Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 8 January 2016

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

Environment: Climate change 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

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.

Needs total rewrite

The topic of "global cooling" is an extremely complicated one that in this article's case has been reduced to some idiotic political argument about past near term climate predictions. The earth warms and cools. There are ice ages and there are warming periods. An article about global cooling should be about how cooling periods have occurred. The article as it stands should be a minor sidenote about people making short term climate predictions with regard to cooling or warming and how they turned out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You're looking for climate change William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the Climate change article not cover this? The Global warming article is a sister article to this, and it also focuses on near term climate predictions, rather than an analysis of the historical processes. --Escape Orbit 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, see the hatnote right below the article title to find the article you are looking for. Gap9551 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

The lead section is inaccurate and biassed. Global cooling is not a 1970s conjecture, it is something which has actually happened many times in the earth's history, most recently in the period 1979 to 1997. This is demonstrated by actual data which is much more reliable than "literature projecting future warming". Biscuittin (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I did think about completely re-writing the lead section but I decided to ask for feedback first. Biscuittin (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Literature projecting future warming is no more than fortune telling. Biscuittin (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You have your own opinions, but they are clearly your own, and differ from scientific opinion on global warming. You're welcome to those views, but please don't put them here, because they are of no relevance or interest.

Your views about the satellite temperature record are (a) WP:OR and (b) incorrect. The record doesn't show cooling from '79 to '97 William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Also see Etymological fallacy. The meaning of a compound term cannot always be deduced by naively overlaying the meaning of the compounds. As a standing term, global cooling has a specific meaning that is different from any temporary reduction in global temperatures (otherwise it would be essentially a yearly, if not a daily effect). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Does the same Etymological fallacy apply to the term Global warming? Biscuittin (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The term global warming is generally used to refer to the current and ongoing episode of increased temperature, not to each and any global temperature increase ("exceptions prove the rule", "everything depends on context", etc.). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It was premature to remove the "factual accuracy" tag before the dispute is settled. The satellite temperature record is not "my view", it is data published by the University of Alabama at Huntsville. When you say "The record doesn't show cooling from '79 to '97", which record are you talking about? Biscuittin (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course the satellite record is not your view. But Literature projecting future warming is no more than fortune telling very clearly is, and has no place here. As to the record: firstly, see what Stephan wrote. Secondly, where do you get the satellite record showing cooling from '79 to '97 from? Do you have any RS for that? If you're just eyeballing the graph, I can eyeball it too, and say no William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If the graph doesn't show global cooling between 1979 and 1997 then, by the same token, it doesn't show global warming after 1997. You can't have it both ways. Biscuittin (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't asserted here that the graph "show global warming after 1997". You're the only one using that raw graph. You've made assertions apparently based only on that graph; I've asked you if you have sources; you haven't directly replied, you've evaded. If you have no sources then all this discussion is pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My source is the graph. Are you claiming that the data in the graph is inaccurate? Biscuittin (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You're linking to a primary source and putting forward your own synthesis or original research – which is against policy. Provide a secondary source, or desist. . dave souza, talk 13:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how I can make it any clearer. The graph up to 1997 shows mainly negative figures and, after 1997, mainly positive figures. Do you want me to link to some paper which puts an interpretation on those figures? If so, that would be original research. Biscuittin (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you persisting with putting your own interpretation on the graph? That's clearly against policy. Try finding a published third party secondary source that explicitly makes the point you're trying o put across. . . dave souza, talk 14:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put any interpretation on the graph. What interpretation do you claim I am trying to put? Biscuittin (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You've just said the "graph up to 1997 shows mainly negative figures and, after 1997, mainly positive figures|" without any expert published support for that assertion, and you seem to think it has something to do with global cooling but that's not self-evident. Of course it's also the much-adjusted UAH satellite data, which is less significant than land and sea surface datasets. Without a secondary source, you've got nothing. . dave souza, talk 18:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be an expert to distinguish between positive and negative. A child could do it. What is the basis for your assertion that UAH satellite data is less significant than land and sea surface datasets? Biscuittin (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, you have to have some level of expertise to interpret that graph of yours. It shows temperature anomalies, compared to a 30 year average (1981-2010) for that month. So the bars show the difference of each month's temperature from the long-term average for that month, not year-to-year or month to month changes. Blue bars don't mean it's getting colder, they just mean that the given month was colder than the same month in the 30 year average. "All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported. (page 2)" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me help you with a quote: "The average warming rate of 34 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models are too sensitive to CO2. Policy based on observations, where year-to-year variations cause the most harm, will likely be far more effective than policies based on speculative model output, no matter what the future climate does". Biscuittin (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

