Talk:Climate change

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 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

Skip to table of contents

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

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

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

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

faq page

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated?

A5: Two reasons:

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

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

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

Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO₂?

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

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

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

Q9: Did climate change end in 1998?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A16: No,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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, 96

/Terminology section /General discussion

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Some aggressive archiving

See earlier discussion archived here. --TS 00:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page got fat again. I've removed the following dormant sections to archive for the stated reasons:

Biased towards science-based presentation? | Yes, this is an article about a scientific phenomenon.
Natural disasters | consensus to exclude image
Use of the term uncertainty in the lede | rather old
What did IPCC actually say about likely temp rise?| Rather old except for myth-based query about cooling trend at the end
Direct temperature measurement | very old.

I have also removed a discussion section started and maintained by an identified, now blocked, sock puppet. I did not archive it.

The result is to halve the size of this very large discussion page, which I hope will make life easier for everybody without curtailing any discussion.

I take care to avoid mistakes, but I'm human and I'm not in charge. Please do restore potentially fruitful ongoing discussions I may have inadvertently closed. --TS 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed IPCC citation

Citing the IPCC publications is challenging, and has been not entirely satisfactory. I have worked out a citation format (below) that I think is much improved. If there are no objections I will convert the existing IPCC citations to this format. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007). "Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections". Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978 0 521 88009 1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |pdf= (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) p. 34

minor

I assume in your example where you cite chapter, you're thinking of drilling that down to specific subsection of the chapter. If so then that looks good to me and thanks for investing that energy. One suggestion for improvement.... I like to refer to the chapter PDF instead of the online html text. If possible, I'd like to see inclusion of PDF links with PDF page numbers too. Looks good so far, thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a question of citation practice there. Yes, one can cite more specifically (deeper) than a whole chapter. But generally the reference is the whole work (e.g., Working Group I's contribution to AR4, which is available as a book), and the more specific citation (down to chapter, section, page, etc.) should be outside of that. E.g., if we were using Harv the specific citation would be something like: IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007) harvtxt error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFIPCC_AR4_WG12007 (help) [referencing the work], Section 10.3.1: Time-Evolving Global Change [web link to a specific section], p. 137 [page number in the book/pdf]. . Note that the example here does not preclude a hybrid form, where each chapter gets a reference (as per the example above), and the subsection cited as here. But having individual references for parts of a work (e.g., individual chapters) is cumbersome, and somewhat dubious. (I did it above only to show multiple levels of linking.)

Links to the pdf's work only at the chapter level, and have to be downloaded to be accessed. Given that we have more finely accessible html links, and that the IPCC provides ready access to the pdf links, I think the html links are preferred in this case. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this.... I'm not asking anyone to look up pdf url and page number during this reformatting process. On the other hand, several citations already contain that data. Since the cite options allow for both approaches, please preserve any existing pdf data in the last two optional fields of the cite. That way all the cites will follow the predetermined template all the way thru, and some will have two additional options for pdf tacked on the end. Since I use that pdf info when I refer back, I'd hate to see that info be deleted from any existing cites in this article. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the templates "allow for both" urls. Yes, there is provision for multiple urls, but these are at different levels: the "convenience" url ("url" parameter) is for the work (book) as a whole; the "chapter-url" is more specific. How would you "tack on" an additional (alternate) url for the pdf? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dopey me. I guess that option doesn't exist. Nevermind but thanks for asking. I applaud your contribution and service to standardize these cites and your format rocks.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. And sorry about catching you before you'd had coffee. :-) This format isn't perfect, but I think it gets closer. BTW, I do agree that when page numbers have been supplied they should be retained. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried adding a pages bit: change it to page if only one. Without checking out the foregoing, it's easy enough to standardise on the url for the web version in the template, while allowing editors to add a link to the pdf version after the template but inside the ref tags, giving the page number such as p. 34: have added that on above. Note: the html version is at question 9 under the index but don't know how to link to it directly! Don't know if that answers the question, but it's a possible workround. . dave souza, talk 22:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me, it's probably possible to link the page number...

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007). "Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections". Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978 0 521 88009 1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |pdf= (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Whaddya think? . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's clever, Dave. I like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Properly speaking, the 'page/pages' parameter in the template is for where the work cited is paginated as part of a larger work, such as a paper in a collection. For indicating the specific location of a citation the page number(s) should be outside of the template. E.g.:

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007). "Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections". Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978 0 521 88009 1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Section 10.3.1: Time-Evolving Global Change, p. 34. <==

However, there is one small problem: {{cite book}} insists on inserting a terminal period (here, just after the isbn), instead of the proper comma. Another reason I use {{citation}}. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once this is settled, someone please add a FAQ with the result.... I'm sure I won't remember by the time AR5 arrives.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I'll have most of the IPCC citations reformatted by the time AR5 arrives! And then there will be a clear pattern to emulate. I have worked up samples and comments on my talk page, which eventually I will copy here. After that gets archived I will drop a "question" into the FAQ for finding it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, some additional issues for possible comment. The IPCC (as well as this article) is inconsistent in regard of order of author/editor names (inverted, or not), and initialization versus full names. I have adopt inverted names (as that is most consistent with the templates). I raise the question of whether to use full names, or initials. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I am leaning towards full names, as it will be easier, and less prone to error, for others to initialize a full name than to extend initials. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trust judgment of the one willing to do this work... thanks again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have started converting; editors may be interested in examining notes 7 and 9 in the lede. For comparison see note 6 (linked to a named ref elsewhere). I find that I also have to convert 'cite web' to 'cite book' in order to have the 'author-link' parameter work. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just as I had most of the IPCC citations converted I realized I had not properly formatted the ISBNs. (No one told me! It's you all's fault!) At any rate, see the links above for latest, greatest, most perfecyt version. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done!!

Done!! And you all are welcome to view and comment. Some points to note:

While I have corrected and augmented in a few cases, I did not attempt to fix everything. In quite a few cases a page number or section (including link) is needed.
In several cases I replaced a named ref and {{rp}} with separate refs so that the page number could be incorprated in the citation, and linked with the pdf.
I am finding I prefer having the specific citation preceeding the reference (e.g.: Section 10.1 in IPCC ....) rather than trailing. I have left instances of the latter for comparison.
Other (non-IPCC) citations need attention. Some are real slip-shod.

Various lessons learned:

Copying in the canonical reference:
- is a lot easier than typing it manually,
- eliminates having to find and verify all the details oneself,
- makes for greater consistency and accuracy.
After removing inconsistencies and citation specifics (such as section or page numbers), I find that the number of distinct, unique references (what the citations point to) is reduced. However, file size and editing effort remain high because the reference (the report) is fully contained within each citation. Use of {{Harv}} templates would reduce both size and effort; I consider this a strong argument for using Harv.
'Named refs' are UGLY. And hard to find. {{Rp}} is even uglier. Another strong argument for using Harv.

- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add "believed to be caused by" in introduction

While I do not doubt that global warming is caused by human activities, it is unscientific to conclude that this is the case by correlation alone - no matter how many scientific authorities agree that this is the most likely cause, the impact that humans hold over climate change is a theory.

