View source for Talk:Climate change/Archive 67

{{aan}}

== The blessed farting, burping dinosaurs ==

I removed this:
: ''Some scientists claim that methane gas released by the [[flatulence]] of dinosaurs caused global warming millions of years ago, the [[Sauropods]] producing 5 to 10 times as much methane as cows do today. ({{cite web|last=Davies |first=Ella |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792 |title=BBC Nature - Dinosaur gases 'warmed the Earth' |publisher=Bbc.co.uk |date= |accessdate=2012-05-08}})

While dinosaurs were around for a very long time, and could well have been so productive of greenhouse gases as to change the climate, the relevance to this article about a quite distinct episode of climate change is difficult to imagine. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]]

Sorry, forgot to timestamp this. It was at least a day or two ago. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:Well spotted. [[User:Narssarssuaq|Narssarssuaq]] ([[User talk:Narssarssuaq|talk]]) 10:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
::Listing what causes global warming then and now is relevant to the global warming article.  Many sources talk about methane released from cows, and here is evidence that dinosaurs released many more times what cows did.  Perhaps it would go better in [[Greenhouse gas]]. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 18:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Are you saying that one of the causes of global warming is dinosaur farts? Certainly not now, and not even then.  As to cows: if dinosaurs, "producing 5 to 10 times as much methane", couldn't cause global warming, it is not likely that cows have.   ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Reliable sources cover this in detail.  Google news archive search for "cows" "global warming" and you'll find 4,770 news articles about it. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=cows+global+warming&oq=cows+global+warming&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=news-cc.3...0.0.0.1149.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.#q=%22cows%22+%22global+warming%22&hl=en&safe=off&gl=us&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=5cvGT47KCo6Y8gTyxsi9Cw&ved=0CCYQpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=682fbab84b4979ad&biw=939&bih=575]  There are 1.5 billion cows in the world.  The methane gas they produce does contribute to it according to many studies.  Methane gas is "23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas" than carbon dioxide.  The United Nations makes statements about this. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235933,00.html] [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 01:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::The methane gas ''you'' expell contributes to global warming; should that go into the article, too?
:::::A Google search is not a reliable source.  The most authoritative source is the IPCC; I recommend you study AR4, and particularly [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change]. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)



Agriculture definitely is a major source of the anthropogenic component, and it's treated as such. The dinosaurs, though, aren't around to contribute to current warming. It doesn't belong in this article. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:Minor correction: non-avian dinosaurs aren't around, the contribution of [[avian dinosaur]]s such as poultry is no doubt noted in the various studies.  Either way, it's not really significant to this article.<br>Also note that methane gas is only "23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas" than carbon dioxide in the short term, after that it decays to {{co2}} and as such remains as potent for the long term. ''Fox News'' is a rubbish source for what the IPCC say. The general issue is covered under ''Greenhouse gases'' which mentions methane. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 17:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
== [[Global dimming]] vs. [[global cooling]] ==

I think the relationship between global cooling and global dimming discussed in the previous section is interesting, so I added a small piece of text about it. [[User:Narssarssuaq|Narssarssuaq]] ([[User talk:Narssarssuaq|talk]]) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
: which I deleted, since this article is not a historical review of how the current scientific consensus evolved[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 20:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

== Citations/references. ==

Narssarssuaq: I have reverted your recent re-naming of the "Citations" and "References" sections.  While it may seem ''obviously'' "incorrect" to you, you should keep in mind that this is not "obvious" to everyone else. Ask if you have questions. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:OK. My claim: The term "citation" is normally used about the in-text reference to the references. "Citation" and "reference" are not synonyms. [[User:Narssarssuaq|Narssarssuaq]] ([[User talk:Narssarssuaq|talk]]) 11:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

::  On what grounds do you claim knowledge of "normally used"?  The use of "citation" and "reference" has been thoroughly muddled (even prior to Wikipedia), and if you would spend any time looking through the archives (as I have) you might see that there is quite a bit of contention about this.  So no matter how clearly you think you see the matter, it really is not prudent to just jump up and change something like that without first discussing it.  And this isn't really the proper place for that discussion. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

== Article feedback ==

So the article feedback tool exists, and  apparently there have been  over [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Global_warming?ref=talk 600 comments] left in the article feedback for this article.  Once you get through the trolling comments, there are some semi-constructive suggestions, though some are contradictory (too long vs. not enough info).  One that a few mention that I think we could actually improve on is that there aren't enough pictures.  We have plenty of graphs, to be sure, but there's a grand total of one explanatory graphic, and it's a bit cluttered one at that.  Anyone have any ideas for better graphics we can use?  Also, can anyone else find any other useful suggestions in the feedback tool we might want to use?  I found two graphics from commons that might be helpful which I've placed below the fold  [[User:Sailsbystars|Sailsbystars]] ([[User talk:Sailsbystars|talk]]) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
{{hidden|sailsbystars suggested graphics
|
[[File:Changes_in_climate_indicators_that_show_global_warming.png|thumb]]
[[File:Puncak_Jaya_glaciers_1850-2003_evolution_map-fr.gif|thumb]]
}}

: Interesting. I didn't know the feedback was available. Someone should give feedback to the feedback people: lots of people answered "yes", "no", or "everything" which suggests they thought they were answering a different question. I looked though some of it (and flagged some as not helpful / abuse; hopefully that pushes those down for the next person who looks). Other things that come up are:
:* simpler text
:* definition
:* causes
: A "simple" GW page was something we mooted years ago but never did. Maybe we could resurrect the idea? Definition I find it hard to be sympathetic with, cos we start with that. Causes? Dubious [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:: I view this exercise as talking about whether we should talk about what others who are not making the effort to edit the page want us to talk about.  Meanwhile, Sailsby.... if you have improvement ideas - graphics or otherwise - be bold and try them, or give them a talk thread.  [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a difficult subject to encapsulate in an illustration, but I suppose we should try. Ice cores, tide gauges, Argo floats, and satellites may be among the best choices.

From Commons:

* [[:File:Argo_float_02.jpg|An Argo float]]
* [[:File:Tide Gauge - Overland Point - geograph.org.uk - 151177.jpg|A tide gauge]]
* [[:File:Antarctica - deep ice cores.jpg|Antarctic ice core samples]]
* [[:File:CALIPSO at Vandenberg AFB.jpg|A climate satellite being prepared]]

Newspapers and magazines have discovered for themselves the dangers of inappropriate use of illustrations on this topic, so great care must be taken to annotate any illustrations carefully, and to consider whether their presence could be misinterpreted. It would probably be a good idea to steer clear of animal pictures. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:Of those, I like the ice core best. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 12:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
:: [[Ice core]] has better pix [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 13:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
== Adverse weather events ==

Don't really like the new section. It is too much James Hansen's view [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 16:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
:I agree. As Tony pointed out a bit above, this isn't the right article to be cherry-picking individual views. It is a survey article, and ought to be informed, as much as possible, by consensus. Unless someone has a better source, I would think the IPCC views on this subject would be the best source (assuming that the sub-section itself merits inclusion.)--[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. It was, for ref:

: ''[[James Hansen]] calculated that, with [[confidence interval|high confindence]], certain weather events, such as the heat waves in [[Texas]] and the [[2003 European heat wave]], would not have occurred without global warming. Extremely hot outliers, defined as three [[standard deviation]]s from climatology records, now cover about 10% of the land surface and, under present trends, would be the norm by 2050. These temperatures are expected to excaberate the hydrological cycle, with more intense [[drought]]s and [[flood]]s.<ref>{{cite journal
|last=Hanses|first=James
|coauthors=Sato, Ruedy |title=Perceptions of Climate Change: The New Climate Dice|year=2012
|url=http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120105_PerceptionsAndDice.pdf|accessdate=24 May 2012
}}</ref> The effect on hurricane activity is less certain.<ref>{{cite journal
|last=Emanuel|first=Kerry
|coauthors=Sundararajan, Williams |title=Hurricanes and Global Warming: Results from downscaling IPCC AR4 Simulations|journal=[[American Meteorological Society]]|year=2008
|url=http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-347|accessdate=24 May 2012
}}</ref>''

[[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

:There was a Horizon documentary about this topic, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x see here]. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 22:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

::Extreme weather events are quite a significant topic and so should be included. Thus, if you could find IPCC studies on it, I would favor replacing it but I doubt it should be eliminated. As of now, there is similar but unsourced material in natural systems effects section and I could incorporate something there and take out Hansen’s name. At the end of the climate model section there is something about increased precipitation but again is from non-IPCC studies. [[User:Nicehumor|Nicehumor]] ([[User talk:Nicehumor|talk]]) 13:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
::: Extreme weather is indeed of interest. I think if you looked in the IPCC you would not find anything as certain as the "calculated that, with [[confidence interval|high confindence]], certain weather events, such as the heat waves in [[Texas]] and the [[2003 European heat wave]], would not have occurred without global warming". Somewhere around http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-8-2.html might be the place to look [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: I understood that these links between an increased frequency of extreme events and GW represent fairly recent, but respectable, work. Therefore I would be surprised if there was much in AR4, but think that there will be well-received more recent papers out there that we could conceivably use. I would expect more on the topic in AR5. In the meantime, I think this is an area where exact wording is necessary as small changes can be very significant. The Texan woman scientist in the documentary linked by Count Iblis above (sorry, I have already forgotten her name) made a good attempt at explaining it simply, by talking about dice and loaded dice. She said something like, when you roll a 6 using a loaded die, you cannot be sure that ''this'' 6 is because of the loading, but you can be sure that you are seeing more 6s because of it. The scientists' work, the documentary explained, is to try to find out how much GW is loading the dice in favour of extreme events. They seem to have made some significant progress, both with modelling the causality and in showing that weather records are indeed being broken more often than in the past. Noting the names of those interviewed in the documentary, and looking up their recent work may produce some usable review papers or published secondary sources. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 21:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::SREX could be a useful overview, but Rasmus E. Benestad [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/the-ipcc-srex-the-report-is-finally-out/ seems a bit doubtful] about this particular aspect. In a recent paper, Coumou, D., Rahmstorf, S. (2012): A Decade of Weather Extremes. Nature Climate Change [DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1452] is outlined [http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-game-with-loaded-dice_Postdam-Instittue.html at SkS], and [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/extremely-hot described by the authors], perhaps it and Hansen could be briefly noted in the context of an overview. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::: As I understand it, there are (crudely) two possible responses (focussing just on T for the moment): either the entire distribution shifts, so we get more heat waves and fewer, err, cold waves; but the SD stays the same. Or the distribution changes shape as well as shifting its mean, potentially leading to even more heat waves than you might expect (or less, if it narrowed). We could do a service by saying which of these is likely to happen, if its known, I'm not much up on that (I'd guess current obs evidence isn't good enough to distinguish the two, though I'm sure models must predict clearly for the future) [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/extremely-hot Rahmstorf and Comou] illustrate this with a graph from the IPCC 2001 TAR, so that's not novel. The [http://www.skepticalscience.com/Summary-of-Hansen-Nov-2011.html SkS summary] of the Hansen et al. paper shows a different approach. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 10:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: The idea isn't new - its just the bleedin' obvious. What would be useful, though, is either results from current obs saying what is happening, or its unknown; and futures from model runs [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 10:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: From what I understand, the claim is that the distribution has shifted towards higher temperatures while nothing special happened to the standard deviation. "Three standard deviations" away is referring to the likelihood of these events happening compared to the average in the old distribution. So, of the sources linked in this section, which should we use? [[User:Nicehumor|Nicehumor]] ([[User talk:Nicehumor|talk]]) 10:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: I guess we agree something on this topic should be here but some disagree with the source. I do not think this discussion should be left to die while not including in that information. Again, which source should we use? [[User:Nicehumor|Nicehumor]] ([[User talk:Nicehumor|talk]]) 08:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

== Updated/more appropriate lede ==

The current introduction does not really capture what needs to be conveyed to readers. I would like to propose the following updated lede:

"Global warming is of current interest, as concerns over climate change have shifted from a focus on global cooling in the 1970s (when NASA scientists indicated global temperatures could be reduced by 3.5°C and “trigger an ice age”) to the current focus on global warming (defined as the increase in average global temperatures of 0.74±0.18°C over the last 100 years).<ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138?ck=nck</ref>"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138?ck=nck

If there are no objections, I would like to make this update. [[User:Peter Lemongello|Peter Lemongello]] ([[User talk:Peter Lemongello|talk]]) 05:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
:Your premise about the 1970s is false, based on misuse of a primary source. See [[Global cooling#1971 to 1975: papers on warming and cooling factors]] for further explanation, and don't make that change. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 07:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:Most definitely objections to re-writing the introduction based on a ''single'', 40 year old report.  You seem to have no idea how science works, nor how an [[WP:LEAD|introduction]] should be written. Please take a much longer look at these things before leaping in.  ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 01:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

::Now that I think about it, I believe this should lead of the 2nd paragraph. [[User:Peter Lemongello|Peter Lemongello]] ([[User talk:Peter Lemongello|talk]]) 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Moving the proposal to the 2nd paragraph addresses none of the objections given. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 05:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Nor does it address various objections not given.  Such as: what is the point of citing this source? What is the presumed problem it addresses? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 22:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

::::This scientific article and the proposed passage really highlights the evolution of scientific thought regarding climate change over the decades. That is, in the 1970s time frame, there was a distinct concern in some circles over cooling (related to aerosols). This concern even compelled the authors to note the possibility of triggering another "ice age." This of course gave way to concerns over warming, starting in the late 1980s. It is quite important to highlight this evolution in thinking by the climate scientists. [[User:Peter Lemongello|Peter Lemongello]] ([[User talk:Peter Lemongello|talk]]) 02:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::[[Global cooling#1971 to 1975: papers on warming and cooling factors]] shows that you're misinformed or denying the facts. Please broaden your research. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 02:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::This is not my research. This was [[NASA]] research from the 1970s. It's unfortunate you use loaded terminology like "denying." These were published studies. You seem to be in denial. [[User:Peter Lemongello|Peter Lemongello]] ([[User talk:Peter Lemongello|talk]]) 05:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::It would be preferrable that you actually informed yourself about the research in the 70's, rather than assume it. Contrary to your assertions, the view in the 70's wasn't cooling. You've simply cherry-picked a paper. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 06:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::It's not even cherry-picking a paper, it's cherry-picking an abstract. Even Rasool and Schneider assumed that warming would most likely dominate. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 19:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::In their own paper they warn of the potential for an ice age. You really need to read the paper. [[User:Peter Lemongello|Peter Lemongello]] ([[User talk:Peter Lemongello|talk]]) 05:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::If ''you'' had truly ''read'' even the summary — as distinguished from '''mis'''reading it — you might have noticed that the claimed ''potential'' for an ice age was dependent on the balance of certain parameters.  Which is to say, there was a ''very big'' '''IF'''.  You have totally missed that, as well as much subsequent research (forty years!!) that has totally discounted this potential.  You have not only cherry-picked this ''single'', ''out-dated'', and ''discredited'' paper, you have also cherry-picked the one bit in the abstract about this ''potential'', without any mention of the caveats.  Such an egregious mis-read suggests that you lack sufficient competence for assessing "what needs to be conveyed to readers", and your proposal is, at best, uncredible. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 23:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::There's science, and there's popular science. If global cooling was a very prominent topic in popular science in the 1970s, it could, as a piece of trivia or history, be of interest in the parts of the article which deal with public perceptions. I wasn't all that informed during the 70s, so I do not know about the public debate at that time. Moreover, the popular science and debate could have been different in different countries. [[User:Narssarssuaq|Narssarssuaq]] ([[User talk:Narssarssuaq|talk]]) 13:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC) By the way, the debate in the 1970s was apparently meritable enough to repeatedly reach Science Magazine, which is a sign that it was high on the scientific agenda. Here a rebuttal of global cooling from 1976 (arguing that global warming is a larger threat): [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/193/4252/447.short] [[User:Narssarssuaq|Narssarssuaq]] ([[User talk:Narssarssuaq|talk]]) 14:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC) The original worry from the 1971 article, aerosols cooling the atmosphere, is now, by the way, termed [[global dimming]].

::::::::::::On a more positive note, maybe we now have some insight into why there were some breathless pronouncements in the popular press in the 70's. Maybe some reporters, without much scientific training, made the same error of thinking that when a scientist says "If X, then Y", that they are predicting Y.[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 14:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Thank you for making my point...the fact this [[Science]] paper is now "discredited" clearly shows the evolution of climate science over time. I would perhaps suggest as the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph.[[User:Peter Lemongello|Peter Lemongello]] ([[User talk:Peter Lemongello|talk]]) 05:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::By "now" you mean "by 1972", presumably. [[Global cooling#1971 to 1975: papers on warming and cooling factors]] is the correct article for this minor detail of the history of climate science, you're wrongly trying to push misconceptions into the lead of this main article.. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::With due respect to JJ, I disagree that the paper is "discredited". It was based on comparatively simple models, but I've not seen any claims that it is fundamentally flawed. It made a conditional claim. The condition did not come true - instead the US and Europe cleaned up their industries by installing SO2 scrubbers, primarily to reduce acid rain. As a result, aerosol emissions went down, not up (and in particular not 4 times up). That does not make the paper wrong or discredited. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 06:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::<small>I would tend to defer to Dr. Schulz even if I disagreed.  But I do agree: the paper's ''conclusion'' was conditional.  What was discredited was the assumptions, and the popular take-away line that cooling was coming. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 19:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::::::::::Agree that "discredited" is rather misleading wording, [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm#L_0338 Weart] notes that "Rasool and Schneider, like Mitchell, recognized that aerosols might not cool the atmosphere but warm it; the tricky part was to understand how aerosols absorbed radiation." Weart continues, "In fact their equations and data were rudimentary, and scientists soon noticed crippling flaws (as did Schneider himself, see [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm#b_Schneider below])." <br>That brings us to "Stephen Schneider and a collaborator improved his rudimentary model, correcting his earlier overestimate of cooling . ..... The model now predicted that "CO2 warming dominates the surface temperature patterns soon after 1980." Cite – Schneider and Mass (1975). <br>Which puts "now" at 1975 or earlier. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 16:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}
Let's not get so involved in the exegesis of this paper we stray from the topic of what Peter wants to use it for: to slant the lede to the view that in the 1970s "NASA scientists" (all of 'em?) that we could be on the verge of triggering an ice age.  By the way, has anyone read the answer to FAQ #13 recently? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:Agree, the FAQ covers it well. Perhaps Peter thought NASA had only two scientists affiliated to it in the 1970s . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

=== Slight change of direction ===
::This would be an interesting addition to the article to show how scientific ideas such as described herein change over time, but unfortunately the article is [[WP:OWN|owned]] by a group connected to the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]], and it leans more toward [[scientism]] than science. This happens in Wikipedia. [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 06:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
:::The article is [[WP:OWN|owned]]? More like you're pwned, please [[WP:AGF]] and seek consensus in collegiate way. If this would be an interesting example to show how scientific ideas such as described herein change over time, then a third party reliable source will have discussed it, we don't do [[WP:OR]] here. But this is a large article, the place for an interesting example to show how scientific ideas on the topic change over time would be an article on [[History of climate change science]] and –oh, look! There it is! . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 07:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

::::"in collegiate way"?  Did you mean "in a collegial way"?  I think maybe you've just been pwned by the dictionary. It's not possible to seek consensus in this article - it's owned by the [[Climatic Research Unit]] fan group, so no consensus seeking is sought or happening here.  The only improvement to the article is going to happen by working around the article, not by editing the article.  The article will eventually crumble into dust from the weight of its own nonsense. [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 03:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::I think there might some merit in touching on the development of this "theory".  E.g.: 1890s, Arrhenius calculates that ''if'' we dumped enough CO<sub>2</sub> into the atmosphere — but no, no  way. 1960s, Keeling: Way! Circa 1995: we may have global warming.  2007: Incontrovertible.  Maybe the cabal will give me a secret decoder ring? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 18:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps you might find some clues as to the location of the secret decoder ring by rummaging around in the [[Climatic Research Unit documents]]?  It'll give you something to do while waiting for the first hints of Global Warming to appear. Meanwhile, I'm about to shuffle down the corridor to see how [[Peak Oil]] is coming along. [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 07:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, that's what you have going on: a mental "decoding" by which one flea-like incident of an acting-out researcher completely overturns years of research by thousands of scientists. That is quite an Archimedian lever you have there.  ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 23:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

== Too long article ==

There has earlier been a consensus that this article is too long. Is it time we embark on a project where it is made more concise? 

This would entail three modules: 

''1. Deciding whether or not the article should be shortened.''

''2. Prudently deciding which information to retain'', and 

''3. Copy-pasting all other information into more detailed articles'', most of which already exist.

We are now in stage 1, and I think reasoned casual readers should have their say on this as well as expert editors. What is your opinion? [[User:Narssarssuaq|Narssarssuaq]] ([[User talk:Narssarssuaq|talk]]) 16:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

:Could you give us a pointer to the discussion where it was agreed that the article is too long? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

::No, sorry. It was several years ago. [[User:Narssarssuaq|Narssarssuaq]] ([[User talk:Narssarssuaq|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Several years ago? Then it is out-of-date.  If you think some past discussion is currently pertinent then you really should locate it in the archives, and provide appropriate links.  As it is, your statement that there "''has earlier been a consensus that this article is too long''" is only an unsupported assertion, and no basis for the action you desire.  ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

::::Agreed. I can see that this article is in able hands, and that contributions from my part are not needed. Good luck with your continued efforts. [[User:Narssarssuaq|Narssarssuaq]] ([[User talk:Narssarssuaq|talk]]) 07:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes the article is too long, but that suits everyone. The warmists who edit this article don't want to admit that almost everything on this page is junk and has been discredited. The sceptics are quite happy, because no one reads long articles like this and it is better the warmists were kept busy here than doing any serious damage.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.106.237.60|81.106.237.60]] ([[User talk:81.106.237.60|talk]]) 12:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Add, location? ==

Found this in Further reading on [[Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet]] ...
*[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/03/climate-change-global-warming-temperature-rise-model-predict/1#.T9L_zN18V50 Study: Global temperatures could rise 5 degrees by 2050] Mar 25, 2012 [[USA Today]]

[[Special:Contributions/108.195.138.38|108.195.138.38]] ([[User talk:108.195.138.38|talk]]) 06:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

:USA Today is, at best, a rehash of the science, and not, for scientific matters, a reliable source. [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html This source] is more reliable, and possibly even more interesting. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 17:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
::2007 IPCC is far less current, and using even older and more limited data.  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.136.208|99.181.136.208]] ([[User talk:99.181.136.208|talk]]) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

:::How many scientists does USA Today have on its staff? Even if ''all'' of its reporting staff were scientists, and spent an entire year examining the extant research, could they do as good a job as the IPCC did in AR4 (2007)?  Most likely could not, and certainly have not, so IPCC AR4 is still the most current ''scientific assessment of climate research''.  Though if ''currency'' and ''newest data'' are your sole criteria, well, just a couple of days ago I read a new article on climate change, therefore I am more reliable than USA Today. Right? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

== What about of data from 2011 why charts is obsolete? ==

As in question.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.24.44.150|83.24.44.150]] ([[User talk:83.24.44.150|talk]]) 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:In English please?  I'm not sure what you're asking....  Are you trying to ask why some charts don't go up to the present?  In many cases, it's because the data release lags reality due to processing time and quality control.  [[User:Sailsbystars|Sailsbystars]] ([[User talk:Sailsbystars|talk]]) 17:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

== Where and how would this best be used? ==

*[http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-06/battle-over-climate-change The Battle Over Climate Science; Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?] by Tom Clynes, [[Popular Science]] June.21.2012  [[Special:Contributions/108.73.114.104|108.73.114.104]] ([[User talk:108.73.114.104|talk]]) 05:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
{{cot|Redundant postings. See [[Talk:Climate_change_denial#Locate_here.3F]]}}
:Fails verisimilitude.  Probably an editorial, and hence not usable anywhere.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 08:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::Looks ok in principle, it appears to be a news item reporting interviews, and it tagged as a "feature", not as an editorial. ''Popular Science'' has been accepted at [[WP:RSN]] as a reliable source on science, which is the topic involved. Statements in the report match those published in other reliable sources. The report deals with "controversy" rather than the overview in this article, so would be appropriate in the more specific articles about controversies concerned.  . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 11:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Point taken.  It still fails verisimilitude, but appears to be reliable.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 15:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Don't agree re verisimilitude. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 17:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Sockpuppet, so who cares?''' Such talk page posts from this lower Michigan IP sock are soapish external link spam and are turning the climate talk pages into into a news aggregator. I never get past the source of these suggestions to consider their merit. Instead, I just ignore them, and wish for an IP range block.   If anyone else finds merit in including any of this stuff, I wish that other editor would actually run with a proposed edit instead of trying to talk to this IP, because clearly the IP is mainly interested in sowing external news links instead of improving articles with meaningful effort at serious editing.   These talk threads are a waste of time, bandwidth, and are an extremely annoying bit of highway litter cluttering up my watchlist.  [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::Looks offtopic for this article, so feel free to delete or archive it as sockishness. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 17:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
{{cob}}

== Add wikinews item? ==

{{tlx|wikinews|Global warming underestimated, say scientists}}   
[[Special:Contributions/99.112.215.152|99.112.215.152]] ([[User talk:99.112.215.152|talk]]) 09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)   
: WikiNews almost certainly isn't considered a reliable source by most editors. This has been widely covered in the technical press. But more important, Muller's work has still not yet passed peer review. Even when it does (and I don't seriously doubt it will), it will just be one more paper confirming global warming. So this paper is only special news for a few hold-outs. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 15:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)   
::Might be appropriate in the "See also" section, unless properly referenced in the body. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)   
:::The "news" is 6 years old. I don't think this is a necessary addition. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)   
(od) Here are its sources ...   
*[http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=63527 Study: Global warming underestimated] Newkerala.com May 23, 2006   
*[http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1644736.htm Earth-solar cycle spurs greenhouse gases: studies] Australian Broadcasting Corporation May 23, 2006   
*[http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12923027/ Earth-solar cycle may spur greenhouse gases] MSNBC.com May 22, 2006   
*[http://www.physorg.com/news67533381.html World to be even hotter by century's end] Physorg May 22, 2006   
from so-called [[Long-term effects of global warming|"Long-term" effects of global warming]] article.   
[[Special:Contributions/99.119.130.123|99.119.130.123]] ([[User talk:99.119.130.123|talk]]) 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)   
::::I'm leaning against inclusion, now, but you might use one of the original sources as an external link. It should be pointed out, that appearance, and even appropriateness, in a subarticle doesn't mean it belongs '''here'''. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.42.182.54|50.42.182.54]] ([[User talk:50.42.182.54|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Launched ANI against the Michigan IP - pro/con comments sought ==

FYI I just started [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&pe=1&#Block-evading.2C_Michigan-based_global_warming_external_link_spammer.3B_ACTION_SOUGHT:_1yr_IP_range_block|an ANI proceeding against the IP in Michigan].  Your comments in the proceeding are invited/requested.  [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 10:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
: I'm archiving this now. The ANI discussion is archived at:
:* [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive763#Block-evading.2C_Michigan-based_global_warming_external_link_spammer.3B_ACTION_SOUGHT:_1yr_IP_range_block]]
: The outcome was a one-month soft block of the range. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 14:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
== British more skeptical now ==

{{cot|Sock trolling}}

This British are now more skeptical:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/28/climate_survey_usa_uk_canada/

Let's add this reference to the "Public Opinion" section. [[User:Peter Lemongello|Peter Lemongello]] ([[User talk:Peter Lemongello|talk]]) 05:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
: We don't add the latest survey to articles, in general. See [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]]. If this survey were to be included in a summary of surveys, perhaps the article [[Public opinion on global warming]] would be a good place to start. Since the language at the source you cite is extremely slanted, this doesn't look promising. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 06:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
::The language appears to be quite neutral. It is really perfect for the "Public Opinion" section. [[User:Peter Lemongello|Peter Lemongello]] ([[User talk:Peter Lemongello|talk]]) 00:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
:::"Perfect" because it supports your POV?  Since when is physical reality determined by a public opinion poll? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 20:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Try to assume good faith... anyway, I am for putting it in the article for the public opinion. I do not see any slanted language, could you point it out please?[[Special:Contributions/75.73.114.111|75.73.114.111]] ([[User talk:75.73.114.111|talk]]) 11:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Not a reliable source. Find a better source, and consideration will have to be given to weight. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 12:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Then how about this? http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012.06.27_Climate.pdf or http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/45431/global-warming-skepticism-higher-in-u-s-and-britain-than-canada/ That is sufficient, yes? I see no reason not to include it, it is a fairly large changed from last year as it is in the article[[Special:Contributions/75.73.114.111|75.73.114.111]] ([[User talk:75.73.114.111|talk]]) 12:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Continuing, the only main things really changing from this one and the one from last year are (pardon unspecific beliefs explanation of beliefs, don't want to spend so much space on talk with it):

:::::Canada: Global Warming real, mostly caused by humans: 58%, up from 52% (others stayed the same within a percentage, increase in belief came from the undecideds deciding)

:::::United Sates: Global Warming real, mostly caused by humans: 42%, down from 49% (main increases were in undecided and it being fact but by mainly nature)

:::::Great Britain: Basically no changes at all, all stood same as last year minus one % going from undecided to global warming just theory not yet proven

:::::So, it is mostly an increase of those believing in man-made global warming in Canada, whilst there is a decrease in those believing in that same belief in the US.[[Special:Contributions/75.73.114.111|75.73.114.111]] ([[User talk:75.73.114.111|talk]]) 13:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::So I will ask again (as you seem to be not paying attention): Since when is physical reality determined by a public opinion poll?  In case you had not noticed, ''this'' article is about ''global warming'' — which is an aspect of objective reality amenable to ''scientific study''.  It is ''not'' about the proportions of "''those believing'' in man-made global warming".  Your factoids would be more relevant elsewhere. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 20:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
::::You were ignored because your comment was derogatory. Now, no one is saying physical reality is determined by public opinion. But please notice, that ''this'' article has a section on public opinion. If you do not wish to have public opinion, please start a new section to delete the public opinion section. Thank you[[Special:Contributions/75.73.114.111|75.73.114.111]] ([[User talk:75.73.114.111|talk]]) 12:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::See [[Public opinion on climate change]].  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.139.218|99.181.139.218]] ([[User talk:99.181.139.218|talk]]) 19:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::Okay? See, [[Global_warming#Public_opinion]]? What are you trying to say? Please say some more I don't understand.[[Special:Contributions/75.73.114.111|75.73.114.111]] ([[User talk:75.73.114.111|talk]]) 23:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Why mention one nation's poll fluctuations, see [[Climate change opinion by country]]?  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.134.12|99.181.134.12]] ([[User talk:99.181.134.12|talk]]) 03:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Why not?  The entire topic is opinion-based rather than science-based. It's mostly a media-based exercise. It looks perfectly appropriate for inclusion [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 06:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Insulting the article won't get anyone far. It is a "featured article" after all! Anyway, it is not one nations poll fluctuations, it is Britain, US, and Canada. If you want to just redirect to that article, then why is the public opinion section even in this article? Why not include it? I see no reason not to besides basic negativity to change and basic hostility by J. Johnson which is not entiererly unprofessional and unwelcoming to new editors. If a poll started saying that 90% of the US agrees on man-made climate change I doubt you would still say "opinions do not determine physical reality", you would probably instead go crazy to include it within seconds of hearing it! Of course, do not blame us if we say "see [[Public opinion on climate change]]" ;P     This poll should be included, just as a slight update to the 2011 numbers.[[Special:Contributions/75.73.114.111|75.73.114.111]] ([[User talk:75.73.114.111|talk]]) 15:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Insulting the other editors won't get you very far, either, and in that regard you are out of order.  Your accusation of bias, that those of us here would favor "warmist" sources, is factually wrong: if you look through the archives you could find instances of "pro" suggestions rejected for the same reason given here. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 20:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
::::P.S. Actually, you only have to go to the section on [[#Add, location?]], currently at the top of this talk page, for a "warmist" source that was rejected.  Although not for same reason as here. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 21:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not quite there, I'm moving towards the view that the "opinions" section is a mistake. This article is about a scientific phenomenon, not a political question--even if it's often presented in that way by some people.

The key comparator I would nominate is [[evolution]]. I think we should aim to present global warming in a very similar framework to that article. We really shouldn't pollute this article on a scientific matter with the bogus idea that uninformed or politically motivated views have any place at all.  That in my opinion is a very contrary interpretation of the neutral point of view policy, and is damaging to our fundamental charge, to present the known facts with accuracy and due weight. The views of a million ignoramuses count for nothing against a single fact.  --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 22:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

:[[Evolution]] does have a three-paragraph section on 'Social and cultural responses'. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] [[User_talk:Goethean|&#2384;]] 23:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

:Yes. Other articles on scientific topics (such as [[hurricanes]], [[geology]], and even [[human migration]]) don't cover their rejection by the uninformed, nor should this one. The "issue" is a different topic. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 17:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:: I think Goethean's observation is pretty much what we should aim at. We should cover social and cultural responses or some such. Putting emphasis on "opinions" is going to overplay various aspects of political dissent, just as would happen if we wrote about opinions on evolution which are also dominated by the philosophical objections of the poorly informed, the misinformed and the politically motivated. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 05:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

:::I would also move this article's content on public opinion to a new article. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] [[User_talk:Goethean|&#2384;]] 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Or use an existing one, like [[Public opinion on climate change]]? ;-) --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(od) See [[Angus Reid Public Opinion]] article.  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.159.238|99.181.159.238]] ([[User talk:99.181.159.238|talk]]) 01:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

{{cob}}
== terminology usage question: climate change &/or global warming? ==

If you believe this is not the best location for this question, please suggest that also.

An example "discussion" on [[Talk:Planet Earth: The Future]].
:It appears that in the United States the phrase "global warming" is used where in Europe the phrase "climate change" is preferred.
:For all the uses of the phrases, they do not appear to be synonymous.
:Is there standard for usage on wikipedia, or some kind of rule-of-thumb?
:''Climate change'' would appear to a broader term, including all climate, and thus forms of weather, such as storms and precipitation.
:''Global warming'' would appear to be much more limited to the average rising temperature of the Earth.
:Neither phrase seems inclusive enough, and both are used by the media in overlapping ways.
:Potential clarity may be to combine the two in a sentence, so the [[wp:Audience|reader]] has an easier seeing the current relation, such as [[climate change]] ([[global warming]]) assuming ''global warming'' was applicable in that situation.
:Comment requested, ''climate change'' &/or ''global warming'' and under what circumstances?  
:[[Special:Contributions/99.181.155.9|99.181.155.9]] ([[User talk:99.181.155.9|talk]]) 03:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

:: Many years ago we had a terminology section which answered this question [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=208645906]. We still have a [[climate change]] page which mostly answers it, too [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 08:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't know why people find this hard. Here's how I understand the big picture.
:::;Climate change: Global climates can only change in one of two directions - warmer or colder. All the other changes (more precipitation, more storms, whatever) follow from the increase or decrease in thermal energy and how it plays out. Climates on other planets, and on Earth at various times in the past, have changed in both directions. 
:::;Global warming: This is clearly the general name for one of the two directions of global climate change.
:::Having said that, here on Wikipedia we have two (and only two) prime article names that people will arrive on to see what we have to say about all this. We could have used them any how we like, with redirects etc, but what we have decided, and it seems fine to me, is this: [[Climate change]] is the more general so here we put a very general article about all kinds of change, anywhere, any time. [[Global warming]] is ''slightly'' more specific, but we have decided to use this prime name for the current episode of climate change here on Earth. This one could have been about all warmings at all times and on other planets, but that would overlap hugely with the way we have used the more general term. The present episode of global warming is very important to our readers (not many extraterrestrials or time travellers from the last ice age are expected), so using this prime part of the namespace for an article on the contemporary topic seems perfectly reasonable. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 21:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I hadn't thought of that, but aren't there other changes of (global) climate not driven by merely global temperature?  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 22:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps better to think of global temperature as an effect rather than as a driver: the current global warming is the net effect of various drivers or forcings, some warming and some cooling. Similarly past climate change has been the result of forcings, but obviously an article titled "global warming" could not include the transition from the medieval climate anomaly to the little ice age, for example. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 07:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Changes in distribution of climate doesn't necessarily imply warming or cooling. But the keyword methinks in Dave's comment was ''global climate'', i had to turn it in my head as well :) --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 10:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
(od) See related [[Talk:Climate change#terminology usage question: climate change &/or global warming?]]  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.132.75|99.181.132.75]] ([[User talk:99.181.132.75|talk]]) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
{{cot|Collapsing pointless rant per [[WP:NOTSOAPBOX]].}}
:Global warming is a non-scientific name used for the environmental crusade to "save the earth" from capitalist fossil fuels. Climate change is a meaningless term because the climate always changes ... and is again a slogan of environmentalists. I was going to suggest a scientific name, but as there is no science left behind this, except the physics/chemistry of trace gases ... which thankfully had no climatologists meddling in it to falsify the results ... so that is something that really is based on science.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.106.237.60|81.106.237.60]] ([[User talk:81.106.237.60|talk]]) 12:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{cob}}
== Velocity of global warming? ==

Is there a separate article related to the [[velocity of climate change]]?  In other words how fast is is changing and predictions on future velocity.
An related example from [[Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet]]
*[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/03/climate-change-global-warming-temperature-rise-model-predict/1#.T9L_zN18V50 Study: Global temperatures could rise 5 degrees by 2050] Mar 25, 2012
[[Special:Contributions/99.181.142.87|99.181.142.87]] ([[User talk:99.181.142.87|talk]]) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

:If the rate of change is changing -- then ''velocity'' is the wrong word. Delinked header, way too much glaring red. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith|talk]]) 13:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

::[[Velocity of global warming]] usage examples ...
::*[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7276/abs/nature08649.html The velocity of climate change], [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] 462, 1052-1055 (24 December 2009) {{doi|10.1038/nature08649}}; Received 27 August 2009; Accepted 3 November 2009; 
::by Scott R. Loarie1, Philip B. Duffy1,2, Healy Hamilton3, Gregory P. Asner1, Christopher B. Field1 & David D. Ackerly4
::Carnegie Institution for Science, Department of Global Ecology, Stanford, California 94305, USA
::Climate Central, Inc., Palo Alto, California 94301, USA
::Center for Applied Biodiversity Informatics, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118, USA
::Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
::*[http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/12/23_ecosystems.shtml Climate change puts ecosystems on the run] 23 December 2009
::*[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=velocity-climate-change Velocity of Climate Change Varies from Mountain to Marsh; As global temperatures change, not all shifts will be equal. A new global analysis pinpoints the fast pace some species may have to move to remain in a suitable climate] December 23, 2009 [[Scientific American]]
::*[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1949869,00.html Climate Change: How Fast Is the Earth Shifting?] Michael D. Lemonick [[Time (magazine)]] Dec. 24, 2009
::Why would ''velocity'' be wrong again, [[Special:Contributions/Vsmith]]?  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.147.154|99.181.147.154]] ([[User talk:99.181.147.154|talk]]) 22:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
:::It's a [[WP:NEO]] violation; ''some'' scientists use it for the equivalent speed which organisms have to move to maintain their environment; most do not.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 22:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I spend most days reading a few articles and papers on global warming. Never heard of this term. [[Special:Contributions/81.106.237.60|81.106.237.60]] ([[User talk:81.106.237.60|talk]]) 12:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
(od) Here is a multiple use of ''velocity'' in one article from [[Science News]]; ''[http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move Animals on the Move; A warming climate means shifting ranges and mixed-up relationships for a lot of species]'' June 30th, 2012; Vol.181 #13 (p. 16) with excerpts "... the velocity one would have to move along Earth’s surface to maintain a constant local temperature. " and "... may not be able to move to new habitats fast enough to keep up with the pace at which climate change is altering local conditions (velocity of climate change is a measure of the pace required to maintain similar climatic conditions)."  [[Special:Contributions/99.119.130.13|99.119.130.13]] ([[User talk:99.119.130.13|talk]]) 05:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:So there are two papers that use the term 'velocity' when referring to the rate of change and a number of articles in the scientific press that comment on these two papers (Loarie et al. 2009 & Schloss et al. 2012). This is not evidence that the term is now in general use. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

::Punching "velocity of climate change" into Google Scholar returned 212 hits.  With "-loarie" (removing all hits referring to or commenting on the Nature paper, as well as any other references to or works by Loarie) still returns 28 hits.  That seems like significant usage to me. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 23:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I had a look through the Scholar results and its pretty obvious that the term is being taken up in a big way - most of the hits are from papers published in 2011 with a lot already from 2012. Back in 2009, almost no-one would have heard of it - I guess that's how it goes with terminology. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
(od) What is the status on this discussion?  [[Special:Contributions/99.109.124.95|99.109.124.95]] ([[User talk:99.109.124.95|talk]]) 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:I would say that the consensus (although I don't agree) is that "velocity of climate change" is a reasonable subject, but it's '''not''' related to the USA Today article.  However, exactly where it belongs in the Climate change/Global warming articles is unclear.  Effects of climate change on plants?  (Large animals can easily move that far, even those with generally fixed nesting or meeting sites.)  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 09:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::Maybe it is better that you don't "say" [[Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin]]. 1. ''USA Today'' is not in this discussion thread.  2. [[Effects of climate change on terrestrial animals]] would certainly obviously be related per C.A.Schloss at al's graph (on page 21 in print version of ''Science News'').  '''Easily?'''  Please avoid [[wp:OR]] (giving you the undeserved benifit of the doubt).   "About 9 percent of Western Hemisphere mammal species may not be able to move to new habitats fast enough to keep up with the pace at which climate change is altering local conditions (velocity of climate change is a measure of the pace required to maintain similar climatic conditions). Mammal species that, on average, won’t move fast enough fall below the diagonal black line in the graph above." is the caption.  Think [[Holocene extinction]] ([[Anthropocene extinction event]]), the [[Biodiversity]] in [[Planetary boundaries]]. [[Wikipedia:Competence is required]] [[Arthur Rubin]].  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.133.62|99.181.133.62]] ([[User talk:99.181.133.62|talk]]) 04:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::#USA Today is the "reference" that ''started'' this discussion thread.
:::#Consensus, although weak, is that "velocity of climate change" is a reasonable subject for discussion.  Although I don't agree, I'm not going to challenge it.
:::#Assuming you have described the references accurately (which is definitely not something ''I'' am willing to take for granted), plants may not be the correct subarticle, but animals ''clearly'' isn't.  I don't have access to the full list of subarticles (the Outline is not being maintained quickly), so I'm not sure where it would be.  Possibly both animals (although weak) and plants, possibly a different subarticle entirely.
:::#As for your post, think [[WP:Sea of blue]], and a large collection of unrelated topics in adjacent words.
::: — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 05:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::::The term seems to have become established in use with a very specific meaning, for which there wasn't a precise term before. That makes it worth researching and explaining in my view. ''[[Velocity]]'' seems to be exactly the correct word for what is meant - a vector quantity including both a speed and a direction - which can and does vary with time. I would expect a short summary of the meaning and origins of the term, and the main findings about it that have been published reliably, either in this article, or perhaps in [[Adaptation to global warming]], or maybe even in its own article with a brief summary in one or both of these. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 15:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::::[[Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin]] for your third "point" see ''Science News'' regarding animals and ''Effects of climate change on terrestrial animals''.  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.132.75|99.181.132.75]] ([[User talk:99.181.132.75|talk]]) 04:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
(odd) It seems that 'velocity of global warming' would be a phrase very easily subject to misunderstanding by non-specialists.  (which argues for and against inclusion.) One reason being velocity is often used as a synonym for 'speed' or 'rate' in everyday language, making it high probabile the term would be conflated with 'rate of global warm'.  (again an argument both for and against inclusion) In addition because it's directional, there are scenarios where the term is inapplicable, for instances, presumably, for regions of large area and uniform current temperatures and uniform rate of warming, i.e. there is nowhere for ecosystems to migrate to.  An undefined velocity or one of 0, would not mean that the historical or projected rate of warming is unknown or zero, only that for a given increase, there is no definition of the velocity. vr rm 22:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vrrm|Vrrm]] ([[User talk:Vrrm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vrrm|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Where is the heat going? ==

I just added a graphic, based on IPCC AR4, showing that most of the BTUs are going into the ocean.  I don't particularly like the resulting layout.  Comments? [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

:Hmmm, yes, I feel a little bothered, too, but I don't see that the layout is a problem.  And that graphic has much more appeal than the original funky, horizontal-bar graph.  I think what bothers me is coming away without a grasp on what it means (i.e., the proportions).  This is probably due the difficulty of making areal comparisons — we do a lot better comparing lengths.  So possibly a testable hypothesis here: would the graphic be more satisfying if it was (say) a horizontal-bar chart (but not as funky as the original)?  Or (for testing) throw in some other graphic and see what difference it makes. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

::Do you mean "why is it getting cooler"?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.106.237.60|81.106.237.60]] ([[User talk:81.106.237.60|talk]]) 19:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::No.  ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 19:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(od) Added the graphic to [[Effects of global warming on oceans]].  [[Special:Contributions/99.112.212.204|99.112.212.204]] ([[User talk:99.112.212.204|talk]]) 23:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

== Question about rate of change of average global temperature ==

My account at Wikipedia is retired, but I would like to question the editors of this article very briefly.  My understanding is that temperatures on Earth are well within range for the [[Holocene]] era.  What seems of far greater interest is the '''''rate''''' of temperature change.  Is the rate of temperature change over the past century well within range for the [[Holocene]] era?  I have no idea what the answer is, but would think that this article should address it.  If the global average surface temperature is analogous to the position of an object, then its rate of change is analogous to the speed of that object.  And how about the acceleration of global temperature change?  Is that within the normal range for the Holocene era?  These seem like very basic questions, and it would be interesting to read the answers in this article, or at least find out why these basic questions are unanswerable according to reliable sources.  Thanks.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

::I think the point is that the problem of global warming has nothing to do with past climate changes, it has to do with the fact that modern civilization is built on agricultrue and infrastructure based on current sea levels and weather patterns.  Global warming deniers are fond of saying that global climate changes are nothing new.  This is true, but beside the point if Miami is underwater and Kansas becomes a desert. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 12:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
(undent)Thanks for the reply, Rick.  With all due respect to Kansas and Miami, there's a considerable difference between causing some disasters and population displacements like those of the past, versus apocalyptic warming.  Also, this article already says stuff like this:
*"The current rate of ocean acidification is many times faster than at least the past 300 million years"

*"CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago"

*"proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age."

I don't think it's ever a mistake to try and put things in historical perspective.  In any event, just from a pure physics standpoint, it would be much clearer if this article could plainly say that the current average global land temperature is X, its rate of increase is Y, and that increase is accelerating at rate Z.  Ditto for upper ocean temperature.  Anyway, I'm going to quietly slip back into retirement now.  Cheers.  :-)[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 14:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

: There is no global holocene temperature record. See for example the graph and text in [[Holocene climatic optimum]]. So we don't know if we're within holocene variations. I think its fairly clear we're not "well within range", indeed its likely that we're outside it. Also, current temperatures aren't really the issue: no-one would be worrying, much, if the temperature weren't expected to go up another 2-3 oC within the coming century. That would, fairly obviously, be well outside the holocene range [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 16:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a good response, Anythingyouwant.  [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 18:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
== Is ''Scientific American'' a reliable source? ==

A recent edit (re ocean acidification) prompts me to ask: do we deem [[Scientific American]] a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for matters of scientific study? It is not a journal; it's a ''popular'' magazine that is aims more for "interest" than careful, comprehensive reporting of scientific developments.  For any factoid mentioned there (that's not someone's unsourced opinion) there should be a source deeper in the scientific literature, which is what I think we should rely on.  I didn't see anything on this in the archives.  Any comments? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
::Scientific American seems like a reliable source unless a more reliable source suggests that it might be wrong.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
::::In citing a magazine or newspaper, the reputation of that magazine must be taken into account.  Magazines with good reputations include Scientific American, National Geographic, and Consumer Reports.  But every publication (yes, including refereed journals) makes mistakes.  Therefore, in the case of controversy, several independent sources are preferable. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 12:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::I am thinking not so much of outright mistakes, nor even any overt bias.  Except that these are ''magazines'', not journals, and they do tend (esp. Nat. Geo.) to go for the sensational, and even speculative.  We generally don't change content on the basis of some hot new scientific report, nor, I think, should we give much weight to sensational popularizations based on some such report.  ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 22:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::It's as reliable as ''[[Popular Science]]''; probably no more so, although I believe it ''used to make'' more of an attempt to get the science correct rather than [[politically correct]].  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 16:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It's not a matter of political "correctness" at all, but of sensational popularization.  (Though there certainly is some "politics" that panders to the public in the same way.)  One of the supposed benefits of relying on secondary and tertiary sources is broader, deeper, more balanced consideration.  But these popular sources tend to be narrower, more superficial; they are not ''reliable''.  (Well, more reliable than Nat. Enq., or many blogs, but that's not saying much.) I am thinking that, as a general rule, matters of scientific study should have stronger support than popular magazines, newspapers, or websites.~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 17:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::P.S.: And pretty much ''everything'' on television. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 18:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:Of course it is a reliable source, as that term is used here.  The better question is how much weight should it be given?  That answer will rely on editor judgment in different contexts. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 18:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::I beg to differ.  The principal aspect of [[WP:weight|weight]] here is where (e.g.) Nat. Geo. spotlights, even sensationalizes, the view of some particular researcher, which, strictly speaking, we need to ''un''weight.  Now I don't object if some editor judges that something in some popular source might be true, even a balanced perspective.  I do object where many editors see some factoid in the popular press, and solely on that basis, ''without any judgment'' or assessment at all, want to be the first to slap it on some article.  If a statement wasn't just made up there should be a source.  And if the statement is really pertinent to an article then I would expect an editor to track it back to that source. As I said below: we don't quote the ''N.Y. Times'' quoting ''Science'', we should quote ''Science'' directly. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 18:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::Agree with J. Johnson, don't present a [[false dilemma]]; we have to evaluate sources in context rather than simply having "reliable" vs. "not reliable". SA may be reasonable for some things, but it's not necessarily the best.  [[WP:SOURCES]] should be remembered: "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." . . .  "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas." and so on. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 19:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Which part of [[Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources|our definition of 'reliable source']] do you think boots Sci Am as a no-no/unreliable source?  As stated in that content guideline, an otherwise "reliable source" (as that term is defined in our guideline) is not necessarily ''the best'' "reliable source", and when it is only the second-best "reliable source" this fact will not, all by itself, transform it into an ''un''reliable one.   REPEAT, we all agree SciAm is not necessarily going to be the BEST reliable source (as that term is defined in our guidelines).  But it still seems to pass muster with the guideline, generally. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::(@Arthur Rubin) "Politically correct" comments sounds [[Wikipedia:IDON'TLIKE]] by [[Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin]].  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.138.194|99.181.138.194]] ([[User talk:99.181.138.194|talk]]) 01:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Readded commented above deleted by AR, adding "@Arthur Rubin" for clarity.  [[Special:Contributions/99.109.124.96|99.109.124.96]] ([[User talk:99.109.124.96|talk]]) 03:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I said that SciAm was becoming more [[politically correct]] than scientifically correct; that's an observation, rather than [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]].  Still, it's ''generally'' reliable, except for editorials.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 07:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

::::SciAm and NatGeo are often good for ''explanations'' of something.  But as to the ''state of scientific knowledge'' (or some part thereof), as distinct from explaining something, I see no value added. (Overall caveat here is: generally!) Their typical modus operandus is get the views of ''one'' scientist — a [[WP:primary]] source — and spice it up for the masses.  But they seldom — or only lightly — do the analysis or evaluation of such a source in the broader context that characterizes secondary sources, and they don't summarize a broad range of primary or secondary sources as chacterizes a tertiary source.  (SciAm usually provides some general references, which are often a good start for studying the topic, but not as citations for specific material.) Their reliability is entirely dependent on their source, wherefore they are ''always'' only second-best. And we should go to their source. Like I told the The Kid: we shouldn't quote someone quoting someone else — we should quote the original. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 22:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

:::<small>[Edit conflict where NAEG pulled out what I was responding to, as to whether responding was a waste time.]</small>
:::<small>Nah, not all!! I've been considering a certain view — which even ''I'' don't necessarily agree with — and I am looking for some strong rebuttal. Or even some side perspective that puts the whole question in a different light. And I do appreciate your interest, and time, in helping me to explore this. Thank you! ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 00:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC) </small>
== Stable temperatures from 2002 to 2009 ==