First, Christy is an expert, but he has been wrong and wrong and wrong again. This is not a peer reviewed paper, but his own statement, made to an express political, not a scientific body. And secondly, it has nothing to do with this article or the discussion so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) Please provide references for your claim that Christy "has been wrong and wrong and wrong again". (2) The fact that a statement is not peer reviewed does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. (3) What is the relevance of the composition of the audience? Biscuittin (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) I'm not really your research assistant, but given your interest in the UAH satellite temperature dataset, I suggest you read the article, in particular the section UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made. (2) is an empty statement. The bum on the street can be correct about the future of stock exchange. (3) I'm sure you can figure this out for yourself. Note that there is both selection and presentation bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Summary of my concerns

1. An accuracy dispute tag has been removed before the dispute is settled
2. There is a dispute about what the term Global cooling actually means
3. I allege that the lead section of the article is inaccurate and biassed
4. My critics claim that it is "not useful" to include temperature data published by the University of Alabama in Huntsville in the article. I claim that it is useful

Biscuittin (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it would have to be demonstrated that "Global cooling" is a term commonly used to describe the sort of phenomenon you're describing in the section above, or conversely that it's used pretty exclusively to refer specifically to its alleged usage in the 70s. The lede and the text in the body seem to differ on what the scope of the article actually is. I do think there's some evidence that the term is used in the context of greater cycles of climate change, or in reference to specific periods, but I'm not sure I've seen enough to conclude that it this is its most WP:RECOGNIZABLE usage. If that were the case, might this topic actually be piped to the Climate change article? I think the first step is clarifying and providing evidence about the usage of this term, and then figuring out what the scope of the article should be. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned by a bot. On the subject of accuracy, I think the template was misapplied, and it was inappropriate to get into an edit war to restore it or the external link. Given the large archive of discussion on this topic, the number of references in the article, and the scope of the article, it is hard to justify applying the label "inaccurate" to the entire thing simply because an individual's edits are not accepted. This article has already underwent several consensus-based revisions, and to override that at the will of one editor is not productive, let alone in line with the process here. In the current talk section for this article, I don't see a lot of consensus-seeking or meaningful discussion of the lede, the premise of the article, or the reference that was removed. Biscuittin says it should be changed/included/scrapped, multiple editors disagree, with cause, to which Biscuittin responded by flatly sticking to his guns, then initiating this RfC. The dispute about the definition of the subject also seems to be fairly one-sided: the archives do not reveal a large segment of editors who question the entire premise of the entry, and I don't see any attempt on the current talk page at consensus-building on that subject either, merely bald assertion. Taken as a whole and considering Biscuittin's history on this subject, history of WP:SOAP/NPOV conflicts on this subject (see archives), I see strong evidence for a pattern of tendentious editing rather than a meaningful attempt to improve the encylopedia, and no strong evidence that the concerned raised by this RfC are valid. Furthermore, this RfC process seems to be very unlikely to create a consensus that will be accepted by the party who initiated it. -- GR Mule 19:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• 1. Accuracy tag: In general I discourage hasty removal of tags when there is a plausible dispute in progress. The tag may bring in Talk comments to support or oppose the tag-claim. That said, the tag appears to reflect the concerns of a single individual, which where considered and rejected by multiple editors on the page. I endorse removal of the tag per the points below.

2 and 3. These appear to have fundamentally the same basis. This article is clearly addressing a valid topic. The concern is essentially whether the topic and title match. This article could plausibly be moved to something like "Global Cooling Hypothesis" and Global_cooling_(disambiguation) could be moved here. However I believe the current article does satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I believe this is the article the large majority of readers would be looking for if they search for "Global Cooling". It has had very significant mentions in the press and other sources. This is certainly the first topic I think of when I hear "Global Cooling".

4. The description of this point was unclear at best. Searching the article history I see the graph was used as a ref, to source article text. (DIFF.) The original text included editorializing WP:Original Research, wholly unsupported by the source. That was agreeably removed. That still leaves two problems. Interpreting a graph to make an arbitrary point is treading on Original Research even if we presume the interpretation is basically accurate. It is reasonable for other editors to raise a dispute and ask for a source that actually makes that point. The final problem is that once the editorializing Original Research portion was removed, I'm unclear what the text is adding to the article. If the text were to be re-added with a new source, it would need to more clearly explain how it is significant in understanding the topic. Alsee (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Also summoned by bot.

