Talk:Global warming/Archive 67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The blessed farting, burping dinosaurs

I removed this:

Some scientists claim that methane gas released by the flatulence of dinosaurs caused global warming millions of years ago, the Sauropods producing 5 to 10 times as much methane as cows do today. (Davies, Ella. "BBC Nature - Dinosaur gases 'warmed the Earth'". Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-08. )

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

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

Well spotted. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Listing what causes global warming then and now is relevant to the global warming article. Many sources talk about methane released from cows, and here is evidence that dinosaurs released many more times what cows did. Perhaps it would go better in Greenhouse gas. Dream Focus 18:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that one of the causes of global warming is dinosaur farts? Certainly not now, and not even then. As to cows: if dinosaurs, "producing 5 to 10 times as much methane", couldn't cause global warming, it is not likely that cows have.   ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources cover this in detail. Google news archive search for "cows" "global warming" and you'll find 4,770 news articles about it. [1] There are 1.5 billion cows in the world. The methane gas they produce does contribute to it according to many studies. Methane gas is "23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas" than carbon dioxide. The United Nations makes statements about this. [2] Dream Focus 01:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The methane gas you expell contributes to global warming; should that go into the article, too?
A Google search is not a reliable source. The most authoritative source is the IPCC; I recommend you study AR4, and particularly Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


Agriculture definitely is a major source of the anthropogenic component, and it's treated as such. The dinosaurs, though, aren't around to contribute to current warming. It doesn't belong in this article. --TS 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor correction: non-avian dinosaurs aren't around, the contribution of avian dinosaurs such as poultry is no doubt noted in the various studies. Either way, it's not really significant to this article.
Also note that methane gas is only "23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas" than carbon dioxide in the short term, after that it decays to CO
2
and as such remains as potent for the long term. Fox News is a rubbish source for what the IPCC say. The general issue is covered under Greenhouse gases which mentions methane. . dave souza, talk 17:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Global dimming vs. global cooling

I think the relationship between global cooling and global dimming discussed in the previous section is interesting, so I added a small piece of text about it. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

which I deleted, since this article is not a historical review of how the current scientific consensus evolvedNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations/references.

Narssarssuaq: I have reverted your recent re-naming of the "Citations" and "References" sections. While it may seem obviously "incorrect" to you, you should keep in mind that this is not "obvious" to everyone else. Ask if you have questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. My claim: The term "citation" is normally used about the in-text reference to the references. "Citation" and "reference" are not synonyms. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  On what grounds do you claim knowledge of "normally used"? The use of "citation" and "reference" has been thoroughly muddled (even prior to Wikipedia), and if you would spend any time looking through the archives (as I have) you might see that there is quite a bit of contention about this. So no matter how clearly you think you see the matter, it really is not prudent to just jump up and change something like that without first discussing it. And this isn't really the proper place for that discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Article feedback

So the article feedback tool exists, and apparently there have been over 600 comments left in the article feedback for this article. Once you get through the trolling comments, there are some semi-constructive suggestions, though some are contradictory (too long vs. not enough info). One that a few mention that I think we could actually improve on is that there aren't enough pictures. We have plenty of graphs, to be sure, but there's a grand total of one explanatory graphic, and it's a bit cluttered one at that. Anyone have any ideas for better graphics we can use? Also, can anyone else find any other useful suggestions in the feedback tool we might want to use? I found two graphics from commons that might be helpful which I've placed below the fold Sailsbystars (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know the feedback was available. Someone should give feedback to the feedback people: lots of people answered "yes", "no", or "everything" which suggests they thought they were answering a different question. I looked though some of it (and flagged some as not helpful / abuse; hopefully that pushes those down for the next person who looks). Other things that come up are:
  • simpler text
  • definition
  • causes
A "simple" GW page was something we mooted years ago but never did. Maybe we could resurrect the idea? Definition I find it hard to be sympathetic with, cos we start with that. Causes? Dubious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I view this exercise as talking about whether we should talk about what others who are not making the effort to edit the page want us to talk about. Meanwhile, Sailsby.... if you have improvement ideas - graphics or otherwise - be bold and try them, or give them a talk thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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

From Commons:

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

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

Adverse weather events

Don't really like the new section. It is too much James Hansen's view William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As Tony pointed out a bit above, this isn't the right article to be cherry-picking individual views. It is a survey article, and ought to be informed, as much as possible, by consensus. Unless someone has a better source, I would think the IPCC views on this subject would be the best source (assuming that the sub-section itself merits inclusion.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. It was, for ref:

James Hansen calculated that, with high confindence, certain weather events, such as the heat waves in Texas and the 2003 European heat wave, would not have occurred without global warming. Extremely hot outliers, defined as three standard deviations from climatology records, now cover about 10% of the land surface and, under present trends, would be the norm by 2050. These temperatures are expected to excaberate the hydrological cycle, with more intense droughts and floods.[1] The effect on hurricane activity is less certain.[2]

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

There was a Horizon documentary about this topic, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Extreme weather events are quite a significant topic and so should be included. Thus, if you could find IPCC studies on it, I would favor replacing it but I doubt it should be eliminated. As of now, there is similar but unsourced material in natural systems effects section and I could incorporate something there and take out Hansen’s name. At the end of the climate model section there is something about increased precipitation but again is from non-IPCC studies. Nicehumor (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Extreme weather is indeed of interest. I think if you looked in the IPCC you would not find anything as certain as the "calculated that, with high confindence, certain weather events, such as the heat waves in Texas and the 2003 European heat wave, would not have occurred without global warming". Somewhere around http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-8-2.html might be the place to look William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I understood that these links between an increased frequency of extreme events and GW represent fairly recent, but respectable, work. Therefore I would be surprised if there was much in AR4, but think that there will be well-received more recent papers out there that we could conceivably use. I would expect more on the topic in AR5. In the meantime, I think this is an area where exact wording is necessary as small changes can be very significant. The Texan woman scientist in the documentary linked by Count Iblis above (sorry, I have already forgotten her name) made a good attempt at explaining it simply, by talking about dice and loaded dice. She said something like, when you roll a 6 using a loaded die, you cannot be sure that this 6 is because of the loading, but you can be sure that you are seeing more 6s because of it. The scientists' work, the documentary explained, is to try to find out how much GW is loading the dice in favour of extreme events. They seem to have made some significant progress, both with modelling the causality and in showing that weather records are indeed being broken more often than in the past. Noting the names of those interviewed in the documentary, and looking up their recent work may produce some usable review papers or published secondary sources. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
SREX could be a useful overview, but Rasmus E. Benestad seems a bit doubtful about this particular aspect. In a recent paper, Coumou, D., Rahmstorf, S. (2012): A Decade of Weather Extremes. Nature Climate Change [DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1452] is outlined at SkS, and described by the authors, perhaps it and Hansen could be briefly noted in the context of an overview. . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, there are (crudely) two possible responses (focussing just on T for the moment): either the entire distribution shifts, so we get more heat waves and fewer, err, cold waves; but the SD stays the same. Or the distribution changes shape as well as shifting its mean, potentially leading to even more heat waves than you might expect (or less, if it narrowed). We could do a service by saying which of these is likely to happen, if its known, I'm not much up on that (I'd guess current obs evidence isn't good enough to distinguish the two, though I'm sure models must predict clearly for the future) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Rahmstorf and Comou illustrate this with a graph from the IPCC 2001 TAR, so that's not novel. The SkS summary of the Hansen et al. paper shows a different approach. . dave souza, talk 10:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The idea isn't new - its just the bleedin' obvious. What would be useful, though, is either results from current obs saying what is happening, or its unknown; and futures from model runs William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
From what I understand, the claim is that the distribution has shifted towards higher temperatures while nothing special happened to the standard deviation. "Three standard deviations" away is referring to the likelihood of these events happening compared to the average in the old distribution. So, of the sources linked in this section, which should we use? Nicehumor (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess we agree something on this topic should be here but some disagree with the source. I do not think this discussion should be left to die while not including in that information. Again, which source should we use? Nicehumor (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Updated/more appropriate lede

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

"Global warming is of current interest, as concerns over climate change have shifted from a focus on global cooling in the 1970s (when NASA scientists indicated global temperatures could be reduced by 3.5°C and “trigger an ice age”) to the current focus on global warming (defined as the increase in average global temperatures of 0.74±0.18°C over the last 100 years).[3]"

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

If there are no objections, I would like to make this update. Peter Lemongello (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your premise about the 1970s is false, based on misuse of a primary source. See Global cooling#1971 to 1975: papers on warming and cooling factors for further explanation, and don't make that change. . . dave souza, talk 07:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Most definitely objections to re-writing the introduction based on a single, 40 year old report. You seem to have no idea how science works, nor how an introduction should be written. Please take a much longer look at these things before leaping in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I believe this should lead of the 2nd paragraph. Peter Lemongello (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Moving the proposal to the 2nd paragraph addresses none of the objections given. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Nor does it address various objections not given. Such as: what is the point of citing this source? What is the presumed problem it addresses? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This scientific article and the proposed passage really highlights the evolution of scientific thought regarding climate change over the decades. That is, in the 1970s time frame, there was a distinct concern in some circles over cooling (related to aerosols). This concern even compelled the authors to note the possibility of triggering another "ice age." This of course gave way to concerns over warming, starting in the late 1980s. It is quite important to highlight this evolution in thinking by the climate scientists. Peter Lemongello (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Global cooling#1971 to 1975: papers on warming and cooling factors shows that you're misinformed or denying the facts. Please broaden your research. . dave souza, talk 02:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not my research. This was NASA research from the 1970s. It's unfortunate you use loaded terminology like "denying." These were published studies. You seem to be in denial. Peter Lemongello (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It would be preferrable that you actually informed yourself about the research in the 70's, rather than assume it. Contrary to your assertions, the view in the 70's wasn't cooling. You've simply cherry-picked a paper. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not even cherry-picking a paper, it's cherry-picking an abstract. Even Rasool and Schneider assumed that warming would most likely dominate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
In their own paper they warn of the potential for an ice age. You really need to read the paper. Peter Lemongello (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
If you had truly read even the summary — as distinguished from misreading it — you might have noticed that the claimed potential for an ice age was dependent on the balance of certain parameters. Which is to say, there was a very big IF. You have totally missed that, as well as much subsequent research (forty years!!) that has totally discounted this potential. You have not only cherry-picked this single, out-dated, and discredited paper, you have also cherry-picked the one bit in the abstract about this potential, without any mention of the caveats. Such an egregious mis-read suggests that you lack sufficient competence for assessing "what needs to be conveyed to readers", and your proposal is, at best, uncredible. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
There's science, and there's popular science. If global cooling was a very prominent topic in popular science in the 1970s, it could, as a piece of trivia or history, be of interest in the parts of the article which deal with public perceptions. I wasn't all that informed during the 70s, so I do not know about the public debate at that time. Moreover, the popular science and debate could have been different in different countries. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC) By the way, the debate in the 1970s was apparently meritable enough to repeatedly reach Science Magazine, which is a sign that it was high on the scientific agenda. Here a rebuttal of global cooling from 1976 (arguing that global warming is a larger threat): [3] Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC) The original worry from the 1971 article, aerosols cooling the atmosphere, is now, by the way, termed global dimming.
On a more positive note, maybe we now have some insight into why there were some breathless pronouncements in the popular press in the 70's. Maybe some reporters, without much scientific training, made the same error of thinking that when a scientist says "If X, then Y", that they are predicting Y.SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for making my point...the fact this Science paper is now "discredited" clearly shows the evolution of climate science over time. I would perhaps suggest as the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph.Peter Lemongello (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
By "now" you mean "by 1972", presumably. Global cooling#1971 to 1975: papers on warming and cooling factors is the correct article for this minor detail of the history of climate science, you're wrongly trying to push misconceptions into the lead of this main article.. . . dave souza, talk 06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
With due respect to JJ, I disagree that the paper is "discredited". It was based on comparatively simple models, but I've not seen any claims that it is fundamentally flawed. It made a conditional claim. The condition did not come true - instead the US and Europe cleaned up their industries by installing SO2 scrubbers, primarily to reduce acid rain. As a result, aerosol emissions went down, not up (and in particular not 4 times up). That does not make the paper wrong or discredited. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I would tend to defer to Dr. Schulz even if I disagreed. But I do agree: the paper's conclusion was conditional. What was discredited was the assumptions, and the popular take-away line that cooling was coming. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree that "discredited" is rather misleading wording, Weart notes that "Rasool and Schneider, like Mitchell, recognized that aerosols might not cool the atmosphere but warm it; the tricky part was to understand how aerosols absorbed radiation." Weart continues, "In fact their equations and data were rudimentary, and scientists soon noticed crippling flaws (as did Schneider himself, see below)."
That brings us to "Stephen Schneider and a collaborator improved his rudimentary model, correcting his earlier overestimate of cooling . ..... The model now predicted that "CO2 warming dominates the surface temperature patterns soon after 1980." Cite – Schneider and Mass (1975).
Which puts "now" at 1975 or earlier. . . dave souza, talk 16:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's not get so involved in the exegesis of this paper we stray from the topic of what Peter wants to use it for: to slant the lede to the view that in the 1970s "NASA scientists" (all of 'em?) that we could be on the verge of triggering an ice age. By the way, has anyone read the answer to FAQ #13 recently? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the FAQ covers it well. Perhaps Peter thought NASA had only two scientists affiliated to it in the 1970s . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Slight change of direction

