Talk:Climate change

per country / per capita

The "per country" greenhouse gas image should be removed. It's based on the absurd notion that the reified abstractions known as nation-states are capable of acting to emit such gas.

The "per capita" image is meaningful because humans are actual actors who actually emit greenhouse gas through their actions.

The purpose of the "per country" image is to allow US-Americans to continue dragging their feet on taking any substantive action to curtail their wanton disregard for the planet, by making the Chinese (and others) look just as bad even though they're not (smog or no smog).

If we're going to have "per country" then we might as well have "per religion." "China" is no more capable of emitting greenhouse gas than "Confucianism" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per country is important politically, whether or not the US and China are going to ratify Kyoto or COP15 is based off of these estimates. Are you saying that "per country" should be disregarded because the US and China are dragging their feet? Your assertion sounds as if the image were to be removed, the public and potentially policy makers will forget this aspect and change their position on the issue. Furthermore your first assertion that simply because it doesn't make a lot of sense demographically—isn't reason enough alone to remove the image. Your comment sounds so PoV riddled that you would: (1) fail to recognize the political significance of placing per country and per capita in a juxtaposition even if it would work to your benefit in political awareness, and (2) to disregard objective positions contrary to your own. Thread closed under WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM, unless central points are addressed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying it should be removed because it is propaganda based on nonsense. This should have been clear after reading my first sentence. I'm not "soapboxing" or chit-chatting. "Thread" re-"opened." I'm raising a serious issue. Your point (1) is a serious one and I have considered it, but just because leaving the "per country" image will allow people to compare it with the legitimate image and come to the obvious conclusion that "per country" is propaganda based on nonsense doesn't justify including it. It seems intuitively obvious to me that the truth is better served by not polluting readers' minds with lies in the first place, rather than spreading lies with the hope that they'll be seen through. Your point (2) is irrelevant; there are people who believe in a flat Earth, but serious people no longer suffer such nonsense. --formerly 70.105.246.237

This article gets a lot of nonsense. Your job is to articulate yourself with as few words as possible, this reduces burdenous reading and subterfuge—I'm glad you didn't take either for granted. You have to becareful when you stated "polluting readers' minds with lies in the first place", this sounds a lot like WP:TRUTH and WP:CENSOR. Readers are not fools, those who are, dismiss the article anyway. Here is my central point: the political notability of the juxtaposition exceeds the potential confounding of the reader's understanding. Therefore my position remains resolute, which results in no consensus (WP:CON). You can appeal to the other editors on this discussion for their considerations, or you can clarify your reasons and continue your appeal to me. Usually changes are not made unless it is clear that it would improve the article. For example, if the image were to be removed, would there be another one to take its place that would do a better job articulating to the reader the politics of Global warming? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first part, but I'll assume it's a compliment of some sort. Thanks.

It is the truth that the image is nonsensical propaganda -- unless the reified abstractions known as nation-states have become autonomous actors capable of emitting greenhouse gas.

It isn't censorship to not include nonsense in articles. If it were, then I could add lorem ipsum to this article and expect you to defend my edit. Would you?

Can you provide evidence that the juxtaposition of the nonsense of the "per country" image against the facts of the "per capita" image is politically notable? I'm under the impression that nonsense is not given much political credibility, but is generally dismissed.

Consensus is irrelevant. (OH GOLLY DID I SAY THAT ALOUD?!) If enough science deniers managed to flood this article and achieve consensus that global warming is a Marxist conspiracy, and rewrite it to that effect, I doubt very much that you'd stand for it, nor would I.

How can I possibly clarify my position any further? The "per country" image is bullshit. How's that?

I'm not "appealing" to you or anyone else. I'm talking to myself on the talk page of an article with the tightest sphincter on Wikipedia. To add so much as a comma would require weeks of haggling. I know this. But that image is so absurd that I'm willing to talk to myself in public over it.

The image isn't there to "articulate the politics of global warming"; it's there because somebody assumed that "per country greenhouse gas emissions" was a meaningful sentence, and made an image to reflect that false assumption. It's managed to remain in the article because it looks snazzy and official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Countries - as political entities - are very much able to influence the emissions of their population and industries. You are nit-picking to a degree that's not useful. Why stop where you do? It's not people that burn most fossil fuels - engines do. Why not have "per engine" emissions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, nation-states are not capable of influencing anything, because they are not autonomous actors -- they are reified abstractions. Humans influence things. Many humans (foolishly) identify as members of one reified abstraction or another, but this foolishness (which fuels war, imperialism, racism, and all sorts of nonsense) does not give those abstractions life or autonomy.

Engines are not autonomous actors, either. They are, however, physical objects used by humans in the process of emitting greenhouse gas, so "per engine" would indeed make more sense than "per country." But I think "per capita" should suffice, since humans are the actual autonomous actors.

Hope this helps clear your head! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Propaganda" and "lies" is a misnomer. There is no propaganda in telling the reader objective facts. Lying implies the image inaccurately displays those emissions. The Kyoto protocol was negotiated between countries, and the mandates were allocated to countries. Per country, while only a shallow factor in the mechanisms in those negotiations, is better described as not useful than as propaganda or as lies. Your arguments are hardly convincing for three reasons: (1) what you are proposing does not appear to substantially improve the article, (2) when you attack a point of view (nationalism) you become a PoV pusher yourself, this opens you for dismissal under WP:SPA, and (3) when you disregard the processes by which decisions are made on Wikipedia, you are excluded from it.

Thinking about it, "per capita responsibility for current atmospheric CO2 level" may be more appropriate than "per country greenhouse gas emissions in 2000", image available[1]. There are others, of course, such as ratio of GDP to CO2 emissions. Our discussions is centered on how to substantially improve the article, simply removing a image fails to be substantial: this was your job to be looking for a replacement image. You can persist in solely removing the image, or you can revise your position to replacing it—and that's where our discussion will be. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that for all your apologetics on behalf of the nonsensical image, you haven't risen to deny my point: that nation-states are not autonomous actors, but are merely reified abstractions. You can't deny my point, because to do so would be to affirm nonsense. Instead, you dance around my point, wave policy in my face, and imply through your choice of words that you're the authority figure on this matter and that I'm beneath you in some supposed hierarchy.

The "per country" image is propaganda, to the extent that nation-states are impotent, reified abstractions -- as opposed to autonomous actors capable of emitting greenhouse gas, as the image implies.

I didn't attack nationalism as part of an argument against the image, but as part of a discussion as to why many people accept such reification as normal (because their identities are wrapped up in those abstractions), and why such identification, while prevalent for that reason, is still irrelevant to the facts.

I don't know what you think I'm doing here, if not attempting to improve the article. I don't think malicious vandals generally take their concerns to the talk page, do they? As I've stated already, I have a serious concern that readers will be misled by the "per country" image, as it paints people like the Chinese as roughly equivalent to the US-Americans in their wanton disregard for the planet. Such equivalence is an intentional falsehood (I like to call intentional falsehoods "lies"), as evidenced by the existence of the accurate "per capita" data. (Why countenance "per country" when we have "per capita"? The answer is as obvious as the shift in red from one image to the other.)

The CO2 image you linked is certainly more interesting than the "per country" greenhouse gas image, but it would seem to be almost superfluous to the "per capita" image. I'm happy to see the nonsensical propaganda image simply deleted, as I would consider that an improvement to the article; but if you insist on replacing it with something (you haven't convinced me why this should be necessary), then I'd have no objections to the CO2 image. But again, I don't really see the point, either; "per capita" takes several gasses and zooms in on one year, whereas "CO2" takes several years and zooms in on one gas. I suppose they could be juxtaposed in an interesting way that would improve the article. /shrug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your basic point. Nation states are not "reified abstractions", they are quite real. They are not individuals, but they are quite autonomous as actors. And their actions do have massive influence on the physical world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Name an act committed by a nation-state...

