Talk:Climate change/General discussion

Significant and compelling evidence to refute anthopomorphic global warming.

A few things;

99.7% of CO₂ emissions come from volcanoes. See [1].

That page is nonsense. The recent rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. No-one (with any scientific merit) doubts that - not even Bush. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity. [2]. Bush is wrong - its more than just "in large part" - but if even he won't support your stuff, you're lost. William M. Connolley 09:20:25, 2005-07-18 (UTC).

In fact, many of the weather stations used to collect data are at the top of active volcanoes [3].

Sigh. Give it up. There are better things to argue about. The South Pole gets the same answers as Mauna Loa, and it isn't on a volcano.

Climate change models are often presented as being based on real phenomena, however they are almost always gross simplifications of the real systems. They can almost never explain the Ige Age, or even the Little Ice Age.

Because very few of them are run through those periods.

So, temperatures have risen since the 18th century, when we were in the middle of a little ige age. So what? They can't even correctly predict global temperatures for next month or next year accurately, so how can they claim to be able to predict 50 years into the future?

Heard it all before... http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/we-cant-predict-weather-week-in.html

Sadly we never stop and perform the basic checks on these predictions necessary for scientific validation - seeing if their predictions are correct. The IPCC are continually revising their doomsday predictions downwards.

You're a victim of septic propaganda.

The reality is that the Earth's climate is a complex system with multiple feedback systems, and that water vapour, not CO₂, is the primary greenhouse gas.

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html

More warming should lead to more clouds, which will reflect more light out to space.

Why?

You see that there is an equilibrium involved that is simply assumed to have certain characteristics, via a link that has never been shown. In fact, polar ice core samples show that CO₂ levels follow periods of global warming rather than preceding them. There's a lot on this subject at [4]

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization made up of active and retired geologists, engineers, earth scientists and other professionals... or, a front for the petroleum type people? With, sigh, Baliunas.

Dirty tricks were employed by Enron from 1993 to 1996 to basically fool the easily succeptible Green movement (who, despite their good intentions, are well known for taking an anti-establishment view in any debate, with or without evidence) into protesting about Global Warming, which previously had only minor groups supporting it. As they pulled other strings to make sure it got further through government (so as to gain control of the lucrative Carbon tax market), more people got on the bandwagon to support it, and eventually the Kyoto protocol made it through, despite these gaping holes in the science behind it. There is a long, well referenced account of this at [5].

The Green movement needs to refocus on the control toxic pollutants rather than life-giving ones, as a matter of urgency. There are good reasons to move away from oil dependancy - otherwise the disatrous consequences of Oil shale mining or shortsightedness of Nuclear Fission may cause global pollution on a hereto unforseen scale. Global warming is real, but you may as well campaign against the movement of the sea tides for all the good it will do anyone.

(above unsigned comments by User:Mugwumpjism on 02:48, 18 July 2005)

Vsmith 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." A little learning and access to the internet is a very dangerous thing. Rd232 10:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus among the scientific community.

I see that volcanoes aren't even mentioned on the Global Warming page. Ice core samples don't indicate that temperatures today are any higher than the warm periods of the last 500,000 years.

Please sign your comments (for tildas, thus: ~~~~). There is no obvious reason to mention volcanoes, since they make no great difference at the timescales we're talking about (as evidenced by the stability of the pre-industrial CO2 record). Ice core record show previous interglacials as perhaps, 2-3 oC warmer but I think those are at the ice core sites themselves, not globally. There is also a complete disconnect between your chosen section heading and your comments. William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 20:51:46 (UTC).

Article & logic

Dear all, could you please write to the following lines sources of mentioned statements?