This would be an interesting addition to the article to show how scientific ideas such as described herein change over time, but unfortunately the article is owned by a group connected to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and it leans more toward scientism than science. This happens in Wikipedia. Santamoly (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is owned? More like you're pwned, please WP:AGF and seek consensus in collegiate way. If this would be an interesting example to show how scientific ideas such as described herein change over time, then a third party reliable source will have discussed it, we don't do WP:OR here. But this is a large article, the place for an interesting example to show how scientific ideas on the topic change over time would be an article on History of climate change science and –oh, look! There it is! . . dave souza, talk 07:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"in collegiate way"? Did you mean "in a collegial way"? I think maybe you've just been pwned by the dictionary. It's not possible to seek consensus in this article - it's owned by the Climatic Research Unit fan group, so no consensus seeking is sought or happening here. The only improvement to the article is going to happen by working around the article, not by editing the article. The article will eventually crumble into dust from the weight of its own nonsense. Santamoly (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I think there might some merit in touching on the development of this "theory". E.g.: 1890s, Arrhenius calculates that if we dumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere — but no, no way. 1960s, Keeling: Way! Circa 1995: we may have global warming. 2007: Incontrovertible. Maybe the cabal will give me a secret decoder ring? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you might find some clues as to the location of the secret decoder ring by rummaging around in the Climatic Research Unit documents? It'll give you something to do while waiting for the first hints of Global Warming to appear. Meanwhile, I'm about to shuffle down the corridor to see how Peak Oil is coming along. Santamoly (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's what you have going on: a mental "decoding" by which one flea-like incident of an acting-out researcher completely overturns years of research by thousands of scientists. That is quite an Archimedian lever you have there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Too long article

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

This would entail three modules:

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

2. Prudently deciding which information to retain, and

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

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

Could you give us a pointer to the discussion where it was agreed that the article is too long? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
No, sorry. It was several years ago. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Several years ago? Then it is out-of-date. If you think some past discussion is currently pertinent then you really should locate it in the archives, and provide appropriate links. As it is, your statement that there "has earlier been a consensus that this article is too long" is only an unsupported assertion, and no basis for the action you desire. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I can see that this article is in able hands, and that contributions from my part are not needed. Good luck with your continued efforts. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes the article is too long, but that suits everyone. The warmists who edit this article don't want to admit that almost everything on this page is junk and has been discredited. The sceptics are quite happy, because no one reads long articles like this and it is better the warmists were kept busy here than doing any serious damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Add, location?

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

108.195.138.38 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

USA Today is, at best, a rehash of the science, and not, for scientific matters, a reliable source. This source is more reliable, and possibly even more interesting. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
2007 IPCC is far less current, and using even older and more limited data. 99.181.136.208 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
How many scientists does USA Today have on its staff? Even if all of its reporting staff were scientists, and spent an entire year examining the extant research, could they do as good a job as the IPCC did in AR4 (2007)? Most likely could not, and certainly have not, so IPCC AR4 is still the most current scientific assessment of climate research. Though if currency and newest data are your sole criteria, well, just a couple of days ago I read a new article on climate change, therefore I am more reliable than USA Today. Right? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What about of data from 2011 why charts is obsolete?

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

In English please? I'm not sure what you're asking.... Are you trying to ask why some charts don't go up to the present? In many cases, it's because the data release lags reality due to processing time and quality control. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Where and how would this best be used?

Add wikinews item?

{{wikinews|Global warming underestimated, say scientists}} 99.112.215.152 (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiNews almost certainly isn't considered a reliable source by most editors. This has been widely covered in the technical press. But more important, Muller's work has still not yet passed peer review. Even when it does (and I don't seriously doubt it will), it will just be one more paper confirming global warming. So this paper is only special news for a few hold-outs. --TS 15:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Might be appropriate in the "See also" section, unless properly referenced in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The "news" is 6 years old. I don't think this is a necessary addition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(od) Here are its sources ...

from so-called "Long-term" effects of global warming article. 99.119.130.123 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning against inclusion, now, but you might use one of the original sources as an external link. It should be pointed out, that appearance, and even appropriateness, in a subarticle doesn't mean it belongs here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.42.182.54 (talk)

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

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

I'm archiving this now. The ANI discussion is archived at:
The outcome was a one-month soft block of the range. --TS 14:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

British more skeptical now

terminology usage question: climate change &/or global warming?

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

An example "discussion" on Talk:Planet Earth: The Future.

It appears that in the United States the phrase "global warming" is used where in Europe the phrase "climate change" is preferred.
For all the uses of the phrases, they do not appear to be synonymous.
Is there standard for usage on wikipedia, or some kind of rule-of-thumb?
Climate change would appear to a broader term, including all climate, and thus forms of weather, such as storms and precipitation.
Global warming would appear to be much more limited to the average rising temperature of the Earth.
Neither phrase seems inclusive enough, and both are used by the media in overlapping ways.
Potential clarity may be to combine the two in a sentence, so the reader has an easier seeing the current relation, such as climate change (global warming) assuming global warming was applicable in that situation.
Comment requested, climate change &/or global warming and under what circumstances?
99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Many years ago we had a terminology section which answered this question [4]. We still have a climate change page which mostly answers it, too William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why people find this hard. Here's how I understand the big picture.
Climate change
Global climates can only change in one of two directions - warmer or colder. All the other changes (more precipitation, more storms, whatever) follow from the increase or decrease in thermal energy and how it plays out. Climates on other planets, and on Earth at various times in the past, have changed in both directions.
Global warming
This is clearly the general name for one of the two directions of global climate change.
Having said that, here on Wikipedia we have two (and only two) prime article names that people will arrive on to see what we have to say about all this. We could have used them any how we like, with redirects etc, but what we have decided, and it seems fine to me, is this: Climate change is the more general so here we put a very general article about all kinds of change, anywhere, any time. Global warming is slightly more specific, but we have decided to use this prime name for the current episode of climate change here on Earth. This one could have been about all warmings at all times and on other planets, but that would overlap hugely with the way we have used the more general term. The present episode of global warming is very important to our readers (not many extraterrestrials or time travellers from the last ice age are expected), so using this prime part of the namespace for an article on the contemporary topic seems perfectly reasonable. --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that, but aren't there other changes of (global) climate not driven by merely global temperature? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps better to think of global temperature as an effect rather than as a driver: the current global warming is the net effect of various drivers or forcings, some warming and some cooling. Similarly past climate change has been the result of forcings, but obviously an article titled "global warming" could not include the transition from the medieval climate anomaly to the little ice age, for example. . . dave souza, talk 07:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Changes in distribution of climate doesn't necessarily imply warming or cooling. But the keyword methinks in Dave's comment was global climate, i had to turn it in my head as well :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Velocity of global warming?

Is there a separate article related to the velocity of climate change? In other words how fast is is changing and predictions on future velocity. An related example from Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet

99.181.142.87 (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If the rate of change is changing -- then velocity is the wrong word. Delinked header, way too much glaring red. Vsmith (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Velocity of global warming usage examples ...
by Scott R. Loarie1, Philip B. Duffy1,2, Healy Hamilton3, Gregory P. Asner1, Christopher B. Field1 & David D. Ackerly4
Carnegie Institution for Science, Department of Global Ecology, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Climate Central, Inc., Palo Alto, California 94301, USA
Center for Applied Biodiversity Informatics, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118, USA
Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
Why would velocity be wrong again, Special:Contributions/Vsmith? 99.181.147.154 (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a WP:NEO violation; some scientists use it for the equivalent speed which organisms have to move to maintain their environment; most do not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I spend most days reading a few articles and papers on global warming. Never heard of this term. 81.106.237.60 (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) Here is a multiple use of velocity in one article from Science News; Animals on the Move; A warming climate means shifting ranges and mixed-up relationships for a lot of species June 30th, 2012; Vol.181 #13 (p. 16) with excerpts "... the velocity one would have to move along Earth’s surface to maintain a constant local temperature. " and "... may not be able to move to new habitats fast enough to keep up with the pace at which climate change is altering local conditions (velocity of climate change is a measure of the pace required to maintain similar climatic conditions)." 99.119.130.13 (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So there are two papers that use the term 'velocity' when referring to the rate of change and a number of articles in the scientific press that comment on these two papers (Loarie et al. 2009 & Schloss et al. 2012). This is not evidence that the term is now in general use. Mikenorton (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Punching "velocity of climate change" into Google Scholar returned 212 hits. With "-loarie" (removing all hits referring to or commenting on the Nature paper, as well as any other references to or works by Loarie) still returns 28 hits. That seems like significant usage to me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I had a look through the Scholar results and its pretty obvious that the term is being taken up in a big way - most of the hits are from papers published in 2011 with a lot already from 2012. Back in 2009, almost no-one would have heard of it - I guess that's how it goes with terminology. Mikenorton (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) What is the status on this discussion? 99.109.124.95 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the consensus (although I don't agree) is that "velocity of climate change" is a reasonable subject, but it's not related to the USA Today article. However, exactly where it belongs in the Climate change/Global warming articles is unclear. Effects of climate change on plants? (Large animals can easily move that far, even those with generally fixed nesting or meeting sites.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it is better that you don't "say" Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. 1. USA Today is not in this discussion thread. 2. Effects of climate change on terrestrial animals would certainly obviously be related per C.A.Schloss at al's graph (on page 21 in print version of Science News). Easily? Please avoid wp:OR (giving you the undeserved benifit of the doubt). "About 9 percent of Western Hemisphere mammal species may not be able to move to new habitats fast enough to keep up with the pace at which climate change is altering local conditions (velocity of climate change is a measure of the pace required to maintain similar climatic conditions). Mammal species that, on average, won’t move fast enough fall below the diagonal black line in the graph above." is the caption. Think Holocene extinction (Anthropocene extinction event), the Biodiversity in Planetary boundaries. Wikipedia:Competence is required Arthur Rubin. 99.181.133.62 (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. USA Today is the "reference" that started this discussion thread.
  2. Consensus, although weak, is that "velocity of climate change" is a reasonable subject for discussion. Although I don't agree, I'm not going to challenge it.
  3. Assuming you have described the references accurately (which is definitely not something I am willing to take for granted), plants may not be the correct subarticle, but animals clearly isn't. I don't have access to the full list of subarticles (the Outline is not being maintained quickly), so I'm not sure where it would be. Possibly both animals (although weak) and plants, possibly a different subarticle entirely.
  4. As for your post, think WP:Sea of blue, and a large collection of unrelated topics in adjacent words.
Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The term seems to have become established in use with a very specific meaning, for which there wasn't a precise term before. That makes it worth researching and explaining in my view. Velocity seems to be exactly the correct word for what is meant - a vector quantity including both a speed and a direction - which can and does vary with time. I would expect a short summary of the meaning and origins of the term, and the main findings about it that have been published reliably, either in this article, or perhaps in Adaptation to global warming, or maybe even in its own article with a brief summary in one or both of these. --Nigelj (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin for your third "point" see Science News regarding animals and Effects of climate change on terrestrial animals. 99.181.132.75 (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(odd) It seems that 'velocity of global warming' would be a phrase very easily subject to misunderstanding by non-specialists. (which argues for and against inclusion.) One reason being velocity is often used as a synonym for 'speed' or 'rate' in everyday language, making it high probabile the term would be conflated with 'rate of global warm'. (again an argument both for and against inclusion) In addition because it's directional, there are scenarios where the term is inapplicable, for instances, presumably, for regions of large area and uniform current temperatures and uniform rate of warming, i.e. there is nowhere for ecosystems to migrate to. An undefined velocity or one of 0, would not mean that the historical or projected rate of warming is unknown or zero, only that for a given increase, there is no definition of the velocity. vr rm 22:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrrm (talkcontribs)

Where is the heat going?

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

Hmmm, yes, I feel a little bothered, too, but I don't see that the layout is a problem. And that graphic has much more appeal than the original funky, horizontal-bar graph. I think what bothers me is coming away without a grasp on what it means (i.e., the proportions). This is probably due the difficulty of making areal comparisons — we do a lot better comparing lengths. So possibly a testable hypothesis here: would the graphic be more satisfying if it was (say) a horizontal-bar chart (but not as funky as the original)? Or (for testing) throw in some other graphic and see what difference it makes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean "why is it getting cooler"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
No. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) Added the graphic to Effects of global warming on oceans. 99.112.212.204 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about rate of change of average global temperature

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

I think the point is that the problem of global warming has nothing to do with past climate changes, it has to do with the fact that modern civilization is built on agricultrue and infrastructure based on current sea levels and weather patterns. Global warming deniers are fond of saying that global climate changes are nothing new. This is true, but beside the point if Miami is underwater and Kansas becomes a desert. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(undent)Thanks for the reply, Rick. With all due respect to Kansas and Miami, there's a considerable difference between causing some disasters and population displacements like those of the past, versus apocalyptic warming. Also, this article already says stuff like this:

  • "The current rate of ocean acidification is many times faster than at least the past 300 million years"
  • "CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago"
  • "proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age."