1. I also think that the tag was incorrectly used, and should not be on the page. The template is not to be used any time a single editor has an issue with the accuracy of the article, and there is no obligation to keep it there at the moment.
2. I do think that the lead would be much improved if there was a clear, referenced definition of "Global cooling" first and foremost. I do not find the historical description to be factually inaccurate, I do think it's useful, but it is not a very encyclopedic lead, and seems designed to tell a story.
3. Please expand your argument on what the lead says that is inaccurate.
4. The graph, as it was added, was not at all useful. There was no information on what data is illustrated in the graph, who collected the data, and what it means. Additionally, the graph appears to be a primary source, without explanation. Cite the source itself, as in the report that was produced by the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

--Iamozy (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

References

The single reference for the lead section does not say what the lead section claims it says. The word "conjecture" does not appear at all in the reference. Biscuittin (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nor does the word "glaciation". Biscuittin (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nor does the word "1940s". The word "1970s" does appear, but not in connection with global cooling. Biscuittin (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. The article should contain the references. Yes, many lead sections for controversial topics seem to get loaded with refs. Is that reference used elsewhere in the article? Does the lead adequately summarize the article? Vsmith (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The answer to both questions is "No". Biscuittin (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Outdated article

The article is outdated because most of it is pre-1979. The cooling which took place from 1979 to 1997 is therefore not included. Biscuittin (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your link is to a graph cited to a university - just a raw image with no background or explanation. If there was a discussion or valid peer reviewed reference discussing the graph it might be suitable. But as a raw image - no. Vsmith (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that raw data must not be published in Misplaced Pages in case the peasants misinterpret it? I think the peasants are entitled to make up their own minds. Biscuittin (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a similar bar graph at Climate_change#Ocean_variability. Should that be removed in case the peasants misunderstand it? Biscuittin (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(following ec) We don't "publish" raw data or unexplained raw graphs of that data. We include information/data that is sourced to WP:reliable sources. Where is this temperature graph published? Your reference to "the peasants" is rather absurd. Vsmith (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:other stuff. That graph is from NOAA, again where is the Alabama graph published? Vsmith (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The graph is published here: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2015/november2015/Nov2015_tlt_update_bar.png So, graphs from the NOAA are OK but graphs from universities are not? Biscuittin (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The UAH dataset has particular problems, and you need a secondary source describing what relationship it has with this topic – otherwise it's irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What are these problems? Please give a reference. Biscuittin (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You've already been pointed to UAH satellite temperature dataset, but what's needed from you is a reference to support your claim it has anything to do with the topic of global cooling. . . dave souza, talk 11:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Global cooling

I don't think we can make much progress until we have defined Global cooling. My critics seem to be saying that Global cooling is only Global cooling if it is so severe that it leads to an ice age. Anything else is Climate variability. However, they do not apply the same test to Global warming. In the case of Global warming a temperature change as little as 2°C is classed as Global warming. Let's be consistent. Biscuittin (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Try reading both articles, you'll see that sources define them: no doubt that can be improved for this article. What reliable published sources do you propose? . . dave souza, talk 18:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Which source defines Global warming and which source defines Global cooling. Without this information you are just making assertions. Biscuittin (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read the articles, and check out the citations. Have you found any further definitions? . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the definition of "Global cooling" should be improved. The way the lead begins seems to indicate that "Global cooling" is nothing more than a term for a 1970s hysteria. Can't we at least begin with saying that it is a term for the phenomena of a large-scale cooling of the Earth's average temperature? --Iamozy (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

For example, this NASA source describes global cooling as a scientific concept.

"There was roughly 0.1°C of global cooling from 1940-1970."

"The model indicated that loading the atmosphere with volcanic aerosols should have caused a global cooling"

--Iamozy (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The various guidelines on article topic/title say to associate the usage with what most people probably are looking for, and to do some form of disambig for the rest. I'm not opposed to doing better disambig. Right now, this broader sense is reported in Global cooling (disambiguation), whereas this article is specifically about the 1970s era conjecture, which is what we usually expect readers to be interested in. The old "Yeah, yeah... warming shmarming... back in the 70's they said it was COOLING!" That's what's on most people's mind when they come this way, so its the reason we organized the articles the way we did. I'd be happy to consider better ways to make the disambig super simple to follow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• B-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• B-Class Weather articles
• Mid-importance Weather articles
• Unsorted weather articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment