Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about List of climate change controversies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Recent edits moved from user BozMo talk page

You wrote this is a major change in content introduced for the first time, aside that it is too POV. Take it to talk as a proposal first So you are rating your POV above another? You suggest raising it in the talk page, so what is to stop you doing this? You appear to have given yourself special priviliges to vanadalise other contributions. Wikipedia does not need this stuff. --Damorbel (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the idea that an article is to discuss a controversy with the idea that the article is intended to present a controversial opinion. You took out well sourced and reliable opinion on one side of a contraversy with your edit whilst declaring that another editor reverting its long standing inclusion was "blatant vandalism". You replaced it with an unformatted list of references with no obvious purpose or context. This is not helpful--BozMo talk 07:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit was originally added by 76.99.183.60 (talk · contribs) with the comment, "The page on “controversy” should be more balanced to both sides of said controversy because that is the purpose of the page." This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the controversy. The scientific or factual controversy happened decades or years ago. The fact that politically or financially motivated groups and individuals are working hard to make it appear that there is still a controversy is a separate issue. Both of these are covered in the article - the latter more thoroughly in climate change denial - and they should not be muddled, either in the lede or in the body. There is a short documentary film around called The sky is pink. It makes the point that the media can make a false controversy out of anything. Someone appears in public and says, "The sky is blue", and media agents, PR companies and think tanks can have well-paid people ready within hours to assert that the sky is in fact pink. This means that by the time of the evening news they will be able to mount a public debate on prime-time TV as to the actual colour of the sky. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --Nigelj (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

It seems to me that recent edits (e.g.) by Prioryman are softening the mainstream consensus. E.g.:replacing "Issues formerly disputed..." with "Primary issues concerning...", adding "Although the primary issues are regarded in the scientific literature as settled, these secondary issues are still the subject of mainstream scientific debate.", and inserting "widespread" in "Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate". Some earlier edits also seemed marginal, and perhaps should be reviewed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Czalex

Czalex left the following comments on my talk page concerning his recent removal of a graphic from this article:

Hi, the removed graph in the Global warming controversy article did not add any value to the article but was simply repeating what was already said in the text. In this context it pretty much looks like a piece of propaganda, so why keeping it in the article? Will remove it. cheers--Czalex 17:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly have a view on this but maybe other editors can give some feedback. Prioryman (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

propaganda means information, usually with some added bias. I don't know what the bias here is, since this fact is not in dispute. I think the concept he had in mind was overemphasis. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The argument is flawed, as well as misplaced. (The misplacement is moot, as it is now here.) Noting that a graphic repeats what is said in the text is written as if it were an argument for removal. Hardly. On the contrary, a graphic which is not supported by text in the article is a likely candidate for removal. The usual reason for a graphic is to make a point with an image, which has also been made in text.

The editor goes on to say it looks pretty much like a piece of propaganda. Well yes, that's what it is, but propaganda is not, prima facie rationale for removal. (To be sure, some propaganda is sufficiently misleading that it ought not to survive, except in an article about propaganda, but not all propaganda is automatic reason for removal.)

If the editor thinks that the graphic is so misleading that it ought to be removed, AND, if the author's claim is correct that the graphic simply repeats the text, then we should be debating the removal of both, not just the graphic.

The editor would have been on better ground to argue that the text is valid, but that graphic doesn't accurately reflect the text. For example, the text states:

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

while the graphic, using the exact same numbers, purportedly referring to the same study, says

97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming

The text, and the IPCC conclusions are far more nuanced than the bald conclusion of the graphic.

As an analogy, if I said that I saw a report that studied economic growth by religious background, and it concluded that atheists contribute to economic growth, I think close to 100% would agree with the conclusion. In contrast, if I said that atheists caused the economic growth of the world, I think many would agree that this is misleading.

