Talk:Global cooling/Archive 3

Tweaking the intro

I don't see why this [1] (subsequently modded by Stephan) is an improvement. Giddings crit isn't particularly notable (none of them are) its just one example. The earlier (my!) wording is more accurate and less weaselly William M. Connolley 20:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrible article

Totally speculative, and very biased. No differing perspectives taken into consideration, and definitely does not meet the NPOV wiki requirement. I would like to see some links to criticisms. Iamvery 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrible comment. No substance at all. How does this article fail NPOV? Criticism of what? Global cooling? BTW, you can sign your comments with four tildas ~~~~ to give a more useful signature (with a link to your user page) conveniently. --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I must agree that this article is, at least for the time being, 'terrible'. And as for global cooling being only in the media, and having no scientific basis, I'm sorry, but since when is Al Gore a scientist? 12.218.145.112 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your criticism is rather unspecific and thus not helpful. Should we change "something"?. And for the second sentence: Do you confuse "only in the media" and "also in the media"? Assuming you want to draw an analogy with global warming, I suggest you check scientific opinion on climate change. --Stephan Schulz 19:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead again

I cut but nonetheless gained popularity on college campuses and amongst the general public as a result of the public discussions by a few prominent scientists at the time who backed the theory, as well as the dramatic coverage the theory received in mainstream media from the lead. I don't see any evidence for this; there were one or two media articles but hardly "dramatic coverage" William M. Connolley 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Political issues?

Could we add a heading to the end of the article re: current political significance of this theory? I think it's fair to say that Global Warming debate has broken down into a partisan political issue here in the US, and a lot of skeptics (largely right-leaning) cite the Global Cooling theory as evidence that, to put it bluntly, science has no idea what it's talking about -- "Look at this, they've been wrong before". I don't have specific links/quotes, but I could probably come up with some if pressed. I'd like to be NPOV about it, but I haven't seen any rebuttal of the charge (if one is really needed...) coming from the GW proponents/the political left. --James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.51.111.1 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Read this article - there never was a serious "Global Cooling theory". I don't know about global warming proponents/the political left, but the vast majority of scientists is aware of this fact. --Stephan Schulz 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Colder Winters, Cooler Year(s)

If there is global cooling, the Earth grows cooler (contrary to global warming). This means colder and frigid winters. This also means cooler summers and a cooler year as well. I think there would be cool deserts even with small temperature decreases, just like melting of the polar icecaps with global warming even with small temperature increases. 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The effects of global warming or cooling would almost certainly not be uniform. But I'm not sure what the point of this speculation is. -- Beland 06:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Many false statments

You had states that there was never wide support of the global cooling theory. I remember being taught global cooling in the 8th grade and my teacher was just as believing in global cooling, and referenced as many sources as you do to support golbal warming.

Additionally, according to the Newsweek Article you mentioned, Scientist were just as unanomous about global cooling as they are about global warming. Below is an excerpt from the Newsweek article.

"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century"

Doug in Westminster

Of course I don't know about your school. But Newsweek as acknowledged that their reporting back then was misleading. Read the various reports cited in the article. And the unanimity in your quite refers to the development of agricultural productivity under the assumption that climate cools. --Stephan Schulz 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe our resident scientists trying so desparately to tell us that we didn't really believe in global cooling in the good ole days. That may work on people under 40 but save your breath on us older guys. Global cooling must be one of the great embarrasments of climate geeks - don't worry global warming looks like the next one.159.105.80.141 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my $0.02 as an old timer in the UK. I too remember it very well. There was even a BBC science programme about it - The Weather Machine - and a book written by Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist (a UK equivalent of Scientific American). When I read this Wiki and compared it with my own experiences living through that time it reads like a revisionist history not a factual account. You might care to peruse some of the comments he has made recently on his recollections. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/calder.context.html

Calder believed it then and believes it still. So what? He doesn't and didn't represent "science". And NS is *not* the equic of SA - its rather more lowbrow, or at least it is now William M. Connolley 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article full of spin?

There are several words in the article synopsis paragraph which are opinion and have no place within an unbiased article.

"Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth. More specifically, it refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."

The words being: Conjecture. Who decides that the theory had insufficient evidence or was speculation. The temperature did go down just as the earths temperature has been rising recently. But I think people would have a problem with me editing the global warming article , saying that global warming is conjecture!

Never had significant support. The word significant is opinion. People did believe in this theory and who is to say there opinions are not significant.

Slight downward trend. The word slight is pure spin and does not belong in an encyclopedia! Let the statistics speak for themselves, instead of deliberately trying to influence the opinions of the article reader.

Please will somone fix this lack of neutrality in this article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbiddle (talk • contribs)

