Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:26, 2 April 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Misplaced Pages's Global Warming FAQ. If you are new to this page take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion please. Also bear in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about global warming. Any such messages will be deleted. This page is only to be used for discussing improvements to the Global warming article. Thank you.

	Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 4, 2007 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encylopedic (sic) message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Misplaced Pages". The Denver Post.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 Archive 96

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February–August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February–April 2005 April–June 2005 May–October 2005 October–November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January–April 2006 April–May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August–October 2006 October–November 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 February–March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 (2) April 2007 (3) April 2007 (4) April 2007 (5) April 2007 (6)
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Biased article?

WTF??? I find that this page is a bit biased towards "global warming IS harmful" and "global warming MUST be stopped"... it still hasn't been universally agreed upon (most but not all scientists agree on it), so do Misplaced Pages's policies allow this sort of bias? I'm not sure whether majority opinions should be presented as fact, even if they are majority opinions; they should simply have more prominence than minority opinions in my view.--172.163.15.98 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This article reflects the consensus opinion, with due weight to minority opinions. You might want to take a look at the scientific opinion on global warming to get an idea what the consensus is, and how strong it is. The article does not include complete fringe opinions like "there is a giant conspiracy of communist scientists who invented global warming to enrich themselves on research grants while destroying our free markets". Where does it say "global warming MUST be stopped"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does it mention that the climate has cooled in the 21st century or that climate precictions have been abysmal failure (prediction: warming, actual: cooling) 79.79.229.103 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You won't get the alarmists who 'guard' this article allowing the mention of such things - besides, it has only been cooling for 7 years. 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It is 8 years that it has been cooling --- ever since the IPCC predicted it would warm! 79.79.229.103 (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard to see 8 years, more like 6-7. See http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe-m.html (check the 'fit' of the 0.0 anomaly line!) 01:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about this being a rather biased article, disrespecting the skeptic's view, and ignoring the larger historical perspective of climate variations, such as the "mid-holocene optimum" about 4,000 years ago, far warmer than today. The more recent "medieval warm period" is mentioned briefly but depicted as cooler than today, despite contrary historical facts (eg Greenland being green). It ignores possible benefits of warming, which are considerable for much of the world. In view of past examples of consensus among the scientific community mentioned above, majority opinion should NOT be presented as fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabrabyn (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 March 2009

Please do not confuse this article with Global warming controversy. Viewed from a multi-article perspective, this article, describing the mainstream scientific concept, was allocated the name space "Global warming", where as the skeptical and political sides were allocated the name space "Global warming controversy". This perspective rests tremendously on the definition of its constituents. For example, while "Global warming" implies simply an increase in global temperature, it is used to describe the modern increase in global temperature and its projected continuation. In the past temperatures have risen, however it has also declined. Rather than describing every increase in temperature as "Global warming" and every decreases as "Global cooling", the title "Paleoclimatology" was created to describe these cycles. The modern upturn in global temperature does has yet to posses a projected cooling period with sufficient certainty, in fact, many scientists are not necessary sure how high the temperature will rise to with sufficient certainty. Essentially speaking, maybe what you're looking for is to add a navigational link leading to the Global warming controversy the article lead—like that linking to Paleoclimatology. Right now we are in progress of doing so, however, some editors here want to raise the article's (Global warming controversy) quality before we do so. I don't believe that it is absolutely necessary, however since I'm planning on cleaning the article up anyway, I'm slightly disinterested. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenland wasn't green during the Medieval warm period, even 1st-hand Norse accounts say so (Eirik's saga and the Grænlendinga saga). The Holocene optimum was closer to 8 ka than 4, and was a part of coming out of the last glacial. It had temperature increases of a magnitude comparable today, but at a slower rate. The Medieval warm period was within natural variability; we are now pretty confidently outside it. No, it shouldn't be presented as fact because of a scientific consensus, but research overwhelmingly shows that it is happening. I'm not sure where possible benefits of warming would go, my best guess would be to look around Wiki to see if there's anything about it and do some research on it. Awickert (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is, for example, "scientists and individuals are seeking the appropriate response to global warming"... and IMO "appropriate" is a POV term, because it represents majority opinion and not fact. Even if the entire world's population somehow wanted to stop global warming, the term would still be a POV term because "appropriate" is an opinion. It's like putting "beautiful planet" in an article but "beautiful" is a POV term. --172.131.217.195 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Appropriate" is neutral, as it does not identify any one response, nor does it take sides with regard to mitigation vs. adapation. The anon should read WP:Truth. -- Skyemoor (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I would have considered the article on global warming controversy biased in the same way (except in the opposite direction) because it appears to denounce global warming at first glance. --172.131.217.195 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that is a biased article. This guff has been going since the late 1980s but really nothing unusual has occurred and we have just had the coldest winter in 20 years. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Antarctic shelf collapse could tilt Earth's axis, resulting in much higher sea levels in some areas

