Talk:Climate change/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment

Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment is a poor little orphan, can someone find a home for suitable links? dave souza, talk 18:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Try Category:Global warming, IPCC might be a place. They've just started, and until they start publishing something substantial, probably not here. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Article rename needed

This article is not about global warming, it's about recent warming and anthropogenic warming in the 20th Century. There have been numerous periods of warming and cooling, ice ages for example, so it's highly inappropriate that we are misleading our readers in this way with this incomplete and inaccurate content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We've covered this before. Other instances of global warming in the past - e.g. recovery from ice ages, Younger Dryas etc - have all also happened in association with similar periods of global cooling. All this is covered in climate change as, as you say, the climate has changed before. There are a number of unique aspects to the current period of global warming - it is man-made, it is faster than ever before, it is not a recovery from an ice age and it is happening now. Rather than burden the current title with all these qualifiers, I think it is reasonable to keep the simple global warming phrase for this, the global warming, the one that's happening now; and keep climate change for all the others. There are a few issues - reliable sources use both interchangeably, we do too for example in Scientific opinion on climate change, Politics of global warming etc. There is no doubt that the present warming is also the present change. I have argued that, in this, we have drawn our own distinction here in WP, which is serving us well, but that we shouldn't enforce it too rigidly in other article titles or in text, and so these criss-cross usages in other articles are fine. Articles have to be called something, and global warming is certainly something that many people look up here every day. All these articles cross-reference each other, so I don't think the naming we have in place restricts anyone's research at all, or is in the least misleading. --Nigelj (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(E/C) The standard response to a number of these proposals (see the archives, could take days) is that by far the most common usage of "global warming" (and in fact "cliamte change") is with respect to present. The way things work here, "Global warming" is present, while "climate change" is past (since both warming and cooling in the past, but on-average warming in the present). I think that there is some MoS thing about common usage, and that because of the common usage (and the hat note/link on top to "climate change"), we are not being misleading. (Aside: I'm sure that you are aware that your last phrase is somewhat inflammatory; my experience with this page indicates that we must all do our utmost to keep discussion calm, otherwise a brawl will ensue instead of discussion on improvements). Awickert (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is not just about the 20th Century. The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record and a recent +0.72C spike[1] suggests it might be accelerating. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pack ice much thinner than predicted

Al Gore's link to this article in Time magazine led me to Barber, D.G. et al. (2009) "Perennial pack ice in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as it appeared in the summer of 2009," Geophysical Review Letters 36:L24501, which pretty clearly indicates that radar satellite measurement of icepack has been overestimating ice thickness. Is this finding confirmed in other literature? Should it be included in the article? 99.38.150.200 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjaVp6AS5XU is a link to his video explaining a portion of the research his crew have been doing. I've spoken with some of his grad students a number of times over the last couple years so this isnt shocking based on what they have been saying. Though I would suspect the articles on arctic sea ice, Polar ice packs or Arctic shrinkage, would be more suitable? --Snowman frosty (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Satellite radar isn't the primary means of estimating sea ice thickness anyway. It is mostly done by direct measurement or sonar along submarine tracks. The satellite stuff is new, and I don't think fully trusted yet (or it was, ~2 years ago) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Further discussion at Talk:Climate change feedback

This section strikes me as too detailed for an overview article. I'm inclined to split it out to Climate change feedback or some such, leaving a summary of the main points here. Thoughts? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Agreed. That section really needs to be better, and it is unlikely to get better while it is stuck in here William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Agree. It seems to be bursting at the seams and pushing for room to expand. Awickert (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Agree. How about Climate feedback mechanisms as the feedback mechanisms function as described in times of (rapid) change as well as in relative stasis. --Nigelj (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Agreed. I started to split it at User:Atmoz/Climate change feedbacks, but got tired. Dunno if it'd be of any use or not. -Atmoz (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Redlink William M. Connolley (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Deleted. Ask an admin to restore it. I don't recall how far I got, or even if it's better than what's in the main GW article. -Atmoz (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Restored. Let me know if you want it gone again. At a first glance, it seemed like a very ambitious attempt, with quite a bit of good stuff there, but a level of detail that may be a bit deep, and that may make completion at that level an interesting challenge. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Water vapor negative feedback

Hi. A recent paper suggests that the reduction of warming observed during the last decade was the result a negative feedback produced by the cooling of the lower stratosphere, and after 2000 the sea surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific became anti-correlated with the water vapor content of the tropopause which reduced some of the warming by about 25% in that period while in the 1990s the water vapor positive feedback enhanced some of the warming by about 30%.[2][3][4] However, it is also likely that this is part of a cycle and could easily reverse. Has this been discussed previously, and should the information be included in the main article as well as in greenhouse gas, water vapor and effects of global warming? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting paper but very recent. And even if correct is only 1/4 of the answer. As to where to work on / discuss it... perhaps in the new feedbacks article, about to be created? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to include as many recent reports and papers as we can, because I think that global warming is occuring and accelerating right now, and the articles about global warming should be presented as changing information. Just like with any other major scientific field, we need to include major recent discoveries in the main articles within the scope as well as on ITN. I'm not sure what you mean by only 1/4 of the answer, but this information nonetheless should be included and expanded upon when more scientific assessments are available, as climate change is a rapidly changing science and we need to include more of the "answer" as more becomes clear. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting for the Solomon et al. paper to be published (in print), so my university account can access it. Do you have access? We also usually wait a few months for the comment/response cycle to finish to include things here. The feedbacks article would be a good place. I'm not sure what you mean by "could easily reverse", or rather, I'm not sure what climate scientists have said with respect to that. Awickert (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

John Christy?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

Is it worth mentioning him? Or is he just a nutter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.78.218 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, tough call. The article calls him "John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC." Dunno. Maybe 'Former nutter'? Plain jack (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

May be worth mentioning in instrumental temperature record, though even that would be putting a lot of weight on the opinion of a single scientist. Incidentally, sarcasm will get you absolutely nowhere. Lose the attitude. If you can't get people to agree with you, try more persuasive methods. --TS 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I did a little manual archiving, copying discussions with no comments in the past five days to archive and removing some scibaby stuff. This reduced the talk page size by over 50%, Do let me know if this is too aggressive, but as far as I'm aware this is pretty much what the bot is supposed to do anyway (apart from binning scibaby, that is). Incidentally doesn't the BizWebCoach thread have a slightly sockish smell? A pretty obvious pre-aged sleeper. --TS 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reconstructive temperatures graph

On a minor detail - The graph displaying "Reconstructive Temperatures" is difficult to interpret. There are lots of different coloured lines, but I could not work out what the different colours represented. Other graphs - like "Global Warming Projections" - have an attached simple annotation explaining the colours, and avoiding this problem. I do not know enough to try to improve the graph, but do think it could be easily improved by adding a simple explanation of the meaning of the different colour of the lines displayed. Holland jon (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. The legend reads "Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale." To me this clearly indicates that each line represents one reconstruction. Click on the image to get the details. I've clarified (I hope) the rest a bit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

TimesOnline

World may not be warming, say scientists. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

<ec> That's the heading the subs have given it, the concluding statement could have been used for a title like "Met Office head of climate change advice says world warming even more quickly than expected". While John Christy apparently has both credence and a history of being critical, McKitrick and Watts are long term "skeptics" and Terry Mills seems to be publishing something in a dubious journal. The journalist has been criticised in an IPCC statement about a "misleading and baseless story",[5] wrote a story criticising info about the Amazon rainforest which a published researcher says is correct,[6] and for what it's worth is also accused of badly misquoting scientists and failing to run corrections.[7] Perhaps not an ideal source. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll also find that snow cover is increasing, and that is also evidence of cooling. Either the temperature record is credible and it is cooling, or it is not and this article is a waste of time!Isonomia (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a waste of time if it educates! Do have a look at these..[8][9] Contrasting views, but interesting. . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) And just for fun, "January temperatures were the warmest on record at 4.6C above normal, and temperatures so far this month have been 3.4C above normal."[10] . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You do know that guardian story you link to is complete rubbish right? mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, you do know that you seem to be talking rubbish? Suggestions – read the article to the end, and if you dispute it then a reliable source supporting your claim will be welcome. If you're wondering where the famous snow has come from, these images might assist. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I edit?

How do I add anything to any of the pages concerning GW? Do I have to make up a nice article and post it to someone? If so, who? And can I get a second opinion, if simply rejected? --Diguru —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diguru (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia and take it from there. --TS 04:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In order to contribute to this page, you have to agree with the editors' political views. Otherwise, they just delete your post. Mcoers (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)mcoers

Not so, but a politically slanted edit here would be poor science, and so edits that are politically motivated (particularly those advancing fringe science) tend not to fare well. Another kind of edit that doesn't do well on this article is where somebody brings in overmuch detail for this level of exposition. This article is supposed to be an overview of the subject so, for instance, bringing in a discussion of the Medieval Warm Period--much discussed by paleoclimatologists--would tend not to fare well here, and the editor would likely be directed to a more appropriate article. --TS 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Add Reference

I'm a new user and cannot edit this article, but can someone add to the references section "Heatstroke: Nature in an Age of Global Warming" by Anthony Barnosky Published: 03/13/2009 Publisher: Shearwater 288 p. ISBN: 9781597261975. Barnosky is a Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, USA; the book describes the broad spectrum ecological and species specific impacts of global warming already being documented by researchers, it may be able to give readers more depth on the issues covered in this article. (I will also recommend this book be added to Effects of Global Warming) thanks. Nnoell (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably should be in a Further Reading instead of References, sorry I got those confused. Nnoell (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Best to add it to the effcts article first. Things are less fraught there. We try to avoid having too many ext-links here, it clogs up otehrwise William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Article should be rewritten

This article should be rewritten. It relies very heavily on IPCC data than has been discredited since 2005 and 2007. The IPCC seems to have a political agenda (Summary for Policymakers) and should not be used as the major source for the article. It would be useful to have a more balanced article. This Wikipedia article would never make it into a scholarly encyclopedia. It is know that radiative energy from the sun can cause great changes in the temperature of the earth, but this is not address in the article. Even the Wikipedia article on the Maunder Minimum discusses the connection breifly. "The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters." However the sun spot cycle is not even mentioned in the "Global Warming" wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please back up any changes you want to make to the article with reliable sources. As far as the assertion that the article would "never make it into a scholarly encyclopedia", I'd suggest picking up one of those "scholarly encyclopedias" and looking up global warming. You will find remarkable similarities to this article. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For instance one scholarly source has the following: "Variations in solar output Direct measurements of solar irradiance, or solar output, have been available from satellites only since the late 1970s. These measurements show a very small peak-to-peak variation in solar irradiance (roughly 0.1 percent of the 1,366 watts per square metre received at the top of the atmosphere, for approximately 0.12 watt per square metre). However, indirect measures of solar activity are available from historical sunspot measurements dating back through the early 17th century. Attempts have been made to reconstruct graphs of solar irradiance variations from historical sunspot data by calibrating them against the measurements from modern satellites; however, since the modern measurements span only a few of the most recent 11-year solar cycles, estimates of solar output variability on 100-year and longer timescales are poorly correlated. Different assumptions regarding the relationship between the amplitudes of 11-year solar cycles and long-period solar output changes can lead to considerable differences in the resulting solar reconstructions. These differences in turn lead to fairly large uncertainty in estimating positive forcing by changes in solar irradiance since 1750. (Estimates range from 0.06 to 0.3 watt per square metre.) Even more challenging, given the lack of any modern analog, is the estimation of solar irradiance during the so-called Maunder Minimum, a period lasting from the mid-17th century to the early 18th century when very few sunspots were observed. While it is likely that solar irradiance was reduced at this time, it is difficult to calculate by how much. However, additional proxies of solar output exist that match reasonably well with the sunspot-derived records following the Maunder Minimum; these may be used as crude estimates of the solar irradiance variations."

As for the IPCC http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/7078617/IPCC-deputy-says-scientists-are-only-human.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, which scholarly encyclopedia are you quoting in the above? --Tasty monster 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Britannica. It's difficult to work out, using the limited tools available to me at present, which particular Britannica article that is in, but I would be surprised if it's in the main article on global warming. --Tasty monster 19:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally worked it out, I think. The Britannica piece is, essentially, their equivalent of our solar variation. There is no need to rewrite this article to duplicate what can be found in that one. --Tasty monster 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pending removal of unverified content

I took out a couple of fact tags. Why just those statement were tagged I don't know.All have the obvious sources William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fact tags added for unverified content were removed by a regular editor of this article. Either live with the tag awaiting removal of the content or verify the content by providing the requisite citation from a reliable source. Karbinski (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement to cite each and every single sentence if a group of related sentences is already sourced. That was the case with both of the fact tags you added; see ref 9 and 69. In particular, sentences in the lead don't necessarily need sourcing if the source is provided in the body. Please check the sources more carefully before tagging next time. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mention of AGW missing from this article

When I couldn't recall what the 'A' in the commonly used abbreviation AGW stands for, I looked up AGW in Wikipedia.

AGW is a disambiguation page, with one of the entries being "Anthropogenic global warming". And Anthropogenic global warming also redirects to Global warming. From this I think it should be expected that the term anthropogenic global warming is mentioned in the Global warming article, and is given at least the minimial explanation of wiki-linking the word anthropogenic.

But currently, this article mentions neither the word anthropogenic nor the abbreviation AGW. --83.253.248.109 (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The term isn't that widely used, frankly. The article does discuss all significant theories of causation, but the role of anthropogenic CO2 is so well established and so widely accepted that the term "global warming" is most often used by itself in this context. --Tasty monster 14:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I like what you did to the glossary and to AGW. I think that's much better. Thanks. --TS 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The AGW disambig entry has been changed to Anthropogenic global warming, which has been redirected to Attribution of recent climate change. --83.253.248.109 (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not any more William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

More eyes needed

More people are welcome to comment at Talk:Anthropogenic global warming, as to if it should point at this article or at Attribution of recent climate change. Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Brotherwatch (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mention of future / present effects caused by the Sun?

Sorry if I missed a topic of this listed elsewhere within the talk page. Would it be feasible to mention that the Sun is growing in luminosity and therefore radiant heat output (as it has over the last millions of years)? It IS a fact that our Sun will render this planet inhabitable someday, so I would reckon that it must have something to do with increased global temperatures... User:Rayne 02-19-10

This article is about climate change on the order of hundreds of years. The undeniable increase in solar influence on the inner planets on the order of millions of years is not relevant in this short term. See the section in the article, which is called Solar variation. There is a related article with the same name that gives more detail on that subject. An article such as stellar evolution gives a general picture of how stars evolve, and if there are no articles spelling out what science tells us about the likely future of our system. they can be created. --TS 22:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones: No Global Warming For The Last 15 Years