All words used are value judgements to some extent. What would you replace "conjecture" with? I don't think you could say "theory" - there was no coherent theory, as the article demonstrates. Lack of sci support is again demonstrated by the article. "Slight" seems fair enough, in comparison to the recent warming William M. Connolley 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A very valid point has been raised here. This article is not objective. I don't want to point any fingers, but it appears that any changes to remove subjective language are being reversed. That's to the detriment of this encyclopedia. I understand the Global Warming proponents feel strongly about including links to their preferred sources and language disparaging the Global Cooling theory. Why is that? It smells of politics, not science. I might cautiously add that it appears certain users who sit on this board all day have tainted this article, and refuse to allow changes that would improve its objectivity. Unless the subjective language is removed and the article is allowed to be rewritten in a fair and objective manner, it will continue to be B- content. DocHolliday (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to make suggestions or improvements - but please make the later after reviewing the sources. Some of the very scientific papers that have been the source of the famous Time magazine article already contain the caveat about greenhouse gases possibly overcompensating the orbital forcing. And even this hedged position was not strongly supported in the scientific community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to object to This hypothesis never had significant scientific support. And yet this is supported by the text of the article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My interest is objectivity, and I find a lot of the language in this article to be biased and misleading. While there's good information to be found here, as others have pointed out, it seems to be purposefully propagandized to promote the Global Warming theory. Both theories have their flaws. Maybe I'm missing something -- Is there an agenda the rest of us should be aware of? DocHolliday 12:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to your edits - that seems objective. I assert that This hypothesis never had significant scientific support is supported by the text of the article, as it should be. Are you disagreeing? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the theory that was prevalent in the 1970's. First, I don't recall it being called "global cooling". Rather, the theory was that 1) we were about to enter another ice age and 2) ice ages were entered very abruptly. IT wasn't man made although many allusions were made as to how man was accelerating the descent. There was a number of research going on to look at glaciation and the warning signs. Also, the prevalent pollution concern was acid rain. Certainly all geologic research contained the caveat of anthropogenic causes changing the equation (and not just GHG warming, but cooling as well). There were also the albedo crowds arguing that clear cutting of forests would reflect more heat, cause the ice to expand even faster than it was, and create a positive reflective feedback. For example, this article just asserts as fact in the abstract that the northern hemisphere ice sheet will continue to expand. Long term cooling trend (with anthropogenic caveat) here. Note that the caveat could be both warming or colling affecting the cycle. Here's an article warning that cooling can cause volcanic eruptions. While not stating that cooling is happening (at least not in the abstract), it would seem silly for a prestigious journal to publish dire predictions about something that isn't even being entertained. Certainly today, a paper warning about a dire consequence of "global cooling" would not be entertained because global cooling isn't happening. But it was entertained in the 1970's because the general consensus was that an ice age was coming. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this abstract does not " assert as fact t that the northern hemisphere ice sheet will continue to expand" - where do you read that? I'll give you the second one, but a) its published 1980 (i.e. long after the craze), and b) its talking about many millennia, not about glaciers in New York City tomorrow. And the last one is not "warning" that cooling can cause volcanic eruptions, or making "dire predictions", it is trying to explain a putative correlation between volcanic and climatic events. A paper on this topic could indeed be published today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This statement "...is regarded as an optimal configuration for delivering moisture to the growing ice sheets." seems to state "the growing ice sheets" which implies the ice sheets are growing. Ice age fear was promoted up to 1980 although it was also competing with GHG warming theories by that time. The hysteria was fueled by the science but the science itself wasn't hysterical. There is similar happenings today. Your argument that the science was talking about millenia is true but this article is about the phenomenom of the perception of an imminent ice age. How the public and press should have reacted to the science isn't the same as how they did react to the science. Today, large rainstorms or heat waves or hurricanes invariably trigger the random press report about the storm being related to global warming. That hysteria doesn't reflect on the science, but the science is what fueled speculation by the press. The same is true for the ice age predictions in the 1970's. Glaciation research triggered a number of articles in the press typically after a winter snow storm. Even with global warming, the eastern seaboard of the U.S. has cooled slightly (whence the term global) but I doubt anyone asked on the eastern seaboard would know that because the press focuses on warming. Scientists walk a tightrope of trying to promote their research and getting the public interested in it and also not sensationalize it. The 1970's were a misinterpretation of scientific reports that led to the general conclusion by the public that an ice age was imminent. Scientists in the field did not really diminish those fears and in some cases activists prayed on them. I'd argue that one of the reasons for IPCC is to change that and put broad interpretations on the data so the press doesn't have to and they don't rely on single sources to produce crap scientific scare journalism. Judging by the number of articles linking last weeks weather to global climate change, I'd say they have not done a very good job in that respect. --DHeyward (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to re-read that abstract again, including some more context. The juxtaposition at latitudes 50°N to 60°N of an "interglacial" ocean along-side a "glacial" land mass, particularly along eastern North America... is not referring to current conditions, but to previous cold spells. As you can easily verify, Eastern North America between 50°N to 60°N is spectacularly non-glacial at the moment (and was likewise in the 70s and 80s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one. --DHeyward (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your assessment of the northeaster coast and I am not arguing they are correct. I am only quoting what they wrote. They used present tense and also say "comparable to those of today's ocean." They are talking present tense and they are talking about the north atlantic in the 1970's. This is part of how the ice age scare was propagated. --DHeyward (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No. They say ocean temperatures were similar than today. They don't mention current ice sheet growth at all. The present tense "is regarded" refers to the current understanding of the phenomenon ("we think we now know what did happen back then" - notice the present tense again), not the climate configuration. They are very explicitly talking about "two 10,000-year periods of Northern Hemisphere continental ice-sheet growth [...] within the last full interglacial-to-glacial cycle", and not about current climate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Today, large rainstorms or heat waves or hurricanes invariably trigger the random press report about the storm being related to global warming - yes, but the GW article doesn't inc;ude such stuff. Nor should the GC article. Your addition of Hay to the intro was unbalanced, as was the text. I've moved it into the Milank section where I think it belongs. Your preception that it was only milank stuff is srong - the aerosols were there too. Scientists in the field did not really diminish those fears and in some cases activists preyed on them - interesting point; if you can find some stuff about activists preying on fears, it would be worth putting in William M. Connolley (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Global warming is a science article. This article should be about the phenomenon of the ice age scare in the 1970's. I don't think it should be just the science of global cooling because it obviously is incorrect. The Newsweek article wasn't scientific. The Flat Earth theory isn't about the science of the flat earth because the science is obviously weak but it is about the history and social aspects of the theory. This article should be the same. As for aeorosols, I think it fits in as well and was a major part of the theory. The prevalent view was that the ice age was coming and the actions of man were hastening it. Deforestation, pollution from sulfates, particulates from fossil fuel consumption, etc, all were used to further the scare. Even the concept of "Nuclear Winter" preyed on this fear of cooling. The individual science in all of these areas was sound but occasionally someone linked them all to the coming ice age and this is what fueled the hysteria. It's not unlike today's pictures of hurricanes eminating from smokestacks or movies such as The Day After Tomorrow. It's not science but it fuels pop culture and that isn't insignificant. --DHeyward (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes, GW is science. This is about GC, which is rather different. At the moment the primary focus is on science, and major "respectable" publications. You said Scientists in the field did not really diminish those fears and in some cases activists preyed on them and I replied interesting point; if you can find some stuff about activists preying on fears, it would be worth putting in - do you think you can indeed find such stuff? The prevalent view was that the ice age was coming and the actions of man were hastening it - I disagree. You are suffering from false-memory syndrome. Compared to GW, public and press reaction was minor; the prevalent view was to ignore the issue. Re the Ant Conv paper: have you read it? Adding papers only from abstracts is naughty William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. But read the title and the abstract and you will get a sense of public opinion and how the science was presented to the public. Why would that title be put that way? The title was for public consumption, not science. I recall accurately what the perception was and I don't claim that the ice age fear was as big as the global warming fear is today. Nor was it supported by as much scientific evidence in either breadth or depth. It was more akin to the hysteria on bird flu or Y2K. You could argue that scientist were never really concerned about bird flu or Y2K either but it wouldn't diminish the scope of the public and press hysteria. Certainly bird flu spawned reevaluations and publications about flu pandemics and even provocative titles in scientific literature but the reality is that science created hysteria even if the scientists were not hysterical. I will search for some of the activist suff but mostly it was acid rain, particulates and deforestation hastening the next ice age. Global cooling wasn't there only point but one of many. It sort of like the way hurricanes and extreme weather are used by activists today to highlight global warming. We all know it happens, we all know scientists don't support it and we all know that extreme weather isn't the only possible consequence or even the main reason to avoid global warming. But it also doesn't change the fact that activists use these weather events to call attention to their cause. Activists in the 1970's did the same thing. --DHeyward (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats the second time you've said Activists in the 1970's did the same thing.; I've already asked you twice if you have any evidence for that; should I take it that the answer is no? As for the paper - I'm not at all happy with it being in, given that you haven't read it, nor anyone else here. Summarising papers from abstracts only is a bad idea - we have no idea what timescale was being talked about, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be provocative by saying it. I obviously don't have a source or I would have added it to the article. It is just my recollection and I'm trying to remember some of the activists at the time to see if I can find any contemporaneous statements. There were lot's of different activists at the time for various social and political causes. It's along the same lines as what was said in the Cosmos series which took a while for me to remember where I had seen it. It may even be the same activists (i.e. Sagan). I added the ice age paper because of its abstract and title. I don't vouch for the science and I am not citing it as evidence of a pending ice age. Nor am I a climate scientist so I don't even think I could even assess it in light of other scientific papers regarding antarctic climate it if I read the whole thing. From a social observation aspect, though, the abstract and title (and sometimes less than that) are all that gets covered by the press and public. I agree with you that from a scientific standpoint, the timescale and the basic assumptions about convection would need to be analyzed. That paper, I believe had it's basic assumptions questioned less than a year later. But the bell was rung from a social aspect and it sets a certain psyche. My recollection is that a looming ice age was a generally accepted natural phenomenom. That title would not have raised the red flags it raised today. My own perception is that the title was not provocative in 1970 because "pending ice age" was a widely accepted possibility. Today, it would be very inflammatory and perhaps even irresponsible regardless of the timescale because of the general consensus on warming and the focus of climatologists to warn of the pending dangers of global warming. --DHeyward (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the paper out, because reading the whole thing [2], or indeed the abtract itself, doesn't fit your wording. If you want it to go back, it needs to be phrased as you have above - that the science says nothing about immenent ice ages, only the title, or abstract, or whatever William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten it but you seem to be missing the point on the mindset at the time. Science at the time pointed to ice ages that occured approximately every 12,000 years. We are at 11,500. It was generally regarded that the next ice age was imminent. I believe the ice age cycle has since been revised but that doesn't change what people though in the 1970's. --DHeyward (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, whether you mean the public or scientists. You're also confused, since the ice-age cycle is 100kyr. I've removed the section - there is a vast amount of detail there that is completely irrelevant to the article. This is an obscure paper that never came to public note, and has never even been cited in the septic literature. Your case for its relevance on this talk page was in terms of the abstract and title being "eye catching", and thats the only relevance I could see, though saying so could easily be OR... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said at the time ice ages were believed to be 12,000 years apart and we were "due" for another one. It wasn't "sceptic" at the time as it was mainstream thought based on a paper in Nature. I find it difficult to believe that the criteria is for a faulty scientific theory is "widely cited". This article exemplifies the thinking at the time. It made it through peer review in a prestigious journal with it's title and conclusion that a new ice age was possible. The reviewers didn't force him to retract this claim. It wasn't citied because like everything in "global cooling", it was wrong. The author was and is not a sceptic. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument seems weak. This was a 1970 peer reviewed article in a prestigious journal warning of conditions supporting a new ice age and you claim it isn't relevant to the article on 1970 "global cooling"? I think you need to reevaluate what this artcile is about. --DHeyward (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how WMC makes an "I dont like it" argument. Being published does not make something "mainstream". It was one paper, and no one cared. Only the media picked it up for the same reasons you are picking it up... History repeating! Brusegadi (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WMC's own original research and position is that global cooling wasn't a mainstream scientifc idea in the 1970's. For peer reviewed articles in the 1970's to casually throw out terms like "new ice age" and highlight correlation between conditions of ice age formation and the conditions as they knew them is evidence that it was a mainstream scientifc view. The title, abstract and conclusion made an assertion that was widely accepted at the time. It was a mainstream scientific view that an ice age was coming that we were within 500 years of the mean cycle between ice ages. Falling temperature trends, ice age research, and anthropogenic cooling activities such as acid rain, clear cutting of forests, ice sheet expansion and particulate emissions were mainstream scientific areas of study and widely believed to be a threat to the planet. At the time, global warming through anthropogenic GHG emissions was also a mainstream scientific theory with it's own set of mechanisms and threats. We now know which theory was the greater threat but at the time, both were being researched and both had widespread support among scientists, often by the same scienists. WMC somehow believes that admitting this would diminish the authority of IPCC or give the GW skeptics something to hang their hat on. In reality, accuratley relating scientific history gives IPCC much more credibilty as it's clear that the overwhelming scientific research has essentially buried the cooling theories. --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. Thanks. Mr. Connolley has chosen to insert the "wasn't a mainstream scientific idea in the 1970's" soley to remove any possibility of diminishing his work in anthropogenic global warming. It's original research, not supported by the article, and should be removed. Another point: The recent change deleting the line "Earth as a whole has not been cooling in recent decades, but is in a period of global warming" wasn't vandalism as you have described it. The statement is irrelevant, unsupported, and misleading. Wikipedia has been partially banned by at least one university as a source for students[3]. Others have pointed out that this wiki is no longer a credible source of information [4]. Treating this page and this wiki as your personal fiefdom, Mr. Connolley, has done nothing to improve its authority and only contributes to that perception. May I respectfully ask that you stop reversing edits to this page and recuse yourself? --DocHolliday 07:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your expertise is wasted here; you should go back to the topics you know better [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. The best defense you have for bastardizing this page is some fallacious ad hominem innuendo? DocHolliday (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This article exemplifies the thinking at the time - no it doesn't (at least not about new ice ages). As I said, the claim to notability is the disparity between abstract, title and text; it probably rates a brief mention, a sentence or two, something like "X published a paper called Y but it included no timing information at all and aroused little interest". Hence adding only the theory of the paper is wrong. The article appears to be NN in that its barely cited. Just to correct B a bit, Only the media picked it up... - not as far as I know. If they had, that would make it a candidate for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your're wrong. There is no disparity between the abstract, title or text. This article wasn't cited because the author published the flaws found in one of the measurement techniques he used for ice density measurements. All the global cooling articles are flawed but this flaw was found before lots of articles cited it. If anything, this author (who is not a sceptic) did his diligience faster than the others. The problem is your presumption that scientists didn't support cooling theories. That is patent nonsense. Here's what we know:

• At the time, ice ages were believed to be ~12,000 years apart. At the time, WMC, not now so your 100,000 year comment above is not relevant. We were at 11,500 years from the last ice age and the scientific belief was that the next one was imminent (geologic time scale).
• In 1970's, numerous scientists were exploring ice ages and their causes (that is why we know so much more today).
• In the 1970's, numerous scientists were beginning to study the climate including the recent cooling the world was experiencing and the implications of anthropogenic warming and cooling pollutants. Part of that was the study of past climatic events such as ice ages.
• This article postulated that the conditions that created the Pleistocene era ice ages (per a Nature theoretical article in 1966) was present in Antarctica in 1970. It was an applied science paper, not a theoretical paper. It was stated in the title, the abstract and the article itself that the conditions supported the formation of a new ice age. It was peer reviewed in a very prestigious journal (Science (journal)) which could have asked for a title change or more supportive information. The reviewers didn't make him change the claims for a new ice age even though the claim was very prominent. It wasn't like he buried it deep the text. They published those claims because they weren't shocking and the "ice age was imminent" theory was an accepted mainstream scientific belief at the time and data that said the conditions supported an ice age were not surprising. It may have been bad science, but it was the science at the time.

It is very relevant to explore scientists that postulated we were potentially entering a new ice age. I am not sure how you can argue this is not relevant since these were all tied together (albedo changes, ice sheet growth, particulates, acid rain, ice ages). They are all relevant and they speak of the knowledge of the time. Certainly there was science on the anthropogenic warming aspects such as CO2 and CH4 emissions, but in the 1970's there was no clear consensus on whether cooling or warming would prevail. Even as late as 1980, Carl Sagan said that the science was not settled as to whether cooling or warming would prevail and there significant scientific research on both aspects.

The paper highlights the difference in the scientific belief today versus 1970. Such a title, abstract and conclusion, based on Pleistocene era ice age formation, would not stand up to peer review scrutiny today because of the consensus of global warming. The rigor to make such a claim today would need to be much stronger. It is human nature for the bar that challenges consensus to be higher than the bar that supports consensus. This article didn't challenge any scientific consensus at the time. It was completely inconspicuous and non-controversial. But it was representative of the thought at the time. In contrast today, any scientific paper that challenges the scientific consensus on global warming get's significant coverage whether it's right or wrong while the vast majority of papers that do support global warming get little or no coverage at all.

