Talk:Climate change: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:03, 26 July 2021

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

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

Article policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 28, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
May 17, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 4, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
March 26, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2021	Featured article review	Kept
News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 5, 2004, and October 11, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

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

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

faq page

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated?

A5: Two reasons:

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

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

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

Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO₂?

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

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

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

Q9: Did climate change end in 1998?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A16: No,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Antarctica FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arctic FA‑class High‑importance

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

Environment FA‑class Top‑importance

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

Climate change FA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Geography FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Geology FA‑class High‑importance

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

Globalization FA‑class High‑importance

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

Sanitation FA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Weather FA‑class Top‑importance

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

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

This page has agreed on a consistent citation style. Please follow those standards when adding sources. Ask on the talk page if you need help or have questions.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved.

Move logs: Global warming
Climate change

Discussions:

RM, Global warming → Climate change, Not moved, 11 June 2018, discussion
RM, Global warming → Climate change, Moved, 21 August 2020, discussion

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007 and 2008.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "a great primer on the subject", "Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen", pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy.", wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. Please examine the findings.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service.
Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Wikipedia". The Denver Post.
"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013.
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (August 15, 2015). "On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage". Science Daily.
"The guardians of Wikipedia's climate page: An intensely devoted core keeps a bastion of climate science honest". Mashable. November 11, 2020.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

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

/Terminology section /General discussion

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

New global survey available on beliefs

Won't have time to add it till this weekend, so be my guest and replace our 2015 survey if the source is good. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/international-climate-opinion-february-2021d.pdf. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Femke. Chart → is added to Public opinion on climate change and possibly other articles. The source has other charts which I didn't think were as relevant.

Initially, I'm not bold enough to add this chart to the "Public awareness" section in this main article. Suggestions welcome. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ● Leiserowitz, A.; Carman, J.; Buttermore, N.; Wang, X.; et al. (June 2021). International Public Opinion on Climate Change (PDF). New Haven, CT, U.S.: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Facebook Data for Good. p. 7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 June 2021.
● Data re top emitters from: "Historical GHG Emissions / Global Historical Emissions". ClimateWatchData.org. Climate Watch. 2021. Archived from the original on 21 May 2021.
^ ● Survey results from: "The Peoples' Climate Vote". UNDP.org. United Nations Development Programme. 26 January 2021. Archived from the original on 28 January 2021. Fig. 3.
● Data re top emitters from: "Historical GHG Emissions / Global Historical Emissions". ClimateWatchData.org. Climate Watch. 2021. Archived from the original on 21 May 2021.

That's great! Nice visualization. If it's easy, you may want to remove the space in U. K. What image would you remove to put this in? I think showing the misleading tactics by deniers is more useful than a public opinion graph. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene: In the "Public awareness" section, I propose replacing the photograph captioned "Canadian residents protesting against global warming" because it conveys almost no information.

The "cherry picking"/"global warming hiatus" illustration (in the "Denial and misinformation" section) is educational and should stay. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of reason I would lean against that idea.

I have been trying to make the article less "technical", more photos and less graphs (very much personal taste)
These protests are such an important aspect of the narrative around climate change, that we should include something visually.
Most importantly, we shouldn't have two images about climate denial. In the FAR, we got feedback that our article is currently quite 'defensive' with respect to climate denial, and I would love to put less rather than more emphasis on it. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think there is now (after recent years of hard work) a good blend of photos and colorful and relatively friendly techy charts. This new survey chart actually seems to show diminishing denial, and objectively fits the section heading, "Public awareness". Maybe the Canadian protest picture could be moved down to its appropriate place in the "Protest and litigation" section. I hope other editors will weigh in. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, and I'm new in these parts, I think graphs and photos are both useful, and different people will benefit from different ways of presenting information. But for this particular section, a graph seems more fitting, in my opinion. I think the protest photo does belong somewhere in the article, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comparison but limited data quality: The survey comes from Facebook users who were invited and agreed to participate. Though there was some "weighting process based on census and nationally representative survey benchmarks", this cannot represent the whole population. The result may give a rough tendency of differences between countries, while the given percentages do not meet the high standards of this FA. Updating the source is OK. However, the chart can well remain in the sub article with some explaining words. Hedgehoque (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like this UN survey [4]. There's "Figure 3. Public Belief in the Climate Emergency, by Country" (p. 16), maybe we can use that. Here's a news article about the poll: [5] Bogazicili (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! It turns out I ran across the same document while working on 2021 in climate change. I'll do an SVG bar chart of Fig. 3, which I agree is most relevant in a top-level article. Other charts in that survey report may be useful in Climate change denial etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just generated and uploaded File:20210126 Peoples' Climate Vote - Public belief in climate emergency - United Nations Development Programme.svg (above right). I see now it's quite "tall and thin", and some might object to my added designation of which countries are among the highest greenhouse gas emitters. Feedback is requested so I can make any changes in a next version of the image. As mentioned above, I think such a chart can be added to the "Public awareness" section, and the demonstrators' photo moved down to the sub-section "Protest and litigation". —RCraig09 (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RCraig09, this looks great! Would you mind also adding the global average, 64%? ("Over all 50 countries, 64% of people said that climate change was an emergency – presenting a clear and convincing call for decision-makers to step up on ambition") Perhaps it could be in a different colour like orange or something so that it'd stand out. What do you think? Bogazicili (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogazicili: Good idea! Agreed. I'll wait for more feedback before I generate a Version 2. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 uploaded (re-sized to conserve vertical space; "Fifty nations" entry added). More feedback is welcome. — 04:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC) . . . FYI: I could not find a shade of a contrasting color that would have made the "fifty nations" bar clearly distinguishable for color-blind people, so I made that bar larger and separated it from other bars. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! You could also just say "Average" instead of "Fifty nations", but it doesn't really matter. Bogazicili (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work as always, RCraig09! Some thoughts:

This discussion was started when Femke wanted to update the 2015 Pew survey that’s currently cited in the text. It seems like the 2021 Yale survey has a slightly different set of conclusions. So that second paragraph of the public awareness subsection may still need some text revision as well as the citation update.
If we had to pick one of those two graphics to include in that public awareness subsection, IMO the Public opinion - causes of climate change graphic is the more interesting and informative. I think the high level of belief that natural changes are either equal to or the major cause of climate change stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus, and that point should be brought out somewhere in this subsection. It would also make a nice segue to the following subsection on Denial and misinformation.
I think the graphic of of the People’s Climate Vote is very well done, but I wonder why that particular survey merits highlighting, as opposed to the Yale survey results to the question “How worried are you about climate change? (P.9)” I’d like to see a graphic depiction of a survey that tracks responses over the past few years to questions such as those two (emergency and worry), but I suspect that’s not available yet. Dtetta (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And although Hedgehoque’s point about survey sampling issues in the Yale study may have merit, it seems like the UNDP’s approach, via advertising on mobile gaming networks, has just as many potential biases. Personally, I think Yale has an outstanding track record in Climate Change opinion polling. So of the two, I would be tempted to put more faith in their results, despite the Facebook connection. Both are interesting examples of attempts to reach broad populations in this on-line world. Dtetta (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: the Yale survey focuses on causation (an objective entity) whereas the U.N. survey focuses on whether there is an emergency (a more subjective entity). I'm not sure which approach is more appropriate to focus on in this high-level article. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Yale report asks a whole bunch of different questions, but, like the UNDP survey, they all seem somewhat subjective to me (these are opinion polls after all), even the “Climate Change is Caused Mostly By Human Activities” graph on p7, which I believe is what you used as the source for the “Public opinion-sources of climate change” graphic. The particular one I was referring to, from p9 of the Yale survey, that seems closest to the UNDP figure you use for the “Public belief in climate emergency” graphic, is titled “Moderate to High Worry About Climate Change”. To me the difference is that the Yale survey results are a little more detailed/informative, in that they break down percentages in the same way the “Public opinion” graphic you prepared does. So that’s why I wondered about the choice of the UNDP survey. But both are effective graphics, and the UNDP has a different look to it, so variety is always nice:) Dtetta (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To move forward, I plan to insert the Yale CC Communications survey into the "Public awareness" sub-section, and move the protesters photo down to the "Protest and litigation" sub-sub-section. Reasoning:

I perceive consensus to favor the Yale CC Comms survey that Femke found, even though there is some disagreement the best way to choose respondents (Facebook users versus online gaming players).
The Yale diagram is more nuanced and informative, and the object of Yale's survey (causation) is more objective and well-defined than the object of the U.N. survey (characterization as an "emergency").
I've noted the above-mentioned "Moderate to High Worry About Climate Change" chart on page 9 of the Yale survey, but I don't see it as improving over the UN "climate emergency" survey that I think is less appropriate here. If consensus demands, I'm more than willing to generate an SVG chart here.
I actually see either chart as being an objectively fair representation of the section title ("Public awareness"), and so is not "defensive" toward denialism.

I plan to proceed within a day, unless there is substantial opposition here. (Updating this article's narrative may be accomplished/discussed, separately.) —RCraig09 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update consensus graphic to reflect more recent consensus?

It might be helpful to use the graphic shown on the climate change consensus page, which represents an updated consensus from 2019. Here is the graphic. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made this edit. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind it too much, but one of the reasons we had the other was too not give too much prominence to the consensus, which can come over as 'defensive'. Other articles on topics with common misinformation don't put this much emphasis on debunking it. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the backstory. That's why I originally asked. Personally, it still seems weird to have an older one that doesn't reflect the 2019 consensus mentioned in the paragraph next to it, simply to not sound defensive. Is there an even more recent one that could be used? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having sub-sections on "Scientific consensus" and "Public awareness" is objective, and not defensive. Nor is a six-survey graphic more defensive than a five-survey graphic. Separately, the sub-sub-section "Denial and misinformation" is quite short, and does not even show up in the table of contents; in principle its second paragraph could be shortened to a ~single sentence and absorbed into the first paragraph if we want to reduce its prominence. I don't know of a peer-reviewed survey that's more recent than 2019. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of Citation for Footnote 17 - NASA-Mitigation and Adaptation