• The scientific consensus is that a significant proportion of this past rise ... is due to humanity's emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. (to proove this please enter percentage of scientists that belive to statement mentioned above)

97.3%. Now "proove" me wrong. Seriously, scientific consensus is not established by voting or surveying all scientists. Only qualified scientists get a say. The best way to to gauge support for a position, especially for an outsider, is usually to survey the published peer-reviewed literature. Doing that directly requires a lot of time and a reasonable familarity with the subject. That's why the IPCC has taken over that task. The IPCC position has been explicitely supported by a huge number of respected scientific organizations, including the British Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. I'm not aware of any comparable opposition to IPCC findings (no, the "Cooler Heads Coalition" does not cancel the Académie des Sciences). There are few fields of science where the consensus is as accessible as for climate change.--Stephan Schulz 19:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to proove you are wrong. You have to proove you are right (with your statement), it is the basic pressumption in mathematics. So, you wrote that the best way to gauge support for a position is to survey literature. Have you done so? Could you please write your conclusion (for example how many books you have read, how old are these books, who wrote them and what are their conlusions?)
It was the governmental delegates who manufactured summaries of IPCC (Stephan, please check the voting system in IPCC), not the actual scientists participating. Normally scientists prepare their own summaries. This odd procedure throws shadows over the IPCC. "This is very much a children's exercise" states dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the climate scientists. Please read his opinions, and try to find others. There is a lot of scientists from IPCC that do not agree with IPCC conclusions.
Ok, I think we can discuss about this 20 years without any result. So, I suggest, that we add also POV of the other side to the first paragraph and we can remove words "consensus of scientists" and replace them by "a big part of scientists", also we should remove "This view is contested by few qualified scientists" and replace it by "a part of scientists"(again, try to proove, that it is smaller group - it is not possible). I think, that this will make this article more neutral. Why do you want to censure the opinion of the other side? Do you affraid of their "truth"? --Ondrejk 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You want scientific opinion on climate change. Arguably, this should be linked in higher up the article. William M. Connolley 20:00:33, 2005-07-19 (UTC).

Hi Ondejk! I want this article to primarily reflect the mainstream scientific position. Catering to all possible POVs makes the article useless and unreadable. There are enough places to discuss the dissenting views elsewhere (e.g. in the article mentioned by William). I also think that there indeed is overwhelming support for the IPCC position, and the very few vocal sceptics have nearly no influence among qualified scientists (and, in fact, scientists in general). NPOV does not mean "all POVs are equal". --Stephan Schulz 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How do you know what is mainstream scientific position? Can you cite your sources for statement very few vocal sceptics? We don't have to cater it to all possible POVs. We can mention IPCC-POV and skeptic-POV in first paragraph and then we can put there a note, for example: "This article is written from IPCC-POV. If you are interested in alternate views, please read ..." --Ondrejk 23:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works (see WP:NPOV). And the neutral point of view is the mainstream scientific one, which is summarised (not created by) the IPCC. Rd232 08:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite correct either. The NPOV policy states theories should be presented in relation to their promininence. "Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." The IPCC summary is clearly supported by the majority of scientists, but it is possible they are wrong, even if unlikely. So NPOV means we present the most promininent and accepted theory as such, and also present dissenting opinions in relation to their importance. Since the IPCC summary is overwhelmingly accepted, we give that the most space, then note some disagree and present why. Since there are so many that do disagree (not many scientists) this article probably needs to cover a little more of that in order to be NPOV. But Dragonflight's recent changes to the intro are very good in my opinion. It is the rest of the article that needs to give a little more space to the dissenting views. - Taxman ^Talk 12:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I know the mainstream scientific position by looking at the primary and secondary sources. Duh! They are kinda hard to read for me (I'm a theoretical computer scientist and only have a minor in physics), but it's easy to see where to overwhelming support is and where the real howlers are. "Very few vocal sceptics" - well, your call here. Show me more than 10 vocal opponents. Show me more than 10 peer-reviewed published papers denying that a) there is current global warming and b) that much of it is anthropogenic. The recent support by all G8 academies of science is e.g. a very strong argument for the existance of scientific consensus. I have no problem with discussing different POV's, but I don't want the article watered down to uselessness by prominentely including positions with little and no scientific merrit. --Stephan Schulz 08:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Climate models predict that temperatures will increase (with a range of 1.4°C to 5.8°C for change between 1990 and 2100). (This is not true, because there exist also different relevant models, that predict different temperatures.)

If you want to play games, well, logically, the statement is true if there exist any models making that prediction. Moreover, the context makes the meaning quite clear. And finally, can you point to a serious, published, peer-reviewed model that disagrees? --Stephan Schulz 19:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the statement is true only in case, if every climate models predict that temperatures will increase. --Ondrejk 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope. "Climate models predict that temperatures will increase (with a range of 1.4°C to 5.8°C for change between 1990 and 2100). " as a logical sentence is true if there are at least two climate models (to justify the plural) which do predict a raise like that. But again, let's not play games. Do you know of any reasonable models that do not agree (where "reasonable" translates as "described and accepted in the peer-reviewed literature")? --Stephan Schulz 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Its the IPCC range. The range is correct; the link is perhaps not (the science article antedates the range by some time)

Ok, so we should write "According to IPCC climete models predict..." --Ondrejk 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, because it isn't the IPCC who says so, it's the models published in the literature. It isn't like the IPCC conducts research of its own. Guettarda 12:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"These climate simulations are being run at the request of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which will publish selected results of related diagnostic sub-projects in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2006."[6] (SEWilco 15:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC))

Errm, exactly, you're confirming G's point. William M. Connolley 18:19:15, 2005-07-21 (UTC).

Requesting work, and selecting what results to publish, is not conducting research? (SEWilco 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC))

Isn't this like saying that NSF "conducts research" when it funds someone (since they pay publication charges). Guettarda 17:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• In section "Causes of global warming" there is subsection called "Solar variation theory", and also these statements:
  • The warming is within the range of natural variation and needs no particular explanation
  • The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period — the Little Ice Age — and needs no other explanation

I think, that these three theories disprove the existence of consensus. We should either remove words about consensus, or we should censore remove the other opinions. We can't have both - consensus and alternative theories.

Of course we can. We have a strong consensus that the earth is roughly spherical. We can still mention that some people believe in a flat earth. But I agree, these lines are candidates for deletion, and are primarily there to placate "sceptics".--Stephan Schulz 19:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, that we have a valid proof, that Earth is spherical. You have to prove, that there is a strong consensus about existence of global warming caused by human race. I don't think there is (strong consensus. I don't want to speak about existence of global warming, but about existence of consensus). --Ondrejk 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no "proof" in science. Earth is flat and aliens with mind-control rays make circumnavigators walk in circles. The IPCC reports and their reception by the scientific community (including e.g. the recent support by 11 major national academies of science) are as much "proof" as we are likely to get. As always, there is a healthy discussion about details and mechanisms, but very few (and nearly no competent) scientists disagree with the consensus view.--Stephan Schulz 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Those two statements are hangovers. They need qualification, probably, because they aren't correct and the article should say why. William M. Connolley 20:00:33, 2005-07-19 (UTC).

--Ondrejk 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear all, do you agree with my suggestions? Can I change the first paragraph as I described? --Ondrejk 10:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm concerned. I think the current version is a fair and reasonably accurate description of the state of knowledge. It also links to Scientific opinion on climate change, where further discussion can take place. --Stephan Schulz 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No. Vsmith 12:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think, that this article is based mainly on Vsmith's, Stephan's and William's POV. Why do you want to censore different opinion? I don't want to delete your POV, I just want to add also different POVs and to remove statements, that are not based on facts ("This view is contested by few qualified scientists"). --Ondrejk 23:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have written very little of the article, so claiming it is based on my "POV" is somewhat weird. The article is, mostly, based on the current scientific consensus, which I (and most qualified scientists, a view I definitly defend as a fact) support. There is no intend to censor at all. But the minority opinions should go where they belong - in a separate paragraph (or article) clearly marked as a minority view. See e.g. global warming controversy.--Stephan Schulz 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it is based on the mainstream scientific opinion, with adequate representation of scientific issues as seen by the mainstream, and at least fair (possibly more than fair) representation of the views of the small skeptical minority. (Views which are currently summarised in global warming controversy, as well as being part of other articles where the points belong.) Seriously, Ondrejk, instead of making quite serous accusations (for Wikipedians) of bias, I suggest you spend some time looking at the scientific literature. You don't seem to have a scientific background, so I suggest UK popular science magazine New Scientist's fairly non-technical website on climate change as a good start[7]. Do come back when you've looked at the other side of the debate, and not just listened to the skeptics (who, among qualified climate scientists, really are a tiny minority - see scientific opinion on climate change.) Rd232 08:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm no scientist.

