Talk:Global cooling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This climate change-related article is part of WikiProject Climate Change, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wikipedia related to climate change and global warming. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. We are focusing on Global cooling.

Contents

[edit] Removed We don't know...

(William M. Connolley 17:58, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I've made some tweaks, and entirely removed

"We don't know what has triggered past continental glacial periods, but recent studies indicate ice ages may start and end extremely abruptly so it probably would be quickly apparent if a glacial period has begun. But in 1975 it was also apparent that temperatures had been going down."

which has little value. Past glaciation is tied to milankovitch; what recent studies are referred to?, t trends have been discussed above and don't need repeating.

(SEWilco 09:50, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC))
As the last sentence indicates, I was still speaking in the context of the mid-70s, about the cooling which ended then. "recent studies" is anything in the past 25 years, but there certainly have been plenty in the past 5-10 years about the sudden transitions to and from glaciation periods. Apparently the phrasing needs to emphasize the 1970s history section.
The structure of this piece is
  • General coverage of Global Cooling as a subject.
  • Past history of the 1970s peak of concern about cooling.
  • Dismissal of 1970s state due to warming and better science.
  • Conclusion emphasizing current level of understanding and connect back to the beginning by emphasizing that the logic used in 1975 fails because we have not become increasingly colder.

[edit] Orbital variation

(SEWilco 04:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)) OK, so you're certain the recent pattern of orbital variation is at an end. I was trying to leave the ice age details in that other article. So when the next ice age starts, it will be less neccesary to update more than just one page :-)

(William M. Connolley 08:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)) No great hurry then...

I've removed "slow" from the warming trend... since its faster than the cooling trend, which someone (I wonder who) described as "abrupt".

I've revised the order of some paras, the quote from your history site is now in the general intro where I think it belongs. Etc.

Article needs less POV. It makes valid points already, without adding insults.

[edit] Global Warming is false!

For the past 2 years now, winter has been colder than ever where I live. Andros 1337 21:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what? The topic here is global warming, not "warming where Andros lives." Where I live, winters have been warmer. Climate researchers, however, look at more than merely "the weather where Andros lives" or "the weather where Sheldon Rampton lives." To measure global warming, they study temperatures throughout the planet. --Sheldon Rampton 21:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For much of the world, the temperatures have been much cooler since late 2002. Global warming is only as "accepted" as global cooling was in the 70s. At that time it was said to be widespread common knowledge, just like they say today of global warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.224.118 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
I thought the title of the article was Global Cooling -- not Global Warming. --The Outhouse Mouse 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought this thread had been dead for nearly two years... --Stephan Schulz 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a side note. The weather has been colder everywhere I have lived too, for the past 2 years. Southern Turkey, Cyprus, Missouri (USA). However, Northern Turkey is suprisingly warm for this time of year. I should be knee-deep in snow by now. The weather is getting quite interesting. SadanYagci 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Just even more of a side note. Global warming or cooling is not decided by how hot or cold it is. The theory is in decimals of degrees. Gavinthesavage 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The version I fixed was inaccurate and badly written. If you don't like how mine is phrased then fix it. If you prefer to use the other as a basis for your edits then feel free. Someone is going to fix it though and if you can't be bothered, then I will. In any case, spare us your imperious reverts.--JonGwynne 19:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)) This is stupid. The version there was accurate as was, you have just added your POV. You are being impolite by not marking your reverts as such. You have failed to point to any inaccuracies. Starting an edit war on this page while the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley is in progress is pointless provocation.
The previous version is inaccurate. For example, "global cooling" isn't a "concern", it is a theory. The use of "was" is inappropriate since it still is a theory - although most people consider it obsolete in the light of new research. Oh, wait... I pointed out that fact in the new version of article. How about that? Now what was this about a POV you claim I added to it? I notice you're very free with your unquantified and unsubstantianted allegations. And while we're on the subject, in your comments you use the phrase "this is stupid". I would like you to explain exactly what it is you think is stupid. Because if you're referring to me, my edit or my raising of this issue... wouldn't that be regarded as a personal attack? I mean, not that I really care what you think of me, I just mention it because you're sure quick to accuse other people of making personal attacks against you (even when they're not). Are you unwilling to hold yourself to the same standards? In any case, you're certainly the last one here to be lecturing other people on politeness - the general practice is to learn and practice something before you start trying to pass it on to other people. And before we leave the subject of unsubstantiated claims, how do you figure I'm "starting an edit war" by correcting misstatements and pointing out clearly that the theory of global cooling is obsolete so you won't throw a fit and engage in your typical knee-jerk-reversions? Is it because I mentioned Global Warming? The only reason I did that was to provide a place to add a link to same. If you want to take it out, feel free. If you want to say something like "The theory is generally considered to be obsolete.", that would be fine. That's how a most of the people here seem to think wikipedia is supposed to work. Person A comes in and makes some changes to an article, then someone else comes along and makes changes to the changes. Person C comes along... That's how the articles grow, evolve and are improved. Persistent and unnecessary reversions screws up this process.--JonGwynne 22:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted the introduction to what it said previously, with the addition of a link to Stephen Schneider who wrote a book in 1976 on Global Cooling called "The Genesis Strategy" and wrote an introduction to another called "The Cooling" by Lowell Ponte. William Connelley is already on parole for reverting without explanation, and has a well deserved reputation for censoring statements that clash with his political beliefs. --DiamondGeezer 19:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted your stuff. I called it "traditional nonsense", which is correct. It is traditional to misrepresent the GS. Have you ever even read the GS? There is something about it on my page: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/schneider-genesis.html. Your misrepresentation of my position won't help you. It is not correct (as the body of the article demonstrates) that many scientists were predicting cooling. William M. Connolley 20:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] PDO

I removed:

A significant event was the discovery in 1997 of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) having undergone regime shifts during the time periods when temperature patterns changed...

This isn't particularly significant; describing it as such is POV. PDO doesn't feature much in describing 20C T change. Putting it in this article makes even less sense. William M. Connolley 17:45:08, 2005-07-13 (UTC).


[edit] Fiction

This may or may not be off topic. I have 2 Science Fiction novels, both from the 1960s (The Ice Schooner by Michael Moorcock first published in 1996 and The World in Winter by John Christopher, 1962) which are concerned with a new ice age starting on earth. Might there be a point in having a section on fiction inspired by the idea of cooling Earth? I don't think it really says anything even about the public perception though as The Drowned World by J.G. Ballard was also publised in 1962.--NHSavage 19:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1996??? 1966? Never read that, at least not to remember. The world in winter I think I may have... the important point would probably be the mechanism "proposed" in the book, and whether it could be really about an ice age or more "general apocalyptic" (fitting in with Ballard, who had a whole range of them, also "the crystal world"). Who did "death of grass"? thet might have been christopher too. William M. Connolley 20:18:56, 2005-09-04 (UTC).
Firstly yes it was 1966 (my brain is faster then my fingers) I have now discovered there is a specific page on apocolyptic sci-fi so it is probably better just to ignore it here. FWIW World in Winter is based on the idea of a "radiation cycle in the sun" so unconnected to this idea. The Ice Schooner explanations come towards the end so I won't add in a spoiler but are not really relevant either. Death of Grass was also Christopher. --NHSavage 19:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, thats a nice page, thanks for pointing it out. There is something to be said for some kind of "the end of the world was in peoples minds" type text on the page. Unfortunately that page is not indexed by date... William M. Connolley 20:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC).
I remember several different science-fiction books from the mid-1970's about the "New Ice Age". This was a very popular genre at the time, because the media was going on and on about the ice age that polution was causing. Add to that the record winters in areas like Buffalo NY, and it is no wonder that some people thought we were making things colder. Is it any wonder that I take the newer "belief" of Global Warming no more seriously then I took those 30 years ago? 72.161.166.113 18:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inline vs FN

I've reverted SEW's icky footnotes stuff out. Reasons same as ever, but la la la, we have to keep people happy so here we go yet again... stop me if you're bored or anything...