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

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

Thanks for a good response, Anythingyouwant. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Scientific American a reliable source?

A recent edit (re ocean acidification) prompts me to ask: do we deem Scientific American a reliable source for matters of scientific study? It is not a journal; it's a popular magazine that is aims more for "interest" than careful, comprehensive reporting of scientific developments. For any factoid mentioned there (that's not someone's unsourced opinion) there should be a source deeper in the scientific literature, which is what I think we should rely on. I didn't see anything on this in the archives. Any comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

(@Arthur Rubin) "Politically correct" comments sounds Wikipedia:IDON'TLIKE by Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. 99.181.138.194 (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Readded commented above deleted by AR, adding "@Arthur Rubin" for clarity. 99.109.124.96 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I said that SciAm was becoming more politically correct than scientifically correct; that's an observation, rather than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still, it's generally reliable, except for editorials. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
SciAm and NatGeo are often good for explanations of something. But as to the state of scientific knowledge (or some part thereof), as distinct from explaining something, I see no value added. (Overall caveat here is: generally!) Their typical modus operandus is get the views of one scientist — a WP:primary source — and spice it up for the masses. But they seldom — or only lightly — do the analysis or evaluation of such a source in the broader context that characterizes secondary sources, and they don't summarize a broad range of primary or secondary sources as chacterizes a tertiary source. (SciAm usually provides some general references, which are often a good start for studying the topic, but not as citations for specific material.) Their reliability is entirely dependent on their source, wherefore they are always only second-best. And we should go to their source. Like I told the The Kid: we shouldn't quote someone quoting someone else — we should quote the original. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
[Edit conflict where NAEG pulled out what I was responding to, as to whether responding was a waste time.]
Nah, not all!! I've been considering a certain view — which even I don't necessarily agree with — and I am looking for some strong rebuttal. Or even some side perspective that puts the whole question in a different light. And I do appreciate your interest, and time, in helping me to explore this. Thank you! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Stable temperatures from 2002 to 2009

This article says that temperatures have been relatively stable from 2002 to 2009. That may true of surface atmospheric temperatures, but is it really true of ocean temperatures? I thought ocean temperatures continued their steady rise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In context the statement doesn't need any further tweaking. The point is that such very short periods are not expected to strongly reflect the overall trend as a uniform warming, but may well contain periods of stasis or even decline in global average temperature. --TS 15:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Was 2002 to 2009 a period of stasis or decline in the global average of upper ocean temperature? I think not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Perception of Climate Change - PNAS Study

This should be useful in some part of the article. It discusses the standard deviation of global warming over the last century and the increase of heated extreme areas of the planet, along with how specific heat variations in specific places in 2010 and 2011 are indicative of global warming. And then it discusses the implications of all of the above. SilverserenC 00:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please make a specific edit, or proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion and notification about the source's existence. I haven't ever edited this article before and don't know what information in this study is useful or if any of it is, i'm just suggesting it to be looked at. SilverserenC 01:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, can this be used somewhere in the article, perhaps discussing specific heat, cold, and other weather incidents in the past that this study discusses, links to global warming, and also discusses future projections of what will occur? SilverserenC 23:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a wiki and nobody has made an objection to mentioning this in principle. You've been asked to make or propose a specific edit, and you should feel free to do so. We'll take it from there. --TS 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But the thing is, I don't know what's already covered in this article or to what amount of info should be included and how much weight this study should hold. Only someone more experienced in the content of this article would be able to say what is appropriate. SilverserenC 00:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If you're not willing to do your own grunt work, please stop wasting our time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 Basically, you have found an interesting source. Fine, thank you. But as you "don't know what's already covered in this article", etc., that is about as far as you can go with it. As to whether it can be used in the article, well, perhaps someone will find a use for it. Time will tell. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
An old version of the study, before it was officially published, appears to have been in use in the article for the specific climate events anyways. So I just swapped it out with the published version of the ref I gave above. SilverserenC 02:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Limits of human adaptation

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

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

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

Another point is the stated 4 degree C threshold. One of the "robust findings" of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is that "Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt." This statement is more conservative than the Warren (2011) paper. Enescot (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as no one else has any comments on this, I've put together a revision which addresses the complaint I made above. I think that the sentence I referred to in my previous comment (based on Warren, 2011) should be removed from the lede, revised, and moved to global warming#Adaptation. This would allow a proper explanation of the term "adaptive capacity", which is jargon. Below is my suggested revision of global warming#Adaptation. Sentences preceded by an asterisk (*) are new or revised ones:
Other policy responses include adaptation to climate change. Adaptation to climate change may be planned, either in reaction to or anticipation of climate change, or spontaneous, i.e., without government intervention.[143] Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis. The barriers, limits, and costs of future adaptation are not fully understood.
*A concept related to adaptation is "adaptive capacity," which is the ability of a system (human, natural or managed) to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with consequences (definition of "adaptive capacity"). * Unmitigated climate change (i.e., future climate change without efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions) would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt (AR4 Synthesis Report).
Enescot (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi there. Sorry. I just wanted to thank the editor who reversed my addition from Mitt Romney's RNC acceptance speech. This is a featured article and no place for recentisms. I was only angry because I couldn't find it in The New York Times this morning. Also thank you to Forbes for capturing the candidate in action. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad that this is not contentious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
(Polite applause from by-standers admiring the fine display of civility. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

Power plant heat energy contribution

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

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_170.shtml If we got lots and lots of power from nuclear fission or fusion, wouldn’t this contribute to global warming, because of all the extra energy being released into the environment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talkcontribs) 03:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Two Papers Concerning Global Warming

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

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

Evidence of global warming

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

Excellent remark, I agree completely. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this. The article does appear to overemphasize just one or two lines of evidence, when it should be showing all of them to their respective degrees. And including the other lines of evidence would furthermore bolster and better explain the strength of fact behind global warming. SilverserenC 21:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought that was what Attribution of recent climate change was about? This is a summary top-level article, not a detail one.... That aside, we have the whole section below Global warming#Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings), as well as the Feedback and the climate model sections, that summarizes the various attribution and evidence subarticles? Or am i missing something? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
reply to Kim D. Petersen: I'm not talking about attribution, but that could also be improved. My issue is with properly explaining the strength of evidence that there is for global warming, e.g., from Kennedy et al, (2010, p.26): "The IPCC conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” does not rest solely upon [Land Surface Air Temperature] records. These constitute only one line of evidence among many, for example: uptake of heat by the oceans, melting of land ice such as glaciers, the associated rise in sea level, and increased atmospheric surface humidity. If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups." The sections you refer to do not mention this. Enescot (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I've prepared a draft revision that addresses the problem I raised earlier. My revision would go in the "Observed temperature changes" section. Sentences preceded by asterisks are new ones:
(...) Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.[30]
*The warming that is evident in the instrumental temperature record is consistent with a wide range of observations, as documented by many independent scientific groups (Kennedy et al, 2010, p.26). *Examples include sea level rise (water expands as it warms (NOAA, 2011)), widespread melting of snow and ice (IPCC, 2007), increased heat content of the oceans (Kennedy et al, 2010, p.26)., increased humidity (Kennedy et al, 2010, p.26)., and the earlier timing of spring events (IPCC, 2007), e.g., the flowering of plants (Rosenzweig et al, 2007). *The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is virtually zero (Kennedy et al, 2010, p.26).
Recent estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the National Climatic Data Center show that (...)
Enescot (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

citation needed for model "uncertainty"

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

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

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

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

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

Please illustrate the question(s) and issue(s) you are raising with some potential text for the article, including the supporting reliable sourcesNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it was already hashed out a three or four years ago. WMC was trying to get away with claiming that the range of IPCC projections included model uncertainty. He couldn't support it, which is why the intro reads a lame "The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations." WMCs cadre was powerful at the time, but even so, he couldn't win that one. No model uncertainty is included in the projections, not the model diagnostic errors, not the missing methane feedback, none. The range is just that of the models and the scenerios. Someone who is not familiar with the literature has not kept this tendency in check.--Africangenesis (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
You may want to reread the paragraph in question - since it actually doesn't state what you think it does. It is not about IPCC ranges encapsulating all uncertainty - but rather what uncertainties that the IPCC ranges encapsulate. Subtle difference - and one that renders your arguments moot, since they do not address this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
"what is the point in including one without the other?" That is not an argument for deleting what is present, it is an argument for adding what is allegedly missing. Please provide draft text to illustrate what it is you think is missing. A 4-year old hashing when I was not around and to which you provide no pointer is irrelevant, and besides, consensus can change.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
All the reports I've looked at on climate change use the word "uncertainty", and then go on to explain these uncertainties. What is important is that the article provides an adequate summary of these uncertainties. The relevant section of the IPCC Working Group I report appears to be Section 10.5.4.6. The USGCRP also provide a brief summary. I think that the article does a reasonable job at summarizing the uncertainties in the IPCC's global warming projections. However, the IPCC do not state that uncertainty over the carbon cycle would only lead to increased emissions. In my opinion, a more accurate summary for point (3) would be "uncertainties in the response of the Earth's carbon cycle to future warming". Another point I would add to the article is that quantification of model uncertainty requires expert judgement. Enescot (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

End of Kyoto

External forcings

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

Disagree. The first sentence explains external forcing, and radiative forcing is wikilinked - both are not particularly technical, but are at the same time important aspects to learn for the reader that wants to go indepth into the subject area. Wikipedia targets a wider demographics (see for instance the math articles on WP ... many of which are impossible to read for a layman). The article simple:global warming is another issue though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
In my native English vernacular, these are examples of "technical" terms, even though they are not difficult to comprehend. As for the state of our article, I agree with Kim it's ok as is, but I'd entertain proposed text with an open mind.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
My thought on this is that WP:BOLD still applies. The current text isn't terrible, but if Enescot can suggest something better, more power to them..... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Make it better if you can, but this is a wiki after all: we don't need to explain in detail things that are linked. We don't want extraneous detail in what is already a long article William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that Wikipedia should be written in plain English, with the use of jargon avoided (WP:MOS). Enescot (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Technical terms are not necessarily "jargon". And technical terms should be used where "plain" terms are ambiguous or poorly defined. The key thing is that where they are used they are explained (or linked). If those are not properly explained, by all means suggest an improvement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I've prepared a revision of the section. Revised sentences are marked with a single asterisk. New sentences are marked with two asterisks:
*The climate system can respond to changes in external forcings (Schmidt, 2004; Pew Center, 2008, p.2). **External forcings can "push" the climate in the direction of warming or cooling (US NRC, 2011, p.9). *Examples of external forcings include changes in atmospheric composition (e.g., increased concentrations of greenhouse gases), changes in solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun. Attribution of recent climate change focuses (...)
Enescot (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Benefits of global warming

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

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

That you are "looking for a good source" shows that you have already decided what this vast benefit will be. That is, you are looking for support for an opinion for which you have little or no support. Which is backwards. As a Wikipedia editor (and I would suggest universally) you should examine a representative range of sources, then "explain the sides, fairly and without bias". Please take a closer look at WP:NPOV. Note especially that "fair" does not mean that all sides get equal representation; it means represented proportionately, as seen in reliable sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there are benefits from warming, but these need to be balanced against adverse effects. This is ultimately a subjective judgement. The most widely endorsed scientific and political process for summarizing climate change impacts is the IPCC. In my view, this article's summary of impacts should be consistent with the IPCC's summary (see robust findings and key uncertainties from the IPCC third and fourth assessment reports). As you can see, the issue of increased drilling opportunities in the Arctic [8] is only one of many other impacts [9][10]. In my opinion, it does not deserve mention in this top-level article. It is already discussed in climate change, industry and society#Northwest Passage. Enescot (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Discussion at Talk:Hurricane Sandy#Deletion of global warming section

Both friends and foes of climate science may be interested in this discussion about Hurricane Sandy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI for friends and foes of GW about article on Hurricane Sandy

(1) a poll with lots of !votes has closed in favor of retaining a separate subsection; (2) Hurricane Sandy#Relation to global warming has been extensively revised; NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

wishy-washy info

I feel that in the "pro vs. con" questions of global warming, too many aspects get lost, because the whole subject is a very complex group of questions and responses that can't be settled with a simple "yes" or "no".

I believe this only scratches the surface, and while some of the more obvious questions seem to be settled, according to many people, the others deserve more attention than they are getting. And I don't believe the global warming and climate change articles do nearly enough justice to these questions. An example is renewable fuels, which are hailed by many as a huge benefit for the environment, while others feel they are absolute disasters to the environment and humans in general. Why can't there be more certainty on these questions in the articles, or at least not such wishy-washy information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of handwaving please provide some draft article text including reliable sources so we can evaluate your ideas with something tangibleNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Gobal Warming?