Maybe then you should reserve judgement. This stuff is hard even for scientists (as is most current science - there is a reason why it takes 5-10 years of advanced schooling to become a qualified scientist). I'm not claiming it is imposible to get a reasonable understanding of the issues for laypeople. But it is not possible to do so by reading opinion pieces and articles in the "Economist". --Stephan Schulz 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am open to any theory as to why the climate might be growing warmer if it is. If the cause is human we should do something about it. I'd like to learn more. In most other situations Wiki would be a reliable source of unbiased information on the arguments on either side and the merits of those arguments. On this page, however, it seems that the foxes are running the henhouse and that those who do have a strong opinion on one side have set the content and tone of the article. To dismiss the other side of the argument as 'flat-earthers' seems typical of the discourse here, and is not worthy of an encyclopedia.

From a scientific point of view, this is very nearly a flat earth vs. spherical earth issue. Yes, we are still arguing how high Mount Everest is, or wether Newton got the reason why the antipodes are not falling off the earth exactly right, but there is no reasonable doubt about the basic shape.--Stephan Schulz 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's none of us pretend that the (existant, legitimate) consensus on Global Warming is as solid, or the evidence anywhere near as consclusive, as for the shape of the earth or any of a huge range of scientific debates. The stridency and methods of the pro-warming side on this page alone should give us pause for concern as to how this consensus has been established. Let's have some acknowledgement on the main page, prominently, of the real debate that is going on about climate change (and not just in the US, thanks), and an informative review of the various arguments, noting the predominant consensus for man made warming. Can I propose that the first step should be to rename this article Climate Change, redirected from Global Warming. Anything else is distinctly not a neutral point of view. (JD - apologies, don't know how to add my tag here)

Having done a little more digging on climate change in an attempt to find a neutral account, I came up with this rather balanced introduction to an article in The Economist:

"The economics of climate change

GLOBAL warming looms, in many people's minds, as one of the biggest threats facing the planet. Over the past 20 years researchers have gathered evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is causing temperatures to rise. However, the exact pace of global warming, as well as the size of mankind's contribution to the warming trend, remain uncertain."

Which seems an entirely more balanced approach than that accepted by Wikipedia. Can I suggest that our opening paragraph (to our article on Climate Change) be edited to this kind of tone and content? (JD)

The article already says very close to that with "...is that a significant proportion of this past rise, particularly in the last 25-50 years, is due to humanity's emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2)." It does not claim to know the exact pace or size of contribution, though it does give an accepted scientific range for the effect. Your efforts to improve the article are welcomed and encouraged, but what you have to understand is that only verifiable information should be included in Wikipedia. That is especially so if one wishes to change information that has been heavily scrutinized and researched, such as this article has. Besides, what makes you think the economist would be so unbiased, particularly an individual writer or editor? Finally, I will go add the welcome template to the user page for the IP address you edit from. Please follow some of those links and consider signing up for a user account, but at a minimumm type four tildes ~~~~ after your posts so they can be identified as to the time. Thank you. - Taxman ^Talk 20:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled. You find something from the Economist, on a subject that you don't know much about, and because its written in nice soothing language you assume it must be balanced. Thats not a valid method of judging things. The Economist is *wrong*: However, the exact pace of global warming, as well as the size of mankind's contribution to the warming trend, remain uncertain. is just not true. The temperature record is available, and is accurately cited in the wiki article, unlike in the economist version. Calling the size of the anthro component "uncertain" is to downplay the consensus on this, which is that most of the recent change is anthro. The Economist is playing up the usual GW skeptic card - emphasising the uncertainties. The Economist is generally anti-GW biased, and AFAIK this is because it fears that the solutions - Kyoto and son-of - won't be to its liking (sadly it doesn't seem to be able to divorse the science of what is happening from the politics of what to do. But its hardly alone in that). Finally, the E is (obviously) not a scientific source, unlike most of the sources in the wiki article. William M. Connolley 20:52:48, 2005-07-21 (UTC).