Very few scientists dispute that humans contribute to global warming, although there is a fair bit of disagreement about how much. The simplified statement that humans cause global warming is an over-simplification of the actual conclusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do any scientists working in the field actually dispute that humans contribute to global warming? There is of course a tiny minority, mostly retired, disputing the significance, but the AR4 statement is "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." That's qualified by "It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place. The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone." The extent of disagreement may be the extent to which human contributions are not yet reflected in temperature rises, due to declining solar contributions and heat absorption by the oceans, so there may be a greater human contribution than the warming to date. Thus AR4 has underplayed an increasingly strong consensus. . dave souza, talk 23:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Regarding your comment that there is a fair bit of disagreement about how much, the peer reviewed scientific literature in the last few years does not contain a "fair bit" of disagreement whether humans are the dominant instigator of contemporary global warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you guys may be straying a bit off topic here. The main issues, it seems to me, are (1) is the graphic an accurate reflection of the text, and (2) is it actually necessary in the first place? Any thoughts? Prioryman (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, especially where it says "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." If anyone thinks the image does not satisfy that criteria, please articulate your reasoning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Leroux

Old URL does not work so entry has been deleted. Would this be the correct new URL:  ? --BozMo talk 20:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not engaged in this Leroux controversy, but, yes, that looks good to me. But then, Leroux looks like a legitimate, if dissenting, climatologist to me, too. Seriously. The deletion of his bio seems unsupportable. Yopienso (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the correct article. The quote is the same, with the last sentence being about manipulation and deception and victims. Thanks for finding the new URL. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the question is not so much one of his being "legitimate", more being whether it is relevant or proportionate. He's only one individual holding a small-minority viewpoint in his professional community. What makes his statement worth singling out for attention? Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. He shows up on lists of (somewhat less than) 400 climate denialists but he was not so very important as to make a list of three or four. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. Personally I think the whole article should be deleted as a non topic... --BozMo talk 08:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Where such issues are treated as resolved?

I'm not really comfortable with

Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved

(my bold). It isn't really clear what is meant by "the key scientific facts" (obviously, if they are facts, they must be resolved, so this is a bit circular) but if the "issues" include, say, climate sensitivity then they would not be considered resolved. I suppose it might mean "global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases" (in which case I agree, these are regarded as resolved, or near enough for the lede) but in that case I'd suggest re-phrasing "the key scientific facts" to be more precise William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It would ake sense to copy over the three key points at Scientific opinion on climate change and add text about ongoing questions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The hidden controversy

Revealed: the day Obama chose a strategy of silence on climate change | Environment | guardian.co.uk and Bloomberg brings climate change out of the closet in stunning snub to Romney | Environment | The Guardian. Interesting times. . . dave souza, talk 12:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Dyson - who says he does know uch about the technical facts of the science - in lead

A quote from Dysons wiki entry says "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much," It makes little sense to contrast the force of the globes science academies with a fellow who makes great hay of his heretical opinions even though he admits he does not know much about the subject. This would be true in any place in any article (other than coverage of the more foolish aspects of the issue) but it really is silly in the WP:LEAD. Feel free to address his views in the body of the article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the small detail that "Nobel laureate for physics Freeman Dyson" has never won a Nobel Prize, wether for physics or for any other discipline. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Also here is A worthy film on the general subject of climate doubt. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, good call on the removal.... Sailsbystars (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Climate change is just a poor exuse for natural temperature change, Im in atlanta and its very cold. Besides the Nobel Peace price is extremely overated this just gives me even more reason to belive that my citations are only deleted because of political bias. Cole132132 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

peer reviewed articles about Global warming mentioning other factors then human causes

There are peer reviewed articles claiming global warming is caused by other factors then humans. Here are some articles:

http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=NS20101100004_10739704.pdf^{[predatory publisher]}&paperID=3217