See FAQ Q3

Phil Jones of "Climategate" fame is now saying that for the past 15 years, there has been no ‘statistically significant’ global warming. Since I cannot seem to edit this page, can you please add this citation to the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm BC Builder (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Yes, please add this. The events of "climate gate" are brining to bear the stark reality that "peer review" in itself contains assumptions that are beyond science, and that "peer review" is open to corruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.52.158 (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Readers of WUWT are already familiar with the remarkable series of questions and answers between the BBC’s Roger Harrabin at right, and Professor Phil Jones at left (see the posts by Willis and Anthony). [In case you don’t already know, Phil Jones is the climate scientist at the center of the Climategate e-mails, and whose compilation of historic global temperature data from the late 1800s to the present is a key element of the IPCC’s reports.] These Q-and-As, as readers of the two earlier posts recognize, reveal (a) the lack of empirical support for claims that recent warming is exceptional and (b) the flawed logic behind assertions that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Specifically, the Q-and-As confirm what many skeptics have long suspected: Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional. There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade. The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both. This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone. The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty. The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be. There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers. Worth incorporating I think... Mk 71.228.77.211 (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe you guys should read what Phil Jones has to say again before you start throwing these claims around. 71.228.77.211, I'm afraid that article kinda contradicts most of the things you say it confirms, and doesn't directly support any of them. Hitthat (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It is no longer truthful to say: "global warming is ..." in the first sentence because as the evidence shows, global warming "was", it is not "is". As this article is editing by very POV editors who I know will not accept this change, I suggest creating splitting the article into two: GLOBAL WARMING - to cover the political events of what will be known as the "global warming" and I suggest the theoretical concept of Manmade warming be split to a new article on AGW, where it will still be possible to talk about the theoretical warming that IS still taking place in the theoretically constructed temperature signal. Isonomia (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Read the article. The trend for the period 1995 to 2009 (0.12C per decade) "is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level". For the shorter period from 2002 to present the trend is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and your accusations of POV merely display your own pov. . . dave souza, talk 12:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not the world climate expert that said: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming....Yes". I didn't make that up. This is a reliable source. Conclusion: No warming in 15 years. Why is that profound conclusion not in the article? BC Builder (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Because that's not what he said. . . . dave souza, talk 07:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC) That is what he said. Words having meaning, and this is what he said. BC Builder (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Science has a higher standard of evidence than everyday conversation. "Statistically significant" means, typically, that there is a 1 in 20 chance that the data might mislead us. There has been a positive warming trend, but there's not enough data to be certain at the 0.05 level. Instead, it looks like there's only a 1 in 18 or 1 in 19 chance that the data have misled us (but anything worse than 1 in 20 isn't statistically significant). The question I have for "climate skeptics" is: how certain do we need to be that some calamity is going to happen before we do something to try and prevent it? If someone said to you "I'm 90% sure that you're going to die if you enter that house", would you reply saying "well, that's not statistically significant, so I won't listen to you." ? 128.54.32.151 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Jones concedes global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon That's not true. See comment above. 128.54.32.151 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Nope. Extremely unreliable source misreading Jones's statement to the BBC.[11] Discussed here . . dave souza, talk 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC) But was it peer reviewed? It has long been an established fact that nothing is allowed in the article unless it has been peer reviewed by a climategate scientist preferrably in an unbiased journal like nature. Unless of course it supports global warming in which case anything will do! 88.109.44.132 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Your assumption of bad faith only makes your remark look silly and paranoid. Of course maybe it is a global conspiracy against you! . . dave souza, talk 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Merged this new section with a similar one on the same interview. Same comments about shoddy reporting apply in my opinion. --TS 00:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC) See Growthgate! --Nigelj (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC) no warming seen in 15 years I have changed the first sentence to reflect the admission by Jones seen in many papers that there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years.Isonomia (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I've reverted it. It's still warming, cherry-picking a too-short period and a high significance level does not change this. You understand that even if looking at the last 15 years of CRU data, warming is still much more likely than no warming, right? And that GISS data shows much more warming? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC) What kind of statistical logic is that? His statement is that there is no significant warming in the last 15 years. You cant say that warming is still much more likely than no warming, or in other words inply a statistical result when the actual statistical result is contrary to what you are saying. Arzel (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Ummm....the kind we call "simple maths"? Jones said "not statistically significant at the 95% level", meaning that there is a more than 5% chance that the data could have been produced by a process without an underlying trend. He also said its close to (95%) significance. That is e.g. compatible with a 90% probability for warming.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, many papers seem to be cribbing from the Daily Mangle. Interestingly, the difference between GISS and HADCru seems to be due to the former interpolating for missing polar weather stations and showing a more even rise, while the latter omits them and shows a peak in 1998. The difference is consistent with the possibility that the arctic is the fastest warming region.[12] . . dave souza, talk 11:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC) The main thing we want to avoid where possible are data sets associated with East Anglia. These data are questionable based on recent revelations, and best left out. BC Builder (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)]

Explanation of a revert of an edit referring to 20th century warming

See FAQ Q3

I've reverted the following edit: Dikstr edited the opening sentence from: Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. to: Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans seen in the latter half of the 20th century and its projected continuation. On a purely historical matter, obviously the temperature doesn't know or care about the decimal system that leads us to draw a distinction between one century and another. On a statistical matter, all calculations by reputable scientific sources tell us that global warming is continuing. In effect, the edit falsely implies that global warming is a thing of the past. --TS 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I concur. While I assume good faith on their part, people who simplistically equate warming with increases in temperature, and who claim that the cessation of temperature increases means warming "stopped in 1998", should be advised to read the FAQ. Plain jack (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC) It's sarcasm again, isn't it? The past decade has been the hottest since records began. That's global warming. --TS 05:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC) better fact-check yourself. no, the past decade has not been the hottest since records began.Anastrophe (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC) . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I checked my facts. See this announcement by the World Meteorological Organization: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8400905.stm Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC) The past decade has been the hottest since records began. That's global warming. I'm with you. Some might insist that as a long-standing plateau, it's "global warm", but because temperature increases are not stopped but merely "paused", we can say with confidence that "warming" is occurring at a kind of latent, meta-level. PS: It's not sarcasm. I've always been a bit of a contrarian, so now that the world is going the other way, I find the warming position more appealing. Underdogs, we happy few, all that. Plain jack (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry to say that you've been misled. The science has not changed. By the way, this isn't a forum for discussing your views on science, politics or anything else. It's a page for discussing how to improve this article. --TS 17:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Phil Jones has indicated there has been no warming for 15 years, so this is difficult to reconcile with the above language. BC Builder (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Phil Jones has not said what you think he said. His response to a direct question is as follows: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. The key to this is the final sentence. He's saying that while we don't see a statistically significant warming trend on the order of 15 years, we do see it when we analyse the temperature trend over longer periods. Also note that he describes the trend as "not significant at the 95% significance level...[but] quite close". Had Phil Jones said that there had been no warming for 15 years, his statement would have been incorrect. This comment on the same subject from 128.54.32.151 is worth repeating: Science has a higher standard of evidence than everyday conversation. "Statistically significant" means, typically, that there is a 1 in 20 chance that the data might mislead us. There has been a positive warming trend, but there's not enough data to be certain at the 0.05 level. Instead, it looks like there's only a 1 in 18 or 1 in 19 chance that the data have misled us (but anything worse than 1 in 20 isn't statistically significant). The question I have for "climate skeptics" is: how certain do we need to be that some calamity is going to happen before we do something to try and prevent it? If someone said to you "I'm 90% sure that you're going to die if you enter that house", would you reply saying "well, that's not statistically significant, so I won't listen to you." ? --TS 13:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes He had me at "Yes". Plain jack (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC) If Plain jack and BC Builder are going to continue along this line, perhaps we should consider a new FAQ question. --TS 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose Change: Global Warming theory

"Global warming is the theory about increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation."

Rationale for this change: for someone uneducated on Global Warming, this article is misleading. It is disingenuous not to disclose the unsettled nature of the Global Warming debate earlier in the article.

Specifically, this article is framed such that Global Warming appears to be founded in conclusive scientific research. There is now a large enough body of data as well as scientific opinion that challenges the scientific foundation of the Global Warming theory. The Collapsing Scientific Cornerstones of Global Warming TheoryProfessor denies global warming theory

There is also evidence that collusion Editorial: Time to investigate global warming collusion claims and coercion among politicians and scientists played a role. This collusion is also evident in the Climategate event.

There is no proof that Peer Review proves any scientific concept beyond a reasonable doubt. Peer review is the basic concept cited as to why the Global Warming data is of high integrity. Since the peer review process is susceptible to human failure in rationale, behavior, judgment, and prejudice, any scientific studies citing peer review as the fundamental rationale must still be considered theory.

As this debate is ongoing Scientists meet to dispute global warming theory it would be prudent to disclose early and often to the reader so that they are aware that there is a debate. As it stands the acknowledgment of the debate as well as questionable scientific conclusions are buried at the bottom of the article. The acknowledgment of the debate is also framed such that people who disagree with the science behind Global Warming are 'deniers' or 'skeptics' implying opposing viewpoints should not be tolerated. BizWebCoach (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum, but to give the general response:

(1)The vast majority of climate scientists consider global warming settled science, and per WP:FRINGE we shouldn't give equal weight to minority viewpoints. Vocal skeptics and newspapers do not change this fact. (2)To call rising temperatures a "theory" would be an incorrect usage of the word. — DroEsperanto (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be precise semantically, then you should question the word 'Global' in the first place. It is very well known that temperature is rising in certain cities or regions and that it is actually declining in others. For example: Punta Arenas, Truman (MO), Greenvile (SC), Syracuse (NY), Albany (NY, too) and Oswego (also NY), to cite a few. You can find the source and graphs for the period between ~1930 to ~2000 at the United States Historical Climatology for all these cities. Also, Antarctic has been getting colder since about 20 years ago and thus reverting a melting trend that had been going on for the last 6000 years (Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctic," Science 295: 476-80). I am profoundly disappointed with this article in Wikipedia since it is highly misleading. I vote for a remodeling of this article ASAP. Jamilsoni (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Which rising temperatures would these be? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest BizWebCoach consults a dictionary for the meaning of the word theory.Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph really ought to be beefed up to state more forcefully, the factual nature of manmade global warming please put in the known effects of the horrendous warming up there in the first sentence because people need to know about it.89.168.160.215 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That article 'The Collapsing Scientific Cornerstones of Global Warming Theory' is a great example of spin and twisting the truth, but unfortunately lacks scientific credential. Hitthat (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Been discussed befor. Please don't take it offensively, but repeating proposals is not looked highly upon. FAQ 8 explains it fairly well. Ludwigs2 made a proposal earlier this month.[13][14] I'd appreciate if you'd read it, and reply with something substantially new that hasn't been discussed before. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The status of the theory of AGW is continually changing and thus it should be regularly discussed here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you mention the latest thing that has changed in the theory? Has our view on radiative forcing changed for instance? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

GCR and solar variations are increasingly implicated. Sjoone (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Where? In the professional literature and at major conferences they're increasingly shown to be of little or no importance to recent temperature trends. Se e.g., the recent article by Lockwood in Phil. Trans. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what "professional" literature is, but in the peer reviewed scientific literature it is just the opposite. Sjoone (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not in the journals that I subscribe to (all of the AMS journals, JGR-D, and GRL) or regularly browse. There's Scafetta's stuff, but it's so riddled with basic methodological flaws that it's hard to read it without cringing with embarrassment for the guy. The GCR work used to be considered an interesting speculation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that his work has been published in peer-reviewed journals but you just do not like it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since "most scientists" are relying on the very data that we now know cannot be corroborated or duplicated, it is reasonable to question whether the conclusions they draw from those data might be incorrect. To act as though these revelations are not "new" information is to deny reality. It is time to allow this information onto Wikipedia. Mcoers (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)mcoers

Could you explain what you mean when you say that "most scientists" are relying on the very data that we now know cannot be corroborated or duplicated? --TS 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Graph and trend

Hi, I've substituted the temperature graph because the nasa/giss one (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:NASA_global_temperature_data_1880-2009.gif) was a low quality gif, this one is based on NOAA data, change it back to nasa reconstruction if you want when the Dragons flight graph will be updated.

I've also updated lower troposphere trend and added that also NOAA reconstruction show 2005 as the warmest year on record.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the NASA/GISS graph, after it seemed that no one was going to update the Dragon's flight graph. The graph that I added is consistent with past graphs, as it's from NASA/GISS and shows the five year average. Your new graph shows it a different way and from a different source. We should be consistent about how this is done. The GIF that I added was high enough quality, although if anyone has a higher quality one with the same data, they could change it to that. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Grundle2600, i understand that you upload that file because the old one was outdated but gif file use is deprecated and preview looks bad, anyway it doesn't matter to me if you want to change it again with the nasa/giss file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgiogp2 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. But I don't know how to change the kind of file. Maybe somoene else here can do that. I'll put the image back, and then see if someone else wants to make it better. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest turning the higher quality image found here into a gif file: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.pdf Zeke Hausfather (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

11-year smoothing? You cannot be serious.

The chart has always had a 5 year trend line. Now that the five year trend would show a drop, it has been replaced with an 11 year year trend. "Hide the decline" is alive and well! 76.19.65.163 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

76.19.65.163, the previous graph was not mine...the use of a 11-year filter is appropriate because it removes both short term enso variation and solar cycle effect. Actually CRU uses 21-years binomial filter and NOAA 30-years gaussian filter, furthermore NOAA reconstruction shows less warming then nasa/giss in recent years and the nasa/giss 5 year average is going a little bit up with 2009 data included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgiogp2 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I predicted this POV change last year, and it is so good to find that at least I (unlike climate "scientists") are able to make predictions that are correct! Having said that, I have always used a decadel smoothing on my own analysis because, for technical reason's its a good timeperiod. That doesn't make me happy with not supporting 5years, but give it a few more years and even a longer period won't be able to hide the decline! 88.110.2.122 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The long term consensus has been for a five year average, so the article should maintain that method. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The 11-year smoothing will not be a problem for long; next year it will be 12-year smoothing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning to update my graphs this week. Dragons flight (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the rhetorical excesses to a minimum here folks. Keep focused on how to improve the article, rather than the motivations of contributors. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that rhetorical excess is in order at this point. It is time to open this Wikipedia article up to allow skeptics to contribute. Instead, all that happens is that comments (like mine) get deleted because I call people out on their dishonest approach here. Manipulating the timelines of the graphs is always an *option*, and sure you can come up with an *excuse* to do it. But that doesn't make it right. It is one thing to assume we're all here to make the article better. But for me I can see very obviously (as can others who have expressed similar outrage), that this page is controlled by advocates of the global warming alarmist crowd. It is TIME to open your process up! Mcoers (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)mcoers

So, this is my last comment here because since i have done that edit i got only aggressive response and not a single scientific suggestion (this page is controlled by advocates of the global warming alarmist crowd?) despite:

1-I've changed the graph only because the existing one is of a deprecated format and poor quality in preview and i am not really interested if it goes down or not in the end nor in general article like this one.

2-I've motivated the use of an 11-year filter; the main reason we use filters is to remove short term variability and an 11-year filter is effective to remove enso effect/volcanic cooling/solar cycle effects while a five year filter shows a lot of ups and down.

3-I've used NOAA data; if i wanted to cancel global warming slowdown i would have used the existing NASA/GISS data since in recent years this reconstruction is considerably warmer and indeed 2009 according to nasa/giss is the second warmest year on record[15] the fifth according to NOAA[16]--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are there only 3 error bars? 71.80.162.157 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The source doesn't explicitly state this, but I assume that the error bars given are intended to give a measure of the uncertainty for different ages of data - less uncertainty for newer data seems to make sense. Mikenorton (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies and wikipedia global warming articles! Of course it should remain the same - but somehow that doesn't hid the decline, so now the POV pushers have decided to "redefine what average means". This is utterly rediculous. 88.109.44.132 (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The logic for three sets of error bars does not make any sense. The errors around a value are a function of the information going into that point. As such the error bars around and two points will be unlikely to ever be the same. In other words, if the errors bars are being used as implied (ie to give a 90% or 95% bound for the average of 5 or 10 years) then larger error bars represent a much greater variation within that time period. If these error bars are being used to represent something else then that needs to be explained or the error bars need to be removed. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As a statistical matter, does anybody think that 11 year smoothing is not better than 5-year smoothing? I understand why various IP editors are kicking up a fuss, but I don't think political considerations, such as attempting to appease the politically compromised, should rule our decisions here. A good reason has been given for using 11 years. Are there any statistically literate objections? --Tasty monster 09:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've learned a while back, the filters used are usually polynomial or Gaussian, i.e. they give more weight to closer points. Even an 11-year filter is not a simple moving average of 11 years. So wether we use a 5 or an 11 year filter, its unlikely to completely remove the 11 year solar cycle. So I'd prefer to stick with the current version, if only for consistency. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer TastyMonster's question, there has to be some kind of balance between smoothing out short term fluctuations and getting an answer in a reasonable time. The optimum smoothing period to achieve that was originally considered to be 5 years. There needs to be an exceptionally good rationale to change that now. When using or evaluation a mathematical model, the use of statistical techniques that assume components of that model in presenting the data must be considered bad practice as must changing of the statistical display techniques mid-experiment. I appreciate that the solar cycle is a well-established phenomenon but, as Stephan Schulz has pointed out, it would take a much longer smoothing period to remove this effect. Far better to present the less smoothed (5-year smoothing) data and note the 11-year solar cycle than use suspect and ineffective statistical techniques to attempt to remove it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've used a Welch smooth, anyway it doesn't matter since most user wants a 5 year average i've uploaded a good quality png so the question is over. Thanks to Zeke Hausfather for the link to PDF nasa/giss image.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't greatly care if we use 5 or 11 years. Arguments such as 'The optimum smoothing period to achieve that was originally considered to be 5 years. There needs to be an exceptionally good rationale to change that now. are completely invalid - there was no extensive discussion; I think it was just DF's choice. Either is fine. Having a slightly longer term smoothing that 5 to help smooth out solar / enso is quite plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that I don't see any good reason to use a five-year filter. 11 years, or more, makes more sense statistically. I fear we've collectively permitted ourselves to be brow-beaten so often by people who obviously have no understanding of statistics and continually expose us to their quite toxic and baseless assumptions.