"Other theory" - WV

An anon added:

One possible cause that hasn't been taken serious enough yet, is the water vapour emitted from irrigation systems. Agricultural systems use irrigation quite intensively nowadays and 2/3 on all water used by humans is used in irrigation. Water vapour is the most significant GHG, but formerly it was thought that human influence on it was negligible. Demand for more irrigation because of growing food demand of growing human population and drought that is caused by the climate change make it necessary to put more emphasis on irrigation factor in future. Water vapour from irrigation has two sided effects as its global effect is climate warming and local effect is climate cooling. Processes of water vapour are very complex, but taking them in account might take away few anomalies in current climate forecasting models.

This is more of a question for a FAQ than a theory that belongs on the page, and it pretty well admits that its fringe by its first sentence. AFAIK no-one seriously attributes GW to inc WV *from anthro emissions of WV* or from irrigation, though. William M. Connolley 12:51:31, 2005-07-26 (UTC).

GOOFUS/GALLANT

Not everyone claiming to be a "scientist" is engaging in science. I have copied this here from Slashdot: CAN YOU SPOT THE REAL SCIENTIST? (Score:4, Insightful) by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Friday August 12, @01:24AM (#13301230) GOOFUS has a PhD. GALLANT has a PhD in a field unrelated to his research.

GOOFUS gets little respect as a scientist outside the scientific community. GALLANT gets little respect as a scientist inside the scientific community.

GOOFUS drives a beat-up old car. GALLANT drives a BMW unless his chauffeur is driving.

GOOFUS wears street clothes to work, maybe a lab suit on occasion. GALLANT wears three piece suits at all times.

GOOFUS is employed by a "university", a "hospital", or a "laboratory". GALLANT is employed by a "Coalition", an "Institute", an "Association", a "Foundation", a "Council", or a "White House".

GOOFUS earns $30000 per year unless they cut his funding. GALLANT earns $200000 per year but makes his real money from speaking fees.

GOOFUS lives anywhere in the country. GALLANT lives in a wealthy area near Washington DC, but may have additional homes elsewhere.

GOOFUS may sometimes be filmed standing in front of big melting icebergs. GALLANT may be filmed sitting in front of a bookcase or standing behind a podium at a $2000 per plate fundraiser, although there may be ice melting in his drink.

GOOFUS is a dues-paying member of several scientific grassroots organizations. GALLANT is on the payroll of several scientific astroturf organizations.

GOOFUS gets summoned for jury duty but is never picked as a juror. GALLANT claims "the jury is still out" on evolution or global warming, since he considers himself to be on the jury.

GOOFUS maintains the world is five billion years old. GALLANT isn't really saying, but creationists distribute his pamphlets all the time.

GOOFUS claims the world is warming as a direct result of human activity. GALLANT either claims that climate change doesn't exist, or if it does, that humans have nothing to do with it.

GOOFUS and his graduate students do the dirty work of collecting raw data and looking for conclusions to be drawn from it. GALLANT does the dirty work of discrediting GOOFUS by manipulating his data in Excel with statistically invalid techniques.

GOOFUS writes scientific papers and grant proposals. GALLANT writes the nation's environmental legislation and a column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

GOOFUS draws scientific conclusions from the data he collects that usually come out in agreement with the scientific consensus. GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.

GOOFUS is heavily trained to be a skeptic and to treat information from all sources with a skeptical mind. GALLANT is heavily marketed as a skeptic but reserves his skepticism for GOOFUS.

GOOFUS isn't paid much attention by the press since his opinions are commonplace among scientists. GALLANT holds maverick opinions for a scientist which keeps him busy running from one balanced talk show to the next.

GOOFUS has no PR skills. GALLANT leverages his PR experience all the time, although he has access to paid PR staff.

