Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

That is in the exact same paragraph - it appears that this particular paragraph has errors - but that still is a minute aspect of the WGII report. (in case you are wondering it is on page 493 2nd column roughly 2/3rds down) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it can be added with the addition of citing the paragraphs then? Or perhaps the good locusts edit below would be more suitable.

Here are a *few* of the sources that demonstrate how important this topic is: [4][5][6] [7][8][9].

There are many more. Here is the section that I wrote up to be included in the criticisms of the IPCC:

--- Use of Non-Peer-reviewed Literature and the Himalayan Glaciers

The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by Professor

I encourage anyone who reads this to appropriately add the section if you think more people would benefit from knowledge than from ignorance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is far better written than mine, do you mind if i copy and paste in it?

Thanks, you are welcome to do with it what you like. I put it up in the talk pages so people can look at it and use it - instead of having it constantly relegated to the "history" file so people can't look and improve upon it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply with exactly the same as on

Talk:IPCC

:

It is still

WP:UNDUE, you are still focusing on one bad information from a report that contains several thousands of such. There is no doubt that it is wrong - but it is a factoid projected far beyond its prominence. It could be mentioned in the article on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 where it would be on-topic and due. But certainly not in its current form which is extremely one-sided. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't undue, since that policy deals with viewpoints - this is a simple statement of facts. Additionally, even if it was a viewpoint, it has been covered in several news outlets and far more blogs - this is important. I know you like to keep in psuedo-criticisms of the IPCC, like how "hard" it is for the scientists, but this is a real criticism and has actual importance. I frankly find the [WP:OWN] and wikilawyering to be quite disgusting - this isn't an MMORPG and the goal isn't to "win." The goal is truth. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to

WP:UNDUE this is a viewpoint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Misquote and misapply wikipolicy all you like - you are wrong, you know it, and you'll never admit it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for being "one-sided" I wrote it up for the criticism section and I included the one response from an IPCC author. Do you want me to make up a defense for them? I can only include the defense that they present. It isn't my fault if their defense is obviously inaccurate and ridiculous. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:UNDUE

Clearly states the following

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source

Therefore the inclusion of the above proposed edits should be allowed given the following.

This is not actually a viewpoint. It is fact.

This is well sourced and pertinent to the article.

It is pertinent given the statements released based on this report by both the ipcc and nasa.

Thanks

I've just noticed this and am reluctant to jump in - any proposal accompanied by accusations against other editors and calling them "disgusting" can, I think, be disregarded out of hand until there is an occasion for civil discussion on the matter. Although there is sufficient sourcing to verify that this matter is true, I see zero sourcing on the relevance and weight of the matter as being sufficiently important that it mentions an particular level of emphasis in the article. The list of blogs and editorials is not at all convincing - they are transparent advocacy pieces. It's pretty clear that this mistake in the report is an attack point by climate change deniers / skeptics, but the actual significance is just not there. However, it is not at all clear that, allowing for the mistake, scientists dispute the conclusion that the Himalayan glaciers are the subject of rapid retreat and will soon be greatly affected. In fact, there are a bunch of articles citing other facts (direct observations, other science) to say the overall conclusion is correct. It is telling that the reliable sources that describe its existence do not discuss the importance to the overall report and its conclusions, that they do not say directly that the report is flawed but simply say that a scientist claims it is, and also that they are scattered and far afield - not the most prominent or strongest. If the report has truly been called into question in a serious way one would expect a more robust body of sources on that. Conceivably, this could be worth a few words to a sentence in the article, but only if its importance could be better sourced. In the meanwhile, this is disputed content and as such should stay out until and unless there is consensus, which can only come through reasoned, respectful discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who called who disgusting? I have not seen that.

The importance is not just in the inclusion on non peer reviewed material into the report (3 counts of that) but there is also the statement nasa made based on this section of the report which they had to retract.

The 2035 date given for glacial melt was widely reported in the msm as fact then it is importent that the fact it was so wrong should be in this article.

Not to have any mention of such a basic mistake in the report in contravention of the ipcc`s own guidelines most certainly merits mention here. --

talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikidemon, glaciers have been retreating since the last ice age, but global warming advocates cry about glaciers in tropical regions, like Kilamanjaro, and act that this is proof of global warming. Some glaciers are retreating, and not just due to the end of the ice age, but also for other reasons that have nothing to do with "global warming," but instead due to a lack of precipitation and things like black carbon deposits (like in the Himalayas), which decrease the albedo and cause them to melt. I've seen many thing attributed to global warming (e.g. prostitution and coral reefs) which have far better explanations. But this doesn't matter, what matters is what they said, how they broke their own rules, and how amazing wrong they were. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This mistake was still being cited by the ipcc on on third of november.

(Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC Vice-chair, said at UNFCCC, Barcelona, on 3 November, 2009):

ImpactsGlacial retreat in the Himalaya

receding and thinningof Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming; in addition, high population density near these glaciers and consequent deforestation and land-use changeshave adversely affected these glaciers

the total glacial area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2(or disappear entirely) by the year 2035

Bearing in mind if the himalayan glaciers melt to 100k`s2 then it actually no loss at all is that is their current estimated size :)

--

talk) 07:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I've invented a new diet! The IPCC diet, which predicts your future weight loss and even if you start and end at 200, the data can be homogenized and "value added" so we can get your "real weight." The IPCC could make a fortune!TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support inclusion of one sentence on the new controversy. Something along the lines of, "In January 2010, the IPCC conceded that its prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 was "poorly substantiated".[references, of which there are many]. One sentence definitely does not violate undue in an article of this length. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've got an entry on this in the Criticisms of AR4 article. I suggest we wait a month or so and see if this becomes very important. If it does we can incorporate a precis in this article. --TS 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. All the fine folk who are talking so happily here really ought to go over there and read the text. Or should I take the deafening silence there as evidence that you're all totally happy with the text there? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason I came here and gave an opinion is that I just read a short article on it written by

Japan Times. The reason this should be mentioned in this article in addition to the criticism article is because the IPCC has actually acknowledged that the criticism in this instance was on the mark. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That would rather depend on which crit you meant. There is a large pile of wacko blogs and ill-informed newspaper articles that the IPCC has *not* agreed with William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a gesture of good-will, which I'm sure will make everyone happy, I've added a link to

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I heard about all the errors our papers have been finding lately in this report, particularly related to bad sourcing such as to the WWF or unpublished papers, etc., I keep thinking back to Wikipedia standards for reliable sources and other specific rules for references.

I think the IPCC should adopt Wikipedia standards. It would certainly improve their reports. What do you think? Alice Lyddel (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's an entertainng thought, but not appropriate for discussion on talk pages which are about improving articles. A blog or two discussing the issue might be a better place for debating the idea. dave souza, talk 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia may wish to consider whether it should place a number of caveats on articles pertaining to the IPCC reports, "global warming", "climate change", etc. Prof. Jones was not some spectator, he was at the heart of AR4. [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.53.187 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the criticism section, for two reasons. The minor reason is that there was a tag noting it had no references. The major reason is that the announcement of a review panel by the UN itself, it a major item. While the article addressed some of the specific criticisms, so some might argue belongs in the criticism article itself, the main point of this article is the review panel, not the underlying criticisms, each of which has been documented or could be documented in the criticism article itself. As an alternative, this item could be noted in the Criticism article as well, but as this section should serve as an overview of the main issues, I felt it belonged here.--SPhilbrickT 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WGII links aren't working. While footnote 16 does work, it is now a discussion of plans for the fifth assessment, not a summary of the fourth. Footnotes 17 and 18, presumably to the actual reports, are not working. I briefly poked around, thinking it would be easy to find, and I suspect it is, but I failed. Can someone else take a look for good links? Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link in Reference 1 is also not working for me - http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/ar4.html Hilmar (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have been written when the first reports were released, so, yeah, a bunch of links were broken. I have have brought in canonical IPCC references and revised most of the citations. There are some citations where I question what is beng cited (independently of whether the link works), but someone else should come back and sort that out. And all the none IPCC citations/references I leave to the original editors. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone fix links please? All links are broken, and the only pdfs I could find online seem to be different version, as page numbers don't match. If you have some free time to find correct links and make sure page numbers match, it would be awesome, thanks. (also applies to other articles on global warming) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.120.104 (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram used across wikipedia is incorrect. It shows NO2 having a significant radiative forcing. It should read N2O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.119.241 (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report/citation for updated citation forms and data.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Talk:Global warming#Proposed IPCC citation, I have worked out (and hopefully debugged! but feel free to check) a set of canonical citations (references, actually), with working links, for the principal IPCC documents as demonstated below. If there are no objections I will upgrade the existing citations in this article to this format. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7
  )

• ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 978-0-521-70597-4
  )

• ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 978-0-521-70598-1
  )

• ISBN 92-9169-122-4 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link
  )

Section 10.3.1: Time-Evolving Global Change, p. 762, in

IPCC AR4 WG3 ...

- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because about a third of the citations (references) in this article are to one work (AR4 WG3) I propose converting to {{

Mostly done with the IPCC citation updates, but some fundamental problems remain with the sources (and writing) of this article. E.g.: references to reports that "will be released in ... 2007", use of draft reports, lack of specific page (or section) numbers, incomplete citations, a reference to the Third AR, etc. I have tagged some of these, but the article really needs to be reviewed, and somewhat rewritten. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judith: a small quibble with your edit here. Strictly speaking, the section is not about "the various" scenarios, but specifically the SRES secenarios. I gather your objection is to using an acronym in the header; I don't what to say about that except that using an acronym seems (to me) to be clearer, more concise, and efficient. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071124032424/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2007/TECH/science/05/03/climate.report.ap/index.html?eref=rss_world to http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/03/climate.report.ap/index.html?eref=rss_world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—