See here, perhaps interesting to mention in this article. Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Original article is apparently this one. As is typical, the popular press account garbles things a good deal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Give it a little time to marinade. -Atmoz (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I also heard that the hotter atmosphere will cause the earth to rise (hot air rises as it is less dense than the cooler air) upwards towards the sky (the atmosphere will pull the solid earth with it by the attraction of gravity). The inertia will cause the sea level to rise on the down side - which will also be the heaviest side - drowning everyone and everything except the water plants. I'm afraid Foxy Loxy and Chicken Little will both perish. 8( The good news is, so will all the crap reporters. --Candy (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion page is for article improvement, not blog entries. --Skyemoor (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't 100% crap reporting, just about 50% :). It just focused in on the true polar wander (I'm guessing that's what they mean by the axial tilt, otherwise there would be no change in the position of the geoid bulge due to rotation with respect to the continents and oceans), without really describing it, and confused ice sheet with shelf (no mass anomaly from losing an ice shelf, as it is isostatically compensated by the instantly-deforming seawater). But I do think that both their 1st-order conclusion of geoid change due to the sudden loss of mass (ice sheet) that won't be compensated by the mantle for several thousand years, and the true polar wander, would be interesting to put somewhere after the dust settles; maybe effects of global warming?

Name change?

Scientists seem to use the term 'climate change' to describe what we discuss in the article as 'global warming'. Should WP reflect this?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientists do use the term "global warming" so that's not sufficient motivation in itself to call for a title change. I think "global warming" is a little more common in the U.S. and "climate change" is a little more common in Europe, but that's just my perception. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that the two terms are often used interchangeably, and this sometimes causes confusion in the public mind. However, "climate change" is a more general term that refers to major changes in the long-term weather patterns of a given region or of the Earth as a whole. As the Earth has gone through numerous climate changes throughout it's history, the term "climate change" can denote either a warming trend or a cooling trend. The term "global warming" is more specific, and is commonly used to refer to the current warming trend (i.e. climate change) that our planet is undergoing. Are people suggesting we change this article's title to Climate change, or redirect searches for "climate change" to this page? That's not feasible, as we already have an excellent article titled Climate change. Both articles link to each other, and both have well written leads that I believe should clear up any confusion anyone has about the two terms.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)~—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs)

I'm sure this has been discussed to death before, but I think that "climate change" should appear somewhere in the lead, to reflect that this is now very widely used to describe recent and predicted global warming and its effects. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Need for realisation that tree is the only way to fight global warming in a meaningful way

Combating global warming has broadly two components:Decreasing the release of green house gases and Sequestering the green house gases, of which CO2 is the component, from atmosphere. Battle has to be fought on both the fronts but it is found that emphasis is only on the former. There is not sufficient emphasis on the later. It must be understood that even with best efforts we can only reduce the emission of greenhouse gas but we cannot eliminate it altogether. So the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere will only increase with time. Hence we need to concentrate on sequestering the green house gases also.When it comes sequestering CO2 there is nothing on the planet, it is repeated nothing, except a growing tree that can do it. The fact that one and only way to sequestrate CO2 is through trees, is a very important fact that must be understood if we want to fight global warming in a realistic way.It is a well known fact that a plant purifies environment but we need to understand how after all a plant does purifies environment. And is there any way to quantify the amount of purification done by various plants? There is nothing magical or unknown about the process. The process which purifies the environment is a well known process ie photosynthesis and there is an unambiguous way to measure the amount of purification done by a plant. Photosynthesis is natural processes that uses CO2, releases O2 and produces various forms of sugar ie C6H12O6.The amount of carbon sequestered by a plant can actually be measured without any ambiguity as explained below. The byproduct of the photosynthesis is cellulose or C6H12O6 or wood. Hence the physical manifestation of the photosynthesis is the increase in volume and weight of the plant. It is possible ie the rate of sequestration of CO2 may differ from plant to plant ,which is also evident from that fact that different tree/plants grow at different rates , but the sum total of the CO2 sequestered has to be proportional to dry biomass ie the biomass from which the water has been removed. In fact empirically it can be said that for every 180 tons of dry wood produced, 264 tons of CO2 is consumed and 192 tons of O2 is given out. Not so evident but another important contribution of a growing tree is that apart from conversion of CO2 to O2 a growing plant also absorbs heat. This is nothing but the sunlight that would have otherwise converted into heat had it not been used for photosynthesis. This is why we feel cooler under a tree. So a tree also helps the global warming by storing heat. Above stated facts can be understood by the reverse logic like as follows. Suppose we cut a tree and burn it. We get mainly two things: CO2 and heat. By simple logic of conservation of energy and chemical constituents it can be safely assumed that this was the amount of heat and CO2 absorbed by the plant while growing. Now the issue comes that if photosynthesis is the key to carbon sequestration then why emphasis on tree only as every plant does photosynthesis. Here it is important to understand that though there are various form of C6H12O6 like sugar, cellulose, carbohydrate, oil (as happens in say pine trees) etc but timber is the only way CO2 remains blocked for a longer period of 5-100 years. In all other forms either it is burnt, consumed or decomposed within a year or so releasing the entire CO2. Hence though all the plants excluding CO2 can sequester CO2 but the form in which it does, the same cannot be stored for long period of more than maximum 5 years and on average 1 year. Inferences that can be drawn from above analysis is as follows: There is nothing on the planet other than a growing tree that can reduce CO2. Meaning thereby that tree has to central to any program of combating global warming. For long term it is much more beneficial to promote use of timer rather than substituting as it is the only meaningful way to store CO2.If an item which is substituting wood consumes less energy during its production than what is produced by burning the equivalent amount of wood, then only it is beneficial to environment else it is more harmful, at least from environmental point. There is a need to promote plywood industry in big way which helps in using even the inferior quality of wood to be used as timber which otherwise would have been used as fuel-wood.A fully grown tree which is not growing in volume may be good for wild life but is doing no good to the environment as the sum total of CO2 taken in and given out almost balances each other. Hence felling of mature tree, using it as timber (not fuel-wood) and planting new trees is the best solution to global warming. But unfortunately this point is not being given its due importance in the CDM mechanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaykrsrivastava (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