How exactly can we belive in "Global Warming" when there is more evidence to suggest that we are decellerating ino an ice age?76.122.76.98 (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can find this evidence then you are about to win a Nobel Prize. It would make you the most revered person in the world if you could show we can keep polluting as much as we like and don't have to change a thing.
Or, if you prefer, Wikipedia has a page on Global Warming because it exists. Vision Insider (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Kyoto Protocol and global warming

Where has old link to IPCC SRES scenarios gone... ?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/data/allscen.xls Special "Maria" nonsense scenario: Primary energy coal decreasing until 2040 then rising until 2090 3*2010 production combined with oil exploration rise up to 2050 and also 2100 still higher level than today and gas production rising up to 2080 near 3*2010 and 2100 still >2*2010 production = science ? Anything realistic inside ? Before IPCC SRES scenarios link inside picture instead article link without link to base datas ?

IPPC SRES scenarios have been written with cheating late exploration maximums for oil, gas and coal up to 2100 instead oil 2011-2015 gas and coal about 2025 with coal top from china. After IPCC itself 2007 +3Gt C/a in atmosphere with 765Gt all together means 250 years until doubled with just +2° impossible with realistic exploration maximums also if all exploration doubled 125 years to hold is impossible.

Doha world climate cheating conference to be canceld also by Tuvaluo Atoll with no sea- level rise since 30 years own measurement. IPPC is not invited to unnecessary conference. http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/weltklimarat-ipcc-nicht-auf-der-doha-unep-klimakonferenz-chairman-pachauri-wir-sind-nicht-eingeladen-worden/


The share of CO2 of greenhouse effect was oftly written to high with 20% instead about 7% also the source of CO2 by desertification special sahara border increase+200km since 1970 is missed with about 10 000km sahara border length mainly rising methane see also methane map.

Global warming was near all local around arctis with +1.5-2.5° by streaming changes. Normal sea level rise was because of river & coast erosion and continental drift near nothing from ice melting or temperature expansion at all not same place like warming with deep sea never to be warmed also in tropical areas. Storms like Sandy in USA are sure not by global warming because much to less and by greenhouse gases more equal spreaded means less temperature differences for storms. Most ice is in antarctis about 90% with ice increase both sides together there. A global warming would be much more positive than negative decreasing heating and increasing rain also in desertification areas. Dangerous are ice times caused by sun cycles with -120m not cm sea level, land and sea iced all year+increased desertification but SF6 green house gas can help. But about 1 promille of F fluoride production can be changed to SF6 every year without increasing world temperature also long time today.

EU also splitted before Doha conference. Of course CO2 still rising but totally harmless. With actually most increased coal burning also more sulfide cooling. Oil rise 2011 +1.5% based 2008 +0.77% mainly because of saudi arabia but gas +3% and coal +6% with china +8.8% 49.5% share 3.5 times USA with just 35 years reserves that level and indonesia as main exporter 17 years. Values before for C in CO2 left additionally in the atmosphere. Storms like Sandy are not by just +0.53° global warming most at arctis area. Thermal energy increase is to be related to boiling point of air and only temperature differences causing storms but greenhouse gas warming is relative equal. No statistics proving any change in storm numbers with long time ago datas not secured and more chaotic up & down.

Between NASA-Goddard +0.74° and WMO +0.53° was 0.21° difference added -0.21° to NASA-Goodard additive Global Warming world map shows near only arctis area warmed. Different and unsecured non satellite base temperature times mixed with satellite datas !

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.95.202 (talkcontribs)

Global warming controversy

Bog standard interglacial

As has been seen in the previous brief interglacials, the period is ending with a brief very warm period wherein peat bogs form at high latitudes to lock in carbon for an extended ice age. It appears that human activities have merely delayed and not stopped this process. "Swedish boffins: An ICE AGE is coming, only CO2 can save us."

Bundle it up? Hcobb (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Soooooo, if peat bogs are sequestering CO2 thus triggering an ice age, why is CO2 concentration still rising ? Looks like the reg's interpretation is rubbish to me.... Sailsbystars (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't even worth discussing with El Rego as a ref. You won't find it hard to find the same article discussed better elsewhere I'd have thought. But it still doesn't make it into the article: far too recent William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-08/human-carbon-emissions-seen-by-researchers-holding-back-ice-age

Another ref on same, as per request. Hcobb (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, as I said, not hard to find. However, the entire thing is nonsense (as well as being far too recent, etc). See for example [16]. One prof's comments don't overturn real papers in nature etc William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, if this guy is right, it won't take long for the IPCC to announce that they were wrong, the peat bogs have it covered, and that there's no need for AR5. I'm sure we'd hear about that on the evening news, not in The Register. --Nigelj (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and we already say this (ie, its not going to end soon). See Orbital_forcing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree the Reg is not RS but there is this related post at sciencedaily. I have not tried to get my brain around this yet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It basically says "If humans don't occupy anywhere in Sweden or the sub-arctic and you turn them all the land in to peat bogs, the uptake can trigger an ice age at temperatures a few deg C higher than today" Not really applicable to the present and they basically say so in the conclusion of the journal article.... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

NCAR study on climate sensitivity

I recently reverted an addition by NewsAndEventsGuy, who added information on a study by Fasullo and Trenberth (2012). This study tested model estimates of climate sensitivity based on their ability to reproduce observed relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics. A brief summary of the findings of this study is now contained in climate sensitivity#Other experimental estimates. Enescot (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there is anything wrong with it, but its better to wait for a few months before adding it here William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Having looked at Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", I thought that it would be best to explain why I reverted the edit. As you say, there's probably nothing wrong with the study, but I think that to refer to it in this article places undue weight on its findings, as per FAQ 21. Enescot (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Global Warming Stopped

I can't seem to add this reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Please add this reference, which indicates global warming stopped 16 years ago. Thanks. Junaji (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

See FAQ Question 3 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Junaji - Please get in line, we've tried for 10+ years to bring the reality into view, but Wiki just keeps censoring right along... The best line in the article is "Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions". The AGW warmist used the first five years of the upward trend (warmer) to impale the world on global warming, and their 15 year trend to underwrite all their conclusions. Yet when the 15 year down trend doesn't support their position, it doesn't count. What a sad statement on the "green" agenda... Mk 70.193.193.209 (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to believe Daily Mail science, I suggest you stick to reading the Daily Mail. --BozMo talk 09:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm delighted to hear that global warming has stopped, if the Daily Mail is correct – but if they are right, would they mind telling the Arctic ice cap to stop shrinking? . . dave souza, talk 11:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
[17]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

WhereIsTheHeatOfGlobalWarming.jpg

What do you say to a teenager who thinks they are doing great financially because they have $1000 invested at 10%, and they conveniently neglect to mention they also have $20,000 of court-ordered restitution to pay at 8%? That's the sort of logic behind these disingenuous claims that global warming stopped in 1998, because that logical fallacy only looks at certain air temperature readings, instead of looking at measurements from the climate system in the big picture. Since the vast majority of heating is going into the ocean heat sink, the thing to do is to look at the heat balance of the entire climate system, which shows that despite some warm surface air temps, the Earth's overall energy budget took no special notice of 1998. In my opinion, ocean heating should be added to Faq answer #3 as the main response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The plot clearly indicates no net warming. Junaji (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


Junaji, the smallest increment shows an increase of 0.3 degrees and the largest shows 1.5 degrees. The average of the three different locations shows an increase of 0.6 degrees. Vision Insider (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Information on Ice Ages

Here is a diff (instead of just an old version link) for what is being discussed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I reverted this edit (28 October) by User:Delphi234. The edit was added to the section on "Natural systems". I thought that it would be useful to post it here for other editors to look at:

"Global warming has been detected in a number of natural systems (...) The Earth is at what would have been the mid warming level between two ice ages. During an ice age sea levels drop 120 metres (390 ft)[4] and ice sheets 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) thick cover northern and southern continents.[5] Prior to a few million years ago, the Earth did not oscillate between ice ages, and was much warmer than today during the age of dinosaurs, 100 million years ago. During the last inter ice age period, 125,000 years ago, sea levels reached a level about 7 metres (23 ft) higher than those of today.[6] Natural mechanisms caused the Earth to oscillate between ice ages and warming periods, first over a 41,000 year period, and more recently over a 100,000 year period.[7] Positive feedback mechanisms both move the Earth into and out of ice ages. The end point of each is (normally) set by natural limits."[8]

Enescot (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting it. In addition to whatever wordsmithing criticisms, or point-by-point criticisms on the merits, at the big picture the text was sort of stuck in with no glue to tie it to the rest of the text. Just jammed in without being tied to the article, it was a good delete. On the other hand, do any of our articles report on the current thinking how contemporary global warming fits with the glacial/interglacial cycle of the Quaternary glaciation? Here is one writers effort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

References list for talk page using {{reflist}}

I've added this section to make it easier to cite sources on this talk page. Enescot (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at these references, because the titles tell me they are entirely beside the point. Yes, there have been ice ages in the past and will be in the future. But Miami wasn't built then. Neither was New York. Global warming is not a problem on a scale of tens of millions of years. It is a problem on a scale of the next century. If Miami is under water, it will not do us any good to think, well, an ice age will be along in another million years or so. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The user who posted them, Enescot, usually posts drafts of significant proposed text changes to the talk page. I have been expecting him to do that and reference these in the draft. So I have not looked at them either while I wait to see what he has in mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I think he only did it because he'd pasted in the "Information on Ice Ages" section, above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh duh. Now I see... it is a {{reflist}} section. Guess I have to look at the ice age section.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Maps of regional emissions

I've commented on this before, but I do not think the maps of annual regional emissions are suitable. The article does not explain that cumulative emissions more closely reflect a nation's contribution to global warming than annual emissions. Another issue is the suitability of these maps for people with color blindness (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color). I've checked the appearance of these maps with color removed (i.e., in greyscale), and the contrast is inadequate. This also makes the images less suitable for printout using a non-color printer. Enescot (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Enescot, I'm the author of the most recent graphs. In regards to the issue of color, I can remake the images fairly easily in black and white format, although I'm not sure how well the contrast will work out. I think I could probably play with it in such a way that it becomes contrasty enough w/o color. However, the MOS seems mostly to apply to tables rather than images. Regarding the integrated (total) emissions vs. current emissions, the way that the data set is structured makes it much easier to do current emissions than integrated emissions. Stringing together yearly data would require non-trivial amounts of programming on my part...... and is currently impossible because the source data set seems to be down for maintenance for an indeterminate period. It's certainly less than ideal to do annual emissions, but it's the best we can do for now. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to alter the maps. Another option would be to use bar graphs of annual/annual per capita emissions for major regions. The IEA has regional data of annual [18] and cumulative CO2 emissions from fuel combustion only (World Energy Outlook 2009 - p182 of PDF). National cumulative emissions data are also available (World Bank, 2010, p.362). I don't mind using these data to produce bar graphs. My own preference would be a bar graph of regional cumulative emissions based on the IEA data. Enescot (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I've prepared a bar graph of cumulative emissions that I would like to replace the current map of annual emissions:
Refer to caption
Current image, showing total annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, including land-use change.
Refer to caption
Suggested replacement, showing the share of global cumulative energy-related carbon dioxide emissions for major emitters between 1890-2007
There's also the map of annual per capita emissions. My thinking was that this could be (1) replaced with a map of cumulative per capita emissions, (2) replaced with a bar graph of cumulative per capita emissions of major emitters, or (3) removed and not replaced with anything. Enescot (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Bar graphs certainly convey the info in a nice compact form, but I would note that the main comment we get on the article feedback tool for this article is "not enough pictures." I think that the heatmap is preferable to the bar graph for this reason.... most people's eyes glaze over at bar charts and graphs, whereas a map is more intuitive. This is only my opinion, not grounded in policy, but I do feel we should try to be responsive to our readership's desires. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer a bar graph, but I'm willing to use a map instead. Have you any views on the color scheme? I would like to use one of the color schemes recommended on this website [19]. I was thinking that the map of per capita emissions could be replaced with a graph of emissions projections or a graph of sectoral emissions. Enescot (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The bar graph is superior. Just add some colours or a nice background to it so the children will be happy. Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I've prepared two further images shown below. The first is a map as preferred by Sailsbystars, while the second is a bubble diagram which has some colouring. Both images are suitable for color-blind users and can be printed in greyscale.
Refer to caption
World map of cumulative energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, 1850-2005. The darker the color, the larger the emissions.
Refer to caption
Bubble diagram showing the share of global cumulative energy-related carbon dioxide emissions for major emitters between 1890-2007.
Enescot (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've prepared a pie chart which shows annual world greenhouse gas emissions, in 2005, by sector. I would like to replace the existing world map of annual per capita emissions with this pie chart.

Refer to caption and above text
Current image: world map showing annual per capita emissions in 2005, including land-use change.
refer to caption and above text
Suggested replacement: annual world greenhouse gas emissions, in 2005, by sector

Enescot (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Add reference please regarding the velocity of global warming

The article is currently in [Preview] but will likely be free-access in a month or two. In the USA edition it starts on page 50.