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjp%2Fi2012-12052-8

And there are lots more... I think saying there is no controversy among scientists is twisting the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWorshipMe (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of just soap boxing please draft some proposed text including RSs that you think would improve the article and we can then talk about something tangible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@ "MrWorshipMe" [oh no I won't] please also specify exactly what text in the article you're contesting, quoting it and indicating which section it's in. You also seem to be proposing WP:OR on your interpretation of these linked primary sources, please find secondary sources. . . dave souza, talk 12:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Undo's

Before section "Natural Cycles" is deleted... please discuss here. My sources are reliable. Cole132132 (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not the way it works. It goes... be bold, then if you get reverted, discuss. See WP:BRD NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well yes both of those things have happened, would you like to discuss? Cole132132 (talk)

What happend is you are starting to WP:EDITWAR 1 you-bold 2 I-reverted 3 You-reposted-without-discussion. Item #3 in that list is frequently the first step in an edit war. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This ref which you restored after being told why it is inappropriate goes to a page of links and does not in itself support any of the text. This other ref which you just added for the first time does not discuss the subject of this paragraph (i.e., whether CO2 leads or lags temperature changes). I will pause for awhile now, but will have more to say in the future probably. I just realized there have been more recent changes to review. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The first ref, which you deleted had highly relative informaition within it, is true it did have links, but the linkns were specified and containd highly relvant information and scales within them. I will see if there is another more compiled NOAA page but for now please hold. As for the other one it provides a scientific standpoint as well as informative purposes. Cole132132 (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

After seeing the most recent changes and with some new refs I looked some more. This ref also fails to discuss CO2 lead vs lag. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to recent edit conflicts I wan unable to add sources in time, it seems like you are stomping on a fire you cant fight. My sources have much reasoning behind them while you delete theme for minute unfufiled causes.Cole132132 (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And about your edit war proposal, I would say that you would be vandalizing and I was responding. Cole132132 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've undone again as the two references most recently added ( and ) do not support the content. Please read WP:BRD, WP:Vandalism, WP:RS and WP:3rr carefully. Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote from source 1:

What source does this refer to?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html, just above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC))

between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations. Cole132132 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes the sources support the Vostok ice record; however your conclusions regarding global warming are not supported. Please read WP:synthesis as you are taking valid ice core data and drawing your own conclusions/interpretations from them. Vsmith (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact Im not, there has been an 800 year lags in Antarctic ice before that did not match up with temperatures, youre using your personal opinions to destroy truthful knowledge and controversy in order to lessen knowledge to thers about ongoing topics. Please direct all other comments to the dispute noticeboard.Cole132132 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what Source 1 refers to; however this text is found various non-RS websites of a mostly fringe and fossil-fuel funded denialist variety. I would give more thought to some serious journalism reporting on a paper found in the peer reviewed scientific literature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to the most recent post, your comment violates Wikipedia's talk page guidlines, for Libel, it fringes onto many political backgrounds as well as unconstructive comments. It can be removed.-- Cole132132 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In terms of fossil-fuel funding of climate science denialism see Climate change denialism. If the quoted text appears anywhere other than I have described, for example, in something that passes WP:RS muster, then this is the place for you to post that so we can talk about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Source one was a government site, your comment:

"however this text is found various non-RS websites of a mostly fringe and fossil-fuel funded denialist variety"

this is biased as welll as incorrect, even though some of the cites may have been edited people who dont believe in global warming (in fact 1), there is no basic evidence that they are funded by fossil fueled companies. This would mean that you are being opinonated, not to mention your rude way of provoking it:

The complaining party (Cole132132 (talk · contribs) is (dubiously) a new editor. Ordinarily they would be entitled to a great deal of WP:DONTBITE. However, earlier today this user already had experiential education with this DR process. The first time Cole13232 rushed here without meaningful talk page discussion was understandable for a newbie. Coming just hours later this equally frivolous and premature complaint reflects a battle ground mentality on his part. Instead of complaining here, Cole132132 should actually respond to the substance of the criticisms that have been posted at the article talk page. He is posting raw data (WP:OR violation), blogs, linkfarms, and articles on related but nonetheless off topic subjects. He has not replied to the substance of any of these criticisms (last I looked).

