Jump to content

Talk:Climate change: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Replaced content with 'it is a load of rubbish !!!!!!!! don't be fooled'
Line 1: Line 1:
it is a load of rubbish !!!!!!!! don't be fooled
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(15d)
|archive = Talk:Global warming/Archives/%(year)d/%(month)s
}}<!--
-->{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR
|action1date=2006-02-28, 13:19:19
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Global warming/archive1
|action1oldid=41603101

|action2=FAC
|action2date=2006-05-17, 03:21:25
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Global warming
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=53624868

|action3=FAR
|action3date=08:35, 4 May 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Global warming/archive1
|action3result=kept
|action3oldid=127907108

|maindate=June 21, 2006
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{environment|class=FA}}
|2={{meteorology|class=FA|importance=Top}}
|3={{WikiProject Geology|class=FA|importance=high}}
|4={{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Geography|coresup=yes|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}
}}<!--

-->{{pressmulti|section=Section header in Wikipedia:Press_coverage|author=Sarah McBroom|title=Conservapedia.com -- an encylopedic message from the right|org=[[Scripps Howard News Service]]|url=http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CONSERVAPEDIA-03-27-07|date=March 27, 2007
| author2=Michael Booth
| title2=Grading Wikipedia
| org2=[[The Denver Post]]
| url2=http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5786064
| date2=April 30, 2007
}}<!--

-->{{Controversial3}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
| '''Important notice''': This is the [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk page]] for the article [[Global warming]]. Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's '''[[Talk:Global warming/FAQ|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. <br><center>'''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.</center>
|}
{| class="messagebox small-talk" width="500px"
|-
!align="center" |[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
| align="center" |'''Chronological archives'''
|-
|
# [[/OldTalk|December 2001 – October 2002]]
# [[/OldTalk2|October 2002 – February 2003]]
# [[/OldTalk3|February–August 2003]]
# [[/OldTalk4|August 2003 – May 2004]]
# [[/OldTalk5|May 2004 – February 2005]]
# [[/Archive 1|February–April 2005]]
# [[/Archive 2|April–June 2005]]
# [[/Archive 3|May–October 2005]]
# [[/Archive 4|October–November 2005]]
# [[/Archive 5|December 2005 – January 2006]]
# [[/Archive 6|January–April 2006]]
# [[/Archive 7|April–May 2006]]
# [[/Archive 8|June 2006]]
# [[/Archive 9|July 2006]]
# [[/Archive 10|August–October 2006]]
# [[/Archive 11|October–November 2006]]
# [[/Archive 17|December 2006 – February 2007]]
# [[/Archive 18|February–March 2007]]
# [[/Archive 19|April 2007]]
# [[/Archive 20|April 2007 (2)]]
# [[/Archive 21|April 2007 (3)]]
# [[/Archive 22|April 2007 (4)]]
# [[/Archive 23|April 2007 (5)]]
# [[/Archive 24|April 2007 (6)]]<!--
-->{{MonthlyLinks|root=Talk:Global warming/Archives|year=2007|num=yes}}<!--
-->{{MonthlyLinks|root=Talk:Global warming/Archives|year=2008|num=yes}}
|-
|
----
|-
| align="center" |'''Topical archives'''
|-
|
* [[/extreme weather extrapolation graph|Extreme weather extrapolation graph]]
|}

== Including Global Warming as a theory vs. fact ==

In the first sentence of the Global Warming article there is no mention of Global Warming as a theory. The definition of a fact is that it is true if it is undisputed by competent scientists, whereas Global Warming has been disputed for some time now. I propose the first sentence be changed to, "Global warming is a theory that explains an increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation." This would best represent the topic. --[[User:EchoRevamped|EchoRevamped]] ([[User talk:EchoRevamped|talk]]) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:You confuse the fact of global warming (the temperature has risen significantly since ca. 1900) and the scientific theory that explains global warming via a number of mechanisms, the most significant of which is the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
: The notion that we should qualify the description of global warming as a mere "theory" sounds remarkably like an anti-evolution rant. The reality is that there is consensus among the scientists who have actually studied the matter. [[User:Smptq|Smptq]] ([[User talk:Smptq|talk]]) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

::The fact is that the 21st century trend is for cooling of -0.12C/decade, a fact that makes this global warming article shamefully misleading and when the 2008 temperature figures come out you will have no choice but to admit the warming has stopped (barring, that is, an unprecendented rise in temperature in the next few months)[[User:Isonomia|Bugsy]] ([[User talk:Isonomia|talk]]) 23:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::Stephan, The article starts out by saying there is a 'scientific consensus' accepting the theory, then subtly portrays it as fact. Case in point are my recent edits. The article stated that a scientist ''discovered'' that industrial emissions raise the temperature of the Earth. At some point in history, the scientific consensus was that the Sun revolved around the Earth, to say someone 'discovered' that would not be accurate and would not make sense. The same can be said of the Theory of Relativity, there is probably a scientific consensus that it would be true if there were a way to test it, but there is currently no way to put it into practice and make it fact. Without getting into a debate on why man-made global warming is happening or not, in order to maintain NPOV, and be consistent through the article, the theory of man influencing global temperature should be treated as unproven just the same as any other theory. It's a bad idea using 'scientific consensus' because there are plenty of scientists that do not accept the theory, and there are political and monetary motivations on both sides of the debate. [[User:Ryratt|Ryratt]] ([[User talk:Ryratt|talk]]) 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but you are wrong. You confuse the modern theory of anthropogenic global warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect with the [[greenhouse effect]] itself. The greenhouse effect, discovered by Fourier and analyzed in some detail by Arrhenius, is not remotely under discussion - its a known and (nearly) universally acknowledged fact without which there would be no human life on this planet - and what other life there might be would complain about the cold all the time. The passage you edited dealt with the latter, not the former. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 18:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Ryratt is right, it is a theory. I assume that you know that the temperature is determined by using a model (another word for theory). Have you looked at the model details? Of course not. It is proprietary. No one (except for the team that maintains it) knows what it is or how it works. Have you ever wondered why satellites are used for ocean temperatures but not for land temperatures? Simple, it would produce different results. Different models. Different ways to collect data. Secret algorithms. Ryratt is right, it is a theory. [[User:Q Science|Q Science]] ([[User talk:Q Science|talk]]) 22:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::* Actually what you describe would be, if it were true, "scientific fraud", not a "theory" at all. The theory would already have been falsified by conflicting data, but these "evil climate scientists" would be deceiving all of us by engaging in scientific fraud.

::::::The reality is completely different. Not only is global warming a theory, it is a theory with very solid foundations in basic physics. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::* Sorry, [[User:Q Science|Q Science]], but what are you talking about? The greenhouse effect, or anthropogenic global warming? To repeat myself, they are not the same thing, and while both are strongly supported, the greenhouse effect itself is not even remotely controversial. It's a direct conclusion from basic thermodynamics. It raises the temperature of the Earth not by some small amount that you can possibly fiddle with or argue about, but by more than 30 degrees centigrade. To quote from the very next paragraph after the one that [[User:Ryratt|Ryratt]] edited (and that I reverted): ''Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.'' --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 22:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you missed my point. Many scientists have the data which prove there hasn't been a significant rise in temperature. I'm not "confusing" the so called belief of "Global Warming" and its scientific theory. I'm saying that Global Warming in its entirety is based on disputed facts and untrustworthy data. These fallacies lead to the belief that Global Warming has lead to a temperature increase, which it hasn't, anthropogenic or not. This is why I believe such a disputed topic should be considered a theory.--[[User:EchoRevamped|EchoRevamped]] ([[User talk:EchoRevamped|talk]]) 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:I see. If you have any recent and reliable sources denying global warming completely, bring them here. This particular meme mostly stopped after even Spencer and Christy found the warming signal in the satellite data. None of the at least semi-rational sceptic hold the position that the warming does not exist, as far as I know. Anyways, even if you were right (a stretch, but for the sake of argument), the warming itself would still not be a [[scientific theory]]. Please read that article. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 07:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::The word 'theory' is being used here, and I agree with Smptq that it is also used in Creationist arguments, in the way scientists use the word 'hypothesis'; that is, a pre-experimental, pre-data-collection idea of what might be. Scientific theories have accumulated enough evidence that the original hypothesis has, as far as we mere mortals should be concerned, been proven true. You might also say, 'theories are not theoretical', in the way in which 'theoretical' is commonly (mis-?)used. Scientists are not content with what we take to be sufficient evidence, their standards for evidence are higher, and thus even such proven hypotheses are known as theories. Global warming is either already a theory or well on its way to becoming one, depending on the stringency of required evidence one applies. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is a rather fringe opinion, but I feel "global warming" should encompass any kind of warming on any celestial body on a global scale. The article for [[globe]] mentions that a globe represents celestial bodies other than Earth, so my interpretation suggests that any warming on Mars, Jupiter, Earth or the Sun would count as "global warming." I believe the science on global warming that is mostly presented in this article should be moved to a separate article on anthropogenic global warming on Earth in the 20th and 21st century. In this light, however, global warming wouldn't be counted as a theory, because it would reference any actual warming that was happening.[[User:HillChris1234|HillChris1234]] ([[User talk:HillChris1234|talk]]) 18:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

: This article concerns itself with the topic of Global Warming, a term that refers specifically to changes in the climate of Earth. The climates of other planets are treated in their own articles or as part of the main article concerning that particular planet. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 08:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a war going on between the skeptics and the computer scientists wether global warming is man-made or natural. No one really knows. But preventive measures should be taken none the less. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.13.137.7|72.13.137.7]] ([[User talk:72.13.137.7|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->

== Is global warming a falacy? ==

Surely 'natural' global warming due geological phenomena is not a fallacy but surely global warming is a great fallacy if anyone think that it is merely consequence of anthropogenic action. Another great fallacy is "fossil fuel" (sic) frequently association with "global warming". Surely there's no fossil fuel. Oil and natural gas are abiotic. Carbon dioxide has little concentration in earth's atmosphere. Methane release in geological time such as PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum is more relevant to cause natural global walrming. Important is preserve fresh water that is life and maintenance of plants, trees, forests, animals in their natural habitats ecc, together use clean fuels. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/189.60.253.88|189.60.253.88]] ([[User talk:189.60.253.88|talk]]) 02:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Several of your claims are strongly contradicted by the scientific community. The abiotic origin of oil and gas is distinctly [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]], and no-one claims an abiotic origin for coal. The absolute concentration of CO2 is enough for a considerable climate forcing. If you have any suggestions (with reliable sources) on how to improve the article, please state them. This is not the place to discuss global warming in general. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 06:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

<Deleted comment from banned holocaust-denying troll>

:No need to shout. And Yahoo News is not a reliable source. It's also not particularly wrong, in this case. Large-scale cattle farming is a contributing to methane emissions and overall greenhouse gas emissions in a non-negligible way. I don't know about your farts, but mine are negligible, as I don't chew the cud in between letting my gut flora ferment all the grass I eat.... --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 07:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Not that it matters, but that same comment is available from Aussie MSM sources... im not going to bother fetching a link, but I noted it on either the Herald Sun or Daily Telegraph website [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 08:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== No warming from 1940 to 2008 ==

Global temperatures are the same as as they were 68 years ago, despite an increase of 800(?)% in human caused CO2 levels. [http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/] How could this finding be incorporated into the article? [[User:rossnixon|<sup><font color="green">''ross''</font></sup>]][[User talk:rossnixon|<sup><font color="blue">''nixon''</font></sup>]] 02:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:Given that your source is a blog, and that, as we hopefully all know, mentioning the emission of CO2 is a red herring (the atmospheric concentration is what is relevant), and that the author cannot distinguish weather and climate, and that he pick the most conservative interpretation of the temperature measure that shows the smallest increase in temperature, I would suggest "not at all" unless we can get a proper peer-reviewed paper. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 06:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is valid to point out that the blog author uses the most conservative sources for his reference, but is it not also valid to point out that this article tends not to cite those conservative sources in favour of land based measurements, the accuracy of which is under sustained attack? Wattsupwith that? :) [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 04:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Assessments of the trend in global average temperature take into account a great many factors, including satellite measurements, land surface measurements, oceans surface measurements, weather balloons on so on. There are also secondary indicators of a warming climate, such as sea level rise, melting permafrost, loss of sea-ice extent, and so on. The author cited has cherry picked a data set that serves his purposes, and has neglected to give any treatment to the complexities or differences between surface measurements and satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere. The article further discredits itself by suggesting that Global Cooling is implied. Most of the heat that has been added to the Earth has been absorbed by the surface layers of the ocean, but this is conspicuously not mentioned. Data taken out of context is meaningless. This article speaks to some of the differences between satellite and surface measurements. [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uow-std112904.php] Even if the troposphere really hadn't warmed, it would be cause for us to reevaluate our understanding of how the atmosphere reacts during a warming event, and not reason to discount every other indicator that the planet has indeed warmed. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 05:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Well said. Regarding the troposphere not warming, why is it only cause to re-evaluate our understanding of how the atmosphere reacts to a warming event, and not also cause to re-eveluate our hypothosised causation for that warming event as well? [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 08:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'm not sure the cause of any kind of planetary warming on Earth in the 20th and 21st century has any place in an article on "global warming" in general. Any kind of warming on any planet could count as "global warming," and I feel modern anthropogenic global warming science should be reflected on an article set aside to discuss that particular subject.[[User:HillChris1234|HillChris1234]] ([[User talk:HillChris1234|talk]]) 18:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:The terminology and topic of the article is consistent with the way it is used in the media and other sources. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 00:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Needs long-term data ==

The Vostok ice core data is far too short-term (500,000 years). There is a billion years of sedimentary rock and plate tectonic data that can be used to estimate past temperatures at various latitudes over a much longer time frame. [[User:Jwray|Jwray]] ([[User talk:Jwray|talk]]) 06:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:Why do we need that? Over much longer periods, very different processes start to dominate, from continental drift to the aging of the sun. Also, of course, the farther back we go, the less reliable the estimates do become. We have a link to [[Geologic temperature record]], which has graphs for the last half billion years. This is not very relevant for the current phenomenon of rapid global warming. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::::What evidence do you have that the current rate of warming is unusual even in the context of the Holocene period? Even if you believe Mann's proxy data, that only goes back a few hundred years. Besides, the current rate of warming doesn't appear at all that rapid, we're approaching a decade with no warming at all, or even slight cooling. The late 20th century warming can partly be attributed to the urban heat island effect.[http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=24] How will NASA GISS reconcile themselves with JPL? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.207.143.91|98.207.143.91]] ([[User talk:98.207.143.91|talk]]) 05:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -- <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::: It's frightening that conclusions such as, "current phenomenon of rapid global warming", could be based on meaningless graphs such as this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png A series of seemingly random intertwined lines spliced with recent spotty surface temperature measurements pass as science as certain as Newton's laws of motion.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:98.207.143.91|98.207.143.91]] ([[User talk:98.207.143.91|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/98.207.143.91|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::::::It's a good thing that we have experts for this stuff. I base my opinion on [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf the paleoclimate chapter] in the latest IPCC WG1 report and, in a pinch, some of the roughly 300 scientific papers it references. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 08:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

::Was that a typo Stephan? Perhaps you meant ''"current phenomenon of rapid global cooling"'', or "''rapid climate change''"? [[User:rossnixon|<sup><font color="green">''ross''</font></sup>]][[User talk:rossnixon|<sup><font color="blue">''nixon''</font></sup>]] 02:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Read [[climate]] and [[geological time scale]]. Thanks. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 07:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a discussion on improvements to this article. Please leave discussions on this board to scientifically-cited information that can improve the article instead of debating the methods for obtaining that data. We'll leave that to the scientists. Our job here is to report their findings.[[User:HillChris1234|HillChris1234]] ([[User talk:HillChris1234|talk]]) 18:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

== When will this article mention global cooling ==

It now looks almost inevitable that 2008 is going to be a lot colder than any other year this century confirming the clear cooling trend. Whatever way you look at it, there is no way you can describe the 21st century as "warming". This article is so blatantly lying lying to the reader when it implies time and time again that the world is "currently warming". It is not me that sets the standard, it was the IPCC who proudly announced (in 2001) that the world would warm at between 1.4C-5.8C in the next 110. Since then not only has the world stubbornly failed to warm even at the lowest expected rate in fact it has been cooling (by what would be around -1.4C in the same period). Is there the slightest hint of this in the article? The IPCC has set the standard of the expected range, 1.4-5.8/110 years. Not only is the current trend well below the IPCC minimum (which in itself would deserve a mention), but it is actually cooling not warming. How can any honest person write an article about "global warming" and fail to mention that we are currently experiencing a period of cooling? Just how long does the temperature have to cool before this article will stop bringing the integrity of wikipedia into disrepute? [[User:Isonomia|Bugsy]] ([[User talk:Isonomia|talk]]) 23:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:It has to cool until peer-reviewed reliable sources claim there is a significant climatic cooling trend. Instead, we see a number of publications reinforcing the overall warming trend and warning against misreading the effect of short-term variations as caused e.g. by the strong [[La Nina]] effect. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 06:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:This user has brought this issue up before; [[Talk:Global_warming/Archives/2008/6#Time_to_put_up_or_shut_up_on_Overwhelming_consensus|last time]] it got hijacked into a discussion of what sources are reliable.
:Bugsy, (user Isonomia) if you've got a reliable source that claims that the long term trend of warming is over, please bring that here to this talk page and it will get into the article. There is currently this sentence in the climate models section of this article,
::In May 2008, it was predicted that "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming", based on the inclusion of ocean temperature observations.[75]
:and the leading graph is updated to include the 2007 mean annual temperature. It is quite possible that a well-sourced sentence or two in the "Temperature changes" section mentioning the current short-term trend could improve the section and the article as a whole. However, current reliable sources clearly state that the long-term trend is global warming, so this article should, too. - [[User:Enuja|Enuja]] ([[User talk:Enuja|talk]]) 06:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::The problem is mistaking [[weather]] for [[climate change]]. If the cooler ''weather'' of the last half of this decade persists deep into the next, the scientific literature will start reflecting that and question the consensus theory. What does this mean for updating the article in this manner? "Check back in 2015" [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 08:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Don't worry. As soon as Obama is elected U.S. president, Gore's "scientific consensus" will admitted that the world really is getting cooler, and that the oceans started to recede at exactly the moment Obama told them to. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 09:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== So wot is the human contribution to global warming then ? ==

The first two paragraphs of the introduction to this article are unacceptably logically confused and crucially vague on the central question of what is the human contribution, if any, to global warming, if any ?

It opens:

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

But first, surely global warming is not the specific increase in these temperatures between 1950 and 2008, whatever it may have been, plus the thesis that there will be the same increase in the 58 year period 2008 to 2066 ?

Surely it is just the thesis that there has been an increase since c1950, and that it will continue to increase ?

So surely it should be 'Global warming is the phenomenon of an increasing average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.' ?