It's a good idea to stop, sometimes, and ask whether we're being panicked into a poor decision by poor arguments instead of going where the science leads us. I think we should seriously consider a much longer smoothing period. --Tasty monster 12:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(By the way, the Tasty monster account is me, operating a cellphone web browser on a bumpy bus). --TS 12:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that a filter is being applied by editors on WP? If so this is completely wrong. We should show data, as published by reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Usually the original data source do not provide smoothed data and i don't see the problem if the wikipedia author smooth the data(if properly done), most of the temperature graphs currently in use are actually smoothed see for example[17], even the instrumental temperature graph looks different from nasa-giss(less noisy); i don't know if it is only a graphical artifact because it is not specified the smooth method used but seems that data are 5-year gaussian smoothed or something like that and not the original nasa/giss 5 year running mean.[18][19]--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See also previous discussion from a couple of years ago about what kind of smoothing was used Talk:Global_warming/Archive_37#Svg first image. Mikenorton (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Any form of data processing by editors here is, in my opinion, unacceptable. Why are we processing the data? To make something clearer? This is OR. We must only show what reliable sources show. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could always use the GISTEMP graphs, if they are compatible with our licence. The two line charts under "Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change" each plot an annual mean and a five-year mean. --TS 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Having a slightly longer term smoothing that 5 to help smooth out solar / enso is quite plausible"...that's original research. You are deciding how to average the data. We need to just present the data points as is, and provide no manipulation. BC Builder (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)]

Since there doesn't seem to be any consensus to switch to NOAA temp data, and we have a good-quality chart from our prior reliable source (NASA GISS) that includes 2009, shall we consider this issue closed for now? Zeke Hausfather (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I would like to see all smoothing removed, and error bars to 3 standard deviations for each year's data points. This is the correct way to represent the data. BC Builder (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)]

The current graph in use is the original gistemp not a wikipedia user own work, giss as far as i know do not provide error bars for each data points (which would make the graph rather confusing). Anyway wikipedia rules encourage users to prepare graphs and images and allow routine calculations as long as data sources are provided and calculations are verifiable, adding a smooth line is not advanced math for sure... Thus i suggest to restore Dragons Flight graph when it will be updated because user graphs and images are an added value for wikipedia that should not be lost, no matter if we use a 5 year smoothing or not.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is fine if you are plotting the flucuations in peach tree bat populations or the yearly salarly of Nebraska math teachers--but it does not work with politically charged data such as that represented by the plot. Does it not seem odd that just as one of the key keepers of climate data says there has been no warming for the last 15 years, all of a sudden there is a proposal to switch from 5 year smoothing to 11 year smoothing? Could there be a greater appearance of trying to manipulate data unduly? The process of choosing the time window is clearly subject to POV influences that must be resisted. BC Builder (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)]

Even for peach tree bats, manipulation of data by editors here is of dubious legitimacy. For climate data it is completely unacceptable. The only reason that there has been any consensus for the current graph is that most editors, like myself, were not aware that the data hand been processed here. The graph must be replaced with an unprocessed one from a reliable source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a little patience, Dragons flight has already promised to update the figure that has been used in the article for the last few years. The addition of a smoothed trend line (however constructed) is not there to hide anything. The datasets (from whatever source) use such a smoothed trend and our figure reflects that - the data available do not, as far as I know, include the smoothed trend so we have to do that ourselves. I really don't think that this should be regarded as either original research, 'data manipulation' or 'data processing'. Mikenorton (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If the data has not been smoothed by a reliable source, we should not be doing it here, whether to hide something or otherwise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The current graph with a 5-year average was copied verbatim from NASA, and is the exact same graph that has been used in this article for the past year but updated to include the 2009 datapoint. Changing this graph to something else would require a consensus from editors of the article. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are saying. Something published by a reliable source is fine, something produced by editors here is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is from NASA, why does Dragons flight need to "update" the figure? Let's just pull that from NASA and put it in there directly. If there is need, it is simple to get a release from NASA to put the direct image into Wikipedia. If this is true, there should be no need to have a user manipulate the data into a graph.BC Builder (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)]

DF takes the raw data and produces the useful and beautiful graphs that we have used for years. His work is straightforward - e.g. choosing the average according to the IPCC standard and running a plotting program. The result is aesthetically much better than what NASA does. This is completely in line with WP:OR. Moreover, DF has a PhD in a related field and has published peer-reviewed articles. He would easily qualify under WP:SPS anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked the NASA site, and it seems this would be a much better plot to include: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

BC Builder (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)]

Why would you want to take a graph of 15 years of monthly temperatures to illustrate changes in climate - an effect that is typically defined over 30 year averages? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it looks like this the best available that has been published in a reliable source, unless you know of a better one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not look like that. We've had much better NASA orginals - in fact, the one that currently is in the article is a much better NASA original than the one suggested by BC. Can you explain why you would think otherwise? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We need BOTH plots in there, which are both reliable NASA plots. The 15 year data is more clearly observed, and provides data for recent years. This provides an excellent comparison, alongside the plot with the longer time scale. The lack of consistent error bars in both cases is troubling, however, for anyone who values good data. The NASA plots are actually more aesthetically pleasing. BC Builder (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)]

FYI, I've update my instrumental temperature plot to include 2009. For what it is worth, I am grateful to the people here who support my work, but I don't personally think it matters very much whether you use my version or someone else's. I will be posting updates for several other figures over the next week or two. Dragons flight (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

new chart lacks identification of components

the new 'Global mean surface temperature difference relative to the 1961–1990 average' has no legend for the three green "I" bands that are present in the graph. are we expected to guess what these bands represent? i'd recommend reverting to the old chart until a properly labeled chart can be generated. Anastrophe (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I would also ask that Atmoz not make comments like this associated with his edits. Not only is it a violation of the sancations against the GW articles, but it is not clear what they are saying. I have 15 years of statistical experience, and it is not clear why there are three bars or why they are located where they are located. Obviously they should be error bars of some sort, but what is obvious to me or Atmoz is not going to be obvious to all readers of this page. What is not obvious is the limits on the error bars or for what purpose they mark those specific three points in time. The only thing worse then a bad graph is a bad graph that doesn't explain what it is trying to tell you. Arzel (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's Atmoz, I wouldn't take it personally. He got me POed before. You have statistical experience, they're error bounds at 95% confidence. The reason why there are they're spaced out is because thirty years (although this one seems increase it to sixty) is the standard for averaging in climate statistics since it'll even out most natural cycles. In short, they're the error bounds for the average of sixty years of data. Here's the link to the WMO's FAQ, they simplify climate statistics a little, and if you want, I can help you look for a better source. I think you might like this graph better, the methology is older/less major, but it spaces error bounds every thirty years instead of sixty. Dragons flight's graph and NASA's graph use the same data; didn't even need to do the regression either, five year running mean is provided as data points. You can read about the methodology here, the graphs were originally published by Hansen et al. I hope this clears things up for you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

C&C, [20] seems to be a broken link. If, instead of "they're the error bounds for the average of sixty years of data" you had said, "they're the average error bounds for sixty years of data", I'd be clearer. Do you take 60 years of data, 60 data points, each with a 95% error band, and display the average error band somewhere in the display of the 60 points? That I would understand. If you average the 60 data points into one average temperature figure, then it's error bar will be very small compared to the individual error bars for each of the 60 separate points. If you know, can you say which it is? I mention this because I took a guess (with no prior reading) as to the meaning of those green bars below under #Please don't start to edit war over the lede image. If my guess was right, then I would say that the green bars are self explanatory. If they mean anything else, then I would advocate not showing them. --Nigelj (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, broken link fixed, missed the "l" in ".html". I think I need to retract my comment. Finally got a chance to fully read Hansen et al. I kind of wish they were simple sixty year aggregate error bounds. But no, they're much more complex. The three error bounds represent, to my understanding, the error resulting from incomplete spatial coverage resulting from the three methods of measuring global temperatures. They compare modeled measurements at the instrument's location to the variability of instrumental measurements. This is why they call them "uncertainty estimates" rather than "confidence intervals". The farthest right represents the error from satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982. The middle, from documented procedures for data over land. The farthest left, ship-based analysis. This is my deduction. You should ask Boris, he might know. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start to edit war over the lead image

Look at these edits: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. There is some discussion about it above, but there's more edits than talk at the moment, I think. We seem to have the following images:

• 
  Instrumental Temperature Record.png
• NASA global temperature data 1880-2009.gif
  NASA global temperature data 1880-2009.gif
• 
  NOAA Land Ocean temperature anomaly.png
• 
  Nasa-giss 1880-2009 global temperature.png

Which is the best and why? We can't show them all first; don't edit war over them; pick one and give reasons why it's the best for the first image in this article. --Nigelj (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I vote for the NOAA Land Ocean temperature anomaly. The 11 yr running mean is a good filter for the solar magnetic activity cycle. The 5 year means of other charts has no logical justification for a climate time scale.Dikstr (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Of course we don't vote ;-). I support the leftmost image by DF. We have used it for years, and I find it the best looking one. It's also based on one of the two more prominent temperature records. It also has the advantage of showing the anomaly relative to the base used in most published works and by the IPCC, while NASA uses a different baseline. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• The green error bars for the NASA images are not clear in their purpose. Why those three points in time? What are they trying to say? Is the average reader going to understand what they are trying say without any explanation? If we are to use either of those two graphs the reasoning behind those three error bars needs to be expanded. Per that I would suggest a NOAA graph of 11 years to account for solar variation. Arzel (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure I understand what the green error bars are supposed to represent, but I agree that's not the same as knowing what they represent. For the sake of consistency I think we should stick with the image that's been in the article for a while now - that said I'm not particularly against the NOAA graph with the 11-year mean. Mikenorton (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Can't say I care a lot. As it happened, I reverted back to the dreaded "green bars" in the course of removing this [28] - we don't need climategate in a science article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• We should stay with the one on the left, which has been used for several years. Changing the way the average is computed would allow editors to either exaggerate or hide the decline, based on political beliefs. 76.19.65.163 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  As to the green bars, let me take a guess: "The likely errors in these unsmoothed data points are larger way back, slightly smaller in the middle and noticeably smaller in recent data. In all cases except the oldest data, the errors are likely to be smaller than the visible 'noise', so that is probably real". Am I right? If someone knows what they really mean, and that is close, then I would say that they mean what they say and no further explanation is needed for their use in three cases, but without the clutter of showing them throughout. That really leaves the question of 5-year versus 11-year smoothing. If William doesn't care about this, should anyone? The noise is real; the smoothing is never perfect; the trend is clear. I hope no one's getting out their magnifying glass and studying the 'hook' at the very end of some smoothed lines: with a trend like that, it clearly means nothing, whether visible or not. This isn't a stock-price chart, but a highly complex physical process following lots of basic laws superimposed. The trend is clear and its causes well known and on-going. --Nigelj (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Look back up to the section 'Graph and trend' where ChyranandChloe seems to have answered queries regarding the dreaded green bars. Mikenorton (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please say which of these graphs are exactly as published in a reliable source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Click on each graph to find information on its source. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. It is not easy to determine whether there has been any data processing by individuals or organisations other than the cited source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you mean by 'data processing', the graphs created by Dragons flight and Giorgiogp2 plot published values (both graphs give their sources), they also include 5 year and 11 year means respectively of the data, chosen to match those used in published graphs. I wouldn't call any of that data processing or manipulation. The other two graphs are taken directly from the Nasa website (just two versions of the same graph with different resolutions), but they contain the green bars that we seem to be finding difficult to get precise explanations for. Mikenorton (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Graphs created by WP editors have no place at all in this article, this is OR. We should only show graphs exactly as shown in reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what WP:OR says, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy". Mikenorton (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I also prefer the leftmost graph, it's what we have shown for quite some time and unless it has a gross mistake I think it should stay. --Seba5618 (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• I prefer the leftmost graph as well. It should be our default option in the absence of clear consensus anyhow, since its the image that has been on the page for the past few years updated with the 2009 datapoint. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor generated images are OR

Presenting numerical data in order to illustrate a point is not the same as, for example, producing a diagram. As any marketing or advertising person knows, the same data can be presented in a variety of different ways in order to make very different points.

In deciding how to show data graphically the following points (at least) need to be considered.

Data set and title

What is the appropriate data set to include. Starting when? Ending when? What should the graph be called?

Presentation

What is the most appropriate form of graph, line, bar etc? What captions should be present? What colours and line types should be used? Should expected or predicted trends be shown?

Axes

How are the axes to be labeled, brief descriptions or full details of the exact nature of the measurements? How should the axes be scaled? What should be the zero point for each axis? Should room be left for envisaged continuation of one or more of the axes?

What lines should be added

What lines should be added, if any, to connect the data points? Should any forms of smoothing or moving average be used? Should error bars be shown, if so for what confidence limits? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OI. Generating simple plots is no OR. And, as I've already pointed out above, in this case the editor in question is qualified as an expert under WP:SPS anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read it and it is quite obvious, as shown above, that many decisions made in the presentation of data in graphical form constitute OR. We should only show graphs as published in reliable sources. The same data can be presented in many different ways to suggest many different things. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating this like a broken record. That does not make it relevant. Yes, user-generated images can be misused. But that generic statement is useless - so can any edit. This particular image has been carefully created by a competent expert who also happens to be a Wikipedia editor, and who, in all relevant aspects, closely follows other images released e.g. by NASA and other reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If the images that have been produced by the expert have been published in a reliable source that is fine. Otherwise, why do we not show a published image? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that it's because either they're unusable because they're not freely licensed, or they're just less attractive. May I ask what original ideas you think this graph is presenting? — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection to mention of "Climategate"

