Talk:Attribution of recent climate change
From Academic Kids
nb: many of the comments here were written before the move to the current name of "attribution of recent climate change".
| Contents |
Old stuff
I think this entry is superfluous; the political aspects of anthropogenic global warming are just about identical to the political aspects of all (man+nature) global warming, since we can't do anything about natural global warming. A better place might be with greenhouse gases. --TheCunctator
I also find it somewhat confusing; the Democratic party is said to consider anthropogenic global warming a huge threat, but then it goes on to describe how not a single Democrat politician supported the Kyoto protocols. And then there's that odd reference to Enron. I don't know if this article is biased in any particular direction, but it feels that way somehow.
Responding to the unsigned paragraph above
- Democratic support and non-support is puzzling (but real). Perhaps there is a political strategy involved. I'm not sure whether we should analyze and comment on the Clinton Administration's strategy, but the 95-0 Senate vote is a fact and should be reported.
- I'm glad the bit about Enron came out: it was only breaking news, and really of a political or financial nature. This article should be scientific.
This article seems to be totally focused on the US political aspects of an international issue, and in any case, if every single Democrat voted against the Kyoto protocols, then it is clearly not the case that "the Democratic Party" supports it. I think this article gives the Democrats much more credit for being progressive and pro-environment on this issue than they deserve. soulpatch
- Ah, but the Democrats didn't vote against it. The treaty never was submitted to the Senate for ratification. What was actually voted was a resolution -- not the treaty itself. If you check around, you'll see that Democrats are adamant supporters of the treaty, ratified or not. Go and talk to some people, or check out campaign literature or visit some websites. Or dip into Gore's Earth in the Balance. But you're right about the "more credit...than they deserve"; I think they only rode the issue to get votes in 2000. --Ed Poor
Editors who question "The science working group of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) recognizes that the climate models in the IPCC Second and Third Assessment Reports are seriously flawed." should read the Executive Summary in the IPCC Scientific basis document about physical climate processes [1] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/261.htm). -- SEWilco 16:26, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Info on IPCC and SEPP
- The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization which aims to be objective, but its opponents assert that it has misrepresented scientific reports because of political pressure. The IPCC says its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. [2] (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm)
- SEPP, an organization which claims to be non-partisan[3] (http://www.sepp.org/abtsepp.html), presents a number of objections to interpretation of the available data on global warming. In particular, they point out that temperature measurements from weather balloons show no warming whatsoever in the 1979 to 1996 period when land-based thermometers show record-breaking rises (they won't tell you that the longer-term balloon record from 1958 matches the land-based record well). Also, they present evidence that rising temperatures cause sea level to fall (not rise, as orthodox global warming theory predicts) although this is widely disbelieved. However, the oil corporation ExxonMobil is one of SEPP's sponsors.
I don't think the above 2 paragraphs are really relevant to the Anthropogenic global warming article. But where should they go? William, Martin, Eloquence, SEWilco, what do you think?
(William M. Connolley 19:27, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)) In some logical world, this page would hold the anthro aspects of GW. But in fact the GW page has most of the stuff, because you can't separate the two (ie, you can't quantify the anthro without some idea of the natural; and vice versa). So this page is doomed to be an orphan. Perhaps it should be reduced further.
(SEWilco 20:37, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I agree. At the moment it (and anthropogenic global cooling) should just state the definition of the term and direct people to global warming for details of all the issues. When the anthro effects can be identified, they can be described here.
Merge proposal
If "global warming" means not just any period in which the air temperature went up, but "the theory that emissions have been heating the air too much" -- then anthropogenic GW isn't really a separate article.
I propose the following division of articles:
articles about how warm or cool the air has been
- global temperature record -- multiple articles, this link might be wrong
- Little Ice Age -- a long cold spell
- Medieval Climate Optimum -- put the "green" in Greenland
articles about what cause the air to heat up or cool down
- urban heat island -- cities keep getting bigger and hotter
- solar variability -- more light, more heat?