Also seen on Talk:Global_warming/Archive_67#Velocity of global warming? 209.26.202.234 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The last time we discussed this we found an actual definition of velocity of global warming: something like "... the velocity one would have to move along Earth’s surface to maintain a constant local temperature."[20] The articles you link here seem to have nothing to do with that. By velocity do you mean something like 'the unexpected rapidity'? Is celerity perhaps closer to the word you are looking for? In scientific discussions, words really do matter, especially words with a scientifically defined meaning like velocity. Until we sort out what it is you want to discuss, it's hard to take this any further. --Nigelj (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
It is my belief the OP is a sock of a blocked michigan-based external link spammer who is overwintering (what michiganders call "snowbird") in Florida. Their edit patterns and subject areas are the same and the FL IPs turned on just after the michigan IPs turned off. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Momentum and/or Acceleration? 207.250.21.34 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
How about "rate of change"? 207.250.21.23 (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would be better if recently observed changes in climate were summarized in physical impacts of climate change and related sub-articles. I think that this article should focus on the key impacts of climate change, as reflected in authoritative studies, such as the IPCC fourth assessment report (see FAQ 21). Enescot (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a concerted push for nothing-but-2007IPCC-based-on-even-older-papers-which-were-based-on-still-older-data. In general, the IPCC assessment reports make a more underestimates than overestimates. FAQ21 properly keeps this from being a bibliography of new papers or a linkfarm. I do not believe it was designed to convert our encyclopedia from a dynamic resource into a static one. In other words if this main article, which gets orders of magnitude more hits than nearly all of the other climate articles, were to be fixated solely on the every-seven-years IPCC reports, then there would be no difference between this article and treatment of the same subject in a paper-vound volume that is republished every 7 years. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this article should be kept current, but in my opinion, the last IPCC assessment should still remain a key reference. I doubt that many new studies are particularly significant for someone new to this subject. I do keep track of more recent publications, e.g., reports by the US National Research Council, UK Royal Society, as well as various websites which have information about climate change, e.g., the World Meteorological Organization, NASA, the EPA, and the American Meteorological Society. My impression is that the IPCC fourth assessment report is generally consistent with these more up-to-date sources. Enescot (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear you think AR4 should be "a" (as in one of) the main references. We agree on that. Where we are going to continue disagreeing is one which subsequent items will also be "one of". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Bias in the preface of this subject

After reading the Q & A in the top of this talk page, I see there is a mention of objections in the scientific community to the mainstream belief. This is not shown in the preface of the subject, where it says that there is no controversy among scientists. I would like the reference to scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and to the nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and to Freeman Dyson to show on the preface instead of the sentence which negate the existence of these scientists. Also, It would be a good Idea to include this image, Where it clearly shows there is still some controversy over global warming among scientists:

Still some heretics left

It would also be nice to include references to the lectures, and interviews given by the opposing scientists on this page in a later section.

I understand some people believe these scientists to have impure motives, but since I have found no such connections myself, unless evidence is shown regarding every scientist claimed to be bribed - this notion must be regarded as a conspiracy theory, and should not be a reason to make these pesky scientists disappear.MrWorshipMe (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(A) What you call preface has its own guidelines and is known as the WP:LEAD. It should summarize the body so you have to start there;
(B) Existence of minority views is already mentioned in the body and links are provided to the precise sub articles that go into all that;
(C) Because IPCC involved thousands of scientists and their key findings are not disputed by any national science academy; and because those findings are based on research published in the professional peer reviewed science literature; your ideas do not merit treatment in the lead because of WP:WEIGHT... after all the guys who say things you like are all opining the way you like.... but where is there research in the professional peer reviewed science literature?
(D) Lack of that research means the article that really covers there views has to comply with WP:FRINGE. We do not generally go into fringe ideas of complex subjects on the top level pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Very well said NewsAndEventsGuy. Beyond that, MrWorshipMe, I don't really see what your graph shows. Well, I did after a while but it wasn't immediately obvious. However, it is a graphical representation of a series of opinions and it assumes two very unlikely things: 1) That all opinions are equally weighted and that no scientist has more expertise than any other and 2) Complex arguments can be represented graphically.
If you are determined to disprove global warming, then link to peer-reviwed journals disproving it. It may take some time, though, as such research doesn't really exist as the FAQs above indicate. Vision Insider (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The ongoing scientific controversy needs to be highlighted. Hide the Decline II (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh really? My understanding is that the scientific "controversy" has onwent and is now essentially a political controversy. Published reliable sources needed. . . dave souza, talk 00:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Updated lede passage to capture shift in climate science

I updated the lede passage to better capture the shift in climate science thought over the last 30 years:

Global warming is of current interest, as concerns over climate change have shifted from a focus on global cooling in the 1970s (when NASA scientists indicated global temperatures could be reduced by 3.5°C and “trigger an ice age”) to the current focus on global warming (defined as the increase in average global temperatures of 0.74±0.18°C over the last 100 years).[1]

I think this better captures the evolution of thought. Junaji (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edit because I am concerned that global cooling requires a more complete explanation than was given in your edit. As the global cooling article explains, there was a lack of consensus on global cooling/warming in the 1970s. Without contextual information of this sort, I am concerned that some people could misinterpret the issue. Enescot (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It is so much easier to revert than to actually edit. But this should not be done to efforts to contribute constructively. Here is a sourced statement that sheds light over the history of thinking about global warming. Surely this has a place in Wikipedia. And surely we want to encourage, rather than discourage, a person that makes such a contribution. Please cooperate by reworking, rather than destroying. In this case the question is: Where in Wikipedia does this little piece of information fit best. A large number of articles have a section on the history of thinking about the subject. Should this article have one? --Ettrig (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Without substantial sources that show an actual shift in the science, the best place would be in the tactics section of the Climate denial article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
We also have global cooling and History of climate change science. The "source" is the link to a quite good 1971 article by Rasool and Schneider on the effects of aerosols on climate that some people very much like to cite out of context. Even in that article, Rasool and Schneider consider overall warming due to CO2 to be a likely outcome. How one gets from one very tentative article on the (now well-accepted) cooling effect of sulphur aerosols that also acknowledges the opposing effect of CO2 and mentions global warming as a likely outcome to "a focus on global cooling" is hard to explain when assuming food faith. Not to mention the peacocky "NASA scientists". Also note that S.H. Schneider is the late Stephen Schneider, one of the authors of Climate Change and the Integrity of Science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
<ec> "A sourced statement" misuses a primary source to misrepresent the state of science at the time: Weart covers this in more detail. This misleading [and quickly withdrawn superseded] paper doesn't belong in the lead. As for a section with a brief summary of History of climate change science, that's a good idea: it's more significant than the overextended "views" which should be trimmed, summary style. . dave souza, talk 09:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

One source that addresses this subject is a 2008 paper, which produced results shown graphically as follows:

Add caption here

For additional discussion, see this too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversy/conspiracy theories? Skepticism?

I think that there should definitely be a new section on the conspiracy theories/ skepticism. This article appears to be bias. Also, under the "See Also" we should have a link to Climate Controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Various links of that sort already appear in the article; some contenders are highlighted as main articles, and Global warming#Global warming controversy even has its own subsection heading in the table of contents. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that if this article is going to take global warming, a contreversial issue, and treat it like some plain dictionary entry it should never have became a featured article- it needs to actually note that this is a theory, that while is agreed on by many scientists, is still treated with skepticism. Just as a likely theory, I don't think this is quite fact yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Theory of gravity, Theory of Relativity and Theory of Evolution are outside wanting to talk to you about the term "fact". Everything in science is tentative and subject to scepticism. Our current theory of global warming is, unfortunately, not only subject to normal scepticism, but also to plain denial and politically motivated lies. That does not affect its scientific standing - see scientific opinion on climate change for the evaluation of people who know what they are talking about. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This article seriously needs to be edited... it's taking this like a fact. Global warming is a controversial theory. And there isn't enough data to build too much evidence. Anything that has to do with global warming is protected... even Hurricane Sandy. Anyone hear about some of those email dumps? Any mention of conspiracy theories? And the fact that no organizations within the scientific literature oppose it? No way. There has to be at least one or two.Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy was protected after an series of unconstructive edits like your removal of a paragraph. As for the controversy, there is Global_warming#Global_warming_controversy and the man articles Global warming controversy, Global warming conspiracy theory and even List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Organizations are not "in the scientific literature", but it is a fact that at the moment no recognizied scientific organization does oppose the current mainstream opinion - see scientific opinion on climate change. And while science is always tentative and moving, there are indeed very few peer-reviewed papers that disagree with any major part of the theory on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
As often as this "it's just a theory" nonsense comes up, I wonder if we ought to have some kind of list of the basic principles this article is based on. Not that fly-by low-information readers ever bother to read anything like an FAQ, but it would be a place to direct some of the meta-discussions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
See footnote #6 in the current version from which our reference includes the following excerpt (bold added):
there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good language, and I wonder if that ought to be incorporated into FAQ #8. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
So the Earth is burning up and no one cares enough to do anything about it? This worldview sounds extremely depressing. After all, this would not be a difficult problem to solve if people put their minds to it.[21] Kauffner (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth as a way to introduce your desired topics. If you want to talk about specific ideas for improving the articles geoengineering section then start a new thread for that purpose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Neither does our article make the claim you suggest, nor are any geoengineering techniques remotely well-enough understood to apply them. I would wish that people display the same scepticism with regards to this topic (in this case presented by one paper based on one study and, apparently, filtered through the lens of the popular press) than they do to global warming in general (which is supported by thousands of studies and papers, carefully distilled into quite accessible reports that even Richard Lindzen calls "an admirable description of research activities in climate science"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I once tried to explain the proof that the square root of two is irrational to an intelligent and learned college administrator. This proof is more than two thousand years old, involves only a few lines of very elementary mathematics, and has been understood by millions of math majors over the years. He was totally unable to understand what I was talking about. Given the inability of most people to follow even a short, simple logical argument, it should not come as a surprise that global warming deniers cannot understand scientific evidence, and cannot see how feeble the arguments against global warming are. "You cannot reason someone out of an opinion that they did not reason themselves into in the first place." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion started with "I think...". Which is about the most presumptuous thing a human being can say, considering the demonstrated difficulties. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The end of global warming models

The NOAA put out the following statement in 2008. You can find it on page 23 of its 2008 State of the Climate National Overview in 2008

Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate

This seems to me to be a succinct and very good scientific statement that gives an objective standard by which to judge if the GCM models are wonky. It also seems superior to the answer provided in FAQ question 3 above. I propose to add the NOAA statement to FAQ question 3. TMLutas (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You've missed something. Hint: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/12/02/american-thinker-climate-forecaster-of-the-year-2010/ William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

IPCC models are also "uncertain" in that they do not include all feedbacks

First reversion

Here is a diff for the first reverted text under discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed this recent addition to the lede by User:NewsAndEventsGuy:

"(...) (AR4 temperature projections) omit the effect of any climate system feedbacks that were not included in the models, i.e., greenhouse gas releases from thawing permafrost or methane hydrates."[2][3]

I don't agree that this issue should be explained like this. In my opinion, the risks of climate change should be explained in a more generalized fashion, e.g., from effects of global warming#Physical impacts: "Human-induced warming could potentially lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible (see the section on Abrupt or irreversible changes).[4][5] The probability of warming having unforeseen consequences increases with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change."[6] See also economics of global warming#Temperature. Enescot (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Back up please and let us define what the "issue" is. The issue is not methane hydrates per se. The issue is certainty vs uncertainty with the specific temp ranges IPCC projected. We have not listed a single qualifier. For example, we only listed the ranges for the highest and lowest emissions scenarios IPCC used - there are others, especially higher ones, but we did not say that. We also did not say that the highest scenario used was run in AR4 without the available GCMs. When Betts (et al) did that later they bumped up the likely amount of warming. In listing these ranges we say nothing about the specific hedges IPCC stated. So the issue here is NOT about teaching about methane hydrates. The issue here is integrity in our coverage: we must not mislead readers into thinking the stated temp rangers are really rock solid except for one (and only one) unknown, the dangling issue of climate sensitivity. The issue is that the ranges were based on the best assumptions at the time, and in light of limited computing power. This creates an "uncertainty" in the layman's sense of the word. We have to address that to avoid giving a false sense of "certainty" in the lay reader's take-home message. Subsequent to your reverting my first attempt UNEP has released a new report, and I have incorporated additional RSs a revised attempt to address "the issue". Please see the article for the new attempt. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the Warren paper is a literature review. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The body text contains qualifiers, and the feedbacks section (undue weight in my opinion) also discusses uncertainty. You are selecting two sources which have not gone through the rigorous IPCC or US National Research Council peer-review and consensus process. I agree that the uncertainty in projections could be better explained, but I do not agree that you edit is an improvement in this regard. I should also note that the IPCC's best estimates are below the upper end of the "likely" ranges. Additionally the "likely" range is not based solely on model results, but reflects the expert judgement of IPCC authors of all available information, including uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback.
You argue that the lede is misleading in its coverage of uncertainty. However, the lede uses the same word ("likely") as the IPCC to describe the likelihood of the projected range being correct. You imply that the IPCC's projections are out-of-date, but as I have commented previously, numerous other reliable sources are consistent with the IPCC's findings. If I can make a suggestion, perhaps you could post a draft revision here so that we can discuss the issue further. Changes to the lede are especially important, and I'm sure that other editors will be interested in any changes you propose. Enescot (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Until we have an assessment of the weight of these uncertainties in comparison with the actual model uncertainties, it belongs in the in-depth articles. As it stands it provides (imho) undue weight/focus (literature wise) - it might turn out to be significant, but we as wikipedians are not the arbiters of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Re the Warren review. Methane release is not a primary focus of the paper (it is a short notice), and the timescales considered by Warren for methane release does not match the timescales considered here. (ie. methane over 1,000-100,000 years is not directly comparable to a timescale of 100 years). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Second reversion