See global warming controversy. This article is about the science

William M Connelley objected to this: In 2009, there was a controversy over e-mails dubbed Climategate. The President of the US National Academy of Sciences has commented that the controversy damaged the reputation of science and eroded public trust. Comments? Put in article? Re-write it? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Climategate is worth mentioning. It is such a clear part of the overall global warming controversy, it is difficult to leave it out at this point. BC Builder (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Which is why you want to put it in global warming controversy not in a science article William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, the "science" is called into question by the scandal (e.g., "Mike's Nature Trick"). So, it really should be in this article BC Builder (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] We have a Debate and skepticism section, it can go in there.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC) The CRU hacking and results to date amount to a political side-show, and one that hasn't yet fully played out. It's unlikely that we will ever want to cover it at this overview level, and certainly not now. The science (which is what this article is about) is not affected in any way. --TS 23:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Yes, it is correct that certain bloggers have called the science into doubt, but the significant parity of reliable sources state quite unequivocal that it doesn't do so. That goes for most regular journalism, as well as for the vast majority of expert comments. It doesn't really spell well when you are putting science into scare-quotes. But do try to read Scientific opinion on climate change, and do try to accept that the science isn't something done by 2-3 scientists. We also have an article on Global warming controversy, which is summerized here. And that is where your focus should be. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC) @WMC you say that it belongs in the article Global warming controversy? Why don't you then move it there? Now You just delete it. 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC) It is not the bloggers who are saying it. It is the former head of the "Climate Research Unit"...Can you say "Hide the Decline"? BC Builder (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Yes, i can say "hide the decline" - but what it has to do with this article somehow escapes me. You may want to read Divergence problem though, since you seem unaware of what that short sentence actually means. And i'm sorry to say that the "former head" of the CRU doesn't say anything of the kind (nor is he the "former" anything - he stepped aside for the time being, but hasn't receded his post). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) And Mr. Petersen should read this: "Climategate — the release of internal emails from scientists with key roles in the UN’s 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report — largely centered around the strained attempt to portray temperatures in recent decades as unprecedented throughout recorded history. The researchers had to go to extreme lengths to create this impression — grafting one data set onto another to manufacture the desired “hockey stick” effect, using computer programs that add warming to the underlying temperature data and then destroying that data before others could see it — which speaks volumes about the weakness of their case. [...] There is a reason proponents of costly measures to address global warming have so exaggerated the risks – they essentially had to for there to be any chance the public would accept the high price tag for action to ratchet down carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions"Hype of Global Warming Far Scarier Than Science Shows. Nsaa (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Interesting - but do you really think that an Op-Ed from the Heritage foundation is a reliable source for any of that? It may be worth something to someone who already holds partisan views that correlate with what Liberman is claiming (confirmation bias) - but it doesn't really match with what the scientific, the economical or even the political reality is with regards to the issue at hand - does it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) (e.c.)I agree, and it should be restored at this page. Nsaa (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Climategate appears to be the "tip of the iceberg", which has highlighted not only the "tricks" and "hiding" of the East Anglia/Penn crowd, but also the errors and flaws in the IPCC reports (e.g., Netherlands flooding, Glacier melting, etc.). Thus it should be included as the precursor event to these other controversies. BC Builder (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Uh, BC Builder, isn't that WP:CRYSTAL without a reliable source? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC) No. I'm saying 2 months ago Climategate appeared to be an isolated event. Here and now, that initial event is clearly snowballing, resulting in decreasing confidence in climate science in general and AGW specifically as the evidence becomes less clear. You don't need a crystal ball to see that, as evidenced by numerous reliable sources. BC Builder (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Be patient. If what you say is about to happen actually happens, then lots of peer reviewed papers will be withdrawn and the scientific consensus will change. Then we'll write it up, because our information will be from reliable sources, and not just the opinion of some guy on the internet. --TS 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC) We don't have to wait for the peer review process to unfold to include information from reliable sources. Climategate has resulted in serious questions regarding some of the science associated with global warming. It will take several months if not a year for any review of published papers, or the inclusion of other papers. The core guidelines of wp are no different for this article. Arzel (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Who is making serious questions about the science? Is it scientists? Otherwise there is Global warming controversy, Politics of global warming, Public opinion on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit said there has been no warming for 15 years. This goes against the "Scientific Consensus" on AGW. BC Builder (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] You're wrong. Have you been reading the Daily Mangle? . . dave souza, talk 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Realclimate is less reliable than the BBC. MSM vs green blog.85.77.245.167 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC) No. I have been reading the BBC interview with Jones. BC Builder (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] That seems unlikely, because it doesn't say what you report it as saying. I think the idea that you've read a mangled version from some skeptic blog seems more likely. But let me quote it for you: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. [29] So as Jones clearly states, there has indeed been warming over the past 15 years, at a rate of 0.12 oC/decade. Since you claim to have read the interview, it is hard to see how you could have missed this. Are you finding the bit about statistical significance hard to understand? I can explain, if you so. Oh, and you're wrong about the other bit too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Trends that are not statistically significant are generally not considered, well, I suppose you could say, significant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Ummm....no, they are considered "not statistically significant at the defined significance level" (in this case 95%/5%). They are still increases, they can still be significant increases, and in this case, they are still increases at a 90% significance level. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for highlighting the quote "...there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Yes...". So, I would agree, Jones is indicating there has been no statistically-significant global warming. He reports a significance level, which is standard statistical procedure, and his hypothesis indicates the warming is not significant based on that stated confidence interval. So to summarize--no global warming in 15 years. If you need any further clarification, just let me know. BC Builder (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] "[N]o global warming in 15 years" is a distortion, pure and simple.[30] Wikispan (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) The spin applied to the story, about a media interview with the former director of the CRU, was picked up by news outlets and columnists around the world. But it distorted Prof. Jones's comments, which actually indicated that a short-term warming trend appears to exist at levels "quite close" to scientifically significant. — Jeet Heer, Globe and Mail I know it is very difficult to accept, but we can only read what is in print and what has been reported. We don't do original research here. BC Builder (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] There's more to writing an encyclopedia than finding all the newspaper stories and putting them together. That would be a news-feed. Making judgements about validity, weight, relevance, accuracy is all part of it. Luckily here the Mail's distortions have been well reported, as have Jones's original words. If you don't try to be a clever-dick by cutting off his quote as you did above, and make an effort to understand statistical significance, you will see what everyone's telling you here. Oh, and that's another thing: WP:CONSENSUS. --Nigelj (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Again, I realize it is hard to accept the facts, since the "consensus" is currently falling apart. Just as it was hard for the Catholic Church to accept the Earth was not the center of the Universe, it is similarly hard for the AGW acolytes to accept the truth. Again, we can only report the facts here, not original research. Also, I am a clever-dick...thanks! (But I am not as clever as "Mike's Nature Trick") BC Builder (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Or, in your case, evidently fail to read what is in print and accept the facts. Have another couple of links.[31][32] .... dave souza, talk 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC) http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/yes-our-press-corps-is-that-bad/ William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC) No. Blog. Irrelevant.130.232.214.10 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Again, I am not the one trying to "Hide the decline" (Jones' own words, in his own e-mail). BC Builder (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] You seem to be under the impression that the phrase "hide the decline" is really really scary and will automatically win you all arguments. You also appear to think it is in some way relevant to the current discussion. Both of these beliefs are wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC) If there are Reliable Sources that question the validity of the science, then the questions should go into the science article.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Subject to due weight, that's what we do. Thing is, hardly any competent source questions the science. There is overwhelming consensus. --TS 22:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Eh, competent sources question the science all the time, and consistently find evidence that AGW is happening. . . dave souza, talk 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Back on topic, a more balanced article in The Sunday Indy. The main danger is blaming those under attack for the successes of the attackers, and of course it's combined with long term creationist anti-science. However, it does seem to be having an effect. . . dave souza, talk 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC) The problem is, the consensus is based on a limited number of data sets, one of the key ones of which is kept by Mr. Jones at East Anglia. The quality of these data sets is now under question based on his comments and lack of apparent organizational skills. Since this forms the basis of the "consensus", there is growing concern over the claims of climate science. Again, I know it is hard to accept, but we must all support each other with Wikilove, and try to accept the facts. BC Builder (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] As I understand it, the CRU keeps no raw data, and merely collates and cleans up data from stations around the world. The Met Office compiles HadCRUT. There is close agreement between HadCRUT3, the current generation of global temperature data, and the two other major data sets. --TS 02:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC) CRU is in charge of the land portion, and Hadley the marine portion. The land data is a key component of the full data set. BC Builder (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Undoubtedly so. But since they don't produce the raw data, the processed data are compiled by the Met into HadCRUT, and the two other data sets are very similar in shape, your reasoning seems to be missing a step. If the HadCRUT3 set were showing warming and the others were not, that would be something. --TS 05:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Their interpretation of the data indicates no warming for 15 years (per the Jones/BBC interview). BC Builder (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] We've been through this at least twice before. I definitely need to get started on that "Did Phil Jones say global warming stopped 15 years ago?" FAQ. Meanwhile, do you have a proposal for improving the article? Apart from placing highly creative interpretations of the Phil Jones interview into the article, that is. --TS 05:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Again, Phil Jones said here has been no warming in 15 years, not me. BC Builder (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Your needle is stuck, and you're still wrong. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Add it to the FAQ... Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Oh well, have done. See Q3. . dave souza, talk 09:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC) BC Builder has been identified as a scibaby sock by checkuser. [33] Oh well, at least scibaby is good for one thing: coming up with newer and dumber FAQ questions. His frequent deployment of terms like "Hide the decline", "Mike's nature trick" and whatnot seem a bit dated now, I think, else I might consider a separate FAQ for the whole question of blog-based disinformation. --TS 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC) TS - Your last paragraph is exactly why the alarmist are losing the debate now. Manipulation of the peer review process by pro-AGW elements actually discredits all the editing that has been done by your gatekeepers over the years. Now you have reached the point where you can't even see what's happening right in front of (and all around) you. AGW has gone from polar bears dying, sea levels rising and catastrophic warming before the end of the decade (2010)… ..to debating the meaning of "statistically-significant" to maintain their argument. Look how far you have fallen... Mk 71.228.77.211 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (outdent) Cute. See FAQ 19. Maybe we should invite real alarmists here so that we'd have a fair debate with equally poor and polarized sources, that or write a decent encyclopedia. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This was all obvious nonsense, but there is now an Economist article saying so [34] and calling the Daily Mail article "a lie" directly William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

This has been discussed at talk:current sea level rise and Talk:Criticism of the IPCC AR4

guardian.co.uk: Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Might be appropriate at current sea level rise, though a quick check on that page shows no sign that we have relied on the findings of that paper. --TS 02:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Whether or not this article has sourced that paper is utterly meaningless. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC) What do you think we should do about it? "One 2009 paper attempting to quantify predicted sea level rise by 2100 has been withdrawn because of flaws to which the authors' attention was drawn by two other researchers who had themselves published a paper predicting a considerably larger rise?" --TS 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC) We should highlight the fact the predictions were incorrect and withdrawn, all within the context of the scientific process/peer review in journal articles. The fact it is in the Nature family of journals is even more noteworthy. BC Builder (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Since we never noted the existence of the paper in the first place, why would we note its withdrawal? --TS 05:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) The fact it was not noted previously indicates an oversight, and is a clear indication this article is not in proper form to begin with. The initial claims and subsequent withdrawal should both be duly noted. BC Builder (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Ah, so your position is that we should just randomly select from whatever the latest published papers in peer reviewed journals say, without waiting for the bugs to shake out? And then we should write about any that do, unfortunately, turn out to be incorrect? Well no. That is what newspapers do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Take a look at the answer to FAQ Q22. --TS 05:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Those are your words, not mine. We should report science and the facts, and indicate when "tricks" and "hiding" of data are afoot. I agree in large measure with your logic. For example, we should take out this reference (as one of many examples): http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-05-18-greenpeace-exxon_N.htm which is short term trivia not worthy of note. However, BBC interviews with the former head of CRU are worthy of note, as well as withdrawn Nature papers. BC Builder (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Would a reasonable addition to the article then be, to your estimation, "Tricks and hiding of data were revealed when climate scientists withdrew a journal claiming a rise in sea levels"? 72.192.46.9 (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC) The paper is to be republished with corrections, at which stage we can confirm the current implication that it will show sea levels rising faster than it did previously. . . dave souza, talk 07:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Just imagine writing an entire encyclopedia article about a major scientific subject in which every single article on the subject ever published must be discussed, irrespective of its prominence in the field, including those withdrawn due to flaws. Yikes, evolution would be a real mess. --TS 14:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC) TS is right, if the paper has not been mentioned in this article, there’s no reason to note its withdrawal. When it is reissued, we should discuss whether it belongs on sea level rise first, then whether it I significant enough to deserve mention in this broader article.SPhilbrickT 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree. The fact there is a retraction on such an incredible claim really speaks to the debate on global warming and is therefore germane. I would include it.Winsomet (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, retractions of incredible claims really do speak to the debate. However, this article is about the science, not news items about papers that the article didn't cite. . . dave souza, talk 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If this article is about science, why are you quoting blogs? Phermion (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Read what I said – this is about a debate that doesn't belong in the article. Note that it's one newspaper article, one blog – your plural is misplaced. WP:SPS allows blogs under specific conditions, and even denialist blogs can be useful. This gives a convenient link to a pdf of the famous article where Houghton didn't say what the denialists claim he said. For excuses, see here while noting that details of the debate belong in other articles, not this one. . . dave souza, talk 09:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How well does theoretical predictions match real data?

I have read several comments here, saying: "this article is about the science", those are absurd comments because if those making the comments had any scientific training and thought for even a few seconds they would quickly realise that the heart of science is the validation of hypothesis by testing whether they predict real data. So obviously one of the key questions that needs to be answered in a scientific article is how well the theory of manmade warming predicts actual data. As far as I am aware there have been very few actual predictions so it should be very easy to list these and give some indication of whether the real data tends to validate or invalidate those predictions. In particular, the 2001 report suggested warming of between 1.4-5.8C in the next century. How well does that fit actual temperatures? Don't the Met Office produce yearly global temperature predictions based on the theory of global warming? How well do these theory based predictions predict actual climatic change? Or to put that in reverse, how valid is the theory based on actual data and not the votes of researchers?

Come on this is supposed to be a science article, so please can we see a bit of real science! Is the theory supported by the data or is it not? 88.110.2.122 (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You hit on one of the topics of interest to me. I agree that you've identified a critical issue - what did the climate models predict, not just means but 95% confidence intervals, and how did actual results turn out? Of course, even if actual results over the last 20 years, for example, are outside the confidence band of a model prediction from 20 years ago, it would call into question the models of 20 years ago, not the current models. I think many climate scientists would happily tell you that the climate models have improved materially over the last 20 years.

Still, while I've seen some evidence along these lines, I haven't seen as formal or complete a study as I would like. If someone is aware of such studies, I'd love to see them.

I trust you are aware our task is to find the studies, not create them.--SPhilbrickT 02:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is also our role to make facts known even if the professionals in a field have acted in concert to try to hide these facts. It's pretty obvious why those in this field would not wish their predictions to be subject to the glare of publicity and we know from the climategate emails that they have had very much a stranglehold on the dissemination of information on this subject. We either have to treat this subject as a science, and ensure that what we say in the article is backed up by real data, OR we have to accept that this subject cannot be treated as a science and we have to allow in political comment. You can't have it both ways. You can't demand it is a science and then rely on information from people who clearly acted in a political way without much scientific integrity. Most of the predictions are public, the assessment of those predictions can be done by anyone with a calculator, this is not rocket science, and so if we are to maintain this is a scientific article, we must be able to demonstrate the validity or otherwise of the core scientific predictions. Otherwise it isn't science! Isonomia (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but if there's an international conspiracy to hide the facts, how will you know what The Real Facts are, and who was behind the grassy knoll. Science can make long term (30 years as FAQ 3) projections without making short term predictions, political paranoia and misinformation isn't science. . . dave souza, talk 17:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm reading Hansen et al. Presented predictions in 1988, three scenarios, and published findings in 2006. The second scenario, and regarded as the most plausible, predicted a .19°C per decade increase, which fits the observed 0.19–0.21°C. I'm not sure if this answers your question though. Have you read the FAQ? I think parts of your question can be answered by Q3 and Q8. You seem to be more interested in statistics though, not climate models, and I think I might have some studies there. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this SciAm report from the AAAS meeting, the IPCC predictions have been conservative. Of course, since climate us usually measured over 30 year periods, we only now reach the first such period since the first IPCC report. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit is saying the warming is only 0.12°C per decade, but even that is "not significant at the 95% significance level". You can read this at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Phermion (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Hansen et al 2006 identified by ChyranandChloe seems pretty close to this question, but that paper is about really old models (which are all that can be really evaluated). The paper does say that "Close agreement of observed temperature change with simulations for the most realistic climate forcing (scenario B) is accidental ... moderate overestimate of global warming is likely [in this context, not in the current model-II] because the sensitivity of the model used (12), 4.2°C for doubled CO2, is larger than our current estimate for actual climate sensitivity, which is 3.1°C for doubled CO2, based mainly on paleoclimate data (17)". The actual IPCC WG1 report, published in 2007, should have something on this; for example, Box TS.7 on page 59-60 (PDF page 41/74). The end of that box does say that no "metrics" measuring accuracy have been proven. Also see 62 for the historical fit comparing anthropogenic + natural to natural only. This is possibly something that can be discussed at Global climate model. I also find the Global_warming#Climate_models section a bit difficult to read; the style is a bit technical and circumlocutious. Also, it should be clear that testing the fit of models to observations is not something that should be done on a year-by-year basis - the IPCC has been clear that they aren't about predicting next year's temperatures but rather next decades temperatures. II | (t - c) 07:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The question you raise is an interesting one, but unless you can show that it is actively discussed in the literature, it isn't relevant here. This isn't usenet. FWIW, my answer would be that the kind of verification you're looking for requires a long time to have passed, and it hasn't, which is why there isn't much work on it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Global warming/climate change is really an article about the science of predicting the climate. Estimates of the effect of CO2 have been made for some time. I've no problem listing early predictions to show that the 20th century showed a period of warming in line with early predictions - except I've never seen these predictions listed. It is said climate science really started in the 1970s, but the first prediction with a scientifically testable range was in 2001 in the IPCC report. 9 years isn't nearly enough to validate this prediction which was for 2100, but it does show how much the climate would need to warm in order to be within the range. This is basic science, you create a hypothesis, you use that to make predictions, and then you see how well it matches real data. There may be earlier predictions, which better match the global temperature trend, there certainly are later ones with even less of a time-period. All I want to see is a scientific article respecting the normal standards of science - data and theory must be compared to determine validity of the theory! Isonomia (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Global warming/climate change is really an article about the science of predicting the climate. No it isn't. Why would you think otherwise? One technique you could try is to read the article. You'd discover that large parts of it are about understanding past change William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't this a misnomer? My limited understanding is that the models produce projections, not predictions. If the various factors differ from the assumptions in the model, as in a change in the rate of methane being put into the atmosphere, the model succeeds if it works with the new data, regardless of whether or not it worked as a "prediction". Goes back to read my tealeaves. . . dave souza, talk 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't really know about statistics and models, why are you commenting? Models produce predicted values (look for the word predicted, for example, in regression analysis). If the model accidentally succeeds, as Hansen et al say the earlier models did, then the models did not really succeed, and they need to be adjusted. The difference between "prediction" and "projection" seems like semantics. II | (t - c) 17:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Different fields use different terminology. Climate models predict certain outcomes under given assumptions. Emission scenarios, for example, are not part of climate models, but are input. Thus, to evaluate the climate model, you first have to look if these assumptions have been met. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)(e/c)I think you should just look at a scientific model as a collection of relationships between different factors, and an estimate of what those relationships are (plus or minus uncertainty). The fact that such a model produces a prediction is what allows the scientific method to work. Oftentimes a model is reported in the media as if it has a single magic number it predicts (global mean temperature deviation, for example) but the real goal is to have the correct relationship between different factors and the least uncertainty in the estimates. So for example, a global warming model which included as an input the fish yield in Argentina, but which offset it exactly with the influence of strikeouts in major league baseball regular season would be considered worse because it is a pathological nonsense relationship. The short version is that there are lots of ways to evaluate a scientific model. The conditional valuation of "if we had known how much methane would be produced, what would the warming be?" is one of the ways to evaluate it. Sorry if that was a little long winded, I kind of love science. Ignignot (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Projections. Just sayin', dave souza, talk 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