Secondly, this claim needs a justifying reference that 'global warming' is so tightly defined somewhere or officially as the phenomenon of temperature increase specifically ''since 1950''

Thirdly, instead of then telling us what that specific increase was, rather the article then twofold illogically switches to telling us (i) the increase in the century to 2005 rather than the increase since 1950 as global warming has just been defined, and (ii) only the increase in average global air temperature, apparently excluding the presumably cooler temperatures of the oceans that is included in the opening definition of gliobal warming, as follows:

"The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1]"

But (i) what has the increase been since 1950 that demonstrates global warming as defined here? And (ii) what was the increase in this average when ocean temperatures are included ?

Fourthly, the next sentence then illogically switches back again to discussing a quantitatively unspecified increase since 1950, as follows

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via an enhanced greenhouse effect."

But by now we have at least three unspecified quantities X, Y & Z to juggle with, namely

X 'the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century'

Y 'most of X' Does this just mean more than 50% of X or what ?

Z 'the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations'
But what was this increase in the defined period i.e. since 1950 ?

And in addition to these three unspecified quantities, what specific probability has been put on the 'very likelihood' that most of X is due to Y ? At least 67% or more say ?

And moreover, is this passage claiming that there has been an independent enhanced greenhouse effect in addition to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations whereby the latter is then amplified further, or only that the greenhouse effect has been increased just because of an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas and by no more than that ?

Finally, this also raises the unanswered question of what the increase in total greenhouse gas has been, if any, and thus what the percentage contribution of specifically anthropogenic gases to this increase has been, if any.

In conclusion, this illiterate mystifying waffle surely needs rectifying with some logically clear quantitative scientific analysis on such an important issue, especially given one never learns the answer to this crucial question from the daily media indoctrinal bombardment about global warmng ?

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:See the "terminology" section where references are given for the definition of "global warming." Most of your other questions are addressed later in the text; the lede cannot repeat all of the details given in the body of the article. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 18:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Surely [[http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html| 82532000 barrels per day]] of oil being spewed into the atmosphere has no effect at all eh? [[User:Garycompugeek|Garycompugeek]] ([[User talk:Garycompugeek|talk]]) 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Logicus to Boris''': ''Au contraire'', none of my questions are answered by the article. But thanks for the reference to the 'Terminology' section, which reveals an even greater thicket of conceptual confusion. For the definition of 'global warming' given in that section is itself notably crucially different from the opening definition, and certainly the references given there do not justify the Wikipedia opening definition of global warming, which is

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

But the Terminoloy sections says:

"The term "global warming" refers to the warming in recent decades and its projected continuation, and implies a human influence.[11][12"

In contrast with the opening definition, this latter definition fails to specify what it is that is warming, and is vaguer about the time period in question and whether it extends as far back as 1950 or not. But more crucially it now only refers to warming in which there has been a human influence, whereby one cannot even sensibly ask the question of whether there has been any human influence on global warming, since on this definition the very notion is of warming in which there is such an influence.

To see further confusion, now turn to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of 'global warming' that is given as the justifying reference for the 'Terminology' section's definition, and which is as follows;

"an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution."

But this definition does not justify either the opening definition nor that of the Terminology section, for it is crucially different from both at least in the following respects

1) This definition only refers to an increase in temperatures predicted for the future, but not to any past warming as in the two Wikipedia definitions. Thus on this definition we cannot know whether global warming exists until the future.

2) It only refers to whatever portion of warming may be due to the greenhouse effect and especially to pollution, whereas the Wiki definitions refer to the total warming. And it is unclear whether the pollution referred to is purely human, or could include volcanic pollution for example.

But this confusion gets even worse when we turn to the Britannica definition referred to by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reference, as follows:

"the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries."

This definition crucially differs from the both the Wikipedia and the Merriam-Webster definitions, because [1] it crucially does not include ocean temperatures and [2] it only refers to a past time period and [3] it radically extends the past time period to between one and two centuries, rather than just from 1950.

Now to add further confusion upon confusion upon..., if we turn to the United States Environmental Protection Agency definition given in footnote 12 of the Wikipedia Terminology section definition to justify it, we read:

"In common usage, 'global warming' often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities."

So this definition differs yet again from the other definitions at least since it only refers to that warming that results from increased human produced emissions of greenhouse gases and over any period rather than just in some specific period. But contrary to the common usage claim of this definition, most media presentations on global warming separate the notion and fact of warming or not from the issue of its possible causes, such as human activity or not.

Now the practical upshot of this thicket of conceptual confusions is that insofar as any of these five crucially different definitions of 'global warming' permit its quantification, it will surely be different in each case. For example presumably the Britannica definition will generate a different result from the Wikipedia opening definition at least by virtue of (i) not including ocean temperatures and also (ii) in covering two centuries rather than only half a century. And thus the quantification of the proportion of any human contribution to that increase may well be different.

Small wonder then that this highly conceptually confused and confusing article does not give any quantitative answer to the leading question of the global warming moral panic, namely what proportion, if any, of global warming since 1950, or for any recent period, has been caused by humanity. It seems the nearest this article gets to such is in its 'Climate models' section that claims

"the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

But what does this mean ? Of an unspecified temperature increase of X degrees since 1975, more than X/2 degrees of that increase was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions ? So what was the amount of those emissions ? Or rather was the temperature increase caused by an ''increase'' in those emissions ? And if so, what was the increase in such emissions in that 33 year period ?

Can Boris or anybody else possibly kindly answer these very basic questions ?

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

: I think you've noticed by now that no-one is supporting your "logic" (I think you were looking for [[Mr Logic]]. Sadly no pictures - maybe thats for the best...). ''the global warming moral panic'' essentially reveals your biases. If you're interested in the attribution of change, you want [[Attribution of recent climate change]]. If you just want the short answer, its "a bit more than 100%" [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::...eyes...wall of text... [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 18:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Obviously Logicus has issues with the scientific communities consensus of factors creating global warming. Thats fine, however this is not the place to air those [[WP:SOAP|grievances]]. Please bring peered reviewed sources if you wish to add to the article. Thanks. [[User:Garycompugeek|Garycompugeek]] ([[User talk:Garycompugeek|talk]]) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree with the verifiability issues raised by Logicus. --[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 03:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Logicus actually raises good points about inconsistencies lead, though they are mostly lost in the essay presentation. More pointedly the twisting between a 1900-present and a 1950-present timescale could be used to show the sympathy of the author lies with anthropogenic causation, through a desire to attribute the full 1900-present warming to industrial pollution without the bother of having to allow for the temparture fall between 1940-1950 within that theory.
:::::Another little inconsistency on the main page - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg (second image on the right) uses relative 1940-1980. Default on the website the image was generated from is 1951-1980, while the most visible often used standard reference is ~1960-1990. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 09:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The noise in the signal of global average temperature makes a weak trend difficult to detect, so I'm not sure if there's even any agreement on when precisely the warming began. I don't think it makes any sense to assign some arbitrary threshold beyond which we are not concerned. Just saying that "global warming starts at 1950" is absolutely arbitrary. Data will sometimes cover only portions of the relevant period, and - importantly - the closer we get the present the more is known and with more certainty.

Further, since the warming has been observed to accelerate across the last century, analysis of the more recent decades provides a clear indication of the state of warming now.

There's no attempt to avoid the cooling that took place starting in the 40s, this is well understood to be the result of aerosols, and the strength of cooling correlates well with aerosol concentration when compared to the observed cooling effects of [[Mount Pinatubo]]. What you do have, if you look at a graph of temperature since 1850 that's at the top of the article, is a point around the middle of the century where the warming becomes quite obvious and temperature manages to climb significantly above the variations that were seen at the beginning of the graph. I think if you look at the warming trend from the beginning of the century until 1940 and then you understand the cooling effect that sulfate aerosols had from stack pollution... it becomes clear that the planet would be warmer yet if not for the effect of aerosols. Far from being something to hide, the aerosol cooling across those decades is a warning that we would have experienced more than a 0.6C increase last century if some of that warming had not been offset by aerosol cooling. Sulfate pollution is regulated now, so we're not going to see the same strength of that cooling effect in the coming century, and even if you tried to use it on purpose the effects of the sulfate aerosols diminishes pretty quickly once you stop emitting them.

For the question way above about "most" - yes, I would say that this means >50% and nothing more specific than that. I don't think this means anything more specific than that in the context of an IPCC statement. If some scientists think it's 90% human, and some think it's 65%, and some think it's 51%, then the statement you can get agreement on is "ok, it's at least half" and everyone can agree, but that doesn't tell us whether it's 51% or 100%, just that it's not 50% or less. I'm unfamiliar with what the range of specific assessments actually are.

In terms of CO2 emissions, this may help answer questions. [http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638]

I would support changing the introductory language to include the beginning of the century, so long as it doesn't distort what is known into some POV nonsense. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 13:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Ecclesiastes 1:9. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:: I have no idea what you intended to communicate by that. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 15:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, ''I'' knew what I meant. ;-) "That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun." In other words, this is not a new point; we've had lots of past discussion on the time frame for global warming as referenced in the first sentence. See the talk page archives/history. The "since the middle of the 20th century" bit is the time frame most in accord with reliable sources such as the IPCC reports. Hope that's clearer... [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 16:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::""...is well understood to be the result of aerosols""
Global Warming in a can - Some of the material here has great comedic value.
Can't believe you guy's buy this stuff - and just because some hippies with Phd's and a considerable increase in funding since the hysteria tell you so. Independant thought guys, get some. [[Finalreminder]] <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Finalreminder|Finalreminder]] ([[User talk:Finalreminder|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Finalreminder|contribs]]) 08:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I respectfully ask that the editor who reverted my edit provide an explanation for this on the talk page. Logicus has explained very clearly that the first sentence in the lead and in the terminology section is not properly verified by the sources provided. My only issue is with ''verifiability'' ([[WP:VER]]). And I have no POV against global warming as suggested in the revert edit summary, I accept the scientific evidence and I am only looking to improve the article. I hope the more experienced editors here will be able to see to address this issue. --[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 13:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''So wot is the human contribution to global warming then ?''': Hurrah for one small step of progress in solving the problem I raised, thanks to William Connolley’s helpful referral to the Wiki [[Attribution of recent climate change]] article, which reveals a 0.65 °C increase in the five decades to 2004 as follows:

"Over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.65 °C (1.17 °F) at the Earth's surface" according to the IPCC's AR4 report mentioned in the [[historical temperature record]] article.

The source is IPCC. I therefore put this in the article to replace the current logically misplaced statistic for the last century that opens the second paragraph, thus rendering the first two paras logically coherent.

However, a source is still required for the opening definition. Who or what body has decided contemporary global warming should be dated from the mid-20th century ?

A better alternative here might be just to relax the opening definition by dropping any time period specification in order to provide a completely general definition of GW without restriction to any historical period, which is then only introduced in the second para about contemporary GW. I might do that.

I also flag the Terminology definition of GW as confusing because it is at variance with the opening definition, as are also its references, as detailed above.

I also flag the two opening diagrams as confusing because they are not for the same periods as the text specifies i.e for the last 5 decades, and thus not logically relevant, as Jaimaster has pointed out. Hopefully somebody can provide diagrams that are.

After this initial progress of identifying the amount of global warming since the mid 20th century for this article, to try and provide an answer to the question on which which I first came to consult it, it should surely contain some quantitative statement(s) of the following forms:

1) X% of the global warming of approximately 0.65 °C in the last half century has been caused by a Z% increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,

2) X% of the global warming of approximately 0.65 °C in the last half century has been caused by a Y% increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

3) X% of the global warming of approximately 0.65 °C in the last half century has been caused by a W% increase in the anthropogenic proportion of greenhouse gas concentrations

4) The anthropogenic proportion of greenhouse gases is now V%

Can anybody please fill in the values of the variables V, W, X, Y, & Z in these 4 different global warming propositions, with sources ? Mr Connolley maybe ?

The helpful contribution of Mishlai suggests X can be no more precise than 'at least half' i.e. at least 0.375 °C. Is this so ?

Also thanks to those other few editors who have made helpful and informative contributions, such as Jaimaster etc

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 14:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== A profusion of articles ==

Not really the place for it, but lets try anyway. There is:

* [[Climate change in Texas]]
* [[Global warming in Massachusetts]]
* [[:Category:Climate change in the United States by state]] lists 5 others

Why just these 7 states? Or better, why these 7 states at all? And [[Climate change in Nevada]] isn't on the list. There seems to be a lot of duplication and boilerplate in these articles. Mind you, there is also [[:Category:Climate change in Australia]], [[Climate change in New Zealand]], [[Global warming in India]], [[Global warming in Japan]]

And [[Heat pollution]] could do with some work, or possibly deletion, if anyone is interested.

[[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 07:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:For starters there aught to be standardisation on names to either GW or CC. The aus article lead ends with an unsourced ad hominem. Ill deal with that on monday... [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 09:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Given the name, I would have thought that you can hardly have individual GW articles for only bits of the globe. As to possible effects, i.e. CC, regional articles make more sense but state by state seems a bit OTT. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 09:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Global warming in Massachusetts? What next, global warming in a teapot? or perhaps a nutshell? [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 10:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::: There certainly should be an article/s on expected regional climate changes, although climate change by US state is too fine of resolution. How would the article for climate change in Nevada be any different than one for climate change in Arizona? Or New Mexico? If more than one article on regional climate change is needed, by continent would probably afford sufficient resolution. - [[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on whether it is good to have this spread of articles by continent/country/state or not? I have been checking for pages or material on global warming or climate change in Africa and not found anything easily. Nor is Africa listed in the banner <nowiki>{{Global warming|state=expanded}}</nowiki>. I cannot find an article on the climate of Africa, never mind change, just a short section [[Geography_of_Africa#Climate_and_health|here]]. Or have I missed something?[[User:Babakathy|Babakathy]] ([[User talk:Babakathy|talk]]) 14:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

: I don't know. It would be a lot to maintain, and I'm not sure how many good sources we have on specific regions. There's already a great deal of confusion regarding the difference between global trends and regional trends, and I'm also slight concerned that regional articles might add to that. Still, I think that if we have good references then describing the changes in a region could be valuable to some readers. Also, as we learn more and more about the changes it will become too much information for the articles that we presently have. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Note the IPCC reports include chapters on regional climate change in the context of global climate change (Chapter 10 in the TAR, Chapter 11 in AR4). [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::In addition to the IPCC material, there is some literature on Africa, eg by Hulme, Mason, New.[[User:Babakathy|Babakathy]] ([[User talk:Babakathy|talk]]) 16:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Some of the articles seem to be getting somewhere, such as the ones on Washington and Texas--others, not so much. I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with describing climate change as it applies to a specific region. However, the article ought to be specific and non-redundant. Best of luck. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Mechanism of water vapor feedback ==

The section on feedbacks discusses the water vapor feedback in a manner that I think leaves the impression that the dominant cause of the additional vapor is that warmer air results in more evaporation because of heat input. It's my understanding that the real effect has more to do with warmer air being able to hold more moisture at a given RH, and that while warmer temperatures certainly add something to evaporation, that for the most part the water is still just evaporating because of sunlight, etc. into air that is capable of holding more. I'm unclear on how %RH is maintained in the atmosphere at conditions less than saturation, so I wanted to ask for some assistance/clarification in making the edit. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 04:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Your interpretation "warmer air being able to hold more moisture at a given RH" is basically correct, but I'm having trouble seeing where the current text indicates otherwise. Maybe I'm just not able to see it from a non-specialist's perspective (I assume you're a non-specialist). Give it a whirl and let's work toward something that's clear to everyone. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 04:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::Reworded a bit. Is this better? [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I like, thank you. It never said anything wrong, exactly, but there was an implication that the cause was more heat = more evaporation. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Newly inserted paragraph ==

I've removed the following paragraph from the "Feedback" section until it can be discussed and perhaps summarized more succinctly, or otherwise allocated to appropriate places in this and/or other articles:
<blockquote>Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost,<ref>Compare: [http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html Methane bubbling through seafloor creates undersea hills], [[Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute]], 5 February 2007</ref> with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times above normal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html|title=Exclusive: The methane time bomb|last=Connor|first=Steve|date=September 23, 2008|publisher=[[The Independant]]|accessdate=2008-10-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html|title=Hundreds of methane 'plumes' discovered|last=Connor|first=Steve|date=September 25, 2008|publisher=[[The Independant]]|accessdate=2008-10-03}}</ref> The excess methane has been detected in localized hotspots in the outfall of the [[Lena River]] and the border between the [[Laptev Sea]] and the [[East Siberian Sea]]. Some melting may be the result of geological heating, but more thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north.<ref>[http://westerstrand.blogspot.com/2008/09/methane-hot-topic.html Translation of a blog entry by Örjan Gustafsson, expedition research leader], 2 September 2008</ref> Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 [[megatonne|Mt]] per year.<ref>N. Shakhova, I. Semiletov, A. Salyuk, D. Kosmach, and N. Bel’cheva (2007), [http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/01071/EGU2007-J-01071.pdf?PHPSESSID=e Methane release on the Arctic East Siberian shelf], ''Geophysical Research Abstracts'', '''9''', 01071</ref> Shakhova et al (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 [[gigatonne|Gt]] of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open [[talik]]s. They conclude that "release of up to 50 [[gigatonne|Gt]] of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,<ref>N. Shakhova, I. Semiletov, A. Salyuk, D. Kosmach (2008), [http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage from shallow shelf hydrates?], [[European Geophysical Union|EGU]] General Assembly 2008, ''Geophysical Research Abstracts'', '''10''', EGU2008-A-01526</ref><ref>Volker Mrasek, [http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html A Storehouse of Greenhouse Gases Is Opening in Siberia], ''[[Der Spiegel|Spiegel International Online]]'', 17 April 2008</ref> equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO<sub>2</sub>.</blockquote>
... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 05:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

{{reflist|colwidth=25em}} I simply added the reference tag, without it you can not see the references and clicking on the numbers does nothing. [[User:Q Science|Q Science]] ([[User talk:Q Science|talk]]) 05:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:I think it's good like it is. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 23:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The new para was part of this huge edit [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=243021708&oldid=242906750]. I expected to object to any such change :-), but in a quick review didn't find anything problematic. Apart from the para above (a bit too 2008 based), did anyone else review it fully and find it OK? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 08:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:From my examination, the edit noted in the previous comment, while lengthy, appears to be appropriate. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 09:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::After having had a chance to review the paragraph more closely, it does indeed appear to me to be very appropriate to include a slightly more explicit summary about methane in the Feedback section, given the presently accumulating body of literature about the correlation between melting ice and methane discharge. My sense is that it can be summarized much more succinctly so it doesn't clog up the Feedback section with too many specifics, and perhaps allocate the rest of it to, say, [[Effects of global warming]]. Also, the statement ''"That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,"'', cited to Shakhova ''et al'' (2008), appears to me to be a bit premature and speculative. Bottom line: IMO, in this WP article it should be summarized more concisely, using only the more scientifically verified, experimentally replicated material here. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Verifiability issues in the lead and terminology section ==