  • it over-complexifies, and therefore raises a bar against non-expert users adding stuff: which I regard as very anti-wiki
  • its very hard to maintain: every time you add a new one, all the others need re-numbering
  • its 2 clicks not 1 to get to a ref
  • perhaps more incidentally, it works very badly in the history: click on one in a previous diff and you get redirected to the current version: very confusing indeed

William M. Connolley 16:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, as with the Kyoto protocol article, inline links are preferred. Having said that, the links need to be collected at the end in a Rreference section, but not with the cumbersome and easily brken pet project that SEW is pushing. Given time, I'll try to convert his notes section into a proper reference section for the article as I plan to do with Kyoto. Vsmith 16:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Until you have time to edit them, don't delete the more detailed citations. Do you delete everything you don't have time to edit? (SEWilco 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
Have you made any effort to reach consensus on the issue? Vsmith 17:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, good. BTW I *do* record my thanks to SEW for pointing out the broken care4free links and the leeds link. I've removed the latter [1] (fixed version) because it was only there for the graphs (I forget who added it) and the interest would be in having *contemporary* graphs. William M. Connolley 16:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC).
Historical graphs are not relevant to a historical article? (SEWilco 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
You're too busy reverting to think. The graphs on that page *aren't* historical. Sigh. William M. Connolley 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC).
Looks to me like "decades of a cooling trend" refers to the text in the source material. (SEWilco 03:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC))
Incidentally, your description of the WP:FN system is full of errors. (SEWilco 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC))
Ahh, well that was a feeble but nonetheless welcome attempt at communication, do try a bit harder and point out these errors. Who knows, if you talk, people may listen? William M. Connolley 15:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

Sorry to break the thread of emergent discussion but I think I'm obliged to add a comment, so I'll cut-n-paste again to keep The Usual Suspects happy:

I've reverted SEW's icky footnotes stuff out. Reasons same as ever, but la la la, we have to keep people happy so here we go yet again... stop me if you're bored or anything...

  • it over-complexifies, and therefore raises a bar against non-expert users adding stuff: which I regard as very anti-wiki
  • its very hard to maintain: every time you add a new one, all the others need re-numbering
  • its 2 clicks not 1 to get to a ref
  • perhaps more incidentally, it works very badly in the history: click on one in a previous diff and you get redirected to the current version: very confusing indeed

Feel free to remove this bit, BTW: it serves no purpose by being here, its only necessary for me to add it! William M. Connolley 21:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

Well the thread of emergent discussion seems to have become rather thin in these bitter times... but I think I'm obliged to add a comment, so I'll cut-n-paste again to keep The Usual Suspects happy:

I've reverted SEW's icky footnotes stuff out. Reasons same as ever, but la la la, we have to keep people happy so here we go yet again... stop me if you're bored or anything...

  • it over-complexifies, and therefore raises a bar against non-expert users adding stuff: which I regard as very anti-wiki
  • its very hard to maintain: every time you add a new one, all the others need re-numbering
  • its 2 clicks not 1 to get to a ref
  • perhaps more incidentally, it works very badly in the history: click on one in a previous diff and you get redirected to the current version: very confusing indeed

Feel free to remove this bit, BTW: it serves no purpose by being here, its only necessary for me to add it! William M. Connolley 21:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Still thin. Hey ho. All the talk seems to be at kyoto protocol. William M. Connolley 10:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

SEW continues to refuse to talk. Lets quote some wise words from his own talk page:

WP:CITE says you must defer to the citation style used by the first major contributor, unless there is a consensus on the page to change it. See Wikipedia:Cite sources#How to Cite Sources, which says: "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor." I understand that you're keen on footnotes, and although I've personally never seen the attraction of them, I'm very willing to be proven wrong, and I respect that you're willing to devote time and energy to helping with WP's sourcing issues. I wish more editors would do that! But please try to see that there are advantages in other citation styles too, and edit warring to replace other styles with footnotes isn't appropriate or fair to the other editors on the page.

That was by User:SlimVirgin but I'm sure we'd all agree with her. William M. Connolley 17:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC).

The story roles on :-) SEWs notes section should be turned into an alphabetized Reference section to go with the pre-existing and consensus direct inline links style of the article. I plan to do just that when the reverting dust settles. Vsmith 21:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - I just did a revert AND included SEWs notes as a needed Reference section. The new ref section needs alphabetizing and some cleanup. Also need to include some missed non-web refs. Vsmith 23:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SEWilco, disruptive reverts, and citations

Hi. I'd like to take a straw poll before suggesting on AN/I that SEWilco be blocked for disruption. Is there anyone here, other than SEWilco, who prefers his citation format? Please speak up if so. Thanks! Nandesuka 19:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am about to start an RFC on SEW. But don't let me stop you from blocking him :-) William M. Connolley 22:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC).
What is being referred to:
The differences are due to using Wikipedia:Footnote templates to link between references and citations which describe sources. This version of the URL-only links contains replacements for many dead links(diff) which were detected during creation of the detailed citations; the dead links are interpreted by SEWilco as an indication of how infrequently URL-only links are followed and/or maintained.
Note that Wikipedia:Verifiability is an official policy which prefers more citation information over less, and making it clear which statement uses which reference. Wikipedia:Footnotes was influenced by Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. [[ (SEWilco 22:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC))
While this is all very interesting, it does not surprise me that you prefer your own citation format. Once again, is there any editor of this article other than SEWilco that prefers the format he is continually reverting to? Nandesuka 23:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Editors of this article are relevant to style issues. My conversion was actually a citation content issue, with more detailed information on sources than only the URLs (with the same style of numbered links to source information being followed). More recently than my conversion, the URL-only link versions acquired unlinked footnotes. (SEWilco 01:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

Direct inline links are preferred over the cumbersome notes system. I personally prefer a Harvard style link rather than a bare number as it makes it easier to correlate with a reference section. But let's reach consensus first. As noted above, I have included the references from SEWs notes, but they still need some re-working. Vsmith 23:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee, if you prefer Harvard style then perhaps you should have used it months ago. We've been discussing the numbered link appearance which has been in use. (SEWilco 06:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC))
SEWilco has been edit warring elsewhere for weeks in order to try to force editors to use footnotes. He has tried to delete or reduce information about Harvard referencing and embedded links from Wikipedia:Cite sources and from Wikipedia:Manual of style, and has made several misleading edits about how to format using those styles. The fact is that embedded links and Harvard referencing are both perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia, and in fact are much more popular than footnotes. WP:CITE has no preference between the three styles, except that the style used by the first major contributor should be adhered to if no agreement for change can be reached between the current editors on any given page. For more information, see WP:CITE#Embedded_HTML_links, WP:CITE#Harvard_style, and WP:CITE#How_to_Cite_Sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


SEWilco, do not impose your views on others. Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm supporting WP:Verifiability. Do you prefer the original version full of dead links? The "poll" purpose seems to have become misplaced. (SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Citation format poll

[edit] Q1: Are more detailed citations preferred over less detailed ones?