tldr. But one comment that struck my eye is There is nothing on the planet other than a growing tree that can reduce CO2 - wrong, wrong wrong, a thousand times wrong. CO2 can be reacted with Magnesium oxide or Calcium oxide, storing the carbon in mineral form and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. This is known as carbon mineralization. Raul654 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's copy and paste from with a little, but insignificant, rework on the prose taking it out of list form. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Offsite discussion on graph

There is currently an off-site discussion taking place concerning, in part, whether this graph from this article is a violation of WP:NOR. All are welcome to come join the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Offsite comments can sometimes be helpful. But in the end concrete proposals for article improvement should be discussed here, rather than requiring editors to go to an off-site forum. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Boris re: discussion taking place here.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is OR about taking reliable, sourced data and graphing it? Raul654 (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the participants in that forum are banned and so can't discuss this here, but still have views worth considering. The argument that the graph is NOR is that it is synthesizing data from more than one source, which according to this discussion, violates the policy. My take on the debate is that a blanket ban on graphs using data from more than one source is probably taking things too far. Instead, each graph should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Several of the editors in that NOR discussion, however, appear to lean towards a more hard-line approach. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't see the synthesis because all the data are from one source, the Mauna Loa data series that Keeling initiated. The data series is publicly available from CDIAC. If I'm being thick please point out where the synthesis is occurring. In any event Robert's graph is just a clearer and SVG-format plot of the Mauna Loa data compared to the non-scalable plots of the same data widely seen elsewhere on the web, e.g. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the participants in that forum are banned and so can't discuss this here, but still have views worth considering. - we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Assuming, for the moment, that the NOR policy blanketly prohibits graphs from multiple data sources (an argument I don't buy, FWIW), it doesn't apply in this case. I'm almost positive that Robert used a single NOAA dataset to generate that graph -- presumably one of the ones listed here. Raul654 (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to give banned authors any further say on the article; all article change discussion should take place here. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointless discussion. NOAA produced plot looks (*gasp*) exactly like the one in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Subsectioning "Greenhouse effect" in Forcing and feedback

Should the section "Greenhouse effect" be subsectioned under "Forcing and feedback"? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It could go either way. "Forcing" tends to be thought of as things that cause changes (volcanoes, changes in greenhouse gases, whatever) while the greenhouse effect per se is a more basic aspect of the climate system. But yeah, the GH effect leads naturally into a discussion of the different forcing processes. It might make sense to put all this under one larger heading but I'm not sure what that would be -- maybe something like "the physical climate system" though that's not quite right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts were to have the subsection "Feedback" as its own section, which thus leads to renaming "Forcing and feedback" to "Forcing". The concept is essentially that we don't need subsections reproducing what the reader would already get from the title of the containing section. After that we can probably move "Greenhouse effect" into "Forcing". I don't think we need to emphasize the basic aspects about the climate system insomuch as to articulate to the reader the concept of what affects or changes (Forcing) the climate system. I'm kind of blank on a better term, in Global warming controversy, they kept it simple with "Causes". ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lenton