Logicus has explained very clearly that the first sentence in the lead and the first sentence in the terminology section are not properly verified by the sources provided [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=242548326&oldid=242448684]. My only issue is with ''verifiability'' ([[WP:VER]]). And I have no POV against global warming as suggested in the revert edit summary, I accept the scientific evidence and I am only looking to improve the article. I hope the more knowledgeable editors here will be able to address this. --[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Just so it's clear, claims in the lead need not be referenced so long as the same claims are substantiated and referenced later in the body of the article. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]])
::I agree. Where in the body of the article is first sentence in the lead properly substantiated and referenced? Thank you. --[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Presently in fn 11 & 12, as well as elsewhere. For further definitions, see also, e.g. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Global+Warming&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title these definitions]. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks Kenosis. Please see [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=242548326&oldid=242448684 this], which demonstrates that footnotes 11 and 12 do not properly verify the first sentence in the lead. --[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 22:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Also, none of [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Global+Warming&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title these definitions] properly verify the definition given in the first sentence of the article lead. --[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::In what way? What specific part of the definition is in dispute? [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 23:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::The answer to your question is found here: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=242548326&oldid=242448684]. --[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Buried somewhere in there, perhaps. Progress will require a more concise and focused statement. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
""Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation." But the Terminoloy sections says: "The term "global warming" refers to the warming in recent decades and its projected continuation, and implies a human influence.[11][12]" In contrast with the opening definition, this latter definition fails to specify what it is that is warming, and is vaguer about the time period in question and whether it extends as far back as 1950 or not. But more crucially it now only refers to warming in which there has been a human influence, whereby one cannot even sensibly ask the question of whether there has been any human influence on global warming, since on this definition the very notion is of warming in which there is such an influence."
"To see further confusion, now turn to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of 'global warming' that is given as the justifying reference for the 'Terminology' section's definition, and which is as follows; "an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution." But this definition does not justify either the opening definition nor that of the Terminology section, for it is crucially different from both at least in the following respects 1) This definition only refers to an increase in temperatures predicted for the future, but not to any past warming as in the two Wikipedia definitions. Thus on this definition we cannot know whether global warming exists until the future. 2) It only refers to whatever portion of warming may be due to the greenhouse effect and especially to pollution, whereas the Wiki definitions refer to the total warming. And it is unclear whether the pollution referred to is purely human, or could include volcanic pollution for example."
"But this confusion gets even worse when we turn to the Britannica definition referred to by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reference, as follows: "the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries." This definition crucially differs from the both the Wikipedia and the Merriam-Webster definitions, because [1] it crucially does not include ocean temperatures and [2] it only refers to a past time period and [3] it radically extends the past time period to between one and two centuries, rather than just from 1950."
"Now to add further confusion upon confusion upon..., if we turn to the United States Environmental Protection Agency definition given in footnote 12 of the Wikipedia Terminology section definition to justify it, we read: "In common usage, 'global warming' often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities." So this definition differs yet again from the other definitions at least since it only refers to that warming that results from increased human produced emissions of greenhouse gases and over any period rather than just in some specific period. But contrary to the common usage claim of this definition, most media presentations on global warming separate the notion and fact of warming or not from the issue of its possible causes, such as human activity or not." [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=242548326&oldid=242448684]

--[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 00:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:That wasn't exactly a "concise and focuses statement", but let's move on. Given the fact that there are multiple definitions from reputable sources that disagree in one detail or another, what do you propose that we do? [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Just so it's known, these definitions have been discussed and debated in the past, so I suggest you begin looking for that in the archives. That will give you some sense as to how the precise definition was formulated. What I can tell you is that 1950 is the marker given by the IPCC for which we can contribute most of the warming to man's activities. The article actually points this out for you in the lead. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 05:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:The time frame given in the lead was changed from the prior longstanding language "in recent decades" to "since the mid-twentieth century" [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=199395022&oldid=198353172 here, on 19 March 2008], in response to discussion on talk. The consensus among editors of this article has long been to refer in the lead to the ''current'' warming trend, which is the way the words "global warming" are most often used, rather than to refer to historical warming trends generally. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Grammatical Mistake ==

I'm not sure if causes or allows is the correct verb in the sentence, "this warming causes allows the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor" under Forcing and Feedback: Feedback.--[[User:Maryrebecca|Maryrebecca]] ([[User talk:Maryrebecca|talk]]) 01:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Either would be OK. "Allows" is a little more directly linked to the increase in saturation vapor pressure. On the other hand "allows" might be taken as implying the atmosphere ''can'' hold more water vapor but doesn't necessarily do so, when in fact it ''does'' hold more water vapor (so as to maintain approximately constant relative humidity). But not both. I'll pick "causes," Monty. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 01:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:: I thought you weren't allowed to say that the atmos holds WV [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 15:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Comrade Boris say "In Soviet Union, water vapor hold ''you''!" [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 16:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
== Minor removal of sentence from "terminology" section ==

I've removed the following sentence from the "terminology" section"
<blockquote>As greenhouse gases increase, the effect is projected to increase.</blockquote> This was cited to [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/global+warming global warming - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary], which defines global warming as ''"An increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution."'' I should think the current version of this article already covers this, but I'm putting it here on Talk just in case it's useful in another section of this or another WP article. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 03:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:There are innumerable verifiable secondary scientific references, as opposed to a less desirable tertiary reference, that refer to projected increases in the earth's temperature. Therefore, limiting the definition to one tertiary reference is not appropriate. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 16:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed. Though my main reason for removing it was that it was outside of the scope of the section on "Terminology". ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I've since heavily edited that section to make it hew closely (even verbatim) to the sources (attribution might be appropriate, I didn't do that). Here is why theorized causation is relevant to the Terminology section: Some usages of "Global warming," particularly popular ones, imply or state causation, i.e., "Global warming" has come to refer specifically to anthropogenic warming. And we have sources explicitly stating so (i.e., that there is this variation in definition). The section, now, more explicitly, covers the variations in meaning. In order to explain the terms, we need to explain how they are used. Thus there is now the generic definition of "global warming," which (ab initio, from the raw language) would be an aspect of "climate change," also referring solely to the phenomenon of warming entirely aside from causation, then an explanation that, to put it way I haven't seen explained, uses "warming" and "change" as verbs indicating causation, i.e., an effect being "forced," with an implication that it is human activity forcing it. The terminology section should avoid the controversy and simply describe what terminology is being used and how. If not for the more specified usage (i.e., "global warming" equals "anthropogenic global warming"), we wouldn't be discussing cause in the terminology section at all. It should really be possible for editors representing all POVs to agree on the terminology section and, I'll note, if we can't agree on terms, we are ''really'' going to have difficulty agreeing on more complex subjects.

:::This article may need some more explicit substructure so that we don't need to constantly re-invent the wheel here, and new editors coming in with new POVs can quickly be brought up to speed on why the article is the way it is. Otherwise it can look to a new editor that there is a brick wall here, i.e., some bias being maintained by a cabal. And some editors defending the article against new editors who are ignorant of or, alternatively, don't care about prior arguments and debates and consensus, can become rather cynical, abrupt, sarcastic, and/or uncivil, amplifying that impression. Rather, new editors should be welcomed and guided and aided to become part of the community of consensus. Even if they arrive as intent on promoting "The Truth."

:::"Okay, here is why the article is the way it is: [link to specific discussion on issue]. If there is some flaw in the reasoning there, or something we missed, please work on that page to correct or expand it, so that our consensus can grow. If, however, the arguments you would present have already been clearly presented, and rejected or incorporated in the consensus, please turn your attention to remaining flaws (surely there are some!), or, alternatively, find some support for a reconsideration from those who participated in the past, or other experienced editors."

:::The goal should be that all ''reasonable'' editors, no matter what POV, will agree that the article fairly presents verifiable information on the topic. Sometimes, in this, small nuances of meaning become important; and if we want consensus to grow, and not merely mean "supermajority," we must respect minority opinion to the maximum extent possible, without falling into [[WP:UNDO|undue weight]]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

: The [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg3.pdf IPCC] defines it this way

::''Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.''

:I don't agree that natural warming is omitted "by definition", and I have other issues with this definition, but this is the definition this article should use. [[User:Q Science|Q Science]] ([[User talk:Q Science|talk]]) 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

At this moment, the full definitions from the EPA are back; they note that their general definition (warming without specification of cause) and a common usage (anthropogenic global warming) are different, and they note, further, the shift to "climate change" because of the broader significance. Historically, the Earth has warmed without anthropogenic contributions, and if that is what is happening now, or is part of what is happening now, or is simply ''claimed to be'' part of what is happening now, how can we even discuss it unless we distinguish between the warming and its cause? We have this word [[anthropogenic]], and we have had this in the Terminology section from before. Is "anthropogenic global warming" a redundant phrase? If global warming is, by definition, anthropogenic, which is a common usage, then there is nothing to discuss except whether global warming exists or not. So a GW skeptic is forced, by the way the terms are defined, to argue that there isn't any "global warming," even if he or she knows that it's getting warmer. This is the stuff of endless political confusion and spin. Let's stop spinning, sit down, and work carefully. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

== Does global warming include ocean temperatures or not ? ==

The article's second sentence currently claims

"The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005."

But this sentence needs clarification in respect of its estimate of global warming ostensibly not including ocean temperatures such as included in the opening definition of global warming, thus possibly inflating the value inasmuch as ocean temperatures are cooler than air temperatures.

It also needs clarification in respect of its estimate being for the last century rather than for the half century specified in the opening definition, thus apparently inflating the value further.

I now repeat this pedagogical point yet again, for the third time, for the extremely hard of understanding and illiterate:

1) The statistic of global warming provided in the second sentence is ostensibly for a different entity than that defined in the opening definition, namely an average for the air only versus an average for air + oceans

2) The statistic of global warming provided in the second sentence is for a different period than that defined in the opening definition.

I replaced this logically irrelevant and possibly misleading sentence with the following sentence that (i) covers the same period as the opening definition of global warming and (ii) which I believe also includes ocean temperatures as in the opening definition of global warming:

"According to the 2004 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.65 °C (1.17 °F) at the Earth's surface."

Note that the locution "at the Earth's surface" does not exclude surface ocean temperatures.

But Kenosis deleted it without providing any valid justification or apparently understanding the problem here.

So I therefore restore my proposed sentence and ask Kenosis or anybody else to kindly desist from deleting it yet again without stating some valid justifying reason on this Talk page.

As for the opening definition of global warming, in spite of much blather and also some helpful comments, still no justifying source for this definition has been provided, so I flag it yet again. The reference seems to be IPCC, but where is it ?

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Logicus, I think you've already made your basic POV fairly clear. Whatever your specific content disputes about this article may be, please don't delete important citations from the article. Fortunately, a bot reinserted the citation to the IPCC report.<br>..... The sentence you removed from the body text of the article was: ''"The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 [[Plus-minus sign|±]] 0.18&nbsp;°[[Celsius|C]] (1.33 ± 0.32&nbsp;°[[Fahrenheit|F]]) during the 100 years ending in 2005."'', citing to the same IPCC source as the warming in the "past five decades". As to the consensus choice to include that sentence in the article, it's not at all illogical to note the IPCC's conclusions about climate change over the past hundred years, despite the opening reference to "since the mid-20th century". That's an editorial decision that is a consensus decision, a reasonable one I might add. The choice was made by general consensus of participating WP editors to note at the outset a slightly longer trend of warming that covers the last century, while stopping well short of changing the focus of the entire article from ''current'' and ''projected'' global warming, a pressing contemporary issue, to a broader generic definition that includes all discernible historical periods of warming that were ''not'' anthropogenic. Choosing the latter would result in a completely different focus of the article, and would entail much more discussion of prior non-anthropogenic warming trends going back to the beginning of what can be measured, e.g., from ice core samples. The mention of the temperature trend in the last hundred years in the article is thus by no means logically inconsistent with the use of "global warming" to refer to the trend since the fifties, which is the most commonly used context of the words "global warming" in today's discourse. Rather, the sentence that mentions the warming over the last century is a totally reasonable extension of the chosen scope of this article. So are the graphs and statements in the article that refer to longer periods leading up to the last half century.<br>..... Having said that, speaking as just one more WP user, I would not in the least be opposed to revising the lead to set the context of the article to include anthropogenic warming going back a century or more. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Consensus is not always right, and previous consensus can be changed. Using a 100 year time scale then chopping in the next line to a 50 year time scale when you have a perfectly good 50 year source that illustrates the same point is being inconsistent for the sake of what? I personally see nothing useful being achieved by using the wider reference over the shorter... [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It seems relevant to me to ask whether the article would be harmed by having an introduction that indicates some varying meaning with context? eg: "Global warming refers to increasing global average near-surface temperatures but the precise meaning can depend on context. The most commonly used context implies the warming in recent decades on [[Earth]] which many scientific organisations have found to be mostly anthropogenic." Probably a bit woolly but might that be better than being overly precise to the point of being wrong? [[User:C-randles|crandles]] ([[User talk:C-randles|talk]]) 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:::: I think we're manufacturing ambiguity. The statement is fine as it is. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 04:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Positive Feedback ==

"The major positive feedback is caused by increased introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere". Evaporation of water vapor, and dethawing of methane hydrates (which are then evaporated) are positive feedbacks. Emissions of fossil fuel burning is not a feedback because they are not induced by warming itself. Was there something else you were referring to that is the 'major positive feedback'? --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:The "Forcing and feedback" section is going downhill at an alarming rate. "The forces that drive climate change are said to be operating in a system called forcing." -- what the...? It gets worse from there. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I put that in purely for definitive and introductory purposes, to aid people. I have zero problem with you changing that sentence, if you can think of better wording. Where "it gets worse from there", well, point it out or change it as you wish and we'll see, my mind reading is weak today. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 19:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Do you mean Skyemoor's edits? He took my August is hottest vs Solstice is June analogy out, and maybe some other things, I haven't gotten around to it yet, and was a bit equivocal about the analogy thing anyway. I thought it was good because it was an commonly observable analogy of the principle of the lag between forcing and warming, but bad because it wasn't direct evidence. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"The major positive feedback is caused by increased introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere". Evaporation of water vapor, and dethawing of methane hydrates (which are then evaporated) are positive feedbacks. Emissions of fossil fuel burning is not a feedback because they are not induced by warming itself. Was there something else you were referring to that is the 'major positive feedback'? --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:As far as I'm aware, we have the albedo effect, the thawing of [[methane clathrate]], the release of methane from thawing of permafrost regions, changes in rain forests that make them drier and more susceptible to catastrophic fire (which would release CO2), the possible decline of phytoplankton in warming waters (microbes that bury a fair bit of carbon when they absorb it through photosynthesis and then die and drift to the bottom), and possibly that organic decay and it's resulting release of gases would progress more quickly at warmer temps.

:I think it's self evident that the human burning of oil, wood or coal is not a form of feedback (unless you're trying to make social or economic arguments, which are not the topic of this article). Burning fossil fuels can certainly cause feedbacks, however, and it's also true that the production of greenhouse gases is one of the feedback mechanisms (just not from fossil fuels). I don't see anything wrong with the statement "The major positive feedback is caused by increased introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::Good response, these points should be in the article; anyone have any problems with me adding them? --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 10:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:::IMO, that section should have a brief statement in the first summary paragraph to the effect that the primary positive feedback involves an increase in GHGs caused by warming itself. I understand it may be delicate, but I'm sure there's a way to do it to make it clear to the reader it involves a loop of sorts. As it stands now, the summary paragraph appears to imply that negative feedback is offsetting anthropogenic warming, which it is not. Additionally, it's now clear to me that at some point it'll need a ''brief'' statement about methane/permafrost as well, something like a concise version of what Short Brigade Harvester Boris put in a week or so ago. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 12:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::"the primary positive feedback involves an increase in GHGs caused by warming itself" -- assuming this means water vapor acting as GHG it's true but too vague, as it could be interpreted to mean other GHG. Why not simply say that the primary positive feedback is the water vapor feedback? [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::That might help to avoid confusion. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 17:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::OK, got it covered [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=244184923&oldid=244044080 here]. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 18:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

==So why is land temperature excluded from the opening definition?==
The opening definition of 'global warming' states
"Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation."
Presumably ‘near-surface air and oceans’ means 'the near-surface air and near-surface ocean temperatures' , with the qualifier 'near-surface' being distributed over both 'air' and 'oceans', as in 'near-surface (air and oceans)' to use algebraic bracketing, rather than just over 'air'. I presume so because I presume it is practically impossible to get an average temperature for the whole volume of the Pacific Ocean, for example, right to its very bottom, and that only near-surface temperature measurement is practically possible.
So it seems we have four categories to consider in understanding the opening definition of 'global warming', namely
(1) near-surface air temperatures above the land
(2) near-surface air temperatures above oceans ( or above all seas or even any water, including lakes) ?
(3) near-surface land temperatures
(4) near-surface ocean temperatures (or of all seas or even of any water, including lakes ?)
So the question now arises for the opening definition of why near-surface ocean temperatures are included in the measurement along with near-surface air temperatures over both land and sea, but near-surface land temperatures apparently excluded from it ?
So who is it that defines global warming as a warming of the average of near-surface air temperatures across both land and sea and near-surface ocean temperatures, but excluding near-surface land temperatures ?
This apparently bizarre definition surely need some scientifically authoritative source to be quoted to ensure us that it is indeed this specific measurement and the warming (or not) of these three specific entities the scientific debate and this article is concerned with.
Is this the IPCC definition of what specific temperatures the global warming issue is to be concerned with ? If so where is it to be found ?
Thus yet again I flag this opening definition for a citation, and one which justifies its exclusion of land temperatures.
--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:Your presumption is wrong. "Land temperatures" are not a useful concept in this context, as "land" is extremely diverse, and neither well-mixed, well-behaved, or even well-defined. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 18:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:The temperature of the land gets significantly hotter and colder than the temperature of the air 10 or 20 feet above the land. Therefore, temperature measurements are made in boxes some distance above the ground. For the oceans, buoys and satellites measure the water temperature, not the air. As a result, there is a lot of uncertainty about the actual average temperature, but much less disagreement about the change in temperature. This is because the measurement techniques are consistent. [[User:Q Science|Q Science]] ([[User talk:Q Science|talk]]) 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Logicus comments on replies''':

'''To Stephan''': No, rather it seems that both of my two presumptions stated were indeed correct. And your further observations imply land temperatures are indeed excluded from the measure, which therefore answers my question. Thank you !
[Are you saying my presumption that ocean temperatures are near-surface temperatures is wrong, and wrong because it is the temperature of the wholy body of water ?--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)]

'''To Q Science''': You seem to imply near surface air temperatures over oceans are not included, and hence whereby the opening definition is false, and together in consideration of Stephan's comments, should rather say 'near surface air temperatures over land and near surface ocean temperatures'. Would you agree ? Thus we should have something of the following ilk for the opening definition:

‘Global warming is an increase in the [[Instrumental temperature record|average measured temperature]] of the [[Earth]]'s near-surface air temperatures over land and near-surface ocean temperatures...’