GOOFUS claims the sky is falling and we have to take painful steps to reduce CO2 emissions now. GALLANT claims the free market will take care of it and recommends solving the problem by conning Zimbabwe out of their pollution credits.

GOOFUS advises his kids not to go into science. GALLANT advises the president. WAS 4.250 14:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote: GOOFUS draws scientific conclusions from the data he collects that usually come out in agreement with the scientific consensus. GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.

Haha, does this remind you of the people behind aetherometry, anyone? -- Natalinasmpf 16:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no - they don't have big money and power behind them. Crackpots don't actually hurt the world, and who knows, they might stumble onto something. People who have power and money behind them, on the other hand, are hurting the world. Guettarda 16:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The greatest hoax ever perpetuated

Global warming is nothing more than part of a natural cyclical pattern that has always happened. There is no consensus at all amongst scientists. But those who have elevated global warming to the status of a religion which is not to be questioned ruthlessly attack all those 'heretics' who dare to question it. It is like a new religion for suburban yuppies.

Tom DeWeese - the greatest hoax ever

Science has spoken, global warming is a myth

This one is actually rather funny, saying The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons. - err well no: the satellite data turned out to be quite unreliable, as the recent papers show: the corrected data show warming even in 1996, and the warming-to-date is now consistent with the models. William M. Connolley 12:54:31, 2005-08-22 (UTC).

"consistent" is relative. The satellite data is consistent with the balloon data, but if you think the magnitude is close enough for the models, then we need a broader error bar on the model predictions.--Silverback 18:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The RSS trend is 0.193 oC/d. Why do you think that is inconsistent with the models? William M. Connolley 19:02:48, 2005-08-22 (UTC).

I haven't read the new papers yet, but this is Singer's assessment:

"MW found an error in the data analysis published by Christy and Spencer (CS), which used to show a slight warming tend of 0.09 C per decade. After correction (see Items #1 and 2 for the gory details), the trend increases to 0.12 C -- not a big deal. But MW.s own analysis gives 0.19 C -- and no one has yet explained this difference. Note however, that the CS result agrees with the corrected balloon trends."

"Now the fun begins. Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30% greeter than the surface trend -- and it isn't. Furthermore, the models predict that polar trends should greatly exceed the tropical values --and they clearly don't do that . In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling."

You should be able to tell us if he is right on the antarctic, I've heard that precip is up there, but don't know about temp.--Silverback 06:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Singer, of course, is a thoroughly unreliable source, as the stuff about ozone shows. He really doesn't know what he is talking about (I mean this literally: I've heard him talk: he crumbles under questionning). The idea that the Antarctic should be showing polar amplification is part of this (see http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/07/harry-potter-and-polar-amplification.html partly); he is wrong to say that the Antarctic has been cooling. Note also that now the MSU shows warming this has become a "slight" trend; when it showed cooling on a very short record it was an unqualified cooling. William M. Connolley 08:18:06, 2005-08-23 (UTC).

I've followed his reasoning on the ozone stuff, and it appeared to be a correct assessment of the problems with the science at the time. He hasn't updated it recently. I've seen his opinions on Climate committment, and he is dismissive of it, and I disagree with him on that. However, I don't see a reason to doubt his reports of discrepencies, he was right that the satellite data was discrepent, and his analyses of other issues have made sense. I don't take his word as gospel. As someone who gets stagefright myself, I prefer to judge people on how well they think on their seat rather than on their feet. I prefer to judge by a considered analysis, and a fair reporting of other results.

His reference to "slight trends" means that a continuation of the trend would bring the year 2100 hundred temperatures in at the low end of IPCC predictions. Ten decades would be only 1.2 degress C, and obviously he doesn't think the models are good enough to make us doubt this linear extrapolation.