This does not mean that it's "just a theory" there are lots of theories that have substantial evidence in support. It seems though with the political and social importance climate change holds, we don't mind saying, with absolute certainty, that humans cause global climate change - which the evidence does overwhelmingly support.

Furthermore, wikipedia cannot speak for all scientific bodies.

I recommend changing the first paragraph to:

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is believed to be caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by the vast majority of scientific bodies of national or international standing.[4][5][A] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.240.200 (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a verifiable citation to a scientific body of national or international standing that disputes this finding, and then let's talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here: http://www.petitionproject.org/ 31,487 scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs Logical fact (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key word here is verifiable, Oregon Petition shows it is clearly far from that. ^Khukri 16:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the Oregon Petition, see FAQ # 2 above NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the entire world gone into fallacy mode? It does not matter, Wikipedia cannot speak for all scientists and organization. Period. Besides, "international standing" is vague. 97.121.240.200 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is wrong. The conclusion is not based on "correlation alone", but on rather well understood physical principles. In fact, it has been predicted long before it could be measured, and with roughly the same order of magnitude we now observe - see Svante Arrhenius. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not "speak for" anyone but itself. It does report, as a matter of verifiable fact, what other organizations have said for themselves. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think Stephan addressed your first point. About the second, 97.121.240.200, I disagree with 'Besides, "international standing" is vague.' It's defined in footnote A, which lists the bodies. I see what you mean by the fallacy of using "all", but this isn't the case. 155.99.231.20 (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, only an omniscient being(s) (e.g., God) can positively say what anything "is". All the rest of us merely believe things to be the way they "is". I am believed (even by myself) to be opposed to changing every form of the word "is" to some form of "is believed to be" on the encyclopedia. Since this article reports the mainstream scientific view, as opposed to a philosophic view, let's keep that text the way it is. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:NewsAndEventsGuy, you are replying to Special:Contributions/97.121.240.200 correct? The lack of indent (:) confused me. 99.35.12.88 (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/NewsAndEventsGuy, your wording would seem more appropriate on Christianity and environmentalism or Religion and environmentalism. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed change to the text is clearly believed to be incompatible with WP:WEIGHT policy, and without consent to change it, ah do believe it's stayin' the way it is. Probably time to put a hat on this, as the cat said. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I can contribute to this debate, it seems to me that the answer to the question posed ("Show me a verifiable citation to a scientific body of national or international standing that disputes this finding") is simple, and it is: the IPCC itself. IPCC's last assessment report (Fourth Assessment Report - 2007), states: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations." (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf page 39). In the IPCC terminology (see for example http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html) "very likely" means >90% probability. In other words, the IPCC declares that there is up to 10% probability that global warming IS NOT caused by greenhouse gases. Therefore the statement "Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" is plainly wrong. 89.100.107.237 (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reply to the point I made.. It seems to me pretty clear that, given IPCC's own report, the statement that the global warming is caused by greenhouse gases does not represent the current views of the scientific community. I propose to rephrase the introduction to "is believed to be very likely due to increased greenhouse gases concentration". I'll wait another day for objections, if there are none I'll proceed with the change. 89.100.107.237 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does [this] say "there's a 10% chance we're wrong"? (ANSWER: no) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, the IPCC isn't wrong, it's Wikipedia that's wrong. the IPCC is right in saying that there is a probability >90% that climate change is caused by GHGs. Wikipedia is wrong in saying that GHGs are causing it as a matter of fact, which means with 100% probability. Please, at least read the material you're citing. The first line says: "It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes.". "Very unlikely" in the IPCC terminology means "with probability <10%". So the phrase means: "there is a probability up to 10% that the climate change is not caused by greenhouse gases". I know it's not the form of the statement you're used to, but stop for a second and think of it, you have to agree that it's correct. Udippuy (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for your part, please read the material WITHOUT reading between the lines. The text I cited does not, on its face, go out of its way to say in black and white (Waving flags, bells dinging..... by the way there's a TEN PERCENT chance we could be wrrorrrroOOOOOOoOnnngnngggggg....." and the fact it does not say this on its face in ten words or less is my point. Quite the contrary.... what they actually do say is "tons more evidence".... "even stronger certainty than before"..... over and over and over and over. So on one side of the balance we have your reading of IPCC's report, where you trumpet your interpretation of their teeny tiny "very likely" science-speak from a few places while ignoring reams of "here's how it works" text throughout, and on the other side of the balance we have lots of recent peer reviewed literature that says this really is how it works. Don't forget to factor in the political pressures on the multinational IPCC and the difficulty in writing something accurate to appease everyone at the lowest common denominator, without making anyone get up and leave the table. IMO, applying too much literal meaning to this small sample of text is as erroneous as cherrypicking your favorite 2 year temperature change and saying it shows the overall trend in the climate system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, observing that 100-90 = 10 cannot be considered "reading between the lines". And please, I remind you again, citing a totally irrelevant news source as NY Times against the IPCC report is absurd (more so when the cited source of that news is the report itself!). As for the peer reviewed literature, no single study is or can be conclusive per se, and this is exactly why assessment reports such as the IPCC's exist. The report is the most authoritative compendium of the knowledge we have about the climate changes today; the statement I cited is in the "Synthesis report" and it's been carefully chosen to summarize our knowledge of the matter. The whole sentence is in bold typeface and "very likely" is in italic to underline its status of probability estimate, according to the legend given at page 27 of the report itself. As for the political pressures, can you produce reliable, peer reviewed research about their impact, in percentage points, over the IPCC's report? 89.101.132.26 (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not a belief system. There are scientific principles (e.g. greenhouse effect, conservation of mass, conservation of energy), scientific laws proven to apply in huge varieties of cases (e.g. laws of thermodynamics), simulation, modelling, mathematical analyses... and a huge peer reviewed literature going back more than a century. When this lot comes to a >90% certainty about something, it is different to when a market researcher says hisn survey implies is a 90% correlation between, e.g. income and chocolate preference. As far as a one sentence introduction to the lede to the top-level article is concerned, for the general readership, the present statement is perfect. If you want to see more detail, you have to read a bit further. This is an encyclopedia and the <10% that you are interested in is far more than adequately covered in this article and in dozens of others. Pretending that it dominates the big picture would fail WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. --Nigelj (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nigelj, I don't get your point. Are you saying that IPCC's statement that global warming is "very likely" due to greenhouse gases is wrong? Or that "very likely" is a too technicaly expression for an introduction? (same author as the previous comments, from different pc) Udippuy (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see this NY Times essay for example. And remember, this was over four and a half years ago. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is due in 2 - 3 years time, and the evidence has become much stronger in the meantime (there are many refs for that too). It's important to read fairly widely around an important topic before trying to change carefully chosen consensus wording. --Nigelj (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that citing a NY Times article against the IPCC's own report doesn't make any sense, the article itself refers exactly to that report, therefore doesn't say - and couldn't say- anything more than it's in the report itself ("... And now it [the IPCC] has supplied an even higher, more compelling seal of numerical certainty , which is also one measure of global warming’s risk to humanity.". That even higher seal of numerical certainty is exactly the "very likely" wording we're talking about. The next report is due in 2 - 3 years time, therefore you don't know what it will be saying - unless you want to produce any original research about that. Take in consideration the fact that, being the IPCC report the most authoritative assessment of all the existing peer reviewed literature about the climate change topic, any study or reference you want to produce _against it_ must be at least as authoritative as the report itself. So far your objections seemed to me really weak and I haven't seen contributions from other people, so I'm proceeding with the change, taking care of referencing this thread. Udippuy (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Udippuy, the objections raised by Nigelj to your proposal are sound, and if you proceed with what seems to be your proposed change it will properly be reverted as promoting the "it's only a theory" fallacy and giving undue weight to the fringe view that science is a belief system. Any change has to be clear that there is a strong scientific consensus on the issue. Even the tiny minority of scientists opposing the consensus accept that greenhouse gases cause global warming, and the lack of credible evidence to dismiss that finding is well illustrated by the Spencer paper discussed below. . dave souza, talk 01:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, the objections raised are very weak, you can try to defend them yourself if you want. The first is basically saying that hard sciences are using a probability measure different from other people's (maybe there's a factor to apply? :) ); the second one is using a NY article reporting findings from the IPCC 2007 report as an evidence _against_ the report itself. I see that you're principally concerned with the consequences of the proposed change; however, I think that the mission of Wikipedia is to represent the facts and not to be concerned with their consequences. Or maybe you want to revert the IPCC's 2007 Assessment report too? Please, consider your statement "Even the tiny minority of scientists opposing the consensus accept that greenhouse gases cause global warming". If that is true, why doesn't IPCC say that the the fact that GHGs are causing global warming is "Extremely likely" (prob >95%) or "Virtually certain" (prob >99%)? Is the IPCC misrepresenting the consensus? Udippuy (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IPCC's use of the term very likely is used to denote that the probability is greater than 90%. That does not put an upper bound on the probability as assesed by the IPCC. The sentence in question is not cited directly to the IPCC. The summary of the second citation to the US National Academy of Science's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" is unequivocal in stating that recent climatic changes "are in large part caused by human activities".--IanOfNorwich (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, probability >90% means exactly that. Could be 100% but could also be 90.000001%. The choice of the lower bound has been made with the intention to account for the _uncertainty_ of our knowledge. And 10% is, as far as science goes, a BIG uncertainty. Deciding not to represent such an uncertainty in lack of better knowledge would be a misrepresentation or, in the worst case, an open mystification. The IPCC knows it. Do you? (By the way, there is actually an implicit upper bound to the probability range given by the IPCC, and it is the "Extremely likely" standard term (= >95% probability). Had the IPCC enough information to set the probability to a value greater than 95%, it would have written "extremely likely" in the report. This gives us a range going from 90% to 95%). As for your second point, thanks for the indication, I checked that report too. It is less rigorous than IPCC's and in "Appendix D: Uncertainty Terminology" it clearly states: "However, because of the more concise nature and intent of this report [with respect to IPCC's], we do not attempt to quantify confidence and certainty about every statement of the science.". And indeed at page 27 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=27) it says: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems." However, immediately after adds: "This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007a-d), recent assessments by the USGCRP (e.g., USGRP, 2009a), and other recent assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change. Both our assessment and these previous assessments place high or very high confidence in the following findings: [...] 2) Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere [...]". A note (always at page 27) explains that: "high confidence indicates an estimated 8 out of 10 or better chance of a statement being correct, while very high confidence (or a statement than an ourcome is “very likely”) indicates a 9 out of 10 or better chance". So, to summarize, what their report is actually saying is that "Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere" with a confidence that is in either high (>80%) or very high (>90%) range. Exactly what the IPCC report says. Udippuy (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe NewsAndEventsGuy was making a reference to Mark Lynas's book The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans? 99.190.87.155 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indicating that the concept that human activity contributes to climate change is a theory is certainly appropriate to avoid inserting the bias of the editors into this article and to maintain objective neutrality on such a controversial topic. As requested above, find the Senate report from 2007 containing the names of 400 scientists, some former IPCC reviewers among them, who dispute the theory:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

