Talk:Climate variability and change/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Remember purpose of article

(William M. Connolley 20:07 16 May 2003 (UTC)) This page appears to be a somewhat poor relation to the global warming page. I've edited it a lot, and moved sme text (about historical proxies) to the historical temperature record page.

There is still much room for improvement. Sometimes, the page veers off into material more natural for the global warming page, forgetting the distinction at the head.

Internal forcing section

(William M. Connolley 19:20 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)) I've made internal forcing into its own section, and expanded the bit about climate being chaotic: that piece has long annoyed me and I've finally (as I see it...) corrected it. Also: add link to 1000 y T record (Mann) after "recovery from LIA" comment.

Thanks, doc. I must have thinking of a previous version. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:35, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Soon and Baliumas

(William M. Connolley 23:09, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Begin to roll back some regrettable skeptic additions by S W Wilco. Remove ref to Soon and Baliumas (since their paper is junk); and since the tar link provides a 1000y timescale anyway. Remove "5% ghg" bit because thats std skeptic flimflam; remove note re anthropogenic water vapour because water vapour has such a short atmos lifetime that its irrelevant. Add note that the "missing" 50% is *presumably* going into oceans and forests but this is still somewhat obscure. Essentially revert the entirety of his rewritten evaluation section since so much of it was wrong.

(SEWilco 03:09, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC))

• Can you be more specific about how the Soon and Baliumas report is junk? It mentions some specific issues with Mann's work rather than only "junk".

(William M. Connolley 08:45, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)) How about the fact that the editor-in-chief of the journal it was published in, 'climate research', resigned in protest? [1]

(SEWilco) The editor resigned because "the problem is that the methodological basis for such a conclusion was simply not given". The version in that journal is much shorter than the Energy and Environment "A Reappraisal" version. Does the Soon and Baliumas Reappraisal explain the methodology in sufficient additional detail? I don't know if the CR editor began with the small or large versions.

One presumes that he just didn't think the paper was acceptable. Note that E+E is a very minor journal. I have relied on quotes that the two S+B papers are "nearly identical papers" eg [2].

• Earlier IPCC reports recognized the "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age", but 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment doubts they were global. Soon and Baliumas specifically examines if they were global.

There *are* doubts as to whether these were global so IPCC is reflecting the science. Did you read what IPCC said? I've added it to the page, since there seems to be doubt...

(SEWilco) Yes, I read what I linked to. The 2001 IPCC recognizes MWP and LIA were in the North Atlantic area and doubts they were global. S&B examines if they were global. S&B issues with Mann are in page 26 of their long report.

OK, I've modded the text again, see if that is now acceptable. Note that a Mann criticism of S+B is at http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/Soon.EosForum20032.pdf and discussed at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html

• The Mann "hockey-stick" has great uncertainty and reduced data before 1400. Got more sources of 1,000y?

I dislike the term HS and don't use it. But to answer your Q: I'm not aware of sources other than those Mann uses, and *neither has anyone else* or they would be using them.

(SEWilco) Both S&B versions have a list of sources. Table 1, starting on page 4 (CR pg 92) of the short report.

(SEWilco) Page 9 of Mann 99 has the list of proxies.

OK, what is Mann (and all the others) missing? Mann et al say that S+B use invalid proxies: specifically, that "SB03 approach which defines a global warm anomaly as a period during which various regions appear to indicate climate anomalies that can be classified as being either warm, wet OR dry relative to 20th Century condions.

(SEWilco) I'd have to chase the numbers to be sure, but notice that warmer weather causes different effects in Iowa, a swamp, or a desert. Warmer, wetter, or drier. S+B are only trying to detect the anomalies, without having to weave all those proxies into a coherent temperature record. If the reported results from proxy 123 mentions warmth which meets the requirements, that's a warm point. Mann has been building an integrated temperatures proxy in one part of the globe, which only showed Europe had warm and cold periods but not if they were global.

5% GHG

• 5% ghg is not a relevant fact? Reporting a "50% increase in murders" should mention if the previous number of murders was 5 or 500.

This is the standard skeptic stuff (if you didn't know that, you've been fooled). Water vapour is the largest GH gas but its reactive: the quantity of water vapour in the atmos responds to the climate.

(SEWilco) And omitting the 95/5% heating effects is standard Global Warming stuff. The Climate Change page should not ignore water vapor.

And the climate responds to the amount of water vapor. And CO2 heating is enhanced by water vapor.

Yes, CO2 warming *is* enhanced by water vapour. But consider this: if you halved CO2 tomorrow, the climate would cool, water vapour would precipitate, and in weeks/months a colder state would occur. And remain, cooling slowly. If you halved water vapour, the climate would cool, but water would re-evaporate, and within weeks/months only a small fading anomaly would remain.

(SEWilco) Without the dense CO2, water vapor might circulate up more freely and increase its effects -- we'd probably be able to find out more easily whether there is negative forcing at certain extremes. Well, this page doesn't need that much detail, that's what the more specialized pages are for.

• Water vapor is irrelevant? It cycles, but it doesn't all fall out the sky.

It has an atmospheric lifetime of about a week (in the trop). If you add more from car exahausts it will just precipitate out.

(SEWilco} Some does precipitate, but it is random and uneven. The effects of water vapor can't be ignored and should be mentioned.

Mention it if you want, but do so accurately.

SEWilco I put water vapor notes in Greenhouse effect. Current numbers can go there, with change info being elsewhere.

MWP/LIA

(William M. Connolley 16:49, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Really, the MWP/LIA stuff should mostly go into the hist t record page. (William M. Connolley 21:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Well, I've put the text into LIA and MWP pages which existed anyway. The section is now called "examples of change due to natural factors" which makes more sense, and is headed by the 100kyr ice age cycle, since that is better understood.

(SEWilco 08:25, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)) It's falling together nicely. Good thing this is not Tetris.

How Many Bulls?

"Methane is mainly produced by cattle and by emissions of landfills."

Anyone have a reference to how modern methane generation is different from termites, prairie-covering herds, and swamps? -- SEWilco 17:22, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

(William M. Connolley 17:40, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)) It is, of course, in the IPCC report. I won't spoil your fun by telling you exactly where, but for a hint try chapter R U O F. Uncle Ed can have fun demonstrating SEPPs quality by finding the equivalent info from them, I'm sure.

Chapter 4[3] has some historical level info, and current values by source. I was wondering about historical values by source. Let's see.. each bison on alfalfa feed creates about 210L/day [4], which is near the low end of cattle [5] (top end is from dairy cattle), so inefficient feed in the wild probably makes them similar in methane production. However, the maximum estimate of 70,000,000 bison [6] is less than the 97,000,000 cattle[7] in the USA. So current ruminant production of methane is probably significantly larger than the native emissions in North America. I don't know the native termite population in the world before agriculture, nor marshes and other sources. -- SEWilco 21:03, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mention any historical info. I just updated the current methane sources. Landfills don't seem to be in the same league as the other sources. As glacial lakes are temporary, becoming swamps, I wonder what happens when all the swamps dry up. -- SEWilco 04:14, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

(William M. Connolley 08:31, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I've rephrased (deleted non-essential material) so the anthro GHG section is neutral (removed "some theorists" - we can't agree on this; I'd assert "essentially all", and insist on adding "and experimentalists, too"). The argument about how much/who is better elsewhere.

Radiative Forcing

Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion, and solar radiation have positive radiative forcing, whereas aerosols and land use changes have negative radiative forcing.

(Source: IPCC)

Perhaps it would be better to say that the United Nations claims that "Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases...have positive radiative forcing" -- until it becomes a matter of general agreement. Or, if it is already "generally agreed", please cite a source which asserts there is general agreement. (We could, of course, cite Al Gore who said "the science is settled"), but he MIGHT be a biased source.)

---

(William M. Connolley 19:56, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)) Lots of edits, most of which revert Ed's.

Moving "human factors" down out of its place makes n sense; I've undone it.

I've removed "burning coal and running farms" from the anthro section: it ought to say "principally co2 emission from fossil fuel comb" but theres no need to fight that here.

Dividing forcing into internal and external isn't controversial so there is no point qualifying it with "some scientists". (though from a tech point of view internal forcing isn't really forcing but it depends on how you look at it...).