If this is correct in this respect, then the next question that arises is why the near surface temperatures of seas, lakes and rivers are not included. Should 'oceans' perhaps be replaced by 'marine' or 'seas' at the very least ?

And thanks for your information. I must say I see no valid reason in the points you make for excluding land temperatures, and also it is difficult, prima facie, to see how there can possibly be less disagreement about changes in average termperature than there is about what the average is itself ? But thanks again!

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

: I think the lead sentence should be very general, even if it is not 100% correct, and the details should be placed in other sections. For instance, the points you want to make appear to be covered in [[Instrumental temperature record]]. What bothers me about the definition are the lack of the word '''theory''' and the inclusion of a time frame, which imply (to me) that this is a political definition. The [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg3.pdf IPCC definition] actually refers to the increase in temperature caused by people. At any rate, the lead section should represent general usage of the phrase, even if it is scientifically incorrect, and arguing the science should be else where. [[User:Q Science|Q Science]] ([[User talk:Q Science|talk]]) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Logicus to Q Science:''' Thanks ! Could you possibly please kindly say what that IPCC definition of global warming is by quoting it and where exactly it is to be found ?

:I went to the effort to put a link to the definition in my response. Why don't you click on it? [[User:Q Science|Q Science]] ([[User talk:Q Science|talk]]) 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::I suspect clickoreadophobia. Symptoms include being unable to click a link and read its contents because of the fear the Algore will eat you. Logicus has demonstrated repeatedly that he will not read the references cited in the article before commenting on them. [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=243951890&oldid=243950085] [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=244195678&oldid=244186754] [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=next&oldid=244396793] - [[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 17:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the increase in temperature caused by people is quite different from and less than the 0.65 °C increase in temperature of 'the last half century' ? Do you know what the difference is ? This simple issue seems very confused.

Also I am not aware of wanting to make any points other than ensuring pedagogical conceptual clarification of the current confusion and also getting some simple consistent answers to the basic questions of what warming has been and what anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases there have been, etc.

So could you kindly please specify what points you think I want to make that appear in the 'Instrumental temperature record' article ? --[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
: It's my understanding that the precise percentage of human contribution has significant uncertainty brackets as well as some disagreement. The article makes reference to what is verifiable by citing reliable sources, which is the consensus position that this percentage is "most" of the observed warming. It's important to not be more specific than sources can support, because that would be false certainty and intellectual fraud. I suspect if you read the relevant peer reviewed literature you would find some varying estimates.

:I also don't think it's reasonable for you to ask other editors to do your research for you. The reference that Q Science provided to you has a definition of "Global Warming" in it's glossary that is easily found by either
:* Going to the glossary and following the alphabetical order down to "Global warming or...
:* Searching the PDF for "Global Warming." There are about 10 hits. It won't take long to find the one you're looking for.

:Your unwillingness to exert these minimal efforts leads me to believe that you are here to create a disruption, and not to improve the article. If you don't feel like you know much about the topic, then perhaps it would be wise to edit a different article? [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Why are ocean temperatures excluded from the article's second statement? ==

This statement claims

"The average global '''air temperature near the Earth's surface''' increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005."[My emboldening]

Why does this IPCC statement of global warming for the last century omit near-surface ocean temperatures ? Does its estimate include them, as they are included in the opening definition, or not ? Thus I tag it for clarification or rewrite needed.

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:See e.g., [http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq] and [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/]. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Logicus to Boris:''' Thanks for these two references, Boris. If you have read them in spite of your reading difficulties with extended analyses, no doubt with such as Lenin’s Collected Works for example, then I hope you will agree with me that they both seem to testify that the relevant temperatures for determining global warming are taken to be those of (i) the air over land near its surface and (ii) near surface marine temperatures, rather than "global air temperature near the Earth's surface" specified in this statement, which apparently refers just to 'all temperatures of the air over both land and water globally just near their surfaces', thus including super marine air temperatures, contrary to your two references, and excluding near surface sub marine temperatures, again contrary to your two references.

Thus the logical conclusion is that this statement

"The average global AIR temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005."

is logically irrelevant information to the issue of identifying what global warming has been as defined in the opening definition of this article, namely

"Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air AND OCEANS since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation."

namely at least by virtue of omitting near surface ocean temperatures.

And the further questions arises of whether this statement for the last century is even true, if indeed air temperatures near the Earth's surface globally have ever been measured, or is even possibly undecided and undecidable because this temperature is unknown if near surface air temperatures over all water globally (i.e. over oceans, seas, lakes and rivers etc) have never been measured, which I understand may indeed be the case.

So I propose yet again this twofold logically irrelevant and misleading statement should be replaced by an alternative of the ilk I proposed before in an effort to begin reducing the current thickets of conceptual confusion in this appallingly confused and confusing article.

It was as follows:

"According to the 2004 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.65 °C (1.17 °F)."

I also note you have said above in recognition of my pointing out the multiple conflicting and thus confusing conceptions of global warming in this article:

“Given the fact that there are multiple definitions from reputable sources that disagree in one detail or another, what do you propose that we do? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC) “

What I am proposing is the article be standardised with some simple, uncontroversial and adequate general definition of global warming that is consistently adhered to throughout the article to eliminate its confusingly repeated concept-shifting, such as the one I proposed, but which was rejected without any valid objections in my view.

It was

‘Global warming is an increase in the [[Instrumental temperature record|average measured temperature]] of the [[Earth]]'s near-surface air and [[ocean]]s.’

but in the light of subsequent information should probably now be

‘Global warming is an increase in the [[Instrumental temperature record|average measured temperature]] of the [[Earth]]'s near-surface air temperatures over land and near-surface ocean temperatures.’

Here I leave aside the further question of whether it should be ‘marine’ rather than ‘ocean’ to at least include all seas.

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 17:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, the "2004 Fourth Assessment Report" was a mistake. The Fourth IPCC Assessment Report is "Climate Change 2007" ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 18:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Logicus to Kenosis:''' Thanks ! Can I take it you would then agree to the following replacement for the unacceptable current second sentence that confusingly quotes warming for both a different entity and a different period rather than for those specified in the opening definition of warming ?:

"According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.65 °C (1.17 °F)."

Can you confirm this claim refers to ''both'' near land surface air temperatures and ''near surface ocean temperatures'', rather than excluding the latter ? I believe it does.

And is the five decades in question the period 1957-2007, or some other ?

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:Here's a novel idea: actually read some references for yourself, such as the IPCC Working Group I Summary for Policymakers, instead of simply disputing everything based on personal conjecture. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)



== So wot is the human contribution to global warming then? ==
''Note: The following thread has been moved from William M Connolley's user talk page to here, where it is more relevant and can be viewed by interested users.''

Logicus copies here what was originally posted as a query to Mr? Connolley on his User Talk page, but since it was turned into an open discussion by others, it ought to be posted here. As follows:
''Re-insterted by [[User:Babakathy|Babakathy]] ([[User talk:Babakathy|talk]]) to carry code, links etc'''

______________________________________________

Dear Mr Connolley

I would be most grateful if you could kindly provide me with any scientifically accepted values to the variables V, W, X, Y, & Z in the following propositions, as I have already requested of anybody in [[Talk: Global Warming]]:

1) X% of the global warming of approximately 0.65 °C in the last half century has been caused by a Z% increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,

2) X% of the global warming of approximately 0.65 °C in the last half century has been caused by a Y% increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

3) X% of the global warming of approximately 0.65 °C in the last half century has been caused by a W% increase in the anthropogenic proportion of greenhouse gas concentrations

4) The anthropogenic proportion of greenhouse gases is now V%

As you may appreciate, the unfortunate impression created by the current Wiki article on GW is that nobody really has a scientific precise quantitative clue what the human contribution to global warming is, which surely cannot be the case.

Best Regards

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps you should read up on this instead? Your questions 1-3 are the same one (Z=Y=W). Since the increase in GHG's can be attributed ~100% to humans. As for #4 try comparing the pre-industrial levels with the current levels - and you can figure it out for yourself. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 22:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Actually the proportion of the GHG increase attributable to human activity is more like 230% (i.e., the airborne fraction is around 0.43). [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Very untrue. Even discounting the section on solar causation theories, the IPCC report itself lends a small but not-zero weight within the temperature change to solar activity. As it is also a matter of scientific consensus that CO2 increases can occur in ''response'' to temperature increases (theoretical positive feedback, proven by ice core data - CO2 lags temperature etc ad nausium), stating that Z=Y=W is incorrect where natural causes have a > zero net weight. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 06:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's not quite clear whom you are talking to. But quite apart from global warming, there is overwhelming consensus that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is entirely anthropogenic, as, as Boris pointed out and you ignored, we have emitted about 2.5 times of the surplus CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural sinks, especially the ocean, have responded by an increased uptake of CO2. That is because in the short term (years to decades), the response to an increased abundance of CO2 is an increase in the rate of CO2 uptake (the balance between CO2 in the atmosphere and in the surface water of the ocean is restored at a higher level). One concern is indeed that in the longer term the warmer temperatures will decrease the ability of natural sinks to take up CO2, that natural sources and reservoirs may become more productive, and that hence the net natural contribution may become positive. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 07:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Way back there. Where is this overwhelming consensus that the increase is ''entirely'' anthropogenic coming from? Lets say that the midpoint numbers given by the IPCC are accurate and ignore the uncertainty ranges (per WMC). This means a non-zero contribution to GW from increased solar activity. Now, even had humans not been emitting CO2, this would have led to an increase in global temperatures, and per observed and theorised data, an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
::::::That we are emitting 2.5x the increase means the entire increase is anthropogenic sounds persuasive, and people who have little grounding in the subject beyond watching an [[an inconvenient truth|alarmist "documentary" film]] and perhaps its [[The Great Global Warming Swindle|misleading "documentary" response]] might even accept that, but to say that the present increase is certainly wholly sourced from human activity is incorrect, assuming feedback theories are accurate and increased solar forcing exists. One can quite reasonably assume that if solar forcing was zero, causing net feedback CO2 to be zero, natural CO2 sinks would have aborbed additional anthropogenic CO2, leaving a reasonable argument to attribute a proportion of the increase to "natural" causes.
::::::Apart from that I really am down to semantics. I guess it is ''possible'' that all CO2 released due to solar forcing is re-abosrbed along with the rest of the anthropogenic component, and only an anthropogenic increase exists. However I believe the probability of that (every additional "natural" molocule being re-absorbed) would be mathmatically expressible as zero. The net increase from natural effects might be quite negligable; but if it is non-zero, then stating "all increase is due to humans" is inaccurate. Thus, Z =/ X =/ Y. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 08:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Actually - perhaps not? Per [http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbontrends/index.htm] "Natural land and ocean CO2 sinks have removed 54% (or 4.8 PgC per year) of all CO2 emitted from human activities during the period 2000-2007." 57% or 54% depends on timeframe and I suspect lower now but I have no issue with the precise figure. If this removal is in response to anthropogenic emissions, doesn't this natural removal get allocated as an anthropogenic effect? I think Williams slightly over 100% is correct based on solar and volcanic forcings being to have a slight cooling effect. [[User:C-randles|crandles]] ([[User talk:C-randles|talk]]) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: You can't say "very untrue". Its either untrue or not. Boris was talking about fraction of GHG increase, whereas you are talking about fraction of temperature change. The IPCC gives a small positive to solar forcing from 1750, but I think includes 0 within the uncertainty. I was talking about since 1950 [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 07:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::At risk of being stripped of my science credentials, possibly being shot by the side of the road by the National Academy of Sciences (thereby preventing me from ever becoming a member, sadly), exactly how can we test, let alone prove, that humans have any effect on the weather? I understand the data, but the world was warmer 2000 years ago, and there are what 100X more humans on the planet than there were then? Logicus (who needs to quit using words as if he were mobile texting) asks questions that I'd love to have answered. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Which data sets are you drawing from that lead you to believe the Earth was warmer 2000 years ago? -_[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 13:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::OM: Remember your basic calculus? Velocity, acceleration, and changes in rate of acceleration? This would have something to do with 1) an unprecedented acceleration of warming in an already very warm period; 2) CO<sup>2</sup> and CH<sup>4</sup> levels, which are known to be closely correlated with imminent rises in temperature, levels unmatched since in something like 125,000 years; and 3) unprecedented acceleration of increase in CO<sup>2</sup>, and likely in CH<sup>4</sup> levels. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 23:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I suspect there is a common misconception that atmospheric models are constructed by fitting historical records and extrapolating into the future. They aren't. Instead they combine the physics of radiative transfer, thermodynamics, and fluid dynamics, the basics of which were worked out decades or centuries ago. Historical rates of temperature change aren't directly used to predict the future (albeit past observations are useful for testing and refining our computational methods by "predicting the past" so to speak). As an aside I don't think we should be using William's talk page for chat and tutorial, though I suppose I just did. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed you did. ;-) Nice explanation; thanks. I'm outta here. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 00:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Don't worry, carefully vetting guests are welcome [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: Ouch. I guess my [[Humor|highly scientific]] pee theory isn't welcome then. <small>sad puppy</small> [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::: Oops. I meant vetted, not vetting. As a well-behaved puppy I'm sure you've been properly vetted :-) [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Its [[User_talk:MastCell#Urine_therapy|Magic Pee]]. That's what causes the warming. Really. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there something similar to [[http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg]] for the last 50 years? If you actually tried to work out W X Y and Z I think you would find they are different. 12:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:V W and Y would seem to be misleading figures. Comparison of X and Z seems a pointless non relevant comparison. X might be ~153% for 1750 to present based on 1.72 w/m2 total forcing and 2.64W/m2 forcing for greenhouse gases. However, the forcing diagram/Table in IPCC4 does not seem to indicate any figures for volcanic aerosol effect. The figures obviously change depending upon what period you want to look at. Therefore not suprised that no-one want to quote figures they would only be misused. Looks like I could be wrong about Williams a bit more than 100% being accurate. [[User:C-randles|crandles]] ([[User talk:C-randles|talk]]) 13:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Logicus, you are clearly a person who values precision! This is indeed welcome; I applaud your attitude. But alas, you are falling well below your own high standards, a failing which I cannot doubt you deplore now that you are aware of it. I can help you though: you have erred in my title: I will embarass you no further until you have corrected your oversight [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:He hasn't erred unless you are not a man, which I presume not to be true. But I suppose that's neither here nor there. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 21:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


--------------------------------------------------

'''Logicus to Mr? Connolley''': My apologies for getting your title wrong, if indeed I did so. But what is it ? Mrs Connolley, Master Connolley, Lord Connolley, Dr Connolley, Professor Connolley, Great Helmsman Connolley, Scientific Officer Connolley etc ? Please enlighten me that you may further enlighten me with answers to these basic questions. Please note, and also Boris, that a proportion of an increase cannot logically be more than 100% of the increase. --[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps if you actually read a citation or two provied in the article and on this talk page, instead of frivilously requesting more, you might actually answer some of those questions you have. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 18:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Terminology ==

From the lead -

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

From the first line of #terminology -

''The term "global warming" refers to increase in the Instrumental temperature record due mostly to Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) due mostly to increasing Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) caused primarily by human activities.[12]''

From the last line of #terminology -

''The term "anthropogenic global warming" refers to contributions to global warming that are caused by human activity.''


The lead and the first line of the terminology section are inconsistent, while the last line needs some work if things are left status quo. Perhaps "the term AGW refers to contributions to GW explicitely caused by human activity", moved to be an appendage to the first line per using "further" as a joiner.

"Caused by" vs "attributed" - the source we give maximum weight to in this article is of course the IPCC reports. According to IPCC terminology there is a 90% confidence that >50% of the recent warming was caused by human activity. This is an attribution, not a definitive causation. Further, using "attributed" is consistent with other areas of WP, notably [[attribution of recent climate change]]. I propose the terminology section be adjusted accordingly. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 03:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:Let's look at the last first, it's easiest. "Anthropogenic global warming" I'd simplify to "refers to global warming caused by human activity." It's that, by definition. Putting "attributed" there is making a distinction between a horse and "an animal referred to as a horse." Sure "refers to global warming attributed to human activity" says the same thing, in practice. But we could split this semantic toothpick the other way: if it isn't "really" caused by human activity, but only attributed to that, then it isn't "really" anthropogenic. Simple. And I'd take out the "contributions to," since warming can be additive (or subtractive). I.e., there can be global warming caused by human activity, and global warming caused by volcanic activity. The 64 trillion dollar question is how much global warming is anthropogenic, isn't it? I'll make an edit to the article to reflect this, then come back, see what happens. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:Now, what's "global warming"? Is cause a part of the definition? That would be exceedingly strange. There is clearly the possibility of global warming from other causes. The ''cause'' of global warming is a separate matter from its definition. The definition in the lead is simple. It gets muckier in the Terminology section. Why? The definition there is sourced, and this is what is in the source:

::''Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.''

:It seems to me that our definition has been cut down from what is in the source, and we ended up with that little phrase, "in common usage," being missing. It's important. In fact, that's a gov't web site, I'll assume the definition can be copied. If that's wrong, somebody paraphrase, please. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:Another editor had inserted a "scientific consensus" qualifier in the definition, that was overwritten by the definition from the EPA, and it really doesn't belong there. This is a definition of the term "global warming," and I'm not aware of any controversy over it, actually. We don't need to know the cause to define the phenomenon, nor even to know if the phenomenon is happening. I saw, making the edit, that the "common usage" was in the footnote, but that was extracting the special case and putting it in the article, with the context in the footnote, when the whole thing is clear and simple in the text itself. It's basically saying that, in common usage, "global warming" has come to mean "anthropogenic global warming." Accepting -- in the sense of relying upon -- the "common usage" here is precisely what we should not do. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose to change "includes" to "can describe" re ''Climate Change''. The term is used in situations where some but not all of the definitions listed after this point are included, eg, a change in rainfall patterns can be called "Climate Change" alone. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 06:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:The definition I inserted was taken verbatim from the EPA site. A definition shouldn't be changed without a better source. A clause was removed by an editor,[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=244934699&oldid=244923591]. The removal changes the meaning. Is there a basis for restricting "global warming" to the surface alone? I've reverted because the edit summary was ''trim to shared meaning element of multiple definitions,'' but I'd prefer to look at the other definitions first (consider me dim on the topic, standing in for that reader out there who is supposed to be able to verify everything), no other definitions are sourced in this section of the article. If this definition is to be changed, please source the change, we shouldn't synthesize a new definition, at least not without careful consensus on it. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:I've rearranged the Terminology section, setting off the terms, wikifing, and using quoted definitions for the most part. Please review. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Please don't assume that the EPA knows what its talking about, particularly in material like this. Also, this article needs to decide what the terminology section is about. Is it to tell people how the external world uses these words (which will be tricky, because each has multiple meanings) or how wiki GW articles are going to use the words? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=245039891&oldid=245035989 This edit] once again gets the terminology section down to basics. Thanks, WMC. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I make no such assumption about the EPA, and certainly not the present one. However, if their definition isn't reliable, why have we sourced the definition to them? Connolley didn't change that! What Connolley did was to remove the general definition of global warming to leave only the specific definition. This is exclusion of sourced material and potentially creates a POV imbalance. Since Connolley has had long experience with this article and the topic, he might be a bit bewildered as to what is going on, and, so, I'll invite him to examine the reasoning behind the inclusion of the full definition from the source. I'll make a single revert to restore my version, incorporating what I can from what came after; beyond that, we'll see.