[edit] Yes
  1. SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Emphatically!—GraemeMcRaetalk 18:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

[edit] Q2: Is it desirable to identify which statement uses which source?

[edit] Yes
  1. SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. —GraemeMcRaetalk 18:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

[edit] Q3: Are detailed citations preferred over URL-only citations?

  • Are more detailed citations preferred over URL-only citations?
    • Is "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest. [2]" preferred over "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest [3]."?
    • Citation for first example above:
      1. ^  World Climate Conference 1979. Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No. Retrieved on November 17, 2005.

[edit] Yes (first example preferred)
  1. SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. —GraemeMcRaetalk 18:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No (second example preferred)

[edit] Q4: Are references linked to citations preferred?

[edit] Yes (first example preferred)
  1. SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. —GraemeMcRaetalk 18:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No (second example preferred)


[edit] Comments

What is being referred to in this article:
The differences are due to using Wikipedia:Footnote templates to link between references and citations which describe sources. This version of the URL-only links contains replacements for many dead links(diff) which were detected during creation of the detailed citations; the dead links are interpreted by SEWilco as an indication of how infrequently URL-only links are followed and/or maintained. (SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Tentative Result

The answer to the question I originally asked: "Is there anyone here, other than SEWilco, who prefers his citation format?" appears to be a resounding no. Thanks for participating in my straw poll. Nandesuka 15:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

So far nobody prefers any other format either. (SEWilco 03:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC))
Of course they do. Stop wikilawyering. But, if you insist, feel free to consider included by reference the 10 names that have initiated or endorsed Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SEWilco. Nandesuka 04:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Having been asked by SEWilco to take a look at this dispute, let me offer the following: I find the current (I'm seeing this version of the article) referencing scheme unwieldy. Text is sprinkled with inline HTML links, but there's no immediately obvious connection to the list of references. The "references" section itself looks ok. I personally prefer a "footnote" style; whether it be Harvard, numbered, or something else (like e.g. the one used in Krill), doesn't matter. In my experience, numbered footnotes become a maintenance nightmare pretty quickly, so I prefer something with symbolic identifiers. I also note that of the 21 references, 7 are hosted on the web site of one of the contributors here. At least one (11) isn't listed in the references section. Finding it wasn't exactly easy; had you guys used some footnoting scheme such that the link on "[11]" had taken me to the reference listing in the "references" section (or, in this case, not done so), it would have been much easier. Finally, it's a dead link anyway, I get a "404 - not found" error when trying to access it. On the question on whether to use inline referencing (whatever scheme) at all or just give global references at the end: that depends. In any case, having only inline extlinks without the references section would be poor referencing. Having inline extlinks with no connection to the references section is still poor. In articles where I use a few main sources that I would have to reference very often, I omit in-text refs and just give them globally at the end. Selected statements backed by other sources still get in-text refs. In disputed articles, it's probably best to explicitly reference anything that causes dispute. And when I write an article on a subject I'm no expert in, I tend to reference extensively (see Krill), making it easier for others to check my work. I also try to avoid arbitrary blogs as references; I prefer more reputable sources. In summary: yes, I think the referencing in this article needs work, but I also think edit warring over this is nonsense. Try out different schemes to see how they work. Put aside your personal preferences, evaluate referencing not on personal criteria ("that was implemented by X, so it must be bad"), rather ask yourself "what's the difference between this and what I would have done? does it matter? what works better/worse than if we did it this or that way?". Cool down, all of you, and take a look at the available options. There are many features articles that show how it can be done. Lupo 08:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lupo - thanks for your comments. I'm glad that SEW is finally talking to people (even if not us :-() rather than the endless revert cycle he was on before. As you've noticed, the dispute has become rather polarised, and SEWs behaviour has contributed a lot to this; so much so that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco and now [[6]] exist. After the dust from that dies down, we can try sorting out the reference format. Until then, I maintain my desire for the convenience of inline links. I accept that wiki has no ideal system: I think it needs new software to solve this properly. You say I also note that of the 21 references, 7 are hosted on the web site of one of the contributors here. Thats perceptive of you. Did you mean anything by it? Although your count is wrong: its now 8: I replaced the 404 you found with another one of mine :-) William M. Connolley 09:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC).
William, I didn't evaluate your web site or anything. It looks well sourced. I just noticed this fact, and when I find many references essentially going to the same place, I start to wonder. It would be better if there were more diverse places for these references. (However, I fully understand that this may not be possible; not that many people go check out scientific articles from the 1970s). But (just as an example) why not point directly to the newsweek scan on your web site instead of using two references (one being the GCC, who have a reproduction of a reprint from 2000, the other one being your comment page on it)? Also, is it necessary to have your web site in so many refs and as an "external link"? And as I've explained above, I don't agree inline links were convenient. (One point I forgot above: they royally screw up the text flow when printed because they show the full, expanded URL in the midst of the text. You don't have that problem with any of the footnote referencing schemes.) Lupo 10:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You can see in WMC's destruction of my detailed references (diff) that I had removed that 404 link because it is redundant for that section. WMC also restored many 404 links which pointed to his own old site. If he had reformatted his site when moving it, his preferred minimal URL-only sourcing would have completely lost the supporting material. If you think this article has problems, try to find the errors in Kyoto Protocol. (SEWilco 14:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC))

Well its nice to see SEW demonstrating to outsiders how hard he is to work with :-). Lupo: there are, likely, areas where the page can use cleanup. But I argue this is rather separate from the reference format. As to newsweek, there are two links, because they illustrate 2 ways of viewing the same thing. As to my site, the reason its an ext ref as well as multiple links is because the multiple links are to sub pages to support specific quotes. If the originals were online those wouldn't be needed. The ext ref is for the main page, which contains other stuff not even mentioned in this article. I've tried altering the NAS and WCC links to be names. As for the pringing problem... I didn't know that. I rather suspect that if I were printing it out I'd want the links inline still. It should be easy to make that software configurable. William M. Connolley 16:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC).