Internal factors are not intrinsically complex, so I've removed most of Ed's adjectives from that section too: they added little.

Ed: please get out of the habit of calling IPCC "the united nations IPCC". We don't call SEPP "fred singers SEPP" (to take two organisations taht aren't even vaguley comparable... :-). IPCC isn't the correct ref for this, either.

What does "Since the 1970s, scientific ideas about the role of greenhouse gas emissions have varied" mean? That the ideas have varied in time, or that people have disagreed?

Revert last-3-decades-warming-anthro: whether you like it or not, Ed, there *is* general scientific agreement about this. This, however, does need some demonstration so I'll put together a page or section about this somewhere soon.

I've deleted the points-of-disagree section, since with the above changes it had become essentially empty. I think the discussion of this would be a good idea, but on the global warming page, which is more about *anthro* effects (and deection thereof) whereas this page is supposed to be a less controversial one about just climate change (hard I know).

---

(William M. Connolley 20:39, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I've added a section on attribution. All of the links are to IPCC, hurrah. I haven't attempted to add a skeptic position, on the grounds that... well, I'd just be caricaturing them. I'm sure there are people out there ready to take up the task. I haven't referenced individual statements directly to scientific papers in the interests of readability; but this can be done if desired.

---

Like it or not:

1. There is not general agreement on anthropenic forcing
2. "Consensus" is irrelevant to science; only reproducible results matter.

Also, let's not have conflicting or shifting definitions:

'Climate change' includes natural and anthropogenic forcing; 'global warming' is usually used to mean changes with predominantly anthropogenic forcing.

If "climate change" and "global warming" have agreed-upon definitions, let's be consistent between the two articles. I thought the definitions were:

• climate change - longterm trends in temperature and weather
• global warming - same as climate change, but getting hotter

So, climate change should include both periods of global warming and global cooling. If anyone in the scientific community or the environmentalist press is using a different definition for either or both terms, we should emphasize and clarify this difference. This encyclopedia is about making things clear - not vague. --Uncle Ed 21:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:44, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)) Oh dear Ed, and you were doing so well at not editing GW related pages...

Like it or not, there *is general agreement that the recent warming is anthro. Can you find papers saying otherwise? No? Well I can, and have, found papers saying it is. Hence, reverted.

Re shifting definitions: none of these terms truly have agree meanings. What I wrote at the top of the page is essentially correct, though. GW means, literally, the world getting hotter. But people use it to mean anthro forced. Anything that is GW is also cl ch.

Soon and Lindzen

(William M. Connolley 23:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)) I've put anthro-last-3/4-decades back into general agreement, but qualified that by "in the sci lit". AFAIK neither Soon now L have written attribution papers, however much they talk in non-rev-lit. Or have I missed some?

(William M. Connolley 18:43, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)) I've reverted (mostly) Ed again. Because:

S+B was not about attribution (AFAIK... feel free to quote from it to show me wrong)

Ed clearly wrote his bit in a hurry, how else to explain "There are, however, scientists such as Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen who say that there is insufficient proof of this as yet. It's not clear whether their lengthy article should be called a "paper" or not, but it certainly exists." which says S+B was written by S+L :-)

How about writing an entry for WS, since he's so important?

I deleted the link to GWH since this is just a redirect to GW.

Journal Editor

The journal editor did not resign because of any specifically-mentioned methodological problems, but because his publisher wouldn't let him rush into print an EDITORIAL denouncing a peer-reviewed article. He thought he had (or ought to have) enough authority, as an editor, to do that.

Sounds like he's saying, if I can't have unilateral control over the contents of the journal, so that it reflects my personal views, I refuse to edit it: grounds for being fired, I'd say, rather than proof that the article in question is unscientific. If the article were in fact unscientific, why doesn't he point out specific errors or problems with it? --Uncle Ed 21:34, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:44, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)) Here you're being silly. von S resigned because he though S+B was a poor article, badly reviewed, and that journal procedures needed tightening up. When the publisher wouldn't let him write an editorial saying so (what is this rubbish about "rushing" anyway; and what happened to editorial independence?) presumably because he would have found it embarssing, von S resigned. Amd several others followed him.