- global warming hypothesis -- CO2 makes the air heat up too much
The above list is not complete, so let's work on it together. --Uncle Ed 16:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 17:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)) OK, if you haven't seen it already it would be worth you looking at: User:William_M._Connolley/Wiki_pages_related_to_climate_change which is my classification of what we have now.
- What you are proposing for surface air temperature (at least, you recently created sat, so I presume you had some use for it... not glob t rec) is already covered in historical temperature record. Its not clear why you want a new page - see my message on your talk page. Following on from that is t-rec-of-the-last 1000 years. Etc etc. Errrm... anyway, you clearly haven't looked through what we have yet. *This* current page is about attribution, which is not covered anywhere else. Arguably it should be renamed, but not merged. A lot of the v old talk above should be archived: it talks about a page that no longer exists.
Yer right, boss. Our conversations are getting scattered all over the place. But since we are working together, that's okay. We seem to find each other's scattered comments okay.
I hadn't seen your classification scheme, so obviously my little attempt is amateurish. But hey, what can I say? I always read the Amateur Scientist section of Scientific American, and now I'm an amateur journalist! --Uncle Ed
Solar/Cosmic rays and climate
(William M. Connolley 18:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) AFAIK the solar/cosmic-ray climate connection is all up in the air at the moment. There are various theories and mechanisms, none command any wide acceptance. I've qualified S's recent addition to reflect that viewpoint. Presenting that paper in science as the-state-of-the-debate would be wrong.
Probably, that stuff is worth its own page: there is a lot of it, far more than just the science paper, and it can't all go on this page.
New Articles: Global climate change and Climate forcings
Please read the new articles and consider commenting on them and/or moving some material to either one. Note that climate forcings is not specific to global climate forcings, so if it makes sense to create a separate section please do.
I hope this helps get this part of Wikipedia sorted out.
Posted to all discussion pages listed in the "See Also" section of global climate change. --Ben 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Njau
(William M. Connolley 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I consider the Njau refs somewhat desparate. Renewable energy isn't a climate journal. The 1999 paper has been cited 7 times... all by Njau. Never by anyone else. The abstract [4] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_aset=B-WA-A-W-WA-MsSAYVA-UUA-AAAUBEYWEB-AAUDEDEUEB-EUCBZVEYV-WA-U&_rdoc=8&_fmt=summary&_udi=B6V4S-45H861P-3&_coverDate=07%2F01%2F1999&_cdi=5766&_orig=search&_st=13&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4131515785a508c08b3cb074e18d29df) is gobbledegook. In 1999 Njau published 5 other papers - all in Renewable energy (actually one other, in the well known Nuovo Cimento. Only he has ever cited it). One of them has never been cited by anyone, even him. Of the other 4, only one has ever been cited by anyone but Njau, and that only once. He is clearly a minor author peddling his pet theories, but no-one is listening.
The 2005 paper hasn't been published yet - at least Elsevier lists it for april [5] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=QuickSearchListURL&_method=list&_aset=B-WA-A-W-WA-MsSAYVA-UUA-AAAUBEYWEB-AAUDEDEUEB-EUCBZVEYV-WA-U&_sort=d&view=c&_st=13&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_userid=10&md5=f6c4c2378a16c567f46084d96cc86c45) so I don't think it should be in there. It contains 17 refs... 9 of which are to his own papers. Reading the abstract for that paper it is clear why its published in such a minor journal - its clearly dubious stuff.
Here's an example of the sort of rubbish he is writing:
- A previous publication by the author predicted that global temperature patterns will switch from the sinusoidal (amplitude-modulation) state into which it has been since 1944 into a node-antinode (amplitude-modulation) state somewhere over the 1997-2012 period. Here we present record-backed evidence which shows that the state change just mentioned is apparently in the process of starting up. By its very nature, this imminent (node-antinode) state is expected to make global temperature vary significantly above and below a common mean which itself may be approximately constant or may at certain times undergo relatively slow drifts. Furthermore we present a historical example in which records of temperature-sensitive indicators show that at least some regional temperature patterns have at least once switched from the sinusoidal (amplitude-modulation) state to the node-antinode state under global climate conditions that were fairly similar to those of the present. Finally we propose possible physical causes of the latter historical switch from sinusoidal state to node-antinode state.