ABLegler (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a senate report. Its a blog statement by the minority of one particular committee, back than led by well-known fossil fuel shill Jim Inhofe, otherwise known as "The Senator from Exxon". It is well-known to be full of people who are not scientists at all, people who are not climate scientists, and people who have vigorously protested against being included because their work is fully within the consensus. In other words, that report is a partisan political propaganda lie. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is something in this list that could be considered RS to support the change. 83.201.249.231 (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....and this is essentially a rehash of the same, and wrong for the same reasons as Inhofe's blog above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my personal info there's not one paper in there that's valid then? Cheers ^Khukri 11:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far - after all, IIRC, Inhofe's list contains Lindzen, a legitimate and qualified sceptic. However, neither list in itself is a reliable source - neither are all entries reliable, nor are all reliable entries placed on their respective lists reliably. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upfront, there is zero doubt in my own mind that increases in GHGs caused by humans is driving global warming. But allow me to put on my NPOV wiki editor hat to look at our citations for the word "is" in the lead. 'lo and behold, the first one (Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" waffles by saying most scientists agree with the conclusion. That document doesn't just say THATS HOW IT IS without pulling punches. Similarly, our other citation from National Research Council mirrors the IPCC's language (my hat off to the IP who corrected me on this). Both state that we're warming (IPCC uses term "unequivocal") but that it's merely "very likely" due to human GHGs..... and "very likely" stops short of "is". Say again, IPCC and our second cite in the article distinguish between the uncertainty that we're warming ("unequivocal") and whether its due to human GHGs ("very likely"). In legal circles careful use of different terms of art suggests a different intended meaning. So I have been persuaded we either need different citations to support "is", or else the text needs to mirror the IPCC and National Research Council's use of these different thresholds of certainty. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am not yet embracing any of the proposed edits in this thread and think we should talk more about the issue first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy. So the statement "Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3]" should be modified accordingly. I propose something like "Global Warming is considered by to be very likely caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere". Also the second statement "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[4][5][A]" is redundant: all the facts on Wikipedia are expected to be widely recognized. A note can provide adequate reference to the sources of the statement. And, to be fully honest, I don't like at all the structure of the introduction: it should contain information about global warming (what it is, how it is defined, to what period of time it is referred, when it has been discovered, by who, what are its causes etc.) and show less haste to make the point that it is caused by GHGs. It doesn't look much encyclopedic the way it is now, but more like a FAQ in an anti-skeptic forum. For example, consider the following introduction from Encarta: "Global Warming, increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses of Earth. The planet has warmed (and cooled) many times during the 4.65 billion years of its history. At present Earth appears to be facing a rapid warming, which most scientists believe results, at least in part, from human activities." And Britannica: "Global warming, the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries. Since the mid-20th century, climate scientists have gathered detailed observations of various weather phenomena (such as temperature, precipitation, and storms) and of related influences on climate (such as ocean currents and the atmosphere’s chemical composition). These data indicate that Earth’s climate has changed over almost every conceivable timescale since the beginning of geologic time and that, since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the influence of human activities has been deeply woven into the very fabric of climate change". I invite everybody to give their opinions and propose changes to the introduction. Udippuy (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored NewsAndEventsGuy's comments to there original location where he wants them. I've restored Udippuy comment's and moved them to after NewsAndEventsGuy's which is where I think they now make most sense (please move them back if preferred). I think we can quite easily WP:AFG as far as Udippuy's relocation of NewsAndEventsGuy's comments go but please bear in mind that editors can (not unreasonably) be touchy about any alteration of there comments. The problem here (with moving etc of edits) is mainly one of convention. Personally I think it much clearer if all new comments go at the bottom of the titled section, indentation can usually be used to indicate what the comment is in response to. Where a thread needs to fork a new headed section should be created. Otherwise it becomes almost impossible to properly follow the discussion (which can be hard enough anyway). On the actual topic of this discussion, I regret I don't have time right now to fully digest Udippuy's many detailed arguments but will do so as soon as time allows....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a line to apologise with NewsAndEventsGuy for moving his comment, I thought it was misplaced and did it in good faith. Udippuy (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with the original text and its citations, and bringing in IPCC AR4, [this is how I would tweak the text]..... HOWEVER, I would be glad to consider preserving the existing text with citations that state human GHGs are responsible, unequivocally, or with words to that effect. I do agree that the scientists in science speak have said enough to support "is", but on the other hand I only get there using these citations if, in my own mind, I bridge the philosophical language of science and ordinary speech. That's a worthy endeavor, but its a challenging task beyond wiki's scope. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Udippuy has asserted that The IPCC's use of the term 'very likely' (by which they mean >90% probability) implies <95%. I do not accept this assertion for two reasons. First, the Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties Table 4 show that the next gradation at Virtually certain is >99% probability. Secondly, the IPCC could have chosen to specify a range for their probability definitions but did not in this case. It is important to understand the way that IPCC reports are prepared. They are consensus documents prepared by hundreds of scientists. Many may not have been at all happy to state that the probability was less than <95% or <99%, but were happy to agree to the >90%. What we can say is that any statement asserting >90% and <=100% is "consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report" to quote from the second citation. As you acknowledge the second citation does unequivocally support the existing text. The second of the two encyclopedia entries you quote also supports the fact that humans are causing climate change and that the climate is warming, however there would be little point in Wikipedia if it simply followed existing Encyclopedias. I think most editors would hope that in many ways Wikipedia is superior to Britannica and Encarta, they certainly hold less weight on this matter than the cited reports.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IanOfNorwich, as for the whether the term "very likely" should imply also probability <95%: I've checked your link and the "extremely likely" term is missing from the table. However, it is here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf (page 27), that is, in the official Synthesis Report of 2007, which is also the source of the other quoted statements. I'd say that the IPCC itself is not clear on this point. Your second objection is also sound. It's true that it is not correct to say that the probability must be <=95%. It is also correct saying, though, that the fact that the probability was not set to >95% indicates that at least some of the scientists that contributed to the report believed the probability to be <=95%, as you also have remarked. Finally, it is true that "any statement asserting >90% and <=100% is "consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report"; however, that fact that it is consistent doesn't imply that it is correct or true! (if you say you have more than 8 fingers, the figure of 30 is consistent with that. But I guess it's wrong :) ). Saying that "it is caused by" is equivalent to saying that the probability is exactly equal to 100%. Where are you getting that figure from? That's my whole point. 2) The citation from US' National Academy of Science is ambiguous, as I've tried to explain. In the first part it says, as a matter of fact, that humans are largely contributing to global warming. Immediately after it lists the sources of this knowledge: "Both our assessment and these previous assessments place high or very high confidence in the following findings: [...] 2) Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere [...]". Then qualifies "very high confidence" as a probability >90%. Basically it's saying: "This is true. I know it's true because I rely on some studies which say that it has >90% probability of being true". I've tried to explain this apparent contradiction with the fact that the report is also warning that "because of the more concise nature and intent of this report [with respect to IPCC's], we do not attempt to quantify confidence and certainty about every statement of the science." Could this be the reason why they're implying a total confidence only to explicitly deny it a few lines after? 3) Finally, as for the examples from other encyclopedia: I reported them not as sources but as examples of introductions after proposing some wider change to the current one. My point here is a totally different one, and it is a stylistic one: the current introduction reads like "Climate Change is occurring, and nobody denies it!" while I'd expect less haste to make a point and more high level detail on what climate change is, how it is defined, who is studying it, and obviously, which are (though to be! :) ) its causes. Udippuy (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did either of you guys look at my work? Neither of you commented on it. See my prior comment above.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Udippuy, I entirely agree with your last, up to the sentence "Saying that "it is caused by" is equivalent to saying that the probability is exactly equal to 100%.". It is not possible to be exactly 100% certain about anything, yet we often make unequivocal statements. The question is what level of certainty justifies a plain statement of fact. This depends on many factor's such as context. I do not think that readers would expect a higher threshold of certainty for a statement to be made in an encyclopedia (such as this) than in the National Academy of Sciences report. The authors of the US' National Academy of Science report obviously felt that in that context a plain statement was justified. While they discuss the probabilities of other statements near by the following is left as a plain statement:

