Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:21, 22 December 2009

Environment B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Weather B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Recent Global Cooling

Whats up with the recent global cooling? Should this merit a mention or is this junk science? Bobchen (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's on FoxNews, so its safe to ignore. For some related discussion, see above, in the section strangely enough called "Hawaii Reporter". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, Did you really say that? Translation: Because it was mentioned by a certain set of persons it can't be legitimate. Just Google "NASA cooling", then ask yourself whether your dismissal was appropriate. What a waste of space on this site--although you could argue that my response is an equal waste of space:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherviewkhh (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he did really say that. But your "translation" is wrong. The reason its dismissed is because it is not provided in a scientific venue. However much one might like FoxNews... it isn't a scientific media, and thus not a reliable source to such claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Try googling russian prediction global cooling. You'll find stuff like this that hopefully won't be so prejudicially dismissed. TMLutas (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.105.117 (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If by 2009 temperatures have failed to stop dropping, then we will know that this is not simply a result of the hurricane cycle. In that case, it may represent a permanent change and will therefore warrent a note. In any case, a theory doesn't have to be popular to have merit. Rarensu (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.76.243 (talk)

Well, here we are in December 2009. Time's passed and we're still not seeing the global warming reality that the models all promised. TMLutas (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get your deadline from? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Stupid, is'nt there a single climate warming expert that can tell how long a cooling trend must be before we can call it Global Cooling 10, 12, 14, 16 years, or must the cooling period always be 1 or more years longer than the current cooling period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.236.53 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The timescale to measure climate over is ~30 years - so yes there are several climate experts who will disagree with you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lower Atmosphere 30 year averaged/smoothed temperatures reveal an approximate 0.2 degree C anomaly and what is the margin of error ? Has there really even been any significant 30 year warming ?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/november-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-0-50-deg-c/

206.47.249.252 (talk) Sun Spot —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Since you are quoting Spencer, i'll reply with the Sat/Radiosonde record: RSS sees 0.153°K per decade, UAH sees 0.13°K per decade. over the last ~30 years. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-write needed?

I think the article should be re-written to specifically state the impact of solar events on global temperatures. Without such mention, the article is undoubtedly slanted and should be flagged as such. --BuLLitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.244.252.194 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The BBC finally admits the truth - will Misplaced Pages?

(That is what is known as a rhetorical question.) What happened to global warming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.76 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good enough source to justify adding anything to the article. Frankly, it's a pretty bad one - it assumes a brief fluctuation in global temperatures disproves the long-term trend of gradual warming. While it's true that no recent year has been hotter than 1998, the last 10 years have been on average the hottest decade on record. The claim that recent lower temperatures mean global warming isn't happening was debunked by the Associated Press here: . Robofish (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad link, do you have a better one?--SPhilbrickT 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this also the BBC "admitting the truth"? This year 'in top five warmest' --Escape Orbit 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course the BBC is not a good enough resource to justify changing this article in any way. We must dogmatically continue our reliance on the fact of global warming while turning a blind eye (or two) from all of our trusted global warming scientists who've been falsifying and destroying records, shunning peers who look at the actual scientific data and conclude that global warming is not true, and brazenly writing each other about all their "sins". Bah...this article about the global cooling scare from the 1970s was obviously written (or at least very heavily edited) by one of them thar lyin', cheatin', no good global warmin' scientists. Global warming...what a bunch o' bunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.143.217 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1980 Cosmos series with Carl Sagan

I've watched the episode referred to in this section (Heaven & Hell, Episode 4). The current piece does not reflect what Carl Sagan says. I quote:

"The bright sandy surface and dusty atmosphere of Mars reflect enough sunlight back to space to cool the planet - freezing out all its water, locking it in a perpetual ice age. Human activities brighten our landscape and our atmosphere. Might this ultimately make an ice age here? At the same time we are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide - increasing the greenhouse effect. The earth need not resemble Venus too closely to become barren and lifeless. It might not take much to destabilize the earth's climate, to make this heaven - our only home in the cosmos - into a kind of hell."

It is obvious that he is not talking about climate engineering - but the possible climate changes that might effect the Earth - from his perspective in 1979. Changes are needed. Starviking (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I looked over the segment in the article, and it seems like a reasonably fair representation of your quote. But then I've never seen Cosmos and (blashphemy, I known) the book has been lingering in my bedside pile for two years or so. Any particular thing you would like to change?

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, within the context of his actual quote it seem to me that the whole section should be just removed. Sagan isn't talking about global cooling in the modern sense - just contrasting between the cooling effect of albedo changes on Mars and the greenhouse effect on Venus.Starviking (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to me deleting the Sagan section?Starviking (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut madeStarviking (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed the discussion but the removal seems like the only thing to do. Sagan was not promoting either the notion of catastrophic cooling and an imminent ice age, or the notion of a runaway greenhouse effect, but highlighting the sensistivity of the climate to changes in albedo and release of greenhouse gases. This reference is as out-of-place here as it would be on global warming. --TS 14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"no, of course" not sufficient reason for a revert.

I don't mind getting reverted if I'm wrong. I expect a minimum courtesy of a reason. This is not a reason.

17:05, 4 December 2009 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,495 bytes) (rv: no. of course.) (undo)

The underlying edit did two fairly uncontroversial things. It made explicit that the IPCC statement was in 2001. It also included a statement supportive of the idea that the 1970s concerns aren't what's going on now, that the current pause is at a higher level than the temps which raised concern in the 1970s.

I'm ok with an argument. I'm ok with hashing out some sort of improvement that has zero of my proposed texts in. What I think is unacceptable is reflexive reverts with no alternatives given, no discussion other than "no". TMLutas (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the edit was reverted again, this time with something that I can work with. I'm going through the editor's talk page. TMLutas (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It comes up fairly often. If you haven't read it before, I have. Please propose controversial changes here before adding them to the article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I do propose controversial edits in talk prior. Your private opinion of what is controversial is not law. This is why we're all supposed to provide reasons why we do things including revert. Please follow normal Misplaced Pages convention in future.

It's astonishing how much effort has been expended in this article to keep out the most minor and noncontroversial mention of a reality, that just as people talked about global cooling in the mid-70s they're also talking about it today. I understand what's behind it and I can respect the current of opinion so long as it stays within the rules. Sometimes it doesn't. TMLutas (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of terminology of "Global cooling"

The article as written states: "The term "global cooling" did not become attached to concerns about an impending glacial period until after the term "global warming" was popularized." Since the famous Time magazine article of 1974 uses the term, it would seem to me that the term "global cooling" significantly predates "global warming," though I am eager to be corrected. Wbehun (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Its off in the archives somewhere. Did you check? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

proposed 2000s section

Here is proposed text to support a new 2000s section (current numbering would be section 4.3). The ref needs improvement but I'm dashing this off in order to get at least something up.

2000s

The 1998 super el-nino temperature peaks not being exceeded according to some global warming measures, popular press speculation arose that global warming had ceased and that a pause or global cooling was starting. A 2009 peer reviewed paper Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change asserts that the globe is cooling and will be cooling for the next 50 years. Cosmic rays let in by the ozone hole in the Antarctic played a significant role in the preceding global warming and the closing of the hole is reversing the temperature effects.

I believe that this can form the nucleus of a decent section on the present day global cooling phenomenon. TMLutas (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• B-Class Weather articles
• Mid-importance Weather articles
• Unsorted weather articles
• WikiProject Weather articles