I don't see it that way. I don't like the link to your discussion page of the Newsweek article because I fail to see how your personal comments about Rush Limbaugh's reproduction (and the link you give there is a 404, too!) are relevant for this article. (Furthermore, did it ever occur to you that they may just have copied the text as published in the Financial Post as stated on the GCC web site? If so, they still didn't do their homework properly, but their subtle misquote is not very relevant to the article anyway...) Linking to the bare facts, in this case the PDF of the Newsweek article is far better: the info is there, people can verify the veracity of our article's claims themselves and directly, and your comments don't get in the way. Note that if a Wikipedian includes links to his own website as references in Wikipedia articles, he or she should be extra careful. Posting opinionated statements on one's own webpage is fine. Using them then as a Wikipedia reference is a slippery slope and could easily lead to it be seen as a circumvention of our no-bias policy.
As to the reference format: don't wait for software improvements. You might have to wait for a long time. Try out other ways that are available now and look how they work. Footnote-like referencing produces nice in-text refs (numbers or symbolic), and still gives the full URL in the footnote pointed to. In fact, it looks rather professional, like "normal" print publications. {{ref}} and {{note}} is one possibility; {{mn}} and {{mnb}} (or {{mnb2}}) is another. Lupo 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
On conflict resolution: I don't care who's hard to work with. We all are, at times. A useful de-escalation strategy might be to try to strictly stick to the editorial problem at hand. That seems to be the format of references. Here, we have a situation where some four or five editors argue against one over a matter of presentation, and the four or five open or co-sign an RFC against the lone one. In view of previous conflicts (which I just caught a glimpse of, and which I have no intention of analyzing to death), I cannot help but feel that this RFC opening contains a strong retaliatory component. Yes, edit warring is bad, but it takes two (at least). Instead of targetting the lone editor directly, why not try to find a wider consensus on the issue of reference formatting by opening a peer review on the article (or an article RFC)? Of course, if that was done, even the four (or five) editor majority here would need to be prepared to accept that maybe their view didn't gain wide support amongst editors not so deeply involved in this particular article. In any case, that route would keep the article in the center of attention, instead on playing on a person. After all, we're here for writing articles, not convincing other people of our point of view. And neither of us owns an article or has the right to keep others out if they want to make sensible edits. Lupo 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
On consensus: I see that the majority here claims that there was a consensus for a non-footnoted reference format here. I beg to differ. Consensus ≠ majority! Especially for a group so small—there seem to be less than ten editors really involved in this issue—consensus means to hammer out a solution that all parties agree to. Yes, that means compromising, or trying to convince, and takes effort. And sometimes one or the other participant should just realize that the issue is not worth the investment and go improve some other article. It's not the end of the world if this article has footnote-styled references. It isn't the end of the world if it has plain inline URL references. Part of consensus forming in such small groups is that some involved parties may cease caring so deeply about the issue. Sometimes dissenting parties may realize that there are tons of other articles on Wikipedia that need improvement and just leave the issue and go off on another route. That may yield a consensus that no party disagrees to. It's unlikely that a consensus solution makes everyone really happy. (It still may happen, though.) That doesn't mean it's bad. Even if any one party may still think their particular version was better than the consensus version, that's just their point of view. Lupo 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
All of you: ask yourself "what's so important about a particular reference format"??
  • SEWilco, why is it so important that this article (or others where essentially the same group of editors is involved) gets a footnote-styled reference format? Why not improve the reference format in some completely different articles? (I'm not saying you had to leave. But obviously you're facing opposition, so you have to ask yourself whether consensus building (and not edit warring and constantly reverting to your preferred version) is worth the effort, and if so, what to do if you can't garner support for your preferred format.) Do not edit-war!
  • To the others: why is it so important that this article (or others where essentially the same group of editors is involved) keeps an inline-URL reference format? What's the big deal? Obviously, someone thinks the current reference style could be improved upon. Couldn't it be that he has a point? Why do you constantly revert his attempts to your preferred version? Do not edit-war!
Lupo 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Lupo: you seem to be missing rather a lot of points here. On conflict resolution: I don't care who's hard to work with is spiffy, if you're not the one having to work with a hard-to-work-with person like SEW. But the rest of us have to. Do not edit-war!: fine, but facile. There is a consensus here for in-line links; you may not like that, but thats how it is. The *problem* here is SEW pushing his format, against what people want and against policy. Your analysis of the RFC is incorrect: you appear to have missed the strong retalitory component in SEWs behaviour. You seem to be peace-making here, but (a) you're weeks too late and (b) you don't seem to have the full facts. Why not go and comment over at the RFC or RFA: since its escalated to that level, thats where you should probably be commenting. William M. Connolley 14:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC).

The "problem" here is indeed people acting against policy. Replacing more complete citations with URL-only links violates Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. I applied Wikipedia's current best practices Wikipedia:Footnotes and followed the article's style for numbered referencing. (SEWilco 14:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC))
Apparently nobody ever pays attention. I was suggesting you all stop playing on the person, focus on the article and get wider input on how to improve the article. You both claim the others acted against policy, but that's not exactly a conflict resolution strategy. What do you guys want anyway? Resolve a conflict, such that one can keep improving the encyclopedia, including this article, or see the other party "punished"? BTW, William, I have seen that the problem has been "escalated", which is precisely why I mentioned "de-escalation strategy" above. Think about it. Lupo 15:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Errrrrrmmm... well I'm sure you're doing your best. But as you can see, we strongly disagree about what the reference format to be used should be, and... well, see the RFC/RFA. No point in repeating it all here. De-escalation sounds nice, but its not at all clear how. SEW did his best not to cooperate with the RFC, and is now doing the same with the RFA. As to improving the article: you're missing the point. There are incompatible ways of doing references. There is no way to reconcile them (is there? if there are, why are there two incompatible ways). I don't see any way to compromise between them. If you can think of a compromise, do let us know. William M. Connolley 16:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC).
A technical solution that would accommodate the best of both worlds? I have been thinking about cooking something up, but I don't know whether it'll work. I'll have to do some tests elsewhere. Next week I'll know more—no time right now. As to why are there several ways: well, all this stuff evolved. Different people tried out different things independently, and so we have several not entirely compatible ways of doing references, none of them perfect. Typical "design by anarchy", fitting a Wiki. Lupo 08:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I have been focusing on the article; see my comments here. I've been improving the encyclopedia, in this case by adding easy to use and maintain citations with more detail, and fixing many 404s which had not been noticed when the article had only URLs. (SEWilco 20:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC))
Oh good grief, stop pretending that the 404s are any easier to find that way. Anyway, Lupo makes one excellent suggestion: there must be large numbers of other articles outside the climate realm that you could non-controversially convert to your pet format: why not do that, instead of seeking controversy here? Look at your edits [7]: you've done nothing useful for days: all you do is try to rustle up support for you pet FN system! William M. Connolley 21:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC).
Well, nobody had found and fixed the many 404s. The additional detail in a full citation makes it easier for people to figure out where a document may be. And I've been doing useful Wikipedia things which don't show up there. (SEWilco 04:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC))
Hrmpf. There's been an edit war (seems to have stopped for the time being), and obviously some egos have been hurt. Now stop taking every disagreement so personal. Play out the personal vendetta stuff at the RFC (on which I will not comment), if you must. If you want to arrive at some solution, sulking and finger-pointing doesn't help, and repeatedly saying "my version is better" won't lead to any advances either. Try to show some respect for the other's position. They both have their merits. Let's see:
  • Inline URL refs have the advantage that the cited ref is just one click away: the link is right there with the text, a reader doesn't have to jump to the reference section below. However, the URL needs to be entered twice if a proper reference section with full citation info is also given, which may lead to inconsistencies, and if a reader wants the full citation, he has to scroll down and manually scan the list of refs to identify the one where he was. Additionally, text flow is broken when printing the article because of URL expansion.
  • Footnoted refs: the inline-ref links to the corresponding entry in the references section; thus finding the full citation information is easy, just one click away. They look well in print, too. Going back to where you were when reading also works, but only kind of: the backlink always takes one back to the first use of the reference in the article. And the actual source is one click further away. Also, numbered footnotes need to be constantly maintained to make sure the nth ref goes to the nth entry in the reference list. Better to use a symbolic style, like Harvard, which doesn't have that problem.
Is that summary correct so far? Seems to me the difference is minor: one click more or less, danger of inconsistencies in one version, both can be done either numbered or symbolic. Both have their pros and cons. Maybe it is possible to find a technical solution that combines the best of both; I'll try to figure it out—next week. Lupo 08:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not quite correct. WP:FN autonumbered links do not have to be renumbered, and the backlink goes back to a specific link and not only the first one. Make a sandbox in your user space and try it, perhaps with a copy of the above-linked version of this article, or see Alchemy and Jew. Also the reference name within WP:FN references allows fixing problems such as numbering errors, where if only the URL is used then edits such as URL changes can lose the relationship between text reference and source citation. Read the Talk and archived Talk at WP:FN which covered many issues during creation of that solution. (SEWilco 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. William M. Connolley 22:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] References

OK - as this page has stabilized a bit, I've found authors for each reference (except one unknown) and alphabetized the list. Please correct any errors (couple of shakey choices there). I would like to add abbrev. authors in place of the current numbered inline links (a la Harvard style) for ease of correlation. But won't without consensus here. Note, I don't mean a link to the ref as the notes thingy did - keep the inline link and create a means of finding it in the refs - as I've done at Kyoto Protocol (which still needs a clean-up). Comments ??? - Vsmith 02:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New para removed: why

I took out the new para entirely. Even after SS'ing sane-ising, its still just a rehash of material from GW and temperature record of the past 1000 years and there is no point doing it again. William M. Connolley 15:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC).


[edit] Learning how to use headers

Hey this paragraph:

"Thirty years later, the concern that the cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, can now be observed to have been wrong. 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.

As for the prospects of the end of the current interglacial (again, valid only in the absence of human perturbations) recent analysis of deeply buried ice from Antarctica indicates that the present "interglacial" warm period between periodic ice ages MIGHT last for 28,000 years, instead of the shorter time periods of some other cycles"

Not only is this paragraph untrue. Its self-contradictory. The writer makes his propagandistic point then later implicitly admits he has been speculating with the word MIGHT. This is a massive stretch and really quite fraudulent. I'll give it 24 hours. If I cannot get the evidence for what I consider an inappropriate level of certainty then I'll wipe the paragraph in its entirety.

I have an problem with the article in this sense. It fails to distinguish between "glaciation" and "ice age". We are in an ice age now. And have been for about 38million years. This is a propagandistic switch of the lingo to oversell Global Warming. Its trying to pretend that we are not in an ice age.

Before getting carried away, please learn how to use wiki: first, start new talk sections with == header ==; and sign your name with four tilde's. Secondly, making random threats isn't good. Third, you're wrong on the science; the paras you removed are fine, so I've re-inserted them. Your concern about terminology could be resolved by reading ice age. William M. Connolley 08:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No. You are wrong on the science. I'll give you some time to justify this. But then I'll remove them since you are in fact wrong on the science.CO2-Lord Of Creation 10:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. so I've read the section on Ice Age as you suggested. Since we are in an ice age now it reconfirms my concerns with you propagandistic manipulation of the language. This is something that also must be corrected. People ought to know that we are IN AN ICE AGE NOW. And there ought to be no confusion between glaciations and ice ages. You seem to be going out of your way to stooge yourself hereCO2-Lord Of Creation 10:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think William was trying to point out this section: More colloquially, when speaking of the last few million years, ice age is used to refer to colder periods with extensive ice sheets over the North American and Eurasian continents: in this sense, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. This is indeed the much more common use of the term ice age. In the long term geologic sense (as I pointed out elsewhere), we are indeed in an ice age (and have been for 40 million years...), but then most of the evolution since the Dinosaurs has taken place unter ice age conditions (and indeed, all of the evolution of the Genus Homo (genus) has take place under severe ice age conditions). Since in the context of global warming/cooling we are talking of decadal to millenial scale events, this second definition is not applicable, and hence the colloquial sense is not misleading. --Stephan Schulz 11:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears that William is unwilling to provide evidence for his implausible theories I've expedited the deadline I set and edited some of the unscientific propaganda out of the piece.CO2-Lord Of Creation 10:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lord Of Creation": just precisely who, pray tell, are you to dictate standards or deadlines? You do not set same here (none of us do). While it may be true that in that part of the non-wiki world in which you feel you have importance or influence you might have such rights, you do not here. Additionally, you persist in calling items with which your blantant POV does not agree "propaganda" and "Unacceptable lying" and "speculative" and "Implausible" and yet you offer no evidence that your POV is even remotely close to accurate, scientific, plausible, non-propagandistic, non-speculative or veracious. Additionally, you seem to have ignored the wealth of references with which this article was written, acting instead as the sole possessor of global-cooling/warming knowledge and arbiter of "truth".
You may do well to avail yourself of a perusal of the following: WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:CON and WP:NOR. •Jim62sch• 19:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ummm...this is a Wiki. William is not the only contributor. Anyways, I'll check your edit and comment then.--Stephan Schulz 11:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Someone has already reverted you, and on the whole I think rightly so. I don't quite get your position. Ice age does indeed have a couple of references that deal with the end of the current interglacial, including the recent Nature publication that suggests a lenghts of 28000 years. As far as I know, none of these hold that we are near the end of it. And I know of no climate researcher who currently holds this position, either. People use words like "might" because long term climate prediction is very hard process and science does not always give us definite answers yet. --Stephan Schulz 12:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. We are in an ice age now. We have been in an ice age for 38 million or so years. An ice age is not to be confused with a glaciation. The article, in order to dishonestly push the global warming fraud foward obscures this for the innocent public. If you cannot make your case for disastrous global warming we can at least expect you not to be dishonest in this way. And if you CAN make your ridiculous case then you don't need to do this. You dishonest people were wrong to change it back. And you are wrong to not show up with the evidence. So I'll give you some time to justify this tendentious dishonest idiotic mixing up of the terms. And if you cannot justify this then you will have to change the terms. I'm sorry fellas. I'm very sorry. I'm so damn sorry. But you've been caught. You've been flat caught out busted trying to mislead the public. Not good enough. CO2-Lord Of Creation 12:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for making your opinion about WP:AGF so abundantly clear. As I have written above, we are not in a ice age in the sense commonly understood by the public and used essentially everywhere outside a narrow glaciaologist/geologic context. So how is the public mislead? We are in an ice age in a much more rarely used sense in that we do have ice caps in polar regions. Since the time scales are very different, there is no risk of confusion. Do you want to make the argument that back in Dinosaur time the earth was much warmer and hence the current warming is harmless? Good luck with that...
Moreover, about the only connection between global warming and global cooling is the (extremely tenous) argument made by GW sceptics that "In the 70th the popular press speculated about an oncoming ice age, therefore the scientific community is all wrong about global warming now"...--Stephan Schulz 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ice age does indeed have a couple of references that deal with the end of the current interglacial, including the recent Nature publication that suggests a lenghts of 28000 years." A single speculative article????????? Surely you are just mucking about. But check out how incredibly flimsy that speculation is. Not based on anything much at all. Just a guess really. A bad guess I would say. But bad guess or good guess still a guess and not to be confused with science. " And I know of no climate researcher who currently holds this position" Well so what? That says something for your social circle. I mean is there a climate researcher this very minute cooking up some vittels in your kitchen? Plenty of climate researchers believe this. Many of the old guys in particular. Try Milt Rosenbergs brother. Try the fellow at Cato. See what David Bellamy thinks. Ask around. The new guys haven't come up with anything substantial. This is more a political then a scientific movement.CO2-Lord Of Creation 12:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, so far it's the word of an anonymous "CO2-Lord of Creation" vs. a peer-reviewed publication in one of the most prestigeous scientific journals. Bellamy has admitted that he got his data wrong, and is not claiming anything about global cooling any more. Moreover, he is not (and never was) a climatologist. I was unable to find a "Milt Rosenberg" (or even "Rosenbergs") who has anything to do with climate research. "That fellow at Cato" is not a reasonable description, but if he is at the Cato Institute, he is unlikely to be a respected climatologist. Anyways, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and not a place for original research. We document the current state of knowledge. And the published scientific literature overwhelmingly says that we are not heading towards a new ice age ("periof of intense glaciation"), but instead are causing global warming by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.--Stephan Schulz 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewing doesn't mean much if all your peers are lunatics also. And anyone who disagrees is branded a crank. But I'm happy with the way the entry stands at the moment since the obvious propagandizing and speculative stuff isn't in it anymore. I will be watching out to see if it creeps back in. I find what you are saying about Bellamy hard to believe. You got a reference for that? The fellow at Cato is Patrick Michaels. Who would have been branded a crank by lunatics already no doubt. CO2 release is the greatest externality the world had yet seen. A warmer earth is an earth with less extreme weather events. A colder earth is a dryer nastier more inhospitable place. But all that being said the article looks now to be in good order.CO2-Lord Of Creation 06:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

CO2-... is a troll; arguing with it is pointless William M. Connolley 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What's a troll? Somone whose not [personal attacks removed by Guettarda]? Always remember. You are not a scientist. You are a [personal attacks removed by Guettarda] science worker. I can see you are not up to coming up with any evidence for your ridiculous level of certitude in these matters. I thought you people had rules against [personal attacks removed by Guettarda] Willian insulting people. You want to get rid of some of your [personal attacks removed by Guettarda] CO2-Lord Of Creation 12:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that's fine. I'm happy with that. But why is his personal insult of me still there?CO2-Lord Of Creation 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Still: Just of the David Bellamy article come the following links: An article on his retraction, his letter to the editor in the Sunday Times describing that he withdraws from the debate, and this article in the guardian that analyses how he probably arrived at his nonsensical claim in the first place (in short, it's a typo (!) of a figure apparently printed in an unattributed Lyndon La Rouche publication, but probably originally invented (and misattributed to a non-existent 16 year old paper in Science ) by Fred Singer's SEPP).--Stephan Schulz 10:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I went to the first link on Bellamy. And its about him being persecuted by lunatics. So you wouldn't wonder that he would be intimidated into a retraction. So its full spectrum lunacy here. Trying to control the Wiki. Intimidating scientists who disagree with you. A major cult movement. Which is not to say that his comments on glaciers weren't way out of date and wrong. If indeed he did make them. What happens is that these leftists will follow people around taking notes of every last thing they say. And then if they make one mistake then that's a hanging offence. Shame on the scientists for giving this fellow such a hard time. This is what science has come to. A Priesthood with its own star chamber. And [personal attacks removed by Guettarda] William here declaring Bellamy a non-scientist. The impudenceCO2-Lord Of Creation 12:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As the article stands (this second) I can't bring myself to edit it any further. But its still pushing one way, pretending the evidence is out there that the 38 million year ice age is over (praise be). Well that would be great news if true but the level of certainty sometimes expressed in this direction is quite inappropriate. I would like to see the reasoning behind this with all workings shown. Here is a few scientists you might check for balance:Sallie L. Baliunas, Robert C. Balling Jr, Randall S. Cerveny, John Cristy, Robert E. Davis, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ross Mckitrick, Patrick J Michaels, Eric S Posmentier, Willie Soon.CO2-Lord Of Creation 18:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Ross Mckitrick is not a scientist

[edit] Global Dimming = Global Cooling?

As I am not a climatologist / enviromentalist (just a chemist by education), I didn't want to edit these topics without getting some clarification from those "in the know". The problem I have is the apparent inconsistancy between these two topics. In the "Global Cooling" WIKI, it sounds as though the theory had mass appeal in the scientific community during the 70s, but has lost steam in modern times. The mechanism of action behind this theory: aerisols and particulates in the atmosphere reflect sunlight from reaching Earth, thereby reducing the amount of heat derived from the sun. In the "Global Dimming" WIKI, this is a relatively new theory that has been gaining popularity in the scientific community. It was first described in the late 80s (1989, according to the WIKI's source) and additional empirical evidence (such as the "down-time" in the airline industry following 9/11) has supported this idea. The mechanism of action: aerisols and particulates in the atmosphere reflect sunlight from reaching Earth, thereby reducing the amount of heat derived from the sun. So am I right in assuming that "Global Dimming" is just another way of saying "Global Cooling"? If so, then both WIKIs need to be changed in order to reflect the dicotomy of how the scientific community reguards these (this) theory. If, on the other hand, there is a distinction between the two theories, I think it would make a good addition to the two pages to have a section describing this distinction. Pyth007 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Global cooling had several proposed mechanisms. It didn't have much support. And "global dimming" occurs during a period of net warming William M. Connolley 09:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
So "Global cooling" refers to the net global temperatures whereas "global dimming" refers more to the aerisol mechanism? If correct (or at least along those lines) maybe a brief mention / link to global dimming under the Physical mechanism / Aerisols heading... Pyth007 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
GC is the temperatures. GD is the (direct) radiation, although its linked to a slight cooling tendency William M. Connolley 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Another thought... Some parts of the global cooling WIKI suggests that the current scientific community discredits this theory completely (sort of like saying "Oh, those foolish scientists of the 70s"), yet the ideas behind this theory are not flawed, but rather the theory failed based on the lack of understanding the complete picture (as the middle part of the WIKI depicts). So in the "The Present Level of Knowledge" section, the first paragraph may need to be altered to reflect this growing understanding of all forces at play. For example "shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out." is incorrect in that the cooling concerns are still in play (in terms of global dimming), but that the overall global temperature concerns have been rectified to reflect other pieces of information, such as the effects of greenhouse gases. Pyth007 15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you're wrong (also wrong to be discussing it here!). No-one is worried about *cooling* now. People are worried that the cooling tendency of aerosols may have masked some warming and led us to underpredict future warming; but thats very different to a concern about the possible effects of cooling William M. Connolley 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, it's more like "the foolish popular press of the 70s". Even back then, imminent global cooling was never a mainstream scientific opinion (unless you interprete iminent on a geological time scale). And please: A Wiki (lower case) is the whole (Wikipedia is a Wiki). It is composed of individual articles (or pages). --Stephan Schulz 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(I hope this doesn’t come across as sounding too harsh; I don’t want to start a flame war) 1) “I think you’re wrong”: I’m sorry, but the whole point of this conversation was to clarify a few questions I had. So I’m wrong in having a question?! I was always taught that there’s no such thing as stupid questions! Background: while I was setting up labs for a local community college, a professor mentioned that he wanted to show a video on GD. Since I had never heard of that term before, I looked it up in wikipedia, and what I read sounded vaguely similar to the theory of GC that I had heard of in the 70s. So I looked up GC and sure enough, one of the mechanisms of action were the same. I asked a question and felt that your previous answers had guided me in the right direction (GC = global climate change; GD = mechanism of localized cooling by particulates)(Thank you, BTW, for those answers) If this assumption is wrong, then please clarify what this distinction is or where I am in error… 2) “also wrong to be discussing it here”: If talking about the global cooling page in the discussion section of the global cooling page is the wrong place to have such a discussion, then where the HECK is such a discussion supposed to take place?! I thought it would be more “kosher” to raise questions about the page in the discussion section than to go to the actual article and make changes based on my sole assumptions. 3) “People are worried that the cooling tendency …; but thats very different to a concern about the possible effects of cooling”: I’m trying to understand the logic in this sentence. To me this sounds like a contradiction (perhaps just a confusion as to what you mean by “cooling”). On the one hand, people are concerned about the masking effects that cooling due to GD has on previous predictions of the extent of GW, but on the other hand, there’s no concern about any effects that cooling due to GD has… Or were you referring to the glacian possibilities (and other gross climatic events) that GC suggested as no longer being the concern facing environmentalists (but that GD’s cooling still poses a concern)? 4) Again, (and maybe this is just a problem with semantics) I feel that the first paragraph under “The Present Level of Knowledge” completely undermines the ideas that were going on in the 70s. As evidenced by GD, part of the mechanism of action behind GC was not flawed -- just the end result of that theory. I think it would be more correct to say something like: “More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown that the earlier climate theories to have been too simplistic, and that the dire concerns about possible continuing drops in global temperatures have not borne out.” Similarly, one could say that the “Ideal Gas Law” is simplistic in that it didn’t address all of the forces occurring within a gas. However, it would be wrong to say that the IGL doesn’t bear out (meaning doesn’t hold a shred of truth / knowledge) since certain ideas (eg the inverse relationship between pressure and volume) do indeed bear out. It’s only when considering those other forces (that the simplistic IGL neglects, such as attractions between gas molecules) that a complete understanding of molecular interaction can occur. Likewise, it’s our understanding of all influences that will yield an accurate model of climate change. I think that the earlier part of the article did address this correctly. The paper by Rasool and Schneider and the NAS report sections go into how the overall climate model was in dispute when considering both cooling as well as warming factors, and -- I believe -- were correctly summarized by the “Climate science has improved” section. I’m mainly concerned with how that one small paragraph was phrased. Pyth007 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be discussing it here... Oops, sorry, I forgot which article talk we were on. I thought this was GD.

Adding and that the dire concerns about possible continuing drops in global temperatures have not borne out I would oppose; because it fails to distinguish between the scientific and popular press, which is one of the points of the page.

GD isn't really localised cooling, though it can be. Its more that the *main* effect is a reduction in direct sunlight rather than anything to do with temperature at all. The T stuff is smaller, and only a tendency.

but on the other hand, there’s no concern about any effects that cooling due to GD has Yes. Because those effects are smaller than GW.

William M. Connolley 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"GD isn't localized cooling, though it can be. It's more that the main effect is a reduction in direct sunlight rather than anything to do with temperature at all." Now this is why people are so confused when they attempt to find out the truth about the climate and climate change. A lot of what is passed on as "fact" or "strong theory" .. just makes no sense. A REDUCTION in direct sunlight will most certainly, undoubtedly, effect temp (all else being equal). You don't need to have advanced much further than 5th grade science class to understand this.

Well, you're wrong. On a warm, sunny day, go into a black tent. No direkt sunlight will strike you, but I promise you will be very warm! Light coming from the sun and being absorbed by the atmosphere before it strikes the ground still heats up this atmosphere. The energy does not magically vanish.--Stephan Schulz 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not possible that I am wrong. This entire discussion on aerosols and other substances that reflect the suns rays isn't something I'd even heard about before 2 days ago. Your black tent analogy is irrelevant because if the sun WERE shining directly on the black tent... the tent would be warmer wouldn't it? <--this was my entire point, maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. So Direct sunlight or lack of direct sunlight does cause temperature changes. Really, this is a funny conversation since you need only look as far as seasonal changes of temp to see that this holds true.  : So apparently aerosoles reflect sunlight.. and ice reflects sunlight (thus helping to keep the earth cooler in relative terms)... but aerosoles reflecting sunlight don't keep the earth cooler? Cowboy357 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's not possible that you are wrong, we can of course stop this discussion now. Have you considered running for Pope or Dalai Lama when the job comes up again? Otherwise: In the tent analogy, no direct sunlight is striking you, but you will still be warm. Likewise, sunlight that is absorbed on the way from the sun to the ground by the atmosphere will not strike the ground, but still heat the atmosphere. And some aeorosols reflect sunlight and can excert a cooling effect (most famously sulphate aerosols). Some, in particular soot, will absorb sunlight rather greedily. The same holds for gaseous components - they can absorb sunlight in certain frequency bands. --Stephan Schulz 06:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So your black tent analogy is correct after all. The tempurature is not effected by sunlight hitting the tent or not, all else being equal. (sheesh) Cowboy357 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a major problem... and it continues to be a problem, not just on wiki, but throughout the world when it comes to climate change. Just to give another example... one of the "risks" listed in the GW article is Ice Cap melting... which results in several potential problems.. including "that the ice caps REFLECT sunlight away from the earth and thus assist in keeping the temp DOWN.

Yes, this is called a "positive feedback loop". Ice reflects sunlight (i.e. it is not absorbed, the energy bounces back into space). Melt some ice, more dark ground or water exposed, more energ absorbed, it gets warmer, some ice melts...--Stephan Schulz 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, makes no sense. Why would ice reflect sunlight, but not the aerosoles? I have no idea if aerosoles reflect sunlight, again, the wiki info regarding this is very conflicting and illogical. But according to Wiki, they DO reflect sunlight, hence Global dimming. So how is it that Ice reflecting sunlight contributes to keeping the earth cooler, but other things reflecting sunlight, don't? Cowboy357 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, "aerosols" is a term describing any fine particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere. Some kinds of aerosols reflect light, some absorb it (some may do both, depending on wavelength ;-). Reflective ones cool (usually), absorbing ones will be neutral or even have a warming influence (if over a high-albedo ground that would reflect the part that is now absorbed). --Stephan Schulz 15:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There are contradictions all over the place. I'm not a scientist... but you don't have to know much more than basic logic and reading comprehension to see how such a topic causes a lot of people to simply scratch their heads.Cowboy357

"Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". This is a reasonably complex topic, and not made easier by people who inject all kind of nonsense into the debate (I've read all of these: "Earth cannot get warmer thanks to the second law of thermodynamics", "there is no such thing as an average temperature, hence it cannot increase", "temperature is a tensor field", "the Earth's magnetic field shields us from sunlight, global warming is due to the 15% reduction in magnetic field strength we had in the last 30 years"...). --Stephan Schulz 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
How about this for the change in that sentence: “More has to be learned about climate, but the growing *data* have shown that the earlier climate theories to have been too simplistic, and that the dire concerns *popularized in the media* about continuing drops in global temperatures have not borne out.” (*'s noting the changes to my previous...) I was also thinking that "records" sound too unscientific. The "Farmer's Alminac" has temperature records; climatologists, however, work with mathematical models and scientific data. Also, what would you think of adding this sentence to the end of the "Physical mechanisms -- Aerosols" section: Although the temperature drops foreseen by this mechanism have now been discarded in light of the warming predictions of modern models, this mechanism forms the basis for the idea of "Global Dimming" -- a phenomenon which may be masking the true nature of Global Warming. Pyth007 12:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I added the second suggestion. But "t records" is fine... see temperature record William M. Connolley 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarified the first paragraph to reflect that there is some controversy about the cause of global warming. Mrdarklight 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted it back, as there is no scientific controversy about it.--Stephan Schulz 02:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


GLOBAL DIMMING is actually a good definition. Astronomy magazine mentioned some years ago that the earth was receiving more solar energy - voila we got warmer. When we get less solar energy - voila we get cooler. Seems complex but it really isn't. A professor on maybe ) CSPAN recently said that climate prediction is no better than weather forecasting - he said beyond 24 hours the guess is not very good and beyond 1 week you could safely ignore the weatherguy. Thousands of years from now it is going to be a 100% chance of warmer or cooler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 September 2006.

[edit] Disagreement with SEPP

Cut from article:

This appears to be a clear rebuttal of those, such as SEPP who think that "the NAS

"experts" exhibited ... hysterical fears" in the 1975 report.

Whose point of view is it, that this is a "clear rebuttal of ... SEPP"? Please attach a name to this POV and then put the sentence back into the article. --Uncle Ed 20:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need a named source. Ed, please stop being silly. The assertion by SEPP about hysteria is rebutted by the tone of the report... yes? Your editing here and elsewhere is getting pretty close to vandlaism William M. Connolley 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial Global Cooling

A known fact is that the eruption of Tambora volcano sending tons and tons of debris into the atmosphere caused a "year without a summer" in 1816. A way to control light from the sun is to block it as the volcano eruption did.

There has been a ground swell to cut CO2 emissions. Why not go the other way and block the sunlight.

We need to do a study as to how many tons of aerosol particles would be needed at an altitude of five miles or so to start a global cooling. There are not many items on blocking sunlight. Global warming may be countered with artificial global cooling. We then would have control over how much particle material to seed the atmosphere. By controlling the blockage of the sun's light we would have a thermostat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.234.50.217 (talk • contribs) .

Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with this. Apart from the fact that I'd rather not experiment any more with the planet while still living on it, injecting aerosols into the atmosphere has a number on undesireable side effect. For sulphate aerosols, believed to be responsible for both the pre-1970s cooling trend and volcanic cooling, among these is acid rain.--Stephan Schulz 06:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I added a note to indicate that it's a bit too biased towards the global warming theory, which currently has as much scientific basis as the very subject that this article is written about. If anyone wants to debate this, post in this thread.

Note: This is NOT a thread to debate the legitimacy of global warming vs. global cooling, one theory over the other, this is a thread bringing into question the neutrality of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.224.118 (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The article here is entirely consistent in its description of GW with the GW article. So what exactly is the problem? Please be more specific William M. Connolley 09:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


I noticed, Mr. Connolley that you deleted my comment about "many scientists" believing in global warming as opposed to the "Earth is not cooling but warming statement". I believe my 'quibbling' as you put it more adequately expresses the real debate behind the science of global warming rather than your dogmatic and shameless espousal of its validity as shown by Ross McKitrick, William Gray et al. 206.188.135.130 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You can sign your commens with ~~~~ - its more polite. Better still, get an account. That the world actually *is* warming is undoubted, even by McK and Gray... William M. Connolley 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 A quote in the article states: "Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998."

Climate change supporters use time-series data from 100 years ago that mean global temperatures have increased by 1F (a margin of error probably attributable to poorer climate measuring technology) but skeptics note that the scientific community do NOT claim that the Earth has been warming since '98, inferring that warming *IS NOT* taking place. And Gray alleges that the Earth will enter a period of global cooling in 6-8 years.

As you cannot prove that there *is* evidence believed by ALL scientists, you should reinsert the "many scientists believe" quote and I will accept the article as NPOV. - 206.188.135.130 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article seems to show some signs of POV. I've removed a few choice words from this section:

However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped; it formed the basis of the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow.

I don't like to cast aspersions on the public mind :) I've changed "scientifically inaccurate film" to "hollywood film" - any debate about the film will be there for people who click the link. Please can we keep this as neutral as possible - let's aim for the reader who doesn't know anything and wants to find out more... --Dilaudid 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you've removed useful info. The idea *does* intrigue the public mind and that is the main reason for its survival; and the film is hopelessly inaccurate (this is consistent with DAT page). I took out the ACC story because its different... but actually I'll add it back William M. Connolley 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I *didn't* add it back: that section is ab out THC so it doesn't belong. And I couldn't see where it does belong though it would be nice to have it somewhere William M. Connolley 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is definitely POV - it reads like a defense of Global Warming rather than an explanation of what Global Cooling was.JBPostma 18:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can make it, its an accurate description of the (minor) theory of GC and its over-emphasis by the press. Could you perhaps be a bit more specific? William M. Connolley 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It does appear biased to me as well, mainly because it's littered with "it was not true" type statements and references to global warming. Perhaps a reorganization would help, separating the theory itself from the debunkings, and a separate article on "Global Cooling in the media" and public perceptions, etc. 76.208.141.251
The theory consists of aerosols and orbital forcings. It is helpful to have the response next to the theory. The article is not long, so a separate article on "media" is inappropriate William M. Connolley 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with 76.208.141.251. This reads like an attack on the theory, rather than an explanation of it. I can hardly see the theory as a whole because it is so littered with that. Please change it in the way this user stated. Other articles are covered in that way, and both the ideas and the rebutal of the ideas are clear in that form. This page is an attack, not an encyclopedia article. Very non-wiki. I suggest you fix it. I don't think I should give it a try, since I don't know much about such subjects (thus I'm looking here). I agree that the theroy and the opposing facts should be seperated. Also, you are right, no need for another article just for the media information. A section will do. Seperating it just gives the topic a favor towards looking true. SadanYagci 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with 76.208.141.251. I am trying to research GW/GC/GD and this article is more about defending GW and discrediting GC than explaining the theory behind GC. I would expect the article to be more "GC is a theory, first proposed in the 1960's..." and "GC says that aerosol materials are cooling..." and "GC has not been substantiated as of this writing...". Less of the "highly inaccurate" or "media hyped" or "someone says" type of inflammatory adjectives. Let's keep opinion and bias out and just describe the theory. And, if the GW entry is the same, maybe it should be changed, too. (Account to be added soon... thanks for listening) Fuzzalot 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
GC doesn't/didn't really exist as a scientific theory; you can't disentangle it from the media, where most of it occurred (unlike GW). The article contains a "physical mechanisms" section which explains what it was about. If you want to improve it, you could help by being more specific: "highly inaccurate" does not occur, though sci inacc does, as an (accurate) prefix to TDAT. Nor does media hyped. William M. Connolley 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
GC was published in circulated scientific papers so I think it would qualify as a theory. In regards to the rest I was attempting to illustrate concepts not quote passages from the article. In that light, though, one sentence I disagree with is "However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped; it formed the basis of the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow." I think it would be better said as:

"The film The Day After Tomorrow was based on an extreme application of this idea to draw viewers, public attention and earn money in theaters. It must be noted this film is fiction and not based on fact."

Another example is "In the late 1970s there were several popular (and melodramatic) books on the topic" where melodramatic is the authors opinion, not fact, and should be removed. In this passage melodramatic is used as to denegrate the publication, not describe. Many scientific papers contain melodramatic passages to gain interest and make their point. Probably the same for this particular publication, especially one published for general sale.

I do not have an account yet so I won't make changes. If you feel these have merit, please make the changes. Fuzzalot 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tweaking the intro

I don't see why this [8] (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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/o/Talk%7EGlobal_cooling_8df2.html"