Talk:Climate change

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Vital article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the [show] for references at the bottom of the FAQ.

Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change?

A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by over 99% of publishing climate scientists.^[1]

Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place?

A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)."^[2]

Q3: Can't the increase of CO₂ be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans?

A3: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics,^[3]^[4] including academically trained ones,^[5]^[6] they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives:

Current human emissions of CO₂ are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO₂ levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions.^[7] This is easily seen in a graph of CO₂ concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend.
Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels.^[8]
Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.^[9]
If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or in other words, less basic).^[10]

Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?

A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum.

Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated?

A5: Two reasons:

There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like the Global Warming Map, are static, meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly.
However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get", meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations.^[11] Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import.

Q6: Isn't climate change "just a theory"?

A6: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess, but a scientific theory, roughly speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO₂ and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven, but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense), but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess.

Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO₂?

A7: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO₂ (hundreds to thousands of years), so when methane emissions are reduced the concentration in the atmosphere soon falls, whereas CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles.

Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled?

A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change.^[1] This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change.

Q9: Did climate change end in 1998?

A9: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998.^[12] More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out;^[2] thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend.

Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement?

A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name."^[13] Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD.

While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice sheet, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference:

A map of the Eastern Settlement
A satellite image of that area today
A map of the Western Settlement
A satellite image of that area today
A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located

Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists?

A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and it has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties.

Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years?

A12: Measurements show that it has not.^[14] Claims that global sea ice amounts have stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice amounts.

Arctic sea ice cover is declining strongly; Antarctic sea ice cover has had some much smaller increases, though it may or may not be thinning, and the Southern Ocean is warming. The net global ice-cover trend is clearly downwards.

Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming?

A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming.^[15] The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, such as a short nine-paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975.^[16] (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.)^[17] The author of that article has repudiated the idea that it should be used to deny global warming.^[18]

Q14: Doesn't water vapour cause 98% of the greenhouse effect?

A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO₂ or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms, any excess water vapour is removed by rainfall, and any deficit of water vapour is replenished by evaporation from the Earth's surface, which literally has oceans of water. Thus water vapour cannot act as a driver of climate change.

Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will however allow the atmosphere to hold more vapour. This will lead to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, whereas water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends.

Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)?

A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming.

A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars.^[19] Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "'His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,' said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. [...] Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that 'the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.'"^[20]
There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change.^[21]^[22] This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices.^[23]^[24]
Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates.^[25] Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit – it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Wikipedia's own article.

Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money?

A16: No,

Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses.
Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming.
- Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data.^[26]^[27] Scientists could get paid to study climate even if global warming did not exist.

Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity?

A17: It does, but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction.

Q18: Should we include the view that climate change will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe?

A18: This page is about the science of climate change. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying.

Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) important?

A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world, which include most large cities.

Earth's climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e. the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the higher absolute temperature but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate and the related effects on human societies. The IPCC AR6 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change.

Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is/was Scibaby?

A20: Scibaby is/was a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,027 confirmed sock puppets, another 167 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them.

Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer-reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...?

A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:IINFO) of the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Q22: Why does the article define "climate change" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before?

A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "climate change" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. The article Climate variability and change deals with the more general concept.

Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that climate change is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays?

A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment:^[28]

Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:

Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation,
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN),
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining.

Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it [the experiment] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."^[29]

Q24: I read that something can't fix climate change. Is this true?

A24: Yes, this is true for all plausible single things including: "electric cars", "planting trees", "low-carbon technology", "renewable energy", "Australia", "capitalism", "the doom & gloom approach", "a Ph.D. in thermodynamics". Note that it is problematic to use the word "fix" regarding climate change, as returning the climate to its pre-industrial state currently appears to be feasible only over a timeframe of thousands of years. Current efforts are instead aimed at mitigating (meaning limiting) climate change. Mitigation is strived for through the combination of many different things. See Climate change mitigation for details.

References

^ ^a ^b Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
^ ^a ^b "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
^ Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help)
^ Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007.
^ Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.
^ The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.
^ "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
^ Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
^ The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.
^ "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.^{[dead link‍]}
^ Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.
^ Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.
^ Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.
^ Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org.
^ Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
^ Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
^ Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes.
^ Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN.
^ "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011.
^ Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 28, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
May 17, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 4, 2007	Featured article review	Kept

Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Weather Top‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Environment: Climate change Top‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Arctic High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Globalization High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service.
Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Wikipedia". The Denver Post.
Lawrence Solomon (July 8, 2008). "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". CBS News.
"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96

/Terminology section /General discussion

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

References

Human-caused: more than half, 110%, or 160%?