Is there a reason that the NASA citation associated with Footnote 17 is written in such a way that the popup displays the link to the wayback machine webpage more prominently than the current NASA page? It seems like the current NASA webpage should be displayed more prominently. Do we even need to have the link to that wayback page? Dtetta (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main link is NASA website now. Bogazicili (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that revision to the citation, Bogazicili. It’s still unclear to me why we need the reference to the wayback machine page in this particular citation. It seems like is does not fit the kinds of situations described at Help:Using the Wayback Machine for using this citation convention, in that this is an active page that seems to be accurately maintained by NASA, rather than the situation that WP cites, which is “This is useful if a web page has changed, moved, or disappeared; links to the original content can be retained.” Is there a reason why we would use that approach here, rather than just cite the access date, like we do for many other web page citations in this article? I do see we use the archive approach in a couple of other web page citations, but mostly we just use the access date. But there many be another WP policy at play here that I am not aware of. Dtetta (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful if contents of web page changes. Documents that are published on journals etc do not change. Bogazicili (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to reforestation in the Lede

Just deleted the reference to reforestation in the fourth paragraph of the lede, as we state in the Mitigation section that there is significant uncertainty as to whether CDR methods like this are effective as mitigation techniques. I kept forest preservation in, as I believe there is more consensus at to the value of that method. IMO we should limit methods we mention in the lede to those for which there is some consensus about their effectiveness. But there may be other opinions on that, so I thought I would post this here. Dtetta (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I argued something similar before :). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert but I am surprised you say there is no consensus on reforestation (not afforestation) being effective for mitigation. For example https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions You mean because it might be too slow to avoid a tipping point? If so are not other methods of CDR slow too - e.g. it will take decades to build all the direct removal from air plants we need I guess.Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also no expert, but I would guess the editor might be concerned about tree plantations vs reforestation, which does appear to be a concern among experts, however the article points out that "true" reforestation is "essential to meeting climate targets, the only route to heading off the extinction crisis". So it sounds like a semantics thing? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrho the Skeptic Dtetta The link does not work and I think there is consensus. If you think not please could you explain as I don't understand. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link if you're still intersted, but I really think you covered it with the distinction between reforestation and aforestation, and I don't have much of an opinion on it. Just trying to understand what the editor might mean: that much of the current "reforestation" that's happening, is actually monoculture tree plantations for business, and not natural reforestation. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dtetta I sometimes get peeved by Wikipedians pickyness and pedantry but I am afraid in this case I am going to go with the hidden comment in the text that changes to the lead should be discussed beforehand, and put it back in because that was not done. If Femkemilene is back from Wikibreak perhaps she can explain as I must have missed the previous discussion - but if that concluded to remove it then please do so. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy even after wikibreak, so my 2c. Our lead would benefit from being shorter, and the concept of stopping deforestation already implies than reforestation may help too. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For info: IPCC define "reforestation" as "Conversion to forest of land that has previously contained forests but that has been converted to some other use."

Chidgk1 thanks for your point about posting to the talk page before making significant edits to the lede. I had wondered about that before I deleted the mention of reforestation. I made this post because of that concern, but you’re correct, the better way would’ve been just to propose deleting reforestation before I actually made that edit. So I apologize for that. However, I don’t think that it’s either picky or pedantic to try to get the lede accurate on this point. There’s a huge carbon offset market that operates on the idea that tree planting can effectively absolve you from your CO2 emissions. On p480 , Section 6.8.2 of Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, the IPCC states that: “There is a wide uncertainty in the role of afforestation and reforestation in mitigation, however.“ I think that statement in the IPCC report alone questions that presumption, and I thought it argued for excluding the reforestation reference from the lede.

Re: the Guardian news article that you cite, there has been a large amount of criticism of Crowther’s work, which was the basis of that article. I think the article Pyrrho the Skeptic linked to provides some background, as does this more specific critique of that work, also from Yale Environment. My point, which, again, is captured pretty well in that statement from the IPCC report, is simply that there significant uncertainty about afforestation/reforestation, as opposed to the other techniques we list in that sentence on mitigation methods. IMO there is definitely not consensus on reforestation. And that is why I deleted the reference to it in my edit of that sentence in the lede.

