Talk:Sallie Baliunas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


(William M. Connolley 08:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I'm not sure why Ed is shouting at me - I haven't cut anything out of this article (up to now). So, why did I chop what I chopped? Firstly, Ed provides no links to what he is talking about so we have to guess. So I'm guessing this is all part of the svensmark/friis-christensen type stuff. In which case the proposed mechanism is solaroutput/solarwind/cosmicrays/cloud/albedo/t. *Not* a brighter sun shining more sunlight down. But if you provide a link to their research, I suppose we could find out.

Sorry if I shouted. I hope the echoes have died down by now. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:23, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Cut from article:

  • Baliunas is a strong disbeliever in a connection between CO2 rise and climate change, saying:
  •  : But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case. [1]
  • However, her main argument for this is ...measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This was either untrue or misleading (see [2]) at the time, and is even less true now.
  • Baliunas earlier adopted a sceptical position regarding the hypothesis that CFCs were damaging to the ozone layer, which earned its originators, Rowland and Molina, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Her arguments on this issue, presented to Congressional hearings held in 1995 (but before the Nobel prize announcement), were broadly similar in form to those she presented at the same time, and has maintained subsequently.

This section on "arguments against" needs a rewrite to make it neutral. Right now, it reads as if Wikipedia is endorsing the view that Baliunas is wrong. This is against the NPOV policy: Wikipedia should neither endorse nor condemn any view, cause or person. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:23, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) If B is wrong, it is quite in line for wiki to say so. In this case, B is quite definitely wrong and misleading. I've restored the cut, but reworded it mildly ("even more wrong now" might be considered a bit unfair).
Actually, that is incorrect. It is definitely NOT in line for the Wikipedia to say that a party to a controversy is wrong. It would be perfectly okay to say that a certain AUTHORITY considered that party to be wrong. Like another scientist, or a scientific body. Or a survey of scientists might show that a certain percentage disagree.
Note that Wikipedia does not say that evolution is a fact, only that 95% of scientists agree with it (and 99.8% of biologists). --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) If someone said "water is denser than lead" & the quote got onto a wiki page it would be quite in order to point out that this is wrong. I dispute your interpretation of NPOV. Facts are facts. In this case, the balloon record, which S is purporting to comment on, and the S+C version of the MSU record, both show that S is wrong. The records aren't in dispute (in this sense).
No, if it's as obvious a mistake as "water is denser than lead", then there is no need for Wikipedia to brand that statement a "mistake". It's common knowledge that lead (even more so than most metals) sinks in water. All of this was discussed in the first few years of Wikipedia's existence, and I'm not "interpreting" NPOV policy, but telling you what it is. Perhaps you would like to discuss this on the mailing list? (If so, let me know, because I'm currently unsubscribed; but you someone as esteemed as YOU, I would re-subscribe.)
About the balloon and satellite record, the dates of the statements are significant. If I recall correctly, SEPP, Daly, Christy, Lindzen, Baliunas, et al., began critiquing IPCC conclusions in 1996-1999. During that period Christy had reported a flat or slightly negative trend in atmospheric temperatures (with an error of +/- 0.05 per decade, or a half degree per century -- Centigrade, of course) -- as opposed to the IPCC predictions of a 2 degree per century rise (or higher) based on the enhanced greenhouse effect theory.
I wish someone would write an article, comprehensible to laymen, on the mechanisms which (the GCM's predict) lead CO2 emissions to cause higher atmospheric temperatures. The current global warming article is so long and convoluted that I can't make sense of it.
Baliunas says that hot and cold air on earth correlates better with sunspots than with CO2 emissions. If she's wrong, it should be easy to cite SOME AUTHORITY who (a) says so and (b) explains WHY she's wrong.
You're a very affable chap, and it's an honor to have a real scientist contributing to Wikipedia, but I wish you'd agree to conform your contributions to NPOV policy. We writers all must describe scientific disputes NOT as "he says so, but he's wrong" -- rather as "he says so, but another says not". Then describe the evidence and reasoning each gives, and let the reader decide.
Wikipedia articles are not peer-reviewed journal submissions. There's a different refereeing process. The question here is never, "Does this article pass scientific muster?" but "Does this article present all points of view (POV) accurately?" ----user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 2004/12/01 iteration

(William M. Connolley 16:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've rv'd Eds version. For the same reason as before: the failure to distinguish facts from opinions. *no-one* (who knows anything about it) doubts that the satellite record shows warming. Even Spencer and Christie (owners of the record with the lowest T trend) admit it. Even Balliunas would admit that the record shows warming, if pressed. The point is that skeptics have a tendency to slip from "small warming" or even "insignificant warming" (which IMHO are dodgy, but could be justifiable) to "no warming", which is indefensible. Ed, you wrote: "but when corrected the trends still show much less warming than predicted by IPCC climate models" which I considered dodgy, but shows that even you accept they show warming [3].

In controversial matters, Wikipedia is not supposed to take a position endorsing one view as a "fact" and dismissing another view as "opinion". Please add to the article the NAME of a scientist who disagrees with Baliunas.
Spencer and Christie disagree. Its in their data record. You don't seem to appreciate that this is a matter of the data in the record, not opinion.
It would also be helpful to provide a timeline. When did Baliunas say "no warming has been found"? Was this five years ago, before the recent (and possibly temporary) upswing which S&C reported? (Around 5 years ago, there were 5 fewer years of satellite data, and S&C reported a flat or negative trend.)
(William M. Connolley 21:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Realising that there was little chance of you actually reading the reference provided to find out, I did so my self. The answer is, june 2001. The S+C trends were:
  1998    0.0702235
  1999    0.0579218
  2000    0.0466267
  2001    0.0551461
We should also mention the accuracy of measurements. Are these measurements exact to the hundredth of a degree? Or are the "trends" smaller than the error bars? (And who says so?) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Wooo, suddenly you're all interested in the accuracy! Splendid. You'd better start reading them up. Shall we put in a comment criticising SB for making sweeping broadbrush comments and failing to mention error bars?

Are the figures above in degrees Centigrade per decade? And how do they compare to IPCC climate model predictions? (0.2 to 0.8 degrees per decade)

(William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Ed, please. Get off your bum and do some fact finding yourself. They're on the sat t rec page, of course. Because I put them there. You're being grossly lazy. And do tell where you got the 0.8 from.

I'd like to see the article (and other related articles) focus on three distinct quantities:

  1. Predicted warming
  2. Observed warming
  3. Margin of error
(William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Which article? The climate model article already points out that GCMs correctly hindcast the observed warming, and the GW article probably does too.

Also let's clarify some ideas: when researchers speak of "observed warming trends" or "essentially no warming occured", how does that compare to the margin of error?

(William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) If you were in teh habit of reading IPCC rather than SEPP, you would know.

For example, if scientist A says that his climate model predicts 3.0 Centigrade warming per century, plus or minus 0.5 degrees, that translates to 0.3 degrees per decade +/- 0.05 degrees (i.e., between 0.25 degrees and 0.35 degrees per decade).

If the observed trend is 0.20 degrees +/- 0.1 degrees (0.1 to 0.3 degrees per decade), then what does that tell us? In other words, how probable is it (statistically) that the observations confirm or contradict the hypothesis?

What about 0.057 +/- 0.1 degrees per decade or 0.057 +/- 0.05 degrees per decade, the trend observed as of 1999? Compare that to the prediction of 0.3 degrees per decade. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 22:41, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Give me a ref for the 0.3 and I'll comment.

[edit] Rv: why

I just reverted 3 anon edits [4], because:

  • saying the satellite record shows slight warming is the sure sign of a skeptic who hasn't read the sat t rec page :-)
  • This view is accepted by a group of [[list of scientists opposing global warming consensus|scientists, who disagree with the common belief]] is wrong - that group is disparate, not unified under the Baliunas banner

I also took out and in IPCC reports [5] (the actual ref occurs here [6]) because the IPCC cites lots of stuff - you can't try to imply support for B's position from this

William M. Connolley 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with this woman - has she done any research that isn't horribly flawed? If not, how's she still in a job - slept with the boss? Colour me curious. (not sure how to sign my name, but i'm not her boss, honest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That's uncalled-for. She's an astronomer; by all accounts, a very good astronomer. But on the climate stuff she makes the sort of mistakes that are common for anyone operating far outside their field of expertise. Raymond Arritt 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


This article is complete nonsense. "In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology that concluded that the climate has not changed in the last 2000 years." Whatever one might think of their paper, it certainly did not say this! Paul Matthews 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right. From memory, the paper claimed that todays climate was non-exceptional in the last 2000 years. It was junk, of course William M. Connolley 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pruning

I cut a section that was argumentative (CO2 satelite versus land stuff). Citing a quote and than saying "but that is wrong" is argumentation. It's also not well-written as it's not clear if the author is saying that she STILL has this point of view (contests the new evidence on satellites) or if she only held it at the time.TCO 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have repruned this section. Mr. Quiggan has reverted this change without any discussion in talk, which shows poor wikiquette. This section is argumentative (very long section where a belief is ascribed and than an argument is made against that belief). For one thing the claim is made in present tense and it is unclear what Ms. Balunias's current position on sattelites versus land temps is (with the new values). Nor is it clear that she was unreasonable in her assumptions when the earlier false numbers were beleived true. Nor is it clear that sat/land temps are the only factor supporting her points.

In any case, this whole thing is a very long peice of text and not neutral. There are plenty of places to debate GW or to expose silliness of skeptics. It should be possible to write a neutral, factual article on anything. I could write an article about Karl Marx without having to say, "but he was wrong".

If Mr. Qiuggan wants to compromise on a simple statement that she is a GW skeptic, that is fine. Debating her beleifs when the issues are still in controversy, and when her POV is not represented (or finding selected places where she (may) be in error) is not an encyclopedia article. It would be a fine editorial (maybe with even more depth and examples, on Crooked Timber, though.) If so, it will be an even better piece if explored to be more than just a collection of gotchas, but to be representative and evaluative of all her points. And I say this, with some general feeling that skeptics tend to overreach and be a bit silly when doing so.TCO 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The material was over-long but should be included in some form. Her present views are irrelevant to the fact that she made a sweeping pronouncement that "the warming of the earth’s surface observed in the last 100 years cannot be due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human activities. The recent global warming must be the result of natural factors" based primarily on data that were known at the time to be incorrect. By all accounts Baliunas is a good astronomer, but when discussing global warming she makes silly mistakes typical of someone operating far outside their area of specialization. The fact that she makes these mistakes isn't our fault, and we have no obligation to cover for her (we do, of course, have an obligation to stick to the facts). Hiding such things would abdicate our duty to the reader. Raymond Arritt 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If she has a STRONG history of making errors, than of course it's relevant, but citing one to judge her overall seems like gamesmanship in Wiki for sides of a battle that still rages, rather than encyclopedia-writing. Everyone makes errors. I still think this is better handled in an op-ed.

But, I can compromise to some smaller section (and it is really a compromise, since the whole thing is in my opinion non-encylopediac). Why don't you take a cut at putting the section back in and making it more omniscient (and shorter!)TCO 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened it William M. Connolley 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version at time of this post is can-live-withable. Well written as well.TCO 01:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more pruning

I cut some remarks about Singer et als opinions on ozone depletion. These guys may very well have had silly opinions on that, but that is not relevant in an article on Balunias. It's wandering to mention it. (And wandering to make a pointed point.)TCO 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)