“

Conclusion 1: Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.

”

They do go on to discuss the confidence in the "following" findings. If the report were based purely on the work of the IPCC we might reasonably question reliability of US' National Academy of Science report as a source for drawing conclusions unsupported by their sources, but it is not. In short the statement is supported by the source. I do note, however, that we should be saying "mainly", "largely", "in large part" or some similar formulation. As to your broader points can I suggest that they be addressed in another headed thread to keep everything as easy to follow as possible. Though I will say here that while I think there is room for improvement in the style of the opening paragraph that we shouldn't confuse this article with climate change which covers the broader topic while this article covers the recent warming (inexerably linked with it cause) and the first para attempts to define the topic per WP:LEDE
NewsAndEventsGuy:My objection to your proposed change is the same as above - ie the current wording is supported by a reliable source.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by [my proposed edit] even though that was a great quote find, Ian. IMO what you quoted fails WP:WEIGHT and this is why: When the US National Academy embarked on their Climate Choices project, four sub panels each prepared a report and then the full body published the final concluding report. You are quite correct that in [one sub-panel's 2010 report] the sub group pulled no punches, saying as their opening salvo:

"Conclusion 1: Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems." (pdf page 26, printed page number 3)

But that was the report of a sub group. The concluding report by the full committee is [America's Climate Choices (2011 ed)"] and they did pull their punches by quoting from IPCC right down to the >90 part. In the summary they reiterated IPCC's phrase "very likely", and in the detail pages they elaborated saying:

"The preponderance of the scientific evidence points to human activities—especially the release of CO2 and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere —as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last 50 years or so.[8] This finding is supported by numerous lines of evidence, including ...