But thanks again for reinforcing the idea that we should post here before making the kind of edit I did, where a specific concept was deleted from the lede. Dtetta (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 I see now you effectively reverted my edit, and re-inserted the reference to reforestation, despite your own admonition not to make this kind of edit before posting to the talk page. I think my comment above provides a adequate justification for why I made that change. I believe your Guardian citation does not provide a justification for your edit. I don’t want to get into an editing battle on this, as I don’t feel that strongly about whether or not reforestation is in that sentence. But I would ask you to revert your own edit, based on the reasons I have mentioned above. Or at least respond here and explain why you think reforestation should remain in that sentence, and please address the information I provided in the Yale Environment article I cited. Dtetta (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dtetta Apart from copying the definition above I have not yet looked to see what the IPCC 1.5 and land reports say about reforestation. Perhaps we could agree to take it out or leave it in based on whatever those reports say (or don't say) about it. As presumably until AR6 comes out properly they are the most authoritative recent reports. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 that works for me. I listed what I thought was the relevant page from the IPCC 2014 report. Take a look at that, and perhaps the Climate Change and Land report (although I found the information in that somewhat generic on this particular point), and let me know what you think. Since you posted the Guardian article (which based on Crowther’s work), I think you would also find the Yale Environment article I cited to be an interesting counterpoint. And again the idea is that there is not consensus on reforestation, and therefore it doesn’t belong in that sentence that is focused on methods for which there is consensus. Dtetta (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dtetta I did not search exhaustively but p70 of the 1.5 report says reforestation is well understood and in the 1.5 tech summary it says: "In particular, reforestation could be associated with significant co-benefits if implemented in a manner than helps restore natural ecosystems (high confidence)." So for now I will move reforestation out of the lead into the body of this article where there should be space for a sentence or clause with that caveat about implementing it properly. Hopefully there is more detail in the mitigation article itself but I have not checked yet. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chidgk1. Yes, that section of the IPCC report does talk about co-benefits…as I recall it also talks about some concerns in terms of food security, which is why that latter issue was included in the first paragraph of the carbon sequestration subsection. I think your idea of trying to flesh out some of these more subtle aspects of afforestation/reforestation in the body of the article is a good one. You might try some language changes in the second sentence of that first paragraph. That sentence currently reads:”Reforestation and tree planting on non-forest lands are among the most mature sequestration techniques, although they raise food security concerns.” Dtetta (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Data on climate change around the world

Can you publish this chart?

--Lovepeacejoy404 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If you split out the top left it might be suitable for Greenhouse gas emissions or another article - but before doing any more work suggest you discuss at Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions as I (and maybe others) have a question. Of course you can ignore my suggestion and just put it straight in to Greenhouse gas emissions or another article immediately yourself - but somebody might just take it out again. I am not an expert about graphs but I see you put it in de:Klimawandel in English. Probably if you make it svg you will be able to easily translate the text. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I published the graph in Greenhouse gas emissions. I hope they don't delete it. If you want to translate the chart in other languages I give you the code in R. If you translate it and post the translation on my wiki page, I will compile and publish it. Thank you

g1<-co.emissions.per.capita %>%
  filter(Entity == "World", Year>=1880,Year<=2018) %>%
  ggplot(aes(Year,Per.capita.CO2.emissions)) +
  geom_line(colour=2, size=1) +
  scale_x_continuous(breaks=seq(1880,2020,10))+
  theme(axis.text.x = element_text(angle=90,hjust=1))+
  ylab("Per capita CO2 emissions") +
  xlab("Year") +
  ggtitle("Per capita CO2 emissions in tons ",subtitle = "worldwide from 1900 to 2018")

g2<-maddison.data.gdp.per.capita.in.2011us.single.benchmark %>%
  filter(Entity == "World", Year>=1880) %>%
  ggplot(aes(Year,GDP.per.capita)) +
  geom_line(colour=3, size=1) +
  scale_x_continuous(breaks=seq(1880,2020,10))+
  theme(axis.text.x = element_text(angle=90,hjust=1))+
  ylab("GDP per procapite") +
  xlab("Year") +
  ggtitle("GDP per capita in dollars ",subtitle = "in the world from 1900 to 2018")

g3<-surface.temperature.anomaly.gistemp %>%
  filter(Year>1900) %>%
  group_by(Year) %>%
  summarise(anomaly_temperature= mean(Surface.temperature.anomaly)) %>%
  ggplot(aes(Year,anomaly_temperature)) +
  geom_line(colour=4, size=1) +
  scale_x_continuous(breaks=seq(1880,2020,10))+
  theme(axis.text.x = element_text(angle=90,hjust=1))+
  ylab("World Temperature") +
  xlab("Year") +
  ggtitle("World temperature rise in °C ",subtitle = "from 1900 to 2018")

--Lovepeacejoy404 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your work. A few requests

The quality of the image is better in svg. Is it possible to save it in that format?
Can you please correct the labels (no . instead of spaces, subscript 2 in CO2)
If you use the WP:Visual editor, there is a cite button. If you insert the url, it will automatically format the citation for you. Currently in greenhouse gas emissions, you inserted some bare links, which we are not supposed to do, as people don't know where it will take them in advance. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saved the file in svg format but unfortunately I was unable to modify CO2 with the subscript. As soon as possible I modify the sources with the notes.

--Lovepeacejoy404 (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for shortening lead

First Suggestion for shortening lead

Change:

Temperature rise on land is about twice the global average increase, leading to desert expansion and more common heat waves and wildfires.

to

Temperature rise on land is about twice the global average, causing desertification and more heat waves and wildfires. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me:) Dtetta (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original text looks like WP:SYNTH to me. The cited source comes with pullquotes from different pages of the source. There are multiple sentences. The source says all these things are happening, but the source... at least the quoted text.... does not place pinpoint blame on the fact that land surface temps are 2x the global average. So the original text is in error, and we need to fix that error before we worry about wordsmithing and perpetuating it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just learning from current events that extreme weather is a result of a weakening jet stream. Could we include this?

