamin Seghers 19:40, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

Two points of concern about this article

As a CZ Editor, I have two points of concern about this article as it now stands:

• It was ported here from Wikipedia over a year ago (May 2007) and it is still an "external article" which means that it has not had any significant editing for over a year.

• It does not include even one sentence that many well-credentialed scientists are skeptical of the global warming theory.

I do not intend to make any revisions or to engage in debates with any devout believers of the global warming theory. I simply want to go on record that it completely ignores the fact that many well-credentialed scientists are skeptical of the global warming theory ... and that deeply bothers me. Milton Beychok 23:47, 9 August 2008 (CDT)

I took up Milton's challenge and added a piece about possible doubts. While writing this I found out that the climate discussion, which after all is about the future, has gotten very ugly aspects. Some journalists go as far as to compare science skeptics with holocaust deniers. Incredible. Let me just say: the holocaust was in the past and climate change is in the future. Was it not Mark Twain who said "predicting is difficult especially when it concerns the future"? In other words, while no sane person denies documented horrors of the past, the future is full of uncertainties. --Paul Wormer 04:28, 23 August 2008 (CDT)

Paul, you have done a superb job of summarizing the points made by the scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC report on so-called global warming. Thanks, Milton Beychok 10:40, 23 August 2008 (CDT)

I have been comparing the Wikipedi article with this one and this one pretty much reads as the imported article.

Neutrality is a problem. Look at these two statements

The prevailing scientific view, as represented by the science academies of the major industrialized nations[1] . . . (Citizendium)

While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10] (Wikipedia)

Neither are neutral. At this point someone needs to ascertain just how much has been substantively changed. If there is an insufficient amount, we will need to seriously consider deletion and start all over.Thomas Simmons 01:15, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

Thomas, I don't believe that it is practically possible to achieve complete neutrality when discussing global warming. If you read all of the many articles in Wikipedia on global warming (both those "for" and those "against"), it becomes quite evident how very, very difficult it would be to come up with a neutral discussion that satisfies everyone. (There are 73 articles listed in Wikipedia's category devoted to global warming and about 20-30% of them discuss some aspect of the "for" and "against" controversy).

As far as I am concerned, with the additional material added by Paul Wormer, the article here in CZ at least now provides readers with both sides of the controversy ... and perhaps that is the best we can hope for. Milton Beychok 02:28, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

What happened?

This article used to be a fairly straightforward port of the Wikipedia article. It needed some cleanup and expansion here and there, but it was basically OK in terms of accurately reflecting scientific thought.

I've not looked at the article in a couple of months and was appalled to see the state it has fallen into. The last part of the article is little more than a personal essay that is wildly divergent from the scientific literature. Citizendium is supposed to be more reliable and academically based than Wikipedia -- not less! The long, long, long riff on Monckton's non-peer-reviewed commentary is almost surrealistic.

Good grief. Raymond Arritt 00:00, 9 September 2008 (CDT)

• Raymond Arritt rightly removed a sentence of mine, in which I, inadvertently, identified the views of Senator Gore with those of the IPCC. Thank you, this improved the neutrality of the article.

• Of course, I don't agree with Arritt's comment just above here. First, nothing has changed in the first part, if it was "basically OK", it still is. My purpose on writing the second part was two-fold,

1. To signal that climate dissidents do exist, and that not all of them are members of the Flat Earth Society and/or Holocaust Deniers. (Maybe this signaling in itself is already so hurtful that it deserves the cri de coeur "Good grief"?)
2. To go somewhat more deeply into the science of climate change models. In my opinion the first part of the article is very narrative, climate sensitivity is mentioned, but not explained. It is not even mentioned that radiation absorbance depends logarithmically on CO2 concentration.

I searched for some science-based criticism and soon found out that the US is very polarized on the issue, it has become much of a political left/right issue, so I was glad to find an article that was (1) written by somebody from outside the US and (2) was published by the APS (I'm an APS member since 1977 and have never, ever, noticed any political color in the organization). I hoped to exemplify by point/counterpoint (I would use "dialectic" if that hadn't too much of a Marxist ring) the sort of models and their associated parameters that the IPCC is using.

