Talk:Global cooling/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Tweaking the intro
I don't see why this [1] (subsequently modded by Stephan) is an improvement. Giddings crit isn't particularly notable (none of them are) its just one example. The earlier (my!) wording is more accurate and less weaselly William M. Connolley 20:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Terrible article
Totally speculative, and very biased. No differing perspectives taken into consideration, and definitely does not meet the NPOV wiki requirement. I would like to see some links to criticisms. Iamvery 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Terrible comment. No substance at all. How does this article fail NPOV? Criticism of what? Global cooling? BTW, you can sign your comments with four tildas ~~~~ to give a more useful signature (with a link to your user page) conveniently. --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I must agree that this article is, at least for the time being, 'terrible'. And as for global cooling being only in the media, and having no scientific basis, I'm sorry, but since when is Al Gore a scientist? 12.218.145.112 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your criticism is rather unspecific and thus not helpful. Should we change "something"?. And for the second sentence: Do you confuse "only in the media" and "also in the media"? Assuming you want to draw an analogy with global warming, I suggest you check scientific opinion on climate change. --Stephan Schulz 19:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Lead again
I cut but nonetheless gained popularity on college campuses and amongst the general public as a result of the public discussions by a few prominent scientists at the time who backed the theory, as well as the dramatic coverage the theory received in mainstream media from the lead. I don't see any evidence for this; there were one or two media articles but hardly "dramatic coverage" William M. Connolley 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Current Political issues?
Could we add a heading to the end of the article re: current political significance of this theory? I think it's fair to say that Global Warming debate has broken down into a partisan political issue here in the US, and a lot of skeptics (largely right-leaning) cite the Global Cooling theory as evidence that, to put it bluntly, science has no idea what it's talking about -- "Look at this, they've been wrong before". I don't have specific links/quotes, but I could probably come up with some if pressed. I'd like to be NPOV about it, but I haven't seen any rebuttal of the charge (if one is really needed...) coming from the GW proponents/the political left. --James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.51.111.1 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
- Read this article - there never was a serious "Global Cooling theory". I don't know about global warming proponents/the political left, but the vast majority of scientists is aware of this fact. --Stephan Schulz 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Colder Winters, Cooler Year(s)
If there is global cooling, the Earth grows cooler (contrary to global warming). This means colder and frigid winters. This also means cooler summers and a cooler year as well. I think there would be cool deserts even with small temperature decreases, just like melting of the polar icecaps with global warming even with small temperature increases. 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The effects of global warming or cooling would almost certainly not be uniform. But I'm not sure what the point of this speculation is. -- Beland 06:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Many false statments
You had states that there was never wide support of the global cooling theory. I remember being taught global cooling in the 8th grade and my teacher was just as believing in global cooling, and referenced as many sources as you do to support golbal warming.
Additionally, according to the Newsweek Article you mentioned, Scientist were just as unanomous about global cooling as they are about global warming. Below is an excerpt from the Newsweek article.
"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century"
Doug in Westminster
- Of course I don't know about your school. But Newsweek as acknowledged that their reporting back then was misleading. Read the various reports cited in the article. And the unanimity in your quite refers to the development of agricultural productivity under the assumption that climate cools. --Stephan Schulz 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe our resident scientists trying so desparately to tell us that we didn't really believe in global cooling in the good ole days. That may work on people under 40 but save your breath on us older guys. Global cooling must be one of the great embarrasments of climate geeks - don't worry global warming looks like the next one.159.105.80.141 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to add my $0.02 as an old timer in the UK. I too remember it very well. There was even a BBC science programme about it - The Weather Machine - and a book written by Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist (a UK equivalent of Scientific American). When I read this Wiki and compared it with my own experiences living through that time it reads like a revisionist history not a factual account. You might care to peruse some of the comments he has made recently on his recollections. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/calder.context.html
- Calder believed it then and believes it still. So what? He doesn't and didn't represent "science". And NS is *not* the equic of SA - its rather more lowbrow, or at least it is now William M. Connolley 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article full of spin?
There are several words in the article synopsis paragraph which are opinion and have no place within an unbiased article.
"Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth. More specifically, it refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."
The words being: Conjecture. Who decides that the theory had insufficient evidence or was speculation. The temperature did go down just as the earths temperature has been rising recently. But I think people would have a problem with me editing the global warming article , saying that global warming is conjecture!
Never had significant support. The word significant is opinion. People did believe in this theory and who is to say there opinions are not significant.
Slight downward trend. The word slight is pure spin and does not belong in an encyclopedia! Let the statistics speak for themselves, instead of deliberately trying to influence the opinions of the article reader.
Please will somone fix this lack of neutrality in this article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbiddle (talk • contribs)
- All words used are value judgements to some extent. What would you replace "conjecture" with? I don't think you could say "theory" - there was no coherent theory, as the article demonstrates. Lack of sci support is again demonstrated by the article. "Slight" seems fair enough, in comparison to the recent warming William M. Connolley 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- A very valid point has been raised here. This article is not objective. I don't want to point any fingers, but it appears that any changes to remove subjective language are being reversed. That's to the detriment of this encyclopedia. I understand the Global Warming proponents feel strongly about including links to their preferred sources and language disparaging the Global Cooling theory. Why is that? It smells of politics, not science. I might cautiously add that it appears certain users who sit on this board all day have tainted this article, and refuse to allow changes that would improve its objectivity. Unless the subjective language is removed and the article is allowed to be rewritten in a fair and objective manner, it will continue to be B- content. DocHolliday (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to make suggestions or improvements - but please make the later after reviewing the sources. Some of the very scientific papers that have been the source of the famous Time magazine article already contain the caveat about greenhouse gases possibly overcompensating the orbital forcing. And even this hedged position was not strongly supported in the scientific community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- You appear to object to This hypothesis never had significant scientific support. And yet this is supported by the text of the article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- My interest is objectivity, and I find a lot of the language in this article to be biased and misleading. While there's good information to be found here, as others have pointed out, it seems to be purposefully propagandized to promote the Global Warming theory. Both theories have their flaws. Maybe I'm missing something -- Is there an agenda the rest of us should be aware of? DocHolliday 12:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm responding to your edits - that seems objective. I assert that This hypothesis never had significant scientific support is supported by the text of the article, as it should be. Are you disagreeing? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you are misinterpreting the theory that was prevalent in the 1970's. First, I don't recall it being called "global cooling". Rather, the theory was that 1) we were about to enter another ice age and 2) ice ages were entered very abruptly. IT wasn't man made although many allusions were made as to how man was accelerating the descent. There was a number of research going on to look at glaciation and the warning signs. Also, the prevalent pollution concern was acid rain. Certainly all geologic research contained the caveat of anthropogenic causes changing the equation (and not just GHG warming, but cooling as well). There were also the albedo crowds arguing that clear cutting of forests would reflect more heat, cause the ice to expand even faster than it was, and create a positive reflective feedback. For example, this article just asserts as fact in the abstract that the northern hemisphere ice sheet will continue to expand. Long term cooling trend (with anthropogenic caveat) here. Note that the caveat could be both warming or colling affecting the cycle. Here's an article warning that cooling can cause volcanic eruptions. While not stating that cooling is happening (at least not in the abstract), it would seem silly for a prestigious journal to publish dire predictions about something that isn't even being entertained. Certainly today, a paper warning about a dire consequence of "global cooling" would not be entertained because global cooling isn't happening. But it was entertained in the 1970's because the general consensus was that an ice age was coming. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this abstract does not " assert as fact t that the northern hemisphere ice sheet will continue to expand" - where do you read that? I'll give you the second one, but a) its published 1980 (i.e. long after the craze), and b) its talking about many millennia, not about glaciers in New York City tomorrow. And the last one is not "warning" that cooling can cause volcanic eruptions, or making "dire predictions", it is trying to explain a putative correlation between volcanic and climatic events. A paper on this topic could indeed be published today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- This statement "...is regarded as an optimal configuration for delivering moisture to the growing ice sheets." seems to state "the growing ice sheets" which implies the ice sheets are growing. Ice age fear was promoted up to 1980 although it was also competing with GHG warming theories by that time. The hysteria was fueled by the science but the science itself wasn't hysterical. There is similar happenings today. Your argument that the science was talking about millenia is true but this article is about the phenomenom of the perception of an imminent ice age. How the public and press should have reacted to the science isn't the same as how they did react to the science. Today, large rainstorms or heat waves or hurricanes invariably trigger the random press report about the storm being related to global warming. That hysteria doesn't reflect on the science, but the science is what fueled speculation by the press. The same is true for the ice age predictions in the 1970's. Glaciation research triggered a number of articles in the press typically after a winter snow storm. Even with global warming, the eastern seaboard of the U.S. has cooled slightly (whence the term global) but I doubt anyone asked on the eastern seaboard would know that because the press focuses on warming. Scientists walk a tightrope of trying to promote their