Talk:Global warming: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>David Finn
(→‎Body count: new section)
imported>Sandy Harris
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
==AGU is considering updating its position on climate change==
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)
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is considering updating its 2003 position on the Human Impacts on Climate.[http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/2007/08/27/agus-position-on-human-impacts-on-climate-comments-invited.html#comments]  Some wish to see the AGU make a stronger statement.  Others want the AGU to consider its position based on new skeptical science.  Below is my comment to the AGU.  Editors can use these links as a resource in improving the article. Specifically, the section on climate sensitivity needs work.  While I respect Lord Monckton, he is a journalist.  When possible, I believe it is preferable for an encyclopedia to cite peer-reviewed science over the work of a journalist. Two important peer-reviewed papers were published in 2007 which call into question the climate sensitivity estimates used by IPCC. Other issues are also important, such as the conflict of interest and the Hockey Stick Controversy. Here is my comment to AGU with a few added references:
: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)


''I agree with Fred Singer that the AGU has two choices - to follow the IPCC or to examine the scientific evidence independently. There are good reasons to examine the evidence independently.
::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)


''1. A flurry of papers published in 2007 and 2008 have changed the scientific climate change landscape. These papers were published after the cutoff date for the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. I will mention just a few important papers, including two on climate sensitivity: One by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab and one by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab. Chylek and Schwartz approached the question differently. Chylek had new data on aerosols and arrived at an estimate at the low end of the IPCC range.[http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml] Schwartz took a new and compelling approach and arrived at an estimate even lower.[http://www.geocities.com/jbraun1984/HeatCapacity.pdf] Another key paper, by Roy Spencer and co-authors, examined a newly discovered negative feedback over the tropics.[http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf] They identified this negative feedback as possibly being the "Infrared Iris" effect hypothesized by Richard Lindzen. If confirmed, this discovery may explain why the Earth has not warmed as much as AGW theory projected over the last 30 years.
:::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)


''2. An independent review is also warranted because the IPCC put key authors in charge of reviewing their own papers. The authors are in a position to keep alternative viewpoints from being presented. This is not an independent review. Roger Pielke of CIRES has pointed out the problems with this approach and detailed the neglect of key research findings when they were contrary to the conclusions of the IPCC authors/reviewers.
== Climategate? ==


* http://climatesci.org/2007/09/01/the-2007-ipcc-assessment-process-its-obvious-conflict-of-interest/
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)
* http://climatesci.org/2007/11/30/climate-metric-reality-check-1-the-sum-of-climate-forcings-and-feedbacks-is-less-than-the-2007-ipcc-best-estimate-of-human-climate-forcings/
* http://climatesci.org/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/
* http://climatesci.org/2007/07/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-ii/


''3. The IPCC has not spent any time or effort in validating the General Circulation Models used to project future climate. The IPCC has discussed ocean heat content but has not used this important metric in model validation. Nor has the IPCC spent any time or effort in researching or using the principles of scientific forecasting. At least three peer-reviewed journals are dedicated to scientific forecasting, but the IPCC seem to be completely unaware of this literature. We now have enough data to conduct computer model validity tests. Some of these should be done using ocean heat content. Any resulting projections should meet the principles involved in scientific forecasting. Here are links to initial work in these areas.
: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)


* http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/prediction_and_forecasting/001376letter_to_nature_geo.html
::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)
* http://climatesci.org/2008/05/21/can-the-ipcc-model-projections-of-global-warming-be-evaluated-from-just-several-years-of-data/
* http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf


''4. The IPCC continues to promote "hockey stick" graphs of paleoclimate reconstructions. The IPCC claims these reconstructions are independent confirmations of the original MBH reconstructions debunked by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. However, the National Academy of Sciences investigated and agreed with McIntyre and McKitrick that strip bark trees such as bristlecone pines are not temperature proxies and should not be used in reconstructions. The new, supposedly "independent," reconstructions promoted by the IPCC all use strip bark trees or other non-temperature proxies. It is time for an independent review of this controversy as well. [[User:Ron Cram|Ron Cram]] 16:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
::::The scientists in question above were investigated and their data was found to be sound.  Unfortunately, scientists and mathematicians use the word "trick" to mean something different than lay persons. For example, for very small angles, sin(theta) ~= theta, a valid true "trick" that physicists use very often when the fourth or fifth decimal place does not matter.  It was this type of trick that they were referring to. As scientists, they did try to present their findings in the most favorable terms, but did so in a mathematically and scientifically reliable fashion. As to withholding some data, that is also valid as they are working on long-term projects, and the collection of that data was expensive and will be used in the future. It is true that they used less than flattering terms to describe some of their adversaries, but whose email is completely PC these days? That is merely unprofessional behavior brought into the light. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