I can't find the relevant discussions now, but I know that this has been brought up here fairly recently. AR5 says, "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST," which, while undeniably true, is extremely weak. This mainstream news article tackles the very issue head-on, and cites relevant studies. It turns out that human greenhouse gases are responsible for 160% of the observed rise in surface temperatures 1951 - 2010, but other human factors such as smog result in -50%, leaving a human contribution of 110%, with relatively small error bars. The 10% is probably in the deep ocean waiting for the next major El Nino event to bring it to the surface. The linked article is fairly explicit about Judith Curry's views too, which might be of interest to those on the List of scientists... article. --Nigelj (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's allow that what we observe is limited to what has already occurred and that many future "tipping points" we can't see yet have already been triggered. We see cities flooding now in Miami, Norfolk, VA and even New York. Sea levels are rising because of the warming increasing the coefficient of expansion of the oceans as well as melting the polar ice caps. The warming is exponential. FEMA and the EPA have been warning us since 1985 that more than 100 East and Gulf coast cities with populations over 100,000 will be flooded 2 feet by 2050 and 4 to 6 feet by 2100. That's supported by the last IPCC report. Already we see methane releases, glaciers the size of Manhattan collapsing, lobsters leaving the Gulf of Maine, die offs of the plankton that produce oxygen that threaten a sixth global extinction event, but what we don't do is connect all the dots so we can see the synergy and the effect of burning carbon. If we stopped burning carbon right now and made carbon dealing a capital offense on account of it being responsible for threatening the lives of billions of people, what we have already done would continue tipping the tipping points, releasing the methane, adding to the species extinctions for another three or four centuries.142.0.102.78 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I get it. From 1951 to 2010 the observed surface temperatures rose N degrees. So N is 100% of the rise in observed surface temperatures during that period. If human greenhouse gasses caused 160% of N, then they caused 60% more of the rise in observed surface temperatures than were observed, which would be a contradiction, since 160 ≠ 100, unless there was more of a rise in observed surface temperatures than were observed, which means we're not talking about observed surface temperatures after all, but observed plus unobserved potential surface temperatures, right? Now I can see where the greenhouse gasses can be identified as the cause of 100% of the actually observed rise in the surface temperature (N), and that means greenhouse gasses must be the cause of the additional unobserved potential 60% portion of the rise. Then the non-greenhouse-gas(?) human factors of smog etc. subtract 50 percentage points from the unobserved potential greenhouse-gas-caused rise in surface temperatures leaving a net human contribution to the observed plus unobserved potential rise in surface temperatures of 110%. The remaining 10 percentage points of the unobserved potential rise in surface temperatures is probably in the deep ocean, but not hidden due to human causes, meaning that the human contribution to the rise in surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010 is 100% of the observed plus 10% more unobserved potential rise. But since N is a fixed constant equal to 100% of itself, there can be no such thing as 160% of the rise in OBSERVED surface temperatures, right? —Blanchette (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion reminds me of the expression “giving 110% effort”. All one can give is 100%. Think pie chart - a pie chart showing the maximum percentage is all one color and is 100%. This is fourth grade math.--CSvBibra (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cited article says its 100%, but points out that while the man made warming would be 160% of what we see now, its offset to some extent, perhaps as much as 60%, by heat sinks like the ocean and the polar ice that are cooling things down temporarily at the expense of their warming up. As they continue to heat up we loose those checks and balances. That's part of what makes the process exponential, the other part is things like methane releases. Where we are the ones heating things up to the point where methane clathrates melt and release methane which is 25 times as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2 we need to consider that a human caused effect as well.142.0.102.78 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mis-read it, N. After quoting the IPCC text you reference, the source says

It’s not just “more than half,” it’s also most likely close to 100%. In fact it’s just as likely that humans are responsible for about 160% of the global surface warming since 1950 as it is that we’re only responsible for 50%.

That's a rhetorical way of saying our text "more than half" is nonsense. Which it is, but we still have to follow the sources, and IPCC said what it said. If there is an agreeable consensus statement to substitute, let's talk about it. Though as you may have noticed I have greatly curtailed my wiki time. As a side note, although I respect those authors immensely, their column in the Guardian is billed as a blog. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an argument I'm interested in 'winning' at this stage (as NEAG is quite right about the IPCC text, reliable sources etc), but I do like clarity: It is perfectly possible for a contribution to something to equal more than 100% of the final something. Suppose your bank account balance has risen by $1000 during the past year. There is no reason why I couldn't have given you $1600 during the year (160% of the final increase). Maybe you gave me $500 back at various times. If nothing else was going on, that would have left you with $1100, so maybe you have a standing order for $8.33 a month to someone else set up somewhere? The article also says, "The curve is centered at about 110% – the most likely value for the human contribution to global warming."--Nigelj (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point! I think best we'll manage in the lead of this top level article is to retain the IPCC's "most" language. Are you happy with the way the body of the article discusses this? How about at Attribution of global warming? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My amateur interpretation is that this deals with ranges of uncertainty, taking as a basis for discussion AR5 Chapter 10 pp. 883– 884. "Over the 1951–2010 period, the observed GMST increased by approximately 0.6°C." The best assessment is that forcings from increases in greenhouse gas likely contributed an increase 0.5°C to 1.3°C, other anthropogenic forcings likely contributed –0.6°C to 0.1°C. In December 2013 the same (news)blog authors argued that overall human forcings balanced out at approximately 0.6°C, and the IPCC text supported approximately 100% contribution. In this more recent post, they cite Gavin Schmidt's reading of Figure 10.5 which clearly shows the central estimate of net human caused effect exceeding the measured effect: "Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%." In other words, the average estimate of net human caused forcing is around 110% of the measured increase, it's extremely likely that human forcings were in the 80–130% range of the measured amount. Any variation from 100% would then be balanced by natural forcings or internal variability, each of which was estimated at –0.1°C to 0.1°C. From which, the IPCC summary on p. 869 looks rather understated: "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010." . . dave souza, talk 14:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the use of percentages greater than 100% is a mistake. I understand the point being made, but think the usage lacks clarity. If the warming plus cooling from all sources is (say) 4 degrees, and that warming plus cooling from human causes is 3 degrees, then it is clearer to say that 75% of the warming is from human causes. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we yet have a suggestion for an article tweak? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

standard WP:FORUM and wiki and wiki ed bashing, devoid of RS based article improvement ideas contrary to WP:TPG Click 'show' to read anyway

This article says the earth is warming, and yet I keep reading scientific reports that it is not. http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/518497/Exclusive-interview-with-Dr-Benny-Peiser

Why is Global Warming "settled?" Is Wikipedia setting itself up to be embarrassed, similar to how the Catholic Church preached the sun revolved around the earth and then looked like fools later? Why are wikipedia articles on theories written in such a way to make it seem utterly factual and that any deviance from the "settled science" is an exercise in futility conducted by fools? I think Wikipedia, in general, is on dangerous footing when it presents theories without credible opposition, and does so in a manner that implies dissension as foolish. If a theory is subsequently proven false, it will permanently damage the scientific credibility of Wikipedia. Maybe wisdom and prudence here would be to allow more debate on this theory than make things appear as settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.233.134 (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read the section above, titled "This article is not NPOV." I don't think anybody is interested in rehashing that stuff. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to rehash anything (honestly), I just posted a link to an article that just came out. My concern is a philosophical one in general, that scientific articles on Wikipedia seem to take advocacy and agenda driven positions. I'm not countering global warming, I'm not a "denier", I am just a passive reader...a student, if you will, giving objective feedback. Wikipedia says that the earth is "unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely"..notice the word "unequivocally" to imply basically that anyone who says otherwise is an idiot (forgive for lack of a better term, but that is precisely the implication). Basically, Wikipedia looks to be engaged in activism, in that this is "settled science". But this is an extremely dangerous game Wikipedia is playing. If the earth turns out NOT to be warming, guess who will look like the fool? To me, I see an agenda when I read Wikipedia scientific articles that very often minimize room for dissension, and I wish Wikipedia would not do that. I think articles on scientific theory should always allow rational room for dissension. I wish I could read dispassionate, objective presentations, but instead what I read are activist driven, agenda-driven 'science' with condescending implications against dissension. Dissension is a cornerstone of the advancement of science throughout history. And i see very little room here on WIkipedia for credible dissension. And I believe this is dangerous. I'm sorry if I am rehashing, but this is how I see it, and I am just another web reader. Maybe if you hear a similar complaint "often enough" it might start making a cumulative case, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.233.134 (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I sounded like I was making assumptions, I apologize. What I meant was, people who participated in the previous (similar) discussion probably don't want to repeat those arguments. I would still recommend you read that discussion, and I really don't want to get into detail here; in brief, consensus among editors at this point is that covering the "controversy," as it were, would be giving it undue weight. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, the tried and true Wikipedia method of silencing opposition...the ole' "Undue Weight" crutch. This is how you do it here on Wikipedia. You first determine, objectively, that your "settled science" has X amount of weight (as if you are qualified to make that to begin with since you are not an objective being) and then you decide empirically that all other possible dissensions are not "worthy" of the greatness of the original theory, hence they cannot be mentioned due to "Undue Weight". Imagine how many scientists throughout history would have never made a single discovery if they allowed a mob of college kids (mostly white males) to deny them rational dissension because of "Undue Weight". There IS valid counter theory to manmade global warming, I'm not saying it's true, but it is valid, whether or not you want to give it "weight", is irrelevant and has no bearing on objective truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.105.151 (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed "scientific report" linked in the OP's first post is nothing of the kind. It's a shallow, populist grab bag of non-science from all over the place. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. For real scientific reports, read our cited references, and especially see the quoted text from US National Academy of Science.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, tabloids like the Daily Express are not reliable sources for anything, and in particular not for science issues. On the other hand, they thrive on fights, real or imagined. Benny Peiser is an anthropologist, not a climate scientist. Organisations that like to claim "unsettled science" or want headlines like to claim promote such people as "experts" when really their expertise is in other fields (if anywhere). Take a look at Peiser's publications (many of which are only edited, or published in low-quality pseudo-journals like Energy & Environment, which he also co-edited). How much do you find there that pertains to the physical processes of climate change? On the other hand, the IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, and even the Royal Society have put real and extensive expertise to the topic, and have published clear and highly regarded positions that show that yes, global warming is definitely happening, and much of it is anthropogenic with a degree of certainty that "withholding provisional consent would be perverse" (to use Stephen J. Gould's definition of "scientific fact"). Wikipedia dispassionately follows the expert opinion on scientific topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the responses to arguments and FAQs are more those of an advocate than an independent arbiter. As a control engineer I would view the increases leading up to the turn of the century as two lagged step responses, rather than the start of the exponential runaway heralded by the IPCC. Time series analysis would certainly not indicate that the following plateau would follow the escalating atmospheric content of carbon dioxide. Phrases such as "hottest decade in history" are emotionally biased, while not actually claiming the a further increase will occur. The significant point of the whole argument is not whether human activity has caused a change, but whether continuing the activity will exacerbate such change. It is incontrovertible that fuel emissions have caused the atmospheric increase in CO2, the tonnage burned accounting for around double the increase. Two points are debatable. The first is whether the increase can in fact be stemmed, when developing nations are escalating their burning much faster than be compensated for by economic sacrifice in the rest. The second, more important, is the extent to which further CO2 increases will actually cause warming. In contrast to the early activist propaganda that a 'layer' of CO2 was 'reflecting' radiation back to the surface, it is becoming realised that the effect is entirely due to the 'colouring' of the atmosphere. This means that while some radiation can pass directly to space, wavelengths in the 'coloured bands' can only reach space from higher altitudes, where temperatures are much lower due to the thermodynamic lapse rate. Heat must travel to those altitudes by convection or by diffusion, being repeatedly absorbed and reradiated. Radiation spectra exist from as early as 1970. In the ensuing years many such spectra have been measured but do not seem to have been published. By correlating these spectra against the substantial increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the ensuing years an objective assessment could be made, independent of speculation and modelling. 58.178.51.244 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please concisely restate any RS-based article improvement suggestions contained in this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be very bad for Wikipedia (but not for me, I will relish the day actually), and highly embarrassing for Wikipedia and it's authors when Science ultimately trumps political dogma. I firmly believe there is a strong political motive to "imposing" man made global warming as "settled science" by a lot of the young, mostly white male authors on Wikipedia (who are left leaning, by the way). Unfortunately, science cares not for the subjective whims of human beings, even if there are a lot of them that share the same political motive. Eventually, Wikipedia will look foolish because it did not allow deviance and presented theory as if it was factual, violating one of the fundamental principles of sound science: debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.105.151 (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for "debate" when scientific facts scream at you and show you what is true and what is now. There is no need to "debate" with teenagers reading articles in Daily Mail and using one of many silly arguments "proving" that global warming isn't real based on their lack of understanding of basic scientific data. We don't need debate with people who still think that the Earth is flat, nor do wee need to debate with people who deny holocaust or the Moon landing. If there is a reliable, undeniable source of information that would question global warming, it will definitely appear in this article. Until then, fringe theories and manipulated arguments will not be accepted. Wikipedia will not be bullied by some stupid arguments (you will be embarassed!!1) to include nonsensical theories backed up by conspiracy theory blogs and tabloids. BeŻet (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy section

There's some introductory text in global warming#Proposed policy responses to global warming that I think should be revised:

[...] These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions

The text on weighing the costs and benefits of policies is biased. The UNFCCC does not define the problem of climate change in terms of cost-benefit analysis, and economics is not the only way of interpreting this issue [1]. The second sentence is unnecessary because the distribution of impacts is already covered in global warming#Observed and expected environmental effects and global warming#Observed and expected effects on social systems.

