Jump to content

Talk:Climate change and Francies: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Orangemarlin (talk | contribs)
30,771 edits
 
spelling
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{seealso|Francis}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
'''Francies''' is a surname and may refer to:
|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


*[[Michael Francies]], British solicitor
|action2=FAC
*[[Chris Francies]], American football player
|action2date=2006-05-17, 03:21:25
*[[Toni Francis]], English pornographic actress
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Global warming
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=53624868


{{surname}}
|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)

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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=243951890&oldid=243950085] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=244195678&oldid=244186754] [http://en.wikipedia.org/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: 2 ?' ==

''Re-insterted by [[User:Babakathy|Babakathy]] ([[User talk:Babakathy|talk]]) to carry code, links etc'''

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:

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

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)
:::::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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

==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)

:May I point out this suggestion: [http://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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

OM, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

Revision as of 00:39, 14 October 2008

See also: Francis

Francies is a surname and may refer to:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change&oldid=245119175"