...and exhale. That sudden overwhelming dread you felt just then was the realization that -- were I the petty sort -- you'd be compelled to eat your words. But I understand that the reification of abstractions is a deeply ingrained psychological illness affecting billions of human actors, so I won't pressure you to dig into that humble pie.

Did you have anything new to add to the discussion about the nonsensical propaganda image based on the reification of the abstractions known as "nation-states" into autonomous actors allegedly capable of emitting greenhouse gasses, and the damage done to global warming awareness (not to mention this particular article) by the propagation of such lies to the general public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A state is the defining/acting party in:

• limiting emissions
• deciding what kind of power-plants are to be built (energy mix)
• what emission standards cars use
• what kind of agricultural practices are allowed.
• ...... etc etc.

A nation state is not an abstraction, it is a very real and tangible actor. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Human actors, all.

Where might I touch a nation-state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Name an act committed by a nation-state...

• Germany's attack on Russia in 1941
• The UK's ratification of the Kyoto treaty on May 31st, 2002
• The US founding West Point in 1802

...and if you disagree, name one action that Tony Blair performed, as opposed to the individual cells of his body. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Human actors, all.

...and Tony Blair is an autonomous actor, his individual cells are not. Your upside-down analogy fails.

Now, you can either keep digging your hole, or we can end this embarrassing episode and get back to discussing the subject at hand.

Right then. Now that we've established that the reified abstractions known as "nation-states" are not autonomous actors capable of emitting greenhouse gas, I think this would be a good time for the defenders of the nonsensical propaganda image, which is based on an established lie, to offer a serious justification for keeping it and misleading the readers of the article -- or to concede that it ought to be removed, and condescend to grace me with permission to do so in 4 days time.

Is it a date, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So which human actor did attack Russia? Which human actor ratified Kyoto? Who exactly founded West Point? And Tony Blair's 71325s right biceps muscle cell begs to differ - it acts all on its own based on stimuli from its environment (that we collectively - not abstractly - have decided to call "Tony Blair"). Maybe you should read reification again. Love is abstract - the US is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the names of all the various multitudes of human actors involved in all the various multitudes of historical events, but I don't deny that those people had names and are potentially identifiable, as you seem to be doing.

Unless you're in communication with Tony Blair's muscle cells, I suggest you drop that silly dead end.

Maybe you should read your own edit summary.

Now, may we finally return to the subject at hand? I contend that it is detrimental to the article to retain an image that attributes greenhouse gas emissions to nation-states rather than human beings. I've given my reasons for this, but have yet to be taken seriously. Instead, folks have elected to defend fallacies, displaying a bizarre need to retain absolute control over an article, even though they reduce its quality by doing so. That's Wikipedia for you! (I knew from the outset that I was wasting my time and talking to myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I do not believe the image is necessarily being defended, rather, you're asking the users of this talk page to preform an edit that is being held not to improve the article. This article is semi-protected; so to edit, you need to either lift semi-protection (WP:RPP) or become auto-confirmed (WP:UAL).

I have not denied reified abstractions because I don't necessarily disagree with it, what I disagree with is the link between this concept and an edit to the article. The section is titled "Economic and political debate", and I can claim that the scope of the section is political. Now say a politician from the United States wants to justify his or her position to be against the ratificiation of the Kyoto Protocol. If an image shifts responsibility from the US to China, then certainly it would be within the interest of the politician to make this point notable. The concept of reified abstractions is non-essential, even if per capita would provide a better measure.

