Talk:Global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Global warming 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. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

Global warming 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 is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

WikiProject Meteorology

(Rated FA-class, Top-importance)

Weather portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology 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.

FA

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Environment / Climate change

(Rated FA-class)

Environment portal

This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject 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.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

FA

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article is supported by the Climate change task force.

WikiProject Geology

(Rated FA-class, High-importance)

Earth sciences portal

Global warming is part 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.

FA

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Arctic

(Rated FA-class, High-importance)

Arctic portal

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.

FA

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Additional information:

	This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
	This article is a vital article.
	This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.

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. http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/20601.
Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Wikipedia". The Denver Post. http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5786064.
Lawrence Solomon (July 8, 2008). "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml.

This is not a forum for general discussion of Global warming. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Global warming at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

Discussions 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 (FAQ)

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?

A1: 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 97% of publishing climate scientists.^[1]

Q2: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of skeptical scientists?

A2: Over the years, a number of lists of so-called "skeptical scientists" have been produced. Notable among these are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999-2001, and re-circulated in 2007) and James Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws^[2] To wit:

Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign.
Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell") and companies.
Of those who have a scientific background most work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry of coal ashes^[3] or the interactions between quarks and gluons.
Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and includes people who say they aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One of those on the list, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored.^[4] Similarly, Steve Rayner of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous".^[5] The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list.

Q3: Did global warming end in 1998?

A3: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature. Choosing this abnormally warm year as the starting point for comparisons with later years produces a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produces a warming trend.

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. 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out.^[6]

In a BBC interview on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones agreed that from 1995 to 2009, the global warming "trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level", though close.^[7] This has been misleadingly reported by some news sources.^[8] On 10 June 2011 Jones told the BBC that the trend over the period 1995 to 2010 had reached the 95% significance level traditionally used as a threshold by statisticians.^[9]

While HadCRU reported an extreme peak in global temperature in 1998, the GISS and NCDC estimates showed a lower peak in 1998, and more subsequent warming.^[10] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record for the globe, with 2005 the warmest year.^[11]

Q4: How can we say global warming is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place?

A4: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(region X) 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)."^[12]

Q5: Can't the increase of CO₂ be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans?

A5: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics,^[13]^[14]^[15] including academically-trained ones,^[16]^[17] 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.^[18] 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.^[19]
Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.^[20]
If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, we would expect their carbon dioxide concentration to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or more accurately, less basic).^[21]

Q6: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?

A6: 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.

Q7: Why haven't the graphs been updated?

A7: 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 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.^[22] Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import.

Q8: Isn't global warming "just a theory"?

A8: That the temperature is rising is an observation (more specifically, the summary of many observations). The explanation for this observation is a scientific theory. This is different from the common use of "theory" to mean a guess or supposition. A scientific theory is a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with the known observations, that allows predictions to be made, and that has a number of other properties (see the above linked article). A theory that makes verifiable predictions that turn out to be correct gains credibility. Strictly speaking, science does not prove anything. A theory is the best it can provide.

Q9: Does methane cause more warming than CO₂?

A9: 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 (on the order of 100 years). So methane tracks current emissions, while CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles.

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

A10: Greenland was not significantly warmer during the period of Norse settlement. While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice shelf, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. Please see the following images for reference:

A map of the Eastern Settlement [1]
A satellite image of that area today [2]
A map of the Western Settlement [3]
A satellite image of that area today [4]
A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlid and Gardar farms were located [5]
A zoom in on the general area of the Sandnes farm [6]
Ruins:
- Photos of the Gardar ruins: [7] [8]
- The Brattahlid ruins [9][10]
- Hvalsey church: [11]

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 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 a number of different 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.^[23] Claims that global sea ice has stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two datapoints to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice.

See also: Arctic shrinkage

Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that we were 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.^[24] The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press. (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.)

Q14: Doesn't water vapor 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. Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases therefore will increase the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, amplifying the greenhouse effect. This is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, while water vapour does not act as driver of climate change, it does amplify existing trends.

See also: Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect

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.^[25] 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."^[26]
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.^[27]^[28] 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.^[29]^[30]
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.^[31] 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 our warmest summer temperatures occur a month or two after the longest day of the year). 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 global warming 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 direct expenses.
Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, but only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
In the U.S., global warming was seen as a politically sensitive topic under the Bush administration, which discouraged scientists from working on the topic.^[32]
It could also be argued that more money lies in examining the policy debate on global warming.^[33]^[34]

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

A17: Yes, climate varies both with and without humans. But the fact that natural variations occur doesn't mean that human-induced changes can't also occur and vice versa.

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

A18: This page is about the science of global warming. 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, 6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.3 degrees Celsius) important?

A19: The nearest concept that is relevant is that there are ranges to which species and human society have adapted. Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.3 degrees Celsius) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it produced would flood coastal cities around the world.

Earth 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 absolute temperature, but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate, and the second order-effects to human societies. The IPCC AR4 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change.^[35]

Q20: Why are certain proposals discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is Scibaby?

A20: Scibaby is a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 966 confirmed sock puppets, another 215 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, apparently with the aim of wasting time and/or appearing as the innocent victim of Wikipedia's alleged AGW cabal. 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 many peer-reviewed papers published every month in scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters,^[36] the Journal of Climate^[37] 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 climatology. 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:INFO) of the What Wikipedia is not policy.

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

A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "global warming" has lost most of its generic meaning and is used nearly exclusively to refer to the recent episode, often even directly connected with the greenhouse effect. See e.g. Meriam-Webster, Encarta, OED. Similarly, "global warming" is used nearly exclusively to refer to the current episode in the academic literature.[12]. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. Climate change deals with the more general concept.

Q99: How do I cite the IPCC reports?

A99: See Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/citation.

References

^ Cook, John (11 May 2011). "Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming". Skeptical Science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=734. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
^ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/politics/10morano.html Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign. New York Times, April 9, 2009.
^ Retention of sulphur by laboratory-prepared ash from low-rank coal
^ Today: George WaldenbergerGrist.org. December 3. 2007
^ Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/politics/10morano.html?_r=3&hp. Retrieved 2009-07-09.
^ World Meteorological Organisation: Climate FAQs
^ BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
^ RealClimate: Daily Mangle
^ BBC News - Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
^ {http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/ Global Temperature from GISS, NCDC, HadCRU « Open Mind]
^ State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2009
^ World Meteorological Organisation: Climate FAQs
^ Tom Harris. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. http://blogsw.solidwastemag.com/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Paul Joseph Watson (09 March 2007). "Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax". PrisonPlanet.com. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Benj Arriola. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-not-due-to-manmade-carbon-dioxide.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Dr Jarl Ahlbeck. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Simon Kirby (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". The Herald Sun. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21542331-5005961,00.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Catherine Brahic (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_5/16_1.shtml. Retrieved 2007-09-10.
^ M. Battle, M. L. Bender, P. P. Tans, J. W. C. White, J. T. Ellis, T. Conway, and R. J. Francey (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. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5462/2467.
^ The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ "Met Office:Climate averages". BBC. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
^ "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 08 January 2009. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/cold-hard-facts/. Retrieved 21 January 2009.
^ Peterson, T. C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (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. edit
^ Kate Ravilious (February 28, 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
^ Kate Ravilious (February 28, 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
^ Philip, Marcus S.; et al. (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. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006APS..DFD.FG005M. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
^ Goudarzi, Sara (2006-05-04). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
^ Philip, Marcus S. (2004-04-22). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature 428 (6985): 828-831. http://www.me.berkeley.edu/cfd/people/marcus/nature02470.pdf. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
^ Yang, Sarah (2004-04-21). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
^ J. L. Elliot, A. Ates, B. A. Babcock, A. S. Bosh, M. W. Buie, K. B. Clancy, E. W. Dunham, S. S. Eikenberry, D. T. Hall, S. D. Kern, S. K. Leggett, S. E. Levine, D.-S. Moon, C. B. Olkin, D. J. Osip, J. M. Pasachoff, B. E. Penprase, M. J. Person, S. Qu, J. T. Rayner, L. C. Roberts, Jr, C. V. Salyk, S. P. Souza, R. C. Stone, B. W. Taylor, D. J. Tholen, J. E. Thomas-Osip, D. R. Ticehurst and L. H. Wasserman (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165-168. doi:doi:10.1038/nature01762. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6945/abs/nature01762.html.
^ Paul Harris (21 September 2003). "Bush covers up climate research". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1046388,00.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Juliet Eilperin (05 February 2007). "AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401213.html?sub=AR. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ "Bribes offered to scientists". The Sydney Morning Herald. 03 February 2007. http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/bribes-offered-to-scientists/2007/02/02/1169919530963.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ "The Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report". 2007. http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
^ http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/ Geophysical Research Letters
^ http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-moreinfo&issn=1520-0442 Journal of Climate}

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 /Terminology section /General discussion
Threads older than 21 days may be archived by MiszaBot.

[edit] Category:Climate change

I've restored this category to the article. Although Category:Global warming is also a subcategory of Category:Climate change, I think removing this particular article from the top level cat is probably unwise. Global warming is a very big part of the topic and should be shown at top level rather than diffused.

What does Wikipedia:Categorization guideline (WP:CAT) suggest? The following:

an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category.

The bolding is in the original. --TS 10:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That section of the guideline is largely ignored. In the interests of ease of navigation I removed it to incrementally reduce the clutter in Category:Climate change. Category:Climate change can be easily reached by a reader with one extra click. See also Category talk:Climate change#Reorganised. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Avoiding clutter is fine. If nobody else has any issues I don't object. --TS 23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Runaway Greenhouse: implications for future climate change, geoengineering and planetary atmospheres

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1593

"The Runaway Greenhouse: implications for future climate change, geoengineering and planetary atmospheres

Colin Goldblatt, Andrew J. Watson

(Submitted on 8 Jan 2012)

The ultimate climate emergency is a "runaway greenhouse": a hot and water vapour rich atmosphere limits the emission of thermal radiation to space, causing runaway warming. Warming ceases only once the surface reaches ~1400K and emits radiation in the near-infrared, where water is not a good greenhouse gas. This would evaporate the entire ocean and exterminate all planetary life. Venus experienced a runaway greenhouse in the past, and we expect that Earth will in around 2 billion years as solar luminosity increases. But could we bring on such a catastrophe prematurely, by our current climate-altering activities? Here we review what is known about the runaway greenhouse to answer this question, describing the various limits on outgoing radiation and how climate will evolve between these. The good news is that almost all lines of evidence lead us to believe that is unlikely to be possible, even in principle, to trigger full a runaway greenhouse by addition of non-condensible greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, our understanding of the dynamics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer and cloud physics of hot and steamy atmospheres is weak. We cannot therefore completely rule out the possibility that human actions might cause a transition, if not to full runaway, then at least to a much warmer climate state than the present one. High climate sensitivity might provide a warning. If we, or more likely our remote descendants, are threatened with a runaway greenhouse then geoengineering to reflect sunlight might be life's only hope. ...[2 sentences cut to meet arXiv char limit]... The runaway greenhouse also remains relevant in planetary sciences and astrobiology: as extrasolar planets smaller and nearer to their stars are detected, some will be in a runaway greenhouse state."

Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it that you wish done with this? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

almost all lines of evidence lead us to believe that is unlikely to be possible, even in principle, to trigger full a runaway greenhouse by addition of noncondensible greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere suggests that it is not of immeadiate relevance... William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That statement with a citation to the article (to appear in Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A) could be included here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? Goldblatt and Watson seem to be discussing the unlikelihood of a runaway greenhouse effect where surface temperatures reach 1400K (that's more than 2000 Fahrenheit). This Wikipedia article on "global warming" has nothing to do with such a runaway greenhouse effect and does not discuss it. Therefore, such a statement, cited to that journal article, has no bearing or relevance to this article. Is there something more that is in the article content than you are showing us in this abstract? If not, I also suggest you read FAQ 21. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is important to include the most rigorous analysis about the limits on global warming due to human activities. The reason why this article does not discuss runaway greenhouse effect is because it is believed to be irrelevant, but that is in itself a non-trivial fact about global warming that has to be mentioned in this article. Count Iblis (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The limits are clearly established, including cited numerical values. A runaway greenhouse effect is a different phenomena from global warming. It is outside the established limits of global warming within this article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Solar-cycle-data.png