As a compromise, I don't think it is necessary to include all the ice age/cooling scientific articles if the unsourced and incorrect claims about cooling theories not being mainstream scientific thought in the 1970's were removed. Then the research and beliefs could be summarized. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So many words, so beside the point. who is not a sceptic - of course not, the concept didn't even exist then. ice age was imminent - the paper says nothing about timescales. Carl Sagan - irrelevant; not a climatologist and nothing to do with this article. would not stand up to peer review scrutiny today because of the consensus of global warming - no, because the paper says nothing to condradict that. It wouldn't stand up because the assumption of convection is wrong, and (I assume) all the glacier dynamics is out of date. it was representative of the thought at the time - sez who? The article is NN, as said before. Periods of the ice ages: this didn't settle down to the 100kyr value till Hays 76 I think. Before then it was unclear William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The timescales were the prevalent belief. we're at 11,500 - ice ages were thought to come every 12,000 years and it was getting colder. THis was the belief at the time. I never put in the article that this paper claimed imminent or included timescale. What's the timescale today of greenland ice sheet completely melting? Because it's not "imminent" does that mean the prevalent belief today is not global warming? Of course not. Does every article that supports global warming say that the earth is warming? Of course not. It is a body of work taken in the whole. Your statement that a coming ice age and global cooling was not the prevalent view at the time is not supportable. Carl Sagan was a respected scientist and was very involved in the study of greenhouse gases. In fact it was his work on Venus climatology that triggered a lot of the concern for greenhouse warming on earth. That work on greenhouse gases and the theory that Venus was very hot, not a wet water world, was one of the things that made him famous. If Carl Sagan's view at the time was that the theory of cooling was a mainstream scientific idea, I don't know how you can argue thirty years later that he's wrong from your own original research. This paper was one of many that casually mentioned the next ice age. It is relevant because the prevailing view was that an ice age was "imminent" because we were very close to the cycle mean length (the belief at the time) and casually mentioning "new ice age" didn't get under anybody's skin. It would today and it has nothing to do with the science. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statement that a coming ice age and global cooling was not the prevalent view at the time is not supportable - of course its supportable. My off-wiki page shows it, and in fact I have a paper coming out in BAMS (I hope) which includes paper-counting to demonstrate it. *Your* assertion of the oppositite is unsupportable except by your false memories; which will convince you, of course, but no-one else William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And there we have it. The only source to support the statement "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support" is original research by William Connolley, which he hopes to have published soon. Anyone here surprised? DocHolliday (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have selective memory. YOu seem to think that global cooling and global warming are juxtaposed against each other. They were not in the 1970's. You have come to an Orwellian rerwrite of history that is very disturbing. As I've said, anthropogenic warming, anthropogenic cooling and ice age research were prevalent at the time. The fact that that you can do a paper count of cooling and ice age articles demonstrates that it was a prevalent theory. Your personal battle with sceptics today doesn't change this nor will an Orwellian rewrite. The research and theories into cooling in the 1970's doesn't alter the scientific merits of global warming research today. Hopefully you will subject your paper count to the same timescale as requirement as you did the article I brought here. Also, you should include the surface albedo paper by Sagan et al that you seem to have left out as well. --DHeyward (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

link

I was wondering if anyone else would like to see a link on here to a site that talks about the future comming of an ice age. iceagenow.com Is this guy for real, i don't know. But he does have alot of information an articles from others experts. I think it is a valid web site and gives something to the talk about global cooling. Please post if you like to see me at the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.24.2 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is the world is cooling. Not warming. Cooling. And it was always the case that the scientific evidence told us to expect cooling. Nothing has changed. Thats where the science is, was and remains.

It's not a WP:RS, and its not notable. I don't think we need it here. --Stephan Schulz 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Its junk William M. Connolley 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No its not junk. Prove it.

I personally wouldnt mind to hear both sides of the argument but that wouldnt fit in with the agenda of some users. I suppose you could try but you will be censored.Johnbiddle (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's totally unfair to dismiss a self-published book written with no editorial oversight that has received zero attention in the mainstream press or scientific community, authored by a person with no training or experience whatsoever in the field. We're wicked that way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats correct and there is no need to be sarcastic. Its EVIDENCE that we are after.

Global cooling books will never have mainstream support, because they do not fit in with the current economics of the scientific community. Saying that, I believe books about global cooling should have a place/link in an encyclopedia article entitled "global cooling"! Johnbiddle (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This web site is not just about a book, but also contains climate data and links to other articles including those in the mainstream press —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.92.64 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is somebody arguing that information about Global Cooling shouldn't be here in the wiki article entitled 'Global Cooling?' I vote to add the link(s). All sides of the argument should be heard...do not censor cited information on the sole basis that you don't want to hear it. There are already over 31,000 American scientists that have signed a massive petition before Congress--I think that far excedes anything required to be considered important for this simple wiki article.

global coolong

dr a suliman - told us as a physics teacher: global warming - ice caps melt and more liquid water - more of a force need to pull this from the moon - tilt of axis of earth change - therefore global cooling for six months on one half and heat normal on the other side of hemisphere

makes sense to me, he publishes it in the new scientist magazine soon, look out and incorportate this with regards to him . —Preceding unsigned comment added by T saston (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Milankovitch Cycles

Excuse me. Why did William M. Connolley remove the external reference that pointed to information on Milankovitch Cycles? He said: "rv: there is nothing wrong with it, but its unescessary: we have a perfectly good MF article and its linked". However, 2 points: 1st, what I added was an external reference (to a NOAA article), not an internal link to another Wikipedia article; and 2nd, the existing external reference (#24) for Milankovitch Cycles is bad -- click on it and you get this: "We are sorry - there has been an error processing your request. Please return to the Nature home page." So why the heck is it an issue to add a good, up to date, external reference?????? SunSw0rd (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in it, as I said. If your link is useful, add it to the MF article which this article links to. We should link within wiki to things we have good articles on, and put ext links to those things in there. We don't put in ext links to GW, or IPCC, or aerosols - for the obvious reason. MF is no different. Re the broken link: thanks for noticing, I did what you could have and looked it up via the DOI and fixed it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No thats not right William. And its about time you started thinking about climate EVIDENCE William. Does anyone remember EVIDENCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. SunSw0rd (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

If the article purports to be neutral I think it has failed. More or less every single line is second-guessed and undercut by its author. It might as well be a piece on medieval folklore, judging by its dismissive tone.

Since it is obvious that global warming exists - at least when viewed over millennia, I think all can agree on that - then the corollary, global cooling must also exist. Per definition. I think the topic deserves more honesty in writing than the current piece.

Here is a recent link of interest to those with inquiring minds: http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp

Actually, it might be better to combine both GW and GC under one header called "Global Temperature Cycles" - or something like that, you get the idea.