This article says that temperatures have been relatively stable from 2002 to 2009.  That may true of surface atmospheric temperatures, but is it really true of ocean temperatures?  I thought ocean temperatures continued their steady rise.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
: In context the statement doesn't need any further tweaking. The point is that such very short periods are not expected to strongly reflect the overall trend as a uniform warming, but may well contain periods of stasis or even decline in global average temperature. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 15:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 
::Was 2002 to 2009 a period of stasis or decline in the global average  of upper ocean temperature?  I think not.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 14:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

== Perception of Climate Change - PNAS Study ==

* {{cite journal |author=James Hansen |authorlink=James Hansen |author2=Makiko Sato |author3=Reto Ruedy |year=August 2012 |title=Perception of climate change |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] |volume=109 |issue=32 |pages= |publisher=[[National Academy of Sciences]] |doi=10.1073/pnas.1205276109 |pmid= |pmc= |url=http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109 |accessdate=August 10, 2012 }}

This should be useful in some part of the article. It discusses the standard deviation of global warming over the last century and the increase of heated extreme areas of the planet, along with how specific heat variations in specific places in 2010 and 2011 are indicative of global warming. And then it discusses the implications of all of the above. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 00:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
: Please make a specific edit, or proposal. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 01:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::It was just a suggestion and notification about the source's existence. I haven't ever edited this article before and don't know what information in this study is useful or if any of it is, i'm just suggesting it to be looked at. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 01:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}} So, can this be used somewhere in the article, perhaps discussing specific heat, cold, and other weather incidents in the past that this study discusses, links to global warming, and also discusses future projections of what will occur? <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 23:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

: It's a wiki and nobody has made an objection to mentioning this in principle. You've been asked to make or propose a specific edit, and you should feel free to do so. We'll take it from there. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
::But the thing is, I don't know what's already covered in this article or to what amount of info should be included and how much weight this study should hold. Only someone more experienced in the content of this article would be able to say what is appropriate. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 00:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
::: If you're not willing to do your own grunt work, please stop wasting our time. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 00:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

::: Basically, you have found an interesting source. Fine, thank you. But as you "don't know what's already covered in this article", etc., that is about as far as you can go with it.  As to whether it can be used in the article, well, perhaps someone will find a use for it. Time will tell. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 21:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

::::An old version of the study, before it was officially published, appears to have been in use in the article for the specific climate events anyways. So I just swapped it out with the published version of the ref I gave above. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 02:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

== New ANI requests server be told the clock has restarted on the Mich Ext link spammer ==

FYI, I have started [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Michigan External Link Spammer - repeat block evasion|a new ANI regarding the Michigan global warming external link spammer]]. Since the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive763#Block-evading.2C_Michigan-based_global_warming_external_link_spammer.3B_ACTION_SOUGHT:_1yr_IP_range_block|current 30-day range block was put in place]], this Michigan sock has engaged in [[User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list#August_2012|10 block-evading editing sessions]] (six of which were caught in time to impose short term blocks on specific IPs used). In an apparent attempt to keep a low profile, they seem to be targeting lower-traffic pages (probably not on many watchlists?).  Per [[WP:ILLEGIT]], "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart".  An admin still has to push buttons to tell the server that the timer has restarted before the server erroneously allows it to expire on Sept 2.  It is my belief the blocked range is for the user's home and they are slowed down now only by the inconvenience of editing elsewhere.  Hopefully some interested admin will not let the 30-day range block erroneously expire on the server.   [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 17:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
== Limits of human adaptation ==

I have a problem with the following bit of the lede:

:''If global mean temperature increases to 4 °C (7.2 °F) above preindustrial levels, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world and natural systems throughout the world would be largely unable to adapt, resulting in the loss of the benefits (ecosystem services) that those systems provide and upon which human livelihoods depend.[14]''

It's a cumbersome sentence, far too long, and is based on the findings of one paper (Warren, 2011). I also find it difficult to understand what this sentence means. What actually happens when the limits of adaptation are exceeded?

Another point is the stated 4 degree C threshold. One of the  [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains6-3.html "robust findings"] of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is that "Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt." This statement is more conservative than the Warren (2011) paper. [[User:Enescot|Enescot]] ([[User talk:Enescot|talk]]) 06:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
::Seeing as no one else has any comments on this, I've put together a revision which addresses the complaint I made above. I think that the sentence I referred to in my previous comment (based on Warren, 2011) should be removed from the lede, revised, and moved to [[global warming#Adaptation]]. This would allow a proper explanation of the term "adaptive capacity", which is jargon. Below is my suggested revision of [[global warming#Adaptation]]. Sentences preceded by an asterisk (*) are new or revised ones:

:::''Other policy responses include adaptation to climate change. Adaptation to climate change may be planned, either in reaction to or anticipation of climate change, or spontaneous, i.e., without government intervention.[143] Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis. The barriers, limits, and costs of future adaptation are not fully understood.''

:::''*A concept related to adaptation is "adaptive capacity," which is the ability of a system (human, natural or managed) to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with consequences [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/annexessglossary-a-d.html (definition of "adaptive capacity").] * Unmitigated climate change (i.e., future climate change without efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions) would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains6-3.html (AR4 Synthesis Report).]''

::[[User:Enescot|Enescot]] ([[User talk:Enescot|talk]]) 00:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Hi there. Sorry. I just wanted to thank the editor who reversed my addition from [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=510134372&oldid=510132814 Mitt Romney's RNC] acceptance speech. This is a featured article and no place for recentisms. I was only angry because I couldn't find it in ''[[The New York Times]]'' this morning. Also thank you to ''[[Forbes]]'' for capturing the candidate in action. -[[User:SusanLesch|SusanLesch]] ([[User talk:SusanLesch|talk]]) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
:No problem. I'm glad that this is not contentious. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 20:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
:<small>(Polite applause from by-standers admiring the fine display of civility. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 23:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC))</small>

== Power plant heat energy contribution ==

I come from the [[Nuclear power]] talk page where there are some members claiming power plant heat is a considerable contributing agent to global warming.
Clearly I think it's of negligible importance right now, but would like to request some mention to it be made in the article somewhere dispelling this quasi-myth.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_170.shtml
''If we got lots and lots of power from nuclear fission or fusion,
wouldn’t this contribute to global warming, because of all the
extra energy being released into the environment?''  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boundarylayer|contribs]]) 03:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: I'm not sure whether its worth putting into the article. But if you just want to know, then http://mustelid.blogspot.co.uk/2005/04/global-warming-is-not-from-waste-heat.html may help (that's me, BTW). And http://mustelid.blogspot.co.uk/2005/05/global-warming-is-not-from-waste-heat.html [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
::Your bit isn't quite right though ref "probably so locally too"... trying swimming near the outflow from Sizewell any time of year (I have done it in Jan) and I think you will realise there is definitely a long term heating effect...depending how local local is of course. Incidentally, radiative decay is what causes the centre of the earth to be hot isn't it. I think Rutherford worked out it would be cold in 10 million years without this effect. --[[User:BozMo|BozMo]] [[user talk:BozMo|talk]] 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:::It was [[William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin|Kelvin]], who provided various (somewhat questionable) estimates, eventually settling for 20-40 million years. Rutherford found out that Kelvin was wrong. Your [[associative memory]] works great at recall success, not so good at recall precision ;-). --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 17:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::::You are certainly correct about recall precision. --[[User:BozMo|BozMo]] [[user talk:BozMo|talk]] 17:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::I saw some comment years back that merely having a supply of energy drives economies in ways that have GW effects (e.g., production of concrete produces CO2, urban and agricultural expansion reduces tree cover, etc.).  I suspect that that is a greater effect than the actual heat released by nuclear power. Perhaps there needs to be some clarification that AGW is not due to direct release of heat but of the capture of energy by CO2 and other GHGs? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)