In closing, although Cole132132 claims to be new, you know what they say....

The only thing that appears obvious is you provoking childinsh anger to support your own unconstitued beleifs, also for future notice I've gathered almost 10 reliable resouces for my claimes as well I dont know if they're on your "spectrum" but we shall see, anyway none the less your behavior has reflected poorly and can be used against you.

Policy on Libel:

"It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified."

Thank you.-- Cole132132 (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Would some admin please post the {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=cc}} warning to Cole132132s talk page? I am not an admin or I would do it myself. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For obvious reasons I'll have nothing more to discuss on this, all you have done is used my time agaisnt me even though you clearly violate many polcies, this talk page is for construcive discussion not arguing. I originally intended it that way but your libel comments changed that. Thank you.--Cole132132 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you change your mind and find some sources that meet the WP:RS threshold, and if you agree to abide by our behavioral guidelines while talking about it, I will be happy to discuss propose article improvements based on such sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I rather doubt this is going anywhere. I think the removal of Cole's stuff was correct. It contains far too many obvious error (the ice age cycle is 100 kyr, not 400 just for a non-controversial beginning). As for the lags: the material Cole wants inserted is already there, only done far better, as the first bullet point of Global_warming_controversy#Greenhouse_gases William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the greehouse gas section describes very acuratly what some of my concerns were, but I belive a more appropriate title is needed as well as information on how closly in relation the temperature changes occur through the cycles-- Cole132132 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Now we just need some references for your suggestions. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

David Brin links

Two different editors have removed these links but UrbanTerrorist keeps replacing them. Presumably the only possible argument is that they fall under Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked or more specifically "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." . Does anyone except UT think they do? --BozMo talk 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not the only article he's adding the links to, and I don't think they belong in any of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Do those links actually support or illustrate some point of "Global warming controversy" made in the article? Or is he just trying to introduce more fringe argument? That the last set of edits was about adding "PHD" suggests a burnishing of scientific qualifications of someone more notable for his science fiction, who apparently has neither studied nor published on climate change. As his article says nothing about any involvement in the GW controversy, I suspect it is not notable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Brin is particularly notable in the debate - I think some of his books touch on the themes, but perhaps not his better ones - and as you say the links themselves don't seem to be obviously useful William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Temperature predictions

In the middle of the Temperature predictions section there is a paragraph saying

"An example of a prediction that has been tested comes from 1959, when Dr. Bert Bolin, in a speech to the National Academy of Sciences, predicted that by the year 2000, there would be a 25% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to the levels in 1859. This prediction has proved to be an underestimate. The actual increase by 2000 was about 29%"

That's not a temperature prediction. Why is it there? Are there no temperature predictions that we can list? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are T preds, they are in that section. The Bolin stuff follows on from the previous para abuot T-depends-on-CO2, so I folded it in there William M. Connolley (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the section has no predicted vs. actual temperatures. Unlike the case with CO2, where we have clear predicted/actual numbers (25% and 29%) for temperature we only show a prediction (no actual) of "1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100."

There are a couple of links to predictions, but those require eyeballing some charts and reading some explanatory text.

Ref 131 shows what appear to be predictions for 2000 made in (I am guessing) 1960 of +0.7 to +1.1C with two measured (no indication as to which the prediction was for) temperatures of +0.7 and +0.8, with no real indication of who made the prediction and when.

Ref 130 does have some predicted vs actual temperatures see "How well did Hansen et all (1988) do?" but for some reason these actual temperature predictions are not to be found in our "temperature predictions" section. So why do we include predicted vs. actual figures for CO2 but not for temperatures?

I am not trying to give you a hard time or push a POV here. I just think you can make your case better by giving us predicted vs. actual temperatures. The section is called "temperature predictions" after all. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I was referring to the first two - Hansen, and IPCC-via-RC.