Temperature rise on land is about twice the global average increase, leading to desert expansion.[6] Temperature rise is also amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. The polar amplification is supposed to weaken the jet stream, causing more persistent weather patterns with long lasting heat waves and wildfires or severe rainfall in other regions. ^[1]

Hedgehoque (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Francis, Jennifer A.; Vavrus, Stephen J. (2012). "Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes". Geophysical Research Letters. 39 (6): L06801. Bibcode:2012GeoRL..39.6801F. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.419.8599. doi:10.1029/2012GL051000.

If the polar jetstream does not do that, we could send it to bed without supper. This is intended as humor while offering criticism of word choice "supposed to". A bigger reason to NOT include Dr. Francis' theory is this.... first of all, this is the top article in this very extensive tree of articles. It needs to summarize the top points of ALL this material, and there is so much of that material it needs to hit each one relatively succinctly, and then send the reader to sub-articles for more in-depth discussion. The next reason is that this is the WP:LEAD section of the top article, so think of it as the summary of the summary. Finally, it needs to present points that have been well-established, and Dr Francis' theory is still being roundly debated, for example from Science Mag is this 2021 lay article discussing a paper in that journal Landmark study casts doubt on controversial theory linking melting Arctic to severe winter weather. So while this area of research is really fasciniating, and I've been readiung lay science journalism since Dr Francis first spoke about it publicly, I don't think the lead of our top article is a place to talk about, at least at the current state of research consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Interesting article and obviously a scientific portion of uncertainty. Nevertheless I think the jet stream debate should be included, not necessarily in the lead. The theory appears prominently in the media. Readers would appreciate some orientation. Would you like to draft? Hedgehoque (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we should wait two weeks and draft this using the newest IPCC report, if at all (I lean against, as I want this article to remain maintainable, and including these issues under debate makes that difficult..) It may have undue media attention as it affects the global North. Getting the new IPCC report means we get a new summary for policymakers and therefore an excellent documents to establish what is and what isn't due. It could replace the poorly cited + formatted sentence about tornadoes. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for IPCC WG1's imminent contribution to the IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report makes a heap of sense to me. Our article already wikilinks the sub article where this is discussed in some detail (Polar_amplification#Recent_Arctic_amplification) and the sentence where the wikilink appears is followed by a citation to the 2014 paper Dr Francis co-authored on this subject. Let's see what IPCC says, and if they say maybe who knows could be, we should keep this material in the sub article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

second suggestion for shortening lead

As the ice cover feedback is mentioned in the previous paragraph how about changing:

Temperature rise is also amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.

to

The faster heating near the poles is melting glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice.

Chidgk1 (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that edit :), although I might just put it as “Faster heating near the poles is melting glaciers, destroying permafrost, and causing sea ice loss.” Since sea ice does melt each year. Dtetta (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was "contributes to" dropped? Is the faster heating 100% of the cause for those effects? Bogazicili (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about

Average temperatures are rising even faster in the polar regions, speeding up the melting of glaciers, thawing of permafrost, and disappearance of sea ice.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that the goal here is too identify more concise wording, and shorten the lede, as the title of the post says. Dtetta (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. On the other hand, the LEAD must provide a salient and accurate summary. Studying the full current lead "contributed" is problematic because we did not previously say anything about melting glacier/sea ice or thawing permafrost so what is the baseline on top of which polar amplification is "contributing"? The word "also" is an error too because warming is amplified at the poles not elsewhere. In addition, permafrost does not "melt" down to pools of water and cytoplasmic goo. Rather permafrost thaws, like brocolli left out of the freezer, leaving compost (and in the case of permafrost mineral soil also). So try...

The average surface temperature is [[polar amplification|rising even faster]] in the [[Climate change in the Arctic|Arctic]], where it thaws [[permafrost]], [[retreat of glaciers since 1850|melts glaciers]] and [[sea ice]]. which renders as

The average surface temperature is rising even faster in the Arctic, where it thaws permafrost and melts glaciers and sea ice.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bogazicili My proposed sentence does not rule out melting from other causes - I assume the reader already knows there will be seasonal melting and freezing. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume anything, sometimes secondary school kids read Wikipedia. The lead is not that long, there was a recent FA review. We do not have to shorten. Bogazicili (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the FAR this sentence currently contains errors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third suggestion for shortening lead

Change:

Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points.

to

Climatologists do not know at what temperatures some changes become permanent.

Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one. The Tipping points in the climate system article that is linked to from this sentence describes changes that lead to runaway feedback effects, which may then lead to changes in the state of the system. IMO not quite the same idea as simply “some changes become permanent”. Although your wording has more of a plain spoken feel, which I think is good. Dtetta (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you (or anyone) understands this stuff could you comment at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_16#Hothouse_earth

If you agree with NewsAndEventsGuy I will fix that redirect first and come back here with maybe a better grasp of the subject. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. Not the same idea. That sentence introduces tipping points concept. Are you also reading the sources or are you just rewording these yourself? Bogazicili (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the cited sources is indeed the place to start. @Chidgk1... We can't say "changes become permanent" because the pendulum will in all likelihood swing back in a long period of global cooling. How far out in the future that will happen, I can't say. But I've got lots of samples of fossils from 520-300 million years ago, some from warm climtates, some from colder ones. We might perish, but the ice WILL return. Someday. So besides what gets wikilinked or redirected, the proposed text, though simple to understand, asserts a scientific error. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed the reader would understand the word "permanent" in terms of the timescale of this article, which is not a geological timescale. However Bogazicili is right that it would be good for the reader to read the words "tipping point" as they seem to be more frequent in newspaper articles nowadays. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The readership is already science-challenged so let's not make it harder by infusing our writing with assumptions that could be easily misread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not irreversible ? Climatologists do not know appears too plain for me. My suggestion: Additional warming increases the risk of triggering chain reactions causing irreversible changes in the global climate.Hedgehoque (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would that avoid the time-scale problem discussed a few days ago? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there would be some cooling in some thousand years, the chance of restoring the current climate patterns is smaller than winning the lottery jackpot. Hedgehoque (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth suggestion for shortening lead

I put the suggestions in separate sections so the discussions don't get too long and complex.

Change:

Responding to these impacts involves both mitigation and adaptation.^[1] Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and removing them from the atmosphere.^[1] Methods to achieve this include ....

to

Although emitting less and removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is essential to mitigate (limit) climate change, some adaptation is also needed.^[1] Mitigation methods include .....

Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t see how this one is an improvement. Dtetta (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. The source doesn't use the word "essential". Emitting what less? I fail to see the improvement. Bogazicili (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with B..... WP:NEUTRALITY requires us to describe these things as "policy options" (even though I hate myself for saying so). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence just explains the concepts. What needs to be done is in the last paragraph. Bogazicili (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c NASA, Mitigation and Adaptation 2020

Suggestion for lead - add scientists

Change:

Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points.

to

Climatologists do not know the tipping point temperatures at which some changes cannot be undone.

This is scientifically correct because the tipping points article says changes in ecosystems are included, and it would be impossible to get some ecosystems back completely the same as before. If I counted right this would increase the length of the lead by 7 characters. I think this is a worthwhile price because:

1) People like to read about people (e.g. Donald Trump still all time most viewed article)

2) Important info that tipping points uncertain is clearer than the previous wording

3) Important info that some changes cannot be undone after tipping point is clearer than previous wording

By the way I am not a scientist.

Chidgk1 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not to keen on this sentence because a) it has a double negative b) I think it overestimates uncertainty, as we do have some sense of when these tipping points would occur. I think the word risk is quite vital here. I'm okay with removing the words 'critical thresholds', as it may be too technical. [[User:|FemkeMilene]] (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like "critical threshold" better, that's what UN calls them. The thing about tipping points is not just they might be permanent but they also bring large sudden changes. Hence critical thresholds. Also, it's better to talk about what scientists know and do not know in the body of the article. The lead should just introduce the concept. So I prefer the current wording. Bogazicili (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'critical thresholds' is too technical for the lead. And "triggering a threshold" is a confusing phrase. Do you think one of the following is better than the current wording?

Climatologists are unsure what tipping point temperatures risk permanent damage.

Climatologists are unsure what tipping point temperatures risk permanent damage to ecosystems.

Climatologists are unsure what tipping point temperatures humans risk getting stuck above.

Climatologists are unsure what tipping point temperatures humans risk becoming permanent. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "critical threshold" is too technical. Critical means critical. Threshold means threshold. And you just put them together lol. Also I'm not sure why you want to start the sentence that way. Also what source are you basing this on? Here's what the current source says (p. 77 and 128):

“

The risks associated with temperatures

at or above 4°C include severe and widespread impacts on unique and threatened systems, substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, consequential constraints on common human activities, increased likelihood of triggering tipping points (critical thresholds) and limited potential for adaptation in some cases (high confidence). .... Tipping point: A level of change in system properties beyond which a system reorganizes, often abruptly, and does not return to the initial state even if the drivers of the change are abated. For the climate system, it refers to a critical threshold when global or regional climate changes from one stable state to another stable state. The tipping point event may be irreversible. See also Irreversibility. {WGI, II, III

”

So current wording is much better than any of the above suggestions or any of its derivatives starting with "Climatologists are unsure..." Current wording also explains what the source says better. Also please make any further suggestion along with quotes from a source. Bogazicili (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in addition to bogazicili: starting a sentence with a vague group of people might elicit knee-jerk reaction of mistrust. I prefer to just state the facts like we currently do. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we take the everyday word "unsure" to mean "low confidence" or "medium confidence" in IPCCspeak then a few examples from SR15 chapter 3 would be boreal forests on page 263

“

This tipping point has been estimated to exist between 3°C and 4°C of global warming (low confidence) (Lucht et al., 2006; Kriegler et al., 2009), but given the complexities of the various forcing mechanisms and feedback processes involved, this is thought to be an uncertain estimate."

”

tundra on page 262

“

Abrupt changes are only plausible at levels of warming significantly higher than 2 °C (low confidence) and would occur in conjunction with a collapse in permafrost (Drijfhout et al., 2015).