I prepared this editorial for Climate Research on 28. July 2003. It was not accepted by the publisher, and therefore I stepped down as Editor-n-Chief on the same day. The editorial has not been published, and I have left Climate Research for good. (For further details, refer to http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch/cr.2003.htm) Hans von Storch, 4. August 2003 [8]

After a conflict with the publisher Otto Kinne of Inter-Research I stepped down on 28. July 2003 as Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research; the reason was that I as newly appointed Editor-in-Chief wanted to make public that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas article was an error, and that the review process at Climate Research would be changed in order to avoid similar failures. ... However, my authority as Editor-in- Chief did obviously not cover the publication of an editorial spelling out the problem. [9]

The Editor resigned because publisher wouldn't let him run an editorial denouncing the Soon & Balunias article which had ALREADY PASSED peer review. Sounds like, "if peer review passes an article I disagree with, must be a problem with peer review." Warmers simply refuse to accept ANY scientific criticism of their pre-formed conclusions; whoever disagrees must be ignorant or cheating. Such shameful prejudice should not be allowed to pollute Wikipedia any longer. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 17:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Merge with global warming article

I'm planning to list climate change on VFD, because it looks like a rehash of the global warming article. Moreover, the term climate change is just code for human-caused global warming and I don't think the W should support this use of the term.

This article should be replaced with a general survey of changes to world climate as known to geologists and other students of climate. Until then, I'm inclined to delete it. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)) You really are having a bad day Ed. Slow down.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen of global warming ;-) -- Uncle Ed

I think climate change is not supposed to be "code" for anthropogenic global warming. As you said, this is supposed to be an article about climate change in general. The global warming article is where the popular concept of possible human caused warming should have general coverage, as global warming is merely a type of event when viewed as part of climate change. -- SEWilco 15:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is incoherent at best

This page is linked from at least the tropical cyclones page, and quite frankly coming here after reading that page shows just how much work this page needs (no offense to the authors). There is no flow to the texts on the page and I can honestly say I learned nothing from this page. I see a lot of guesses, sourceless facts (therefore they aren't facts in my book), etc., etc.

Also every sentence doesn't need to be its own section. There are several sections with 3 of less sentences in them. Again this negatively impacts readability. If you want to write short, to the point, sentences under appropriate headings, that's fine.. but you've got wishy wash prose, in a very structured format. It just doesn't work.

(William M. Connolley 19:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)) If you learnt nothing from the page, you either know a lot about cl ch (in which case, do help improve it) or you didn't make much effort.

As a first step, how about listing the first three sourceless facts:

*

*

*

Not only incoherent, but probably redundant, although Dr. C. wrote the following in an edit summary:

This article should not be merged with Global warming. The two are conceptually distinct.

William, would you please explain some of the distinctions between the two concepts? I would like to modify the terminology section of the global warming page so that it no longer uses "climate change" as a synonym for "global warming". --user:Ed Poor (talk) 17:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Ed, this is hopeless. Don't you even bother to read the pages you comment on. From the intro to GW:

Use of the term "global warming" generally implies a human influence — the more neutral term climate climate change is usually used for a change in climate with no presumption as to cause and no characterization of the kind of change involved.

From the intro for cl ch:

The term climate change is used to refer to changes in the Earth's climate. Generally, this is taken to mean changes in the temperature, though 'climate' encompasses many other variables (precipitation, clouds, etc). 'Climate change' can be caused both by natural forces and by human activities; 'global warming' is usually used to mean changes with predominantly human causes.

The page also makes clear that cl ch is used for changes (eg ice ages) in the far past that would not be called global warming.

Nor does the GW page use Cl Ch as a synonym for GW.

terminology

Someone should edit this page to note that the term has been pushed by Frank Luntz for Republicans.

New Articles: Global climate change and Climate forcings

Please read the new articles and consider commenting on them and/or moving some material to either one. Note that climate forcings is not specific to global climate forcings, so if it makes sense to create a separate section please do.

I hope this helps get this part of Wikipedia sorted out.