File:Solar-cycle-data.png, whilst nice, is beginning to show its age - see fig 9 of http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120119_Temperature.pdf for example William M. Connolley (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this clearly shows the same pattern but now having turned the corner at the bottom of the cycle. So someone here has to create a new graph from the data, right? We cannot just pinch that one... --BozMo talk 13:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the mumbojumbo right, the license for the one we have says anyone is free to tweak it. No need to reinvent the wheel, just need to update it. Alas, I'm not a graphics guy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] How come the red line on the temperature chart stopped going up?

[edit] Disliking recent changes

[edit] Beginning of thread

I don't like [13]. "since 1850" is somewhere between wrong and too specific. The attribution to the "national science academies" looks wrong; thats IPCC-ery. I don't know what "by natural geological variability" is supposed to mean; it isn't in the reference added William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

William Conolley you are not making any sense! Please could you explain in more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear. The starting point of recent global warming can't be tied so precisely. The use of a specific year implies that that the scientific community agrees that 1850 is the starting point. If the starting point is roughly correct, then something like "mid-19th century" would be better.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Breakout discussion of time in lead first paragraph

I'd like someone to add some sort of date container here. 1850 is referred to on several pages linked to in the intro, including average temperature and retreat of glaciers, so clearly this article is about some phenomenon more recent than, for instance, the 16th century. That should be made clear. 19th century per suggestion above? Scott Illini (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say the motivation here is to beat off claims that today's warming is just a continuation of warming since the last ice age. Is that why we are talking about this? The time frame is implied by the history of burning fossil fuels. Without being more explicit, I can see how an intentionally tortured reading could suggest ambiguity. But I fail to see how writing to beat off intentionally tortured readings makes the article more accessible to the truly open minded reader. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to be encyclopedic. The opening sentence should define the topic. "Global warming' refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation" does not define the topic. This article does not refer to all warming in all of history. Nor has the Earth's temperature always been rising. Scott Illini (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That sentence is in present tense: "the rising average temperature", i.e. the currently rising, the presently rising (and its projected continuation). You might as well be worrying everyone about the preceding clause - "refers"? Wikipedia articles can change! Do we mean that this version of the article refers to that? Or some past version? Shouldn't we say, "Since 2003, this article has referred to..." I think that's what is meant by a tortured reading. --Nigelj (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the original text is fine. Besides being in present tense, the warming is tied to fossil fuel burning. For those interested in more detail there is an entire section on the temperature record. Does that subsection come up short, in your opinion? Also, there are a lot of other details we could add to the first sentence.... but then that would be a really long sentence. I fail to see how lack of a start date in the lead's first sentence translates into a failure to define the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For what definition of "the present"? This year? This decade? This century? I think we all understand that the answer is "in recent centuries" but that needs to be stated. These articles are supposed to work for naive readers, children, etc. The current description makes it sound like Earth's temperature has forever been monotonically increasing like a cake in an oven. The later references to "more than 90 percent certain most" mean the article is not strictly tied to fossil fuel burning, and regardless, the first sentence of a Wikipedia article always stands on its own, like "The Earth is the third planet from the sun." Scott Illini (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please point (link or specific paragraph number) to whatever policy or guideline says the first sentence has to "always stand on its own". I've seen that phrase with respect to the entire lead, but never to the first sentence of the lead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Convention? I can't find an article that violates it, though if you can that might be a helpful example. But that was my second point. What about my first point? Shouldn't it be made clear whether this article is about 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000, or 10k years? Deforestation began with agriculture, but I don't think this article is meant to refer to warming during all human history since agriculture. Scott Illini (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please forget the lead and look at the rest of the article. What time period do you think the rest of the article talks about (if any)? When answering this question, in particular, please see the temp record subsection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The section you refer to discusses warming only after 1850. The lead should reflect that. I should not need to read the entire article to figure out what period of history the article refers to. If you do not like "in recent centuries" (19th, 20th, 21st), please propose something else. Scott Illini (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"In recent centuries" is ambiguous. Is the 16th or 17th century "recent"? Reasonable minds could differ. The sources do not all all use the same turn of phrase for when "global warming" commenced, which makes it hard for us to pick one turn of phrase over another. Even if there was