Talk:Science of global warming

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

/Archive 1

/Archive 2

Editing This Page

• Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its natural occurrence is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts. It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ Sysop-TK ^Talk2Me! 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says. Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way? Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them. --Scientist 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Solar variation and global warming

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --Mtur 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [5] --Mtur 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Controversy over the facts

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's hockey stick graph.

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts themselves which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the reported facts are actual facts. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory? and stop bothering the rest of us here. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted

The whole section echoes this article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil 123. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs my checks. --hoboace

References

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. Learn together 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

• Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. Learn together 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Lead sentence suggestion

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gantczak (talk)

Ed Poor

[6] --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The Anthropgenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that natural forces account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The Politics of global warming article is about the conflict between liberals and conseveratives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for Kyoto Protocol or are partisan supporters of Democratic Party candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US federal funding is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like DDT and Malaria. --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

• Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data

In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[7][8][9][10] Jaques 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? Gantczak 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the Politics of global warming, go there. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

• See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
  • This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about global warming. We should write an article about Steve McIntyre and his scientific watchdog work.
  • It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius. Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before. --Scientist 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[11]

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Are the images really necessary?

Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place. Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead? --Scientist 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Ed...

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --Phyllisrules 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

Needed Entry

In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bag221 (talk)

• No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to liberal mockery) call opponents on the right. :)--SayaSan

• LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

• Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers think or believe or guess something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Global warming predicted by scripture

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things. But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --Witnessnbr1 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event.

We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --Scientist 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

• Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

On the other hand, there are very few other things which we can blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.

Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.

The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).

I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --Scientist 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

If you know anything about solar variation and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how cosmic rays affect cloud cover.

As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.

The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.

It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.

However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.

I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --Scientist 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Don't say it is believed when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a hypothesis or a theory. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

A small selection:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)

There are numerous others. --Scientist 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Section Needed on the Saturation Problem

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology.