Talk:Climate change: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:43, 2 September 2010

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

Template:Community article probation

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

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.

Environment: Climate change FA‑class

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

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.

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.

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service.
Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Wikipedia". The Denver Post.
Lawrence Solomon (July 8, 2008). "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". CBS News.
(none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

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

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

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

Current status: Featured article

There is a request, submitted by AaThinker, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "This is a long-time featured article about a vital topic covering several prominent Wikipedia projects.".

Template:Weather-selected

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

Template:FAOL

Edit request from 95.232.245.175, 12 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the article aren't mentioned deesagreement theories, but they exist. For a neutral explanation of the argument I suggest to cite the theory of ‘Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres’ of the hungarian ex NASA deployer Ferenc Miskolczi. Original theory: http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

95.232.245.175 (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per below. --Stickee (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that other theories aren't mentioned, but the Wikipedia consensus seems to be that the scientific consensus is in favor of anthropogenic sources being the primary cause of global warming. That being said, I can't say that that article is sufficient evidence to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia consensus is that this article should be POV, does that therefore mean it is right that it is POV or that the consensus is wrong? 85.211.235.82 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the section of WP:NPOV that a part of the article violates, and we can talk about that part in more detail. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 07:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a scientific "consensus" is, in itself, a little misleading. Very few scientific theories have been promoted to the rank of "fact" (this isn't one of them). The word consensus, should be changed to "opinion", or "main stream opinion" or something like that. It really isn't a consensus at all. Even if the UN says it is.Dkronst (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has no place in science. Science is based on facts, and it only takes one good fact to prove a whole load of consensus wrong. It is the arts who don't have facts and base everything on opinion who use this wierd notion of "consensus". Real scientists don't care twopence for consensus, they don't run opinion polls they don't have to because they have facts to back up what they say not some stupid media consultant run opinion poll of paid-up employed climate "scientists". Consensus has no place in science. The facts either prove it or they don't, anything in between is just waffle and no scientific article would ever stoop so low as to try to assert anything based on some PR media, arts degree waffle of some consensus. 85.211.173.217 (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of climate change

I feel I ought to flag my creation of Media coverage of climate change in case anyone's interested in contributing to it or linking to it, etc. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With media interest in climate change plummeting like a stone, this is hardly the time to start a new article on an already tired and out of date subject. It would be much better to consolidate the enormous verbose articles in this area into a couple of historical documents which future historians may find useful when they come to research the various environmental fads of past eras. 85.211.173.217 (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Fitting

Seems fitting that there is no critic section of this in relation to articles about how humans are not contributing to the global climate change.

Almost all references to the opposite of "man made global warming" is conveniently not to be found. If man can cause global warming, can it cause global cooling like in the 70's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.197.90 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially all of the talking points against man-made global warming are the stuff of conservative talk-radio, and the conservative propaganda machine follows the usual rules of propaganda -- stick to a small number of talking points and repeat them over and over. This is one of those talking points. You can find them all at global warming controversy. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also the FAQ at the top of this page, particularly perhaps Q1 and Q13. --Nigelj (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even as the bottom falls out of AGW everywhere else, the POV warriors remain in charge at Wiki. When the media fails to even mention the fact that the White House has scrubbed its Web site of climate related promises, the issue must be truly dead politically.[1]. A leading statistics journal has published a paper that shows once again that the hockey stick it is fraud and isn't supported by the raw data Micheal Mann claims he used.(McShane and Wyner) End-of-the-world theories that didn't come true are a dime a dozen. The greenhouse gas theory was proposed in the 1890s and again in the 1930s, only to be discredited by a drop in temperature both times. Kauffner (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner, you seem to be under the misapprehension that WattsUpWithThat is a "leading statistics journal", or that the much heralded draft McShane and Wyner paper has been published. It will be interesting to see if this obviously flawed paper does get published, and if so what amendments appear. More significantly and on-topic for this article, Lake Tanganyika is experiencing unprecedented warming as a result of anthropogenic climate change – see Jessica E. Tierney et al., 2010 Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500. Nature Geoscience 3; June 2010 pp 422-425. . . dave souza, talk 07:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, something local to a particular lake is not about global warming. Local phenomena must have local explanations. The surface temperature of Tanganyika has been rising for hundreds of years. More sediment causes it to rise faster. There's been deforestation and road building, but an AGW explanation gets more attention.

Despite your sarcasm, McShane and Wyner is already listed on the journal's website.[2] Kauffner (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like any paper, we need to see the recognition it receives before including it. So far Google scholar shows no citations. TFD (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still preliminary, but Zorita has some interesting comments. . . dave souza, talk 07:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is one of those FAQ Q22 situations. Also McShane and Wyner would almost certainly be considered for Hockey stick controversy rather than here because it is specifically an evaluation of proxies used in paleoclimatology and has nothing much to say about the recent warming. --TS 15:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has dozens of references dated 2010. But a source that doesn't fit an agenda will always be too new or too old. Kauffner (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand that complaint if the editors of this article were in the habit of slipping in singleton, non-review research papers dated 2010. On the contrary, if you search the references section for the year 2010 mostly that appears in "retrieved" dates for web copies of papers that are for the most part several years old and review papers, not primary research. --TS 01:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section Predicting disasters