Here is a diff for the second reverted text under discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For ease of reference, the reverted text reads (or should one say "read"?) as follows:

In addition, the models used in their report did not include various climate feedbacks that could greatly exacerbate these projections.[3][7][8] According to the UNEP, even the climate projections in the IPCC’s next assessment "are likely to be biased on the low side relative to global temperature because none of the participating models include the permafrost carbon feedback."[9]

This text was also reverted and the discussion is below NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was reverted, and for good reasons - some already given above. But here is a major one: You cut down Warren's text about interaction factors into "climate feedbacks" - this is simply not correct. Of the 8 interactions that Warren summarizes in the introduction, only 1 of them is feedbacks. Feedback processes are a factor - but your focus/undue weight on this is not warrented (pun intended). And as i pointed out above - the timescales of some of these feedbacks is not comparable to the timescales that are discussed here .. or more clearly you cherry-pick from Warren here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

References for this thread

Reflist for above:

  1. ^ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138?ck=nck
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference NSDIC_permafrost_study was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Warren, Rachel (Jan 2011). "The role of interactions in a world implementing change adaptation and mitigation solutions to climate". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369 (1934): 217–241. Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369..217W. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0271. PMID 21115521. 
  4. ^ IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Sec. 3. Projected climate change and its impacts , in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
  5. ^ "New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible" (Press release). NOAA. 26 January 2009. [dead link][citation needed]
  6. ^ "Executive Summary" (PHP). Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (United States National Academy of Sciences). June 2002. Retrieved 2007-05-07. 
  7. ^ Kiehl, Jeffrey (01/11/2011). "Lessons from Earth's Past". Science 331 (6014): 158–159. doi:10.1126/science.1199380.  "Earth’s CO2 concentration is rapidly rising to a level not seen in ~30 to 100 million years, and Earth’s climate was extremely warm at these levels of CO2. If the world reaches such concentrations of atmospheric CO2, positive feedback processes can amplify global warming beyond current modeling estimates. The human species and global ecosystems will be placed in a climate state never before experienced in their evolutionary history and at an unprecedented rate. Note that these conclusions arise from observations from Earth’s past and not specifically from climate models."
  8. ^ Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must Be Avoided. World Bank. 2012. p. 50. "[W]hile uncertainty remains in the projections, there is a risk not only of major loss of valuable ecosystem services, particularly to the poor and the most vulnerable who depend on them, but also of feedbacks being initiated that would result in ever higher CO2 emissions and thus rates of global warming."
  9. ^ Schaefer, et al, Kevin (2012). Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost. UNEP. pp. iv. ISBN 978-92-807-3308-2. "All climate projections in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, due for release in 2013-14, are likely to be biased on the low side relative to global temperature because the models did not include the permafrost carbon feedback. Consequently, targets for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions based on these climate projections would be biased high. The treaty in negotiation sets a global target warming of 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100. If anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions targets do not account for CO2 and methane emissions from thawing permafrost, the world may overshoot this target."

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of feedbacks discussion

As I've already stated, I do not agree with how uncertainty in the IPCC's temperature projections are discussed in the lede. One revision I've thought of is to simply move the quantitative IPCC projections from the lede to the "climate model" section, and replace them with "Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming the 21st century that would very likely be larger than that observed during the 20th century"[22]. The main text of the article has more information on the IPCC projections/feedbacks. As a result, my suggested revision would indirectly address the issue that NewsAndEventsGuy has raised. Enescot (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Background observations, at this time I am not endorsing Enescot's suggestion nor proposing any other changes.
(A) IPCC's use of "likely" for these temp ranges means >66% certain, per ref footnote 4 in this version.
(B) Media usually talks about the chance that IPCC has over-estimated, however, in the absence of reasons to think one way or the other NPOV requires equal treatment of the possibility that their >66% certainty range is an under-estimate. See last section of this non-RS blog post (offered here for background purposes only)
(C) IPCC has more uncertainty for more warming. Each range started with a "best estimate", from which IPCC generated the range for which they have >66% certainty. To create the range, they subtracted a bit (40%) from the best estimate, but they added more (60%). See ref footnote 8 in this version.
(D) To my knowledge, IPCC AR4 (2007) has no discussion of mechanisms that might unexpectedly cause substantial reductions to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations or climate system responses, but they most certainly do talk about mechanisms that might possibly increase both.
(E) We say the different ranges exist due to use of models with differing climate sensitivity but that's just one factor. IPCC says there are different types of uncertainties, including "structural" ones. Examples include but are not limited to incomplete modeling of some feedback processes and not including others at all.
(F) IPCC's guidance note to AR4 authors observed that "Experts tend to underestimate structural uncertainty arising from incomplete understanding of or competing conceptual frameworks for relevant systems and processes."
(G) Arctic albedo is changing much faster than apparently expected. From sea ice loss, to Greenland's melt ponds and dusting of particulate from fires, to reduced extent and duration of snowfall, to timber-stand replacement (spruce in place of larch), the cryosphere appears to be sucking up heat it used to reflect back to space at an ever-faster rate.
We agree we need to treat uncertainty better. And that means better coverage of the possibilities IPCC could be under-estimating as well as over. The ranges after all are only stated with ">66% certainty". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See the related thread below Talk:Global warming#Section on feedbacks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Section on solar activity

This section contains useful content but I am concerned about some aspects of it. For a start, Svenmark's hypothesis gets a full paragraph, which I think is somewhat questionable. The article implicitly gives Svenmark's views considerably more weight than the extensive evidence supporting attribution to human activities (see attribution of recent climate change). Additionally, I don't see why James Hansen's views need to be mentioned. I can't see any reason why he needs to be directly quoted. Enescot (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Its scar tissue from old wars. Probably time to revise it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In addition to Svenmark's bit seeming overblown, in the current version the paragraph on the stratosphere and troposhere behaving differently seems out of place. Maybe some more glue could anchor it in this section better, or maybe it should be moved out.... maybe being revised to fit with observed temps?
As for Hansen, he has not provided "views" so much as a reference-able statement regarding a key observation from this last solar minimum.... it was a really low minimum, and yet the place still got warmer overall, contrary to the usual skeptical arguments that increases in temp are driven by sunspots. We did see such a minimum, we did see a temp increase, and if we are to mention this observation we need an RS from someone. If not an RS attributed to Hansen, what RS do you suggest be substituted in place of it? Or do you think we should not say anything at all about the skeptical argument being apparently contradicted with observation during this last solar cycle? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to keep the stuff about changes in the stratosphere and troposphere, but perhaps the issue could be explained more clearly. As for the Svenmark's hypothesis, I think it could be moved to attribution of recent climate change. The section on "views on global warming" could be revised, e.g., "However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science, see list of scientists opposing global warming consensus."
I do not think it is necessary to quote Hansen. Personally I would prefer that information was added on the small contribution of solar activity to radiative forcing, as compared to anthropogenic forcings. In my opinion, the graph of changes in radiative forcing should be added to the article (below). The article states - "The effect of changes in solar forcing in recent decades is uncertain, but small, with some studies showing a slight cooling effect,[90][91] while others studies suggest a slight warming effect". I think this is quite a weak statement. Compare this with the EPA's comments on attribution [23][24], which I think are pretty robust.
Refer to caption
Radiative forcing graph.
Enescot (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not mean to suggest deleting the troposphere/stratosphere bit, just that it seems out of place under "solar activity". I mean, we're not talking about solar activity, we're talking about responses of different atmospheric layers. It would seem more at home in this section with just a bit of introductory glue.... something about how some have said warming is just due to "solar activity", but these different responses tell us otherwise. That would make it seem more at home in this section. If I come up with further comments on anything else you said, I will add them later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've put together a draft replacement for the solar activity section. It's taken from attribution of recent climate change#Solar activity (sources are cited in that article). I've arranged the images to stop them from spilling over into the next thread. If other editors agree with my revision, I would arrange the images vertically inside the relevant section of the article:
Refer to caption and adjacent text
Satellite observations of Total Solar Irradiance from 1979–2006.
Refer to caption
Contribution of natural factors and human activities to radiative forcing of climate change.[1] Radiative forcing values are for the year 2005, relative to the pre-industrial era (1750).[1] The contribution of solar irradiance to radiative forcing is 5% the value of the combined radiative forcing due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.[2]
"Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites.[6]:6 These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth. In the three decades since 1978, the combination of solar and volcanic activity probably had a slight cooling influence on the climate.
Climate models are unable to reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. Models are, however, able to simulate the observed 20th century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external forcings, including human influences and natural forcings.
Another line of evidence against the sun having caused recent climate change comes from looking at how temperatures at different levels in the Earth's atmosphere have changed.[65] Models and observations show that greenhouse warming results in warming of the lower atmosphere (called the troposphere) but cooling of the upper atmosphere (called the stratosphere).[66] Depletion of the ozone layer by chemical refrigerants has also resulted in a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. If the sun was responsible for observed warming, warming of both the troposphere and stratosphere would be expected."
Enescot (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock comment removed

This is the Michigan-based IP sock again, from their alternative hangout (NW region of Florida). Effective now, I'm going to just work on article content so if this sock's external link-farm spam seems to spike (nature abhors a vaccuum) some of you may want to help patrol, revert his ext link spam, and most important of all, make sure to ask the involved eds to tell the server the block-clocks have restarted before the server erroneously thinks they expire. Here is the log and there is a lot of history on my talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

Shouldn't an article on global warming include this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png for reference? I'm not particularly good with editing in images and it's a touchy subject, so figured I'd see if someone more knowledgeable would help out. For the record I believe humans are definitely affecting our climate in a warming manner (...words, not good with I am). Pär Larsson (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

As the hat-note says, "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate." It might be that that graph, going back more than 500 million years, would be more relevant at Climate change, which takes a longer view. This is such a vast subject area that we cannot cover much of it in any one article. --21:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Magnetic field strength

I undid this addition [25]:

Magnetic field strength
Some recent (2006+) analysis suggests that global climate is correlated with the strength of Earth's magnetic field.[3][4]

I don't think that fringe views should be discussed in this top-level article. The section on "other views" already states "some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science,[194][196][197] see: list of scientists opposing global warming consensus." I've revised and moved the above edit to attribution of recent climate change. Enescot (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Since when is the view "fringe"? -- Has any body of reputable scientists disparaged, in general, the idea that a relationship between climate and magnetic field strength can exist, or, in particular, the work of Courtillot, et al (who, in their conclusion, were careful to point out that magnetic field influences are only factor of many affecting climate; i.e., their work isn't the denialist polemic it seems you're attempting to imply)?--Mike18xx (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Layman that I am, when this edit earlier appeared at another article I read the sources. As I understand the general idea, once a stable climate regime gets a kick one way or the other, although the initial kick might be relatively small, it might still be enough to trigger a series of feedbacks that have a much larger cumulative effect, and we end up with a new climate regime. When I read these sources with my amateur's understanding, I could not say "piffle" to the notion that these events might be one of, repeat one of, the mechanisms behind the initial kick. If this is so, it would be further evidence of the strong likelihood that fossil-fuel carbon emissions will bring about a climate shift. Is there any nay-saying work in the peer-reviewed literature? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it's more irrelevant by the FAQ at the top of this page, #21. Not every bit of research gets included in this article.... however, I'm actually more inlined to call it fringe having read the paper and the responses. For example, it's dependent upon the cosmic ray-climate link for any plausible physical mechanism, but that link is not strongly supported in the literature. It looks an awful lot like an exercise in "mathturbation." (i.e. cherry-picking of correlations that look good rather than the ones which are most robust). And actually Courtillot has apparently been involved in a scandal of allowing climate denial papers to be published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters without rigorous review. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh my, there's even a pretty compelling demolition of the specific courtillot paper available. Basically, they selectively quote only data that sort of agrees with them, and then fail to address certain giant holes in their hypothesis, such as the the extreme divergence between solar activity and temperature over the past solar cycle or two. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Since when would a paper (with four co-authors) analyzing magnetic field strength have, as its "hypothesis", solar activity and temperature being in correlation? Do you know anything about the subject? -- Neither of you two appear to have actually read the paper let alone understood it, yet you're perfectly willing to make assertions regarding its contents and conclusion; and in one case, spam my talk page with a lot of bullshit. Well, hey; it's just another day at the Wikipedia circus, isn't it? <insert jerk-it smiley.gif>--Mike18xx (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Solar activity correlates with magnetic field strength which anti-correlates with cosmic rays. If temperature doesn't correlate with one it doesn't correlate with the rest. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the point made by Sailsbystars – your edit places undue weight on certain viewpoints. Sailsbystars has provided a link to Realclimate, and there's also this from the US EPA (Response 3-36): "The contention that cosmic rays could provide the mechanism by which changes in solar activity affect climate is not supported by the literature." Your edit wasn't especially clear. It didn't state to what extent changes in Earth's magnetic field have affected climate, how this compares with human activities, and how much support this view has in the scientific community. Numerous reliable sources (US National Research Council, UK Royal Society, World Meteorological Organization, NASA, the EPA, and the American Meteorological Society) have produced summaries of climate change science which cover the most important issues. The issue of cosmic rays affecting climate generally do not appear in their top-level summaries. It is probably appropriate to discuss cosmic rays in attribution of recent climate change, since that article provides a reasonable summary of the evidence supporting attribution to human activities. Enescot (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2013

please replace {{wict|benthic}} with [[wikt:benthic|benthic]] per WP:TFD/H 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Done as it is a minor change only. I only found one instance; please let me know if I missed any. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

greenhouse by DR. anggaos decembryan

It's unethical to list some group of people who have certain views.