[35] it is a synonym. There are a few things going on with your example: if the model would perform correctly (by correctly predicting the temperature deviation) given the methane being put into the atmosphere it doesn't necessarily mean the model was good - in particular, there are feedback mechanisms between methane and warming. If it gets warmer, you get more methane, and if you get more methane, it gets warmer. If you fix your methane input, you are in effect breaking part of your model: the feedback mechanism. You're saying that part of the model doesn't work correctly. Maybe that's ok, and better than other models which have other shortcomings, as all models do in science. As they say, we know the model is wrong, but the question is, is it useful? Ignignot (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

All the models predictions have been wrong, for instance Look at page 107 Says less snowfall, we have had more snow in the NH than we have had for years, none of the models of course predicted this, nor did they predict the current cooling period the planet is going through mark nutley (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Learn to tell weather from climate. Hint: there are two different words which have different definitions; it is often that way William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How peculiar, given AGW proponents are currently saying the current snowstorms are because of AGW. However, as stated none of the models predicted the current cooling phase did they? mark nutley (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatologically, there is no cooling phase. You really do need to learn to tell weathr from climate if you're not going to embarass yourself any more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, snow cover is falling in the Northern hemisphere, you really do need to learn the difference between weather and climate (as WMC says). Here is the raw data [36] and here is a plot of it [37] - you also (in the above) need to differentiate between regional, hemispheric and global. And finally you need to differentiate between scientists and bloggers, and learn that "AGW proponents" (whatever that means) aren't a group - individuals can be as wrong as anyone, and often are (which Romm was here)[38]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

William, play nicely :) Kim according to Rutgers University Global Snow Lab snow cover extent is in fact increasing. Since 81 it has gone up about 5% mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mark, but the plot of the averaged NH figures from Rutgers show the same: File:NH-snow.jpg [more interesting though, where is the claim that it should be falling - and by what amount over what time - and is it season-dependent? And why are you chosing 1981? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Kim, just reading that chron.com piece should be enough to convince all our enthusiastic amateur climatologists here, and elsewhere, that climate science is not easy to join in with. That's why it's hard to lie in bed at night and come up with a new good reason why global warming isn't happening - because decades of hard thinking by a lot of very smart people already went into it before the IPCC was even formed. --Nigelj (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

We don't need unneeded words William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

...and any words expressing views you disagree with are of course unneeded. After all, we can't improve on perfection. Kauffner (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

...and what exactly was the view that he was expressing by changing "NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies" to "GISS" because it is a well known acronym? An anthropogenic letter reduction program? Did you even look at the diff?Ignignot (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, GISSgate! Anthropogenic letter reductionists run riot on Wikipedia! Something must be done about it! --Nigelj (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on article name change

I was searching for historic global warming articles and noticed that the number of such hits by google has plummeted since 2007. For interest I tried: "climate change" and discovered that this term seems to have taken over and that itnow has about twice as many hits as "global warming" (29,700,000 to 53,700,000).

On the face of it this would suggest the article is in need of a name change. So:

1. Are the two terms interchangeable?
2. I.e. is it simply a case of changing the name with a suitable link from global warming?
3. Does the higher google hits for "climate change" really reflect a higher usage?

Isonomia (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This keeps coming up (should it be added to the FAQ?) I think you only need a basic understanding of English and a few moments thought to work it out. Changes in climate (CC) can be up or down, and over the long-distant past there have been periods of warming and of cooling. All of this is discussed in Climate change. The current changes in the climate are upward, so we are in a period of global warming (GW). You can't write an article on GW in general, as it would have to cover all the periods of warming, at the ends of every ice age etc, without discussing the periods of stasis or those of cooling, which would be mad. So, since you can write an article on CC in general, that is what we have done; and we've kept 'GW' for the title of this article on the present global warming. Two common, simple phrases, two top-level articles.

Of course this is just us, and not the whole world. It does not even apply to sub-articles here - we have 'X of CC' and 'Y of GW' articles freely mixed ([X, Y] = [politics, economics, public opinion etc]). This is a recognition that, in my opinion, we do not want falsely to create a 'secret code' distinction between these two terms where none exists. Very often they are interchangeable in many sentences and phrases (warming of the globe is a change in climate; global cooling is a CC, not a GW). This does not alter the fact that we have two top-level articles, and two well-known phrases, and have used the phrases as best we can to name the two articles.

Can anyone who's a better wordsmith than I condense all that down into a pithy FAQ? --Nigelj (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As you are well aware the nature of this subject has changed out of all recognition since climategate, and may I strongly suggest that any FAQ given before climategate are totally irrelevant now. Please do not try and use this old hackneye ploy to stiffle proper debate! Isonomia (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The science hasn't changed recently, by "climategate" presumably you mean the recent outpouring of lies and misinformation in the popular press. We do of course aim to improve the FAQs, have you suggestions for improvement based on reliable scientific sources? . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the terms are not interchangeable. Global warming is a type of change in the climate (a warming trend). This article could be merged with the climate change article as this would place global warming in a better context, meaning that the climate is inherently unstable on a long time scale.130.232.214.10 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You said, The current changes in the climate are upward, so we are in a period of global warming (GW). This implies a conflation of climate with temperature. "Climate" is far broader than just temperature, and I know you well enough to know you know that, so I'll chalk it up to inapt wording.--SPhilbrickT 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Global warming" has for at least 10 years taken on a meaning different form the simple combination of its constituents. It has a a character not unlike a proper noun. Without further qualifiers, the term is used overwhelmingly to refer to the current episode of climate change, both in the popular press and in the scientific literature. We have an analysis of this somewhere in the archives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't change the name, you'll be busted for this hoax sooner rather than later. The reason "they" started using the term "Climate Change" is for one of two reasons: they realized at any given time the planet is either cooling or warming, or they actually predicted the current cooling. --Karbinski (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To expand a bit on Stephan's wrong: The reason for the change from global warming to climate change, actually does lie within the political dimension... Just not the way you think: It originates with Frank Luntz' advice to the Bush administration. You can read a bit about it here Frank Luntz#Global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an amazing statement from Luntz. It's stunning what Americans get fed by their political 'masters'. I'm sure we get fed some rubbish too, but although politicians try to rewrite history, mostly they don't try to alter the English language itself. I often wondered what alleged crack in the scientific consensus people were trying force open by wanting to draw a distinction between the two terms. Some politician needed to survive a few more months in office, so they altered the whole understanding of a few hundred million people just maintain their grip on power. They're gone now, but we still have a whole nation with a distorted understanding of some English phrases, that these people created. Maybe we need more than a FAQ on this - a para in the article, Terminology? --Nigelj (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It was easy to do because it is a broader context to view global warming in, not a replacement for the concept of global warming. For example, ocean acidification is a consequence of CO2 concentration, but isn't warming per se. Sometimes (probably by accident) politicians get it right. Kind of. I'm not going to comment on the Orwellian thoughts of yours. Ignignot (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Climate change covers the concept better, which is why it stuck. It circumnavigates some of the inherent explanation problems inherent in any change (be it towards warmer or colder) - everywhere won't warm/cool (mostwhere will), topography makes for some glaciers to recede/grow (most wont), regional change generally is more uncertain than global change (ie. there will be no homogeneous change)... etc etc. But global warming is the common name for the recent warming, and the projections of its continuation. And Climate change is already an article, which covers the broader aspects of climate change on the geological timescale, which is something that encompasses nearly as broad a field as the current climate change. (sorry if i'm rambling - its 2AM and i need sleep :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In favour of climate change the IPCC are called that way. Global warming IS in the decline as a term of use in terms of media reports, and those which use it are predominantly political rather than scientific in nature which would strongly suggest that an article of this name would cover the political aspects of global warming, which as far as I am aware is not covered at all in Wikipedia. If I bought a book labelled "global warming" from a bookshop I would expect it to cover the history, the politics, the science, and the forecasts. To me that suggests this is not the right name for an article on the science. Perhaps AGW, or whatever the current name used in the climate community would be more appropriate for a scientific article. A scientific name for a scientific article, rather than a poltical-environmental name.Isonomia (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be a book, this is an encyclopedia article. What you want to see is covered, e.g., in politics of global warming, and in all the other articles in the GW/CC nav bar. --Nigelj (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave the name alone. Stop wasting time William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a name change. "Climate change" captures both the cooling and warming episodes we have had in the last 40 years. Wellpoint32 (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic 'episodes' take at least 40 years each to become apparent. The current warming episode only became clear about 100 years in, and some people are still arguing about it 50 years after that! You're talking about weather, not climate. --Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We Need to Work This Criticism into the Appropriate AGW Articles

Please discuss this at Talk:Institute of Physics, Talk:Climatic Research Unit, or Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The British Institute of Physics is concerned about CRU information and research policies: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm Any suggestions on how to reach a consensus on where and how to include this?Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC) This, too: The ICO accuses University of East Anglia of misleading Parliament: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm Civility and focus on the project will be greatly appreciated. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see this as relevant to any of the more science-based articles. The main CRU results have been confirmed over and over again, and HadCRUT is is full agreement with other temperature reconstructions. Did you intentionally copy the same link twice? I don't see the source having anything on the second claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Of course they have been confirmed - because as Prof Jones clearly admits they are basically all churning the same bogus temperature data. Rubbish in - rubbish out, that is climate "science" + groupthink, hiding the decline and subverting peer review. This is supposed to be science, so lets stop the charade of removing any scientific criticism of this climategate bunch - because that isn't science, it's politics and you know it! Isonomia (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC) It isn't the IOP anyway, its just some splinter sub-group. NOTNEWs, or have we learnt nothing? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC) The memorandum is has been submitted in the name of the IOP and it look pretty relevant to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Please pause to think just a little before reacting. As I say, this isn't the IOP, its some runaway subgroup William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC) It is not some runaway subgroup. Check the links below, both from the UK Parliament and the IOP. Please pause to check before reacting, WMC.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC) William, what is your evidence that this report was produced by a splinter group. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC) It is the full institute. Here is the link from their web page: http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Consultations/Energy_and_Environment/file_39010.pdf It is important, and I hope you can be civil. This is the link to the Times article about the ICO and the University of East Anglia: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece As I said, I am hoping we can had a constructive discussion on how to work this material into the AGW-issue articles, and I hope we can develop consensus about which articles are best suited for this information. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Same logo, but the statements seem an epic fail of the institute's motto – "Download our introductory brochure, "Promoting physics, supporting physicists". More like incompetently dumping physicists due to assumptions of bad faith. The Times article has already been dealt with on the appropriate page. . . dave souza, talk 19:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC) And, regarding the heading, you need to slow down. Why the urgency to get untested partial info into the articles? . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Gratuitousd insults of Britain's physicists is hardly a mature way to deal with the issues raised by people who have more training in science than you. Normally, the AGW crowd is deferential to scientists, but now it seems they pick and choose, based on whether they are inside or outside the laager. I am not suggesting haste. Far from it. I know the material needs to be included in the CRU Hacking article but I believe their concerns about the quality of the CRU's science should be included in other articles. So let's deal with this maturely, not by making up "splinter groups" and denigrating well-meaning scientists just because their conclusions don't fit a certain agenda. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Where are the gratuitous insults? Britain's physicists at CRU are under sustained attack, and the Institute of Physicists seems to be strongly supporting press misinformation rather than the physicists. Let's see how their submission stands up to questioning. . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Very disingenuous. Were it a bar association criticizing the work of some lawyers, it would be considered verifiable and pertinent information. Let's not manipulate Wikipedia based on your hopes that the IOP will have a tough time under questioning. And if they don't, I'm sure some other reason will arise. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with spoonkymonkey in comment above. now you global warming guys are imposing your own subjective beliefs on the entry. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Spoonkymonkey, would you now explain why you think the IOP's statement is relevant to lots of global warming articles, and to this one in particular? I note that you have not yet attempted to make such a case. --TS 00:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The IOP has made serious allegations about the peer review process and the loss'destruction of CRU data that, I believe, butresses the argument that IPCC findings based on CRU data need to be re-worked. The allegation of data destruction also casts a long shadow over CRU/IPCC conclusions and the science upon which they are based. You might have asked before you tried to shut the discussion down. This page is as good as any other AGW page, since it's a discussion of the science. If there is a better page, then by all means move it there, but don't just kill it. And let people know first. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) My feeling on this is that we'd probably be waiting for a lot more than a submission to the Commons Select Committee (I hope you have read it, by the way, and understand how tentative it is) by one organisation, before we bagan to regard any substantial part of the climate change consensus to be in doubt. I think this piece is highly significant, however, and is likely to draw quite a lot of attention. So it should almost certainly find a place in an article on the event. --TS 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not news, and impatience is inappropriate when we now find the Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry. The usual caution about headlines being written by sub-editors applies. . . dave souza, talk 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Er, yes. We've been here so many times that I'm no longer surprised when something like the above (as explained in your Grauniad link) turns up. We have seen enough examples of pushes to incorporate stuff from news articles into Wikipedia articles on climate change, and subsequent events showing this to be a very short-sighted approach, that perhaps we should compile a list of examples for a general "Why we don't write about climate change on Wikipedia by listing stuff we got from newspapers" FAQ question. --TS 19:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Aww, here was me thinking we should cover the political issue of Inhofe accused of turning climate row into 'McCarthyite witch-hunt' . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I see no reason to exclude reliable information, even if--no, make that especially if the source is a reliable newspaper. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

You shouldn't change the dates without changing the numbers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah . dave souza, talk 09:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A handful of POV issues.

1. The article also omits any mention of CO2/$GNP statistics, which biases it towards its conclusion that the US is a worse offender than China when the reverse is true in terms of energy efficiency relative to wealth generation. This is a hotly contested policy issue, and the article takes sides by relying solely on the CO2 per capita statistic.
2. The article does not distinguish between skeptics of the science and skeptics of the economics, making opponents of radical climate-change policies seem like know-nothings. In fact, there are many skeptics who fully acknowledge the existence of and scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming, but believe the damage to the economy from drastic limits on carbon emissions would far outweigh the damage from global warming itself.
3. The article falsely characterizes the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute with the pejorative and incorrect adjective "business-centered." A featured article should have no need to poison the well. I would hope that it's uncontroversial that I corrected this line-item. THF (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
4. The File:GHG_per_capita_2000.svg map pushes the POV that the US is a particularly bad offender: you will see that the green bars are very narrow, while the red bars take up 80% of the range. A neutral map would have the US colored in at greenish yellow rather than dark orange. THF (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a die-hard capitalist I don't see "business centered" as pejorative. Nor as false, for that matter. They say themselves that they are "dedicated to free enterprise," which is essentially the same thing. Maybe "market oriented" or similar wording? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Being dedicated to "free enterprise" isn't necessarily "business centered": many businesses prefer to engage in rent seeking rather than free market competition. I'd be alright with "free-market." THF (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit esoteric for Wikipedia, but I think your edit does make the article clearer. The organizations in question tend to be ideologically libertarian, and most of them seem to be avowedly so. --TS 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Any thoughts on the other three issues? THF (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) (1) List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions has the data set, I can make a map and add a sentence in. (2) I think you're right, just need a source, I'll look for some, but no promises. (3) "free-market" works. (4) It's correct, the map is normalized, while the key is kept as it is, linear. The data is not uniformly distributed (which would work best for maps like this) or normally distributed, in fact it is very high skewed. If we kept everything linear you'd have about five islands of solid red in a solid sea of green. In order to get a decent color gradient, you have to put it though a statical transformation. I think this might be a power law transformation, maybe exponential. You can of course transform both the key and the map, but transformed keys are cumbersome to read. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Select Committee

Interesting start. More relevant to detailed articles on the hacking incident, dave souza, talk 19:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why we're discussing this and the IOP piece here. Both would be relevant to the Climatic Research Unit documents article, perhaps, or to an article devoted to the Committee hearing to which it was submitted. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We needn't (and shouldn't) discuss the Select Committee investigation at this article, but the sub-article on it should be quickly and easily found from here.

Needless to say, it isn't. I've searched for two of the obvious links ("Select" and "UK") and neither lead anywhere. This despite the fact we've been told in no uncertain terms that "search" of text is the way to find things.