Ref 131 shows what appear to be predictions for 2000 made in (I am guessing) 1960 - don't understand. Ref 131 is I think. The first pic has a line showing hindcast/forecast drawn on it, at 2000 AD. That one also includes (last pic) an update on the Hansen 1988 "prediction". It would probably be a good idea to include that pic, or a version of it, in this seciton.

I am not trying to give you a hard time - oh, feel free to, we can take it, if the questions are genuine, as yours are. So why do we include predicted vs. actual figures for CO2 but not for temperatures? - well, because, really, the temperature "predictions" don't mean very much. Certainly not in the context they are meant here. I could go into more detail if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If temp predictions themselves do not mean much, then there should not be a section here.... unless of course there is more than one way to measure whether they mean much. (A) people wanting to sow doubt about climate science do try to make hay out of this issue so in that sense they mean much. (B) As for their evidentiary value, we have to ask what could they possibly be evidence of? That the place is warming? We have plenty of observational evidence of that. The best thing I can think of is climate sensitivity... which of course is a hot topic right now, since Trenberth et als paper this month arguing that the models with high sensitivity are more likely to be more accurate. But I dont know much about past predictions so thats about all I can contribute... if they do not mean much the section should go away, but first we should define what (much) means... in part it feeds grist to the denial spin mill.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is the controversy article, not a science one. Arguably we should make a better effort to say who talks about these predictions, and why they don't mean much William M. Connolley (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A concise and pithy restatement of what I was trying to say. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "As for their evidentiary value, we have to ask what could they possibly be evidence of", please see Predictive power. In fact, we should reference the Predictive power page at the start of this section.

Climate scientists continue to make predictions of future temperatures and they are widely reported, so it would seem appropriate for Wikipedia to report how close previous predictions came. If they nailed it every time, that would be a good reason to accept the current predictions. If they were completely off, that would be a reason not to. If, (as appears to be the case) they were close but a little high, that would be a reason to assume that the same is true of the current predictions.

Is there even a controversy about predictions of CO2 levels? I haven't seen anyone question the rather obvious prediction that as long as we are digging/pumping carbon out of the ground and burning it at a rate far higher that any known sequestration mechanism, CO2 will continue to rise. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Climate scientists continue to make predictions of future temperatures and they are widely reported - technically, that's wrong. For example, the IPCC AR4 carefully doesn't talk about predictions, but about projections. See, e.g. . You may say this is a minor semantic quibble, but it isn't, it matters. As to the rest: well, we've only really had semi-decent GCMs since, say, 2000. And a decade to evaluate "predictions" just isn't enough, when the natural variability relative to the trend is known to be large at such timescales William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And I was troubled by the notion in Guys comment that past margin of error should necessarily define contemporary margin of error. That is not how science works. In between any two scientific results a great deal of data and methodology tweaking might occur. Fact that the last one was off by X is a poor reason to automatically assume the new run, with all the refinements, will NECESSARILY be off by the same amount. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

First, "necessarily" is rather a stretch considering what I actually wrote. As for predictions vs. projections, are you (WMC) seriously questioning me using the term that is in the section title we are discussing?

Predictive power isn't just a Wikipedia page. It is a basic principle that applies to climate science just as it does to any other science. If past predictions were wrong, you don't just assume that some new data or methodology will correct the problem. You have to specify what the improvements are and who thinks that they have solved the flaw in the previous predictions. I am having trouble understanding the objection to giving predicted/actual numbers here, seeing as how (unless I am reading the cite wrong) the past predictions weren't wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

are you (WMC) seriously questioning me using the term that is in the section title we are discussing? No, not at all. You're entirely welcome to talk about predictions. However, you aren't welcome to say Climate scientists continue to make predictions - or rather, if you say it an I point out why you're wrong, I'd hope you'd at least think about what I've said.