Thomas (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible "

This comment of "perfectly well aware" is not supported by what is referenced. Which scientists? All of them? Some of them? How do we know they were "perfectly" well aware? That's an unduly emotional statement without support by the cite. Plus it sounds an awful lot like 20/20 hindsight. "It should be realised" by who? (The readers of Wikipedia, obviously, but that is hardly appropriate encyclopedic writing, it is lecturing.) 76.166.204.89 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This still needs to be changed, but I'm not sure how to word it. "Climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible."? But the question then is, which ones? All of them? Can that be proven? It could say "Some climate scientists were aware" but that falls into the same problem in that 'some' is original research. The best I can figure is to say something like "Reservations against the ability of these trends for predictive value were recorded" and list the example, but that seems kind of awkward. The "it should be realized" should be completely dropped. 76.166.204.89 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Any comment on this? I'm about to change it to something that seems more encyclopedic. 76.166.204.89 (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewording sounds good. This paper about the science and the hype might be useful - I can email it to you if you don't have journal access. Awickert (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii Reporter

How could this "Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way" article from Hawaii Reporter be worked into the article? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. It has nothing to do with the historical meme, and Marc Morano is a political shill for Jim Inhofe, not a remotely useful source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But that hardly changes the fact Stephen that we are cooling and all the evidence says we will keep on cooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently came across this link: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm It's no where to be found in this article. Given that there is cold, hard data that global cooling exists, why is this article still biased in the other direction? 198.68.16.40 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved your comment here because the Hawaii Reporter article cites this Daily Tech article. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The dailytech blog is not a remotely reliable source. All except the very shortest-term temperature indicators are up. But I find it somewhat ironic that the very same people who used to claim that a century or so of climate data is insufficient to detect a warming signal now see cooling after half a cold winter... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So are you against including the link and the data it references (which is from a reputable source, while the blog may not meet your standard of being a reputable source) because it doesn't mesh with your idea of 'global warming'? From your sentence, that's what it sounds like. 68.222.160.154 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm against including it because most of it is plain wrong and in conflict with the considered opinion of the scientific community, and because it is almost entirely non-notable. Being unreliable and in conflict with well-established science, there is no reason to include it on its merits. It also is not connected with the particular theory known as "global cooling" (which by now taken on a secondary role as a proper name, not just a descriptive term), so it is also off-topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As a National Post article about the data admits, "one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades." Assuming just for the sake of argument that the evidence for global warming is exaggerated, exaggerating evidence for global cooling as a response to that makes no sense. Two wrongs don't make a right. The Squicks (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic entry -- viewpoints about 'global cooling' must be included for this to be a complete entry. Since there is scientific data (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html) that shows the earth is currently cooling, it should be included. Whether or not you or I agree on the issue of Global cooling is moot -- what isn't moot is that Wikipedia exists to be an expansive encyclopedia, and there is no justice done when data is ignored. Gortok (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That article is a popular press scare piece and quite irrelevant. No, on Wikipedia we are not interested in data, but in knowledge. If there really is a persistent cooling trend that is popularly referred to as "global cooling", then we can consider adding this to the article. But we do not add every short-term trend, or we bury the relevant information in mountains of irrelevancies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

rate of warming has dropped compared to 80's-90's despite CO2 increase. question is does this mean AGW theory is flawed or natural cooling cycles are masking global warming? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm meh. personally, i can't decide unless i take apart a climate model - and i'm not bored enough to do that. :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.105.117 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

film

The ceasing of thermohaline circulation in the world's oceans caused the rapid global cooling in the scientifically unfounded film The Day After Tomorrow.

The film is unscientific garbage, as its article notes. Why mention it here at all? The Squicks (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Only because people may have heard of it. I'm ambivalent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing it. It would be like mentioning skynet in an article about distributed computer systems. The Squicks (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IP disputes article

"This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Scientific consensus is that the Earth has not cooled, but undergone a period of global warming in recent centuries."

This is an outrageous statement. It starts with a flat out lie and ends with an attempt to muddy the waters. All extant scientific evidence points towards future cooling. There is no evidence whatsoever that we will continue to warm. Glaciations keep coming back and they last a very long time. The scientific evidence shows that nothing has changed and this cycle will continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is another outrageous statement: "The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate..." Carbon dioxide has no proven or known effect on climate. Ergo a sensible person would assume that the feedbacks were overwhelmingly negative and that such effect as did exist were very slight indeed. Now come up with some evidence for substantial industrial-CO2-induced warming or change the article. We cannot let this worthy project be compromised by emotional or political committment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

PDO and AMO

I think maybe there should be a section referencing the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Reason -- recent articles by NASA that the PDO has shifted to its cool phase, and articles including a report in Nature that the AMO has shifted to a cool phase. The convergence of these two together may shift the Northern hemisphere into a cooling cycle for at least the next decade. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Belongs on GW, or Cl Ch, but not here. This is a different page. Beware of grossly misleading interpretation of the current Nature stuff (assuming you mean what I mean [6]) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Global Cooling History as a Counter-Argument to Global Warming

I looked up this article to see if anything was mentioned here about the numerous conservatives who will point to the "global cooling" theories to support their claim that global warming is a farce. I remember one very-convincing guest on Jon Stewart's show hawking his book that lambasted global warming as just the next environmentalist scare tactic, and he (falsely) claimed that "all" of the scientists in the 70's were warning the world about global cooling. Should something be added about global cooling's role in the global warming debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Togamoos (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right,we should. I'm a bit surprised we don't so far William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Predicting something...

Article quote: "[...] Rasool and Schneider considered global cooling a possible future scenario, but they did not predict it."

I'm amazed by this quote. Rasool and Schneider said, in simple words, if the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere increases, temperature is very likely to decrease in near future. Currently, the IPCC says, in simple words, if the amount of CO₂ increases, temperature is very likely to increase in near future. Where's the difference? Mankind stoped poluting aerosols and climate did not cool. If mankind stops polluting CO₂ and climate does not warm in the next 50 or 100 years, will the same people who wrote this article right here argue that science never predicted global warming, only considered it a possible scenario? This is ridiculous.

Seems fair enough. The IPCC doesn't make predictions either William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW: There are a couple of "cooling papers" from the 1970s that are, for some reason, not mentioned in this article (like [7], [8] and [9]). —Bender235 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your first predicts nothing. 2nd I'm sure we discussed before here; basically its NN. Dunno what 3 says - what quotes from it do you like? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the fact that very few climate papers (I choose my words carefully) predict anything, the papers I mentioned included. They detect something and try to explain it, whether be warming or cooling or drying or whatever. However, the very existence of these papers proves there has been a scientific discussion about occurring global cooling, and thats what its all about.

In ≈1975, climate scientists said (again in simple words), people be careful, all that aerosols and sulfur emissions you're poluting are very likely to cause a global cooling, so stop it!

In ≈1985, climate scientists said, people be careful, all that Chlorofluorocarbon you're poluting is very likely to cause Ozone depletion, so stop it!

Since ≈2000, climate scientists say, people be careful, all that CO₂ you're poluting is very likely to cause a global warming, so stop it!

I don't see any difference between those three cases. —Bender235 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because those aren't the cases. In ~1975, please didn't know what was likely to happen, and said so. As the article documents. By ~1980, warming was fairly firmly established as the consensus; certainly by 1990. BTW, bringing in the ozone hole is a Bad Sign William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just wrong. In the 70s, climate scientist did not say "we have no clue about what's going on". They were well aware of the fact that CO₂ has a greenhouse effect and aerosols have a cooling effect. And they predicted (or considered a scenario) both that climate might warm because of increasing CO₂ or that it might cool because of increasing sulfur emissions. It's just not correct to state they didn't predict anything because they said they don't know nothing. ——Bender235 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to oversimplify a fairly complex situation. Have you read my paper? Try [10], you might find it interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about your paper. I care about the facts. Rasool and Scheider (1971) acknowledged the "effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities," and they also prognosticated what would have happend if aerosol content had increased. They did not say "we have no clue what we are talking about, we're blind men trying to describe an elephant" as you might want them to. However, aerosol content did not increase by factor 4, and the ice age never came back. But Rasool and Schneider still said what they said.