You've asked how the image "per capita responsibility for current atmospheric CO2 level", that is total emissions since the 1980s is a convincing replacement. While "per country" is a good boiler plate for sound bites, debates leading to the Kyoto Protocol would certainly possess more depth. China is exempt from a number of sanctions allocated by the Kyoto Protocol, they are not responsible for current levels of greenhouse gases. The US on the other hand, argues with three points: that the current per capita emissions is enough to justify that China receive stricter sanctions, GDP per emission, and per country. Per country—while it is not substantial to an extent that it would be greater than or on par with per capita—is notable because it can be used to justify a position.[2] We've objectively document some of this, how well or detailed, is beyond the scope of removing the image. What you are asking is within my discretion to decline to. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Blah, blah, blah, NO, blah, blah, DENIED, blah, GO AWAY." Don't worry, the bot will sweep this thread under the archival rug in 7 days. It'll be as though I never raised the issue, and there will be peace in the valley for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree this article. We all must work to prevent glabal warming. So, green house gas, The main cause of global warming, must be removed. We should try a small order. I hope that the global warming problem is solved as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstudents (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Radiative forcings section

The lead of the radiative forcings section starts with "External forcing is a term used in climate science..." I'm not too happy with this. Either the header or the first sentence should be changed so they are self-consistent. -Atmoz (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cooling trend?

Looks like this year, like last year, is colder than the previous several years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/rss-global-temperature-anomaly-also-down-in-may-halving-the-april-value/

How long would this have to continue before the article would mention it? This is not just a rhetorical question. Hypothetically speaking, if monthly temperatures continue to be colder than they were from 2001 to 2007, I am curious at what point we would reach "consensus" that there is a cooling trend. 76.19.65.163 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As soon as reliable sources (i.e. peer reviewed scientific papers) claim that there is a significant climatic cooling trend. Normally climatic trends are measured over 30 years, to average out normal fluctuations like the ENSO and the 11 year solar cycle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that when hell freezes over, there might be some acknowledgement of a cooling trend. It shouldn't matter whether the cause is CO2, ENSO, sunspots, or whatever. An article entitled "global warming" is logically about an objective trend regardless of cause. The phrase "During the last century" is quite misleading since it actually refers to 1905 to 2005. Shouldn't this information at least be in the footnote? Although more recent data is available, a deliberate decision has been made not to update. Worldwide weather station data wasn't collected systematically back in 1905.[3] GISS has adjusted the temperature record for 1905 fifty-five times in recent years! The satellite data is more a objective source -- and there is no particular long term trend in that data. Kauffner (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So Schulz (re: AGW bias runs amuck) wants peer reviewed and 30 years. But they launched their AGW ideology after about 10 years of data and before the first wave of IPCC sponsored (bought and paid for) articles made it through the peer review process. Follow the computer "models", it’s all in the models. Their (now) minority consensus can probably revise the models to show where hell freezes over is just a sign of future warming. It doesn’t matter – they are killing the capitalist machine and that the only method that could have underwritten their agenda. The natural cycle deniers will be regulated by economic cycles… Mk 68.56.175.27 (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cite doi

{{Cite doi}} is a template that transclude the citation data from a central source (the subpages of Template:Cite doi) into an article. There are three advantages and two disadvantages to using this system. The three advantages are: (1) consistency, a bot fills out all the pertinent fields (2) ease of use, this reduces human error and tedious editing; and (3) reducing article file size—reading through the article is easier when the citations are small and compact, the small {{Cite doi|...}} takes up less room than the eye sore of {{Cite journal|last=...}}. On the other hand the two disadvantages are: (1) because these templates are transcluded from a central source and may be reused, the "quotation" and other fields should not be used, and (2) security, each {{Cite doi}} instance is a vandalism vector.

Point one of the disadvantages can be solved by simply going back to using {{Cite journal}}. Point two of the disadvantages can be solved by: (1) Ckatz has protect the central template, (2) I'm planning on adding a feature to the {{Cite doi}} that'll hide the small "edit" button each time the template is transcluded[4], (3) since these templates are rarely edited, adding them to the watchlist should not be cumbersome to watch, and (4) the last form of mitigation is to use "cascading semi-protection" which would protect the templates transcluded into the article as well, this may be unethical as it may be inconsistent with WP:PP.