The embedded citation in that quote states as follows including parentheses (but bold is mine):

8. According to IPCC (Climate Change 2007 WG1, Summary for Policymakers): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [greater than 90 percent likelihood] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Note that the the full panel of the US National Academy on this project rejected the word "is" with respect to human cause, and substituted in IPCC's "very likely" with >90% liklihood. Regrettably, I still think [this edit] best comports to the sources that have so far been offered. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a look at The Royal Society's statements as well, and I'm willing to concede that the weight of reports still express a level of scientific doubt (somewhere between 0% and 10%) that the majority of the recent warming is a result of anthropogenic GHG's. There is, however, no doubt (in as far as certainty is possible) that the release of GHGs causes warming. So, I'm convinced of the need for some change to the first paragraph of the lede. The question remains as to how best to express the above.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation

I voted (once!) in a global-warming-related discussion/survey a little over a year ago (as I recall) and a lunatic began making wild accusations about my identity, my "other accounts", and my agenda. Very nice. Not only don't I want to change anything in this article, I'm reluctant to comment. But I feel compelled. Am I the only one who thinks that this article conflates "the climate is changing" with "why the climate is changing"? TreacherousWays (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that if covers both aspects, but I'm not clear why that's a problem. Taking the first other article that I though about, Plate tectonics, it describes what it is and how it works, - I wouldn't expect it to do anything else. Why do you think that the two aspects of the subject should be separate? Mikenorton (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I see it less like Plate tectonics and more like Abraham Lincoln. He was a President, he served during the American Civil War, he abolished slavery, and he was assassinated. There's a lot of ground to cover, there, and wikilinking multiple articles serves better than trying to document the topics individually. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with so many editors we run the risk of producing articles with slightly (or radically) different "takes" on a subject. I submit that by narrowing the focus of articles we produce a more uniform encyclopedia. TreacherousWays (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The narrow focus you're suggesting is covered by Temperature record, this article is an overview covering all the aspects in WP:SUMMARY style, with links to main articles on the more specific topics. The aim isn't simple uniformity, it's to provide ways into information for those interested. By the way, the article doesn't say why global warming is occurring, it says what the scientific understanding is of how it's occurring, and the impacts that the warming has. Science examines how phenomena work, not their purpose: see teleology. . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a stronger focused discussion will result if you choose to take whatever you are implying and instead present a clear proposal using [one of these templates] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page templates rather than getting involved in templating the article with this rather unclear proposal, also note that this is a Wikipedia:General overview article. . . dave souza, talk 04:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I implied nothing. I proposed nothing. I asked whether I was the only one that thought this article conflates "the climate is changing" with "why the climate is changing", and then clarified my question and my rationale. When reading this article, I felt that it was a little long and a little unfocused. I have no position on the individual statements or arguments - I just didn't find it particularly easy to read or follow. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, my philosophy has always been that a bright 11-year-old should be able to read and follow what I have written. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with the "bright 11-year-old" standard for Wikipedia. The answer to your question seems to be "nobody else has chimed in so far". I agree the article has gotten "lumpy" in places, due to too many hasty edits. I hope you'll help improve it, and I'm sorry about your earlier experience. Controversial topics sometimes bring out the worst in us. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines states that this talk pages is for purpose of discussing "changes to its associated article or project page". Since the original poster, in their own words states "I proposed nothing", this thread does not comport with the talk page guidelines. Anybody care to re-collapse or do I just have a kooky view of reality? (PS... those are not mutually exclusive....)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I posed a specific question regarding its general form. If a consensus opinion emerged, then I might feel that it was appropriate to suggest specific changes. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, my question is broad because any proposed changes would be broad, extend across articles, and involve an almost unprecedented level of consensus. Any proposal I might make would sound premature, arrogant, and unilateral unless there is some consensus among editors that the general flow of the article is somewhat turbulent. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your problem better? At first I thought you were saying that causes of global warming was treated together with extent and/or measuring global warming in a confusing way. But that doesn't seem to be the case. They are treated in separate sections. Hans Adler 17:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing your words, sounds like you might propose something if "there is some consensus among editors that the general flow of the article is somewhat turbulent". So to answer that question, the basic structure of the article and its place in the grand scheme of climate articles seems as good as can be expected to me, and like Hans I don't see the problem you want to fix. I'll be glad to think about a clear proposal if you make one, without accusing you of prematurity or arrogance. Be bold, go for it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can try. For me the article is a little hard to follow. I am of the opinion that this is because the article explores the effects of global warming and the causes of global warming in one article. I suspect that the difficulty of maintaining consensus has lead to an uneven style and the inclusion of verifiable but somewhat peripheral information. This statement: " ... For example, the uncertainty in IPCC's 2007 projections is caused by (1) the use of multiple models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations, (2) the use of differing estimates of humanities' future greenhouse gas emissions, (3) any additional emissions from climate feedbacks that were not included in the models IPCC used to prepare its report, i.e., greenhouse gas releases from permafrost ... " precedes this statement, " ... The physical realism of models is tested by examining their ability to simulate current or past climates ... " The second statement is neat, uncontroversial, and easy to read. The first statement belongs in a more rigorous article, no? I am not proposing chages to either statement. I am merely asking whether any other editors agree that the article is a little awkward, and suggesting one possible cause. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On any other article, I might use the preferred Bold, Revert, Discuss model. Past experience and observation have taught be that Good Faith is in short supply in these spaces, and there's always one hombre trying to figure out just who's fastest. I prefer to belly up to the bar and act peaceable. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be a case for structural changes to the article, though for me the cause and effect can't be easily (and shouldn't be) separated. To take Abraham Lincon as an example the article will have a section about his early life, parents, formative influences as well as what he did - ie cause and effect. The same should remain true of the Global Warming article even more so because it differs in that (unlike Lincon) it's an ongoing event and how those causes and effects play out in the long run is yet to be seen. I don't think this article is amenable to grand improvements (though I remain open to specific ideas) but there are plenty of lumps to smooth over. The sentence you highlight, in my opinion, is one such 'lump'. I'd suggest concentrating on small specifics such as that. More of a Zen Garden than a grand design. Oh, but a bit more emphasis on the effects would be good from my point of view because I'm as vague as the article on exactly what the effects will be. There's always plenty of good faith for the peaceable.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treach, you pointed to text you don't like. OK, that's a start. (A) I don't know what big picture "observation" you're trying to illustrate with that text; (B) to move it you should propose a split for us to discuss; and (C) if that text is hard for you to understand in this article it will be hard to understand in some other article. So I don't know where you'd move it or how moving it would improve the encyclopedia -- especially since uncertainty in the climate models is one of the BIGGEST topics of debate in this subject area. In sum, and being as polite as I can be, so far I've heard you say you don't like stuff. That's fair enough, but anyone can complain. I still haven't heard any ideas for improving the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I sympathize with the concern raised by Treacherous Ways. This is a controversial subject. So is evolution, but that article simply describes the topic, and summarizes the various mechanisms, most of which have their own detailed articles. You'll find nothing in there about controversy or religious based misunderstandings either. Such things don't belong in this article either. I wouldn't object if this article were reorganized into a summary of topics each having their own detailed articles, including effects, causes, political ramifcations, and so forth. It would be a monumental reorganization task, best carried out on a series of draft sub-pages, probably. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(A) I don't see where this article is troubled with religious based misunderstandings, (B) I don't know how your idea differs from present reality since there already are detail articles on most components of this subjectm, and (C) most important of all, please see how J Johnson addressed a problem he saw.

He said what it was,
He came up with an idea, and
He volunteered to do the work of implementing it if others liked it.