Incidently Rasool&Schneider(1971) is discussed on page 4 in the paper WMC pointed you at. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining me why climatology has to be the only science that never failed? I mean, is there any astronomer ignoring the fact that they did not know the universe is expanding - before Hubble? Is there any physicist denying that there has ever been such things as Le Sage's theory of gravitation? I don't think so. But still you're trying to sell us gross falsehood about what scienctists claimed in the 1970s, that global cooling "never had significant scientific support". It's ridiculous. —Bender235 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You apparently think your opinion to be the correct one. So if you have so much evidence - i suggest that you get the evidence printed in a reliable source. And then come back and teach us. Wikipedia relies on verifiability not truth. (neither yours nor WMC's).

Your personal POV is irrelevant, unless you can provide the reliable sources that promote that particular opinion. And of course show that its more than a fringe view. If you want to discuss your own personal views - then find another forum. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you realize I pointed one a "printed, reliable source" (Rasool/Schneider that is)? This isn't my POV. Actually, WMC is trying to sell us his POV. —Bender235 (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

One paper does not a scientific opinion make. Try reading the paper that WMC pointed you at. And yes WMC is an expert with a peer-reviewed paper on this particular subject. So i find it rather silly that you are dismissing it out of hand, and are instead going for your own original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you are unaware of how this discussion started. I never pointed on Rasool/Schenider for scientific consensus. I pointed on how Rasool/Schneider is interpreted in this article by saying they "considered global cooling a possible future scenario, but they did not predict it." —Bender235 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes? And has been already pointed out - they didn't predict such. Their paper is very specific on saying that its a possibility not a prediction. And it would require a 4 fold increase in sulfate emissions. Hence a possibility - not a prediction. (they were btw. wrong and acknowledged that in their paper in 1972). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Media response

We might add this 1974 Time Magazine article, as well as this 1975 New York Times article. —Bender235 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are any number of crap magazine articles about climate at the time. Why pick those? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually consider Time Mag and NYT "crap magazines"? However, even if you do, those articles deserve to be mentioned just as the Newsweek article, because they are an important part of the media coverage on global cooling. ––Bender235 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You have the bracketing wrong; english is like that. I called them "crap magazine articles" not "crap magazine" articles. I don't think we should include more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And why? It's not like this article would be too long if we added them. —Bender235 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This article is about global cooling, and I'm suggesting we should add two news paper/magazine articles to show the media response to that topic. Because, right now, there's only one media article cited. But there have been a lot more in 1970-1975 (beside these NYT and Time articles, there was also one in Science Digest, another one in the National Geographic, and two more in German newsmag Der Spiegel, to name a few). I just wanted to add two more to give an overview about the massive media coverage of this topic in the mid-70's. —Bender235 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Weight is about balance, not existence. Your claim that there was a "massive media coverage" is unsubstantiated - we need secondary sources that say that there was a massive media coverage - not your original research by cherry-pick. If we go 30 years into the future - i can cherry-pick 5 articles from within the last 2 years now, who will show "evidence" that the current period had "massive media coverage" of global cooling by the same merits that you are doing here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got your point. How about Pearce (2006)? —Bender235 (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The level of propaganda on this subject is beyond belief. TRUTH, n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. The Devil's Dictionary, Bierce. DasV (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Was there actual cooling?

• 
  NASA GISS
• 
  Hadley Centre

Thompson (2008) is suggesting that the apparent cooling in the temperature record between 1940 and 1970 is actually the result of a change in instrumental bias in the sea temperature record. This article claims that the cooling actually happened, and wasn't an artifact of how we were measuring. Should the article be changed to indicate that the apparent cooling was dubious, or should it be changed to indicate that the apparent cooling didn't happen at all? Smptq (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, does that mean both NASA and the Hadley Centre still don't know how to accurately record temperatures? Because both figures I added above show significant cooling from ≈1940 to ≈1970. —Bender235 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If the paper says what I think it does, it sounds like both NASA and Hadley may have a modest correction to make.Smptq (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

T08 looks to be jolly good fun. If it turns out to be correct, then a lot of stuff will need updating, starting with the main GW page (not here). But there is no hurry over this: its only just come out. Let it settle William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The graph above is inherently misleading. If you look at temperatures over the last 2000 years you can see that temperatures are already beginning to drop again as temperatures change based on a greater cycle not accounted for. (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#research-update) The models used to predict large increases in temperature due to "Global Warming" do not accurately include the effects of what really causes global warming: water vapor. CO2 is a tiny contributor to the greenhouse effect and thus these models have been unable to predict temperature reliably even over the last 10 years. Showman60 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Showman60 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Climate models are not capable of giving exact year-to-year predictions. That is not what they are trying to do, either. And of course current models do include water vapour. While water vapour is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, it is not the original cause of global warming - CO2 is. See the GW FAQ and the links there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Water vapor and clouds account for over 90% of the greenhouse effect and methane and ozone are significant contributors to the greenhouse effect as well. CO2 is not the "original cause" of global warming the sun is. Global warming would not exist without clouds and water vapor. CO2 is a trace gas that exists in very small quantities. Doubling the CO2 level would cause little more than 1 degree F increase in temperature assuming nothing else changes. Unfortunately, the earth is not a static system and feedback mechanisms such as precipitation and cloud cover keep the earth in Radiative balance. If you are suggesting that an increase in CO2 preceeds an increase in global warming that would not be a statement supported by the historical evidence. Ice coring evidence from Antartica indicates that CO2 levels have followed increases in temperature hundreds of years later. Showman60 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to mention Bryden et al. (2005)?

Before User:William M. Connolley reverts this page once again, let's try to figure out whether we should mention Bryden et al. (2005), including the wide-ranging media response from London to Sydney. I really think we should mention it, and I honestly don't know why Connolley is trying to conceal this study. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How is a slowing of the THC causing global cooling? There is nothing to conceal - the study simply does not belong here. Put it into thermohaline circulation, although, since it has ben superseded, its relevance is questionable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

…which means we are trying to conceal the fact that the Times of London claimed Britain faces big freeze, that the Sydney Herald reported Scientists forecast global cold snap (they said 'global', you read that?), and that National Geographic proclaimed that a "Mini Ice Age" May Be Coming Soon. Never happened, right? ––Bender235 (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way: studies and theories aren't irrelevant because they turned out to be wrong. Otherwise we might propose Geocentric model and N ray for speedy deletion. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the articles? None of them speaks about global cooling. There are two out-of-context quotes that can be interpreted that way (unfortunately the Sydney Herald title is one, but even they go to "the ocean currents which keep Europe warm" and finally talk about "devastating effects on socio-economic conditions in the countries bordering the eastern North Atlantic", not about global cooling. Nat-Geo talks writes "western Europe could soon be gripped by a mini ice age" - nothing about "global" there. The Independent talks about Britain only. The Times talks about Western Europe and Britain only. New Scientist has "western Europe [and] its relatively balmy climate" as a topic. In short, your sources do not support the claim about "global cooling" being an issue in 2005. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This whole article is basically media mis-interpreting scientific studies (in the 1970s), yet you're trying to conceal that exactly the same happened less than 3 years ago. Does Wikipedia have to be that biased? What about Neutral point of view? What about balance? I kinda get the feeling that certain people are trying to conceal any indication that some studies turned out to be wrong. ––Bender235 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While the media certainly is misinterpreting scientific studies all the time, in the recent case they have not been interpreting them to predict global cooling, so they don't belong here. We don't discuss E=mc² in Pride and Prejudice, either, --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is indeed mostly about the 70's, because thats when it happened. Today, we have overwhelmingly GW stories, and every now and again the papers get bored with that and throw in an over-hyped response to something like Bryden et al. I think Stephan is right; but its also about balance. The stuff nowadays is trivial and if added should have correspondingly trivial space. If you could leave out the vast conspiracy theories, that would be nice. If you can't be polite, you may find that people stop talking to you. Leaving out the "proclaimed" might help, too William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here to answer a third opinion request but this dispute involves three editors so I'd suggest using WP:RfC instead. JRSP (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the claim that "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support" not require a source?

Doesn't it? I tried to add a tag requesting a source and it was revered. 98.194.110.160 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the article doesn't include any references. There isn't any particular reason to single out this statement, particularly since the summary is backed by cited statements in the body of the article. In this particular case, the second sentence of the body of the article backs up the statement with a reference. [11] Smptq (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good response. Brusegadi (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of "Present level of knowledge"

People seem to be repeatedly adding and removing the text "More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out. " from the section "Present level of knowledge". The article already includes a graph showing that the earth warmed, which is derived from an older version the HADCRUT3 data set, so we know from what is already in the article that the cooling concerns were not borne out. Is there some reason that people find this an insufficient citation? If so, why? Smptq (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(Just got your message.) I do not have background in this, but my understanding is that, under the hypothesis, global cooling is something that could begin this century, and that what happened in the 20th century is not directly contradictory to the hypothesis. As a very rough analogy, the global warming hypothesis is claimed to be true even though global temperatures have not risen in about a decade despite increasing CO2 concentrations. Perhaps I have misunderstood, though, and the warming from c.1975-2000 refutes the cooling hypothesis, as you say; if so, then the article needs to explain things more (with references). AlfBit (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement is not obviously incorrect, so the best thing to do is to tag it by writing {{cn}} which will produce something like this. After a month or two, then the statement can be removed if it is not sourced. Brusegadi (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On what bases do you claim that the "statement is not obviously incorrect"? I see no support for this. AlfBit (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with what Brusegadi just said -- tagging something to indicate that a citation is needed is definitely the best thing to do, rather than deleting it; particularly when, as you admit, you're not very familiar with the topic.

As to the notion that the earth has been cooling (or not warming) over the past decade, you might want to take a look at the HADCRUT3 graph I linked to earlier. You'll see that temperature is VERY noisy and somewhat uncertain -- in particular, weather events, such as El Niño can have a large short-term effect, which is what happened in 1998. So it isn't terribly surprising that we haven't yet seen things warm past the 1998 record -- it looks like the normal short-term variations hiding the long-term rise.

Scientific claims that the earth is headed for cooling are, to put it mildly, exceedingly scarce in the peer-reviewed literature of the past few years -- so much so that the denial industry feels the need to lie about what scientists are actually saying. There are ways we might experience short-term global cooling, such as a major volcanic eruption, a nuclear war, or large meteor impact, but they're not predictable. Smptq (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (to Alfbit) It does not fit the description of vandalism, and it is not an unflattering statement about a living person, so it gets tagged and it stays. After a month or so, if no one has source it, then we remove it. I think I should be a able to find one when I get back from eating. Perhaps WMC has one handy, he knows a lot about this stuff. Wikipedia is not real time, so we should also wait for more editors to take a look at this stuff. I'll be back in a few hours. Brusegadi (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Smptq, much thanks for the link to desmogblog, about the Heartland Institute; I am genuinely astounded. About the HADCRU graph, I understand your point, but a similar point could (based on my weak understanding) be made by global-cooling advocates; i.e. the recent warming hides a pending cooling. AlfBit (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AlfBit: There's a problem with that approach, which is that you can apply a statistical significance test to the data to determine whether it is consistent with a particular hypothesis. The data is not consistent with the notion that a long-term cooling has happened, and the short-term temperature record since 1998 does not rise to the level of a statistically significant cooling. If you want to make a credible prediction that the trend will reverse, you need to describe a mechanism by which it would happen, and so far, nobody has found a predictable one (though, as above, there are some non-predictable events which could cause a short-term cooling) Smptq (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You say that the "data is not consistent with the notion that a long-term cooling has happened". The hypothesis is that a long-term cooling is happening. And the statement that the "data is not consistent with the notion that a long-term cooling is happening" is unproven—and would seemt to be difficult to prove (e.g. the residuals of a linear fit are not iid Gaussian). AlfBit (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Errrm... but why do you expect us to pay any attention to a hypothesis so manifestly counter to observations, and for which you can provide no references? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And, in other news, while I have no evidence for it, the rest of the world is required to take me seriously when I announce that a robotic spider is on its way to deliver me a winning lottery ticket Real Soon Now. Smptq (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the statistics at all? My point was serious. AlfBit (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That you can talk about distribution functions doesn't mean you're making a serious point. The notion of "present cooling" vs "past cooling" is simply silly. If you're going to try to show cooling from historical temperature data, it makes sense to look at what you can do from the data. That a large explosive equatorial volcano might have erupted five minutes ago without my yet hearing about it, setting in motion a short-term cooling, is kind of irrelevant to the conversation. If you want to argue that the earth has meaningfully cooled since 1998, or that we're about to see some sort of large-scale cooling for some reason, please cite peer-reviewed research from a reputable journal. Smptq (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Your comment seems to suggest that the statistical methodology is somehow confined to a simple OLS. I doubt that is the case. The nice thing here, though, is that we do not have to fiddle with such things, all you need is a reliable source to validate your assertion that some scientists believe that we are in the first stage of a cooling trend. We require a source for this allegation per WP:REDFLAG, which states that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Brusegadi (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled by what AB wants here. He appears to have confessed to not knowing whats going on, which is a poor stance from which to be hacking the article. I don't know what my understanding is that, under the hypothesis, global cooling is something that could begin this century is supposed to mean William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you baffled? I have stated clearly and repeatedly that I want references for the statements. AlfBit (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a { {cn} } tag

I added a cn tag to a statement: "The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) Global Climate Models (GCMs) that include the effect of sulphate aerosol cooling, so it (now) seems likely that this was the dominant cause". My comment noted that research by Doug Hoyt appears to contradict the statement. User: William M. Connolley reverted my change. Perhaps someone could explain how this is remotely reasonable. (Note: I initially reverted Connolley's change, but then promptly undid my reversion, as I realized the reversion my cause me to violate WP:3RR.) AlfBit (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-revert was a good idea. I could probably guess which Hoyt you mean, but not which of his work you mean. Please expand William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could first explain why it is reasonable to delete a cn tag. AlfBit (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem a teensy bit short on sources. You said that your cn was based on work by Hoyt. Which work? Do please explain, or you risk looking like some skeptic without a clue William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since AlfBit doesn't seem to be going away, and we've now got an anonymous user + bender235 trying to push the same issue, I think I've got a guess as to what the fellow was actually referring to. There's a blog comment by Doug Hoyt[12] in which he claims that human activity hasn't made a significant difference to atmospheric aerosol concentrations since the early 20th century, and cites some of his older papers to make the argument. (Note: almost nobody else cites those old papers) Given the plethora of other studies showing that human activity has an impact on atmospheric aerosol concentrations, it probably wouldn't hurt to choose an appropriate citation. I nominate Anthropogenic influence on the distribution of tropospheric sulphate aerosol. Anybody have a better suggestion? Smptq (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