Enescot (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for paying attention, E. Agree 2nd sentence should get the axe. The first sentence is subject to more than one interpretation. If you read with the assumption that "benefits" and "costs" is necessarily about economics (especially in a monetary sense) then of course I agree with you. It is equally valid to read those words to include intangibles like "Justice, equity and responsibility" (quoted from TOC of link you posted). How would you suggest fixing the first sentence's ambiguity? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it would be better to simply delete the entire paragraph, i.e.,:

There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should be.^[1] These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions.^[2]

Global warming#Discourse about global warming covers these issues, and I don't see why they need to be discussed here as well. Enescot (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused about what you suggest keeping/deleting. How about replacing this comment and your prior comment with a restatement, using strikeout so we stay in synch? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remove this paragraph:

There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should be.^[3] These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions.^[4]

Enescot (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Thanks for the handholding until I "got it"

(B) I agree to delete that; it does very little for us here

(C) Ccan you point to where we are currently elaborating on the equities mentioned in the first sentence and RS?

(D) Besides deleting that text, I also propose to change the section heading. Mitigation/Adaptation are described in an AR4 SYNTH highlighted bullet item as "options" rather than "policy options". The broader term "policy options" includes things like rate of deployment, who does what when, who pays, and how the equitities are balanced. That's important stuff, but I think the goal of this section is to report on the tools available in the toolbox, which stops short of decisions on what to build ("policy") with those tools. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(C), global warming#Discourse about global warming does mention fairness and equity issues as agreed internationally by parties to the UNFCCC. The section should be revised and updated some time.

(D) I agree with your suggested change.

Enescot (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Security

The Pentagon made a statement that global warming poses immediate risk to US national security. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

This edit request to Global warming has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This sentence: "Without the Earth's atmosphere, the temperature across almost the entire surface of the Earth would be below freezing." under greenhouse gasses is not supported by the citation, or the citations of the citation. All citations say is that the average temperature of earth would be below freezing. It could be true that the nearly the entire surface of the Earth would be below freezing, but that's not supported by the citations. Therefore to accurately reflect the citation the sentence should read something like: "Without the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's average temperature would be well below the freezing temperature of water."^[5]^[6] Also, the citation would be better off using the sources of the national geographic article instead of the article itself. I included them as references for my proposed change.

Cicero agricola (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Banuri, et al., Chapter 3: Equity and Social Considerations, Section 3.1.2: Concepts of equity, p. 85 et seq. in IPCC SAR WG3 1996.
^ Banuri, et al., Chapter 3: Equity and Social Considerations, Section ??, p. 83, in IPCC SAR WG3 1996.
^ Banuri, et al., Chapter 3: Equity and Social Considerations, Section 3.1.2: Concepts of equity, p. 85 et seq. in IPCC SAR WG3 1996.
^ Banuri, et al., Chapter 3: Equity and Social Considerations, Section ??, p. 83, in IPCC SAR WG3 1996.
^ http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatgreenhouse.pdf
^ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

Mitigation section

I think that Global warming#Mitigation should be revised. In my opinion, the mitigation section is fairly good at present, but I think that there is some unnecessary overlap with Global warming#Political discussion. The mitigation section discusses low GHG stabilization targets, while the politics section discusses limiting global warming to 2 degrees C. I think that these two topics are similar and should be collated in one section. Enescot (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