::::There was also a reason for the separation into paragraphs of the various definitions. It makes it easier to read, to see that there are variant definitions, to discriminate between these definitions. My thought as I put it together was that it could be improved, but I don't think that mashing it back together accomplishes this. It almost never improves readability.

::::With [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=245026174&oldid=245025268], Kenosis removed the conditional "can" -- which is unarguably true -- and replaced it with the definitive "occur" [sic, should have been occurs], which is unnecessary as part of the general definition; thus he altered the definition in the source. As is clear from his edit comment, he's aware that there is potential spin involved. "Whitewash" implies that there is some "blackening" that ought to be there. It is not our job to blacken or whitewash, it is to accurately report, being faithful to sources. We need be careful about spinning in "our" direction to remove spin in "their direction." Facts, in isolation, out of context, often cause a spin, and the solution is generally to restore the context, not to replace them with other spin-causing facts that we prefer.

::::As to Connolley's question re the purpose of the Terminology section, I'd propose that it is two-fold. It's clear to me that the section should define the terms as used in the sources, which involves reporting significant variations; the section as I had it did that (courtesy of the EPA, but also from past text). Where we are going to use a term in a particular way that doesn't match an outside consensus, we should explicitly state it. As an example, we could say that "This article uses 'global warming' to refer to the temperature phenomenon, without prejudice as to its cause." I prefer that, because it is very important to be able to examine the phenomenon independently from its causes. If we don't agree that we have this warming effect, i.e., that temperatures are rising, what hope do we have of finding agreement as to causes? It teases out the issues, which is an essential element in serious consensus-building. There is disagreement about the warming, it appears, but it seems to be far less extensive than disagreement about the causes (and thus about the prognosis). --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::''...without prejudice as to its cause'' won't work, because some definitions specifically mention causality, e.g. [http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_warming][http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/global+warming]. Better simply to leave causality unmentioned than to give a definition that contradicts [[WP:V|reliable sources]]. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I reverted, which I probably shouldn't have done, but the deed is complete. So, here are my issues. First, the EPA, being a governmental agency run by a bunch of Republican bureaucrats, is hardly a reliable source. In other words, their terminology is self-serving to the Bush administration. In fact, if we were discussing a natural increase in the earth's warmth, we might be using "global warming" as terminology. But in fact, it is understood that global warming means human caused. I'm sure there's some geologic term for global warming like Interglacial Temperature Maximum or something like that. As for the causes of global warming, that's a violation of [[WP:WEIGHT]]. It makes it sound all are equal. In case you're going to non-AGF me because you assume that I'm a pro-global warming is caused by humans scientist, you'd be wrong. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm not going to revert you, OM, because that would be edit warring, and I don't do that, period. I'm a bit uncomfortable about impeaching a source because it's "Republican." In fact, a ''lot'' uncomfortable. Sure, it's a political source. ''But it's the source for the definition.'' We have two choices: we use a definition, or definitions, as we find them in the sources, which would include all notable sources, or we make up our own, which is highly problematic, as any experienced Wikipedian will recognize. I'm not a scientist, I am a theoretician of a different kind; I assume good faith for all participants here. We all have POVs, scientists, politicians, truck drivers. We find consensus by looking for agreement and building it, by respecting the process of discussion and all the POVs involved. Even a holder of a fringe POV will often agree that this POV is fringe, and will understand that it can't be given front position. But that POV holder will be quite useful to us, to the project, if we respect his or her rights in our discussions. '''It is crucial that majority POVs respect minorities, or division is maintained and propagated, positions harden, and our community becomes inflexible.'''

::::::However, if your edit was something you "shouldn't have done," you have an easy remedy! I agree that there is a problem with the EPA as a source. But that's the source in the text you restored! I don't think we can pick the half of their definition that we like! ''This is exactly what true POV-pushers and spin doctors do!'' The solution, I'd suggest, is to ''attribute'' the definitions. So we would have "According to the EPA ...." "On the other hand, the IPCC defines global warming as ....''

::::::It's an error to consider a list of possible causes of warming to violate [[WP:WEIGHT]], as long as the causes are notably claimed to be significant ones. (It's a separate question as to whether or not we insist on peer-reviewed publications, that's a huge can of worms.) It's possible to remove that list of causes, ''if'' we aren't talking in the terminology section about causation at all, which is a problem, because of the existence of usage that presumes cause. I'm having to repeat myself, now, it's time to do something else. I suspect the article will still be here tomorrow.

::::::I have no axe to grind here, beyond "pushing" sound consensus process. I happen to be a "believer" in anthropogenic global warming, in practice, though I'm ''generically'' a skeptic about ''everything.'' --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::If the US EPA is not considered reliable, why is it not removed and replaced with a more reliable source? In any case I do not believe the US EPA could be rendered unreliable under WP:RS no matter what our collective political persuasion. Is the EPA going to be considered "reliable" again in december after the pending landslide is complete and it comes under the control of appointed Democrats? This is getting uncomfortably close to paranoid lefty conspiracy theorism.
:::::::In any case the remedy to a source that the consensus does not want to quote verbatim is simple - find a better source. [[WP:Syn|Synthesising]] the source into something acceptable is not really appropriate. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 23:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I suggest we look at review articles published in Science or Nature and see how they define it. This wiki article is based purely on peer reviewed articles as far as the science is concerned, so we should define the term in the way it is used in the peer reviwed literature. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 23:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I have had this argument on medical articles. Government agencies do not a reliable source make. They have a political agenda, from which we cannot [[WP:SYNTH|synthesize]] an interpretation. And even though an Obama EPA will fit my POV more in 2009, I will still contend it fails as a reliable source. If the Journal of Geology writes an article stating that "we are officially name this era the Interglacial Temperature Maximum of the Holocene and it is a result of both natural and human cause, etc. etc. etc.", that would be fine. As of today, it does not exist. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

==So wot is global warming ?==

'''Logicus update on the latest state of the continuing profound confusion in the definition of 'gobal warming’'''

This article currently [at 4 pm 13 October] includes or presupposes at least the following three different mutually inconsistent conflicting definitions of global warming and the temperatures they refer to.

1) The unsourced opening definition:
"Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation."

2) The 'Terminology' section definition, apparently taken from the American EPA definition
"Global warming refers to an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and troposphere."

3) Footnote 2 to the claim of the second sentence that

"Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1][2]"

states

"Global surface temperature is defined in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report as the average of near-surface air temperature over land and sea surface temperature."

(We note here that the previous version of the second sentence

"The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005."

on which Logicus requested clarification at least because it excluded sea temperature, is thus apparently now judged to have been false, as he suspected, and was apparently due to a drafting error, at least insofar as it was intended to report an IPCC Report claim based on the IPCC definition of global surface temperature.)

COMMENT: For those WIki editors insufficiently literate in the English language to be able to identify the crucial differences between these three conflicting definitions, of whom this page sadly reveals there may be many, Logicus offers the following helpful analysis.

'''Definition 1''' : This definition (i) includes the temperatures of both the Earth's near surface AIR and also its (near surface?) OCEANS, (ii) restricts warming to that of the last half century and (iii) includes the presumption of its projected continuation.

Amongst other things, in respect of (i) it should be noted that this definition conflicts with those definitions of gobal warming that restrict air temperatures to just those over land, thus excluding some three-quarters of global near surface air temperatures, namely those over water. It also conflicts with those definitions that do not restrict near-surface water temperatures just to OCEANS, such as definitions that include near-surface MARINE or SEA temperatures, thus also including all those SEAS that are not OCEANS e.g. the Mediterranean.

'''Definition 2''': This definition conflicts with the opening definition because (i) it crucially excludes the near surface temperatures of OCEANS included in Definition 1, (ii) it includes the temperature of the troposphere excluded in Definition 1 and (iii) it uses the "average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface", whereas Definition 1 uses "the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air". But an average of increases in temperature, or indeed in anything, is not necessarily the same as an increase in average temperatures. Which is it ?
This definition also conflicts with all those definitions that exclude near-surface atmosphere temperatures over water, such as the IPCC definition of global surface temperature..

'''Definition 3''' of global surface temperature: This definition (i) excludes air temperatures over seas but (ii) includes troposphere temperatures, both in conflict with Definition 1. It also conflicts with it in respect of (iii) including SEA surface temperatures rather than OCEAN near-surface temperatures, presumably a muich wider marine domain.

And in conflict wth Definition 2, it (i) excludes near-surface air temperatures over seas and also (ii) excludes troposphere temperatures.

These three different conflicting definitions may each give three different quantitative answers to what global warming has been in any period.


I suggest the current radical confusion could possibly be reduced by

(1) clarifying whether the opening Definition 1 is really intended to be consistent with the IPCC definition of global surface temperature, but was just sloppily drafted to render it inconsistent with it at least by virtue of not excluding super-ocean and super-marine air temperatures

(2) Clarifying what on earth the American EPA definition

"Global warming refers to an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and troposphere."

means in respect of (i) 'an average increase in a temperature' in contrast to 'an increase in average temperature', and (ii) 'the temperature of the troposphere' as distinct from 'the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface'. Do these apparently confusing concepts just reflect bad draftmanship by Americans or other colonials (-: illiiterate in English, or do they make intended real distinctions ? Watch this space (-:

As things stand, the IPCC and American EPA definitions and thus concepts of global warming appear to be in significant conflict at least in respect of the former referring to some average of overland near-surface air temperatures and sea surface temperatures whilst the latter refers to some average of global near-surface air temperatures and also global troposphere temperatures over both land and seas and indeed over the whole global surface e.g. also including Amazon, Congo, Mississippi, but not including any marine or water surface temperatures.

They also conflict in respect of the IPCC definition only referring to anthropogenically caused increases in temperature, as follows:

Global warming
Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or
projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences
of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.

Thus for example the stated total global surface temperature increase of 0.74 degrees C in the last century may be greater than global warming on the IPCC anthropogenic definition.


UPDATE 7.15 pm 13 October: Kenosis has now changed the ‘Terminology’ section definition of global warming to

"Global warming" refers to an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface

This thus now excludes the troposphere temperature, whereby this definition is now longer verified by the American EPA source cited, which includes troposphere temperature.

This reduced definition now conflicts with the opening definition in respect of (i) including near surface atmospheric temperatures over all water and (ii) excluding ocean surface temperatures./


In conclusion I flag the opening definition for a verifying citation, still never provided, and also for clarification in respect of whether it was meant to conform with the IPCC definition of global surface temperature, but which it does not.

And I flag the Terminology section definition for a verifying citation, and also for clarification as to the meaning of 'an average increase of temperature'.

--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:Speaking as just one participant here, I have no fundamental objection to the inclusion of the words "and in the troposphere" in keeping with the source presently used to support that part of the "Terminology" section.Please note, though, that: (1) The phrase "near the Earth's surface" can easily be read as including the troposphere. And, (2) the words "near the Earth's surface" accommodate both the description of where the measurements are taken to establish long-running temperature averages worldwide, and accommodates as well the atmospheric layers that are involved, without opening up the virtually inevitable can of worms to follow on the talk page (and/or edit warring) over whether the stratosphere and other outer layers of the atmosphere should also then be included once the troposphere is mentioned. Those other layers are involved in GW too. I should think it's best to stick to the simple definition based upon where the measurements have consistently been made to date, which is expressed by the words "near the Earth's surface". ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As to Logicus' material above, some readers may be amused at my comment: tl;dr. That is ''not'' a criticism, just a fact. I'm going to take this slowly, but "near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere" is language from the definition. The definition is sourced to the same source that has been used for it previously. If we are going to use a definition from a source, we should be very careful about warping it, even subtly. WMC has objected below, apparently to the source; well, then, do we have a better one? There seems to be some idea that we can synthesize a new definition for our purposes based on multiple definitions out there. Indeed, we can. If we have consensus, and it better be a broad consensus, because that's WP:SYNTH and to overcome that requires a solid consensus. Narrowing definitions based on selective quotation is a common POV pushing technique, and the defense against it is to become more complete; it sometimes takes a few more words: POV advocates will complain that the detail is "confusing" or "too much for the article." I'm insisting on faithfulness to sources here. Got a better source? By all means, show us!

Back to the troposphere comment: I thought about rewording it, and we might do that. The [[troposphere]] includes the "atmosphere near the Earth's surface," so just "troposphere" would be correct, but ... that's not so good for a popular article. "Near the Earth's surface" to a common reader would imply air temperatures very near the surface, i.e., where we live. My conclusion was that, though it was a bit redundant, the definition as-is from the EPA was best, at least for now. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::Abd: What you say in the second paragraph of yours right above seems a fair enough argument. IMO, given the available range of major reliable sources we have to work with here, we ought add some more citations. But, this is of course an editing decision among the many participants in this article who come and go in varying degrees over time, depending on how controversial some particular issue(s) may be at a given time, depending on personal availability, etc. It seems to me that the use of the phrase "near the Earth's surface" is a completely reasonable editorial decision as to how to introduce to readers of varying levels of technical prowess the concepts and facts discussed in the article. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 01:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:May I point out this suggestion: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlobal_warming&diff=245042282&oldid=245041883]? As for the troposphere issue, the troposhere is, by definition, well-mixed, so any near-surface warming will affect the troposphere. However, I think the IPCC is a better source that EPA. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

::Marginally. I think the EPA is only more reliable a source than big oil, but that's just barely. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Better source for what? In fact, these sources represent the terms as used by different populations. I responded to the comment Stephan pointed to, above, after it. It may be that we end up with more definitions in the section. I have a compromise in mind, it may be easier to do it than to explain it. If the text is still there when I look! --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: There is more than one definition of GW. They are not necessarily strictly compatible. Reverting one back in on the grounds that the EPA sez so isn't going to work. Stop it. The IPCC defn [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=245042282&oldid=245041883] Stephan quotes Q quoting says ''Global warming refers to the gradual increase... as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions''. Literally, this defines GW as anthropogenic and rules out a natural cause. We're not going to use that defn. We're going to write our own [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::WMC, I'm not sure what you're saying. I reverted back from using the EPA definition, which I don't consider to be reliable. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 21:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I was talking to Abd, not you :-) [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: William, I am sure that most of us can write a better definition than the IPCC. But aren't you the one who says '''no original research'''? I have collected quite a few definitions of '''Global Warming''' and '''Greenhouse Effect''', many from authoritative sites such as noaa and usgs. Some of the differences are shocking. For instance, most '''Greenhouse Effect''' definitions ignore sensible and latent heat, and some sites define '''Global Warming''' as a result of the '''Greenhouse Effect'''. As such, I think that it is wrong to define these terms separately. [[User:Q Science|Q Science]] ([[User talk:Q Science|talk]]) 22:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Re GHE: I agree. There are a shocking number of sites out there that should know better that illustrate the GHE by pix of the earth in a GH. This is why we shouldn't copy external sources blindly. Meanwhile, what are you proposing? I have pointed out a fatal flaw in the IPCC defn you quoted, for our purposes [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It seems you are missing the point, William (as did OM). ''We are using the EPA definition,'' sourcing our text to them. It's just that we stripped half of it out. That is ''not'' acceptable. That is distortion of sources, and is actually a serious problem. As to "writing our own," I've covered that above. It's a possibility. ''But it requires consensus,'' and probably true consensus, not merely some majority, because "writing our own definitions" is [[WP:SYNTH]] and probably won't be supported unless it is done very, very well. Meanwhile, what do we have until then? Something distorted from the source used to justify it? I've asked OM to revert himself, and suggested how he could balance out any possible spin coming from bias at the EPA source, or simply accidentally. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

: You've asked OM to self-rv. He has quite properly ignored you. I know you; you will talk about process endlessly, because thats what interests you. No, we're not using the EPA defn [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::Since editorial process seems to be part of the argument here, I'll weigh in again. I support WMC's assertion that this is an appropriate definition of GW according to the reliable sources, consistent with the long consensused scope of this article. I say this with only one caveat, which is that perhaps it would be useful to add additional sourcing to support this editorial decision. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 02:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::You ''think'' you know me, William. You once told me that I was trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs. I'm not old enough to be your grandmother, just to be your father. It's dangerous for a young man to assume he understands an old one. I asked OM to self-revert because his comment more or less invited it, i.e., he acknowledged that his revert was problematic. I asked him on his Talk page because it was a personal request. He did not ignore it, as you can see below.

::As to "not using the EPA defn," this is what is in the article, as this is written:

:::In common usage, '''''"Global warming"''''' refers to the recent average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface caused by emissions of [[greenhouse gases]] from human activities.<ref name="CCinfo">{{cite web | title = Climate Change: Basic Information | publisher = [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]]| url = http://epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html | accessdate = 2007-02-09 | date = [[2006-12-14]]}}</ref>

::From the EPA site:

:::In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

::Notice that our definition is, as it should be, and indeed must be, sourced. The source is the EPA site. On what basis can you claim, seeing this, that "we're not using the EPA defn"?

::But I must say, that it's correct we aren't using it. Because we have misquoted it, we've taken half of it and left out the other half. We've shifted the emphasis, and, from comments made here, it seems the shift is deliberate. We shifted emphasis because we have a ''point'' to make. But that is ''precisely'' what we are to avoid. That's POV spin. We took a complete definition, used half of it, then shoved around the other half, without any source, to shift the weight to a direction we think, presumably, is "better." In this case this seems to be an idea that "Global warming" should immediately be linked, automatically, for the reader, to anthropogenesis, and that this meaning of the word, the "common" one -- it's not quite clear what that means -- is what should lead. I find it problematic to consider this "scientific," though. It's always bad science to define effects in terms of presumed causes, no matter how much consensus is behind it. Lung cancer is a disease phenomenon, we don't need to describe it in terms of smoking. Global warming is a dangerous beast, no matter what is causing it.