Wiki (and the world) needs more people like J Johnson. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, NewsAndEventsGuy, you're saying that the article is fine as it stands, and that no major changes need to be considered; minor tweaking here and there (such as cite formats) will suffice. Is that your position? TreacherousWays (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed your earlier comment; I'll reply. I haven't said "I don't like stuff" - I've said several times that the structure of the article seems to conflate "global warming" with "causes of global warming" which are (in my mind) two diferent topics. I went on in later comments to say that it appeared to me that the article includes some statements that are verifiable but possibly overly technical. I attributed that to the difficulty of maintaining consensus in an article that generates strong opinions. Paying attention to what Dave Souza noted - that this was a general article - I suggested that perhaps it could be simplified somewhat (jargon, abbreviations) and the topics of "global warming" and "causes of global warming" be separated. I asked a general question and then explained that I was avoiding BRD because this is a charged topic. Sometimes the best way to achieve consensus is to look for broad agreement and then make specific proposals. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About my "position", Treach? I said no such thing and ask that you just take my words at face value. About your general question for which you seek a general consensus? IMO it is a consensus field of ambiguous landmines because extremists on all sides could say "sure" and have totally different ideas of what they are agreeing to. You don't have to worry about WP:BRD if you provide examples or an outline or something tangible in this talk space. One of my wiki heros that uses that technique is Enescot. Check his contribs to see examples of that approach. I often agree with him, and often disagree, but the key difference is.... I have a pretty good idea what he's talking about when he makes a suggestion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article's organisation again, and found the following structure:

What is happening? -- 1 Temperature changes, 5 Attributed and expected effects
Why is it happening and how do we know? -- 2 External forcings, 3 Feedback, 4 Climate models
How do people react? -- 6 Responses to global warming, 7 Views on global warming
Miscellaneous -- 8 Etymology

It looks to me as if we only need to move section 5 right behind section 1 and the article's overall structure will be fine. Hans Adler 14:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Alder's suggestion would make sense. However the "Temperature changes" section is currently purely historic, whereas "Attributed and expected effects" is historic and future. I'd suggest that if we were to make such a change that the "Temperature changes" section should cover predicted changes and that the "Attributed and expected effects" might want some work done to it if it is to be pulled from the depths of the article.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear to me why current order of ideas is flawed. Hans? Ian? Instead of re-ordering things it might aide a newbie fresh to the issue if the sections had more educational titles. For example, with different section headings, the current order would be more explanatory and read like this...

Observed temp changes
Initial cause of temp changes (forcing)
What amplifies temp changes (feedbacks)
How will temps change in the future (models)
What will result from those future changes (effects)
Theoretical options for responding
Views of the issue
Terminology (etymology) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look at this sentence in the summary: " ... Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels ... " The article itself goes on to identify other factors, though, as well as predictions about what's going to happen in a few hundred years, how some people feel about that, and what some people think we should do about it. I think that it would be clearer to make the summary a simple definition of Global Warming, and then use the first few paragraphs in the article body to list and briefly describe the identified causes of global warming, wikilinking to more detailed articles which would, in their turn, wikilink to much more detailed technical articles explaining (for example) the various scenarios of the 2007 IPCC report. So (for instance) a sentence in this article might read, "Some global warming (between x% and y%) is attributed to human activity, including burning fossil fuels, raising cattle, and cutting down forests. Scientific bodies such as the International Panel on Climate Change, not the IPCC #1, and not the IPCC #2 have documented the rise in temperature using method 1, method 2 and method 3. Most scientists agree with the findings, though a small minority, including scientist 1 and scientist 2 have some doubts. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, again, my napkin-back suggestion is moot unless there is some consensus that the article as it stands should be narrowed and condensed. The details can be worked out later if the general observation has some support. I think that working in this direction could possibly help reduce redundancy and create more traffic across articles that relate to this topic. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it by the "summary" you mean the lede? Per WP:LEDE it should as best possible sum-up the article rather than being a pure definition of the term. Which, in any case, is generally considered to mean more than literal warming of the globe. The term carries, at least, connotations of a human cause - the more general Climate Change covers warming and cooling of any cause at any time. Causes of global warming are covered in the "External forcings" section. Filling in well cited values for x% and y% over a defined period eg 20th century would make a useful addition to the article.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're making progress. You've identified two goals: "help reduce redundancy" and "create more traffic across articles that relate to this topic". Admirable goals! Are there any others? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lede - a term I dislike using. By way of reply, " ... is generally considered to mean more than literal warming of the globe. The term carries, at least, connotations of a human cause ..." Well, it does and it doesn't. It depends on what we're talking about. For instance, my understanding of the term "global warming" (and I swear I read this in WP somewhere) is that it refers to this particular warming event. This particular warming event has several causes, one of which is human activity. Thus there's global warming, which is the current rise in global temperature and there's anthropogenic global warming, which is that portion of global warming attributable to human activity. My opinion is that the article should be revised to be a friendlier general introduction to global warming (the current event) with links to the more rigorous technical examinations and explanations. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, your saying that the current episode of global warming (1850-present day) is the result of anthropogenic climate forcing (e.g., fossil fuels and GHG emissions et cetera) and also non-anthropogenic climate forcing (e.g., ______________?_______________). Please elaborate on what non-anthropogenic climate forcing mechanisms you are referring to, and please support your reply with verifiable citaitons to peer review scientific literature. We can't tease these out in the article as you suggest without saying what they are and supplying good authorities.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" ... Please elaborate on what non-anthropogenic climate forcing mechanisms you are referring to, and please support your reply with verifiable citaitons to peer review scientific literature ..." This is exactly what I'm taling about - the very phrase "non-anthropogenic forcing mechanisms" should be replaced with "natural events that warm the planet". A general reference in this article to global climate models should lead to an article on global climate models. There ought to be a clearer hierarchy to these articles - maybe there is and I'm just not aware of it. IS there? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for adding references, cites, technical data, quotes - that isn't going to happen. I'm not an expert on this topic. I am, however, an expert on what I understood when I read this article, and my opinion was (and is) that as an introduction to global warming, it's a little daunting. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't specify the alleged non-human forcing mechanism or provide a cite? Well, that's a show-stopper. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, I have been as explicit as I can in explaining what I see as a flaw in this article. It has nothing to do with verifiability or conclusions. The article is either a general introduction to the topic or it's not. If it's a general introduction, then it should be written as such and focused that way. If it's not a general introductory article, then it's not. I'm not particularly concerned with the conclusions of the article, I'm talking about its readability - and as a college-educated person, I found it to be unfocused and jargon-y. I have suggested perhaps dividing it up a little to make it easier to digest. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you (TW) said earliar about getting consensus to change first, then sort out the details, does suggest that you have only a feeling that something is amiss, but lacks any particular evidence. There is also a failure to understand that all the "references, cites, technical data, quotes", etc., as well as careful use of precise terms, is how we connect with those who are experts in the field. That you have a personal opinion -- well, fine, so do we all, but as has been said before, Wikipedia is not a blog. Your point is not well taken. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, J. Johnson (JJ); this is not a blog. Neither is it a social networking site for those who are "experts in the field". As I understand it, wikipedia is intended to be edited by experts - but read by laymen. As for my "feelings" and seeking consensus, I stand by both. I doubt that any one sentence in this article could be picked apart; I am sure that each word has been argued over ad nauseam. It is the general flow of the article and the focus that I questioned, and as for seeking consensus before making a sweeping change to an establshed and hotly-contested article? I can't imagine anything more sensible or more collegial. I stand by what I said: I am educated and well-read, and I had some problems following this article. Make fun of me, if you want to. Whatever. But at this general introductory level it needs to be a lot LESS "calculus textbook" and much MORE "National Geographic". TreacherousWays (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a general observation: explaining complicated things using simple terms isn't easy. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-HA!!! I feel much, much, much better after finding this. I was really kind of embarrassed and feeling like a dope. To be honest. It's the "wikipedia is not a scientific journal" thingy. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a balance to be struck between accessibility and use of the proper terms and accuracy. I'd second what JJ said about the article introducing the reader to technical terms. (BTW if you think this is bad try some of the maths articles!). I'm against dumbing-down too much but if you have any suggestions for particular sentances you think to technical we might progress better dealing in specifics. Also, TreacherousWays, as for the proportion of warming with anthropogenic cause (which you seem interested in) you might begin to get an answer on the climate forcing article.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IanOfNorwich, that's kind of the rub. The issue I have isn't with individual sentences, it's with the article as a whole and with how it relates to other articles within wikipedia. My original observation - that this article conflates global warming with the causes of same is (I think) valid, though after the discussion above I further conclude that the article is a little overly technical/detailed as a general introductory article. One thread below argues - at great length - about whether the term "non-scientists" ought to be used. I can't imagine the kerfuffle were I to adjust the target audience or eliminate verifiable but confusing text. Oh - I read the radiative forcing article as you suggested. It's a little textbook-y, but seems appropriate for people who have read this (or another general) article and want to apply a more rigorous approach. Which is where I'm coming from. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood the nature of the proposed change below in the "Other views section". If we are to discuss changes we need to consider specifics. Changes to this article are rightly subjected to close scrutiny but improvements are welcomed. I'd suggest that you start a new thread for each proposal you have as this thread has become too long and unfocused to properly follow.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New images