This edit request to Global warming has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replacing oil! 1 December 2014 http://jonsthings.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/replacing-oil.html Burning oil does molecular nuclear fusion: 1 CmHn+pO2+T->n/2He+mCO2+L+Xray+E12 p=m L= light 2 CmHn+pO2->n/2H2O+mCO2-E2 There is no chemical source of either helium, visible light or X rays. We also note that oxidising carbon fuels takes in energy. There is a more efficient way he to do molecular nuclear fusion. Fire up a steam plasma 3 H2O+T->He+O+L+Xray+E23 T= turbulence More about this later! In the present boil cycle, the amount of molecular nuclear fusion we do give her arms on local turbulence and carefully structures. Injecting the combustion products in a turbulent fashion, increases the energy output of the system. Titanium plating the boiler plate and Nimonic turbine blades we use doubles the power output of the system. During the annual shutdown, and applying a fake titanium plate will halve at oil or gas burn. To produce the same power outputs. So as taught to me at Sheffield University in 1983. Nuclear power this in dread of somebody noticing a conventionally five power station already does nuclear fusion. I was taught this, and my metallurgy master’s degree! Nice, simple and quick to applied. To be honest evaluating a steam plasma tube is the weekend’s work. We take a 1mx2cm glass tube, and an external source of steam. Like a paint stripper. We charge to the tumour up to two atmospheres. Then we strike up the steam plasma. We do get nuclear fusion: 4 2H++T ->He2++E24 E4= nearly the relativistic conversion of a whole hydrogen ion. We also get the more energetic hydrogen fission 5 H++e- ->n0 6 H++r n0->E25+L+Xray We also see the weekly exothermic fission of oxygen ions. And later, the fissioning of helium ions 7 16O2-+s n0->16H++18e-+E6 A hydrogen plasma is 20 times as exothermic. There will melt all the engineering plant we years! We prefer a steam plasma. Lightning demonstrates a 2m steam plasma will liberate a constant 11.6 MW. A running a steam engine only produces 2.4 MW per fire tube, as a combustion products pass through the tubes. They are still reach a service engineer 3000° C. And do not melt choose the presence of liquid water around them. The service of a lightning bolt reaches 10,000,000° C, as it does molecular nuclear fusion! Faithfully that is very localised heat. So people have survived being struck by a lightening down strike. 10x2m steam plasma tubes will happily run 100 MW power station continuously. From regular water. None of the endothermic oxidation of overpriced fossil fuels. A steam plasma tube looks to be eight times as exothermic as hyper toxic uranium fission tube. And generates no toxic radioactive waste. Fission tubes are 24 times as exothermic as fossil fuel burning. So a steam plasma tube is 192 times as exothermic as a 2m row of gas or oil burners. We need to submerge only 10 such tubes in a water boiler, to replace the burning of all fossil fuels. Ideally done during the annual shutdown. When there station fires up again, it will consume a minuscule trace of regular water. And burn no fossil fuels! So producing no carbon dioxide. But the extra 0.0004% carbon dioxide emitted by every day and by burning the fossil fuels, has just served to increase plant and animal life on earth. There is still a preindustrial two parts per million carbon dioxide in the global air. By 12.10pm every afternoon, we are back in to only 2ppm carbon dioxide in the global air. Photosynthesis is a major life support system on land and seas. Man is cities and towns are too minuscule an area to have any global significance at all. Nature has not even noticed that mankind has evolved. The dinosaurs had the earth for 650 million years. Mankind from he is the earliest hominids, has only been on earth for 5000! A static trace gas affects nothing. Which is why all science work on man made global warming stopped 2003. Hopefully nobody ever thought up manmade climate change was her thing other than biological nonsense from nuclear power! For the educated reporters are still writing copy on man made climate change. They need to go and get our high school education! Carbon dioxide levels are static. But now we can do nuclear fusion of hydrogen fission on earth. Direct access to the Energy System of the universe. Stars shine tutor hydrogen fission! The nuclear fusion only produces the heavier atomic masses endothermically. And this science was all worked out at the start of the industrial revolution. When mankind first use the steam cycle to generate electricity. He has stumbles across molecular nuclear fusion. Hydrogen fission is a more energetic and cleaner Energy System. It produces non other hyper toxic radioactive waste of uranium fission. It uses regular water. All the hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of it. Hydrogen fission produces no solid waste at all! The cleanest energy there is. My thanks to the PH D supervisor at Sheffield University who are medically started we are researching molecular nuclear fusion. In 2001. He ended my PH D, as he realise I could totally fix the phantom science of man made global warming. Hydrogen fission is a better Energy System.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

This user has to be a SOCK puppet for scibaby-none of that is related or even close to global warming much less science. Someone please bann this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armchairphysicist (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

78.144.150.28 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources - Not a blog - to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article With a Lead Like this?

I will not --at this instance --go into detail, but raise your hand if you think this lead failed WP:LEAD. Does a LEAD need to contain statements from reports? Does it need detailed stats about every year? I would be shocked if someone disagreed.--Inayity (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. Earlier this year there was a ton of discussion on the lead, and we worked hard and long on the first paragraph. I think consensus was reached. While anyone could have posted it at that point, I had sort of taken on a self-appointed clerical role and the reason I never posted it either is that I was hoping/intending we'd keep working on paragraph 2. But then I got busy, and I guess everyone else did too. The consensus draft for the first paragraph was posted to the article by me today in this edit. The final thread in the series of discussion (with pointers to the earlier installments) is archived at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70#Proposed new paragraph 1 (NAEG Ver 6). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wild read but is all of this detail needed? Is this a summary by any definition?:Possible responses to global warming include mitigation by emissions reduction, adaptation to its effects, building systems resilient to its effects, and possible future climate engineering. Most countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[17] whose ultimate objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change.[18] Parties to the UNFCCC have adopted a range of policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[19][20][21][22] and to assist in adaptation to global warming.[19][22][23][24] Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required,[25] and that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) relative to the pre-industrial level.[25][c] Reports published in 2011 by the United Nations Environment Programme[27] and the International Energy Agency[28] suggest that efforts as of the early 21st century to reduce emissions may be inadequate to meet the UNFCCC's 2 °C target.--Inayity (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bold is hard to read, and the brevity obfuscates whatever proposal you have in mind but have not stated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clunky text: In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) of the relevant scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that For the lead it is enough to be brief and say Scientist say BTW I have copy and pasted this into a readability checker do you want to know the results? DIY and see. --Inayity (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Journal or Encyclopedic entry?