I'll ask the question again - what's the point of this suite of articles? In my experience, coming here to have my questions answered, it's currently an obstacle to people trying to inform themselves on this subject. It's no more than a social Forum for believers, the actual product is pretty much a complete waste of time for both writers and readers. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article gives an encyclopedic overview of the topic (and has been recognized as doing a good job by several outside observers). If you want quick access to out-of-context soundbites, Google or any other search engine of your choice is available. If you want a running commentary of the latest developments, check a news aggregator. Neither of this is the role of Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Section on temperature decline

Let's wait until the authorities announce a falling trend in global average temperatures

It is now time that this article caught up with the reality of the situation and started addressing the recent decline in temperature. Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere. "There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one US analysis. For a table of world temperatures: Part of the explanation could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations, he said. [39] What should this section be called? I suggest: "21st century pause in temperature" as the least POV title I can think of. What do other editors think it should be called? Isonomia (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I think you should try to find out the difference between weather and climate, for a start. --Nigelj (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Are you kidding me, Is that a serious remark intended to address the known pause instrumental pause in warming? Isonomia (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC) And read the archived discussion from last time. And the time before that William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Those archives are pre-climategate and now totally meaningless because I for one wouldn't have let to you get away with the comments you made about peer review if I knew the way your chums were perverting that system.Isonomia (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (ecx2)Not trying to be flippant, but nothing, as there isn't enough data yet to know if there is any significant change going on. This has been endlessly discussed here recently and plenty of times before that can be found in the archives. Look at other parts of the temperature graph, such as the period around 1980, what's the difference between what is happening now and what happened then? Mikenorton (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Of course there is enough data. The trend in the trend is clearly downward. That's twenty years of comparison, what more do you want? A century of cooling, because if that is your rediculous stance then this isn't science and I'd rather spend my time where people really deal with science. Isonomia (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The "trend in the trend"? What about the "trend in the trend in the trend"? There is no significant decline in global temperature over the last 15 or 20 years - on the contrary, there is an increase. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Stephan, I can't be expected to teach you basic maths that any schoolboy will understand. If you don't understand what the trend in the trend is then may I suggest the solution is in your hands and not mine. Just take it from me that the trend in the trend is clearly downward. The temperature has cooled since 2001 (the date the IPCC issued their report saying how much it would warm). Since 2001 the temperature has cooled whilst all the predictions were warming. That is a significant change in the previous warming trend. That change has occurred over a period of 20years. This is a significant change in the climate over a twenty year period which by any definition of the climate is climatic and not weather. Only someone who was trying to hide the real facts would try to hide this well known fact. Now stop asking rediculous questions and lets try improving the article by deciding what to call this section.Isonomia (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Your original header was about a decline in temperature. I just want to be sure if you now backpedal to "a decline in the rate of temperature increase", or if you still maintain there is a decline in temperature. And in either case, just like Boris, I would like to know what you base this on. Reasonable maths would be fine for the discussion, but for inclusion into the article we need, of course, one or more reliable sources. Handwaving and vague references to schoolboy maths, on the other hand, are furthering neither the discussion nor improve the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC) So when you wrote the subject heading "Section on temperature decline" what you really meant was "Section on recent decline in rising trend." Is that correct? You actually seem to be talking about a fall in the first difference of global average temperature over a decade, and not to a fall in global average temperature. And on a point of fact, I must correct you on the notion that the temperature has been falling since 2001. This was the warmest decade since records began. --TS 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I see this statement repeated many times, without anyone pointing out that the claims are not contradictory. It is mathematically trivial to create a data set that is decreasing since 2001, for which the latest decade is the highest ever. Consider it now pointed out.--SPhilbrickT 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Of course it's trivial to demonstrate the mathematical fact. Considerably harder, however, to maintain that there's a cooling trend in the face of the facts. If you have the mathematical sophistication to make the argument above, that is, you also have the nous to see that the claim of a cooling trend since 2001 cannot be made credibly by a person with enough statistical knowledge to make it. --TS 02:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Isonomia, I'm curious as to the methodology that you used to compute the trend. Assuming you used linear regression, what did you obtain for the regression coefficients, and the corresponding R2 value and level of significance? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) TS and Sphilbrick you're basically talking past each other, although I think you're being a little pedantic Sphilbrick. The trends that people in climate change always operate on an average global mean temperature deviation that is smoothed over both time and space. That's pretty obvious because there isn't one global temperature at all - it is a summary statistic which is useful for describing part of the data. SBHB - take it from me, those numbers are easy to calculate, but hard to talk about precisely. Are you interested in the significance if temperature deviation is explained by a trend in time? We don't think that there is any causation along those lines: no one says that global warming is caused by time passing - but you might observe that global warming is occurring. You wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion as to why. On the other hand you might regress it against atmospheric CO2 concentration - known to cause a greenhouse effect for more than 100 years - and have at least some hint of causality in there. On the other hand the confidence will be different. Heck even on the same data set if you aren't careful about transforming it into a stable process you can end up with spurious R^2 - linear regression is a quick tool to use but makes no particular provision about time ordering or a "why." Ignignot (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I'm asking how you diagnosed the trend, not asking about causality. How did you compute the trend? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Fine, going to GISS - you'll find the last 10 years of data at the end of the table. Using OLS with the following discussion breaking table of "Explanatory" variable X (transposed!):  Offset:  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  Trend:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and response Y (also transposed)  Temperature Index:  33 48 56 55 48 62 54 57 43 57 If you take inv(X' * X) * X' * Y, by whatever method you feel like, you'll see that there is an intercept of 44.7333 and a (positive) yearly trend of 1.1939. Throw it into your favorite ANOVA calculator and you'll see that the trend has a p value of > .21, which is rejected at the 95% confidence level usually used. So there is no trend. In that data. But even if it did, there is no explanation in the "explanatory" values. The R^2 is something like .2 Ignignot (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Ignignot, but you missed the point. As did TS. I'm not saying that there is a cooling trend for certain. However, Tony says it is hard to maintain that there is a cooling trend in the face of the facts. The only fact Tony mentioning was that the most recent decade is the warmest ever. He made the statement, as have many others, as if that fact is sufficient to disprove the claim that there's been a recent cooling trend. My sole point is that the fact is not sufficient. It is quite possible for both statements to be true. Whether or not the recent period is actually a cooling trend is a tricky statement, as the mathematics of calculating trend does not have a clear cut algorithm for determining the appropriate number of points needed to make a statement about trend. So people will argue about it. My sole point is that those who dismiss the claim with the simple fact that the latest decade is the warmest haven't refuted anything.--SPhilbrickT 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Any two points define a "trend", if usually an insignificant and useless one. However, in this context we are (hopefully) talking about trends relevant to climate. Such trends can be supported by pointing at decadal averages much better than by looking at intra-decadal temperature changes (which allow no conclusion about climatic trends). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC) See FAQ Q3. . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately FAQ Q3 is officially out of date. As Dr. Trenberth said, "There is a lack of consensus". Wellpoint32 (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out the FAQ. That too, is misleading. The question it purports to answer is "Did global warming end in 1998" But the closing sentence is "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record for the globe, with 2005 the warmest year". Why is this sentence here? I think some feel it is a rebuttal to the inference in the question, and I've seen it used many times, as if it were a rebuttal, but it is not. I'm personally agnostic on whether it has been cooling since 1998, leaning toward no, but the final sentence in the FAQ does not respond to the question. It is possible for both statements to be true. --SPhilbrickT 13:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC) If you know where you read that, you can go back to the source and read what Dr. Trenberth said there was a lack of consensus on. Hint: it isn't on whether there is a warming trend. --TS 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC) The bottom line is there has been an 8,000-year cooling trend, according to the ice core data. It's cooler now than in the Roman Warm Period, cooler than in the Medieval Warm Period. The trend is flat since the 1930s, and flat for the last 10 years. How many different ways does it have to be shown that the Earth isn't warming? Kauffner (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) The trend is flat since the 1930s. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC) NOOOO My beautiful matrixes!!! Ignignot (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

reference 123 doesn't work

....reference 123 is a non-working link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.16 (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated, works again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Global warming 95% confidence

I wanted to toss up this. The current article states the very likely 90% confidence that human activities are primary cause of global warming. However it seems some are willing to go for 95%

"The study, by senior scientists from the Met Office Hadley Centre, Edinburgh University, Melbourne University and Victoria University in Canada, concluded that there was an “increasingly remote possibility” that the sceptics were right that human activities were having no discernible impact. There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes."

And

"The study said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had understated mankind’s overall contribution to climate change."

As 95% is the standard confidence interval cut off for any scientific conclusion, this is essentially saying human activities are the source of global warming/climate change. Not very likely.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7050341.ece

--Snowman frosty (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to put too much weight on this one panel. If similar panels report the same general trend--that IPCC has significantly underestimated the role of human activities--then we might want to tweak the article a bit, but it's basically sound for now. --TS 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

These confidence interval are different from the convention frequency based ones applied with observations that are validated in statistically tested hypothesis. These are simply matters of opinion on a Bayesian probability scale to demonstrate Face validity. The scale is arbitrarily calibrated to whim and the IPCC mission. Your comment indicates this common confusion and this article could be improved with this distinction, I've made this point is the past with sources and it was reverted. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I have yet to see Global Warming be Validity_(statistics) by anything but a panel's face value. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For reporting something as important as this overall figure, something like the IPCC is the best source. And we shouldn't be reporting the latest news. And it would be necessary to read the actual paper - we wouldn't use the Times's paraphrase, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are concerns about the methods and conclusions of the IPCC right now. It would be better to go direct to peer reviewed literature. Frendinius (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, it would be better to do our own primary-source research and original synthesis rather than make an objective presentation giving due weight to the relative strength and reliability of the available sources? Frankly I don't imagine that will do, under the WP editorial policies to which I just linked. The IPCC is the definitive secondary source w.r.t. GW because it's comprised of an international contingent selected from among the world's best experts and analysts, from a wide sample of nations. Those directly disputing the IPCCs findings, by comparison, are largely operating by the "hunt and peck" method to criticize specific aspects of the IPCC summary findings and/or to present a distorted overall picture of present-day climate change (read that as: "global warming"). Examples are Fred Singer's Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Nicola Scafetta and the like amongst researchers, Stealth PACs and junk science publications funded by industry, and the Daily Mail and similar tabloids among populist news media. No serious school of academic researchers has emerged in recent years which disputes the essential basic summary facts and statistics of 20th and 21st century climate change that have been put forward by the IPCC. Surely there's a great deal more research and analysis for the global community of climate scientists to work on, but the lack of a serious coherent school of scientists that dispute the IPCC's basic findings means we must give proper weight to their findings--which is what the article has done for at least the past several years. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, but Frendinius is blocked as a sock... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. AGF'd and fooled yet again-- and a reasoned response becomes kind of like dancing with myself. Unfortunate how prevalent socks seem to be around here, and the high percentage of everybody's time they seem to take up. See ya' later. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, good point about a "school" of scientists. The Global Warming issue is global, and as such "climate scientists" have a strong role and not the only role in global warming articles. The practical application of journalistic science know as "Editorials" are often discounted at "face value" in these articles. When editors accept many sourced views, then Wikipedia will be a better NPOV because of this. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Journalism is not science, particularly nowadays. More like entertainment with a bizarre set of rules where you sometimes have to tell the truth. @Kenosis: you aren't going to be led wrong AGF'ing - but personally when I feel strongly about what someone says (that they are completely wrong) I hold off a bit because they might be a troll or just an idiot. Either one is mostly a waste of time to reason with. Ignignot (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This source [40] is the closest peer reviewed lit I could find, that links the Pygmalion effect to global warming. The IPCC is a psychological study in face value validly of a global threat. The IPCC mission places a high expectation on the findings. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern warming period

"Modern Warming" redirects to this article, so I take it that this article is supposed to be the article covering this climate period. According to this article, the modern warming period started in the "mid-20th century". I'm finding sources, however, that say that the modern warming period started around 1814-1820, around the beginning of the industrial revolution. See here for example (2nd to last paragraph). Is this (the Global warming) article trying to say that there are two warming periods, the modern warming period which began in 1820, and the more recent, extreme "greenhouse" warming period? Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

CO2Science is not a reliable source. It may amuse you (I know I read Answers in Genesis for the entertainment value occasionally), but it has not value as source of information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please address my question. Here's another source which takes a moderate-to-pro view of AGW science. This source states that the modern warming period may have begun in the mid-to-late 19th century. So, when did the Little Ice Age end, and when did the Modern Warming Period begin, according to the sources? Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

True that there was a slight warming trend (following the year without a summer from the eruption of Tambora) over the course of the 19th century, which has increased substantially over the 20th century and which accelerated through the latter half of the 20th century continuing into the 21st. See e.g. File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png for a quick view. The most reliable sources say GW started in the 20th century; Also, the IPCC, notably, has advanced figures starting in the middle of the 20th Century (starting after a brief cooling trend in the late 40s), as seen in the lead. Thus far the consensus of WP editors here seems to have been to use both the "over the course of the 20th" and the "since the mid-20th figures. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, that seems reasonable. So, why doesn't the article explain this? The article appears to jump immediately into explaining the Greenhouse theories on recent warming, and ignores the general warming that occurred since the late 19th century to the mid-20th century when many scientists believe that greenhouse gasses started to be a factor. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the article doesn't 'explain' it because the authoritative sources are vague on the subject, indicating that little is known about any exact starting date. Sometimes the talkative ones with the easiest ready answers are actually the ones that know least about something, and the wise keep quieter, until there is something to say. --Nigelj (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Scafetta etc on solar variation

I reverted this edit mainly because I think the detail article ought to be used to deal with issues of weight and whatnot, prior to incorporating summarised content back here. --TS 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That, plus S+W is a bad paper William M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So this is what Connolley means by 'discussion' (see below)? Were there some cogent critique accompanying your remarks about a published paper in a respected journal one might have some respect for your POV.Dikstr (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

::The paper is fine, and the conclusions are appropriate here. Frendinius (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Confirmed Scibaby sockpuppet

If that is so, the paper should be integrated into solar variation and, if appropriate, summarized here. Starting here isputting the cast before the horse. Sorry but we've had problems of undue weight in this article many times. Everybody wants to add their favorite hobby horse. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

D, and socks, keeps reverting. Is there some reason why he doesn't want to discuss stuff here? It is hard to have a one-sided discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that this information has been the subject of some edit warring. The information seems to be reliably sourced. What is the objection to the information? Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It might belong in Solar variation. We might be able to shoehorn a passing mention of it into here, but I'm hesitant because the present article already gives solar variation considerably more emphasis than its representation in the literature. There's nothing outstanding about the Scafetta and Willson paper such that it requires prominence beyond other papers on the same topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Following an edit conflict)

Due weight.

The edit warring, such as it was, was in large measure due to a banned troll and an editor later blocked for his disruptive editing.

Please discuss that information at talk:solar variation, with a view to discussing the relevance and weight of this rather new paper. Relevant questions would include: which subsequent papers cite that one? If the paper is believed to be significant enough to include in that article, it may be worth discussing whether it should be included in the summary of the influence of solar variation on the climate in this article. --TS 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, the source with a declared mission for human influenced changes is considered reliable on solar variation. Where is the NPOV on that point? There are COI questions about the source presented for the existing statement. The single IPCC source, may not meet the requirement for reliable source here on this point. Seems questionable to me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about Scafetta and Wilson, or some entirely different paper? --TS 02:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite decipher what ZP5 is trying to say here. Can someone clarify? Does his mention of COI refer to Willson citing his own paper? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect, the IPCC is a wp:sps and therefor questionable on this point. The existing statement must be balanced for a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very droll. I begin to spot a reason why so many editors of global warming articles fail to discern anything especially and obviously tendentious about Scibaby's nonsense. --TS 02:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Was that intended to be PA, or can you address the wp:sps issue for the IPCC. I have't seen evidence of editorial oversight on there single purpose publications. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you "have't seen evidence of editorial oversight" you must not have looked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked and best I can tell, the process stops with the IPCC. Sorry if I am wrong, but the IPCC is a highly organized but questionable source. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm invoking Rule 5 from here onward. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am glad you agree on this point. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, please correct me if I'm wrong, but no one here is disputing the veracity or sourcing of the added information, just that it fails UNDUE. Checking the edit again, it seems to be just one sentence, "Recent empirical analyses confirm potentially significant variations of solar luminosity on climate timescales and indicate the contribution of solar forcing may be underestimated by current climate models." So, how does a single sentence violate UNDUE? Cla68 (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we have a single sentence on every paper that has been published on climate change? I would argue that instead we should summarize the overall state of the topic, focusing on the majority view and giving due attention to significant minority views, with enough representative citations to each that the reader can verify our coverage. Particularly notable contributions to the field can get specific mention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:I don't see why mentioning the results outlined in Scafetta and Wilson is "undue weight". What is the criteria for determining weight? Jinnus (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)]

You're missing the point that SBHB is trying to get over to you. We already talk too much about SV. We can add S+W, but which bit of the existing SV stuff will you take out to compensate? Please make a proposal here William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SBHB is saying that the information represents only one opinion on the influence of solar activity, and is therefore not noteworthy enough to be mentioned in this article. As long as it is mentioned in the Solar Activity article, then it's probably ok. If any other, independent research support those findings, however, then I would think it's important enough to mention in this article. Cla68 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be MORE material on solar variation in this article. It is an issue of debate and research within the climat7e science community, and therefore should be highlighted with more references. Jinsnus (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[confirmed scibaby sock Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)]

Yes, for example .. the S&W authors report 10-30% for just solar variation contribution since 1980 to temperture increases while the IPCC reports 5 to 10% for all natural source attribution of climate change. There is a disconnect between Logic A and Logic B to verify these claims. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

First, do you have a concrete source for this claim? And secondly, you do know that there are other natural sources, like e.g. volcanos, that are negative, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The sceptics here should read this paper. This is almost as model independent as you can get. Count Iblis (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a pdf version of the whole Verdes paper, the abstract of which Count Iblis just linked-to. Perhaps needless to say, we shouldn't be using primary sources such as S&W and Verdes in this article. From the text of the policy WP:PSTS:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
and,
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.