::I mention the "other half." In the text I'd asserted, I simply copied the entire definition, as-is. What's in the current text includes this, not specifically sourced:

:::It may also, less commonly, be used to refer to other episodes of warming in Earth's history. In scientific circles, the phrase "anthropogenic climate change" may be preferred.

::This seems to be a rough equivalent to what the EPA has as the beginning of their definition.

:::Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced.

::Notice in our text we have the claim that "anthropogenic climate change" may be preferred in scientific circles. Preferred for what? For "global warming," of course. But what does that leave us as a term for warming of the planet, generic, covering "other episodes" or possible causes? Would you have us use "non-anthropogenic global warming" for that? It would be an oxymoron, though, if "global warming" means "human-caused warming." I think that the politics of this has gotten you wrapped up and committed to a particular position. Hang the politics. Let's go for simple, clear language, explicitly verifiable from reliable sources or attributed if the sources are reasonably questionable but still notable, and leave the spin to spin doctors, politicians, and other assorted fanatics and manipulators. We need to recognize spin, because it matters, but the way to fix spin isn't to insist on spin in a particular direction. It's to insist on clear verifiability, on avoidance of synthesis except where it truly enjoys consensus, to trust the reports of the "other side" when they say they see spin in some restricted version of the text, and to seek consensus on the text. Including those "POV pushers" who some are so quick to dismiss. If we could get rid of all "POV pushers," maybe, except I'm not sure we'd have many editors left to do the work.

::Damn straight I'll talk about process. Process isn't important when people quickly find consensus, but when that breaks down, as it obviously has, it becomes crucial. Wikipedia has truly ''excellent'' process available, when it's used and when people are paying attention. And it takes effort and it takes time, particularly if it is not to be disruptive. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The edit summary to this post immediately above said: ''''WMC, we are using the EPA definition, almost verbatim, sourced to the EPA. But just half of it. Our other half isn't sourced, unless to them and garbled'''' : I'll respond to that. I added the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report as an additional citation. There are numerous additional reliable sources for the definitional statement in the "Terminology" section which says "near the Earth's surface". The IPCC also uses an "almost verbatim" definition remarkably similar to that used by the EPA, but which can be very accurately related in this WP article simply by use of the words "near the Earth's surface". I don't mean to be the least bit "smart" here, but would anyone here care to hazard a guess which came first? (Hint: The 2007 IPCC report linked to in the citation was the Fourth report. The first IPCC Report was in 2004. The EPA document is dated 2005. But it's just a hint, because I haven't looked up the text of the IPCC First and Second Report yet.) ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The main IPCC Assessment reports are 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Dragons flight. I hadn't had a chance to find that out yet. So, the Third Assessment Report predates the EPA usage by four years. I still can't find the darn thing online. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::[http://www.ipcc.ch/glossary/index.htm IPCC - 1995, AR3 (2001), AR4 (2007) Glossaries] - Global Warming was not included until 2007. Maybe there is something inside the text. [[User:Q Science|Q Science]] ([[User talk:Q Science|talk]]) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the link. The words "global warming" are used 11 times in the 2001 glossary, though they're not really defined. Still trying to find an online access to the 2001 report itself. Either way, it's clear from scanning the 2007 report that the words "near the earth's surface" are a very reasonable expression of the terminology used in the Fourth Report. In the meantime, it appears the Terminology section itself is up for grabs. But it seems to me we ought be prepared to back up definitions with several citations, since as we already have reason to believe, the US EPA is not necessarily always the most objective of the available sources on such issues. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 18:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

== Your revert on [[Global warming]], move from [[User talk:Orangemarlin]] ==

OM, you [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=245072771&oldid=245072230 reverted my edit] restoring sourced material in the Terminology section of [[Global warming]], with the summary, ''I"m sorry, but the EPA is not a reliable source, being a governmental agency.'' Were you aware that the agency (the EPA) was the source for the definition there before my edit, in my edit, and in your restored version? If it's not a reliable source, something I'm not debating yet, then what ''is'' the reliable source for our definition? I'm sure that the EPA definition was carefully crafted to be broadly inoffensive, which might be exactly what we need, as long as it is accurate, and it seemed to me that it is. I think that the Terminology section would better be improved, if necessary, not by removing sourced material, but by adding other definitions, if more is truly needed. (The UNFCC definition was still in there in my version.) Perhaps they should be explicitly sourced.

I'm requesting that you to restore my version, which was carefully constructed from the sources and presented to be without bias or spin, ''except for such that might be present in the source.'' You could then add attribution to the EPA definition: perhaps you could write: "According to the corrupt Republican EPA ...." Or, seriously, you could add mention of the IPCC usage.

I do think it very important, though, that we have a simple term we can use to refer to the warming without the cause being incorporated into its definition. From the simple meanings of words, "global warming" would seem to be it. Got a better suggestion? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:I am not aware of what was there before your edit. The EPA is a governmental body whose sole purpose is to support the strategies of the party and president in power currently. I'm sure the definition will change once Obama is elected. Global warming has a simple meaning now, human related temperature changes. Any other definition begins to be POV, especially by trying to give equal weight to ideas that just aren't neutral. So, I'm not going to revert myself. If someone else wants to that's fine, I'll still disagree. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 23:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for responding, OM. However, sometimes I wonder if I only imagine I'm writing in English. '''The current definition in the article is sourced to the EPA.''' In any case, we currently have unsourced definition of global warming, having removed part of the sourced definition and replaced that part with unsourced definition. My edit was sourced, ''completely.'' There was practically no synthesis in it, no quotation out of context. It seems you didn't compare my edit with what you reverted it to. So what was the basis for your revert? Distrust of the source? If so, and if the source is notable, as it certainly is, -- and obviously it's been considered reliable enough to stand in the article for quite some time -- then attribution would be the solution, not reversion to remove verifiable material and replace it with synthesis. What do you say about something as crucial as the definition of "global warming" being unsourced, made-up, presumably as being more informative or better in some way than what is available in the massive sources?
::What you removed, though, this allegedly biased material, simply defines "global warming" as, well, warming of the troposphere, particularly at the surface. This is biased? The text was complete: it went on to note the common usage that implies anthropogenesis. What was wrong with it? I still think we'll be better off if you revert yourself, it would set an excellent precedent here, we are going to need more true team editors. You've got some time, unless someone else reverts you, which I'd rather not see. Your choice, it's not a big deal. I think. I've learned a lot from reading [[User talk:Raul654/Raul's laws|Raul654/Raul's laws]], I recommend it, plus [[WP:DGAF]].

--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

==Deleted the terminology section==
Since we've seen that there's no single definition of global warming, we will end up either (1) misleadingly proposing a single definition, or (2) generating a painful, meandering "source a says this, while source b says that, and source c has elements of both with some '''NEW AND IMPROVED''' ingredients of its own, notwithstanding source d which asserts..." ad nauseam. I recall the "terminology" section was a relic of an old edit war anyway. So I deleted it. So kill me. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:Thought of doing that myself, actually. I've used that response before when a POV cabal was insisting on selective quotation. I'll think about it. The definition of global warming -- a complete and sourced definition -- is important. Perhaps it should be in the lead. The way I had it, the Terminology section was clear and laid out the two main meanings of "global warming," it wasn't complicated. I didn't personally think that attribution was necessary, because, though I agree that the EPA shouldn't be used without caution, the definition seemed fair, neutral, and complete (i.e., included the meaning of "anthropogenic global warming"). There are reasons, though, for having a term that we use to refer to global warming that isn't contaminated with theory or conclusion or even fact about cause. (Nobody claims that global warming cannot or could not happen from non-anthropogenic causes, because, obviously, it has, though not necessarily with the rapidity that it seems to be currently coming on.)

:I have still not seen ''any'' criticism of the actual text that I'd edited for the Terminology section, only a revert based on distrust of the EPA that seems clearly a flawed basis for removal of the material. (I.e, [[argumentum ad hominem]], or [[Appeal to motive]], because if the corrupt officials at the EPA say it, it must be biased.) Removal is more direct and avoids the problem of impeaching the source while relying on it. So I have some admiration for Boris's action. Even if we do decide to bring the section back. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:quite liked the removal. A [[WP:BOLD]] winner right here, for my money. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 03:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::[[User:Javascap|Javascap]], however, has restored it. Sit back and enjoy the show. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::And then [[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|KimDabelsteinPetersen]] reverted and then [[User:Kenosis]] reverted her! And I've still got two reverts left I could use in the next few hours! And so does everyone else! Nah, I'll go to bed. ''It doesn't matter what version lasts for a few more hours....'' --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::I respectfully disagree with User:SBHS's removal of the section, at least based on the arguments presented thus far in the current discussion. In whatever way participants might argue about the specific content of that section for whatever reasons they're motivated by, IMO that section has potential to be very informative to readers about important aspects of how terms/phrases such as "global warming", "climate change" and others are used by various reliable sources in the global discussion. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree, Kenosis. And could say more, and won't now. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I really do not see the reason for this - [[climate change]] should be wiki-linked early though, so that the reader can look this up. Possibly with an extension of the dablink with a "for the more generic term see [[Climate change]]". --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 03:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Well, Kim, there is the same problem with [[Climate change]], and that term is only more generic in one sense, not in the other (i.e., climate change includes other changes besides temperature, global warming in the EPA sense means warming from all or any causes, not only from human activity, and thus applies outside the current situation. In the end, though, it still melts ice. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been said we don't vote on Wikipedia. That's not really true: apparently we use [[Range voting]], where each editor casts, in the form of a revert, their vote for their favorite version, and they can cast multiple votes, up to the limit they are willing to use considering possible sanctions for edit warring. Thus each voter expresses how strongly they want that version. The winner is the version with the most votes (reversions). What's wrong with this picture? Folks, repeated restoration of a version without participation in discussion, without efforts to find consensus instead of merely to insist on a particular version, is edit warring, even if the individual editors only make one revert. Beyond, ''maybe'' an initial revert as some kind of gesture meaning, "Really? Please consider this again," repeatedly bouncing back and forth of versions is potentially blockable. Stop. If I wanted to see people blocked, I'd be dropping warnings on Talk pages. I don't want to see that. I want ''participation.'' Kim, "I don't see" isn't a discussion of content, it only tells us what you ''don't'' know or see. You took out sourced content, with no real discussion, to repeat an earlier edit. That could be looked upon rather dimly later. Kenosis, I'd be saying something analogous to you, but for one thing: you are standing for sourced content that's been in the article for quite some time, removed without an argument that would establish a need for removal. Boris didn't really give a content argument, and Kim certainly did not. One thing I'll say, though, this is quite entertaining. What will happen next? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:I most certainly ''did'' give a content argument, and it was a very good argument indeed if I say so myself. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 05:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:::(ec) Goes to show. You gave a reason, Boris, but it wasn't exactly a content argument, i.e., it did not specifically criticize the content you removed. Let me repeat your argument: since there isn't a single definition of the term "global warming," it is complicated or it will get complicated. You also noted that the Terminology section was a "relic of an old edit war anyway." Relics of edit wars tend to be some kind of consensus solution, so this is not only an argument from source (a variant of "it's wrong because the editor who put it was a POV pusher"), if it is not merely dicta, it indicates a probability that consensus content is being removed. You did not actually assert that there was anything defective with the existing version. It seems that your edit was more like, "Well, if you are going to fight about it, kids, I'm going to put it away until you can agree." It was this aspect of your edit that I approved, but concluded, as did some others, that it was still better to have the section.

:::The definition I had in my version was complete, to my knowledge, covered all the existing uses, was fully sourced (actually quoted from source), and nobody actually claimed that it was incorrect or improper. Rather, for reasons that I can only connect with POV, spin, article politics, and/or assumptions about motives, it was reverted to another version which was roughly the same, it simply had different emphasis, and the emphasis seems to have been synthesized here, the differing text wasn't sourced. Now, Boris, I'll replace my version today if I don't see a good reason not to, and please judge it on its own merits before deciding to remove it. I'm discovering first-hand why so many editors have ended up blocked trying to work on these articles. I'd observed it previously when I carefully reviewed GoRight's history with the Global warming articles to see what the hell had happened, documented in [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight]] and evidence and extended comment files in my user space (referenced from the RfC). --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 13:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::I second that. For those who want to continue this discussion, I've moved the material under contention to the [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/sandbox sandbox]. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:::working space, good idea. I've moved it to [[Talk:Global warming/Terminology section]]. I've put three versions there: a version by Boris, the next version that I put together to include full definition from the source being used, and the version that existed prior to removal and the edit warring over that. Which version should we have in the article, pending? Given that nobody has actually objected to the content in my version as being inaccurate, distorted, unfaithful to source, or selectively quoted, I'd prefer my version (Version 2 in the Sandbox). But several editors have supported (by reverting it back in), Version 3. And Version 1 in the workspace was Boris's brief version prior to my expansion. For the moment, I'd accept any of these versions as we work on it. I'm thinking about which one to put in.... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:::(ec)I'm a bit puzzled by what's going on. I went ahead and replaced my full version for the Terminology section into the article as a seed, since it contains, I think, all the elements (except maybe one or two) that have recently been proposed for it. However, I'm by no means stuck on the specifics of the section, my version is merely (1) fully sourced, (2) ''no specific bias has been alleged,'' only claims that the EPA is biased, and (3) the basics of this have been in the article for 1000 revisions, easily six months or more. (I referenced this in [[Talk:Global warming/Terminology section]]; I didn't look back any further). On the Talk page, Version 1 was extensively rewritten by Boris from my version prior to my full one. It's quite a decent version, I merely think mine better in certain ways. Version 3 was supported by several editors, and was specifically opposed by none, and it is very close to what existed nine months ago. (They are all variations of that long-standing version, significant differences are likely to be visible only to serious POV maintainers or pushers, who get excited about nuances and subtle spin.) This is sourced material, using a source that has been accepted by the editors of this article for a long, long time, and the sequence wasn't that the source was challenged. Rather, specific and to my vision neutral language from that source was removed because of some unspecified alleged bias. The rest of the material from that source was left and is in all versions in some paraphrase or other. And there is other sourced material in this section, unchallenged by anyone ... and all of this was removed, for no clear reason.

So, then, the edit summaries given by Skyemoor for his two reverts within the last 24 hours are:
*13:35, 14 October 2008 Skyemoor m (110,298 bytes) ''(→Terminology: Let's not edit war, let's discuss this section in [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/sandbox the sandbox], where this text has been moved to.)''
*17:57, 14 October 2008 Skyemoor (110,298 bytes) ''(Undid revision 245250050 by Abd (talk)Let's arrive at a consensus first in the sandbox, or continued edit warring will ensue.)''

Now, this is continuing the repeated removal of sourced material, apparently generally enjoying consensus (though not without some criticism), for a long time, stable in the article, based on no sound policy or guideline. Avoiding edit warring is not a reason to remove sourced and non-violating material from an article. And what is happening here is that edit war is being maintained, not for content reasons -- which can be bad enough -- but in the name of avoiding edit warring. Skyemoor has gone to 2RR today, which is more than this article has seen for some time, everyone else has restrained themselves to 1RR. Except I see that I did, in fact, have less than 24 hours from my previous revert. I was thinking that it had been more, it wasn't my intention to exceed one. But Skyemoor's second revert came less than four hours after his first, and I don't see any content-related argument he's made in the interim. Instead, on the working page, he's focusing on political criticism of the EPA, which is utterly beside the point.

I'm thinking that it might be appropriate to start warning for repeated removal of sourced material. We have three decent versions in the working page and I certainly wouldn't be having any problem with any of them. ''It is only the removal that is now causing edit warring.'' Stop it. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:Shame on you, you know very well that the questioning of the EPA source was not ''political criticism'', but based on history of scientific malfeasance in their treatment of Global Warming. We have to take our material from [[WP:RS]], so I brought up the very valid point of veracity from this source. Odd that you criticize me for 2RR when you did it yourself, then make an excuse. I agree that I did indeed did commit 2RR, though it's been quite some time since I have been steadily editing this article (indeed, it's only be recently that I've been editing at all again), so your reminder about this article being 1RR is helpful. Just make sure you heed your own warnings. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with deleting the terminology section. I think the distinction between the way different sources use the words is useful. But I won't revert Comrade Boris [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, now the first sentence in the lead (definition of global warming) not only violates [[WP:LEAD]] ("Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"), it also appears to remain unverified (please show me a source that verifies the definition, without violation of [[WP:OR]]). --[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 11:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if reliable sources are not consistent in their definition of GW, then this inconsistency should be described in the article (in a terminology section): "There are various definitions of GW [insert examples from reliable sources], including [insert sourced definition] which is used in this article." or something like that would be in order. Failing to do so violates [[WP:NPOV]], as the major reliably sourced views on the definition of GW should be given due weight. --[[User:Phenylalanine|Phenylalanine]] ([[User talk:Phenylalanine|talk]]) 11:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

== Section "economic and political debate" ==

Should this not be retitled "Scientific, Economic and Political debate"? The page linked, [[Global_Warming_Controversy]], contains points of a scientific nature (and is also a bit of a train wreck in general, if anyone is interested). [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 06:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:How about just "debate"? Re train wreck, indeed it is. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 13:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Short Brigade indeed. Sure. Less is more. Work is Joy. Love is a tractor. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::I would be opposed to adding 'Scientific' to the paragraph title, as I see most arguments against as being psuedo-science or propaganda intended for political gains (or to stem political setbacks).--[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 13:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:::One of the reasons this article has been a battleground is that it's pretty unclear what it's about. Is it a "science" article? Is it an article on politics or economics? Is it about everything related in any way to Global warming under whatever definition is used somewhere in an acceptable source? Consider the flap over the Terminology section. If we can't agree on a clear definition of the term used as the title for the article, how could we be expected to agree on content? That's why my focus will be on that section (or if the section stays out, on the lead, where topic definition should take place if it doesn't immediately follow).