On a related matter, I am not sure editors here realize references are not needed to this extent in a properly written lead WP:LEADCITE, because the lead is supposed to be a mirror of the article which contains the necessary references. When you have 3 and 4 references in a bulky verbose lead it does not help people read it. So just like someone said they cannot read bold text, very few can read the lead and get a summary of the issues, it reads like a scientific convention paper, not an encyclopedic entry.--Inayity (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you cited, WP:LEADCITE, says in part "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." You're new here, right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use Newness as some kind of defense for this nonsense let me give you a headsup, do not bother with it. I did not reply to your other comment b.c i found them of no use to this discussion. So, NO I am not new HERE, where Here is Wikipedia. And WP:LEAD is something I know a Great deal about! Case by case, where is the editorial consensus for the excessive laborious references? Why not at 10 more just to make the point? ref are more needed around CONTROVERSIAL disputable material. Can you review the LEAD by reading it and tell me is all of that information controversial? --Inayity (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess this is either complex, or controversial, is that why it needs 4 ref? Parties to the UNFCCC have adopted a range of policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[19][20][21][22] --Inayity (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option A - Thump and holler

Option B - Work to restart the process

started at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70#Lead_too_long
continued at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_71#"unequivocal?"
continued at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70#Proposed new paragraph 1 (NAEG Ver 6)

Which will more effectively yield results while complying with WP:ARBCC#Principles?

There are several ideas in those threads with more substance than generalized indictment.

One thing you will find in those threads is a broad agreement that the lead has accumulated a lot of stuff since FA status was granted, and everyone who spoke agreed it needs work. And we did a ton of work and got thru paragraph 1. How about drafting a proposed second paragraph and posting it here? Or you can insult this bit of the remaining accumulation and that bit of the remaining accumulation, but that doesn't seem very effective to me. Your mileage may vary. As for your specific example of accumulated stuff, no I don't suppose that needs 4 refs.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the details (sorry) but I agree that part / most of the reason for the ridiculous numbers of citations in the lede was to beat back the bozos. If the bozos are gone, then the cites can and should be pruned William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On an even more contentious topic we ended up with grouping cites together to avoid the [3][4][5][6][7] effect, best to prune cites to a couple while making sure that useful cites are used somewhere in the body text rather than cluttering up the lead. . dave souza, talk 12:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you, but go further to agree with Inayity - before worrying about lead cites maybe we should work more on the lead text? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, assuming that "bozos" don't read much, a somewhat shorter lead might be more effective. Just saying, Grandma (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commonspeech and terms Global warming and Climate change in first sentence

Agree with both, we could try working without cites or perhaps best put drafts in a talk page section. For starters, why "Global warming and climate change are both used to refer the..."? Suggest "Global warming is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, the current climate change with its related effects." . . . dave souza, talk 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I agree. In my recent change of this sentence I was just trying to accommodate a seeming wish to have climate change in there. If it was taken out, and yet somehow linked via a footnote or something, then that would, in my opinion, be even better. Grandma (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that the use of the term climate change already appears in the italic preamble. Noting that, can we just take it out of the first sentence proper? Grandma (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave, oppposed to dropping the COMMONSPEECH use of "climate change" in sentence 1 for reasons stated in the three archived threads and abundant additional archived debate elsewhere over the scope of this article viz-a-viz should we gut this article to focus in laser beam fashion on the narrow TECHSPEAK meaning of the term (rising global surface temps), and purge all discussion of greenhouse gas, policy, feedbacks, social impacts.... The consensus, of which I thought you were a supporting part, was to keep the article scope as it has always been and to add the COMMONSPEECH equivalent terms in the opening sentence. Did I not understand your prior views, Dave? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood, we should live with it (given everything else). Grandma (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope lives! Thanks, I look forward to cleaning up the rest of the lead together. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My aim was to cover that at the end of the sentence, see below for a possible way of bringing it forward without getting into "also known as" stuff. . dave souza, talk 16:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better check and make sure what the motivations are behind this sudden effort to wish to alter the lede.--MONGO 15:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, we are here discussing content, not motivation. Thank you, Grandma (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mongo, if you are unhappy with something specific, or if you can suggest a specific improvement, then please say it. Again, thank you, Grandma (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...I disagree with all your edits so far...that's specific. While the lede is longish and has changed a fair bit since this article achieved FA, the subject matter does deserve expansion and in this case cites in the lede due to the subject matter.--MONGO 16:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be helpful, please say why you disagree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"observed century scale" vs "current long term"

Here's a small difference of opinion; I'm your Grandma wants to say that GW refers

to the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects.