== Undone Joel M. Kaufmann's edit ==
:::::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)
I have undone Joel M. Kaufmann's recent edit (see [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Global_warming&oldid=100432087 diff]) because it is far different from expected Citizendium style. If you wish to make comments on an article on the Citizendium, you can do so on the talk page. Posting these first-person critical comments in '''bold''', inline in the article is not appropriate, especially as some of the comments suggest that other authors of this article have been engaged in "confusing the unwary" and acting "fraudulently". The edit was also marked as 'minor' but quite clearly was not. --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


==What caused it==
== Plausible-looking criticism ==


I skimmed the article without finding anything which explains how "greenhouse gases" have contributed to the modern period of global warming. Do I need to look harder, or is this a chance for us to improve the writing?
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)


Also, I'm very curious about what has caused other periods of global warming, particularly the warm periods between the [[ice age]]s. And what caused the [[ice ages]] to stop (or start), if human industry did not contribute substantially to "greenhouse warming"?
:Looks like the usual denial to me. Now if it were from a site called, say, environmentalpost.com... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 21:34, 9 May 2011 (CDT)


I'd like to see a little more about the sun's output. I don't have any degrees in science, but I've read some non-technical articles about solar variation affecting the absorption of cosmic rays in the earth's atmosphere. Cosmic rays are apparently related to cloud formation, which in turn influences terrestrial warming.
== Doonesbury ==
*Am I describing this theory correctly?
[http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/09/25] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 04:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
*Does the theory have enough credibility to be mentioned in the article?
 
I'm also concerned about the politicization of the science here. I see a polarization into two camps:
#Supporters of the [[Kyoto Protocol]] and proponents of the Greenhouse Theory of human-caused global warming
#Opponents of the Greenhouse Theory and opponents of the [[Kyoto Protocol]]
 
Both camps say they are motivated by the science to support (or oppose) the treaty. Could one side be "lying"? If it's possible for a side to be less than candid about its motivation, how should the encyclopedia describe this situation? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 
== Small changes ==
 
I again stuck my neck out and added a few things to this hotly-debated article. I added a reference to a recent  book written by skeptics, not because I like the book or agree with it (I didn't read it), but because I feel that CZ should not ignore the view of the skeptics. To counterbalance somewhat I also linked to the official  APS statement that supports the IPCC. (If somebody wants to know, I'm  not a skeptic or believer. One thing I'm sure of: the world will run out of fossil fuels and then the CO<sub>2</sub> emission will stop).--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 15:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 
==Period in question==
 
Temperature is up since 1850, or since 1906, or since the mid-twentieth century.
 
From 1850 to 2010, the increase could be due to a "recovery" from the [[Little Ice Age]], or AGW, or both. But are we talking about the last 160 years, the last 104 years, or the last 60 years?
 
This is not a quibble. There is a healthy controversy -- '''among climate scientists''' -- as to what portion of the warming in the various periods is natural or man-made.
 
And I'm going to segue from this lack of clarity about the time period being discussed, to the utter lack of objectivity about the '''causes''' of global warming. Advocates of the [[Kyoto Protocol]] (global warming treaty) all support the AGW theory. On the other hand, AGW skeptics generally oppose the Kyoto Protocol. (Each side says it's simply following the science and that the other side is politically motivated.)
 
I hope we can explain clearly the physical forces involved in:
* the AGW: ups and downs in "[[greenhouse gases]]" like CO2 correlate with subsequent ups and downs in worldwide near-surface air temperature, and therefore must be the cause
* other theories: e.g., that variations in the [[sunspot cycle]] correlate closely with 20th century variations in near-surface air temperature, and therefore must be the cause
 
I also hope that we won't try to do "science by ballot box" but will explain the actual theories. For example, CO2 is analogous to the glass in a greenhouse, keeping "in" heat in the form of infrared rays by bouncing them back from the middle atmosphere to the ground again. Another example, variations in sunspots affect the [[solar wind]] which determines the extent to which [[cosmic rays]] penetrate the earth's atmosphere, which in turn affects [[cloud formation]], and the height and extent of cloud cover determines how much infrared radiation reaches the earth's surface to heat it up.
 