”

permafrost on page 262

“

However, the carbon released to the atmosphere from thawing permafrost is projected to be restricted to 0.09–0.19 Gt C yr–1

at 2°C of global warming and to 0.08–0.16 Gt C yr–1 at 1.5°C (E.J. Burke et al., 2018), which does not indicate a tipping point (medium confidence)

”

and

“

A single model projection (Drijfhout et al., 2015) suggested that

higher temperatures may induce a smaller ice fraction in soils in the tundra, leading to more rapidly warming soils and a positive feedback mechanism that results in permafrost collapse (low confidence)

”

and rainforest on page 263

“

Overall, modelling studies (Huntingford et al., 2013; Nobre

et al., 2016) and observational constraints (Cox et al., 2013) suggest that pronounced rainforest dieback may only be triggered at 3°C–4°C (medium confidence), although pronounced biomass losses may occur at 1.5°C– 2°C of global warming.

”

So overall they seem pretty unsure whether anything would tip at 2 degrees or nothing until 4 degrees. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call medium confidence unsure. There is evidence that uncertainty framing is not well understood by the public, who equate unsure with 'no problem'. The word risk is better understood. As I understand it, physical, rather than biological tipping points, are better understood as well. Also, we're three years further along, and in a few weeks AR6 WGI will be published, so if we still disagree, we can formulate with that in hand. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK when that comes out I will see if they say much about "tipping point" and "low confidence". Have a nice day. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the sources say tipping points are exclusively a function of temp change and nothing else. The climate system has its five major components and each of those has a lot of diverse subparts, where more things change than just temperature! Evolution within the biosphere might be the most dramatic example. This observation again raises the question of time scales, but let's avoid writing with implied nuances that may not be scientifically accurate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, IPCC defines the words they use to talk about certainty and confidence. For AR5 see this for example NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Tipping in the Amazon is famously a function of precipitation, temperature and deforestation. I don't think the phrase 'tipping point temperature' is common. I know there has been discussion within the IPCC about the exact wording and terminology around TPs, so I'm curious what they have come up with this round. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current sentence seems accurate and reasonably concise to me. Dtetta (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, for all my criticism of implying things in our writing I went and did it myself...... I agree, the current sentence is fine. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of peatlands and peatland preservation to the article

I wanted to ask some information about the importance of Petland preservation to this article. There are a few references here, here, here, and here, that talk about the importance of peatland preservation , including the fact that they store more carbon than all of the world’s forests. So peatland preservation seems to me to be a mitigation method on par with forest preservation, and worth mentioning in those parts of the article that discuss forest preservation. BTW I could find very little information on this in the 2014 IPCC Mitigation of Climate Change report. But a couple of the ones I’ve listed above might be good sources to augment the current citations regarding forests and forests preservation. In terms of the text, what I propose would be the following changes (indicated in underline/strikeout):

Fourth lead paragraph, sixth sentence:

Methods to achieve this include the development and deployment of low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar, a phase-out of coal, enhanced energy efficiency, and preservation of forests and peatlands ~~preservation~~.

First sentence, fourth paragraph of the Greenhouse gases subsection:

Despite the contribution of deforestation to greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth's land surface, particularly its forests and peatlands, remain a significant carbon sink for CO2.

Changes of the land surface subsection, second sentence:

~~The amount of f~~Forested and peatland acreage continues to decrease, largely due to conversion to cropland in the tropics. Note: there are other sources of peatland destruction - should they be listed here?

Agriculture and industry subsection, first paragraph, second sentence:

A suite of actions could reduce agriculture/forestry-based greenhouse gas emissions by 66% from 2010 levels by reducing growth in demand for food and other agricultural products, increasing land productivity, protecting and restoring forests and peatlands, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production.

Thoughts on this suggested addition? Dtetta (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the proposals. I'm supporting one. We're already write something about the treats to wetlands (peatland is subset).

I'm not too keen on adding it to the lede (as overview sources put way more emphasis on forestry, and we should follow them not facts)
According to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0615-5, peatland is now a source of carbon, rather than a sink.
I'm not keen on adding it to land surface, as this is about changes in the direct climate interactions of the land surface, while peat is noted for its GHG emissions.
I support adding it to mitigation. It's mentioned quite often in the cited WRI report, and named next to forestry on page 1. I think FN242 may have intended to cite that page, but used a browser-specific page rather than the published page. Maybe we should leave out the exact number, or at least reduce its precision as their 1.5 scenario reduces overall emissions (including reforestration) to zero.. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

methane!

No mention in the intro of current levels of and possible imminent huge increases of methane release from thawing permafrost and other sources. No mention anywhere in the article of how much stronger methane affects climate change than CO2 does. --Espoo (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:General overview article, the main trunk, if you will, of an enormous tree of articles, with detailed subarticles and then subsubarticles branching out. So it has to be a summary. To undestand the intro to which you refer please read WP:LEAD....so this has to be a summary of the summary. GHG's generally and methane specifically are linked in the 2nd paragraph. Carbon sinks turning to carbon sources (like permafrost) are one of the many possible "tipping points" and we link to that concept in... I think its paragraph 3. Everyone has their most desired next-big-thing that can't fit in the top article's summary of the summary, and no matter how many of these we add we'll never add them all, but we WILL create a bloated lead, which is unacceptable. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity of Carbon Dioxide in Climate System

There should be a succinct paragraph near the top of the article which emphasizes that the primary problem with continuing emissions of greenhouse gases is that the CO₂ to which most decompose is not naturally drawn out of the atmosphere in a short time but, rather, on a time scale which is centuries to millennia. In particular, half of a burst of CO₂ emissions will be drawn out to the soils and oceans part of the climate system, but that will take centuries to complete. The other half will linger for a thousand years or more.