Discuss is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#It.27s_unethical_to_list_some_group_of_people_who_have_certain_views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talkcontribs) 00:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated global temperature chart is available

Should we update the link?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

66.74.145.42 (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. The NASA image needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Given that it covers a different time period, it should be under a new name. Then that needs to be inserted into the article. Are you up to it or do you need help? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have just prepared new chart (in svg) File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg (new data, new format), but I am not register in English wiki. Could someone change the file in article? Thanks. Pavouk --81.19.4.215 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Sailsbystars (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This new graph has no 'graph paper' lines, or ticks on the axes, so you can't read figures from it. Also, Wikipedia's SVG -> PNG rendering engine seems to have no idea how to space the characters in the text. The new image has large white borders that further shrink the useful information at thumbnail size. Overall, not an improvement at this level of quality. Compare NASA's original with our version. --Nigelj (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The characters come out especially bad in the thumb.... feel free to revert my change if you think it's bad enough. The full sized image isn't too bad except for the y-axis label. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the picture (text>vector, crop picture). I hope that now is quality the better, but it depends of rendering engine.... [26] Pavouk--81.19.4.215 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Section on feedbacks

In my opinion, the "feedbacks" section of the article would benefit from revision. In particular, I'm concerned about how the section describes carbon cycle feedbacks. It makes some pretty bold statements, and implies that the IPCC's projections are biased downwards. While this may reflect the view of some experts, I am not convinced that it reflects a consensus view.

There is also the issue of how much space is devoted to carbon cycle feedbacks in relation to other important feedbacks. For example, refer to these summaries by the UK Royal Society (pp8-10) and US National Research Council pp26-27p200. Carbon cycle feedbacks are not the only factor that affect projections of future climate change. The water vapor feedback is important, yet it gets very little space. The same is true of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

There is very little information on abrupt or large-scale changes in climate system. This issue has featured in the IPCC reports [27][28][29] and other assessments [30]. I think that this article should provide a better summary of the issue. Enescot (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Distinction should be made between feedbacks that were
  • well-quantified in the AR4 models, like the two you mentioned (water vapor feedback and Stefan-Boltzmann law),
  • poorly quantified or not included in them, like large components of the carbon cycle and faster-than-expected albedo reduction in the cryosphere, which ties this discussion to our sister thread on "uncertainty".
I too would like to see better discussion of abrupt or large-scale changes in the climate system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I've put together a draft revision which I hope we can discuss.
"The climate system includes a range of "feedbacks" which alter the response of the system to changes in external forcings. Positive feedbacks amplify the response of the climate system to the initial forcing, while negative feedbacks dampen the response of the climate system to the initial forcing.
There are a range of feedbacks in the climate system, including water vapor, changes in ice-albedo (snow and ice cover affect how much the Earth's surface absorbs or reflects incoming sunlight), clouds, and changes in the Earth's carbon cycle (e.g., the release of carbon from soil). The main negative feedback is the energy which the Earth's surface radiates into space as infrared radiation (US NRC, 2003). According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, if temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power).
Feedbacks are an important factor in determining the sensitivity of the climate system to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. Other factors being equal, a higher "climate sensitivity" means that more warming will occur for a given increase in greenhouse gas forcing (US NRC 2006). Uncertainty over the effect of feedbacks is a major reason why different climate models project different magnitudes of warming for a given forcing scenario. More research is needed to understand the role of clouds (NASA) and carbon cycle feedbacks in climate projections (American Meteorological Society).
The IPCC projections given in the lede span the "likely" range (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement) for the selected emissions scenarios. However, the IPCC's projections do not reflect the full range of uncertainty. The lower end of the "likely" range appears to be better constrained than the upper end of the "likely" range (Meehl et al 2007).
Large-scale and abrupt impacts
Climate change could result in global, large-scale changes in natural and social systems (Smith et al 2001). Two examples are ocean acidification caused by increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and the long-term melting of ice sheets, which contributes to sea level rise.
Some large-scale changes could occur abruptly, i.e., over a short time period, and might also be irreversible. An example of abrupt climate change is the rapid release of methane from permafrost, which would lead to amplified global warming. Scientific understanding of abrupt climate change is generally poor (US NRC, 2010, p3). However, the probability of abrupt changes appears to be very low (IPCC, 2001;CCSP, 2008, pp.2-6). The probability of abrupt climate change may increase with larger magnitudes of global warming. Additionally, more rapid global warming may increase the probability of abrupt climate change."
Enescot (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Questions
  • 1. Do you propose this draft to replace the entire feedback section in the current text?
  • 2. Should your draft be evaluated in context that it is a complete response to the issues in our "uncertainty" thread, or in context that more draft text is coming with respect to "uncertainty"?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
My intention is to replace the entire feedback section with my suggested revision. It would probably be best if the section on abrupt climate change was added as a sub-section to the "environmental effects" section rather than the "feedbacks" section. For Q2, I've tried to address the issue you raised about uncertainty in my suggested revision. I haven't got any other draft text to post. Enescot (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll have time to focus on this and reply (either way) later this week. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It may be just pedantic but I worry about the use of amplify and damping in the second proposed sentence. Amplification and damping are both defined terms in many of the disciplines where feedbacks apply, and neither of them mean what is meant in that sentence. Amplification happens when a small cause directly alters a larger effect, for example the small force necessary to adjust a valve or stopcock directly affecting a much larger flow of water. (If the water flow was directed in such a way that it could further open its own valve, that would be a feedback.) Many feedback processes can go into a oscillatory state. When this happens, the degree of damping refers to how quickly the oscillations will subside. Might I suggest any choice you like from, "Positive feedbacks increase/augment/reinforce the response of the climate system to the an initial forcing, while negative feedbacks reduce/diminish the response of the climate system to the an initial forcing." I've also changed the the's to an as feedback effects will operate after there has been any perturbation, not just one in 'their area'. --Nigelj (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since I have not found the time to return to this, I have no additional comments.... and I don't expect to be around much for some months, either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I agree with the changes suggested by Nigelj. In my suggested revision, I missed out one of the factors which may increase the probability of abrupt climate change (from IPCC, 2001). Revised text is italicized:
"...the probability of abrupt changes appears to be very low (IPCC, 2001;CCSP, 2008, pp.2-6). Factors that may increase the probability of abrupt climate change include higher magnitudes of global warming, warming that occurs more rapidly, and warming that is sustained over longer time periods."
Enescot (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Almost everything in the section on effects is just pure speculation and has no place in an article claiming to be scientific. Yes it could cause a lot of things, just as aliens could come down and destroy the world because of all the plant food we release into the atmosphere. Yes it could happen, but idle speculation is no replacement for concrete facts. Stick to the facts - like the fact it is not currently warming. Yes you could add details on impacts if you can point to evidence or scientific tests that indicates that such and such will happen, but otherwise it has no place in the article .... oops, I forgot, the article is a none article ... there has been no global warming all the time this article has been in existence. So, I suppose if you have a fairytale article, perhaps you are allowed to make up whatever you like. In fact, to be quite honest, I can't say what should be in an article whose title is meaningless and frankly a lie. So, do what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Politics

Can we mention Alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol and successor in the section on politics ? That page mentions some political/juridical changes, different from the Kyoto protocol. 109.133.115.188 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No we can't.... that section heading at that article was poorly conceived and the contents were not properly sourced. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That said, the politics section does seem to dwell only on international treaty talks. Even without them, any nation can make the political decision to deploy some or all of Socolow's climate wedges any time want. But since we already have a section on mitigation, it would be silly to repeat all of that, and discussion of every nations political discussion about them would exceed the scope of this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Native Americans

There is some research into what effects Native Americans may have had on the atmosphere due to deforestation across North America and such before the, uh, colonization of the Americas. It's considered possible that global warming could have started earlier if it, wasn't for the genocide and taking over of land and so on that had the effect of slowing down deforestation....would that belong on this article? There's not really a history section.--occono (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies this is so awkwardly worded. --occono (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you're looking for Early anthropocene William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you've found it, but why don't we have any link to it from this article? It seems like an actual scientifically interesting/valid debate about global warming (i.e. where do you pick the start of man made global warming)... Sailsbystars (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Early anthropocene article covers exactly what Occono was looking for. I vaguely remember people associating the great die-off in the Americas as the result of smallpocks and measles with a resulting drop in CO2 helping along the little ice age. It's a superficially attractive theory, but I never looked at it in enough detail to get a good feel for the plausibility. DF's CO2 image seems to show a small decrease from ~1550 to ~1600, somewhat in line. But I have no idea if that effect is significant. And, of course, I quite forgot where I read about the idea to begin with... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  "There is some research..."? That is hardly acceptable. Please specify what research; otherwise we are just speculating on a ghost.
  I have seen studies on the effects of paleo-human hunting and fishing on natural resources, but am not aware of any notable deforestation. Which, at any rate, only speeds up the carbon cycle (the forest regrows); it doesn't notably increase the carbon in the cycle like industrial scale burning of coal and oil.
  When did AGW start? Might as well ask when a hurricane starts. I think most picks are based on when the curve of CO2 emissions turned sharply upward, which is roughly the period between World Wars I and II. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FYI, I have AFD'd Early anthropocene due to it being a textbook POVFORK split off from Anthropocene. Comments welcome at the AFD discussion page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

North American drought and corn prices

I would prefer that readers of this talk page have the unhindered opportunity to review the removal. Neo Poz (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Just click "show" in the green bar NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

After a lengthy discussion at Talk:Effects of global warming#North American drought and corn prices, I have made an edit to that article which I believe addresses all of the concerns raised and propose for here because the price spike of the largest crop of the largest economy is central to the general issue of global warming, far more than the discussion in this article's "Food security" section, which describes relatively mild 2007 projections already overtaken by observed declines in crop production. Neo Poz (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A further refinement has stood at the Effects article addressing the globalization problems with the earlier version for a few days now without any discussion. I think it is appropriate for this article, but I want to give it at least a few more days from now. Neo Poz (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