Neither Scafetta and West's paper nor Verdes' paper seem to me to meet these criteria, nor does it seem thus far that there exists a body of reliable secondary-source literature analyzing, double-checking and summarizing the respective scenarios proposed by these just-mentioned authors. Nor does it seem to me we have that much additional space in an already lengthy WP:Summary style article to include every one-off publication pro or con w.r.t. this complex topic. Which is why we rely mainly on reliable secondary sources, e.g. the IPCC, CRU, and various other secondary-source publications. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC's self-published opinion is subject to Climate change exaggeration particularly when their Bayesian interpretation exceeds the modeled attributions. They have an invalid assumption on their opinion scale at the face of their measure, they painted themselves into an overconfident corner by setting a confidence higher than others have modeled for solar activity. It's like saying their opinion carries more weight than the primary sources. With this method, the IPCC will remain a questionable source; because 1 + 2 = 3 no mater what the IPCC psychometrics measures say. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)^{[Inappropriate under WP:TPG - Tag by ZP5, cause KDP claims soap boxing [41].]}

Kenosis, I agree. My point is merely that ZuluPapa5 & co. should read the paper by Verdes. Count Iblis (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A current, peer-reviewed research paper is a primary source only in the most perverse Wikipedia interpretation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is a primary source, I personally don't usually object to primary sources being used. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I got into a highly unfortunate massively heated argument over this a while ago ago: it needs to be clarified because WP:RS says both that peer-reviewed papers are favored and that they are primary sources (=! bad). I certainly will vehemently oppose anything that says that we shouldn't favor peer-reviewed sources over others. Add that to the to-do list. Awickert (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the information to the Solar variation article since it appeared that no one had gotten around to doing it yet. If someone had already added, I apologize for not seeing it. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it's already on the GW talk page, a brief response: If you look in the paragraph directly above what you just added at Solar variation, you'll see Scafetta's work mentioned in the context of research that directly addresses and contradicts Scafetta's work. The 2007 paper is already in another footnote (refname="Scafetta07"? or something like that). Maybe move the sentence up into the previous paragraph where Scafetta's hypothesis is already mentioned-- something to the effect that "A 2009 paper by Scafetta repeated the assertion that the contribution of solar forcing may be underestimated by current climate models, reiterating that there have been significant variations of solar luminosity on climate timescales.^[13]" citing to the 2009 paper. Scafetta's slant is mentioned in at least a couple places in that article. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Echo Kenosis, and Scafetta's work is pretty much rejected by the larger community (for various reasons, see comments on papers). Awickert (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's vague criticism. Since Scafetta's work is new many climatologists are unfamiliar with it. Others have have insufficient familiarity with it to find objective fault. Dikstr (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me we can't have it both ways. If it's well known in climatology circles then climatologists will have an opinion on it, but if it isn't well known it doesn't seem likely to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. --TS 00:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Solar variation article

The following discussion budded off from #Scafetta etc on solar variation

The solar variation article could do with some cleanup William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, in the sources it seems solar variation parametrization was ignored for global climate model machinations. Maybe something to do with Moore's law beginning in 1980 and then it's correlates and associated to the Hockey Stick seen in temperature trends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 March 2010 Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment seems a bit soap-boxish to me. It's certainly an extreme minority viewpoint, whatever else it is. --TS 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

By coincidence I just left a note related to ZP5's first sentence on Talk:Solar variation. ZuluPapa5, if you look here, you'll note that the IPCC did indeed consider solar variability very seriously, allowing for the possibility of underestimates of the extent of solar forcing. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks K! ... TS, a fringe read into the sources it is. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? Could you explain what you mean, since i have difficulty in understanding your comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, where are you having difficulty KDP? This statement responds to Kenosis's and Tony Sidaway's above. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem understanding it. What does "a fringe read into" mean? (it doesn't make any sense) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a peek and I believe, though I could be mistaken, that when Zulu Papa 5 mentioned "fringe read into" something he meant reading into the material that was specifically trying to interpret it from a fringe perspective as opposed to the original intentions of that material. I.E. - "Twisting words" or "Colorful interpretation". 72.192.46.9 (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Still don't get it - it doesn't make sense in the context of his comment. Kenosis gave him a link to AR4 Chapter 9 with no interpretation at all. In fact i have to say that i find ZP5's comments here almost impossible to read (Moore's law - huh?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FAIL!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.187.97 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Myself having some brief time on my hands at the moment, and this thread being part of a recurring theme in the CC-article discussions, the following is intended to supplement what WP users William J. Connolley, Tony Sidaway, ShortBrigadeHarvesterBoris, Stephan Shulz and perhaps others, seem to me to have been trying to point out w.r.t. Scafetta, Haigh and the like. It occurs to me that some of the participating WP editors might be seeking to advocate maximum possible inclusion of alternative POVs into the climate-change articles that put forward the hypothesis that non-anthropogenic causes (or call them "natural" if you prefer) are far more "to blame" for current global warming than has been asserted by the published statements of the IPCC, CRC, and other reliable sources which put forward similar analyses and conclusions about present-day global warming. If in fact this concern about balancing the POVs of the IPCC, CRC and other supporting reliable sources with an opposing POV is held by any participating editors, then I easily imagine it might seem to be quite important to advocate that the speculations of, e.g., Scafetta, West, Wilson and Haigh, merit inclusion in a more conspicuous and assertive way so as to balance the various POVs in the climate-change articles. Assuming of course that any of my speculation here is correct, the conceptual problem I have with this approach is that it's already long been clear (or should by now have long been clear to participating editors who've actually done their "homework") that the IPCC and CRC and other reliable sources which have published reliable summaries of the present scientific consensus have already factored in the possibility of underestimates of solar forcing as a contributing cause of current global warming.
...... Without going to great lengths to quote "book, chapter and verse" of the IPCC and other reliable summary sources about present-day GW at the moment, it seems to me that it should already have been obvious to any participating editors who've actually read those sources that the IPCC has diligently attempted to make clear, at least to serious readers of their material, that their conclusion is that the effects of variations in solar forcing is believed by the scientific community to be capable of being reliably differentiated from the effects of variations in the amount of "greenhouse gasses" such as CO2 and methane. The method of differentiating between solar variation and GHG variation is actually fairly straightforward if one is not predisposed to look for reasons to avoid what the IPCC says in its statements. As it happens, the effects of greenhouse gases are readily differentiated from the effects of solar forcing and other extraterrestrial forcing by noting the changes in temperature both below and above the altitude at which the GHGs are most influential (roughly the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). As has been known by the community of climate scientists for many years now, the relative influence of solar forcing vis-a-vis GHGs can be ascertained by determining whether there has been a measurable increase in temperature throughout the entire atmosphere right up to the exosphere. By contrast, the influence of increases in GHGs can be ascertained by a temperature increase in the troposphere, with a concurrent decrease in temperature in the upper atmosphere above the tropopause. In fact, the latter is what has been found to date-- that is to say, the measurements of atmospheric temperatures have clearly indicated an increase in temperatures in the troposphere and a decrease in temperatures in the higher regions of the atmosphere. An increase in GHGs would account for this, while an increase in solar forcing would not. Thus, Scafetta and Co.'s assertions are indeed, as has been pointed out by several other editors of the WP CC-related articles, an outlier in the range of current scientific reasoning w.r.t GW. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gallup results on AGW theory

Thread started by banned sock. Thread is of no relevance to improving this article, and most of it contravenes WP:FORUM.

That suggests we need to improve the Simple-Wikipedia article on Global Warming. Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Useless, see Dunning–Kruger effect. It's the bane of public discourse that simple but wrong arguments often have more appeal than complex relationships that need some effort to present and even more to understand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Just as with tobacco and evolution, teach the controversy is an effective strategy when the facts are against you. (Sorry for responding to a Scibaby thread.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Better science education in (primary) school could help. E.g. you get a decent eduction in history in primary and secondary school and that shields most people from Neo-Nazi propaganda. In contrast, you get a very poor education about fundamental physics in school. Of course, you can't teach that in detail like we do at university, but the basic facts can be mentioned in school. Uri Geller could not claim to be able to bend spoons and earn millions with his tricks if most people knew about the limits on new forces. I think Wikipedia can play a role in explaining basic fundamental science better to the general public. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Yup. 'Teach the controversy' may be what some people are trying to do, but we must stick to RS and due weight, so that we maintain good coverage of the science, and the facts, here. --Nigelj (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Paraphrase of the text to this point "Hee hee, americans sure are dumb. Let us mock them." The thing that is collapsing support (and not just in the US) is that even though people generally don't get into the details, they very well understand that "I lost the basic data" is bad science. They also understand "I'm not telling you how I got my results" is bad science. This is exactly the sort of basic understanding of science that's supposed to be imparted by secondary education. We are all going to be spending significant amounts of the portion of our tax dollars that go to science to redo the work on the basic data sets that should have been set up properly decades ago. That's a tremendous opportunity cost and I don't know about anybody else but those lost science dollars make me quite upset. Sloppy science that has to be redone makes for suspicions in the general public that what's going on is politics, not science. The suspicions are enhanced when public policy changes are advocated by said sloppy scientists that shift trillions of dollars in economic activity around. TMLutas (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC) You appear to be remarkably badly informed, data has not been lost. Copies of archived data used for scientific work will have been destroyed as required by those holding the original data,[42][43] this does not affect the original data. Note that the Met office requires that "Data sets must not be passed on to third parties under any circumstances. Any scientist requiring data which happens to have been supplied already to someone else, even within the same institute or programme of research, must first approach one of the NERC Data Centres, who have agreed to maintain records of data users for UKMO. Once the project work using the data has been completed, copies of the datasets and software held by the end user should be deleted, unless permission has been obtained for them to be retained for some alternative use." . . dave souza, talk 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Also, of course, CRU is a university department. Their job is not to provide raw data or indeed a temperature record. Their job is to educate students and to do research. They seem to have done such a good job of maintaining a temperature record that others have found a lot of use for it, but that does not impose any particular duty on them. Moreover, unlimited data storage is a new idea. It's easy to forget nowadays, but when I did my Master's work, around 1994, I got a whopping 20 MB to play with. My experiments created about 20 MB of proof output per run. So it was experiment, evaluate, delete...over and over again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The CRU is a university department subject to the UK's FOI law and they are only escaping prosecution because the statute of limitations has run out according to expert opinion. A revised law extending the statute of limitations to avoid this sort of situation is being worked on in parliament. You are giving a false impression that they were not under a legal obligation. They were, and are under such obligation and it's a scandal that they haven't done it. TMLutas (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The obligation, however, is to provide certain data they have under certain circumstances. There is no formal decision that they have failed to do so. But what is more important: They are in no way obliged to keep all data they have forever, or to supply data they don't hold anymore. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Even the page you refer to says they've lost data. At a minimum they've lost their legal non-disclosure agreements so that they simply are unaware whether they are violating nondisclosure or FOI UK law. This is part of the reason that the UK is now spending a good amount of money to recreate the original, raw data to be available in one spot. It is unclear at this point whether they will be able to. Had the CRU not lost it, why the multi-year effort to recreate it? TMLutas (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC) This is a bit like asking "why did you not stop Sadam from invading Kuwait?" It's not their job to store old data forever - why would it be? In particular not since this was not a politically controversial topic 20 years ago, and data storage had a non-trivial cost in both money and administrative overhead. Of course hindsight is 20/20. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Interesting discussion, but, with all due respect…This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, so let’s just stick to that. Oh, and Gallup Poll results on AGW belong in Public opinion on climate change.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

FAQ Q22 needs rework

It is out of compliance with WP:RS. See Section 2.1(4), reliability of individual papers is not to be determined by citations, impact, or impact factor. Back to the drawing board! TMLutas (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If the reliable sources guideline has been changed in such a manner as to imply that the neutral point of view policy must be overridden, then it is the reliable sources guideline which must be changed. We do not and shall not insert references to new scientific papers until we have a basis on which to judge their acceptance as individual sources within the scientific community. If somebody has told you different, that person misinformed you on the operation of Wikipedia and the relationship between guidelines and policies. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 18:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"We do not and shall not insert references to new scientific papers until we have a basis on which to judge their acceptance as individual sources within the scientific community." ?? Sounds like justification for arbitrary censorship!Dikstr (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

TS, please can the straw man. WP:RS has not been changed in the manner you describe. The change simply clarified that individual papers should not be scored for reliability using citation index scores, the so called "impact factor" standard. This has always been a very problematic standard that has raised lots of controversy in the academic community because those index scores are subject to manipulation. In fact, there's a lot of hot talk about how climate change index scores in particular have been actually manipulated (part of the fallout from climategate) so it's relevant to this topic.

If you want to change WP:RS, you are as welcome as I was to suggest and gain consensus for an improved version of 2.1(4). Until that happens, FAQ Q22 should either be reworked to be WP:RS compliant or entirely pulled. Further discussion on changing/improving WP:RS really should go into that talk page. TMLutas (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the FAQ Q22 needs revision to remove the link to a WT:IRS section where TMLutas seems to have jumped to a conclusion unsupported by the comments of other editors. As stated above, any such addition should not be given undue weight, and reliable evidence is required of its significance in the field. As for the fourth bullet point in WP:RS Section 2.1, what part of "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." do you think conflicts in any way with the FAQ? . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you would actually read the prior round discussion in archives Talk:Global warming/Archive_57#FAQ_A22_edit_war et seq, you would realize that Q22 is not about isolated studies (2.1(5)) but rather waiting on using a study in order to determine impact which is handled in 2.1(4) the immediately prior section. Such waits used to be implicitly disallowed but the language was admittedly clumsy. No more. TMLutas (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So Q22 is still supported by the reliable sources guideline? Okay, great. The rest of this thread appears to be an attempt to abuse Wikipediaa as a forum to spread a conspiracy theory to explain the dearth of scientific papers supporting fringe views. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Q22 is not supported by WP:RS. The relevant section is 2.1, 4th bullet point which explicitly disallows calculating impact. For those who have not followed the full conversation, this round started in discussion over at global cooling on the inclusion there of a 2010 peer reviewed paper asserting global cooling. Yes, one actually exists out there (actually a couple do), something that I thought was novel enough to try to get into global cooling.

