Talk:MWP and LIA in IPCC reports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't the page title be abbreviated a bit? Charles Matthews 13:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 14:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Sadly I can't think of a funny answer...

As it stands, this article is seriously flawed. It reads like an advocacy piece, only nothing is sourced. Who has alleged these things? Who has counter-argued? Is this original research documenting what the various reports have said, or has this dispute actually taken place elsewhere besides Wikipedia? --Delirium 09:08, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Needs a better introduction, anyway, William. Charles Matthews 09:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)) It is certainly not true that nothing is sourced. The entire piece is heavily sourced. I really don't understand D's comment... unless D means the "it is sometimes alleged..."? Hmmmm... I know these exist. I can find you a wiki source: [1] . Or externally http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm (warning: misinformation).

William, if the 'refutation' of allegation thingy was the reason ... well, just don't go all Lumidek on me (see the loop quantum gravity outrages).

Charles Matthews 16:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)) L and I are having a good phase (he has fixed some of the odd wording at gravity) so I'll leave LQG alone. But... if D wants to say what is unsourced, I'll try to source it. For the moment, I'll dump in the Daly ref.

[edit] Fig 7 from 1990

So, we're arguing about fig 7 from the 1990 IPCC report. I say:

The vertical temperature scale was labelled as "Temperature change (°C)" but no numerical labels were given;

SEW doesn't like the "no numerical labels" bit. But, its important. AFAIK its the only graph in the report not explicitly numerically labelled: this is important as evidence of its schematic character. If you want to try to work out what units in, you have to second-guess it from the text. William M. Connolley 18:24:32, 2005-09-01 (UTC).

The units are specified as being degrees C, on all three graphs. The axis marks for each degree shift appropriately for the various time periods. You can read the graph without the text, and the text confirms the meaning of the graph labels. (SEWilco 06:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

*There are no numerical labels*. As in, numbers written on the graph axes. Do you accept that? William M. Connolley 08:27:45, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Yes, there is no "1, 0, -1". Do you accept that there is one tick mark per degree C? (SEWilco 15:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

It may be possible to deduce it from the surrounding text, but not from the figure itself. Which is why my edit is correct. Be so kind as to explain why you object to but no numerical labels were given given what you hv just said. William M. Connolley 15:51:42, 2005-09-02 (UTC).

It is quite obvious from the figures, which are labeled "(°C)" next to the tick marks which show each °C. The graphs are marked in degrees. No numerical labels are given, and their not being there is as irrelevant as there not being marks for fractions of degrees or marks for °F. (SEWilco 16:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

You are being quite obtuse. Can you point to another graph from IPCC '90 which has no numerical labels? The graphs have no labels; this is unusual, and significant (which is why you are removing this information which is inconvenient to your POV). William M. Connolley 18:22:52, 2005-09-02 (UTC).

The graphs and their text do not indicate there is significance in the format of these graphs. Where are you finding the report stating that these graphs are different from others? (SEWilco 20:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

On the contrary, if you examine the '90 report, fig 7 is quite unique in lacking numerical labels (well, I've challenged you to find another: let me know when you succeed. I've just flicked through ch 7, and none of the others there lack explicit numerical labels (and just to be completely honest, I'mgoing to slightlyqualify that: 7.2 is halfway: but it is sourced William M. Connolley 09:48:40, 2005-09-03 (UTC))), which fits with it being vaguely defined as "schematic" and completly unsourced. Its really very funny: if this graph had been in the TAR, M&M and all the septics would be *attacking* it as totally unreliable, unsourced, and unlabelled. William M. Connolley 20:59:55, 2005-09-02 (UTC).

So where does the report vaguely define it as "schematic"? (SEWilco 21:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

have you actually read the thing? The caption is: "Figure 7.1. Schematic diagrams...". William M. Connolley 21:14:40, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Hey, you can read labels. No text definition of what its being "schematic" means? (SEWilco 03:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC))

Presumably it has the commonplace meaning. If you're objecting that "schematic" is vague, then fine. William M. Connolley 09:48:40, 2005-09-03 (UTC).