an unambiguous unanimity among the sources for this temporal detail, is it something that must be in the lead? You say you are trying to be encyclopedic, and I usually interpret that argument to be synonymous with WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT (meaning the argument carries little weight). Getting back to my question, even if there was an unambiguous unanimity among the sources for this temporal detail, is it something that must be in the lead? I assume you agree that it is impossible to put every detail in the lead. IMO, the most important temporal details for the lead are the ones that are there. It is warming now, roughly coincident with increased use of fossil fuels, and the rate of warming has been increasing in recent decades. Further temporal details are available in the main body of the article... In other words, the lead is currently doing just what it is supposed to do, and we lack clear unanimity among the sources for which turn of phrase to use in the lead, assuming we wanted to use any. And you have yet to persuade me at least that it is needed in the lead at all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then we'll go your way. "the currently rising average temperature"? This will reduce the ambiguity to a naive reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Illini (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Except "currently rising" is just as redundant as "currently happening right now this very moment in the present". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Currently" is a one word addition. You claim that it is redundant. I claim that it reduces ambiguity, making more clear that the article does not refer, for instance, to a phenomenon taking place over millennia. I find ambiguity to be a far more meaningful issue than one word of possible redundancy. You seem to object to any attempt to improve the first sentence of this article. I'm going to go ahead and make this edit, and I would ask that you allow some other editor to step in if they find it truly redundant. Scott Illini (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please resist the urge to allege I am claiming ownership. Suggest a genuine improvement and I will be thrilled. I reverted your redundant addition of the word "currently" because it was non-responsive to the issue you previously said is the main problem you have with the sentence, which was, if I understood you correctly, that the 1st sentence of the lead was not - all by itself - telling readers when the warming covered in this article started. Note the tense of that last word "started". Past tense. So according to your prior remarks we needed to add some reference to a past event (i.e., the start of the warming) to the lead's first sentence. I'm unpersuaded that this is true, just pointing out that it is what you said was your main concern. The word "currently" is not about that past event. The sentence is already written in the present tense so adding "currently" does not add any temporal detail. For example, if you will pardon my momentary redundancy, let's talk about the fact that the earth is currently orbiting the sun. Does that mean the orbit started in 1850? The word adds no temporal detail to a sentence written in the present tense. Not right now. Not currently. I reverted because it's redundant and does not address your main issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Scott has a valid point. Many articles have the need for a scope statement, whenever the scope is not obvious. This lede starts with the word “current” but that term can mean many different things in different contexts. The next sentence refers to the last 100 years, possibly imply that is the scope. The main article has several different dates, not of which are explicitly stated as starting points but each of which implicitly hints at the starting point: 1906, 1900, and 1850. It is not unreasonable to expect the term “current” to be defined more carefully, especially given the fact that even a careful reader can find at least three alternatives. Yes, I know that the starting point is not a specific year, but surely the experts has reached a conclusion about an appropriate starting point? And if not, that deserves mention as well.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I never said he did not have a valid point (about start date), only that the solutions he suggested to refine the temporal details would not improve the article, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I understand, and did not manage to come up with a satisfactory solution myself. I hoped someone more familiar with the historical literature might chime in with the accepted description of the start of the warming trend.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Breakout discussion of 'projected continuation'

Which of these is better grammar? "the current trend's projected continuation" or "the rising average temperature's projected continuation"? Reverting. Scott Illini (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither. In the first, addition of the word "current", in the context of the sentence in question, is redundant. In the second, "projected continuation" refers to "temperature" which creates an absurdity. I mean, does the physical trait known as "temperature" ever cease? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence says, "Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation." Neither of the two phrases introduced by Scott Illini (talk · contribs) above are relevant to the lede, which was recently edited on the basis of this discussion. 'Its projected continuation' clearly refers back to 'the rising average temperature'. No problem, no absurdity, nothing to fix. --Nigelj (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict

Consensus here is that "the rising average temperature's projected continuation" is an absurdity. As is "Global warming refers to... its projected continuation". Revert. Scott Illini (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I just reverted Scott's deletion of "and its projected continuation". Upon reflection, I wonder if a hyper grammatical nerd could take issue with the current phrasing? In the following example, does the pronoun "her" refer to the noun "family" in the subject of the sentence, or to the proper noun "Mary" in the first part of the predicate?