More recent would be the AR4 (WG1, Section 2.4, in particular 2.4.4.1). It also cites a large number of relevant papers, e.g. Boucher, O., and D. Tanré, 2000: Estimation of the aerosol perturbation to the Earth's radiative budget over oceans using POLDER satellite aerosol retrievals. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(8), 1103­1106; Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297­302; Boucher, O., and M. Pham, 2002: History of sulfate aerosol radiative forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(9), 22­25.; Haywood, J.M., and O. Boucher, 2000: Estimates of the direct and indirect radiative forcing due to tropospheric aerosols: A review. Rev. Geophys., 38, 513­543. However, as far as I'm concerned, AR4 itself should be enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I like your reference better than mine. Lets give it a day or two so that others can chime in, and then find a way to work it into the article. Smptq (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

SEPP/Washington Times reference

Just to make this really clear: According to the | RS document, fringe sources are acceptable as sources of information about fringe groups. On this topic, SEPP clearly qualifies as such, so their Washington Times opinion pieces are acceptable as a source of information on their opinion. Smptq (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

I reverted the fact tagging stuff. What is the point of the fact tag in This statement is correct (see Historical temperature record) when its immeadiately followed by the reference? Its just pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

One of those fact tags actually made some sense: if you quote a document, it makes sense to provide enough of a citation that people can easily go find that document. I went and added a citation to the 1972 report to make that easier. Smptq (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: the Schlesinger opinion piece, which claims to be quoting a 1974 National Science Board report to Congress, may actually be quoting a report published in 1969[13] Has anybody actually gone and checked to make sure the 1974 report actually says what he says it does? Smptq (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit more digging seems to indicate that the date on the Google books listing is wrong. The full report 1974 report is online[14] and the quote is indeed from the 1974 report. Smptq (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of the fact tag is that someone is saying that the statement is correct. Who is saying this? Where are they saying this? Or is it the opinion of a Wikipedia editor that it is correct? In which case it is POV and OR. Wikilinks to other Wikipedia article are also not references because Wikipedia cannot cite itself.

The same point goes for the statement "This quote is taken quite out of context, however, and is misleading as it stands" Who has decided that it is out of context? Who has decided that it is misleading? Or is this the interpretation of a Wikipedia editor? In which case it is classic case of original synthesis. A Wikipedia editor has taken one source (first quote), compared it with a second source (longer quote), and has decided, in their opinion, that therefore the first is misleading. Refer to Wikipedia policy; "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doubting that the global temperature fell between ~1950 and 1974? Isn't this pushing doubty descartes a bit too far? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please address the points I have put. My opinion of the article subject matter is irrelevant. What I am trying to apply is Wikipedia policy, as you should be. If the opinion piece in the Washington Post is inaccurate then cite who has challenged it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not try and express your points differently? At present you aren't making much sense to me at any rate. We don't provide a cite for the date on the homepage after all. We also don't take an opinion piece in a local newspaper as equivalent to a peer reviewed scientific journal. --BozMo talk 06:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we do seem to be talking past each other. But I am trying to address your points. You put a cn on the statement that the temperature fell. We *could* put in a direct link to an external temperature record; or any numbers of books or articles that have pointed out this obvious fact. But its more helpful to put in a link to the wiki article on the temperature record. If you're now saying that you don't think that cn is appropriate, and would like to drop that one and talk about a different one, then please say so William M. Connolley (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll put it a different way. I am not questioning the facts of what the temperatures were. I am asking where the analysis of comparing these temperatures to the cited article came from. William M. Connolley claimed this was not original research. If it is not original synthesis, then it must have come from somewhere other than a Wikipedia editor. If so, then it can be cited.

I am also not questioning that the quote is only a portion of the full text. I am asking where the analysis that determined that the quote is out of context and misleading came from. This section discusses an opinion piece by the former U.S. Energy Secretary. His interpretation is therefore notable and relevant to the article. Whether it is correct or not is not for Wikipedia editors to determine. Nor is it up to Wikipedia editors to determine if it quotes out of context or is misleading. If it has been criticized then cite where and who has criticized it. Otherwise the criticism can only be termed as original synthesis by a Wikipedia editor against Wikipedia policy.

Comparing this with the date on the homepage is a red herring. The date is not an interpretation of facts that may be open to question, it is a fact and it is left to the reader to determine its accuracy. What this section needs is to be treated the same way. State the facts ("The former US Energy Secretary said;"), cite the cites. Either it is self evidently incorrect (and the reader can determine this), or others will have stated their opinion that it is incorrect and can be cited. Pulling in secondary sources to analyse what was said is clearly original synthesis and not permissible. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"His interpretation is therefore notable and relevant to the article" seems like a serious stretch to me. An article written by him may be notable but you have to cover WP:UNDUE and the fact that article is on a scientific topic versus a national politician's take on it. You might as well rewrite the article on Lowest common denominator because politicians frequently confuse it with Highest common factor. --BozMo talk 11:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Again you are getting tied up in concerns about the content of the article. The problem with this article has nothing to do with this. It is with the way the article reports it, and the way that original synthesis is being tagged on to refute it. Basically it wouldn't matter if the US Energy Secretary wrote the report said pixies were sprinkling ice-cubes from heaven. You don't get to use original research to refute it.

The article covers "Global Cooling", the section is within "Concern in the Middle of the Twentieth Century". If you do not believe that "Concern in the Middle of the Twentieth Century" is notable, or if you do not believe that the former US Energy Secretary's article is a valid reflection of notable concern then remove them. The article should cite notable and relevant "Concerns", whether valid or correct or not, and if there are valid cites that refute the "Concerns" then by all means put them in too. But what is not acceptable is having them in the article simply to refute them with original research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't share your lack of interest in the truth, so I'm having a hard time understanding your arguments. But its clear to me that I disagree with your conclusions William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would answer these two points you might better understand. So far you have talked around them. The article says; This quote is taken quite out of context, however, and is misleading as it stands. Who has decided this quote is misleading? Simple question. Once you have answered that point, please answer this; How have they determined this?. Now you can see where this is leading; if your answers are, as I suspect, "a Wikipedia editor" (whoever they may be) and "By looking at the original quote and evaluating its meaning compared to the abridged quote"; then that is original synthesis. They are sourcing two sources and performing a comparative analysis. It seems quite clear to me.

In addition, your comment "I don't share your lack of interest in the truth" lacks civility and is presumptuous. Do I really need to point this out to an admin? Do I also need to remind you that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth? If these statements cannot be verified with cites then they should not be included. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand either. It does not look like original research to me. Brusegadi (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As William M. Connolley is unable, or unwilling, to respond to what would appear to be a straight-forward question, I have gone ahead with modifying this section. I have removed reference to the 2003 opinion piece. The section is about a factual reportage of 1970s concerns, it is not about 2003 opinion piece quoting of 1970s concerns. This has the added advantage of removing original research analysing said opinion piece. I've replaced it with a brief factual account of the two National Science Board reports, which do reflect the scientific concerns and uncertainties of the time. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Media references

Using only The Times the first hit for (a) global cooling is Jan 28, 1975 Science report Glaciology: Ross ice shelf flow and (a) global warming is Dec 02, 1976; Meteorology: Climatic changes By Pearce Wright. These articles (and similar upto 1985) are essentially non commital (but nudging towards suspected global warming) Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)