Images 1 and 2

I was thinking of adding a few mages to this article. The first two would go in the politics section, and relate to Article 2 of the UNFCCC treaty:

Stabilizing CO₂ emissions at their present level would not stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere^[1]

Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ at a constant level would require emissions to be effectively eliminated^[1]

Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).^[2] The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system.^[3] As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.

The Framework Convention was agreed in 1992, but since then, global emissions have risen.^[4]^[5] During negotiations, the G77 (a lobbying group in the United Nations representing 133 developing nations)^[6]^: 4 pushed for a mandate requiring developed countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing their emissions.^[7] This was justified on the basis that: the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere; per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of population) were still relatively low in developing countries; and the emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.^[8]^: 290 This mandate was sustained in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention,^[8]^: 290 which entered into legal effect in 2005.^[9]

In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed countries accepted legally binding commitments to limit their emissions. These first-round commitments expire in 2012.^[9] US President George W. Bush rejected the treaty on the basis that "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy."^[6]^: 5

At the 15^th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord.^[10] Parties associated with the Accord (140 countries, as of November 2010)^[11]^: 9 aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 °C.^[12] A preliminary assessment published in November 2010 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests a possible "emissions gap" between the voluntary pledges made in the Accord and the emissions cuts necessary to have a "likely" (greater than 66% probability) chance of meeting the 2 °C objective.^[11]^: 10–14 The UNEP assessment takes the 2 °C objective as being measured against the pre-industrial global mean temperature level. To having a likely chance of meeting the 2 °C objective, assessed studies generally indicated the need for global emissions to peak before 2020, with substantial declines in emissions thereafter [...]

See climate change mitigation#Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization for the image sources.

As I've argued before on this talk page, I think that the relationship between emissions and concentrations should be explained in this article.

I have a minor problem with the term "CO₂ emissions" in the caption because, for example, emitting CO₂ by burning sustainably grown wood would not lead to growth in its atmospheric concentrations. However, the emissions/concentrations graphs illustrate an important concept and I'm in favor of their inclusion.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice text on an important piece of the puzzle. TreacherousWays does raise an interesting question ("observations" thread above) regarding how much detail of any subpart is appropriate for a summary article. My emotional reaction was "HOORAY great text important stuff but oh no, more dense information for an already dense article". Whether it goes in this article or another its a great first draft. At a minimum I would like to see the concept mentioned in this article, supported with images, but to me these particular images lack communication punch, and I already know the concept they are trying to express. I'd be interested in seeing other approaches to graphically communicating the same concept, if available. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the text Enescot has reproduced above is the existing text in the article and is only for conext. I don't think Enescot is proposing any textural change here.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for kicking me under the table. Guess I dozed off.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could get round that by referring to “net” CO2 emissions. I had another look at the source material, and came up with another idea for the second caption: In order to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, worldwide emissions must be dramatically reduced from their present levels. Most worldwide emissions lead to a net increase in concentrations, so I think that this helps to avoid the problem. Enescot (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved with the captions, E. In their current form, these graphics do a great job communicating something about the science. The graphics themselves still do not tell the reader why they are relevant to the text in the politics section, and the text in the politics section doesn't get around to talking about concentration targets and stabilization for a long way down from the top. So at the moment, they strike me as a little divorced from the section's main thrust, at least in the opening paragraphs. Maybe that would resolve itself if the images simply move down a bit in the section, I'm not sure. Please take as well intended criticism - cheers for your effort to illustrate this important point! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. The third sentence of the first paragraph of the politics section does refer to stabilizing GHG concentrations - As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where... - so I think placement near the top is acceptable. I agree that the caption text could be changed to make the link between the treaty and concentration stabilization clearer. My suggestion is: Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention refers explicitly to "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC, 1996)." In order to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, emissions worldwide would need to be dramatically reduced from their present level. The additional cited reference is: IPCC (1996). "IPCC SECOND ASSESSMENT SYNTHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC-TECHNICAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO INTERPRETING ARTICLE 2 OF THE UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE". Climate Change 1995: Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (PDF). IPCC website. p. 8. Retrieved 2011-06-01. Enescot (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image 3

The other image I want to add shows some of the observed impacts of global warming. It could go in the "attributed and expected effects" section. The existing image on glaciers could be deleted:

Global warming may be detected in natural, ecological or social systems as a change having statistical significance.^[14] Attribution of these changes e.g., to natural or human activities, is the next step following detection.^[15]

Natural systems

Global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Some of these changes, e.g., based on the instrumental temperature record, have been described in the section on temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with warming.^[16] Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high probability,^[D] attributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.^[17]

Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global emissions are still expected to continue to grow over the coming decades.^[18] Over the course of the 21st century, increases in emissions at or above their current rate would very likely induce changes in the climate system larger than those observed in the 20th century.

In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, model-based estimates of sea level rise for the end of the 21st century (the year 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m. These estimates, however, were not given a likelihood due to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper bound given for sea level rise. Over the course of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in sea level rise of 4–6 m or more.^[19]

Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean.^[18] Snow cover area and sea ice extent are expected to decrease, with the Arctic expected to be largely ice-free in September by 2037.^[20] The frequency of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will very likely increase.