Thats from a 2000 paper, cited by... nobody.
- He publishes something you disagree with and you immediately engage in ad hominem attacks? As for the April 2005 publication date, that journal is already available on the web, as I read it a few hours ago. So I don't think it qualifies as "not published yet". — Cortonin | Talk 21:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 22:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Stop eveading the issue: his work is cited by no-one and published exclusively in minor journals. Neither is an ad-hom. Nor is describing the abstract above as rubbish.
Best answers
What part of "Wikipedia does not endorse a best answer, source it to someone or remove it" do you not understand??? It's straight out of NPOV policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#What_is_the_neutral_point_of_view.3F), follow it! — Cortonin | Talk 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that's one of the problems with True Believers, they don't see their opinions as anything but absolute fact. In their eyes, it isn't POV because they absolutely know it to be true. What does one do in this situation? --JonGwynne 17:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some POV problems
1. The phrase "The current best answer is..." is incredibly POV and inappropriate for this article. While it is true that some people may believe that it is "the best answer", that doesn't necessarily mean it is and it certainly should be reported as fact when it is opinion.
3. It is absolutely inappropriate to discuss the issue of greenhouse gas emission in the second paragraph without including discussion of the fact that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions has taken place AFTER the reported increase in global temperatures. Anything else is POV pushing.
3. "A summary of climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports". That isn't either accurate or sufficient. The IPCC doesn't summarize all climate research, it creates its own summary. So this phrase must be changed to reflect this fact. I suggest something like "An IPCC summary of climate research may be found in their assessment reports".
JGs: Removed POV paragraph - not only does it violate wiki policy, it isn't relevant to the article
(William M. Connolley 21:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)) This [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attribution_of_recent_climate_change&diff=12676563&oldid=12676484) has got to be one of the worst edits I've seen for a long while, with the edit summary Removed POV paragraph - not only does it violate wiki policy, it isn't relevant to the article. The para itself is well balanced, and how can it possibly be regarded as not relevant? It seems perfectly clear that JG has essentially degnerated to vandalising the articles.
- Here are some facts for you William: The statement "The current best answer is, roughly, most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" is grotesquely POV. First of all, it fails to mention who is responsibole for deciding the "best answer". I'll assume that since you're such a big fan of this statement, that the IPCC is somehow responsible for it. However, the statement is unattributed. Second, the statement is completely subjective. Even if this is the IPCC's official opinion as to what the best answer is, then it still isn't an absolute fact it is opinion and, therefore, POV. In other words, it isn't relevant to the discussion and it is a clear violation of wikipedia policy with regard to POV - as you have been repeatedly informed. So, the real question is why do you insist on pushing unattributed POV when you know it is a violation of wikipedia policy to do so? --JonGwynne 00:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry?
(William M. Connolley 22:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I've just reverted what I suspect is a JonGwynne sockpuppet, User:Springmourning44. Oddly, this new entrant to the debate has chosen to re-do a JG revert, with no explanation. Whoever it may be, its been blocked anyway.
- I think the sound of black helicopters you were talking about earlier may be confusing you William, I don't use sock-puppets. BTW, since you bring them up, what interest do you think your personal, unfounded suspicions hold for other people here? --JonGwynne 22:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
National Academy of Sciences
Don't forget that the US National Academy of Sciences concurred with the IPCC conclusion that the majority of the temperature rise last century was most likely due to anthropogenic influences. If the IPCC is to be cited explicitly as a source of this scientific opinion, then so too should the NAS, and perhaps also all the other scientists who did not take part in either IPCC or NAS reports but have arrived at the same conclusion. It would seem to be biased to attribute that conclusion only to a subset of those who hold it. Daniel Collins 22:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Then list it as both. Such evaluations must be sourced and attributed. — Cortonin | Talk 03:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
expressed / according to
(William M. Connolley 13:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) JG changed "expressed" to "according to". This was a pointless tweak, but makes the sense worse, by implying the views are restricted to those bodies; whereas they are merely expressing the general consensus. Hence reverted.
