imported>Greg Harris |
imported>Sandy Harris |
| (116 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
| | Rather surprised to find no comments on such a potentially controversial topic. I've edited this fairly aggressively and welcome any comments. There are some broken links still, and some updates would be appropriate.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 13:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
| | :I don't get to follow this debate much, but do I understand correctly that the terminology is turning toward [[Global climate change]] rather than Global warming so as to not confuse those who don't understand why they might be getting colder. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| {{archive box|auto=long}}
| | ::I've made a redirect, but they may be two different things, so feel free to correct me. The question is whether we would want to move this article to [[Global climate change]] instead. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| | :::I think that 'climate change' is a vague term which most often pops up to appease global warming deniers. It shouldn't be used unless the article is about all forms of change in the climate - natural or unnatural, cooling or warming, pressure patterns for whatever reason, etc. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == <s>This article talk page is now under dispute watch</s> == | | == Climategate? == |
|
| |
|
| <s>See [[CZ:Dispute Watch]]. You're going to have to start using the {{tl|prop}} template in the way that page describes, illustrated here: [[Talk:Oriental (word)]]. We're testing out a dispute resolution idea, but I'm taking the test seriously. From now on, disputation on this page must be on-topic, and on-topic means (1) aimed at a specific proposition, (2) the proposition must concern ''the wording of the text,'' and (3) engaging in a dispute, as opposed to how to characterize the dispute, is off-topic. Call it the Anti-Bloviation Rule! :-)
| | Why is there no mention of this controversy? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy]. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Note, for this topic in particular, that how much dispute there is about this topic is itself (pretty obviously) a matter of dispute. So we must not take a stand on ''that'' dispute, but must describe it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:17, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
| | :Not sure whether or how to handle it. This refers to a Wikileaks release of leaked e-mails from staff of the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia between academics involved in climate research, They included e-mails that were extremely disparaging about skeptical scientists, e-mails that favoored resisting calls to make all data and analyses openly available, and e-mails that discussed ways of presenting data to most effectively highlight the climate changes - these e- mails used words like "trick" to describe presentational techniques. After the relevations there were several inquiries into the CRU that endorsed the science and the conclusions but criticised the lack of openness. It's an issue about the politics/sociology of science, but I guess I thought it really doesn't cast any light on global warming - unless you're a conspiracy theorist.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
| :So we must suggest a different and specific change in the article's text to dispute the content herein? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 09:20, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| Yep. But notice that the change can be: delete it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:22, 3 August 2007 (CDT)</s>
| | ::It depends whether this article is about the science of global warming and whether it's happening (clue: yes) or whether it is really about the way the debate over global warming has occurred. I think the former for the reason Gareth points out above. The UEA 'controversy' could be covered elsewhere in an article about the political responses to global warming. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Global warming and hurricanes == | | ::::The scientists in question above were investigated and their data was found to be sound. Unfortunately, scientists and mathematicians use the word "trick" to mean something different than lay persons. For example, for very small angles, sin(theta) ~= theta, a valid true "trick" that physicists use very often when the fourth or fifth decimal place does not matter. It was this type of trick that they were referring to. As scientists, they did try to present their findings in the most favorable terms, but did so in a mathematically and scientifically reliable fashion. As to withholding some data, that is also valid as they are working on long-term projects, and the collection of that data was expensive and will be used in the future. It is true that they used less than flattering terms to describe some of their adversaries, but whose email is completely PC these days? That is merely unprofessional behavior brought into the light. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :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. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 12:43, 3 August 2007 (CDT) | | :::::Not to mention there has been numerous investigations done: by the university, by the British government (through the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) and by Penn State, which have said it was all manufactured. Nothing wrong with having an article on it ([[Wikipedia]] does) but probably not something to be focussed on heavily inside the main global warming article. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 09:08, 11 May 2011 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| 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:
| | == Plausible-looking criticism == |
|
| |
|
| Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005
| | I am not certain this is valid, but it seems worth pointing out. [http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 20:45, 9 May 2011 (CDT) |
| Roger A. Pielke Jr.; Joel Gratz; Christopher W. Landsea; Douglas Collins; Mark A. Saunders; and
| |
| Rade Musulin
| |
|
| |
|
| Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Back to 1900
| | :Looks like the usual denial to me. Now if it were from a site called, say, environmentalpost.com... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 21:34, 9 May 2011 (CDT) |
| Christopher W. Landsea
| |
|
| |
|
| Reply to “Hurricanes and Global Warming—Potential Linkages and Consequences”
| | == Doonesbury == |
| ROGER PIELKE JR.; CHRISTOPHER LANDSEA; MAX MAYFIELD; JIM LAVER; AND RICHARD PASCH
| | [http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/09/25] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 04:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
| | |
| 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
| |
| | |
| == "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? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|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. [[User:Will Nesbitt|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. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|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? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|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. [[User:Will Nesbitt|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.'' [[User:Benjamin Seghers|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! --[[User:Larry Sanger|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. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|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 [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:17, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :OK, thank you for your clarification. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 10:20, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Big changes == | |
| | |
| Raymond, those were some pretty big changes to the article; can you elaborate on some of them? --[[User:Robert W King|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. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|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:
| |
| | |
| ::*<nowiki>Future CO<sub>2</sub> levels are expected to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. </nowiki>
| |
| ::*<nowiki>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/></nowiki>
| |
| ::*<nowiki>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></nowiki>
| |
| ::*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. [[User:Raymond Arritt|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. [[CZ:How to convert Wikipedia articles to Citizendium articles|This page]] outlines a way we can begin this process. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|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. [[User:Raymond Arritt|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. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 00:28, 11 November 2007 (CST)
| |
| | |
| Let me put it in a different way.
| |
| # 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...
| |
| # 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? --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 05:46, 11 November 2007 (CST)
| |