:::Acceptable sources for an article on a political debate will be different from acceptable sources for an article on a scientific topic, and to define opposing POVs out of existence if possible. And the first refuge of POV pushers is to control the topic. How to deal with this is actually fairly well-known, so let's see what happens. There is scientific debate. It's different from the political debate. "Debate" covers all kinds of unresolved questions, a political approach to this article, because of the present context, will tend to interpret "scientific debate" as referring to questioning of the very existence of global warming or of its human origin, and thus the comment from Skyemoor above. But there is lots of debate that isn't about that, and the scientific community would be seriously ill if it weren't actively debating various aspects of this. Sources will define what we put in, not our political opinions or judgments.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::::"Is it a "science" article? Is it an article on politics or economics? " I'm surprised to hear you ask that question. This is clearly a science article, though a concise summary of conflict on the subject is included to provide a more complete rounding of the article. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::How is that determined? Wikipedia has a flat structure in article space. The ''words'' global warming don't say "science." Now, in no way am I suggesting it should ''not'' be a science article. But what about "Global warming controversy"? Should that be a science article? As noted here, most of the controversy isn't scientific, i.e., not among scientists, it's political and social and economic. Just asking, I haven't gone there to check. I'm just trying to get it clear what this article is about, because that will then guide what content should be in it. (And it also contributes to how we should define the term Global warming. And the findings on this may impact other articles.
:::::One indication of what an article is about is the categories it's been included in. Two of the categories aren't science categories. If this is a science article, the material that might be here relevant to those categories should be in other articles (with perhaps some summary here if it's deemed sufficiently relevant), and the categories removed. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: "How is that determined? " To the best of my memory, there was an RfC some time ago, and a summary of the controversy was included, similar to the article on [[Evolution]]. It would take some time to look up; you may want to do so to answer your own question. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::While it is proven some, and quite probable that most, scientific debate on GW is politically driven, it is not true that this extends to '''all''' scientific debate on the issue. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 00:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::So we would include the debate that GW will occur at rates significantly higher, and with impacts much greater, than the IPCC 2007? --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 09:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

==So wot is warming globally ?==

{{hidden begin
|title = Logicus discussion considered repetitive by some
|titlestyle = background:beige; text-align:center;
}}
The above Logicus analysis 'So wot is global warming?' identified confusing crucial differences between different definitions of global warming used in the article. This has apparenty at last promoted some useful interesting critical discussion of the issue. But arguably their most elemental variation was their differences in the geographical entity that is the subject of warming (or not). Yet this remarkable variation which must surely be resolved first and foremost has received relatively little discussion.
So here I simply set out these various different geographical entities that are presented as the subject of global warming along with some other logical possibilities that hopefully promote further clarification, for the purpose of possibly increasing clariity in the article by identifying the choice that must be made if the article is to be anything more than a sociological-semantic analysis reporting different conceptions of global warming.

'''Six different temperature entities'''

Global warming variously refers to

THE TEMPERATURE OF

1) Near-surface air over the whole globe
2) Near-surface air over the whole globe and of the troposphere over the whole globe
:::NB The troposphere is the bottom layer of the whole atmosphere and the bottom layer of the troposphere is the planet boundary layer according to Wikipedia. Thus possibly the most plausible interpretation of this reference is that (i) 'near-surface air temperature' refers to the temperature of the troposphere's planet boundary layer or else to the air temperature just a few feet above the ground at the height of the land surface air temperature measuring station thermometers. And that (ii) 'troposphere temperature' refers to the average temperature of the whole volume of the troposphere that varies in height between 4 and 12 miles. Thus the temperature referred to by this conception may be the average of these two temperatures that thus gives a weighted average of the troposphere, weighted in favour of its planet boundary layer or its thermometer height land surface air layer. But it may well just be illiterate nonsense from the American EPA, another case of 'Bushspeak' ?

3) Near-surface air over land only and the temperature of the oceans
:::NB 'ocean temperature' here ostensibly means the average of the whole volume of an ocean, as in the article's current opening definition apparently. Presumably impractical.

4) Near-surface air over land only and near-surface ocean temperatures
:::NB 'Near-surface ocean' is taken to include the possibility of 'just at the surface itself'.

5) Near-surface air over land only and near-surface marine temperature
:::NB 'marine' includes both all oceans and all seas. So unlike 3) it includes the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, for example.
6) Near-surface air over land only and near-surface water temperatures globally

:::NB 'water' includes all oceans, seas, lakes and rivers.

Which entity should be used in the article's definition of 'global warming' ?
Here I just propose some heuristic rules for choosing one:
RULE 1: For obvious pragmatic reasons the entity chosen should be one for which the temperature is measurable and has been reliably measured for a sufficiently long period. This rule would thus probably rule out entities 1, 2 & 3 and possibly also 6. Maybe only 4 or 5 have been measured. It is unclear to Logicus from the article which of them has been or not.
RULE 2: The entity should be as global and inclusive as possible. Thus 6 would be the ideal entity, but may not have been measured (e.g. Lakes Huron and Titicaca not monitored, for example ?), and would thus be impractical.
'''The overall procedural strategy of Logicus's interventions''' is to try and get clarification and coherent standardisation in this article on the following three basic questions at least:
1) What is the entity that is alleged to be warming ?
2) What is global warming ?

3) What proportion of global warming, if any, is caused by humanity ?
I propose that maybe a good starting point for trying to build consensus on a Wiki definition of 'global warming' would be to try and reach consensus on this issue of exactly what it is that is said to be warming first of all. Which of the 6 different temperature entities listed above should be the subject of 'global warming' ?
However, the socio-logical possibility must also be recognised that whilst there may be a scientific consensus that there is global warming and that most of it is anthropogenic, there may be no consensus about what it is that is warming, about its period, and nor about its actual quantitative value.
'''Flagging the opening definition''' Finally, yet again I flag the opening definition of 'global warming' for both citation and clarification, for citation given it is still unsourced and also conflicts with both the IPCC and yhe US EPA definitions, and for clarification of whether it was intended to refer to the entity of the IPCC definition of 'global surface temperature', namely "near-surface air temperature over land and sea surface temperature", but was just mangled by a muddled editor to include all near-surface air temperature and exclude sea temperatures.

I request this flagging is not removed without valid reason first being provided here in Talk and before proper discussion of it. (All previous removals of them by such as Kenosis, Stephan Schulz, Skyemoor, Atmoz and Boris have been clearly invalid and only raise serious questions about their English language reading abilities and suitability to be editing encyclopedia articles in that language.

For ease of reference, the current opening definition of global warming is
"Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation."

As for my own provisional view of what the opening definition should be, for the purpose of its consideration, criticism and possible improvement it is as follows:
'Global warming is an increase in the average [of the] temperature of the Earth's near-surface air over land and sea surface temperature.' [Should it include the insert?]

This definition is guided by the presumption that it is only these temperatures that have actually been measured.

But there seems little point in posting up any definition of 'gobal warming' in the current period of radical reversionary turbulence.

I don't like this definition's exclusion of land temperatures and of super-aqua air temperatures, as included in the following more global definition

'Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and sea and land surface temperature.'
but presume measures of those additional temperatures are unavailable, whereby this wider global definition would not be operational.
{{hidden end}}
--[[User:Logicus|Logicus]] ([[User talk:Logicus|talk]]) 18:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

<vast cut - we've seen all this before, don't repeat yourself [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)>

I've restored the Logicus commentary; it's what started this section and later comment was based on it. I've collapsed it to reflect WMC's opinion but still allow it to be easily read. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that some of it was literally a repetition of what was above. I'm not going to decide at this time if that part should be removed, because it would also involve a little editing of the new part, and, really, Logicus should do that if he cares. (I presume that it was repeated because Logicus thought that the prior text had been ignored, and he was justifying his placement of tags in the article. Let me suggest that, in the future, if commentary is, for you, TL;DR, that you simply do what the label implies: don't read it. And don't remove it. Ignore it. If part of it is important, this will come out in later discussion, as others pick up on it, or not. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:Sorry there is a limit to how long the confusion of an individual can be allowed to spill into a featured article, I am reverting these inappropriate labels, --[[User:BozMo|BozMo]] [[user talk:BozMo|talk]] 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::And why is this [[WP:TLDR|very long]] commentary repeated again? And what is "wot"? Is that a word? [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 18:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Something tells me we're a hairsbreadth from a [[WP:RFC/U|request for comment]] or [[WP:BLOCK|more definitive action]] regarding the behavior of Logicus. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 18:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'd prefer not to see that. An RfC on Logicus, at this point, would be expanded or paralleled with such covering the whole troop of editors involved. WMC has already taken an action with the article that was a blatant violation of standards for administrators (i.e., unprotected an article he is intimately involved with, wheel-warring with another admin), that, from clear ArbComm precedent with other valuable administrators, could result in the loss of his bit. The removal of the comment above, as well, could certainly be justified, but it's also quite a questionable act. I've done far less and been threatened with blocking. (I.e. deleted comments of another editor, comment that wasn't vandalism or personal attack. His edit summary showed ownership of the article. I'm hoping that he'll smell the coffee and fix the problem, but it looks like he's determined to stonewall, which would be unfortunate. I don't think that will fly this time, but, hey, my crystal ball is broken. I only mention WMC because (1) it just happened and (2) it's an example of this:

::::It is very, very obvious to me that, in addition to neutral editors working on this article, and who aren't personally attached to the specific topic, there are some who, long term, are very, very invested here, or who, for whatever reason, routinely act together to maintain a certain POV or "feel" for the article. These articles were the ones that educated me about tag-teaming that wasn't necessarily being done by some true cabal. I've seen this for months, it's been covered in the media, it's really a scandal, even though much of it had blown over. It blew over without some pretty blatant aspects of the problem being addressed. Maybe it is time, but I'd much rather see agreements negotiated, text negotiated, with minimal disruption. User RfCs are disruptive, when they involve editors and groups of editors like those involved here. AN/I reports are disruptive. Mediation and arbitration can take up enormous amounts of editor time. But there are some very basic Wikipedia principles that are being frequently violated here, and it's been doing damage for a long time. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::He was blocked by Raul654 for "disruption". [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 00:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Abd, I beg to differ. There was no edit-war going on here, and some admin decided to take it upon herself to protect the article? I don't happen to agree with the science of this article, but I find it eminently NPOV and well-written. Logicus' comments were confusing, although I did ask that one or two of the questions be answered. WMC's actions were reasonable, given the fact that the article was not in the throes of an edit-war. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::* Protecting an article - and thereby risking protecting the "wrong version" - is a problem, if only because it is against the principles of "anyone can edit". Nevertheless, I'll happily accept that it is often necessary. :) In that case, distance would probably be wise, so an involved admin might not be the best choice if protecting for edit warring, (but would be ok if protecting for vandalism). However, I would have thought that unprotecting an article to see if the edit warring or vandalism has died down was normal practice, and would be largely uncontroversial. After all, it is simply a process of returning the article to the state it is meant to be in. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::<i>Yes.</i> [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems the shit is hitting the fan. Where to begin? How about with some facts? There was edit warring going on here, I have the diffs compiled, and it's silly to pretend that it wasn't happening. That was my judgment, that it was edit warring, and it was also the judgment of others, take a look at the edit summaries. I was thinking of going to [[WP:RFPP]] to ask for protection, so I wasn't surprised to see the article protected. What might have been surprising was to see WMC unprotect the article immediately. Except that I've seen him do that kind of thing before. Bilby, you don't seem to have the history of this straight. [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]] protected, WMC immediately unprotected without discussion with her. That's wheel-warring, even if he had not been involved. As an involved editor, for him to use his admin tools to protect or unprotect is abuse of tools and grounds for loss of admin privileges, if he doesn't acknowledge the error. Whether or not protection was "correct" isn't relevant to that. There was no emergency.

And now Raul654 has blocked [[User:Logicus]]. Logicus was never warned on his Talk page. There was no emergency. Raul654 is heavily involved with the global warming articles. Because of his involvement, his block is likewise improper. I've asked (on Logicus Talk, which Raul654 should be monitoring) him to unblock for this reason. That's entirely aside from a block being total overkill. This is an administrative riot. I'm going to bed, and will be meditating on [[WP:DGAF]] pending. -- {{unsigned|Abd}}

: ''blatant violation of standards for administrators... determined to stonewall... really a scandal... shit is hitting the fan... administrative riot...'' My goodness! Things would be in a pretty pass were any of that true. But happily, ''That was my judgment'' is the relevant phrase, and your judgement is wrong. Please stop clogging up the talk page, we need it to discuss improving the article [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 07:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

::Time will tell. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

:As usual, ABD's interpreations of policy and his statements about what happened are way off the mark. Logicus received multiple warnings on this page before being blocked, although there is no such requirement in policy that he have recieved one before being blocked (that is merely a courtesy); editing an article that someone else has does not make one involved in a dispute with that user such that a block would be unseemly. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 07:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

::Feeble wikilawyering. It won't stand if examined. Some users here have interpreted warnings or predictions as threats. However, I don't have any big stick, just a big mouth. And what we've seen here is two admins willing to use tools in a situation where they are clearly involved, one of whom is far from an ordinary admin (i.e., bureaucrat, checkuser, and ArbComm emeritus, highly experienced and respected). It would have disruptive effect to try to find out definitively whether or not this is acceptable, but I'll predict that we will. The situation is becoming too obvious to too many administrators, other editors, and even the outside world. Look at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight]]. This was filed by Raul654 and cosigned by William M. Connolley. The conclusion was a sanction for GoRight, but the majority opinion there was that GoRight's misbehavior was not unique, and the conclusion was only applied to GoRight for technical reasons: the RfC was about him, not the others. And the other involved editors: the same list, largely, as we still find continuing the same behavior. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:40, 15 October 2008
:::This page is for discussion to improve the article, not idle ruminations and grumblings about who has the biggest mouth. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 02:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

:Abd, you're right, in that I'd been following the discussion here, but had missed the discussions on the talk pages (for obvious reasons, I suppose). :) Nevertheless, while it might, possibly, be regarded as wheel warring, it is going to be the mildest kind possible. I would suggest that it was at worst impolite. I can understand an involved admin warring by protecting a page to guard their "wrong version", and this would be bad, but unprotecting a page isn't a matter of self-interest. The exact opposite, in fact. At any rate, WMC was proven correct - there was no edit warring after the article was unprotected, so at the moment it is looking like a good call. You might want to question the methods, but I'm happy to accept the reasons and the results. *shrug* - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 09:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
::Edit warring stopped because there are involved editors who have some self-restraint, and the other side thus prevailed, i.e., the ping-ponging content, even though it had the benefit of long-standing consensus, even though it was fully-sourced and totally accurate to source, even though the reverts made no sense (revert to removal of long-standing sourced content in order to stop edit warring?), went in one direction because the other side was willing to start using rapid, multiple reverts. Even then, I was highly tempted to revert. But I don't use reverts once it's clear that the other side is intransigent, which had become clear. I use [[WP:DR]] tools, and that takes time. I've already gone through the first stages, ordinary discussion, so we will may move to more involved procedures, and that, unfortunately, can be disruptive in the sense of keeping me and others from the task that WMC laments we are being diverted from. I lament it too. But I don't delete warnings, suggestions, comments from my Talk pages, dismissively, and I don't stonewall. Yup. Stonewall. It works, often. It won't continue to do so -- or Wikipedia will have, ultimately, gone down the tubes. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, I agree with you - the edit warring stopped because the involved editors showed self-restraint. Which is a fine method of stopping edit warring. :) If they managed stop edit warring, and didn't engage in it when it was then unprotected, then clearly unprotecting was the right move, even if one might argue it happened for the wrong reasons (although AGF would lead me to presume otherwise). The rest may be true enough, but they're not a protecting/unprotecting concern. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 21:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Bilby, it is said that it takes two to edit war. That's not exactly true, but it's certainly true that it takes two to ''continue'' an edit war. What happened here is exactly what I've seen happen many times with the GW articles: an edit war starts up, and, way too often, it ends in one of two ways. Either the interloper, the outsider, gives up and goes away, often after being abused (including ridicule or personal attack) or warned about being blocked, or the outsider is blocked or otherwise sanctioned, with or without 3RR violation. The "restraint" is being shown by the outsider. I believe I could establish this with analysis of the edit wars on these article; however, it's late, I'm got some kind of flu, and I've got two little girls to get up, feed, and get to school in the morning, so I'm not going to go on about this at this time, I'll just look around a little and see if I can get some actual article editing done. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 01:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Would the correct course of action not have instead been to message the protecting admin, explain reasoning and request an unblock? Jennavecia was onlineat the time, as shown by [[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&diff=245283032&oldid=245279288 her protest]].

::::Raul, could you favour us with a single dif where Logicus was ''warned he could be blocked'' on this page? [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, consultation before reversing an admin action is considered essential. Admins who in a non-emergency situation reverse the administrative action of another admin, without discussion, find one of three things happening: it blows away because nobody cares enough to do anything about it (the most common result), they apologize and say they won't do it again, or they lose their tools. Many admins are very reluctant to reverse even an abusive action of another admin without discussion with the admin, and they should be. Rather, if they cannot agree after discussion with the acting admin, they take the matter to a noticeboard for broader discussion, and as a result, some previously uninvolved admin, usually, will close a discussion with a confirmation of the original action or will close it by reversing it. I'd predict that there is something more than a snowball's chance in hell that if someone with the motivation and guts and experience to take either of the two actions that took place yesterday to ArbComm, we'd see some apologies or we'd see one or two fewer administrators. It's ''very'' tricky because (1) [[User:William M. Connolley]] is very popular with some, and he's notable, i.e., he is indeed [[William Connolley]], and (2) [[User:Raul654]] is not just an administrator, he's a bureaucrat (he can set or reset administrative privileges), he's a checkuser (he can tell what IP you are editing from), and he is a former member of ArbComm. He did not get these tools and positions without being, first, very useful to the project, and, second, widely trusted. Proceeding to, say, RfC either of these users, not to mention both, is not something to be lightly taken on, it could be hazardous to your wiki-health. It is not something to be undertaken alone. But the guidelines and principles and policies on all this are quite clear, what is difficult is the politics of it. I've been warning WMC for quite some time that he's risking his admin bit, and he blows it off, I'd guess because he's been dodging the bullet. Take a look at two appearances before ArbComm:
:::::::[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute]] (old, 2005)<br>
:::::::[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley]] (very recent).<br>
::::::It's quite apparent from his responses to me and to others, such as Jennavecia, that he thinks he can't be seriously touched. The latest ArbComm decision had quite a few editors floored. Other administrators who'd done similar things have been desysopped or resigned under a cloud (Tango, Physchim62). He was simply told, "Don't do this again with this particular editor." I'm still trying to figure out what was behind this decision! However, with respect to WMC's massive removal of text by Logicus from this page, see [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#General]. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Way out of line here - that 2005 event was prior to WMC becomming an admin. Now this is starting to look like an attack on a user and is definetly not related to the purpose of this talk page. In short ABD is looking quite tendentious and needs to cool it a bit and do some constructive work rather than wikilawering and drama enhancing. Get back on topic - this page is not for attacking other editors. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith|talk]]) 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=245273279&oldid=245271778] It's not explicit, and I'm not really commenting on administrative policy because I'm ignorant of it, but Logicus's contributions to the discussion had become frustrating for me and I certainly considered him to be disruptive and had begun to question his good faith myself as you can see here [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=244443841&oldid=244408501] [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Jaimaster, I happily agree - it would have been a much better process. But the query was whether or not this is "abuse of tools and grounds for loss of admin privileges", or just an admin impolitely unprotecting a page. I'm going with the latter. But to be honest, it all seems a tad out of proportion, whether it was incorrect or not. And I wouldn't have thought it would warrant this much debate. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Mishlai, Logicus was banned for an edit made at 18:23. The dif from Boris is 18:43.
:::::::I agree that his edits were getting painful. I am merely pointing out that the closest thing to a warning he got on this talk page was probably your own comment about disruption - as I noted on [[user talk:logicus|his talk page]].
:::::::Bilby, I agree - but I think Abd's view is built on more than just this single action. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 22:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Fair enough. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 23:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Contrary to the above impliciations, there is no requirement that a user be warned prior to a block, nor explicitely threatend with a block. ''Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking'' - [[Wikipedia:Block]]. Logicus was well aware of policy, given that he was warned about his disruptive behavior on this talk page numerous times prior to the block.
:::::::::* [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=242555721 I think you've noticed by now that no-one is supporting your "logic"] - WMC
:::::::::* [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=244408501 "Logicus has demonstrated repeatedly that he will not read the references cited in the article before commenting on them"] - Atmoz
:::::::::* [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=244443841 "I also don't think it's reasonable for you to ask other editors to do your research for you ... Your unwillingness to exert these minimal efforts leads me to believe that you are here to create a disruption, and not to improve the article."] - Mishlai
:::::::::* [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=244399986 Here's a novel idea: actually read some references for yourself] - Boris
:::::::::* [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=244618130 Perhaps if you actually read a citation or two provied in the article and on this talk page, instead of frivilously requesting more, you might actually answer some of those questions you have.] - Me.
:::::::::This constituted more than suffecient warning. Further disruption of this or any other form by Logicus will result in progressively longer blocks. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 03:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Ummmmm, why are we discussing a block on this page? I vote this thread be moved someplace else. And Logicus had ample warning to behave himself. His questions were spammed across several pages, and any attempt to discuss it should be taken to AN/I or possibly the [[WP:REFACTOR|shredder]]. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 03:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I second the motion to move this thread, which has no relation to improving the article. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 15:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