Boris, please explain your rmv of Lenton in lead, when paper states "under some plausible decadal-scale scenarios of land use and greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing, switches occur between two highly nonlinear metastable regimes of the chaotic oscillations corresponding to the “active” and “weak” monsoon phases, on the intraseasonal and interannual timescales."Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Any change to the lede should be discussed first. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable argument, but not the one Boris made. Unless anyone can explain why the source contradicts the text, or suggest another reason for leaving it out, I will put it back.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. If your understanding of the words you quoted (much less the rest of the paper) really is this poor, please leave it to someone else. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The term 'monsoon failure' is widely used to describe even single season disruption. Note i didn't say 'permanent failure'. Would you be happy with 'disruption to' as opposed to 'failure'? If not, I suggest you find your own form of words, as currently the issue of abrupt climate change, in the form of disruption of ocean and atmosphere, is essentially missing from the lead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the paper again. Hint #1: note the italicized words "under some plausible decadal-scale scenarios of land use and greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing." Hint #2 (from the paper): "Greenhouse warming that is stronger over land and in the Northern Hemisphere tends to strengthen the monsoon." Hint #3: "increasing CO2 stabilizes the monsoon." There are other important points as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, there is potentially significant disruption to the monsoon. Even a strengthening effect is a disruption, if you're trying to grow crops. I think the paper's pretty clear that major effects on the monsoon are plausible/expected. If you'd prefer, we could use the examples of the west african monsoon, or enso instead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the issue is the word "disruption". Merriam-Webster defines disruption as "1 a: to break apart : rupture b: to throw into disorder <agitators trying to disrupt the meeting>2: to interrupt the normal course or unity of." Disruption implies a loss of continuity: the monsoon is not disrupted, although farming would be. Awickert (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, can someone suggest a form of words for this inclusion that is comprehensible to the general reader.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "Precipitation in the Asian monsoon region is projected to increase, and may become more variable from year to year." It shouldn't be in the lead, though. And I'm not convinced it should be in the article at all: there is no obvious justification for discussing one region of the world but not others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Why is it important enough to include in the lead? (or even the article?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It feeds a billion people! I'd favour including the ENSO, WAM, etc in the same concept. I think it does need to be in the lead, to give some 'flesh' to the concept. I also think that we need to explain the idea of ocean/atmospheric circulation changes, however briefly.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Andrew, you're onto something here. Regional climate change shouldn't be a redlink. Would you like to start the article, summarizing past and projected changes to various regions around the world? That would be great! We could then link to it from the main global warming article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. But shuldn't this be in some regional section of the effects of global warming article? If you want something specific to global warming, then shouldn't the title be regional effects of global warming. bearing in mind the regional effects are by nature abrupt (on a climatological scale), then would abrupt climate change be better?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

COP15

I'm planning to add a few words about COP15 to the end of the last lead sentenceAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What words did you have in mind? --Skyemoor (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Er.. how about: 'A successor to the current Kyoto protocol agreement is expected to be agreed at the COP15 talks in December.'Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Related climatic issues

In the section "Related climatic issues", the first paragraph covers ocean acidification. Perhaps it would be best to move that paragraph to "Attributed and expected effects" under the subsection "Environmental". In the second paragraph it covers Global dimming, I think it would be best to move this to the section "Forcing". The third paragraph is uncited, however, "Forcing" appears to be the best location. Essentially the section "Related climatic issues" is unnecessary. What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Acidification is environmental not climaticAndrewjlockley (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it needs to be a climatic effect for it to be considered as an "Attributed and expected effects". Furthermore, "Economic" is not a change in climate. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I was endorsing you, not contradicting you.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I thought you meant something else. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson quote

Personally, I think the evidence for global warming being caused by greenhouse emissions is strong. But NPOV requires us to present the best argument on the other side, and this is the best I know of. Read it. I think you will find it carefully researched and to the point. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick, we must base this article on whatever is published in the relevant peer reviewed journals. Science does not value the opinions of prominent scientist more than those of anyone else. All that counts are the results that are based on good science as judged by the reviewers for peer reviewed journals. So, the "best arguments" are precisely those that have been published in peer reviewed journals. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a good idea not to tell us which quote you mean on talk, because then we can have all the fun of going to the edit history to find it. Anyway, I think you mean this and the answer is the one you've already been given William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: I would suggest, with reference to this comment and your comment in the section below, that sarcasm is not the best mode of rational discussion.