Further I tried to give encyclopedic explanation of: radiative forcing, climate sensitivity, dependence on carbon dioxide, the fact that the Earth is a radiator of "black body" (heat) radiation, and how one can account for this in climate models, and more. It is clear to me now that this encyclopedic character of the discussion needs more emphasis.

I'm definitely not a disciple of Monckton (a month ago I didn't know of his existence), I only used his article as a handle to unveil some of the science. I'm surprised that Arritt sees this as "surrealistic" , this is the last adjective I had expected. However, it is not a very constructive adjective, how can we improve the article now that we know that part of it is "surrealistic"?

Finally, my personal point of view cannot stay hidden from a discussion such as this: I agree with the IPCC that our generation is much too wasteful with fossil fuels, especially with oil and natural gas, and I'm agnostic about their predictions on climate change. --Paul Wormer 07:25, 9 September 2008 (CDT)

Let's look at just one bit: "Monckton begins with presenting data plots showing that the globally averaged land and sea surface absolute temperature (TS) has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001, in contrast to the prediction of further rapid warming by the IPCC. After having made this introductory point, he directs his criticism at the value of climate sensitivity found by the IPCC."

We know that 1998 was anomalously warm because of the strongest El Nino in the historical record. So if one chooses an extreme warm anomaly as the starting point then sure, the temperature is more likely to have fallen. Starting from 1997, or 1999, then you come to a different conclusion. What Monckton did is called "cherry picking" -- using data selectively to support a preconceived conclusion.

But the larger issue is that a decade is too short a period to evaluate climate change. Much less the few years since 2001! By comparison the WMO standard for climate normals is a rolling 30 year mean. There's a good reason for that: there are plenty of natural fluctuations in climate (mostly linked to ocean time scales) that occur on periods of a few years to a decade or two, such as the aforementioned El Nino. Anything shorter than a couple of decades is year-to-year noise instead of climate.

This is just one example, from near the beginning of the new material. The rest of the material is shot through with misconceptions like this. Sorry to be so critical -- the idea of explaining climate sensitivity is great, but it's not well executed here. Better to start over with a more concise explanation that is well grounded in established science. And please, please, please base your discussion on the peer-reviewed literature. Raymond Arritt 09:16, 9 September 2008 (CDT)

Raymond, your statement that:

This article used to be a fairly straightforward port of the Wikipedia article. It needed some cleanup and expansion here and there, but it was basically OK in terms of accurately reflecting scientific thought.

is not always a "plus" for the article. In fact, some of us might consider that a "minus". Do you believe that a straightforward port of a Wikipedia article is peer-reviewed literature? Milton Beychok 10:54, 9 September 2008 (CDT)

It's the "accurately reflecting scientific thought" bit that's important and that's where the new material falls down. Being different from Wikipedia just for the sake of being different from Wikipedia isn't a great idea if it means that our article is inaccurate and based on personal essays instead of the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt 11:08, 9 September 2008 (CDT)

Raymond, with all due respect, that bit about "accurately reflecting scientific thought" is simply your own personal belief. There are many well-credentialled scientists who do not agree with the IPCC. And what Paul Wormer did with his addition to this article was to simply point out there were those who did not agree with the IPCC. In essence, he improved the neutrality of the article by presenting some of the opposing viewpoints which the original Wikipedia article did not do. Is that not a good thing? Milton Beychok 12:28, 9 September 2008 (CDT)

It's obviously "my own personal belief," or I wouldn't have said it. But it's a view that just happens to be shared by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the European Geosciences Union, the American Physical Society, and lots of other folks. If "neutrality" means overemphasizing small-minority views using non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces that include blatant factual errors, I guess we have different definitions of "neutrality." Raymond Arritt 14:16, 9 September 2008 (CDT)

I had said much earlier (see above) that I had no intention of getting involved in debating this subject ... and it is quite clear that we don't see eye-to-eye as to what constitutes "overemphasizing" or what constitutes a "small-minority". So I guess we shall have to agree to disagree and let it go at that. Regards, Milton Beychok 15:01, 9 September 2008 (CDT)