research and getting the public interested in it and also not sensationalize it. The 1970's were a misinterpretation of scientific reports that led to the general conclusion by the public that an ice age was imminent. Scientists in the field did not really diminish those fears and in some cases activists prayed on them. I'd argue that one of the reasons for IPCC is to change that and put broad interpretations on the data so the press doesn't have to and they don't rely on single sources to produce crap scientific scare journalism. Judging by the number of articles linking last weeks weather to global climate change, I'd say they have not done a very good job in that respect. --DHeyward (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to re-read that abstract again, including some more context. The juxtaposition at latitudes 50°N to 60°N of an "interglacial" ocean along-side a "glacial" land mass, particularly along eastern North America... is not referring to current conditions, but to previous cold spells. As you can easily verify, Eastern North America between 50°N to 60°N is spectacularly non-glacial at the moment (and was likewise in the 70s and 80s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here's another one. --DHeyward (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your assessment of the northeaster coast and I am not arguing they are correct. I am only quoting what they wrote. They used present tense and also say "comparable to those of today's ocean." They are talking present tense and they are talking about the north atlantic in the 1970's. This is part of how the ice age scare was propagated. --DHeyward (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. They say ocean temperatures were similar than today. They don't mention current ice sheet growth at all. The present tense "is regarded" refers to the current understanding of the phenomenon ("we think we now know what did happen back then" - notice the present tense again), not the climate configuration. They are very explicitly talking about "two 10,000-year periods of Northern Hemisphere continental ice-sheet growth [...] within the last full interglacial-to-glacial cycle", and not about current climate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Today, large rainstorms or heat waves or hurricanes invariably trigger the random press report about the storm being related to global warming - yes, but the GW article doesn't inc;ude such stuff. Nor should the GC article. Your addition of Hay to the intro was unbalanced, as was the text. I've moved it into the Milank section where I think it belongs. Your preception that it was only milank stuff is srong - the aerosols were there too. Scientists in the field did not really diminish those fears and in some cases activists preyed on them - interesting point; if you can find some stuff about activists preying on fears, it would be worth putting in William M. Connolley (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Global warming is a science article. This article should be about the phenomenon of the ice age scare in the 1970's. I don't think it should be just the science of global cooling because it obviously is incorrect. The Newsweek article wasn't scientific. The Flat Earth theory isn't about the science of the flat earth because the science is obviously weak but it is about the history and social aspects of the theory. This article should be the same. As for aeorosols, I think it fits in as well and was a major part of the theory. The prevalent view was that the ice age was coming and the actions of man were hastening it. Deforestation, pollution from sulfates, particulates from fossil fuel consumption, etc, all were used to further the scare. Even the concept of "Nuclear Winter" preyed on this fear of cooling. The individual science in all of these areas was sound but occasionally someone linked them all to the coming ice age and this is what fueled the hysteria. It's not unlike today's pictures of hurricanes eminating from smokestacks or movies such as The Day After Tomorrow. It's not science but it fuels pop culture and that isn't insignificant. --DHeyward (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, yes, GW is science. This is about GC, which is rather different. At the moment the primary focus is on science, and major "respectable" publications. You said Scientists in the field did not really diminish those fears and in some cases activists preyed on them and I replied interesting point; if you can find some stuff about activists preying on fears, it would be worth putting in - do you think you can indeed find such stuff? The prevalent view was that the ice age was coming and the actions of man were hastening it - I disagree. You are suffering from false-memory syndrome. Compared to GW, public and press reaction was minor; the prevalent view was to ignore the issue. Re the Ant Conv paper: have you read it? Adding papers only from abstracts is naughty William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree. But read the title and the abstract and you will get a sense of public opinion and how the science was presented to the public. Why would that title be put that way? The title was for public consumption, not science. I recall accurately what the perception was and I don't claim that the ice age fear was as big as the global warming fear is today. Nor was it supported by as much scientific evidence in either breadth or depth. It was more akin to the hysteria on bird flu or Y2K. You could argue that scientist were never really concerned about bird flu or Y2K either but it wouldn't diminish the scope of the public and press hysteria. Certainly bird flu spawned reevaluations and publications about flu pandemics and even provocative titles in scientific literature but the reality is that science created hysteria even if the scientists were not hysterical. I will search for some of the activist suff but mostly it was acid rain, particulates and deforestation hastening the next ice age. Global cooling wasn't there only point but one of many. It sort of like the way hurricanes and extreme weather are used by activists today to highlight global warming. We all know it happens, we all know scientists don't support it and we all know that extreme weather isn't the only possible consequence or even the main reason to avoid global warming. But it also doesn't change the fact that activists use these weather events to call attention to their cause. Activists in the 1970's did the same thing. --DHeyward (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, yes, GW is science. This is about GC, which is rather different. At the moment the primary focus is on science, and major "respectable" publications. You said Scientists in the field did not really diminish those fears and in some cases activists preyed on them and I replied interesting point; if you can find some stuff about activists preying on fears, it would be worth putting in - do you think you can indeed find such stuff? The prevalent view was that the ice age was coming and the actions of man were hastening it - I disagree. You are suffering from false-memory syndrome. Compared to GW, public and press reaction was minor; the prevalent view was to ignore the issue. Re the Ant Conv paper: have you read it? Adding papers only from abstracts is naughty William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Global warming is a science article. This article should be about the phenomenon of the ice age scare in the 1970's. I don't think it should be just the science of global cooling because it obviously is incorrect. The Newsweek article wasn't scientific. The Flat Earth theory isn't about the science of the flat earth because the science is obviously weak but it is about the history and social aspects of the theory. This article should be the same. As for aeorosols, I think it fits in as well and was a major part of the theory. The prevalent view was that the ice age was coming and the actions of man were hastening it. Deforestation, pollution from sulfates, particulates from fossil fuel consumption, etc, all were used to further the scare. Even the concept of "Nuclear Winter" preyed on this fear of cooling. The individual science in all of these areas was sound but occasionally someone linked them all to the coming ice age and this is what fueled the hysteria. It's not unlike today's pictures of hurricanes eminating from smokestacks or movies such as The Day After Tomorrow. It's not science but it fuels pop culture and that isn't insignificant. --DHeyward (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to re-read that abstract again, including some more context. The juxtaposition at latitudes 50°N to 60°N of an "interglacial" ocean along-side a "glacial" land mass, particularly along eastern North America... is not referring to current conditions, but to previous cold spells. As you can easily verify, Eastern North America between 50°N to 60°N is spectacularly non-glacial at the moment (and was likewise in the 70s and 80s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- This statement "...is regarded as an optimal configuration for delivering moisture to the growing ice sheets." seems to state "the growing ice sheets" which implies the ice sheets are growing. Ice age fear was promoted up to 1980 although it was also competing with GHG warming theories by that time. The hysteria was fueled by the science but the science itself wasn't hysterical. There is similar happenings today. Your argument that the science was talking about millenia is true but this article is about the phenomenom of the perception of an imminent ice age. How the public and press should have reacted to the science isn't the same as how they did react to the science. Today, large rainstorms or heat waves or hurricanes invariably trigger the random press report about the storm being related to global warming. That hysteria doesn't reflect on the science, but the science is what fueled speculation by the press. The same is true for the ice age predictions in the 1970's. Glaciation research triggered a number of articles in the press typically after a winter snow storm. Even with global warming, the eastern seaboard of the U.S. has cooled slightly (whence the term global) but I doubt anyone asked on the eastern seaboard would know that because the press focuses on warming. Scientists walk a tightrope of trying to promote their research and getting the public interested in it and also not sensationalize it. The 1970's were a misinterpretation of scientific reports that led to the general conclusion by the public that an ice age was imminent. Scientists in the field did not really diminish those fears and in some cases activists prayed on them. I'd argue that one of the reasons for IPCC is to change that and put broad interpretations on the data so the press doesn't have to and they don't rely on single sources to produce crap scientific scare journalism. Judging by the number of articles linking last weeks weather to global climate change, I'd say they have not done a very good job in that respect. --DHeyward (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this abstract does not " assert as fact t that the northern hemisphere ice sheet will continue to expand" - where do you read that? I'll give you the second one, but a) its published 1980 (i.e. long after the craze), and b) its talking about many millennia, not about glaciers in New York City tomorrow. And the last one is not "warning" that cooling can cause volcanic eruptions, or making "dire predictions", it is trying to explain a putative correlation between volcanic and climatic events. A paper on this topic could indeed be published today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you are misinterpreting the theory that was prevalent in the 1970's. First, I don't recall it being called "global cooling". Rather, the theory was that 1) we were about to enter another ice age and 2) ice ages were entered very abruptly. IT wasn't man made although many allusions were made as to how man was accelerating the descent. There was a number of research going on to look at glaciation and the warning signs. Also, the prevalent pollution concern was acid rain. Certainly all geologic research contained the caveat of anthropogenic causes changing the equation (and not just GHG warming, but cooling as well). There were also the albedo crowds arguing that clear cutting of forests would reflect more heat, cause the ice to expand even faster than it was, and create a positive reflective feedback. For example, this article just asserts as fact in the abstract that the northern hemisphere ice sheet will continue to expand. Long term cooling trend (with anthropogenic caveat) here. Note that the caveat could be both warming or colling affecting the cycle. Here's an article warning that cooling can cause volcanic eruptions. While not stating that cooling is happening (at least not in the abstract), it would seem silly for a prestigious journal to publish dire predictions about something that isn't even being entertained. Certainly today, a paper warning about a dire consequence of "global cooling" would not be entertained because global cooling isn't happening. But it was entertained in the 1970's because the general consensus was that an ice age was coming. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm responding to your edits - that seems objective. I assert that This hypothesis never had significant scientific support is supported by the text of the article, as it should be. Are you disagreeing? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- A very valid point has been raised here. This article is not objective. I don't want to point any fingers, but it appears that any changes to remove subjective language are being reversed. That's to the detriment of this encyclopedia. I understand the Global Warming proponents feel strongly about including links to their preferred sources and language disparaging the Global Cooling theory. Why is that? It smells of politics, not science. I might cautiously add that it appears certain users who sit on this board all day have tainted this article, and refuse to allow changes that would improve its objectivity. Unless the subjective language is removed and the article is allowed to be rewritten in a fair and objective manner, it will continue to be B- content. DocHolliday (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats the second time you've said Activists in the 1970's did the same thing.; I've already asked you twice if you have any evidence for that; should I take it that the answer is no? As for the paper - I'm not at all happy with it being in, given that you haven't read it, nor anyone else here. Summarising papers from abstracts only is a bad idea - we have no idea what timescale was being talked about, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be provocative by saying it. I obviously don't have a source or I would have added it to the article. It is just my recollection and I'm trying to remember some of the activists at the time to see if I can find any contemporaneous statements. There were lot's of different activists at the time for various social and political causes. It's along the same lines as what was said in the Cosmos series which took a while for me to remember where I had seen it. It may even be the same activists (i.e. Sagan). I added the ice age paper because of its abstract and title. I don't vouch for the science and I am not citing it as evidence of a pending ice age. Nor am I a climate scientist so I don't even think I could even assess it in light of other scientific papers regarding antarctic climate it if I read the whole thing. From a social observation aspect, though, the abstract and title (and sometimes less than that) are all that gets covered by the press and public. I agree with you that from a scientific standpoint, the timescale and the basic assumptions about convection would need to be analyzed. That paper, I believe had it's basic assumptions questioned less than a year later. But the bell was rung from a social aspect and it sets a certain psyche. My recollection is that a looming ice age was a generally accepted natural phenomenom. That title would not have raised the red flags it raised today. My own perception is that the title was not provocative in 1970 because "pending ice age" was a widely accepted possibility. Today, it would be very inflammatory and perhaps even irresponsible regardless of the timescale because of the general consensus on warming and the focus of climatologists to warn of the pending dangers of global warming. --DHeyward (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the paper out, because reading the whole thing [2], or indeed the abtract itself, doesn't fit your wording. If you want it to go back, it needs to be phrased as you have above - that the science says nothing about immenent ice ages, only the title, or abstract, or whatever William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've rewritten it but you seem to be missing the point on the mindset at the time. Science at the time pointed to ice ages that occured approximately every 12,000 years. We are at 11,500. It was generally regarded that the next ice age was imminent. I believe the ice age cycle has since been revised but that doesn't change what people though in the 1970's. --DHeyward (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are wrong, whether you mean the public or scientists. You're also confused, since the ice-age cycle is 100kyr. I've removed the section - there is a vast amount of detail there that is completely irrelevant to the article. This is an obscure paper that never came to public note, and has never even been cited in the septic literature. Your case for its relevance on this talk page was in terms of the abstract and title being "eye catching", and thats the only relevance I could see, though saying so could easily be OR... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I said at the time ice ages were believed to be 12,000 years apart and we were "due" for another one. It wasn't "sceptic" at the time as it was mainstream thought based on a paper in Nature. I find it difficult to believe that the criteria is for a faulty scientific theory is "widely cited". This article exemplifies the thinking at the time. It made it through peer review in a prestigious journal with it's title and conclusion that a new ice age was possible. The reviewers didn't force him to retract this claim. It wasn't citied because like everything in "global cooling", it was wrong. The author was and is not a sceptic. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument seems weak. This was a 1970 peer reviewed article in a prestigious journal warning of conditions supporting a new ice age and you claim it isn't relevant to the article on 1970 "global cooling"? I think you need to reevaluate what this artcile is about. --DHeyward (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I dont see how WMC makes an "I dont like it" argument. Being published does not make something "mainstream". It was one paper, and no one cared. Only the media picked it up for the same reasons you are picking it up... History repeating! Brusegadi (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- WMC's own original research and position is that global cooling wasn't a mainstream scientifc idea in the 1970's. For peer reviewed articles in the 1970's to casually throw out terms like "new ice age" and highlight correlation between conditions of ice age formation and the conditions as they knew them is evidence that it was a mainstream scientifc view. The title, abstract and conclusion made an assertion that was widely accepted at the time. It was a mainstream scientific view that an ice age was coming that we were within 500 years of the mean cycle between ice ages. Falling temperature trends, ice age research, and anthropogenic cooling activities such as acid rain, clear cutting of forests, ice sheet expansion and particulate emissions were mainstream scientific areas of study and widely believed to be a threat to the planet. At the time, global warming through anthropogenic GHG emissions was also a mainstream scientific theory with it's own set of mechanisms and threats. We now know which theory was the greater threat but at the time, both were being researched and both had widespread support among scientists, often by the same scienists. WMC somehow believes that admitting this would diminish the authority of IPCC or give the GW skeptics something to hang their hat on. In reality, accuratley relating scientific history gives IPCC much more credibilty as it's clear that the overwhelming scientific research has essentially buried the cooling theories. --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is an interesting point. Thanks. Mr. Connolley has chosen to insert the "wasn't a mainstream scientific idea in the 1970's" soley to remove any possibility of diminishing his work in anthropogenic global warming. It's original research, not supported by the article, and should be removed. Another point: The recent change deleting the line "Earth as a whole has not been cooling in recent decades, but is in a period of global warming" wasn't vandalism as you have described it. The statement is irrelevant, unsupported, and misleading. Wikipedia has been partially banned by at least one university as a source for students[3]. Others have pointed out that this wiki is no longer a credible source of information [4]. Treating this page and this wiki as your personal fiefdom, Mr. Connolley, has done nothing to improve its authority and only contributes to that perception. May I respectfully ask that you stop reversing edits to this page and recuse yourself? --DocHolliday 07:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your expertise is wasted here; you should go back to the topics you know better [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed. The best defense you have for bastardizing this page is some fallacious ad hominem innuendo? DocHolliday (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your expertise is wasted here; you should go back to the topics you know better [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is an interesting point. Thanks. Mr. Connolley has chosen to insert the "wasn't a mainstream scientific idea in the 1970's" soley to remove any possibility of diminishing his work in anthropogenic global warming. It's original research, not supported by the article, and should be removed. Another point: The recent change deleting the line "Earth as a whole has not been cooling in recent decades, but is in a period of global warming" wasn't vandalism as you have described it. The statement is irrelevant, unsupported, and misleading. Wikipedia has been partially banned by at least one university as a source for students[3]. Others have pointed out that this wiki is no longer a credible source of information [4]. Treating this page and this wiki as your personal fiefdom, Mr. Connolley, has done nothing to improve its authority and only contributes to that perception. May I respectfully ask that you stop reversing edits to this page and recuse yourself? --DocHolliday 07:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- WMC's own original research and position is that global cooling wasn't a mainstream scientifc idea in the 1970's. For peer reviewed articles in the 1970's to casually throw out terms like "new ice age" and highlight correlation between conditions of ice age formation and the conditions as they knew them is evidence that it was a mainstream scientifc view. The title, abstract and conclusion made an assertion that was widely accepted at the time. It was a mainstream scientific view that an ice age was coming that we were within 500 years of the mean cycle between ice ages. Falling temperature trends, ice age research, and anthropogenic cooling activities such as acid rain, clear cutting of forests, ice sheet expansion and particulate emissions were mainstream scientific areas of study and widely believed to be a threat to the planet. At the time, global warming through anthropogenic GHG emissions was also a mainstream scientific theory with it's own set of mechanisms and threats. We now know which theory was the greater threat but at the time, both were being researched and both had widespread support among scientists, often by the same scienists. WMC somehow believes that admitting this would diminish the authority of IPCC or give the GW skeptics something to hang their hat on. In reality, accuratley relating scientific history gives IPCC much more credibilty as it's clear that the overwhelming scientific research has essentially buried the cooling theories. --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I dont see how WMC makes an "I dont like it" argument. Being published does not make something "mainstream". It was one paper, and no one cared. Only the media picked it up for the same reasons you are picking it up... History repeating! Brusegadi (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I said at the time ice ages were believed to be 12,000 years apart and we were "due" for another one. It wasn't "sceptic" at the time as it was mainstream thought based on a paper in Nature. I find it difficult to believe that the criteria is for a faulty scientific theory is "widely cited". This article exemplifies the thinking at the time. It made it through peer review in a prestigious journal with it's title and conclusion that a new ice age was possible. The reviewers didn't force him to retract this claim. It wasn't citied because like everything in "global cooling", it was wrong. The author was and is not a sceptic. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument seems weak. This was a 1970 peer reviewed article in a prestigious journal warning of conditions supporting a new ice age and you claim it isn't relevant to the article on 1970 "global cooling"? I think you need to reevaluate what this artcile is about. --DHeyward (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are wrong, whether you mean the public or scientists. You're also confused, since the ice-age cycle is 100kyr. I've removed the section - there is a vast amount of detail there that is completely irrelevant to the article. This is an obscure paper that never came to public note, and has never even been cited in the septic literature. Your case for its relevance on this talk page was in terms of the abstract and title being "eye catching", and thats the only relevance I could see, though saying so could easily be OR... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This article exemplifies the thinking at the time - no it doesn't (at least not about new ice ages). As I said, the claim to notability is the disparity between abstract, title and text; it probably rates a brief mention, a sentence or two, something like "X published a paper called Y but it included no timing information at all and aroused little interest". Hence adding only the theory of the paper is wrong. The article appears to be NN in that its barely cited. Just to correct B a bit, Only the media picked it up... - not as far as I know. If they had, that would make it a candidate for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your're wrong. There is no disparity between the abstract, title or text. This article wasn't cited because the author published the flaws found in one of the measurement techniques he used for ice density measurements. All the global cooling articles are flawed but this flaw was found before lots of articles cited it. If anything, this author (who is not a sceptic) did his diligience faster than the others. The problem is your presumption that scientists didn't support cooling theories. That is patent nonsense. Here's what we know:
- At the time, ice ages were believed to be ~12,000 years apart. At the time, WMC, not now so your 100,000 year comment above is not relevant. We were at 11,500 years from the last ice age and the scientific belief was that the next one was imminent (geologic time scale).
- In 1970's, numerous scientists were exploring ice ages and their causes (that is why we know so much more today).
- In the 1970's, numerous scientists were beginning to study the climate including the recent cooling the world was experiencing and the implications of anthropogenic warming and cooling pollutants. Part of that was the study of past climatic events such as ice ages.
- This article postulated that the conditions that created the Pleistocene era ice ages (per a Nature theoretical article in 1966) was present in Antarctica in 1970. It was an applied science paper, not a theoretical paper. It was stated in the title, the abstract and the article itself that the conditions supported the formation of a new ice age. It was peer reviewed in a very prestigious journal (Science (journal)) which could have asked for a title change or more supportive information. The reviewers didn't make him change the claims for a new ice age even though the claim was very prominent. It wasn't like he buried it deep the text. They published those claims because they weren't shocking and the "ice age was imminent" theory was an accepted mainstream scientific belief at the time and data that said the conditions supported an ice age were not surprising. It may have been bad science, but it was the science at the time.
- It is very relevant to explore scientists that postulated we were potentially entering a new ice age. I am not sure how you can argue this is not relevant since these were all tied together (albedo changes, ice sheet growth, particulates, acid rain, ice ages). They are all relevant and they speak of the knowledge of the time. Certainly there was science on the anthropogenic warming aspects such as CO2 and CH4 emissions, but in the 1970's there was no clear consensus on whether cooling or warming would prevail. Even as late as 1980, Carl Sagan said that the science was not settled as to whether cooling or warming would prevail and there significant scientific research on both aspects.
- The paper highlights the difference in the scientific belief today versus 1970. Such a title, abstract and conclusion, based on Pleistocene era ice age formation, would not stand up to peer review scrutiny today because of the consensus of global warming. The rigor to make such a claim today would need to be much stronger. It is human nature for the bar that challenges consensus to be higher than the bar that supports consensus. This article didn't challenge any scientific consensus at the time. It was completely inconspicuous and non-controversial. But it was representative of the thought at the time. In contrast today, any scientific paper that challenges the scientific consensus on global warming get's significant coverage whether it's right or wrong while the vast majority of papers that do support global warming get little or no coverage at all.
- As a compromise, I don't think it is necessary to include all the ice age/cooling scientific articles if the unsourced and incorrect claims about cooling theories not being mainstream scientific thought in the 1970's were removed. Then the research and beliefs could be summarized. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- So many words, so beside the point. who is not a sceptic - of course not, the concept didn't even exist then. ice age was imminent - the paper says nothing about timescales. Carl Sagan - irrelevant; not a climatologist and nothing to do with this article. would not stand up to peer review scrutiny today because of the consensus of global warming - no, because the paper says nothing to condradict that. It wouldn't stand up because the assumption of convection is wrong, and (I assume) all the glacier dynamics is out of date. it was representative of the thought at the time - sez who? The article is NN, as said before. Periods of the ice ages: this didn't settle down to the 100kyr value till Hays 76 I think. Before then it was unclear William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The timescales were the prevalent belief. we're at 11,500 - ice ages were thought to come every 12,000 years and it was getting colder. THis was the belief at the time. I never put in the article that this paper claimed imminent or included timescale. What's the timescale today of greenland ice sheet completely melting? Because it's not "imminent" does that mean the prevalent belief today is not global warming? Of course not. Does every article that supports global warming say that the earth is warming? Of course not. It is a body of work taken in the whole. Your statement that a coming ice age and global cooling was not the prevalent view at the time is not supportable. Carl Sagan was a respected scientist and was very involved in the study of greenhouse gases. In fact it was his work on Venus climatology that triggered a lot of the concern for greenhouse warming on earth. That work on greenhouse gases and the theory that Venus was very hot, not a wet water world, was one of the things that made him famous. If Carl Sagan's view at the time was that the theory of cooling was a mainstream scientific idea, I don't know how you can argue thirty years later that he's wrong from your own original research. This paper was one of many that casually mentioned the next ice age. It is relevant because the prevailing view was that an ice age was "imminent" because we were very close to the cycle mean length (the belief at the time) and casually mentioning "new ice age" didn't get under anybody's skin. It would today and it has nothing to do with the science. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your statement that a coming ice age and global cooling was not the prevalent view at the time is not supportable - of course its supportable. My off-wiki page shows it, and in fact I have a paper coming out in BAMS (I hope) which includes paper-counting to demonstrate it. *Your* assertion of the oppositite is unsupportable except by your false memories; which will convince you, of course, but no-one else William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- And there we have it. The only source to support the statement "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support" is original research by William Connolley, which he hopes to have published soon. Anyone here surprised? DocHolliday (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't have selective memory. YOu seem to think that global cooling and global warming are juxtaposed against each other. They were not in the 1970's. You have come to an Orwellian rerwrite of history that is very disturbing. As I've said, anthropogenic warming, anthropogenic cooling and ice age research were prevalent at the time. The fact that that you can do a paper count of cooling and ice age articles demonstrates that it was a prevalent theory. Your personal battle with sceptics today doesn't change this nor will an Orwellian rewrite. The research and theories into cooling in the 1970's doesn't alter the scientific merits of global warming research today. Hopefully you will subject your paper count to the same timescale as requirement as you did the article I brought here. Also, you should include the surface albedo paper by Sagan et al that you seem to have left out as well. --DHeyward (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your statement that a coming ice age and global cooling was not the prevalent view at the time is not supportable - of course its supportable. My off-wiki page shows it, and in fact I have a paper coming out in BAMS (I hope) which includes paper-counting to demonstrate it. *Your* assertion of the oppositite is unsupportable except by your false memories; which will convince you, of course, but no-one else William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The timescales were the prevalent belief. we're at 11,500 - ice ages were thought to come every 12,000 years and it was getting colder. THis was the belief at the time. I never put in the article that this paper claimed imminent or included timescale. What's the timescale today of greenland ice sheet completely melting? Because it's not "imminent" does that mean the prevalent belief today is not global warming? Of course not. Does every article that supports global warming say that the earth is warming? Of course not. It is a body of work taken in the whole. Your statement that a coming ice age and global cooling was not the prevalent view at the time is not supportable. Carl Sagan was a respected scientist and was very involved in the study of greenhouse gases. In fact it was his work on Venus climatology that triggered a lot of the concern for greenhouse warming on earth. That work on greenhouse gases and the theory that Venus was very hot, not a wet water world, was one of the things that made him famous. If Carl Sagan's view at the time was that the theory of cooling was a mainstream scientific idea, I don't know how you can argue thirty years later that he's wrong from your own original research. This paper was one of many that casually mentioned the next ice age. It is relevant because the prevailing view was that an ice age was "imminent" because we were very close to the cycle mean length (the belief at the time) and casually mentioning "new ice age" didn't get under anybody's skin. It would today and it has nothing to do with the science. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- So many words, so beside the point. who is not a sceptic - of course not, the concept didn't even exist then. ice age was imminent - the paper says nothing about timescales. Carl Sagan - irrelevant; not a climatologist and nothing to do with this article. would not stand up to peer review scrutiny today because of the consensus of global warming - no, because the paper says nothing to condradict that. It wouldn't stand up because the assumption of convection is wrong, and (I assume) all the glacier dynamics is out of date. it was representative of the thought at the time - sez who? The article is NN, as said before. Periods of the ice ages: this didn't settle down to the 100kyr value till Hays 76 I think. Before then it was unclear William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
