Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 18 November 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Chart

Is it time for a new chart of global temperatures? The one we are using is now four years out of date. Stephen W. Houghton II 70.150.94.194 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Which one are you talking about? The main chart includes 2007 data. 2008 data will not be available before 2008 is over. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The main chart at the top of the page is the one I mean. It seems to be out of date if I am understanding the text associated with it on its page. That seems to say that the data set ends in 2004. Stephen W. Houghton II 70.150.94.194 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. No, the chart is up-to-date. It uses the dataset from the Hadley center. That data set is continuously updated, as is our chart. The last description of the data set and methodology is from 2003 (I don't know where you see 2004), but the data is current. Count the blue dots (2000 is the local minimum). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Clathrate Gun

Does this point to Clathrate Gun Hypothesis? http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html

To be honest, with paragraphs like "Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse)" the article is so muddled that I would not take it as evidence for everything. If you are interested, look at the Geophysical ReviewResearch Letters paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an obfuscated rewrite of this press-release: . And a good example as to why you should always take science reporting in the popular press, as (at most) providing a hint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

GRL = Geophysical Research Letters. Not Review. Link to pre-print, just in cases. - Atmoz (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tangents

Does anyone else think that the article has accumulated more tangentially-relevant details than are appropriate for a "big picture" overview article? We don't need to include everything here; that's why we have links to related articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This article is absolutely baffling for the nonspecialist. It has presumably been bogged down with scientific detail to appease and impress the "doubters." Would an article on global warming really look like this in any other general encyclopedia? Oh, and I just that[REDACTED] considers this to be one of their best articles. Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.21.97 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to find the most important parts. Looking at it as a layman, the subsection on methane in the Greenhouse effect section seemed to raise more problems than it solved. One part (Thawing permafrost) was based on very recent research in a press release and newspaper reports (misspelt as "The Independant"), another (Clathrate gun hypothesis) didn't say what the probability of the process is. One help to the lay reader would be to put the rough figures (with verbal qualification) in the introduction and the numerically qualified ones in the article, rather than the other way round. N p holmes (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Um. I think I agree. Ive taken those two sections out (who put them in?). Is more pruning required? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

More on readability: I've evaluated the introduction using several measures of readability. The Gunning fog index works out to 18, and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level is 15. These scores are comparable to scores for the Harvard Law Review, and are atrocious for writing that is supposed to be broadly accessible. Only about one in three U.S. adults are comfortable reading at this level. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be worse; see linear regression for example. How far should the article be dumbed down? Who sets the standard? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Writing clearly is not at all the same thing as "dumbing down." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Facts may be misconstued

In the 1960s the "facts" presented were that we were coming upon an era of overpopulation (from 3 to 6 billion), which would bring certain catastrophe. It turns out that the population more than doubled and there has been no such catastrophe, though there are certainly some shortages or misdistribution of global resources. The same is likely true of global warming. Though, there is certainly threat of pollution, greenhouse gasses, et al that need to be dealt with ASAP, even doubling our efforts, there are no hard facts that it will lead to a form of global warming that will have catastrophic effects or destroy the planet. In fact, the warming (or cooling) of the globe may have positive effects that we are not even considering, or are at least the shifting of climates around the world from warm to cool and cool to warm, as well as other natural or non-lethal changes. In other words, global warming is really change that will not be catastrophic, but a benefit, just as increased population can be seen to having been beneficial, in that it creates more diversity, more power for emerging nations and cultures, etc. This is an unusual position to offer in the current atmosphere, but it should be considered --despite the current "facts." Dealing with pollution is one thing; concluding mass destruction is another.--71.139.165.161 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering this article has IMO put a huge dent in the man-caused any significant global warming 'theory'. How will the article be edited? The IPCC or rather the data they use seems to have been called into question in a very serious way here... or will the article just be deemed "not a peer reviewed source"?~concerned citizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.239.204 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, got it in one. It's not only "not peer-reviewed", its shamelessly biased crap. It may surprise you, but the IPCC reports are not based on October 2008 data. If you are concerned, why don't you read some real science? The IPCC reports, especially the SPMs, are quite readable, and have extensive bibliographies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That article could be used for attributed opinion, possibly. Definitely, it is biased reporting, full of POV language. Global warming is a long-term trend, not something continuously maintained at all times and in all places, and it is entirely possible that more extreme weather, which would include some places being colder, could be a result of overall warming. Climate is complex. I recommend that the IP editor read the IPCC reports, they are generally written very carefully, and do, indeed, fairly represent scientific consensus. Which includes doubt, by the way, they are much more sophisticated than reporting a supposed "fact" as a "scientific consensus." Rather, they report estimated probabilities that, say, global warming is caused by human activity. (90%-95%)

They consider, though, that there *is* a global warming trend, to be a practical certainty. The very silly error of the Telegraph article is that this isn't contradicted by contrary local trends. Weather goes one way, then the other.