The consistency clause of WP:CITE entails that this article must remain "internally consistent", with the extension of setting the precedent of using the same or similar template. My position is to switch to {{Cite doi}} for the two advantages listed above. Therefore, under "stability" WP:MOS[5][6], I am seeking consensus for this transition. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I oppose. Of the three advantages, one and two can be achieved by using {{Cite journal | doi=}} instead of {{Cite doi}}. 3 is not an advantage. I think it is more useful for verification purposes to have all the pertinent information available to editors inline in the text when they are editing, instead of having to open the page, and then clicking on the ref link. -Atmoz (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have the bot modified so that

1. Quotes can be added for the current page, but that they would not be visible in other pages using the same reference.

   NB: This could be done by adding a 'quote' parameter to the cite doi template; or by manually specifying <ref>{cite doi|10.whatever}. "quote from this article".</ref>. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks. I added this to Template:Cite doi/doc . Q Science (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Changes to the template will automatically show up in the watch lists of everyone watching an article that uses that template. This way, no one would have to specifically add a watch for each used template.

When many articles use the same reference, sometimes the data is presented a little differently in each. Also, when someone finds a link to the complete source, the template provides a simple way to update all related pages. (This is a tremendous advantage. I have used it many times.) I have started a related thread at User_talk:Citation_bot. Q Science (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion after my edit summary actually went to my talk page first, a proposal on Template talk:Cite doi, and then here. I'm just trying to make it easier for Boris and those working on prose. Adding additional fields to {{Cite doi}} to allow a more customized control isn't a bad idea, I like it, but I can't think of a easy solution right off. This isn't the talk page for that kind of a proposal of course. Verification, in my opinion, is easier to do when going to the rendered version of the article. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. While I agree that the "noedit" flag is useful, I don't think it goes far enough because it is too easy to get around. (Just edit the section, remove the flag, click "show". There is no reasong to ever click "save".) I think it is best to report changes to everyone watching pages that contain the template. Q Science (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Citedoi seems pretty good as is to me. Never seen any major problems with it. Any determine vandals can use accounts. Seems like a non-issue. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the major advantages of {{cite doi}} that isn't mentioned above is that editing text is easier - the template call fills a lot less than a full {{cite journal}}, and is thus less intrusive. It makes it harder to quickly oversee a diff, but all in all i find it very useful. (especially the shared part, which makes "gnoming" a lot easier). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Before we can really begin discussing implementing it in the first place, I need to be able to modify the {{Cite doi}} template to utilize the noedit feature—the template uses cascading full protection. To place a small edit button next to every citation that has a doi number, seems to be a really bad idea on such a sensitive topic where a "reliable source" is often challenged. Need an administrator. Proposal for this feature is on the template's talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical impacts of climate change

Historical impacts of climate change is ready for a link in now I think.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 Lately Climate is grow hotter by degrees. so Ice of The Polar Regions melts. On this account the surface of the water is rises.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.218.56.2 (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 

SRES emissions scenario picture

The model

Why is it that the only SRES model that we show in picture form is that for A2? My understanding of what the IPCC says is that no one scenario is any more likely to happen than the other. Why A2 over B1 or A1T or A1B or any of the others? The Squicks (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At the time of the 2001 report (which is where the work for that plot comes from), A2 was the model that had been the most frequently simulated. Call it a historical quirk perhaps. I suspect that people focused on it initially because it was at the upper end of the scenarios and for practical reasons people were interested in determining what the worst case might be. Dragons flight (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A2 was the model that had been the most frequently simulated Why would that be the case? The Squicks (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't added up the numbers but for AR4 it's roughly comparable as to how many models ran A1B, A2, and B1.[7] As for your original question, the runs take a lot of work and if there are only enough resources to do one scenario then you have to choose something. You'd have to ask each individual modeler why they chose the scenario that they did. Note that the next round of simulations will use a completely different setup for GHG concentrations (which I think is good; the SRES scenarios never made much sense to me). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The original reason that I asked is because, in my view, highlighting a worse case scenario by itself without context or anything else to compare it to gives the wrong impression to the reader about what the IPCC actually reported in general. The Squicks (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is any "consolation", actual CO2 concentrations in the decade since SRES was published have actually increased slightly faster than any of the scenarios predicted. So our trajectory, at least in the first decade, is worse than the worse case scenario for CO2. (On the other hand, most of the scenarios predicted higher CH4 levels than actually observed.) Dragons flight (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a link for that? (I'm not disbelieving you, but I have not heard of this in what I have read). The Squicks (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think DF may be referring to Mike Raupach's work; try Google Scholar. It will be interesting to see the effect of the global recession on CO2 emissions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will certainly take a look at that. Nevertheless, I am inherently skeptical of extrapolating what is a few year trend into some 75+ years of future predictions.