In this silly example, 'the family' refers to the red-headed Mary and her children....

I think the answer is that "her" relates to Mary, not "family". Grammatically speaking, the pronoun "her" does not refer to the adjective "red-headed" whatsoever. Looking at our analogous sentence, does the pronoun "its" refer to "global warming" in the sentence subject, or to the noun "temperature" in the sentence predicate, or maybe to "average temperature" (if you view the noun as an open compound word)?) IMO, its "temperature" or "average temperature". There is no reason to think that the pronoun "its" relates in any way to the adjective "rising". And so - lo and behold - I finally agree with Scott about something in this thread. The existing language communicates just fine, I think. But for the hyper grammar nerd, it does appear to be sloppy phrasing. What is the projected continuation of the "average temperature"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the phrase from 500 versions ago

"Global warming is the current rise in the average temperature of Earth's oceans and atmosphere and its projected continuation."

We departed from that phrasing in this edit, and it underwent various efforts at wordsmithing since then. I'm not sure the odyssey was an improvement, and wonder if the phrasing I quoted should be restored? It appears it might resolve this entire thread in all its parts. Pronoun "its" would refer to noun "rise". And it talks about current rise.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

High five for digging that up. I think we are done. Thanks! Scott Illini (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say that you like it, and then wait for others to share their opinions. If you and I engage again in the future, I would ask that you be slower to leap to "consensus" conclusions. If this sticks, then I will thank you for calling out a grammar problem. But I have an open mind and could change my mind with others input, in any, over the next few days. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Breakout discussion of "and NOT natural causes"

I have now gone with the more general "natural causes". Relevant sentence in reference is "No model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century." Scott Illini (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the "and not by natural causes" is largely pointless. If it is by people, it can't be natural. I still don't think the date is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Being redundant, I deleted this phrase. See WP:COPYEDIT discussion of redundant phrases.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] No global warming for 15 years

This article needs to be updated to reflect the fact there has been no warming for the last 15 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

GoCacheGo (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has a rather tenuous relationship with fact, got a reliable source? Hint: try this WMO press release, rather neatly graphically illustrated in Skep Sci. . dave souza, talk 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, does anyone have the citation for the unidentified "paper" described in the article? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's the one I think you're asking about, Pa reports pre-pub interviews, due to appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, so all a bit premature. . . dave souza, talk 22:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Five agencies report average global temperature. See them graphed at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. Links are provided so they can be verified.Dan Pangburn (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just another Daily Mail epic fail: Met Office 2012 annual global temperature forecast - Met Office appears to be the source their "reporter" David Rose has mangled. H/T Greg Laden, nice explanation from Barry Bickmore. . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the the satellite or the radiosounde data it's apparent that 2011 was significantly cooler than 2010. The trend has been flat for ten years now. There's a paper "Nature's style: Naturally trendy" that found ten-year trends all over the place based simply on the way the math of complex systems works. So a ten-year trend isn't long enough to establish anything. But certainly the WMO press release tracks the year-by-year temperature like it was a stock index. Kauffner (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Steven Milloy's Junk Science? The view from big tobacco and big oil, but not a reliable science source. Your statement is rather at odds with "However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.” Source: the Met Office as linked below. However, as you rightly indicate, looking at the ten years out of context is typical pseudosceptic cherry picking, which is why the Met look at it in relation to the overall record. . dave souza, talk 10:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog – "Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled 'Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about'. This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions ...". This is the official blog of the Met Office news team, intended to provide journalists and bloggers with the latest weather, climate science and business news and information from the Met Office. A trivial but all too typical example of fraudulent "controversy" by misrepresentation in the press. . .dave souza, talk 10:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So I am in league with Big Tobacco and Big Oil, and a press release is a better source than a graph of the actual data? This is pretty frothy. Kauffner (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[0] Cook, John (11 May 2011). "Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming". Skeptical Science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=734. Retrieved 13 August 2011.