What are you saying about the polar amplication expectation? That is is based on fudged models produced by skeptics? Or is that the general agreement of all the major models, they are all fudged, and you don't accept them? I recall that some artic temperature increases were widely trumpeted by the climate community a few months ago, and that seemed to confirm that polar amplification was generally expected and thought missing until then by the community. Singer dismissed that warming report as being too far south, so that although the temperature increase was real, it was due to a non-linear effect of a boundary between two climate areas moving to the north, just past the particular station that recorded the increase. His analysis was that the N. pole overall was still discrepant. Would Singer be right to say at least that Antarctica is not warming? I doubt it is exactly zero, although perhaps it is within the margin of error. Your polar amplification note, seems to indicate that Antartica will not significantly warm even in the future.

The discrepancy that has most impressed me has been that he reports between the surface trend and the atmospheric trend, because that would seem to indicate that something basic in the physics of the models is wrong or missing, and there may be suprises in store. I am surprised that Singer would only be reporting the modeling of skeptics. Does the modeling community not make their temperature profiles public so they can be compared with the data? IF the community's results are available to the public and Singer is using models that don't agree with them in this discrepancy and not disclosing it, then that would be a concern. Are you familiar with that particular discrepency? --Silverback 09:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Opponents of the hoax ruthlessly smeared

Media blacks out stories that do not support global warming hoax

Global warming is a belief, not science

Environmental issues replace Marxism as the new ideology for western intellectuals

an excerpt from the article linked above: Warnings of global warming by the UN and select scientists are reminiscent of UN warnings around 1970 that a new ice age was approaching -- which it may well be, in a thousand years or so.

So 35 years ago the scaremongerers were informing us the earth was rapidly COOLING!

I pledge not to alter the main article without consultation. Marcel de Vries --82.156.49.1 23:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

These do not appear to be primary source literature. Guettarda 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. Counterarguments. Rd232 12:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I like how most of the people that try to use sweeping assertions with scanty empirical evidence to prove or disprove a theory tend to be right-wing anticommunists. Perhaps it violates their false sense of capitalist/industrialist comforts. (ie. proponents of aetherometry, the people who say global warming is a "great hoax ever perpetuated"). -- Natalinasmpf 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps the same skepticism and distrust of authoritarian government "solutions" to problems is also applied to analysis of scientific and environmental issues. Or perhaps the link is freedom -> free thinking -> skepticism. Or perhaps Yankee ingenuity and a practical bent, see better solutions to problems, and aren't as afraid and overwelmed when problems and crises are overhyped.--Silverback 08:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Error in opendemocracy analysis

WMC, I looked at the response you co-authored at open democracy, was at this apparently errorneous passage that dismissed solar variability as a factor in recent warming:

Regardless of the specifics, though, it should be pointed out that all solar activity indices (such as sunspots, helio-magnetic records, cosmic rays) generally peaked in the late 1950s and have declined or held steady since then. Thus solar activity is unlikely to be contributing to current (post-1970) increases in surface temperatures or the planetary energy imbalance.

This statement seems completely ignorant of the climate commitment results. Just because solar activity has not been increasing since the late 1950s, does not mean that the increases prior to that time have been fully equilibrated. In fact the climate commitment results that we have previously discussed would imply that the continuation of solar activity at late 1950s levels would acount for some of the warming for at least another century, and some of the sea level rise for several centuries after that. Perhaps it can be argued that the anthropogenic forcing accounts for a higher percentage of the warming since then than the unrealized climate commitment from the earlier increase in solar activity, but this solar component must be given its due. So this statement from the article is false. Solar activity is likely, in fact, is actually contributing to the current surface temperature increases, and will for another 60 or so years assuming the activity does not significantly change.--Silverback 10:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it seems obvious to me that commitment is much larger for greenhouse gas induced warming than for solar variation. Greenhouse gases linger for a long time, changing the radiation balance of earth, so the forcing continues. Changes in solar output take about 8 minutes to reach earth, so we only have the normal lag in heating up the planet (both possibly amplified by second order effects). --Stephan Schulz 10:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No we are talking about solar activity staying about the same from the late 1950s. The climate commitment is the delay in equilibration introduced by the heat capacity of the oceans. Yes, there is some increase in surface temperatures quickly in response to an increase in solar activity. But as that new level of solar activity is maintained, it also is warming the ocean over time, more than would have happened at a lower level of activity. In fact the published climate commitment studies show that most of the surface temperature increase from an increase in forcing to a new level will be realized in the first 100 years, however, sea level will continue to rise for several centuries more as more of the total stratified water column is heated and undergoes thermal expansion.--Silverback 11:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that what I wrote? In the case of greenhouse gases you gave continued forcing. In the case of solar variation, you "only" have the delay in heating up the planet (including the oceans). AFAIK, "commitment" includes both effects (in the IPCC TAR, the one century time scale is given for the greenhous gas case only). Moreover, isn't solar activity even going down (slightly)?