Regardless, the main point here is what did the IPCC say. It said that no one scenario is more probable than the other, leaving such determination to the reader . The Squicks (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe their position is that they are not assigning any probability to the various scenarios. The difference is subtle, but that's not the same as saying they are assessed as having equal likelihood. Dragons flight (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's what I meant by writing leaving such determination to the reader. The IPCC passed the buck of determining probabilities to others and did not do so itself. The Squicks (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Graph Dates

I find the caption for the graph at the top of the page ("Global mean surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990") confusing, probably because I'm not a scientific type. At first, because it showed a date range, I thought it indicated the date range for the graph (the graph is so small it's difficult to see the actual dates without clicking on it). Am I understanding correctly that it means the 0% mark on the graph is equal to the average temperature between 1961 and 1990? Is there a reason for that date range? Could we use actual degrees celsius on the scale, or perhaps change the caption to "Global mean surface temperature anomaly relative to XX °C?"

I'm still relatively new when it comes to Wikipedia discussions and formatting, so let me know if I'm committing any faux pas in my post. J2jensen (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a percentage graph, but yes, the 0 value is the average anomaly of 1961 to 1990. The reason why the temperature anomaly is plotted, not an absolute temperature, is because it is much harder to determine an absolute temperature than a temperature difference. Thus all the data sets in reliable sources that we use (NASA GIS and Hadley Center HadCRUT) are actually anomalies. We just follow this convention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if I was making the graph I would put a big black line or arrow or something though the graph at y=0 to make it clearer for the reader. The Squicks (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Images

Two sections may benefit from images: (1) "Responses to global warming" and (2) "Aerosols and soot". This article generally sticks scientific graphs and maps with the exception of Ice-albedo feedback—for integrity, to eliminate or reduce sensationalism, to eliminate eye candy. The section Responses to global warming may also be on the of most controversial as the economic and political debate is centered on this topic. Below are the images I've collected for this section. The best design for this section, in my opinion, is to do a {{Double image stack}} in "Mitigation". With that in mind the two I support are: (1) the last image the "phytoplankton bloom" which can used to describe both geoengineering and to a lesser extent mitigation; (2) the second is perhaps "carbon sequestration".

• 
  Nuclear power due to its low emittance and reliability, is seen as a possible alternative to fossil fuels.
• 
  Schematic showing both terrestrial and geological sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions from a coal-fired plant.
• 
  This three-bladed wind turbine is the most common modern design because it minimizes forces related to fatigue.
• 
  Jets have been suggested to deliver aerosol precursors to the stratosphere.
• 
  An oceanic phytoplankton bloom in the South Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Argentina covering an area about 300 miles by 50 miles

"Aerosols and soot" is large enough for a single thumb size image. This is what I've got.

• 
  Aerosol over Northern India and Bangladesh.
• 
  Fires burning in Eastern China
• 
  This figure shows the level of agreement between a climate model driven by five factors and the historical temperature record.
• 
  The CLAW hypothesis proposes a feedback loop that operates between ocean ecosystems and the Earth's climate as phytoplankton blooms develop from sulfate aerosols.
• 
  Aeresols forcing.

ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh nooooooooo, not the jets...... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to use one or two of the first three in the first row of images. Wind turbines seem to be popping up like daisies, and there are many, many new permit requests (at least in the US of A) for nuclear plants. Places to put carbon seems good as well. As for the phytoplankton bloom, it seems less relevant and AFAIK a number of professionals have deemed seeding the oceans to be a Very Bad Idea, so there may not be consensus on that. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What about File:ShipTracks_MODIS_2005may11.jpg for the aerosols section? -Atmoz (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Easily mistaken for cloud feedback, I think, Atmoz. I'm thinking of all the ways we won't get flak if we put an image in. Remember "per country / per capita". If we put nuclear power in, we'll be told that its too dangerous and the image should be removed. If we put a wind turbine in, we'll be told that its not sensible for everyone and the image should be removed. The image with the jets aren't actually releasing sulfate dust or aerosols into the atmosphere (they're refueling). I was thinking of the phytoplankton (the last image on the top row) because that's one that people usually don't think of, and because it can fit into both Mitigation and Geogenineering. Carbon sequestration seems to be a big thing, and I like how its a diagram. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the aerosol pics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still pro-power-facility and anti-phytoplankton, but that's just my (1) vote/opinion/few cents.

I like the graph in the 2nd row, and almost wonder why it isn't in the article when it seems to be important: is it one of the same models used in the IPCC report? That could be important. As for the second-row pictures, I don't know what the largest source of aerosols is (volcanic? dust?), but I think that the image chosen should represent that.Awickert (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Easily mistaken for cloud feedback. It may be mistaken as such, but it's not. Most of the forcing from aerosols is from indirect effects, which itself is mostly the cloud albedo effect shown in that image. I dislike the image with fire because soot is a relatively minor forcing. The DMS feedback is an interesting idea, but it's not even mentioned in this section. Plus, the most noticeable feature in the image is the contrails, as least to me. The graph is out for me. I don't expect an average reader to gain any understand from that graph in this section. -Atmoz (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote 100% for the carbon seq. picture, it would be a great addition. I don't have much of a preference for the second banana. The Squicks (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're talking about Atmoz, added the image to the gallery. Crossed out Phytoplankton. For, carbon sequestration, I'm not certain. Abstain. As for the second row, I like the graph, global warming art created the image, and we've cited them in the external links; it's references look good; I think the reader may benefit. I mean it probably won't be much harder than any of the other graphs, and we have a lot of graphs. Dropped the other three images: the CLAW hypothesis and two of dust/smoke forcing, so we're down to two for the second row.

This is what we're down to: two to three images is probably as many as we can go for the top row, any more and they won't all fit. For the second row we can either do one thumb size image, or a sideways stack (example). If its a sideways stack the image will be really small. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

l want to big picture.--210.218.56.2 (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The global warming is very serious. but I don' understand this picture

IPCC

There is consensus in the scientific community that global warming can occur from human activity, however there is significant debate as to what extent that impact is. The article does not make this clear. This article insinuates that the IPCC represents the scientific community. The Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, and the Leipzig Declaration are petitions which represent thousands of scientists who directly disagree with conclusions drafted by the IPCC. These sources and viewpoints need to be added to this article. This article uses the IPCC's findings as a resource to such an extent it has become disengenuous. The IPCC is a government sponsored committee assembled in order to study the impact of humans on climate change. They are not scientists. It is in the interest of the IPCC to find a negative human impact on the environment to remain relevant. Furthermore, it is misleading to point out only those scientists and scientific bodies who have endorsed IPCC findings. It is in the interest of science academies to support the findings of government bodies who fund them. The article insinuates there is no dissenting opinion, when in fact there is. The IPCC findings represent an 'extreme' view of human impact on global warming in the scientific community. Many scientists view the impact of carbon dioxide as a less significant driving force in climate change. The climate models used by the IPCC place a significant importance on carbon dioxide levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcburns (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Scientific opinion on climate change for the endorsement of the IPCC by the wider scientific community. And PLEASE see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and List of authors from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis for the "not scientists" claim. The "thousands of scientists" in the various petitions are only "scientists" by very loose criteria (indeed, for many of them the scientific specialty seems to be "retired"), and at least in the Oregon Petition case are only "thousands" by simple fraud. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The person above is not asking for redirect tactics Stephan. They are simply stating what I have said for eight months, which is that this article is bias and leads the reader to believe there is not significant dissent. AGW is now in the minority view and the consensus never existed. The longer you natural cycle deniers bias this article and deny the ten year cooling trend and its ramifications will only reflect poorly on WP and the few guardian editors of this article. Mk 68.56.175.27 (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is significant political dissent but not significant scientific dissent. It is not the minority view among scientists, and I believe that it is not the minority view in the general public, though I don't know and this drastically varies among the different circles one frequents.