The sub-section "Predicting disasters" added by OrpheusSang doesn't seem to fit under "Adaptation." Three reasons. First, it's sourced to the Guardian, compared to the IPCC and the Journal of Geophysical Research, it seems more newsworthy than noteworthy in an encyclopedic article. Second, so far it's just a meeting, there are many others such as COP15, and not a lot has been set in stone; holistically and in my opinion, I don't think it's notable. Third and finally, the section title "Predicting disasters" and the sentence "[...] early warning system, that would predict meteorological disasters caused by global warming" seems premature and inaccurate; to my understanding predicting meteorological events is to weather, not climate, climate's the statical distribution of these events. Therefore I believe it should be removed or moved. --CaC 72.251.76.95 (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this sub-section, AGW is treated as a kind of secular god that we can blame for rain in Pakistan or any other unfortunate event that might happen. Kauffner (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading, not mine, and your description is a silly way to respond to a serious issue. . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with CaC, WP:NOTNEWS and I've not been able to find more informative sources about this specific conference. There's a significant topic involved here, which should be expanded using better sources. Therefore, I've moved the paragraph to talk, below, for further discussion and proposals. . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 15, 2010 The Observer reported that that the following week scientists from the world's three leading meteorological organisations: The US National Center for Atmospheric Research, the UK Met Office and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would meet in Boulder, Colorado to set out plans to set up an early warning system, that would predict meteorological disasters caused by global warming. The meeting was to come in the wake of disasters including record flooding in Pakistan, a heatwave in and around Moscow and the splintering of a giant island of ice off the Greenland ice cap.ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/15/climate-change-predict-next-disaster
— moved from article by dave souza, talk 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Divergence problem

A recent edit added the following caveat to the caption of the image Commons:File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png:

The divergence between the instrumental and reconstructed data in recent decades has led some to question the historical accuracy of the reconstructed data

As it stands I believe this is an overstatement. The divergence problem only affects a proportion of boreal tree ring proxies. Other proxies are not affected. I'm also in some doubt as to the weight this should have in this overview article. --TS 18:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, already resolved: deleted at 19:56, 28 August 2010, by Wikispan.[3] . dave souza, talk 06:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit in question. I'm sure that we all agree that the divergence problem exists, and that someone looking at a chart which overlays instrumental data on reconstructed data should be aware of it. How then can a brief, neutral mention of the problem possibly be excessive? I am not a climate change skeptic, but I believe in honest presentation of science, warts and all. This should be in the article. Having said that, I won't be putting it back in. Thparkth (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that it's a significant issue in the graph concerned? It shows a number of reconstructions at a scale where the Divergence_problem would barely be visible, though some reconstructions do seem to diverge from the instrumental record. "Some" is a weaselly term, and suggests undue weight to fringe scientific views. Note also that numerous proxies don't have the divergence problem. If we did mention it we'd have to outline the range of proxies used, and show how it has only affected some trees but not others. There's a case for saying more about the inherent uncertainty of reconstructions increasing the further back they go. It could also be noted that global climate has been warmer in the past, exceeding present temperatures in the previous interglacial periods and possibly during the Holocene climatic optimum. . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the issue can also be related the potential for the divergence problem to have existed in the past as well. So as the reconstructions could also be subject to a divergence issue....that said I dont think anything needs to change in the figure. --Snowman frosty (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't think it's a major issue for this article. Obviously I think it would be worth mentioning, but I'm not going to pick any fights over it :) Thparkth (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAC report

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642 Its going to be a good day when the world will finally see that Wikipedia is stuffed full of pseudo-scientific "bullies" who impose theory as fact in an effort to manipulate what they WANT science to be, versus what is the actual truth. Most wikipedians are white, leftist, anti-capitalist, and global warmists who emotionally WANT anthropogenic global warming to be fact, and are far less open to the idea that it may not be a fact at all. for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, lets hope that all these reports coming out are just one big Rush Limbaugh conspiracy. You wont cite an article like this will you? http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642 Of course not. Thats because this is not about science, but emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.52.158 (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a minute to look through the FAQ above, perhaps especially Q.11. --Nigelj (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) The IAC report that you indirectly referenced is being discussed here, and is not due to be published until tomorrow. A pre-publication preview of its executive summary is available here for the time being. --Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How strange, that scientists, who spend their entire lives studying the subject, are driven exclusively by emotion, while conservative talk radio hosts, with no training at all, are never emotional. Maybe it is all the mathematics that scientists have to learn that make them so much more emotional than talk radio hosts. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please take a look through the FAQ" ... you may as well just ask Pachuri, Mann and all his chums who write this gumf whether we are allowed to mention anything they don't approve of. This isn't an article on global warming, it is a propaganda article written by a small group of people with no interest in science. The simple fact is no one cares what the article says any longer. Like the Berlin wall it should be preserved as is as a monument to stupidy! 85.211.173.217 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of giving this section a more descriptive title. There is a detailed, and decidedly more sober, article on the subject at the CSM. From that article:

The review panel, assembled in May at the request of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, did not address the science of global warming itself.

I'm sure we'll want to write it up in the article on the IPCC. --TS 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is POV Propoganda from Al Gore and the Liberal Media

You won't here any of this nonsense about the ozone layer heating up like a green-house or carbon monoxide in the atmosphere once we get rid of all those librals in congress this fall. Global warming is just a massive hoakes by the extremest liberal media and their foreign socialist allies who want to make the USA in to a north american union like europe. It will never happen Long live the TEA PARTY. go back to kenyaa barak hussein!

[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.

[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]

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 I'm sure we'll want to write it up in [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change|the article on the IPCC]]. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
+==This article is POV Propoganda from Al Gore and the Liberal Media==
+You won't here any of this nonsense about the ozone layer heating up like a green-house or carbon monoxide in the atmosphere once we get rid of all those librals in congress this fall. Global warming is just a massive hoakes by the extremest liberal media and their foreign socialist allies who want to make the USA in to a north american union like europe. It will never happen Long live the TEA PARTY. go back to kenyaa barak hussein!