IPCC projection underestimations

This came up in a tangental discussion about an article for which it really isn't directly applicable, and I'd like to know where editors think it is most appropriate to include. [31] shows that IPCC projections have underestimated emissions, temperature, Arctic sea ice loss, Greenland and Antarctica glacier loss, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and thawing tundra. Neo Poz (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Distribution of professional opinion on anthropogenic climate change - by Tobis and Ban.jpg
I don't dispute any of the points raised.... however we'll need a better source, since that appears to be a WP:BLOG, for which the default rule is "not an WP:RS, unless you can get consensus that one of the exceptions applies". As a sidebar, there is something of a disagreement here as to whether we should focus mainly on
(A) The latest IPCC assessment (which as you know was released in 2007, and the writing began before that using even older, previously-published papers, which often take months to work thru the publishing process, a often as long in the writing process, all of which followed the analysis of data collected 'way before that!) So the 2007 assessment is largely based on significantly older data;
(B) More recent peer reviewed work that is - presumably - being considered by IPCC in preparing AR5 due out in 2014.
These options are most easily perceived by reference to Tobis&Ban's graphic (which we can't use in the article due its lack of RSs). I favor Option B, and think we should describe RSs from across this entire curve (the bigger one). It seems to me that some regular climate eds want to emphasize a focus on the last IPCC assessment and are, at least in my view, unbalancing this group of articles with undue weighting of the left side of the bigger curve. But trying to keep balance with more recent research from the entire curve will take a bigger effort than I can invest presently, and quality RSs. Good luck! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
That's definitely not a good source. It doesn't even support what you're saying: Why the miss? While technically within the range... - ie, no, IPCC didn't actually "underestimate" emissions William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
There is more detail on that at [32], suggesting an underestimation in 2006-7, and that the IPCC was saved by the global recession but is not on track with the trend. Is there a substantial enough difference between "industrial carbon emissions" and carbon from fossil fuel for that to matter? If time permits I'll pull out the underlying non-blog sources and try to propose some specific text. But I doubt it's appropriate for this article. Probably some IPCC article? Neo Poz (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see who you can use that article - well, the leading graphic at least - to argue that emissions are above what IPCC "estimated". It shows the opposite William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This graph is the most up-to-date I can find. There is no "range" involved for these projections, they're just simple lines for different scenarios. Four out of five of them are below observations. Do you have any issues with the other six claims? Neo Poz (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Neo, FYI, I have made very little headway with either climate hawks, skeptics, or deniers, asking what anyone thinks about issue Y. To be effective, try to master the skill of (a) finding reliable sources, (b) letting them do the talking, (c) avoid stepping in the doodoo of opinion-based arguments, and (d) expect others to also speak through RSs. If you can do that, you'll last longer and have more of an impact. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I can tell it's eggshells around here, and I don't want to argue. Again, I think the topic, even with the underlying sources if all of them turn out to be impeccable, is most likely not appropriate for this article, and my only reason for asking is that I had missed IPCC#Conservative nature of IPCC reports and some of its sibling sections the first time I looked through there. Neo Poz (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The blog you initially cited contains inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the IPCC's work:
SRES:
See Manning et al. [33] for a discussion of SRES emissions projections. Authors of the SRES report specifically stated that their scenarios are not intended for short-term emissions projections. This article does not rely exclusively on the SRES scenarios. The lede and politics sections of the article refer to reports by UNEP and the IEA, which contain more recent projections. Based on existing policies, UNEP (2012, p.20) projections imply likely warming over the 21st century of 3 to 5 degrees C, relative to the pre-industrial level. UNEP (2012, pp3-4) found that a 2 or 1.5 degrees C target is still achievable, but may require negative emissions later in the 21st century. To summarize, the UNEP temperature projections are broadly consistent with the Fourth Assessment Report's (AR4) SRES temperature projections (see also Manning et al's comment on cumulative energy-related CO2 emissions). The AR4 SRES projections have also been cited in more recent publications (NRC, 2011, pp21-22). The lede clearly states that current policies appear to be too weak to limit warming to below 2 degrees C.
Arctic
The current revision of the article does not even refer to IPCC AR4's Arctic sea ice projections.
Sea level rise
The blog misrepresents the findings of IPCC AR4, which included an estimate of the contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise. This estimate is cited in the article.
Ocean acidification
The relevant section of the article does not cite IPCC AR4. In my opinion, the current revision is far from being conservative. Indeed, I think that its tone is somewhat alarmist (e.g., compare with [34][35])
Tipping points
The IPCC reports do include an assessment of tipping points [36][37][38].
Enescot (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Would you or may I please move these comments to Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Seven_underestimations? Neo Poz (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't belong on the IPCC article, which is about the organization, not about the science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Where to, then? Neo Poz (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
At the moment? No where. You are using a blog as a stepping stone to original research. None of which have anything to do on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I've repeatedly said that the underlying sources need to be evaluated, and I'm grateful that someone has started to do so. The blog seemed plausible when I read it last year because someone shared it with me. That's as far as my involvement and goals go. Neo Poz (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't matter how plausible a blog may sound - it still doesn't belong here, do the homework of evaluation before posting here... as Enescot has shown, it isn't a good source and it makes the usual errors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
My understanding of the usual errors are the abundance of material, much of it astroturf but pervasive nonetheless, which suggests the IPCC is vastly overestimating their projections. And I'm not convinced by Enescot's critique. Literature reviews which do cite the AR4's projections of Arctic sea ice loss, for example, also complain they substantially underestimated it. Neo Poz (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
In my initial response, I was too critical of your comments. As you say, there are reliable sources which argue that the IPCC has underestimated the severity of climate change. You've already mentioned that issue is discussed in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Conservative nature of IPCC reports. I'd add to that Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report#Arctic sea ice extent. Current sea level rise includes more recent sea level rise projections, as assessed by the US National Research Council in 2010. Global climate model includes more recent temperature projections by MIT and the UK Met Office. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios and climate change scenario include summaries of more recent emissions projections. Reasons for concern refers to the updated "burning embers" diagram which was omitted from AR4.
One of the reliable sources which has assessed the IPCC's work is the Netherlands Environment Agency's 2009 review [39]. IPCC author Richard Alley [40] has briefly commented on how the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) underestimated the contribution of ice sheets to sea level rise. Enescot (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Restored "geoengineering" section

I've restored the "geoengineering" section. I think that geoengineering is an important subject and should be mentioned in this article. In my opinion, the section could probably be improved (compare with [41][42][43]). For example, the risk of negative impacts from geoengineering is not mentioned. Another problem with geoengineering is the lack of international regulation. International regulation is needed because if one country implements geoengineering, other countries may also be affected. Enescot (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this really considered that important (per WP:WEIGHT as opposed to personal opinions)? If you look at the mitigation part of AR4, what is the weight attached to GeoEng? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It is certainly not merited as much space as mitigation and adaptation ... after all it is a subpart of mitigation - not a topic in and by itself at this level of abstraction.. correct? Should we merit just as much room for Gen IV nuclear then? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd quite like to see it back in. In practical terms its not very important now, but it is of interest, and something readers will likely want to look for. I think a geoeng section should mention clouds, and also the dubious legality William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Geoengineering could certainly be "of interest" as well as "something readers will likely want to look for" but the relevant issue here is if it merits a separate section or not. And the point standing is that it is still a part of mitigation. Nicehumor (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It could be important, and even notable, but not yet. And in any event it is not about global warming, but the mitigation of global warming. Also: didn't we have some good reasons for pulling it out in the first place? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with WMC. The reason I think it needs to be in a different section is because it is NOT just a subset of mitigation, but rather it overlaps mitigation. Our RS that defines mitigation (glossary from TAR) says "with respect to Climate Change, mitigation means implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance sinks." Obviously, many geoengineering ideas fall under that umbrella, such as ocean iron fertilization or converting to noncarbon energy sources like wind. But other geo-eng does not fall under that definition, such as painting roofs white or building an orbiting solar shade. Since geo-eng overlaps, but is not a mere subset, of mitigation, it deserves its own short section in this top-level article. Nothing much more than a teaser to point to the appropriate sub-article (whatever that is). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
GeoEng is primarily either CDR (carbon dioxide removal) or SRM (solar radiation management), both of which are mitigation measures. [ie. they mitigate the effects of climate change]. CDR directly falls under he definition you mention, and while SRM doesn't directly - it instead changes the amount of radiation capture caused by GHG's.
We need to separate the "this is something that people should know/are interested in", which (imho) is a slippery slope to advocacy, from what is pertinent at this level of information presentation (weight). Imho GeoEng can be mentioned under mitigation if needed, and if the Climate change mitigation article merits it sufficient weight to be summarized at this level of abstraction.
If GeoEng is deemed important enough here, then a serious discussion is needed on why Alternative energy, Energy efficiency, Sink management, the Wedge game or Societal control isn't granted the same level of description. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
In this version we have an unsupported sweeping definition and even though I have no quibble based on what I think I know, there is still no RS for it so I just tagged it (citation needed). This text says:
Reducing the amount of future climate change is called mitigation of climate change.
We then give the IPCC AR4 WG3 glossary def of mitigation, which is significantly narrower in scope.
The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere.
I know I've seen RSs for the sweeping definition and so it appears the RSs do not 100% agree on the scope of the definition of "mitigation". I don't disagree with any of the opinions expressed above, because there appears to be no right and wrong answer. Some say - for example - that solar management is "mitigation" and some do not. Some say potato and some say potahto (and I say spud). I think geoeng should be a subheading under mitigation. We could mention the IPCC def with a couple of examples, and also mention that there are other geoeng approaches (like solar management) that some consider to be under the mitigation heading and some do not. This would be an accurate reporting of the RSs, and would take just two or three sentences. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue is still WP:WEIGHT. Give me a rationale for this to be included, while other major (real and proposed) mitigations aren't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Some of our existing RSs mention it in the same breath as cutting greenhouse gases. For example, in America's Climate Choices (which we cite in the lead) the US National Research Council says on the first page of the chapter "Key Elements of America's Climate Choices":
The basic opportunities available for reducing GHG emissions include restricting or modifying activities that release GHGs (e.g., burning of fossil fuels), removing CO2 from the waste stream of large point sources of emissions and sequestering it underground (carbon capture and storage), or augmenting natural processes that remove GHGs from the atmosphere, for example by managing agricultural soils or forests to increase the rate at which they sequester carbon (postemission GHG management). In addition, GHG emissions could potentially be offset by enhancing the reflection of solar radiation back to space (solar radiation management), which together with some post-emission GHG management strategies is sometimes referred to as geoengineering (see Box 5.1)
In the inset box they conclude we should not go this road but that's not the point. The point is that this RS gave the subject a high-level mention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I am at a loss understanding your comment as a response to mine? I'm still looking for a rationale for giving more weight to GeoEng than other mitigations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Kim, without giving us any RSs you declared that geoeng is a subset of mitigation and on that basis you bring up "weight". HOWEVER.... you gave us no RSs to support your opinion that geoeng is a mere subset of mitigation. In contrast, I have given you two RSs (IPCC and the US National Research Council) that do not agree with you. They talk about geoeng (some types anyway) that are not under their definition of mitigation. I assume you will be able to produce an RS that says geoeng is a subset of mitigation and if so all that will demonstrate is that there is no universal agreement on precisely how to define these terms. For going forward please provide us with the RS on which you based your statement that geoeng is a subset of mitigation. If you can't find such an RS there is no basis for your "weight" argument, and if you can find such an RS, then I point to my prior suggestion how we can easily report on the differing definitions of these terms in the RSs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
NEAG, i really hoped you weren't trying to draw the "dictionary" card here - definitions are malleable, and they are not restrictive. And it does not address the WP:WEIGHT question at all - weight is a measure of how much importance literature puts on a particular subject (geoeng), with respect to similar subjects (alternative energy, mitigation in general ....), within a topic area (global warming). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Add: As for where GeoEng is with respect to Mitigation and Adaptation - i suggest that you look at the report from the IPCC expert meeting on GeoEng (2011)[44], while the official definition wasn't changed at that meeting (though they note that it is needed in the future), the positioning of GeoEng was rather clear. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Sighs and vague points at reports do not a counter-argument make.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I too was initially under the impression that GeoEng was essentially a subset of mitigation, but then the defn we give here (The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere) doesn't cover cloud-brightening, say. Can we perhaps agree whether GeoEng is a subset of Mitigation, or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

See pages 1-3 of the IPCC geoengineering meeting report Kim mentioned. (2011)[45].
According to the Synthesis section of this RS (pages 1-3)
  • (1) the terminology is not crystal clear,
  • (2) "Most, but not all" geoeng is either "Carbon Dioxide Removal" (CDR) or "Solar Radiation management" (SRM);
  • (3) They said SRM is not mitigation as IPCC uses the term mitigation
  • (4) For CDR they said, "The boundary between CDR and mitigation is not clear and there could be some overlap between the two given current definitions."
According to this RS, the way IPCC currently uses the terms geoengineering and mitigation, geoeng is not a subset of mitigation.
Does anyone dispute my reading of this RS, or have a different RS to consider? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Building on the IPCC def of mitigation as (paraphrased) "reducing emissions and enhancing natural sinks", a Royal Society 2009 study was introduced with a society press release that introduces the idea that there is increasing pressure to explore geoeng techniques to "augment" efforts to mitigate (i.e., reduce emissions and enhance natural sinks"). Such speech in these RSs make geoeng out to be a category of potential actions separate from the category of mitigation actions. They way they put it (emphasis added):
"Man-made climate change is happening and its impacts and costs will be large, serious and unevenly spread. The impacts may be reduced by adaptation and moderated by mitigation, especially by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. However, global efforts to reduce emissions have not yet been sufficiently successful to provide confidence that the reductions needed to avoid dangerous climate change will be achieved. This has led to growing interest in geoengineering, defined here as the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change."
In my view, in this top level article we should introduce these categories and navigate people to the detailed sub articles. Kim asked why geoeng has more weight than, for example, energy efficiency. Under the RSs from the US National Research Council, IPCC, and Royal Society, energy efficiency is just one of many techniques for emissions reductions under the category of actions these RSs call "mitigation", whereas "geoeng" is a category encompassing many techniques. As such it deserves its own subsection heading. How much discussion any individual geoeng technique gets, in comparison to any given mitigation technique, is a whole other question.
Said another way, please see "A Fence or an Ambulance?". Since the RSs treat the ambulance as something different than the fence we should do the same. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)