Posted to all discussion pages listed in the "See Also" section of global climate change. --Ben 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FYI, Global climate change now redirects to climate change. Rd232 22:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley

I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate. — Cortonin | Talk 12:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

skepticism

I am not a climate change skeptic. However, in the interests of being ecumenical as well as accurate (if only in the sense of reporting that skepticism exists) I think there ought to be a section in this article on climate change skeptics. It looks blinkered otherwise.

Skepticism is a good thing and should be encouraged whenever possible. However, the Greening Earth Society are a pseudo-skeptical advocacy group run by the Western Fuels Association, a coal lobby. The organizaion is also closely affiliated with ExxonMobil. It should also be noted that GES is not skeptical about climate change -- they admit that it's occuring. GES concerns itself with the beneficial effects of global warming. Essentially, they are skeptical of the negative effects of global warming. Their opinions are not taken seriously by the scientific community.[10] The external link certainly has a place on global warming controversy, which is a more politicized topic, and directly addresses their claims. --Viriditas | Talk 08:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about scepticism, we should first assess what wikipedia exists for. While it is true that many people do deny anthropogenic climate change, there has not been a peer reviewed scientific paper anywhere in the world which has done so. If we are going to have a page on scepticism here, we must also have a page on the flat earth society, and one denying that smoking causes cancer. Perhaps we should let people know these positions, or perhaps it is better to ignore them. (this by 80.176.74.100: nb, please sign your postings with 4 tildas)

(William M. Connolley 20:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I think the study you referred to was by Oreskes, and it was in Science. It didn't examine every paper, of course. Its discussed on the global warming page I think. I'm not sure I can think of a single peer-reviewed paper that denies a substantial anthro component to the attribution of recent climate change, but that won't stop the s(k)eptics claiming otherwise.

Paradigms

I've noticed several concepts which seem to be in use in the field, and they seem to influence how important various factors are considered to be. Some concepts contradict others, although one might be used as a special case within the overwhelming influence of the opposite. (SEWilco 21:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 22:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I've commented a bit. I don't understand:

• Large influences tend to have large effects.
• Some internal processes may undergo phase changes where behavior dramatically changes.

The first because it appears obvious, or perhaps circular (what is a large influence?... one with large effects...), the second I don't understand.

Large influence/effects: such as linear effects. Phase changes: State or behavior change, such as THC shutdown, or glacial episode blocking CO2 cycle. (SEWilco 09:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 12:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)) That would be "regime changes" in my terminology.

Temporary injunction

Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] by William M. Connolley [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

All timescales?

From the first para:

...all timescales and in all of the components of climate, including precipitation and clouds as well as temperature.

I don't know if it was meant to include short-term events such as cloud formation and such, which the wording does accomodate. It shouldn't - that's weather, not climate. Climate is the average state/behaviour of stationary (in the statistical sense) weather patterns over med- to long-term. And so cloud formation (etc) cannot be climate change. (Since I haven't been adding to this page, I make the comment here first.) Daniel Collins 3 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)

precipitation and clouds as well as temperature are indeed weather phenomena. But, changes in precipitation, clouds, and temperature patterns over the long term is climate change or the result of climate change. Changes in climate produce different weather patterns. So the changes in the short term events are the product of long term climate change. -Vsmith 3 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

I'm still not with you. Changes in precip can occur over many timescales. This would not exclusively be climate change. CC would be changes in the character of weather phenomena over a long period. Climate change affects the weather is a more accurate way of embodying the relationship. To give the impression that the dt in dC/dt is a day - raining one day, not the next - isn't right. Daniel Collins 3 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

OK, I reread the paragraph. This time through - it can be taken to mean changes over all timescales, the all timescales jumped out at me as the problem since it includes daily and other short term weather fluctuations. And I agree that it confuses the difference between weather and climate. Vsmith 3 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

I should have given emphasis to the "all", to make the case clearer. Daniel Collins 3 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)

The current state of the intro is now mildy wrong, since climate includes variability not just averages. For example, if precip were to change so that it rained 2x as much, but only every other day, that would be a change in climate, even if the average precip remained unchanged. William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 20:00:16 (UTC).

Absolutely agreed. Most acurate to say changes in statistics, but that's not helpful for communication. Daniel Collins 3 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)