I'm sorry, Rick, but when a question is brought up without any reference to the specific quote, I think a little sarcasm is in order - think about how much longer it took those who replied to you to find it - common courtesy. Awickert (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I'm a big fan of peer review, but I make an exception for Freeman Dyson, because he has bucked the peer review process in the past, and been proved right.Rick Norwood (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Being able to buck the peer review process does not imply that he is always right. Furthermore, my presumption is that you believe that his scientific concept will become accepted at a later time; Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT), we document things after they happen and not before. So after or if his concept becomes accepted and a scientific consensus emerges, then we'll document it here. Furthermore, if you want to add something, show us the sources and show us what you want to enter. This makes it much easier to concentrate on substance than on the beliefs. We can't have a COI unless we know what you're proposing in the first place. I'm assume you mean this diff, but making yourself clear is your job. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. --Seba5618 (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

After careful study of the movement pattern of parking cops, I've managed to park my car one night without a ticket! Now I'm immune to all traffic law! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of Freeman Dyson's notability, you may have noticed major articles about his new book, in the New Yorker and other magazines. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Which merits inclusion in the Dyson article - but not here, per all of the above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re adding a section header to avoid total incomprehensibility

I have run across this paper which suggests an alternate theory: Michal Kravcik, Jan Hronsky, Jaroslav Tesliar, Robert Zvara The New Theory of The Global Warming 2002-01-26 Is there any merit in including it?  kgrr 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be very badly translated from Foreign. Even allowing for that, it appears to have no merit at all - I'm afraid I couldn't work out what the "new theory" even was. You could tell us I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can say on my own authority (though you folks don't have to listen) that the part about changes in the Earth's crust is absolutely absurd. 70 cm of water on the Earth's oceans will, when the system comes to equilibrium (~10,000 years) depress the ocean basins by about 70 cm * density of water / density of upper mantle = 70 cm * (1000 kg/m^3 / 3300 kg/m^3) = 21 centimeters. Orogenesis is mountain building. If they think that a 21-centimeter drop in the ocean floor will cause mountains to pop up like daisies... I don't know what to say. Well, I do, but I won't say it here. And new continents? Oh boy, oh boy. So based on the fact that it is 100% garbage in one section, I think I'm giving it a big thumbs-down. Awickert (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The "paper" seems to be primarily concerned with the contribution deforestation makes to global warming, which, of course, is nothing new. It's been recognized in the AGW science from the 1979 NAS report to the 2001 IPCC report. Additionally, it doesn't appear to be a reliable source, just an environmental NGO.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Since the mid-twentieth century"

The opening line of the article states that global warming has only be noticed since the mid-20th century. I seem to recall much, much older scientific literature describing this phenomenon, but I don't have access to my old university library anymore... Almafeta (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthropogenic warming has been noticed since the mid 20 century, before that it becomes harder to notice our fingerprint. The phenomenon per se has been known since the 18th century...quoting the article: The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed even by those who do not agree that the recent temperature increase is attributable to human activity. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of particular greenhouse gases. --Seba5618 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

regional climate change

regional climate change is getting towards the point where it's possibly worth linking in. needs some further work tho.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

section makeover

I think we should have a pop at this bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/Global_warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects

Responses to global warming

In the Mitigation to global warming, the degree of efforts made by different countries should be shown. A good map herefore is the Climate Cooperation Index by Michèle Battig. See http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181138392.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.180.114 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: undo done by KimDabelsteinPetersen

Planting trees is not a minority view.--Chuck (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Carbon sequestration in general, and tree planting specifically, already are mentioned in the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote was not limited to his views on trees. His view that global warming might be good is most certainly a minority view. More to the point, Dyson is not a climatologist and this extensive quote is giving his amateur opinion far, far more weight that it deserves. Raul654 (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a quote. I wrote it. It's a summary of the article. Anything I paste is from my word processor. I'm trying to spell right. I'm glad somebody read it. I thought the info was interesting, i.e. that a scientist who met Einstein wrote a paper on global warming in the 1970's and recomended planting fast-growing trees. I worked hard enough on that edit that I feel it was sort of rude for a bot to remove it. I'm not sure what a bot is, but it sounds like nobody read what I wrote. As far as I know, bots not for locking articles. They're for erasing sandboxes. Well, I'm disappointed you didn't like the paragraph I wrote, whatever the reason was.--Chuck (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a theory is it not?

The title and description should be changed to state that it is a THEORY, not how it is stated like it's a fact. Only politics don't call it a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer0273 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See the FAQ, here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've updated tha faq - check it out. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

This has a lot of usefule links and needs to be added to external links page with an appropriate title.--Charlesrkiss (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesrkiss (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a political blog and as such fails WP:RS standards. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

People complain that there is not adequate representation of the dissent, and so I'm providing what I believe is a source. It's unfortunate humans will resort to some new set of obscure rituals thinking somehow they'll be preventing evil God of global warming from taking all their plants away, etc. I hope never to revist this page it's so full of ideological crap!! --CharlesRKiss (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with the treatment of dissent at this article, since it would appear there are good scientists, intimately concerned with this topic (though not specifically qualified in it) who are not being referenced because they're not publishing peer-reviewed articles on the subject and are not being funded to be alarmist. However, that's due to puzzling twists in the use of WP:RS, not a complete abrogation of it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heat Capacity of Planet Earth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wait on article and comments until the dust settles, archive discussion before civility degrades. Awickert (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thi s paper challlenges "the large heat capacity of the oceans and the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf --Charlesrkiss (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some questions the paper posed in its conclusion; "Is the effective heat capacity that is coupled to the climate system, as determined from trends in ocean heat content and GMST, too low, or too high? ... Is the relaxation time constant of the climate system determined by autocorrelation analysis the pertinent time constant of the climate system?" It's not clear that this paper is taking a clear stand. What exactly are you suggesting in terms of article improvement? --Skyemoor (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For one, it states pretty explicitly that the CO2 does not have a "long lifetime,... in the atmosphere" that it is rapidly absorbed into the oceans, etc.

It doesn't seem that you could have possibly had enough time to read it. That's the problem. Seriously.--CharlesRKiss(talk) 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The points you raised are already well covered; note that warming oceans release more CO2 than they absorb. And which journal did you say this was published in? --Skyemoor (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

JGR - Atmospheres. Awickert (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm only seeing two references to the lifetime of CO2, one at p.16, wherein "... because of the long lifetime (ca 100 years) associated with excess atmospheric CO2" and one at p.3 "... because of the long lifetime of excess CO2 in the atmosphere-ocean system". I'm not sure either use justifies any change to the article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Equation (18) leads to the conclusion on page 12, first paragraph; and continues. That's the whole point of the article, how could you miss it! --CharlesRKiss (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All right - I looked at it, and while the paper looks all right, I was afraid that it seemed like an oversimplification. So I checked out the article, and found three comments on it, and a reply. The first comment shows that the proposed results don't seem to line up with other data. (Foster, Grant (2008). "Comment on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system" by S. E. Schwartz". Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: D15102. doi:10.1029/2007JD009373.) The second comment shows a much longer analyzed time-scale than that given by the original article. (Scafetta, Nicola (2008). "Comment on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system" by S. E. Schwartz". Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: D15104. doi:10.1029/2007JD009586.) In the response to the comments, the original author almost doubles his predicted time-scale, and questions the value of "climate sensitivity" as an indicator (Schwartz, Stephen E. (2008). "Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"". Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: D15105. doi:10.1029/2008JD009872.). A third comment suggests that the premise in both the article and the response is over-simplifed. Knutti, Reto (2008). "Comment on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system" by S. E. Schwartz". Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: D15103. doi:10.1029/2007JD009473. So with this much batting back and forth, I would like to let the dust settle before adding something like this. Awickert (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You decied where it should appear, that's fine. To be honest, I haven't fullly read it, analyzed it, I don't live by it, I don't pray to it, I just think that "climatalogical modelling" if it is to make conclusions, a) needs to reveal error, b)needs to be plenty in number.

Frankly, I'm actually afraid of what I think is going on! I'm not a schizophrenic, but this whole mob mentality scared the Jesus out of me, I don't recall ever seeing the one seminal, conclusive experimental proof of this global warming hypothesis. I mean this in a most sincere way! Climatology has a long history, a chart going back to 1880A.D. doesn't work for me... especially if the relaxation time is really about 5yrs., maybe 3yrs. In any case, due to the global economic downturn, we may see a change in C0₂ levels and changes in mean temperature soon. Now, THAT would be interesting!!--CharlesRKiss (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, then you should read Arrhenius paper on CO2 and temperature from the late 1800's; it's a good intro. You should also read my reply before you start talking about "5 or 3" years again - disproven. Awickert (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Disproven? Interesting comment, considering Anthropenic Global Warming has never been proven. It's foundation is modelling, like Communism, the Atkins Diets, Christianity, Slavery, and other grand principles. People just pick the models that are consistent with their opinions, never the contrary. Do what you want with the article, I'm just bringing it in. --CharlesRKiss

(talk) 02:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I was clear that the "5" that they state (well, 5.1), or "3" as you make up, is what I say is disproven. The original authors make it more like 10 in their reply to their own paper, as I state with a reference above. First you don't read my well-researched comments, and then when I mention it, you throw rhetoric my way. This is unproductive. Awickert (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Look. I'm not able to travel to a library right now. Nor shell out $40 for the articles. I liked the article, and I wanted to share here, that's all. If you don't want to include it, fine; I didn't write the damn thing! As far as I'm concerned, they're probably all wrong.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You could ask nicely, and others would be willing to help you with articles. Or you could read what I write when I say that in their reply, they doubled their estimate. If you think they're all wrong, I suppose there isn't much of a point of us debating this. What I see right now is aggressive defense of an article until someone takes the time to look deeper, and then a quick 180. Later, man - looks like we're just arguing and I don't see how this will improve the article. Awickert (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse you don't. It's already perfect in your opinion. If you're going to include one wrong model, you need to include all of them. As it is, I think this Misplaced Pages Global Warming article is controlled pseudo-scientific garbage.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You force me to rescind my goodbye to protect my name. You put words in my mouth that are not true, based on what, my belief that the 5-year response time is untrue because its own authors rescinded it? And this seems to be based the fact that I brought up comments on a paper that you started a discussion on. You know next to nothing about my opinion on the topic. Let me give you a hint: I am a sedimentary geologist. What is one thing that sedimentary geologists do? And in spite of not being an expert on climate science, you call this article pseudo-scientific garbage. I simply exist on this talk page to try to bring science and reason to the debates, but I am archiving this section now before the civility degrades further.