And I want to say it refers

to the current long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects

The reasons I'm your Grandma prefers her version are perfectly valid. Her edit summary says "observed" because global warming is not just an inference, "century-scale" as opposed to paleo changes. Although both are true, in my view attempting to convey that level of technical nuance in the opening sentence (A) expects too much and (B) puts 10th graders on the defensive with technical speak right off the bat. So I prefer "current long term" because its is simpler language for the lead.
What do others think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC) I'd like to say[reply]

Century scale is incoherent gibberish....your option is the better of two bad ones.--MONGO 16:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lotsa my writing can be described like that (hopefully more like the latter than the former!) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this and the above point together, how about "Global warming is the climate change observed over a century of continuing rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects." This highlights climate change as being the same thing over the current 1,000 year period. . . dave souza, talk 16:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Grandma (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Global warming is the climate change currently underway as a result of Earth's positive radiation balance. It began over a century ago and is documented by multiple lines of scientific evidence ~~show that the climate system is warming~~.[2][3]"

Now, NewsGuy, don't take it personally, but I prefer Dave's proposed sentence. Still, the positive radiation page should of be linked somehow, if not already done. Things are progressing! Grandma (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave and others...

Reasoning; Here's why I think some tweaks to Dave's suggestion would improve it

we can drop "and its related effects" because that is redundant with "climate change" in this phrasing.
plus Dave's text is susceptible to the mis-reading that we were definitely observing the rise in 1920s, 1930s, 1940s.... whereas there was some uncertainty whether it was headed up or down back then. Today we have lots of proxie records to back up the instrumental record, but most of them weren't being "observed" for over a century.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NewsGuy, my apologies, I was just out for a walk, thinking, and realizing that I didn't explain myself. We all tend to focus on slightly different issues, don't we? (1) One thing I'm reacting to is the use of the expression "currently underway". I would have similar concerns about the word "presently". Why? Well, because we have climate-change deniers that confuse a trend occurring over many decades or a century (or more) with more rapid fluctuations. Indeed, some deniers claim that the recent seeming "pause" means we aren't having any more global warming. Some people even seem to think that a low temperature in some part of the world means we aren't having any more global warming. We need to avoid such confusion in the lead, so that is why I'm not in favor of "currently" or "presently" or similar. So that is one point. (2) Also, I think the mention of "related effects" needs to be in this thesis sentence because this page (and even the last couple paragraphs in the lead) discuss related effects. Whether or not all those "related" issues should be there is another subject, but as long as they are, then I guess I favor some foreshadowing in the thesis sentence. (3) I still like the word "observed" because it summarizes the factual nature of global warming. It is observed, not inferred, and while its cause is something that might be discussed (multiple causes, but mankind is THE major player), the fact remains, we have had real global warming. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Now I have to go eat some oatmeal, Grandma (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Powell2019-1] Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.

[WMO-FAQS-2] "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.

[3] Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help)

[4] Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[5] Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[6] Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[7] Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[8] "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007.

[9] Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.

[10] The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.

[11] "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.

[12] Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017.

[13] The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.

[14] "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.^{[dead link‍]}

[15] Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.

[16] Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.

[17] Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.

[18] Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org.

[19] Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.

[20] Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.

[21] Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[22] Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[23] Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[24] Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[25] Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[26] Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes.

[27] Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN.

[28] "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011.

[29] Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

[30] Banuri, et al., Chapter 3: Equity and Social Considerations, Section 3.1.2: Concepts of equity, p. 85 et seq. in IPCC SAR WG3 1996.

[31] Banuri, et al., Chapter 3: Equity and Social Considerations, Section ??, p. 83, in IPCC SAR WG3 1996.

[32] Banuri, et al., Chapter 3: Equity and Social Considerations, Section 3.1.2: Concepts of equity, p. 85 et seq. in IPCC SAR WG3 1996.

[33] Banuri, et al., Chapter 3: Equity and Social Considerations, Section ??, p. 83, in IPCC SAR WG3 1996.

[34] ttp://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatgreenhouse.pdf

[35] ttp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]