[1] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/politics/10morano.html Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign. New York Times, April 9, 2009.

[2] Retention of sulphur by laboratory-prepared ash from low-rank coal

[3] Today: George WaldenbergerGrist.org. December 3. 2007

[4] Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/politics/10morano.html?_r=3&hp. Retrieved 2009-07-09.

[5] World Meteorological Organisation: Climate FAQs

[6] BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

[7] RealClimate: Daily Mangle

[8] BBC News - Global warming since 1995 'now significant'

[9] {http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/ Global Temperature from GISS, NCDC, HadCRU « Open Mind]

[10] State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2009

[11] World Meteorological Organisation: Climate FAQs

[12] Tom Harris. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. http://blogsw.solidwastemag.com/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[13] Paul Joseph Watson (09 March 2007). "Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax". PrisonPlanet.com. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[14] Benj Arriola. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-not-due-to-manmade-carbon-dioxide.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[15] Dr Jarl Ahlbeck. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[16] Simon Kirby (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". The Herald Sun. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21542331-5005961,00.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[17] Catherine Brahic (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[18] "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_5/16_1.shtml. Retrieved 2007-09-10.

[19] M. Battle, M. L. Bender, P. P. Tans, J. W. C. White, J. T. Ellis, T. Conway, and R. J. Francey (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. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5462/2467.

[20] The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[21] "Met Office:Climate averages". BBC. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/. Retrieved 23 January 2009.

[22] "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 08 January 2009. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/cold-hard-facts/. Retrieved 21 January 2009.

[23] Peterson, T. C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (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. edit

[24] Kate Ravilious (February 28, 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html. Retrieved 2008-03-06.

[25] Kate Ravilious (February 28, 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html. Retrieved 2008-03-06.

[26] Philip, Marcus S.; et al. (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. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006APS..DFD.FG005M. Retrieved 2007-05-09.

[27] Goudarzi, Sara (2006-05-04). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html. Retrieved 2007-05-09.

[28] Philip, Marcus S. (2004-04-22). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature 428 (6985): 828-831. http://www.me.berkeley.edu/cfd/people/marcus/nature02470.pdf. Retrieved 2007-05-09.

[29] Yang, Sarah (2004-04-21). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml. Retrieved 2007-05-09.

[30] J. L. Elliot, A. Ates, B. A. Babcock, A. S. Bosh, M. W. Buie, K. B. Clancy, E. W. Dunham, S. S. Eikenberry, D. T. Hall, S. D. Kern, S. K. Leggett, S. E. Levine, D.-S. Moon, C. B. Olkin, D. J. Osip, J. M. Pasachoff, B. E. Penprase, M. J. Person, S. Qu, J. T. Rayner, L. C. Roberts, Jr, C. V. Salyk, S. P. Souza, R. C. Stone, B. W. Taylor, D. J. Tholen, J. E. Thomas-Osip, D. R. Ticehurst and L. H. Wasserman (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165-168. doi:doi:10.1038/nature01762. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6945/abs/nature01762.html.

[31] Paul Harris (21 September 2003). "Bush covers up climate research". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1046388,00.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[32] Juliet Eilperin (05 February 2007). "AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401213.html?sub=AR. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[33] "Bribes offered to scientists". The Sydney Morning Herald. 03 February 2007. http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/bribes-offered-to-scientists/2007/02/02/1169919530963.html. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[34] "The Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report". 2007. http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html. Retrieved 2007-10-22.

[35] ttp://www.agu.org/journals/gl/ Geophysical Research Letters

[36] ttp://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-moreinfo&issn=1520-0442 Journal of Climate}

[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]

Talk:Global warming

Contents

[edit] Category:Climate change

[edit] The Runaway Greenhouse: implications for future climate change, geoengineering and planetary atmospheres

[edit] File:Solar-cycle-data.png

[edit] How come the red line on the temperature chart stopped going up?

[edit] Disliking recent changes

[edit] Beginning of thread

[edit] Breakout discussion of time in lead first paragraph

[edit] Breakout discussion of 'projected continuation'

[edit] Breakout discussion of "and NOT natural causes"

[edit] No global warming for 15 years

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export