==Terminology==

Just to let editor know that there is an extensive discussion ongoing at [[Talk:Global_warming/Terminology_section]], with some parties calling for a sense of the consensus. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 15:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
:Skyemoor is correct that there is a discussion. He's not correct that any party has called for a sense of the consensus. I noted in a comment that (maybe) three editors out of the four discussing were in general agreement on some of the issues, with Skyemoor standing out as differing. But I'm not ready, nor do I think that the group working there is ready to call for wider participation or for a poll. Wider participation will bring even more lengthy discussion, I expect. And no polls should be taken until the issues are clear, and what is happening now is that, i.e., clarification of the issues. However, of course, anyone is welcome to participate, I'm just noting that right now might not be the most efficient time. ''We are not at the point of making a decision, and wider comment will definitely be invited before any decision is made.'' --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

::Because Skyemoor signed off on a prior version on the working page, and because I expect that only one editor working on the page might object to the text of that version -- but it was close to the status quo before the edit warring to remove/replace the section -- I've gone ahead and placed that section in the article. This is not a ''conclusion'' from the working page, just a showing of, I think, sufficient consensus to return the article to something close to what we had for a long, long time. Work will continue to find, if possible, broader consensus. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Terminology section exist simply to compare/contrast the definitions of Global Warming vs. Climate Change? From my perspective, the current section does that quite well, and with solid citations as well. It captures the essence of the lede, without having to duplicate 4 or 5 sentences. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 19:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

:The objections are against the selective quotation and the combining of sources to create a wp:synthensis, further without attribution given to either source. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 00:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::There is now what ''may'' be a consensus version, see [[Talk:Global warming/Terminology section#Terminology (Working version)]] It was suggested by [[User:William M. Connolley]] based on an old revision from 2006. It's solid as to the definitions, but it also discusses the "common usage" thing in a neutral way. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The working version linked above is one I would be very happy to see used. [[User:Jaimaster|Jaimaster]] ([[User talk:Jaimaster|talk]]) 05:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::So then, what's the consensus version? Looking at the link above I see reams and reams and reams of text in multiple threads with collapsed discussion and queries and asides and so on but it's not clear that there's any concrete proposal. If there is one, it would be helpful if someone could quote the text here. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 05:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I linked directly to it. It is the only thing in the section ''at the top'' titled Terminology (Working version). Most discussion has, indeed, been collapsed. Each of the sections called Version were placed as "concrete proposals." The Working version was intended to be edited as needed to improve it, so, by default, if stable, it would represent the best version so far. It didn't actually work precisely that way, because WMC suggested a new version in the discussion of Version 3. Because it won immediate acceptance from almost all participating editors, I replaced the Working version at the top with his version, and renamed the section with the original working version and discussion to "prior" and collapsed it. Those are not archive boxes, per se, anyone is free to add comment to them and/or to uncollapse them; what was left uncollapsed simply represents my personal opinion as to what is most important to read. I, personally, and we, as a community, tend to write reams of text with much of it redundant; my goal with this working page is for it to become a clear standing explanation of why we have what we have, with a record, as well, of the consensus it enjoyed. Which is, right now, 100%. Since ''nobody'' has yet objected to the Working version, I'll be putting it in the article. Boris, by all means, look at it carefully, but, at this point, please don't simply revert it or remove it. and it probably should not be edited directly -- but, of course, this isn't binding. If you want to argue that the section should be removed, it would be best at this point to do so on the working page.
:::::Every editor who worked on that page is to be congratulated for joining in a consensus, and, Boris, you are to be congratulated for triggering this process with your [[WP:BOLD]] deletion of the section. This ''consensus'' doesn't mean that the section can't be changed, but I suspect that changes, from now on, will be evolutionary and continue to represent consensus instead of today's tide in the spin slosh.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I've reverted the current insertion. First of all its amateurish - and secondly (just as Boris) i got bored reading extremely verbose comments... the working group on that subpage, either has to be less verbose and keep from writing endlessly boring discussions - or present the results to the rest of us, concisely so that the question of consensus can be determined. (think of it as a workgroup). The text in question (that i reverted) is completely unreadable compared to the version that ''we just arrived at'' from a different starting point of yours. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 15:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::And please if you want to have people work with you - then stick to short easy overlooked comments - instead of your usual 3 mile long comments. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 15:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Kim, you're out on a limb. You just removed a version that was (1) suggested by WMC, not me, and (2) so far, accepted by ''every'' editor working actively on it. I'm not going to revert you, but it's quite likely that someone else will. Please revert yourself and leave it alone, here, and if you don't like it, join us in working on it at [[Talk:Global warming/Terminology section]]. Did you notice WMC's comment to Boris below? The "collapse" that Boris complained about was done to hide all that verbosity and make it very easy to see what had happened and where the version came from. Do not use bare reversion, any more, to enforce your preferred text here, but respect consensus and discuss changes, not the verbosity of editors. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::If you really want consensus you might consider fostering a more collegial environment, rather than telling people they're "out on a limb" and ordering them around as to what they must and must not do. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 16:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry. Now, to the point: KDP reverted, but the only ''specific'' objection in her summary was to the bold text. "Etc." doesn't tell us much. So, to satisfy her objection, I've replaced the version with the bold formatting removed. As to "collegial environment," well, it's hilarious, consider what this article history has been like for months and possibly for years. I am not assuming consensus, I'm observing that there is -- so far -- 100% consensus ''among the 'limited workgroup'', thus a reasonable basis for placing that version in the article. I.e., KDP reverted a version accepted as to text by five editors, with, so far, no dissent expressed there and only Kim's revert, which didn't actually object to the text, on the other side. Perhaps the bolding (which was my work) was totally off. As to yourself, well, text comments? Here or there? Boris, if I were attempting to control KDP, I'd have placed a warning on her Talk, not an "out on a limb" comment here. I apologized because perhaps my tone was bad, and I ''do'' intend to foster a collegial environment, including all editors and specifically KPD and you. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::First of all Abd - i suggest that you try to adhere to addressing the article, and not the editors - since this seems to be a large problem of yours.
:::::::::::Secondly i reverted the text for a reason, one of these was that the text was amateurish, and not adhering to MoS, the other was that its a version, that is less referenced and less comprehensive than the earlier version ... which had just been accepted and revised by standard consensus. Thinking that you can find consensus on a subpage, which people actually ignore, because of the long tedious blocks of text with little content, is rather far fetched.
:::::::::::The idea about making such a workgroup is not bad though - but expect to gain the consensus on the regular talk ''first'', before thinking that you've found the hole grail of consensus. (nb: and i'm male) --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Sorry, Mr. Petersen. I do ''not'' think I've found that "holy grail," simply that we had signs of being closer to it, which I think we should follow up on. The "amateurish" text was, I think, written by William M. Connolly; certainly it was suggested by him at this point. It can be sourced, and, I presume, will be. Sure, people ignore a subpage, and the "committee" work doesn't prove consensus. But our process is most efficient when an apparent consensus (apparent from a small group) is proposed by an edit. Obviously, you are free to disagree with that, but doing so through a bald revert is to begin edit warring. You may be willing to edit war, I'm not. I replaced the material, but with attention paid to satisfying what you had objected to specifically, the bolding, so I'm still not at 1RR today. Just noting that! What I'm trying to do is to encourage editors who object to this text to participate in the subpage, where we can ''build'' consensus, instead of clogging up this Talk page with redundant or clueless comment that goes nowhere in the end, or commenting through revert edit summaries, not a great idea. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm sorry? What exactly did you misunderstand in the concept [[WP:BRD|bold-revert-discuss]]? You were bold, i reverted and started discussion. But apparently you think that a comment and then reverting again isn't edit-warring? (hint: you are warring - not i). And sorry - unless you start getting ''extremely'' less wordy, people ''are'' going to ignore your postings - which in this case unfortunately makes for ignoring the subpage. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)I have a fairly tight definition of edit warring, and it does not include an edit which isn't a simple repeat of prior text, but which makes a good-faith effort to incorporate what objections have been specified. By that definition, Kim, your edit was edit warring (because it was a bald repeat without reading, apparently, the discussion behind it) but mine was not. Your level of "edit warring" here was only the level that begins an edit war, it's the point where there is a crossover from normal editorial process to "No! Not your version!". If I reverted you, simply and baldly, as you reverted me, absolutely, I'd be edit warring too. I.e., if I did the same as you. Clear? I'm not being "extremely wordy" here. You want blunt? You can have it if you want, but it probably won't be on this page. But that's irrelevant, many editors have mentioned the place where the section is being considered. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on Boris, get with it: ''The term 'global warming' is a specific case of the more general term 'climate change' (which can also refer to cooling, such as occurs during Ice ages). In principle, 'global warming' is neutral as to the causes, but in common usage, 'global warming' generally implies a human influence. However, the UNFCCC uses 'climate change' for human-caused change, and 'climate variability' for other changes [3]. Some organizations use the term 'anthropogenic climate change' for human-induced changes.'' from [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=57058554] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 07:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:Mostly OK but too wordy. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 16:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Very funny, Boris. Any specific copy editing you'd suggest? Please, unless you expect general approval for an edit here, please go ahead and edit the working version (at [[Talk:Global warming/Terminology section]] to make it better).
:::I'm beginning to see Boris' point. The text does wander a bit, and finally gets around to mentioning "generally implies a human influence". I'm going to back off and prefer the version just prior to this one. I'd also like to see rationale from other editors. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] ([[User talk:Skyemoor|talk]]) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::There is a delicate balance here. The core meaning of "global warming" does not include "human influence." However, common usage does imply it. If we lead with "human influence," however, we will definitely be back to an unstable version. What was funny about Boris's comment is that the working version, ''which was suggested by and which may have (back in 2006) been written by WMC, is about the shortest we have recently considered, it's quite a bit shorter than what KDP reverted back in.'' Now, discussion here on this section will be transient and relatively inaccessible. Discussion on the working group page will be permanent and organized for easy reference if issues arise on this section in the future. So, you can do what you like, but I highly recommend discussing improvements on the working group page. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Ill just ignore the sarcasm and get on with it. Here's a suggestion:
:::::"Global warming" is a specific <s>case of the concept</s>example of climate change, which can also refer to cooling. In principle 'global warming' is neutral as to the causes, but in common usage 'global warming' implies a human influence. The UNFCCC uses 'climate change' for human-caused change, and 'climate variability' for other changes [3].
:::We don't need the aside about ice ages. "However" doesn't add anything. We don't need to keep saying "the term," as the italics (or scare quotes) imply that for us; further, GW is an example of CC per se, not "an example of the term" CC (which I'm not even convinced is grammatical). "Generally" is redundant after "common usage." It could be made yet more concise, but these changes trim the worst of the bloat. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Further concisification -- "case of the concept" -> "example". [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 18:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Those are good changes, they should be made to the working version on that specific talk page. I won't steal Boris' thunder. [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 18:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Anyone can do that. I'm not accepting or objecting to these changes at the moment, but from a quick glance, they seem fine. Thanks, Boris. The goal isn't conciseness, per se. It is accuracy, balance and clarity. Really, really good prose will be all these things, but merely concise prose isn't necessarily better. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Okay, fine with the changes, except that there is substantial desire that has been expressed for "anthropogenic climate change" or "anthropogenic global warming" to be specifically mentioned. Small price for total consensus, I'd say. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sure. I didn't include that sentence because I didn't think it needed any changes. But come to think of it, I'd replace the "some organizations" bit since it's not just organizations who prefer this term; how about "authors" or "writers"? [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I took the previous suggestions and incorpated them in the working version, but I left the ACC mention the same as before. Either "authors" or "writers" or, how about "sources," would be fine with me. I thought "organizations" was clumsy, too. Anyone, as far as I'm concerned, can bring the working version back in to incorporate these changes. I made some minor edit to it, replaced redundant mention with "it." See, even more concise! (It may surprise folks, but I was a copy editor. I do know how to be concise; problem is, it takes ''much'' more time.)--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, I think it was Winston Churchill who once wrote "I am sorry this letter is so long, but I did not have time to make it shorter." [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Mark Twain[http://www.famousquotes.com/show.php?_id=1045873] [[User:Mishlai|Mishlai]] ([[User talk:Mishlai|talk]]) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah, thanks. I knew it was someone British. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Didn't we fight a war over that? Anyway, I have a friend, excellent writer, who will say what I might say in about one-third the space. He says, though, that it takes him three times as long, as he copy-edits himself. There are three components to good writing: research, writing, and copy editing. Research takes the most time, but includes the entire life-experience of the writer. If a writer is just writing from immediate understanding without doing additional research, it's often fast. Copy-editing, then, can take much longer. I don't copy-edit, much, unless I'm trying to push a point, to convince, as distinct from simply discussing something. Drives some people up the wall. "What's your point?", they want to know. Well, I'm trying to figure that out, together with all of you. Wikipedia has researchers, writers, checkers, and copy editors. We tend to expect everyone to do all four, but, in fact, some are better at one than at the others. The tension between writers and editors is practically a stereotype, cats and dogs. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the last reasonably sourced version by SBHB [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=246150337&oldid=246053175 here]. The version I reverted is a whitewash that fails to effectively describe the basic terminology, which effectively negates any need for a "Terminology" section. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 19:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

== Solar variation -> "Solar brightness" ==

In the Solar variation section it takes about "Solar brightness", but that does not clarify--Are they talking about infrared too or just visible light? It sounds like they mean just visible light and infrared light from the sun is what causes heat such as you feel the sun on your skin makng it hot that's infrared light. The ambiguity is much worse in the [[solar variation]] article. [[User:Are you ready for IPv6?|Are you ready for IPv6?]] ([[User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?|talk]]) 01:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:You'll want to read up on the SORCE mission -- stands for Solar Radiation and Climate Expt, if I recall correctly. I saw a presentation by Calahan at last spring's EGU assembly on variations in near-IR. By the way, visible radiation ''does'' make you feel warm; it's not just the near-IR (note the Earth receives very little thermal IR from the sun). [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The statement about "thermal IR" doesn't seem to be correct, see [[Solar_radiation#Solar_constant]], for example. According to that article, about half the total irradiance is in the "near-infrared." I'm not sure what "thermal IR" means. The [[infrared]] article says that ''Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49%[8] of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths.'' (To answer what is below, "infrared" sometimes to the literal meaning {"below red") but usually it's the name for the band between red and microwaves, with some ambiguity about exactly where it stops, the infrared article limits it a [[teraherz radiation]]. The [[solar variation]] article seems to use it to mean effectively all the longer-wavelength energy.) --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:: So it only accounts near-infrared but not actual full infrared? Hmmm there's also microwave radiation that a star can put out, too. [[User:Are you ready for IPv6?|Are you ready for IPv6?]] ([[User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?|talk]]) 13:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec)Sure. As temperature of an incandescent body increases, however, the peak emission occurs at shorter wavelengths. At any given wavelength, the emission increases with temperature, but the percentage of total energy in a particular part of the spectrum, at wavelengths longer than the peak, decreases. If I've got it right, somebody correct me if I'm wrong. (I had [[Richard P. Feynman]] for physics for two years, but, hey, it was more than forty years ago, and I was a bit distracted at the time by life, as I still am.) As to "solar brightness," let's start with [[Solar irradiance]], which includes all wavelengths. I presume that "solar brightness" is a synonym for "solar irradiance," the term redirects to that article. Radiation coming from the sun, at all wavelengths, warms the earth, except for what is reflected or stored as chemical energy; and, of course, the warmer the earth is, the more energy it, itself, radiates away. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::No it not just accounts for near-infrared. Please follow Boris' suggestion. The very first link on Google for SORCE is [http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm this], where you could have determined it yourself. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 15:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Hmmm http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm says "The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a NASA-sponsored satellite mission that is providing state-of-the-art measurements of incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar radiation." So it might be good to be clear when the measurements are "solar irradiance" and when they are only some of the frequencies. This is a nice picture, [[:Image:Solar Spectrum.png]] [[User:Are you ready for IPv6?|Are you ready for IPv6?]] ([[User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?|talk]]) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Measurement of total solar irradiance is always going to be projected from measurement at specific portions of the spectrum. (Maybe not. Is there a black [[bolometer]] up there?) Generally, one could calculate total irradiance fairly accurately from radiance in as little as two different portions of the spectrum. What varies with the sun is the total brightness, which varies with the temperature, except for some details. When we talk about a blue star, we are talking about a hot star, relatively, and a red star is cooler. Again, if I've got this wrong, someone correct me. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:14, 17 October 2008
::::Have you noticed the links on the page - for instance the one for total solar irradiation? --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::For convenience, [http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/instruments/tim.htm Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM)]. Plots for entire mission are at [http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/sorce_tsi_plot.html]. Note five-year overall small cooling trend. To accurately predict the impact of this on the Earth would require studying the wavelengths that aren't reflected or absorbed chemically (photosynthesis). I don't know what percentage of the overall irradiance is in that category. However, it looks like the Sun may be giving us a (tiny, tiny) reprieve. I assume that solar irradiance has been estimated for a much longer time, though. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Actually, the [[Solar variation]] article examines the topic of the effect on climate change, in great detail. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, if you look at that article history, you will see that most people here know that ;-). --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 17:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:36, 18 October 2008

it is a load of rubbish !!!!!!!! don't be fooled

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change&oldid=246173059"