I'd like our articles about climate to focus more on the science itself, rather than on the number (or prominence) of people and organizations who endorse or reject any particular theory. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 
==Reversion==
I have reverted most of [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Global_warming&diff=100665605&oldid=100663786 Ed Poor's latest edits] as they do not add to the quality of the article, but instead seem designed to move the balance of the article towards sowing doubt in the mind of the reader. For example, evidence regarding the scientific consensus on global warming was relegated to the end of an opening paragraph, rather than being maintained early on, and likewise the view of science academies was reduced to the language of opinion ("''..say that...''"); the absence of the reference early on helps to build doubt. Also, that information was [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Global_warming&diff=100127601&oldid=100127090 originally inserted] by [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]], an expert in atmospheric science, so the best people to consider its removal would be future [[:Category:Earth Sciences Editors|Earth Sciences editors]]. In another case, the reference at the end of the paragraph is there to support the entirety of the paragraph, yet Ed inserted a Wikipedia-style 'Fact' template after the first sentence. By the way, I'm not a climate scientist, so I don't intend to be drawn into a debate with Ed about global-warming denial. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 08:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 
==Monckton text move==
Placing non-peer reviewed material, that was published below a clear APS disclaimer notice, in a prominent position within an encyclopedia scientific article appears inappropriate. I've moved the text to the bibliography page so it's not lost; I have no objection to it being made accessible, but there must be rigorous standards of inclusion in a scientific encyclopedia article.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 13:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
== Body count ==
 
The report being referred to in the "400 scientists" thing is not the same as the letter that that report refers to, which means that passage is muddling itself up. I reverted it, but in fact I should have rewritten it. Oops. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:48, 25 September 2011

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

Rather surprised to find no comments on such a potentially controversial topic. I've edited this fairly aggressively and welcome any comments. There are some broken links still, and some updates would be appropriate.Gareth Leng 13:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get to follow this debate much, but do I understand correctly that the terminology is turning toward Global climate change rather than Global warming so as to not confuse those who don't understand why they might be getting colder. D. Matt Innis 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've made a redirect, but they may be two different things, so feel free to correct me. The question is whether we would want to move this article to Global climate change instead. D. Matt Innis 14:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that 'climate change' is a vague term which most often pops up to appease global warming deniers. It shouldn't be used unless the article is about all forms of change in the climate - natural or unnatural, cooling or warming, pressure patterns for whatever reason, etc. John Stephenson 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Climategate?

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

Not sure whether or how to handle it. This refers to a Wikileaks release of leaked e-mails from staff of the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia between academics involved in climate research, They included e-mails that were extremely disparaging about skeptical scientists, e-mails that favoored resisting calls to make all data and analyses openly available, and e-mails that discussed ways of presenting data to most effectively highlight the climate changes - these e- mails used words like "trick" to describe presentational techniques. After the relevations there were several inquiries into the CRU that endorsed the science and the conclusions but criticised the lack of openness. It's an issue about the politics/sociology of science, but I guess I thought it really doesn't cast any light on global warming - unless you're a conspiracy theorist.Gareth Leng 09:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It depends whether this article is about the science of global warming and whether it's happening (clue: yes) or whether it is really about the way the debate over global warming has occurred. I think the former for the reason Gareth points out above. The UEA 'controversy' could be covered elsewhere in an article about the political responses to global warming. John Stephenson 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The scientists in question above were investigated and their data was found to be sound. Unfortunately, scientists and mathematicians use the word "trick" to mean something different than lay persons. For example, for very small angles, sin(theta) ~= theta, a valid true "trick" that physicists use very often when the fourth or fifth decimal place does not matter. It was this type of trick that they were referring to. As scientists, they did try to present their findings in the most favorable terms, but did so in a mathematically and scientifically reliable fashion. As to withholding some data, that is also valid as they are working on long-term projects, and the collection of that data was expensive and will be used in the future. It is true that they used less than flattering terms to describe some of their adversaries, but whose email is completely PC these days? That is merely unprofessional behavior brought into the light. David E. Volk 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention there has been numerous investigations done: by the university, by the British government (through the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) and by Penn State, which have said it was all manufactured. Nothing wrong with having an article on it (Wikipedia does) but probably not something to be focussed on heavily inside the main global warming article. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2011 (CDT)

Plausible-looking criticism

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

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

Doonesbury

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

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