As to global warming being, possibly, a good thing, that's beyond the scope of this article. There is another article on effects. Climatic changes, in general, while we may be able to accommodate ourselves to them, are disruptive and can seriously harm vulnerable populations. The rise in sea levels that is happening can wipe out entire nations, in a few cases. An increase in hurricane activity can finish off New Orleans, for starters. There are costs to these changes. If the change is natural, well, we'd just have to accept it, but we put thermostats in houses because it's useful to keep certain things the same. (There are ways to engineer climate control, being seriously proposed. They are not cheap and may have side effects, plus, they could fail.) If the change is being caused by human activity, and is imposing costs on some, while the activity benefits others, then there is a social inequity, and, I'd think, even Libertarians might recognize that something is off about this. We do not know how much damage a few degrees more will wreak, and if greenhouse gas emissions were frozen today, the models show temperature will continue to rise for a long time. Even if this is incorrect, in the end, in some way or other, it would be silly to ignore the general scientific consensus based on what seems to be wishful thinking and political bias. So, fine. You may be in a position to benefit from global warming. Most people probably are not. I live in Massachusetts, the western part of the state. The effect of global warming here, perhaps: milder winters (nice). More hurricanes and tornados (not nice, but perhaps still unusual). More mosquitoes, possibly more West Nile virus transmission (ugh!). But I'd expect my area to remain quite livable. That's not true for many millions of people. When it happens over thousands of years, not much problem. When it happens in short order, as it seems it might, very harmful. --Abd (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New article

Perhaps as a source. I don't have time to add it and incorporate. — BQZip01 —  05:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Better not. Opinion pieces aren't a good source even when they're not in a rag like the Telegraph. N p holmes (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see the previous section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I responded there. However, the source might be usable, for what it is, notable opinion. We err when we focus solely on peer-reviewed scientific sources. They are best for science. But an encyclopedia article on a general topic should not solely be about science, when there is political controversy over the topic -- even if there is little serious scientific controversy. Rather, the error of the Telegraph article is a common one, and presenting it in the light of that could be, possibly, quite informative to the general reader. How to do it is another matter; specifically how to do it without falling into original research. Here is what I might say if there were no restriction on OR:

Some writers have criticized global warming on the basis of contrary anecdotal evidence, such as cooling trends or cooler periods in some places. Global warming, however, has to do with long term trends, and isn't contradicted by even isolated record low temperatures in some places, nor by short-term cooling trends overall, perhaps caused by solar variation or other effects.

The Telegraph article would be cited for the comment about "some writers." Now, I just wrote this off the top of my head. If there is a source for what I wrote, instead of merely my own opinion, sound or otherwise, we could use the Telegraph article as source for the criticism. That's my point here. The problem with simply putting the Telegraph article claims in the article, without the balance is ... the balance.

It seems that most informed editors here, among "global warming critics," have abandoned claims that there is no global warming, but rather focus on the doubts -- which still exist, to some degree -- about causes and long-term projections. They still exist, that is, but are very much minority opinion among scientists in the field. The IPCC reports, however, estimating 90%-95% confidence in an anthropogenic cause for "most" of the recent global warming, do not specify it more than that, as I recall. I.e., they leave a lot of wiggle room. There may be other causes, for example. Natural effects *might* reverse the overall trend, for a time. And wishes might be horses. --Abd (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of including information from newspapers that are not backed up by peer reviewed publications in this article. A reader of[REDACTED] should be able to read about the scientific perspective on global warming without being subjected to misleading propaganda, even if that's later rebutted in the article, because then you create the false impression of a real scientific controversy, the reality is that you have a few non peer reviewd comments versus thousands of rigorously peer reviewed articles.

Now, some of the criticisms of the science is notable enough to deserve its own[REDACTED] article. So, we have the global warming controversy article which reports on the criticism. This is then regardless of the scientific merits of the criticisms, what matters is notability. But each article should have its own scope.

In exceptional cases, you can imagine reporting about non peer reviewed criticism in scientific articles, e.g. in case of scientific fraud. In most cases, however, the top scientific journals have been quick to act, so in practice, you can simply cite some editorial in the science journals itself reporting on retracted articles. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. I did not address the issue of the most appropriate article for usage of the source. The balance issue exists to some degree no matter where the source is used. It can sometimes be a problem, this is one reason why forking content is somewhat disapproved (but I agree it is necessary). I.e., there may be claims raised by political critics on a scientific issue where there isn't balancing opinion defending the scientific consensus, and even if it is easy to synthesize such, as I tried to do above, that's OR. No matter how obvious it may be. The outrageousness of the Telegraph article is that it treats climate variation, which by definition includes up and down temperature shifts, as if it were proof that global warming is a myth. I haven't, myself, done the research to find out if there is RS or notable opinion countering this, specifically.

What we might be able to do is to note the up and down variations in the temperature record as reported by the IPCC. "However, the temperature record used by the IPCC to show global warming includes local cooling, such as the ...." Global warming, as commonly used, refers to an overall warming since ...." --Abd (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is published as an opinion piece. It has no value as a source at all. It also has no argument at all, if you read it carefully. About the only thing you can take from it was that there was a mixup with the temperature data (an undisputed fact). All the rest is a mixture of ad-hominems, insinuation, and guilt by association. Just ignore it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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