TS asserted the relevance of FAQ Q22 on this page which, much to my surprise, nobody had caught was no longer even possibly in compliance with WP:RS so I decided to also come over here to fix this issue as well. The whole application of impact factors to individual papers *is* controversial, especially with regards to funding but also elsewhere. It is part of my intent to steer Wikipedia clear of the conspiracy theories TS refers to. To that end I've been seeking (and got) clarification that citation index scores (otherwise known as impact factor) do not apply to individual papers. FAQ Q22 takes a different view, endorsing the controversial concept of impact. Changes to WP:RS should be discussed there. Changes to Q22 should be discussed here. If you want to weigh in on the underlying paper, feel free to migrate over to global cooling and be aware that even most CAGW skeptics don't think we're actually undergoing global cooling. Some international scientists do disagree but it is a very minority position. TMLutas (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to include information that is not yet proven to be accepted science? This isn't about impact factor: this is to be correct. Awickert (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please define your term as "accepted science" doesn't appear in the text of WP:RS. Manifestly, Wikipedia includes coverage of science terms that are incorrect. One blatant example is phrenology. TMLutas (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll jump on me for this, but I don't care what the policy is. It is simply irresponsible to give a lot of weight to a brand new paper in articles that summarize decades of research and hundreds to thousands of published papers. Phrenology isn't relevant in this context, because it doesn't purport to be real science. This is an article that is based on real science, so we should make sure it stays correct. And due to the quantity of papers, WP:WEIGHT applies: a new paper, especially one that contradicts established science, must be treated with care. For the rest, I agree with Kenosis (below). Awickert (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you reconsider your dismissal of policy. That's the road to administrative sanction (and this subject is under especially strict rules, see the top of the page). There are perfectly adequate ways to get a reasonable result that respects policy. Q22/A22 just needs to be tweaked to become rule compliant and you get 95% of the same effect. Some people are not satisfied with 95%. TMLutas (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying that excess weight on new papers is bad, whether or not policy says so. Administrative sanction, humbug! Awickert (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not disagree on excess weight. Putting excess weight on a new paper is actually violating two rules/guidelines/policies, excess weight and over-reliance on new sources. What's actually being fought over in this kabuki is what happens when a paper talking about global cooling is rejected on the global warming page. On a WP:RS rejection, the paper just isn't used. It's not reliable. On a WP:WEIGHT rejection, you can just pop the paper over into the specialist page (global cooling) and place it there because pages about the subject of the paper require less compensatory text and global cooling, unlike global warming, isn't busting at the seams. TMLutas (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually just figured out how to sum up what I've been struggling to say within the terms of Wikipedia-policy. If something is presented in an isolated paper in a crowded field of research, its WP:WEIGHT is pretty much nil. But if as time passes, it is cited and incorporated into other work, then its WP:WEIGHT increases. If on the other hand, other authors comment on problems with the research that aren't later resolved, then it stops being as reliable a source because other WP:RS contradict it. This, then, would make newer papers just fine in less-researched fields and niches, but would ask that they be considered with respect to the whole literature in more widely-researched fields. Does this sound like an acceptable framework to resolve this issue? Awickert (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're on the right road here but believe your approach needs more polish. Presenting an actual Q22 and A22 as a proposal would be better. I agree that a perfectly adequate Q22 using WP:WEIGHT could be constructed. *I* tried to do it. My effort was rejected. Feel free to have a go. My only caution would be that it needs to be on based on the rule as written, not a misinterpretation that has no basis in the text. Something specific that has tripped others up, WP:WEIGHT is not about exclusion but appropriate balance. A paper that asserts global cooling would rightly be shunted off to the global cooling page (where there's plenty of room to add balancing text and the rule is slightly different) but not excluded entirely from Wikipedia, the result if you use WP:RS. TMLutas (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the global cooling issue is that the article is pretty much about the 1970's stuff, which is neither here nor there, and I'm going to eject myself from that debate.

How about:

Q: A brand new scientific paper just appeared and contradicts/agrees with/changes the state of knowledge in some part of this field. Can I include it?

A: That depends. There is a large amount of scientific work on global warming and climate, and we do our best to represent all of that work. New papers haven't had the time to affect the broader scientific consensus, and in a crowded field like climate, they may not yet have the WP:WEIGHT to make them notable enough for inclusion. In addition, scientists other than the paper's reviewers have not yet had the chance to view brand new papers, scrutinise them for errors, and publish comments on the papers with any issues they may have found. Both of these factors show that extreme caution must be taken when including new research and that a mature understanding of the field is beneficial in deciding whether or not to do so. Awickert (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're going to have a hard time finding a time element in WP:WEIGHT. Where are you finding it? Here's some sample text you might find useful. Global warming is an article that is on the edge of having to split because it is too big. The balancing text required to present minority views under WP:WEIGHT requires space that has to be carved out by deleting other things. This makes adding new items, especially expressing minority viewpoints, challenging because of the need to delete to keep the article manageable. Other articles that are smaller may have the room to discuss the paper. Other articles that specialize in the topic of the source require less balancing text for minority viewpoints to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. TMLutas (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's take the first two sentences, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." A brand new concept or result has very little weight in current reliable sources, and if there are tons of current reliable sources, that further dilutes the significance of brand new work. Awickert (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a priori true that a new concept has very little weight. You can make the case but it is a case that has to be made. Let me give an example. It is a holy grail of toy makers to create colored soap bubbles. People have been trying and failing to do it for years. Yet an academic paper (or the resulting patent application of the discovery) demonstrating the dye chemistry on how it is done would not have weight problems. We didn't know how to do it. A lot of people thought it couldn't be done. A US midwest obsessive and an Indian dye chemist teamed up and, hey now we have Zubbles. I'm not saying that you are entirely wrong, rather that you cannot assume it to be true because there are real life cases where it is not true. Therefore you have to go through the work of proving it. That means a case by case analysis and not something you can put in a FAQ. TMLutas (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In the opening comment of this section, TMLutas says that the guideline WP:RS asserts that: reliability of individual papers is not to be determined by citations, impact, or impact factor, referring to the 4th bullet point in WP:RS#Scholarship. But the guideline page doesn't say what TMLutas says it says. The fourth bullet point in the pertinent section of the WP:RS guideline, WP:RS#Scholarship, reads:

The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. Individual papers are not considered reliable or unreliable based on citation index scores.

It might also be useful to take an extra moment and read all five bullet points. in any event, it seems to me the most relevant policies here are WP:SOURCES, WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSTS. FAQ 22 appears to me to be consistent with both the letter and the spirit of these policies, as well as that of all five of the bullet points in the guideline WP:RS#Scholarship. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The extensive discussion on F22 in the previous round made it clear that the only nail the writers wanted to hang their hat on was requiring a waiting period to calculate whether a paper had sufficient impact, specifically via citations and specifically using 2.1(4). Other possible mechanisms were examined and (unwisely in my opinion) discarded. I personally offered a like method using WP:WEIGHT so I am sympathetic to your stated position but my alternative was rejected. There was a particular effect desired by the majority, it was justified by a particular interpretation of a very specific section, and alternatives were disallowed. Supporters of the present A22 are stuck with the narrow justification of 2.1(4) because, believe me, everything else either doesn't fit, gives a like but not identical result, or has been rejected (or some combination of all three). Now that this section disallows impact scoring pro or con (and yes, that's the edit's intent, I wrote it) A22 simply doesn't work. I was willing to live and let live right up to the point where someone, once again, tried to apply Q22 to a different page, global cooling, an exercise that I thought was dubious the first time around but doubly so with the multi-week debate and consensus edit that this sort of thing shouldn't happen. So here I am once again dealing with the issue on this page.

Let me repeat my position from last time. I'm open to some sort of FAQ point on excluding new papers so long as there's some sort of rule or guideline that actually supports the exclusion mechanism. After an extensive review, I've come to the conclusion that this does not, in fact, exist and that the majority on this page supporting A22 as it is written is a local majority that does not reflect the wider community consensus and the results have been suboptimal. Rather than going the sanctions route, I'm patiently trying to get Q22 redone in a rules compliant way with the anticipated result being more climate skeptic friendly but more importantly a more friendly editing process throughout the climate science space. For entirely legitimate weight reasons most of this stuff will not end up accepted directly into this page. Instead such papers will go into specialty pages like global cooling and then if evidence accumulates summaries of the relevant specialty page will go into this article. I frankly care more about the even-handed application of wider community norms than anything specifically regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The truth will out if the rules are well applied. The rules are not currently applied well via FAQ Q22. TMLutas (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A good idea does not have to be explicitly stated in policy for it to be a good idea. WP:IAR. — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes good ideas do not have to be explicitly stated in policy. But they do need to not be disallowed by policy. When you have a discussion on the relevant talk page and come to the conclusion that the 'good idea' is against policy, even good ideas need to pass the gauntlet of reversing that consensus before they are applied. Bottom line is that this FAQ has been considered and rejected against long standing consensus on WP:RS. Take it up on that page. TMLutas (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The guideline is simply a guideline, the FAQ expands on that in relation to the particular requirements of this topic. I appreciate TMLutas's enthusiasm for incorporating a mention of newly published papers, and everyone might find it interesting to read this expert opinion by a physicist / climatologist discussing four new papers. Rather much detail for this page, perhaps these will eventually be added to more suitable articles on the specific topic. No need for haste, . . dave souza, talk 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're going a bit off topic here with the discussion of papers. This is probably interesting elsewhere. If you are saying that the guideline WP:RS is somewhat optional, I think you'll find that a distinctly minority position on this page and in the larger community. Are you suggesting that counting citations to measure impact and excluding papers on that basis using WP:RS as a justification is still permissible? TMLutas (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're the one out on the fringe in your peculiar interpretation of the RS guideline, and the FAQ gives a reasonable approach. Do seek consensus for your views before implementing anything. . . dave souza, talk 23:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read the relevant discussion in wp:rs. The FAQ may be reasonable (I don't agree that it is reasonable but I'll grant that reasonable people may disagree) but it is contrary to WP:RS which has been recently clarified to disallow its (the FAQs) approach. You may attempt to forge a new consensus on that page. We'll talk it out there and if your position wins, Q22 can come back in at that time. But I'm going to insist that until that time, WP:RS is followed as written at the present moment. At the moment denying the inclusion of papers based on citation counts is just not acceptable so delaying them to *wait* for "reliable" citation counts to materialize is similarly out of bounds. Citation counts on individual papers do not affect whether the paper is a reliable source, period. TMLutas (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite has appropriately clarified the language in WP:RS#Scholarship, fourth bullet point, here. Its intent is now clearer, indicating that citation indexes should not be the sole basis for assessing reliability. I'd support a similar statement in Q22 that briefly mentions that there also are other criteria involved in assessing reliability. That is, there are additional policy provisions beyond the WP:RS guideline page, perhaps most importantly WP:PSTS, for avoiding using primary sources from GRL, JofC and the like--especially in a topic-summary article such as this one--waiting instead until a body of secondary literature has been developed about a particular researcher's claims so as to be able to make better assessments of reliability, weight, whether the assertion(s) in the source might constitute a fringe theory, etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That edit has been reverted. I've notified Hipocrite on his talk page. I've also set up a new section in WP:RS to talk it out. Naked edits on a rule/policy/guideline page without pre-establishing consensus, especially ones that go against a recent long discussion are just not a good idea. If anyone else wants to go the route of modifying WP:RS please go through talk first to establish consensus. TMLutas (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't that A22 is incomplete. The problem is that it is not compliant. It attempts to use a standard that was always dubious though one that had a clear local majority on this page. This is the essence of special pleading and a major reason why climate issues are so contentious. Global warming needs to abide by the rules that run everywhere else. If you don't like the rules, go off to the rules page and suggest a change. What can't be done, and what breeds all sorts of bad behavior, is to make local rules that contradict the general rules. This is what A22 does and it needs to go. You make several new assertions. If you would put them in the form of a replacement Q22/A22, I would appreciate it because as it stands, they don't look very good. Perhaps it is just that I'm not understanding your points. TMLutas (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the context in which this discussion invariably reignites is an attempt to force Wikipedia to give undue prominence to an outlier paper. I don't believe it has ever happened that someone has attempted to force a paper reflecting the consensus position into the article by opposing the notion of waiting to see public commentaries from external reviewers and citations from other researchers.

Given that context, I suggest that it would be unwise to press this argument. just let it drop. You don't get to make an end run around the neutral point of view by fiddling with the wording of guidelines. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please make an actual accusation or withdraw your implication that I'm gaming the rules. One of us should be up for sanctions at this point given the article probation on the article we're discussing. Either me for WP:GAMING as you've laid out above or you for your accusation of bad faith. I've been trying to avoid sanctions by carefully establishing what is the source of controversy (the use of impact), running a conversation (successfully) to clarify what role impact can play in individual papers (answer: none), done an edit in WP:RS to establish that consensus opinion more clearly and now, reluctantly, am doing the cleanup work. You are engaging in, at best, special pleading. I don't agree that it's warranted. I think that we've already had quite enough of it on the climate pages already. You already attempted to lay out your point of view in WP:RS. That point of view did not prevail. You can't legitimately come back for a 2nd bite at the apple here. TMLutas (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

An accusation of WP:GAMING is one thing, while an accusation of bad faith is entirely another. WP:GAMING makes clear that it's not necessarily to be construed as necessarily constituting "bad faith". Frankly, I see no implication or accusation of bad faith in Tasty monster's (Tony Sidaway's) comments. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You might not have noticed but TS participated on the losing side of the debate on this subject in WP:RS. He is thus well aware of the issues and that the community there has already rejected his position. Instead of picking it back up in the appropriate talk page, he's attempting to create a special case here where the rule as written doesn't apply but some sort of newspeak pretzel which allows the local majority here to do as it pleases. This is the point of his indirect accusation of gaming. He seems to be trying to delegitimize a change that has been in the works since December of last year and has had reams written about it over three talk pages, global cooling, global warming where somebody thought up the bright idea to add Q22 to this page's FAQ and WP:RS. I have made extensive references to all the referred to pages as well as all the policies, rules, guidelines, and essays that anybody brought up on either side. This has been argued to death and TS was around for the important rule finale. He should have made his gaming charge at the latest some time in mid-February and raised the alarm weeks ago. Instead he waited until it became clear I was actually going to follow through. This is not appropriate. TMLutas (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing a guideline or policy yourself then using that edit to justify actions elsewhere is frowned apon. It makes it reasonably clear that both the edit to the guideline and the action being attempted are both invalid. Hipocrite (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I was very clear exactly what the source of the discussion was. I clearly referred back to the originating talk pages. I very explicitly said that the results of the discussion on WP:RS would be used to justify actions one way or another on global warming and global cooling. I've got no cabal to back me and make it look pretty so I was very open and above board. If you've got a beef with how I proceeded you can file a complaint In the three months that this has progressed, nobody has. Perhaps everyone was lazy. I doubt it. TMLutas (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've set up an easy to read, clear discussion regarding the use of impact factor as a component of determing reliability at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Impact_factor_usable.3F and advertised such at the appropriate venues. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. AFAICT, TMLutas' position w.r.t. citation indexes and the controversial approach of "impact factor" was fairly strongly resisted by the participants at WT:RS. Unfortunate that, after Hipocrite having made the thrust of bullet point #4 in WP:RS#Scholarship more consistent with the content policies WP:WEIGHT, WP:SOURCES and WP:PSTS, that TMLutas then proceeded to revert it, seemingly so as to try to make it say that citation indexes are to have no bearing whatsoever in assessing reliability. I imagine that in due course the context in which this is taking place will become somewhat clearer to the participants at WP:RS and ultimately find a stable resolution. Either way, I do not accept the notion that the particular provision of bullet point #4 at WP:RS#Scholarship (relating to the role of citation indexes in assessing reliability) somehow takes priority over explicit language of the just-mentioned policies. FAQ #22, while I think it could be improved, appears to me at present to be consistent with the WP editorial policies relating to primary sources which lack a supporting body of secondary literature to assist in making assessments of their appropriate level of notability, reliability and weight in a given topic area. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you should re-read the relevant thread which is quite large. Had it been strongly resisted, I would no doubt have been reverted sometime since February 20th when the edit went in. I was not. Even now my change wasn't reverted, merely modified to irrelevance by Hipocrite's one word modifier. I would analyze Hipocrite's attempt prior to his edit to strive for consensus in WP:RS except there wasn't one. That's improved now and if consensus changes in Hipocrite's favor, Q22 should go back in at that point. But at present the rules are what they are and this is something that's been talked about for months. A non-consensus seeking edit that's been reverted doesn't mean that Q22 can stay in. TMLutas (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe TMLutas is acting in good faith. My concern is only to ensure that in his enthusiasm to tweak the reliable sources guideline he does not neglect or ignore the neutral point of view policy, and does not lead others into that error. This is why this line of argument cannot prevail: it poses a recently modified guideline against a long-established and well understood policy, and there can only be one result in such a clash. --TS 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think reliability is not really the concern here, but instead WP:WEIGHT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to an exclusion guideline Q22 based on weight. I have proposed one in the past and that proposal was rejected. TMLutas (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you would clarify how disallowing impact factor violates NPOV I would be interested. I don't see the connection at all. TMLutas (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Q22 didn't say "impact factor", it said "impact" ([44]), w.r.t. a paper's extent of entry into scholarly discourse so as to have had some kind of opportunity to be assessed by the entire community of experts in its topic area. Either way, I generally support Tony Sidaway's edits to Q22 here. The debate about citation indices (not to be confused with impact factor) in WP:RS#Scholarship is thus rendered as a separate issue, still under discussion at WT:RS. Tony Sidaway's rewrite is, IMO, another reasonable way of expressing the issue in Q22. The general thrust of Q22, incidentally, also is supported by WP:PSTS and WP:WEIGHT. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think it's important to recognise that Q22 isn't intended to say "why we must on no acccount put your favorite scientific paper in this article". It's only there to explain the kind of thing you would have to demonstrate in order to get a reference to the paper into the article. So if there's some aspect of climate change research that is poorly represented by existing sources in this article, and you know a paper that is generally agreed to be representative of that aspect, then referring to that individual paper may well be the best thing to do, though of course it's still true that literature review papers, reviews by recognised scientific institutions, widely cited text books and the like are generally more suitable at this summary level. --TS 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with Q22 as it stands now. My concerns have been addressed. WP:WEIGHT was always an acceptable alternative for me because it wasn't a death penalty for a paper but allowed it to be talked about in (generally smaller) specialty pages. This result should, hopefully, ease skeptic angst that they're getting unjustifiably shut out of Wikipedia and hopefully lead to more editing and less yelling. TMLutas (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)