Talk:Climate change/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

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. (Davies, Ella. "BBC Nature - Dinosaur gases 'warmed the Earth'". Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 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. --TS

Sorry, forgot to timestamp this. It was at least a day or two ago. --TS 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. 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. Dream Focus 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.   ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. [1] 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. [2] Dream Focus 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 Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. --TS 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor correction: non-avian dinosaurs aren't around, the contribution of avian dinosaurs such as poultry is no doubt noted in the various studies. Either way, it's not really significant to this article.
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. . 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. 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 evolvedNewsAndEventsGuy (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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Article feedback

So the article feedback tool exists, and apparently there have been over 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 Sailsbystars (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

sailsbystars suggested graphics

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 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. 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:

• An Argo float
• A tide gauge
• Antarctic ice core samples
• 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. --TS 12:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Of those, I like the ice core best. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ice core has better pix 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 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.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. It was, for ref:

James Hansen calculated that, with 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 deviations 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 droughts and floods. The effect on hurricane activity is less certain.

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a Horizon documentary about this topic, see here. 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. 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 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 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. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

SREX could be a useful overview, but Rasmus E. Benestad 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 at SkS, and described by the authors, perhaps it and Hansen could be briefly noted in the context of an overview. . . 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) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Rahmstorf and Comou illustrate this with a graph from the IPCC 2001 TAR, so that's not novel. The SkS summary of the Hansen et al. paper shows a different approach. . 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 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? 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? 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)."

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

If there are no objections, I would like to make this update. 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. . . 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 introduction should be written. Please take a much longer look at these things before leaping in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Moving the proposal to the 2nd paragraph addresses none of the objections given. --Kim D. Petersen (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? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. 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. . 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. 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. --Kim D. Petersen (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. --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. Peter Lemongello (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you had truly read even the summary — as distinguished from misreading 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. 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): [3] 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.SPhilbrick(Talk) 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.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.. . . 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. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that "discredited" is rather misleading wording, 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 below)."
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).
Which puts "now" at 1975 or earlier. . . dave souza, talk 16:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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 . . 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 owned by a group connected to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and it leans more toward scientism than science. This happens in Wikipedia. Santamoly (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is 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! . . 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. 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 CO₂ 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? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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? 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? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. It was several years ago. 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Add, location?

Found this in Further reading on Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet ...

• Study: Global temperatures could rise 5 degrees by 2050 Mar 25, 2012 USA Today

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. This source is more reliable, and possibly even more interesting. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

2007 IPCC is far less current, and using even older and more limited data. 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? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What about of data from 2011 why charts is obsolete?

As in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.44.150 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Where and how would this best be used?

• 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 108.73.114.104 (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Redundant postings. See Talk:Climate_change_denial#Locate_here.3F

Fails verisimilitude. Probably an editorial, and hence not usable anywhere. — 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. . dave souza, talk 11:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Point taken. It still fails verisimilitude, but appears to be reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Don't agree re verisimilitude. . 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. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Looks offtopic for this article, so feel free to delete or archive it as sockishness. . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Add wikinews item?

{{wikinews|Global warming underestimated, say scientists}} 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. --TS 15:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Might be appropriate in the "See also" section, unless properly referenced in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The "news" is 6 years old. I don't think this is a necessary addition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(od) Here are its sources ...

• Study: Global warming underestimated Newkerala.com May 23, 2006
• Earth-solar cycle spurs greenhouse gases: studies Australian Broadcasting Corporation May 23, 2006
• Earth-solar cycle may spur greenhouse gases MSNBC.com May 22, 2006
• World to be even hotter by century's end Physorg May 22, 2006

from so-called "Long-term" effects of global warming article. 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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.42.182.54 (talk)

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

FYI I just started ANI proceeding against the IP in Michigan. Your comments in the proceeding are invited/requested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm archiving this now. The ANI discussion is archived at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_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. --TS 14:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

British more skeptical now

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. Peter Lemongello (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC) We don't add the latest survey to articles, in general. See 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. --TS 06:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC) The language appears to be quite neutral. It is really perfect for the "Public Opinion" section. 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? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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?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. . . 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 article75.73.114.111 (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.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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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 you75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC) See Public opinion on climate change. 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.75.73.114.111 (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Why mention one nation's poll fluctuations, see Climate change opinion by country? 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 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.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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. --TS 22:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Evolution does have a three-paragraph section on 'Social and cultural responses'. — goethean ॐ 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. --TS 05:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I would also move this article's content on public opinion to a new article. — goethean ॐ 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Or use an existing one, like Public opinion on climate change? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC) (od) See Angus Reid Public Opinion article. 99.181.159.238 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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 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?

99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Many years ago we had a terminology section which answered this question [4]. We still have a climate change page which mostly answers it, too 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. --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? — 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. . . 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 :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) See related Talk:Climate change#terminology usage question: climate change &/or global warming? 99.181.132.75 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Study: Global temperatures could rise 5 degrees by 2050 Mar 25, 2012

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. Vsmith (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Velocity of global warming usage examples ...

• The velocity of climate change, 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

• Climate change puts ecosystems on the run 23 December 2009
• 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
• 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? 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. — 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. 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; 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)." 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. 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. Mikenorton (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) What is the status on this discussion? 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.) — 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. 99.181.133.62 (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1. USA Today is the "reference" that started this discussion thread.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. As for your post, think WP:Sea of blue, and a large collection of unrelated topics in adjacent words.

— 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. --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. 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrrm (talk • contribs)

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? 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "why is it getting cooler"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) Added the graphic to Effects of global warming on oceans. 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.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. 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.  :-)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 William M. Connolley (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a good response, Anythingyouwant. 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 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? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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.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. 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. — 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.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: And pretty much everything on television. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The principal aspect of weight here is where (e.g.) Nat. Geo. spotlights, even sensationalizes, the view of some particular researcher, which, strictly speaking, we need to unweight. 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Which part of 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 unreliable 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. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(@Arthur Rubin) "Politically correct" comments sounds Wikipedia:IDON'TLIKE by Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. 99.181.138.194 (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Readded commented above deleted by AR, adding "@Arthur Rubin" for clarity. 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. — 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict where NAEG pulled out what I was responding to, as to whether responding was a waste time.]

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! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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.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. --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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Perception of Climate Change - PNAS Study

• James Hansen; Makiko Sato; Reto Ruedy (August 2012). "Perception of climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109 (32). National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1205276109. Retrieved August 10, 2012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

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. Silverseren^C 00:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please make a specific edit, or proposal. 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. Silverseren^C 01:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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? Silverseren^C 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. --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. Silverseren^C 00:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're not willing to do your own grunt work, please stop wasting our time. 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (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. Silverseren^C 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 a new ANI regarding the Michigan global warming external link spammer. Since the current 30-day range block was put in place, this Michigan sock has engaged in 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. 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 "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. 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 (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 (AR4 Synthesis Report).

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 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. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad that this is not contentious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(Polite applause from by-standers admiring the fine display of civility. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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 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. --BozMo talk 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It was 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 ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly correct about recall precision. --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? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Two Papers Concerning Global Warming

This report should be studied by people who are more knowledgeable than I am and incorporate it into this article as seen fit. The first paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1841 (click on the appropriate link in the upper right for the full text) The second paper can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236 (click on the appropriate link below the abstract to read the full text) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.60.90 (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Arxiv is a good tool for working researchers, but papers are not peer-reviewed. The original seems to have been published in Energy and Environment, notoriously not a reliable source. The methodology - extrapolating from 5 (five) temperature stations, 4 of them in metropolitan areas, all in Western/Middle Europe, leaves something to be desired, to say the least. The Science paper looks ok, but deals with a quite small aspect of the climate system, and I don't see it having much of an influence on the big picture. See FAQ21. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of global warming

I've complained about this before, but in my opinion, this article does not adequately convey the strength of evidence that there is for global warming. The article over-emphasizes the instrumental temperature record at the expense of the other lines of evidence (e.g., see instrumental temperature record#Robustness of evidence and Physical impacts of climate change#Consistency of evidence for warming. The multiple lines of evidence for global warming is emphasized in several authoritative reports: IPCC 2007, USGCRP 2009 and US NRC 2010. Enescot (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent remark, I agree completely. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. The article does appear to overemphasize just one or two lines of evidence, when it should be showing all of them to their respective degrees. And including the other lines of evidence would furthermore bolster and better explain the strength of fact behind global warming. Silverseren^C 21:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was what Attribution of recent climate change was about? This is a summary top-level article, not a detail one.... That aside, we have the whole section below Global warming#Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings), as well as the Feedback and the climate model sections, that summarizes the various attribution and evidence subarticles? Or am i missing something? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

reply to Kim D. Petersen: I'm not talking about attribution, but that could also be improved. My issue is with properly explaining the strength of evidence that there is for global warming, e.g., from Kennedy et al, (2010, p.26): "The IPCC conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” does not rest solely upon [Land Surface Air Temperature] records. These constitute only one line of evidence among many, for example: uptake of heat by the oceans, melting of land ice such as glaciers, the associated rise in sea level, and increased atmospheric surface humidity. If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups." The sections you refer to do not mention this. Enescot (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've prepared a draft revision that addresses the problem I raised earlier. My revision would go in the "Observed temperature changes" section. Sentences preceded by asterisks are new ones:

(...) Climate 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.[30]

*The warming that is evident in the instrumental temperature record is consistent with a wide range of observations, as documented by many independent scientific groups (Kennedy et al, 2010, p.26). *Examples include sea level rise (water expands as it warms (NOAA, 2011)), widespread melting of snow and ice (IPCC, 2007), increased heat content of the oceans (Kennedy et al, 2010, p.26)., increased humidity (Kennedy et al, 2010, p.26)., and the earlier timing of spring events (IPCC, 2007), e.g., the flowering of plants (Rosenzweig et al, 2007). *The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is virtually zero (Kennedy et al, 2010, p.26).

Recent estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the National Climatic Data Center show that (...)

Enescot (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

citation needed for model "uncertainty"

This was previously settled in the introductory section of the article. The IPCC projections do not take into account any model "uncertainty". The ranges given in the projections are strictly the ranges of model projections when the models are applied to the various emission scenerios. There is plenty of model uncertainty, as a voluminous diagnostic literature documents, but none of this uncertainty taken into account in the projected ranges. If this misleading term is to stay in the article, please supply a citation to support it.--Africangenesis (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If we want to talk about model uncertainty in this article, we could start with the correlated positive surface albedo bias documented by Andreas Roesch, the under representation of precipitation by Wentz, the suggestion that the tropical cloud feedback may be negative rather than highly positive as in the models by Lindzen, the report by Stroeve and Scambos that the models are nearly 30 years behind in their melting of the Arctic, etc.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WMC reverts saying "Oh stop it". What does that mean? It doesn't sound substantive. This "uncertainty" is something that has crept in after being previously decided, when similar claims about model projections were made in the introduction. --Africangenesis (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This statement has to be removed "(3) any additional emissions from climate feedbacks that were not included in the models IPCC used to prepare its report, i.e., greenhouse gas releases from permafrost.[97]" because it opens the can of worms, because diagnostic errors in the models are also a source of uncertainty in the projections. what is the point in including one without the other?

We have to decide whether we want to explain the range of IPCC model projections which don't including any uncertainty, or do we want to discuss all the reasons the IPCC model projections are actually uncertain. --Africangenesis (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please illustrate the question(s) and issue(s) you are raising with some potential text for the article, including the supporting reliable sourcesNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it was already hashed out a three or four years ago. WMC was trying to get away with claiming that the range of IPCC projections included model uncertainty. He couldn't support it, which is why the intro reads a lame "The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations." WMCs cadre was powerful at the time, but even so, he couldn't win that one. No model uncertainty is included in the projections, not the model diagnostic errors, not the missing methane feedback, none. The range is just that of the models and the scenerios. Someone who is not familiar with the literature has not kept this tendency in check.--Africangenesis (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You may want to reread the paragraph in question - since it actually doesn't state what you think it does. It is not about IPCC ranges encapsulating all uncertainty - but rather what uncertainties that the IPCC ranges encapsulate. Subtle difference - and one that renders your arguments moot, since they do not address this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"what is the point in including one without the other?" That is not an argument for deleting what is present, it is an argument for adding what is allegedly missing. Please provide draft text to illustrate what it is you think is missing. A 4-year old hashing when I was not around and to which you provide no pointer is irrelevant, and besides, consensus can change.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

All the reports I've looked at on climate change use the word "uncertainty", and then go on to explain these uncertainties. What is important is that the article provides an adequate summary of these uncertainties. The relevant section of the IPCC Working Group I report appears to be Section 10.5.4.6. The USGCRP also provide a brief summary. I think that the article does a reasonable job at summarizing the uncertainties in the IPCC's global warming projections. However, the IPCC do not state that uncertainty over the carbon cycle would only lead to increased emissions. In my opinion, a more accurate summary for point (3) would be "uncertainties in the response of the Earth's carbon cycle to future warming". Another point I would add to the article is that quantification of model uncertainty requires expert judgement. Enescot (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

End of Kyoto

This section is WP:SOAP lacking suggestion for improving the article such as draft text with citations. click show to read anyway

We are planning to hold a party to celebrate the end of climate hysteria and the return to common sense. However we cannot find the exact time when Kyoto ends. Looking here I see that there is nothing about the end of Kyoto. As political support is almost dead in the US and fading fast throughout the west, there can be little doubt that the end of Kyoto will effectively mark the end of "global warming". However, an awful lot of people globally now need to know the exact time to celebrate. It obviously expires on the 31st December, but the exact time varies by country. Should we use: Universal time (Greenwich) 12pm in Kyoto (16:00 Gree0nwich) Does each country drop off hour by hour - and perhaps we can have 24hours of celebration? ... Although .... (next) Do we take the time at the capital city if the country extends over several time zones. And 82.14.206.26 (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I suggest putting it prominently in the first paragraph. Something such as: "Kyoto, the treaty which was iconic for the global warming movement ceases on 31st December 2012 at xx:xx GMT (or obviously that may also be 1st Jan 2013, if the time is +GMT)82.14.206.26 (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I agree it should the first paragraph, first sentence. I think it should have a comment with footnote for all the brave academics and professionals who either lost their careers or suffered dramatic hardships due to warmists hysteria and condemnation. Mk 70.193.192.167 (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC) . For all subclaims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC) On what WP:RS would you base any text saying that the Kyoto Protocol "ceases" at the end of 2012? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC) How can you edit this article and have to ask me, it's all over the internet. It took just a second to find[5] And your censorship has removed the justification for putting in this article, which I suspect was your intention ... but I only have to put up with this a bit longer. 82.14.206.26 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC) According to that source, Phase I ends this year that's true. And there's only one meeting before 2013 when Phase 2 starts, that's also true. But it does NOT say the protocol itself vaporizes at the end of the year, and it does not say that lack of the plan for Phase 2 before Phase 2 starts will void the treaty. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Why not just read the protocol, it clearly says it finishes in 2012: "Article 3 (1.) The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.". 82.14.206.26 (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC) My BS meter usually twitches whenever I read "clearly" or "obviously". In this case, you quoted language that refers to Phase 1. It does not say the treaty goes up in smoke at the end of Phase 1. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I don't see anything about phase 8, 10001 and 100000001. Because it doesn't say that they don't exist does that mean they all exist? Come on you are the one pushing this rubbish, please supply the evidence (from a peer reviewed journal obviously) that it will continue after 2012, because I've shown more than enough to think it is finishing.82.14.206.26 (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Yet again editors because of their own POV have removed any discussion they dislike. Well tough! Whether you like it or not Kyoto is dead. I have searched, this nonsense about a "second phase" is just political rhetoric with no basis in substance. IT IS NOT PART OF KYOTO protocol and what agreements are in place are puny in comparison. The fact is that the Kyoto protocol ceases or as wikipedia itself says: "Because any treaty change will require the ratification of the text by various countries' legislatures before the end of the commitment period on 31 December 2012," Without treaty ratification, the Kyoto protocol is dead, and as the most iconic thing about global warming, there is no question it must be in the lede. No question to anyone with a Neutral point of View.82.14.206.26 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I have reported the handling of this talk subject to dispute resolution because I asked for evidence that the Kyoto protocol continues after 2012. No evidence was given, instead the discussion was closed with the ridiculous tag of "soap". It appears the only soap here is those who are denying the fact that Kyoto ends this year. This seems to be a good summary "What happens when the Kyoto Protocol expires?"[6]. It says: "In this article, we'll find out why Kyoto has so far failed in its purpose, and see what type of changes might make the next agreement (which will take effect when Kyoto expires in 2012) more successful." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC) OK, for those who are seriously interesting in improving the article rather than hiding the truth the authoritative position seems to be in this document (Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol[7]) 6. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol began on 1 January 2008 and will end on 31 December 2012. For a subsequent commitment period to begin on 1 January 2013, amendments to the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to its Article 3, paragraph 9, must enter into force on or before that date. To fulfil this condition: (a) The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) will need to adopt these amendments at its sixth or seventh session; (b) The Depositary must receive instruments of acceptance from three fourths of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol by 3 October 2012. Based on the current number of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol,4 143 instruments of acceptance of the amendments will be needed to achieve this requirement. In other words, the legal position is that the protocol ceases on the 31st December 2012 unless there is agreement to the contrary by 3rd October 2012. That is 16 days away! Which makes an agreement by then unlikely so whether or not anyone wants to pretend it continues, as far as I can see it will end on the 31st December, at which point, we have had no warming for 15 years, we have no international agreement, and I will ask to rename this article to something more appropriate like: "20th century global warming concerns". 82.14.206.26 (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC) OK, to answer the original question: "when exactly does the protocol finish". The protocol doesn't seem to specify a timezone to use, but it does state: "DONE at Kyoto this eleventh day of December one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven.". Therefore, my best guess is that we should open the bubbly at midnight local Kyoto time which is 4pm GMT and 11am in Washington all on 31st December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) The schedule they have to meet in order to do X by date Y (which is what you quoted) does not address the question. Instead, the rest of the document you linked to, starting in section IV page 9, discusses the legal implications of any gaps between the end of this commitment period and the start of subsequent ones. You don't discuss such implications when the whole thing just comes to a screeching halt at the end of the first commitment period. Instead, this section discusses aspects of Kyoto that remain in effect because they are not tied to commitment periods, including the Kyoto Protocol Article 10. Thus, your source explicitly states that the protocol itself will continue even though the first commitment period under the protocol is going to end. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I have checked it out and it does finish in December. Because this is so iconic to this movement, it has to be in the lede. You NewsAndEventsGuy clearly disagree and are using your position to squash debate. So I have referred this to the administrator's notice board for resolution. Sorry NewsAndEventsGuy I know you feel strongly, but your own feelings should not prevent other people from having a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Kyoto is not "iconic"? What ever you mean by that. And do i have any idea what "movement" you are talking about... But for what is worth, all the info that you need is contained within Global warming#Politics (and afaict has been there for a looong time). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC) KimDabelsteinPetersen, Kyoto represents the global political consensus on global warming. Whatever you might want to believe, that global political consensus comes to an end on 31st December 2012. Although the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol has been looking at this, it still has not come up with a wording for an amendment. Even if it did, for such an amendment to come into force by the 31st December it would have had to be passed by a COP and ratified by 3/4 of kyotol parties by the 3rd October 2012. That cannot happen. So, there is no such thing as a "second commitment period". It is just talk. There is no "second period" of Kyoto commitment just as there has been no global warming for 14 years.82.14.206.26 (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 82.14.206.26, the lede already mentions the UNFCCC and its 2 deg C target, and in my opinion that is sufficient. An earlier revision of the lede did emphasize the lack of legally-binding commitments to reduce emissions. I think that this emphasis was inappropriate – it was implicitly POV-pushing towards binding commitments. The article should maintain a neutral point of view in respect of political agreements. However, global warming#Other views does mention that some organizations/people have pushed for stronger action to be taken, e.g., "National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions," and "Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the climate and the risks they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions." Enescot (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Kim still comes in with the hammer at the end just like the old days. In a way it gives a person a warm comfortable feeling to know the same folks are still censoring until the "cold" dead end. If fog of bias ever lifted, who knows where the truth would lead us on tracking natural climate cycles. Mk 70.193.192.167 (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

External forcings

I don't particularly like the introduction to the section on "Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)". It uses technical language like "external forcing" and "radiative forcing" without properly explaining these terms. Some guides to climate change science (e.g., the EPA website, and the USGCRP's "climate literacy" booklet) are written for the general reader, and attempt to use non-technical language. Where technical terms are used, they are explained clearly. In my opinion, this article should adopt the same approach. Enescot (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The first sentence explains external forcing, and radiative forcing is wikilinked - both are not particularly technical, but are at the same time important aspects to learn for the reader that wants to go indepth into the subject area. Wikipedia targets a wider demographics (see for instance the math articles on WP ... many of which are impossible to read for a layman). The article simple:global warming is another issue though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In my native English vernacular, these are examples of "technical" terms, even though they are not difficult to comprehend. As for the state of our article, I agree with Kim it's ok as is, but I'd entertain proposed text with an open mind.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My thought on this is that WP:BOLD still applies. The current text isn't terrible, but if Enescot can suggest something better, more power to them..... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Make it better if you can, but this is a wiki after all: we don't need to explain in detail things that are linked. We don't want extraneous detail in what is already a long article William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia should be written in plain English, with the use of jargon avoided (WP:MOS). Enescot (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Technical terms are not necessarily "jargon". And technical terms should be used where "plain" terms are ambiguous or poorly defined. The key thing is that where they are used they are explained (or linked). If those are not properly explained, by all means suggest an improvement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've prepared a revision of the section. Revised sentences are marked with a single asterisk. New sentences are marked with two asterisks:

*The climate system can respond to changes in external forcings (Schmidt, 2004; Pew Center, 2008, p.2). **External forcings can "push" the climate in the direction of warming or cooling (US NRC, 2011, p.9). *Examples of external forcings include changes in atmospheric composition (e.g., increased concentrations of greenhouse gases), changes in solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun. Attribution of recent climate change focuses (...)

Enescot (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Benefits of global warming

Erasing the benefits is a violation of NPOV. Wikistan should not be for or against physical processes, but should simply report all RS on both sides of the issue.

An additional benefit that I neglected to list is of course that the CSA states will soon be uninhabitable, but I'm looking for a good source that shows the vast benefit this offers to all mankind. Hcobb (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That you are "looking for a good source" shows that you have already decided what this vast benefit will be. That is, you are looking for support for an opinion for which you have little or no support. Which is backwards. As a Wikipedia editor (and I would suggest universally) you should examine a representative range of sources, then "explain the sides, fairly and without bias". Please take a closer look at WP:NPOV. Note especially that "fair" does not mean that all sides get equal representation; it means represented proportionately, as seen in reliable sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there are benefits from warming, but these need to be balanced against adverse effects. This is ultimately a subjective judgement. The most widely endorsed scientific and political process for summarizing climate change impacts is the IPCC. In my view, this article's summary of impacts should be consistent with the IPCC's summary (see robust findings and key uncertainties from the IPCC third and fourth assessment reports). As you can see, the issue of increased drilling opportunities in the Arctic [8] is only one of many other impacts [9][10]. In my opinion, it does not deserve mention in this top-level article. It is already discussed in climate change, industry and society#Northwest Passage. Enescot (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)