Oh, and there is no decadal cooling trend, unless you connect the right dots in which case the noise is much larger than the signal. The only clear recent cooling trend starts in the mid-2000's, making it 4-ish years from the plot on this article. Awickert (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

there is no decadal cooling trend We won't know either way until some time in the future, won't we?

No, there is no decadal cooling trend. In the future, there may be a decadal cooling trend. There is a reason I wrote in the present tense, and verb conjugation is key. :) Awickert (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that in 2016 we may very well look at 2005 to 2015 and say "Wow, it got colder". It's possible (not likely at all, but possible). The Squicks (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Proof that C02 has a significant impact on climate at atmospheric ratio's of .00382 (or anywhere near it) is totally unproven. I don't have a political angle, and I'm certainly not a conservative. I noticed descrepencies while researching Physics and Earths history, not while studying the politics of human impact on climate change. I firmly believed in a severe impact from Global Warming on Earth due to carbon dioxide for years. However, I began to notice scientific studies that focus on other planets, or pre-historic Earth, almost always estimate CO2 has a smaller impact on temperature than those suggested by the IPCC, even though they use models with more severely increased levels. It appears well-publicized scientific reports treat CO2 as a more significant factor in the greenhouse effect when it pertains to human created CO2. This is the reason I became interested in this subject. I realize I should provide references and numbers, and I will shortly. However, the fact I have to provide references says something about the bias in this article. I assume a lot of people have noticed the same thing I have, especially scientists who study it. Some of the scientists in the petitions are 'marginal', but I have read articles citing IPCC scientists who feel the IPCC reports take an extreme position, and I'm not referencing political sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcburns (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're in good faith, I'll give you some sympathy. The number one error people make in this article is that they make general statements about what they believe. This is a forum style discussion. Wikipedia uses a different style, which has a learning curve so challenging that this article has amassed over fifty archives of discussion.

There is a purpose behind each discussion. In a forum, and beyond simple self-expression, you can bear the foundation of how does this improve the other person. How can I advance understanding. This form of discussion on Wikipedia is generally restricted to user talk. Article talk is different. It is enourmously different. The purpose is not how to improve the other person's understanding, but how to improve the aticle. The number one error people make, is quite simply, they make general statements on what they believe.

The first question I will always ask you is, what do you want to change in the article. Whether this may be adding a sentence, changing one, or removing one. You have to be specific. The second question after you've establish what you want to change is to verify it (WP:V); and often this question entails whether the source is reliable source (WP:RS). If you can adquately cite a peer review to verify reliability. Then the final question is neutrality (WP:NPOV), from which it'll have two parts: is it giving propery weight, is the wording objective. This is process, and it's a compromise articles of this level of interest have to make (WP:PROCESS). This is for you Mk and Gcburns. I don't have to do this. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Global warming is the increase in the Earth's average temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.218.56.2 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Global warming is the increase in the Earth's average temperature Some of the methods to stop global warming include using the mass transportation, planting a lot of plants, protecting the woods, and reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.218.56.2 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)