I should also point out that the same climate commitment effect applies to greenhouse gas forcing. If we could manage to maintain greenhouse gasses at current levels, it would still be another century before we realize nearly all the temperature increases from these new levels, and once again the sea levels will continue to rise for centuries after that.--Silverback 11:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell from the IPCC TAR, this commitment applies only to the greenhouse gas effect. The lag from solar variation should be lower.--Stephan Schulz 11:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How does the ocean tell the difference, given equivilent increases in radiative forcing?

Ok, of course you are right for the case that solar activity remains at the same high level. But does it? --Stephan Schulz 11:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Gmbl...looks like Wikipedia has swallowed my last edit. Here it is again. After re-reading the TAR, I have to take back my agreement. The timescale and size of commitment do take into acount the delayed maximum of CO₂, i.e. they assume that the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases will increase for some time even if we decide to stop emissions, and that hence there will be a long time radiative imbalance (i.e. the forcing continues). So at least for the TAR, the commitment from solar output is comparatively short-lived and smaller. --Stephan Schulz 18:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, these results are more recent than the IPCC. There had been very little climate commitment work before the TAR.

Meehl G. A., et al. Sciencexpress, 10.1126/science.1106663 (2005).

Wigley T. M. L., et al. Sciencexpress, 110.1126/science.1103934 (2005).

--Silverback 11:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

SB, I think you are making a mistake. With CO2, the system has not equilibriated to the forcing and that forcing still remains. With solar, the (poorly known) pre-1950s forcing probably wasn't fully equilibriated, but the forcing is no longer there. "Commitment" refers to equilibriation to remaining forcing. In fact, relative to the 50's, solar forcing is probably now -ve. For any forcing, there will be some residual tail mixed in with everything else, in a way thats hard to untangle. Given the uncertainties in the solar forcing, its probably impossible to "see" the small residual solar effect. I've certainly never seen anyone try to find it. William M. Connolley 11:54:33, 2005-08-24 (UTC).

The solar forcing remains at near 1950s levels, and even if it dipped to 1930s or 20s levels, that is still thought to be high relative to the preceding couple of centuries, so would still have a tail, especially since the intervening cool couple of decades would have delayed equilibration. It might be impossible to find, if our proxies for solar activity are not accurate enough, and given the large error bars in our models. And given the loss of equilibration time from the cooling, it probably accounts for a significant percentage of the temperature increase since, and will have a diminishing tail for another half century or more. It is misleading for modelers to attribute all the recent and predicted warming to anthropogenic increases in GHG when they know that they don't know how much of the unrealized climate commitement is due to last couple centuries increase in solar activity. BTW, the cooling period seems to be only slightly offset from the time of open air nuclear testing. Perhaps increased background radiation accounted for the cooling due to increased cloud cover and albedo. Any theories like that in the literature?--Silverback 12:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

If (as seems likely) solar is below the level of the 50's then its negative relative to then. So any "plus" tail from the 50's would have been wiped out by now. You seem to have an unrealistic idea of how long the tail is likely to be. I think you said, above, that you are mainly neutral on the science but doubtful of the economics. That would be a perfectly sensible position. But if so, why do you keep pushing the skeptic side of the science? Nukes... doesn't seem popular. Volcanoes are bigger. There is a perfectly good explanation for the cooling: sulphates. Why are you desperate to scratch around for something different? William M. Connolley 20:40:11, 2005-08-24 (UTC)