This is because of the time scales being used and operated with here, and the slowness of the associated natural processes.

EcoQuant (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We currently write about the half in the feedback section, and about an undefined long timescale in impacts. Do you think these statements should be together (I think that would make sense). If so, where specifically? This information fits in one or two sentences, a paragraph isn't needed.

The half is absorbed within the year of emissions BTW. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Absorption" is different from sequestration. For example if 2.5 units of CO₂ are emitted by burning fossil fuels, after a year or so about 0.5 units will be absorbed by oceans (see Figure 4), about 1 unit will be absorbed by land, and 1 unit will remain in atmosphere. Of the 1 unit absorbed by land 0.09 units are permanently sequestered in rock. However, the remaining 1.4 units are in equilibrium with atmosphere. Accordingly, in order to reduce atmospheric concentration by 1 effective unit, 2.4 units would need to be removed, because the other 1.4 units would come back out of oceans and soils. Moreover, this is oversimplified since the northern temperate forests draw down a bunch of CO₂ in their Spring, but give almost all back in their Autumn. EcoQuant (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[30] ● Leiserowitz, A.; Carman, J.; Buttermore, N.; Wang, X.; et al. (June 2021). International Public Opinion on Climate Change (PDF). New Haven, CT, U.S.: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Facebook Data for Good. p. 7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 June 2021.
● Data re top emitters from: "Historical GHG Emissions / Global Historical Emissions". ClimateWatchData.org. Climate Watch. 2021. Archived from the original on 21 May 2021.

[UNsurvey_202101-31] ● Survey results from: "The Peoples' Climate Vote". UNDP.org. United Nations Development Programme. 26 January 2021. Archived from the original on 28 January 2021. Fig. 3.
● Data re top emitters from: "Historical GHG Emissions / Global Historical Emissions". ClimateWatchData.org. Climate Watch. 2021. Archived from the original on 21 May 2021.

[32] Francis, Jennifer A.; Vavrus, Stephen J. (2012). "Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes". Geophysical Research Letters. 39 (6): L06801. Bibcode:2012GeoRL..39.6801F. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.419.8599. doi:10.1029/2012GL051000.

[auto-33] NASA, Mitigation and Adaptation 2020

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 514: / Line 514: @@
 This is because of the time scales being used and operated with here, and the slowness of the associated natural processes.
+[[User:Empirical bayesian|EcoQuant]] ([[User talk:Empirical bayesian|talk]]) 16:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
-bayesianlogic.1@gmail.com {{userbox
-| border-c = #80a0a2
-| id-c = #ffffff
-| info-c = #eaf2f3
-| id-s =
-| info-op  = text-align:center;
-| id = [[Image:Fisher iris versicolor sepalwidth.svg|64px]]
-| info = This user is a [[:Category:WikiProject Statistics members|member]] of '''[[WP:WikiProject Statistics|WikiProject Statistics]]'''.
-}}{{#ifeq:false|false|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User|[[Category:WikiProject Statistics members|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:Wikipedians interested in statistics|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}
-:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 : We currently write about the half in the feedback section, and about an undefined long timescale in impacts. Do you think these statements should be together (I think that would make sense). If so, where specifically? This information fits in one or two sentences, a paragraph isn't needed.
 :The half is absorbed within the year of emissions BTW. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 06:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
+: "Absorption" is different from sequestration. For example if 2.5 units of CO<sub>2</sub> are emitted by burning fossil fuels, after a year or so [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joanna-Cloy/publication/317692835_Greenhouse_Gas_Sources_and_Sinks/links/5ef35ccc4585153fb1b0ca6d/Greenhouse-Gas-Sources-and-Sinks.pdf about 0.5 units will be absorbed by oceans] (see Figure 4), about [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joanna-Cloy/publication/317692835_Greenhouse_Gas_Sources_and_Sinks/links/5ef35ccc4585153fb1b0ca6d/Greenhouse-Gas-Sources-and-Sinks.pdf 1 unit will be absorbed by land], and 1 unit will remain in atmosphere.  Of the 1 unit absorbed by land 0.09 units are permanently sequestered in rock. However, the remaining 1.4 units are in equilibrium with atmosphere.  Accordingly, in order to reduce atmospheric concentration by 1 effective unit, 2.4 units would need to be removed, because the other 1.4 units would come back out of oceans and soils. Moreover, this is oversimplified since the northern temperate forests draw down a bunch of CO<sub>2</sub> in their Spring, but give almost all back in their Autumn. [[User:Empirical bayesian|EcoQuant]] ([[User talk:Empirical bayesian|talk]]) 16:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)