Interesting Table

I think this table should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesRKiss (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC) --CharlesRKiss (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

These values are already covered in the article's link to Atmospheric gases. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The point of the table is to elucidate, emphasize, the change in unit CO2 over 200 years. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article already states what the table illustrates, that there has been a 33% increase in CO2 in the last century. To put the matter in a larger context, the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is 33% larger than it has ever been in the past hundred thousand years. The last time the CO2 was at a maximum, much of the United States was under water. The purpose of your table seems to be to spin this information in the form "only one extra molecule". But that one extra molecule still represents a 33% increase. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd find this table both confusing and misleading. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean that the point of the table is to mislead? All of those gases except Water vapor and CO2 are completely inert with regards to the greenhouse effect. Its like saying that there is nothing strange about a dinner with 1 extra molecule of strychnine per 10,000. There is hardly any change - so what me worry :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is long enough already. I see no need to add a table that repeats information that's already clearly stated in the body.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

When I have a chance to wade through the many possible fallacies one can make during an argument, I'll give you the list of which ones your "Strychnine" argument falls into. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, while you are looking, I can give you yours. It's "Unstated Major Premise". Your premise is that since the concentration of CO2 is low in the atmosphere, its effect will be necessary small. This is a logical fallacy because we know of a lot of substances having a great effect even at very small dosage, as Kim perfectly illustrated. --McSly (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was, "to elucidate, emphasize, the change in unit CO2 over 200 years." Kim's point was, "You mean that the point of the table is to mislead?" .

Where did I ever make a premise, "Your premise is that since the concentration of CO2 is low in the atmosphere, its effect will be necessary small." ! ! !

I was simply stating the facts in the form of a simple table !!! It's others' work to deduce what it means. But if you're somehow curious of my opinion? It is that Global Warming may be another False God, ie. Jesus H. Christ, Mo, Zues, etc. in the guise of a Secular, Psuedo-Scientific, Materialistic Religiosity. So there. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't make that premise, hence the word "unstated" in the logical fallacy. But anyway, let's not waste time on rhetoric. The article already shows in great details the evolution of the concentration of CO2 and its effect in the atmosphere, so I don't think adding this table would provide anything useful. --McSly (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"The article already shows in great details the evolution of the concentration of CO2 and its effect in the atmosphere," Whoa, okay. Sorry. I missed that part. You mean it's clear.. like E=mc, clear. or like Maxwell's Laws clear. I'm Thanking the Existence of God for people like Misplaced Pages Moderators, for controlling all the information that goes into this site in such an unbiased, unopinionated, and rigorously scientific manner.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed this debate, but I suggest if progress is to be made, tempers be checked.

I see no reason to not include information on the concentration of variable gases with time in addition to CO2 (which is given), but I'm not sure why relatively unchanging non-greenhouse gases should be included; it seems like it wouldn't be a good use of space, and would be outside the scope of the article. Awickert (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that ridiculous chart, pardon me, has no "zero" (only shows from 310ppm to 380ppm) -perhaps in the legitmate interest of saving space, even though the Misplaced Pages president makes the claim that all of human information will be here somehow displayed, - so, the chart appears to have measured a multitudinous number of increases in CO₂ levels, when in fact the increase is rounded to 30%, with error -also not included.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The axes are labeled, no? Newspapers, stock markets, etc., don't show "0" either. I wouldn't like to have 4x the height of the chart in blank space underneath. Awickert (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know! It just looks so bad, though. There is very little perspective, and less history. It's the same chart the alarmists use. I'm just saying it looks bad, maybe it can be a crop of a larger image somewhere offsite, or reduce the resolution of a larger image with more history and a zero.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to lose resolution; maybe it would help to list in the caption the "to" and "from" concentrations. Awickert (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely why I created the table. It doesn't show a slope, that can be manipulated. Nor does it need a "zero". It's literally a unit change in CO₂ relative to other gases. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed article

As regional effects of global warming was such fun, why don't we do historical impacts of climate change? Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this might overlap with articles like paleoclimatology and the geologic time-periods? I have a feeling that there is an overview of more recent climate change, but can't find it, so if there isn't one, I think there would be a niche for an overview of the last thousand or so years. Awickert (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking maya, greenland, celts in devon, that kind of thing. A bit jared-Diamond-esque. I can't find anything on WP and it's a cool topic. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - if you can't find anything, I'd say that you could probably paraphrase the main articles on the topics and create an index to them... or create them if they're not created. Sounds good - Awickert (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like y'all are talking about a something like Brian Fagan's books The Little Ice Age and The Long Summer, about how climate has shaped human history. If that's right...sounds like a great idea.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

worth incorporating?