I am having trouble understanding the objection to giving predicted/actual numbers here - because no-one is actually objecting? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the title should be Temperature predictions vs Temperature projections? Thanks Guy for identifying the issue, I was not thinking about it either until William pointed out the difference. I also agree with William that no one is objecting to talking about these various prediction/projection thingies. I thought we were jointly trying to figure out how to talk about them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting – looks like a relevant paper by Fasullo and Trenberth. . . dave souza, talk 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A quote from the above ("Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.") is exactly the sort of thing that should be in a section titled "temperature predictions". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: according to [ http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf ], the predictions were close but a little low. Again, a section titled "temperature predictions" should have these predictions/results in it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To see what the claims by various (mostly non-RS) sources are, I did a Google search on [ 1990 IPCC predictions ] and found this on the first page of results: [ http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208 ] Same data sources but wildly different conclusions? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Covers a different period, not peer reviewed, and shows two temp series over a very short period. Oddly enough it shows UAH and HadCRUT3 but not NCDC and GISTEMP, perhaps the first graph in this blog suggests why, and points out "Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries." The clivebest.com comparisons are with a short term extrapolation from the 1990 FAR projections, it might be more interesting to see how the three subsequent IPCC reports have adjusted and developed projections: the second blog shows the 2007 ensemble of models. . . dave souza, talk 08:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. I wasn't implying that that page should be taken seriously. I was implying that it, and a lot more like it, are widely viewed, and thus that Wikipedia should have solid numbers on predicted/actual temperatures, because someone viewing that is very likely to come here to see if we say the same thing. Sorry for being unclear. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a great demonstration about the problem of using short time periods. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

J N-G discusses the issue, covering the points raised by clivebest.com. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not currently know enough about the subject to attempt improvements. Apparently we need to discuss project vs predict. This non-RS blog might lead to useful RS sources.... see the list of arguments under subsection heading "models are unreliable". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We should update the RC ref to RealClimate: 2011 Updates to model-data comparisons and discuss the issues it tracks with the the Hansen et al (1988) comparisons. Merchants of Doubt pp. 183–185 discusses Hansen's testimony, and notes that Hansen's "emissions scenarios" were not intended to be predictions, they were "what-if" scenarios. On attribution issues, pp. 186–190 is a source for Jastrow, Seitz and Nierenberg producing a 1990 book which misrepresented Hansen's 1981 figure 5, and helped to convince the GHW Bush administration to oppose carbon taxes and restrictions on fossil fuel consumption. Think we should cover these controversies. .. dave souza, talk 10:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

GISTEMPvsHansen1981

GISTEMPvsIPCC1990

FYI I've plotted comparisons of Hansen 1981 and IPCC 1990 predictions and uploaded to commons. If someone asks nicely I might do the same for Hansen 1988..... (which would probably be the easiest to include given that it's on RC's yearly update) Sailsbystars (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes please, that would be useful . . . dave souza, talk 09:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

GISTEMP vs. Hansen 1988

Ask and ye shall receive. :) Feel free to insert into article with relevant text. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Have added the Hansen1988 and IPCC figs. to the section, with citations to an updated RC report. No doubt improvements can be made . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming – Greg Laden's Blog outlines findings from Wigley, T., & Santer, B. (2012). A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming Climate Dynamics DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1585-8 which looks like a good source, available free online from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8 it explicitly examines the controversial claims made by Michaels about climate projections: "The 2007 statement represents a central finding of the IPCC report. The scientific basis for this finding, however, has been questioned in Congressional testimony by Patrick Michaels.1 If Michaels’ criticism were correct, this would have serious implications for our understanding of the magnitude of the response of the climate system to anthropogenic forcing. Concerns have also been raised about the somewhat imprecise wording of the statement, such as the interpretation of the word “most” (Allen 2011; Curry and Webster 2011).". . dave souza, talk 09:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience shows "that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models." For news, see Sea levels rising faster than IPCC projections. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)