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_mid_range_abatement_curve_2030.pdf

This is interesting. In the "The Certain Cost of Maybe Reducing Global Warming," section. There should definitely be a place for it. A correspondence between cost and CO₂ production reduction. Make a section of this article and throw it in, that's what I think -section on Cap and Trade, Emissions Trading, etc.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how to make sure that the use of this particular source doeen't violate copyright, then ten commandments and the highway code? Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Including Relevant Greenhouse Gas Experiments

Could we include publications based on greenhouse experiments? (long wp:SOAPBOX violation removed per wp:TALK) Let's find those publications and include them here.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See Greenhouse effect#Real greenhouses. -Atmoz (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant part seems to be "Greenhouses thus work primarily by preventing convection; the atmospheric greenhouse effect however reduces radiation loss, not convection." This suggests to me that such experiments would not work very well. You keep saying (CRK) that you just don't believe it. Well, if you're looking for articles you should check the wp:REFDESK. They love to help people find articles. This isn't the place to come and say "hi, I don't know of any articles that support my original research, but let's talk about it." NJGW (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did I write, "hi, I don't know of any articles that support my original research, but let's talk about it."

I was pointing to, by almost enumerating, the gaping holes in research and providing advice. Why don't you just leave it alone and let it stand instead of invoking arbitrary wp. and blockading the flow of information? Or why don't you just go to management and "tell-on-me", and delete my account, because I'm just going to keep pasting this forever as many times as it is deleted -so people can think for themselves about its importance.

Could we include publications based on greenhouse gas experiments?

Perhaps there are papers out there where someone built a greenhouse, and conducted experimnents, and we can include the results here. Maybe someone built a huge one with a geodesic dome over it, like we see in all those 1950's textbooks that tell us what the world would be like in the 21st century. You know the ones. They are like 1/4 mile wide, cost of several hundred million dollars. Or tens of billions of dollars. But were cheaper, and more immediate, in comparison to budget forcasts with respect to CO2 abatement, so it must have been done somewhere. Maybe some experimenters added a lake. Some animal life. Whatever. Measured temperatures, atmospheric gases, etc. And took measurements for a couple years. Can't we add those publications here? What's that place in Arizona, where they all started sleeping with each other; didn't thay do some global warming experiments?

Maybe they added an additional 100ppm CO2 . Measured the temperature increase by a full number of degrees? Maybe that's what got them all hot and bothered, but there should be some data we can include.

It can be included here as an external link.

Okay, I'm familiar with the invocation of feedback mechanisms. That's pretty new. Maybe someone else included feedbacks in their experiments and we can include those papers here, too. If they didn't think the temperature went up enough, they just added a feedback mechanism variable, or so. I think there are experiments with missing feedback mechanisms as sources of discrepancies, right? So certain other experimenters added them in other papers.

Certainly, if computer modeling is so precise and so accurate, how could it be so difficult to just make a greenhouse and conduct real experiments? Oh, it is much more difficult... that's a point. But many universities must've done that anyway, and published articles that we can provide to the public. Even though I'm highly skeptical that an additional 100pm C02 in any greenhouse will either a)last very long, or b)raise temperatures significantly someone must have conducted experiments and published results otherwise! Let's find those publications and include them here.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just press the revert button, please. This whole article can be regarded as a wp:SOAPBOX —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesRKiss (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Charles, if you did a little research you would find answers to most of your questions. There are lots of related papers. What you wrote indicates that you haven't read enough yet. The fact that you are asking someone else to do the research for you justifies removing your comments. For what its worth, greenhouses work by trapping hot air, not by trapping heat. If you increase the CO2 to ten times the current value, there would be no measurable temperature difference. Q Science (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was vigorously brandishing the importance and relative low cost of conducting experiments under controlled condtions, albeit with imperfect individuals and incomplete knowledge. Not communicating the design of any particular experiment, but simply asking that if there are any, it would nice to include them in the article alongside the lavish excess of computer modeling hocus-pocuses and character of their conclusions.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

2. "Summary for Policymakers". Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001-01-20. Retrieved 2007-01-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press