Ecological systems

In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming.^[16] Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, and coral reefs.^[18] It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher atmospheric CO₂ levels, combined with higher global temperatures.^[21] Overall, it is expected that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems [...]^[22]

The article does not, in my opinion, adequately convey the strength of evidence for the observed effects of global warming. I think that adding this image would help in addressing this problem. Enescot (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more ambivalent towards the third image (than 1 & 2 above). Image 3 contains a lot of data and speaks to the question of 'is global warming happening', however I'm not sure that it really addresses the main problem with that section - not much clarity on the potential effects in practical terms - ie what has been and what, in different scenarios, would be the tangible effects on humans and their environment.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Enescot that the image would be very useful - it's a striking illustration of the multi-pronged, mutually reinforcing evidence much of modern science is build on. On the other hand, it's hard to integrate the image at a sufficiently large size to be more than decorative. So I'm sitting on the fence... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too. On my screen image size is fine, and the exception for finely-detail images being larger than the default would seem to apply. See section on images in WP:MOS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ian that the section has problems. The reason I suggested the change was mainly because it's an easy change to make. I think the issue of whether or not warming is happening is vital. Perhaps it would be better addressed by making a change in the article's text somewhere, e.g., “a wide range of evidence strongly supports the view that the climate system has recently warmed.” In reply to Stephan's point, I could edit the image to include only the sea level and Northern Hemisphere snow cover graphs. This would allow the two graphs to be made bigger. It would then essentially be a rip-off of the IPCC's work. Enescot (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the power of the graphics comes from showing a multitude of evidence, so no, I would not restrict it to only a few indicators. We should try to find a way to get the full concept in somehow, hopefully here, but possibly in a sub-article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree with Stephan. If everyone used a full size monitor like i do, this would not be an issue. But for folks doing their wiki on much smaller devices I can see where large pics with fine detail can be problematic. Beats me how to proceed. Maybe turning the double column of images into a single column? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Argumentative thread lacks article improvement ideas. See WP:NOTAFORUM

(Kauffner's comments were off-topic so I have carved this out as a separate sub-section. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

These graphs are presented like they are some big QED. But Earth has always been either warming or cooling, will continue to do so, and so what? I had no idea that there was a major trend with humidity. That certainly makes hard to justify focusing on CO2. This stuff goes in cycles. Before AGW, there was the ozone hole. At one time, that was going to destroy world too. Now no one even keeps track of it. Kauffner (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gee, I guess serious international cooperation can actually work..... see Montreal_Protocol. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the Earth has warmed and cooled before, has even been warmer before, and ecosystems have survived. But the "what" you miss is that the rate of the current human-caused warming is unprecedented (aside from a major impact event), and far greater than many species can adapt to, and so there is stress to entire ecosystems. No particular graph (or article) is "QED", but collectively they show the general trend. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention injection of CO2 appears to be 10x as fast as during onset to PETM. [[1]]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename subsection headings

While the "observations" thread is unfolding - and I do have an open mind about clear proposals, with reasons, for how to improve the article - in the meantime I do think the article could be intimidating to a reader with only a bit of science background and new to the issue. However else the article may be changed as a result of the "observations" thread, or any other thread, would anyone object if during the interim I made the section headings a bit more newcomer-friendly?

CURRENT

Temperature changes
External forcings
Feedback
Climate models
Attributed and expected effect
Responses to global warming
Views on global warming
Etymology
See also
Notes
References

PROPOSED

No changes to text or to order of sections, but rewrite 1st level section headings as follows:

Observed temperature changes
Initial causes of temperature changes (forcings)
What amplifies temperature changes (feedbacks)
How will temperatures change in the future (models)
What will result from temperature changes (effects)
Theoretical options for responding
Views of the issue
Terminology (etymology)

Thanks for commentsNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like those headings better, for what it's worth. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objection to 1 to 3 though would be interested to hear other views. 4 - the meaning is changed and it's hardly super technical anyway.The remainder are not really technical in their current form so I'd keep.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of positive feedback and negative feedback. Climate feedbacks don't just 'amplify' temperature changes. And amplify is, strictly speaking, the wrong word. There is such a thing as amplification and then there are the enhancing and augmenting effects of positive feedback. One draws in a controlled amount of energy related to the amplitude of the stimulus, the other draws in a potentially limitless* amount of energy related to the 'error', or difference between the stimulus and what is expected/normal/required. (*Until it gets limited by some other external factor) Also, where else in Wikipedia do we assume that the reader does not understand 'etymology'? --Nigelj (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other views section

The Other Views section states:

"Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change"

The use of the word "accept" implies an absolute certainty about the theory of AGW. Akin to saying - Most scientists accept that the planet is round. Also in the following sentence -

"However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science -"

The inclusion of the term "non-scientists" has a pejorative connotation, seeming to indicate that those who do not adhere to the theory have a less informed viewpoint. Do "non-scientists" not also adhere to the concept of AGW, so this should be mentioned in the first paragraph?

Suggestion for edit:

"Most (many?) scientists adhere to the theory that humans are contributing to observed climate change. National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. However many other scientists question aspects of climate change science, specifically the link between human activity and climate change."

This (or something similar) provides a more neutral viewpoint for this section and adheres more to statement of fact than insertion of opinion regarding the theory of AGW.

ABLegler (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a case for removing "some non-scientists" for the reasons stated above. It's worth noting that it's the job of scientists to question so anyone working in the field of climate science will be, almost by definition, questioning some aspect of climate science. But, "However many other scientists question aspects of climate change science, .." gives an impression that many scientists have doubts about the validity of climate the science as understood by the reader of the sentance. To say "many" scientists doubt fundamental aspects of the science of global warming would not be accurate (at least in the context of group size). There have been many studies - Doran, Anderegg, Oreskes, von Storch - into the opinions of scientists on global warming. Scientific opinion on climate change is a good place to start to understand the range of opinions. I do not know of any scientist publishing in the field of climate science who doubts that there is a "link between human activity and climate change" and would be interested to see a citation of such a view.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enescot reply to ABLegler

Your suggested edit does not have a source provided to support it. The current edit is supported by two references, and is also implicitly supported by the article scientific opinion on climate change. I'll refer to the two sources cited:

US National Research Council report

The first is a report by the US National Research Council, which states:

Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1).

I do not see that there is a significant difference between the words “accept” and “agree”. However, I would be happy for the article to be changed to:

Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change

Royal Society document

Note: this is also available in html format. Quote:

Misleading arguments: Many scientists do not think that climate change is a problem. Some scientists have signed petitions stating that climate change is not a problem.

There are some differences of opinion among scientists about some of the details of climate change and the contribution of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Researchers continue to collect more data about climate change and to investigate different explanations for the evidence. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future.

In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.

There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC. They appear motivated in their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Often all these individuals and organisations have in common is their opposition to the growing consensus of the scientific community that urgent action is required through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. But the opponents are well-organised and well-funded. For instance, a petition was circulated between 1999 and 2001 by a campaigning organisation called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which called on the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition claimed that "proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

These extreme claims directly contradict the conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, which states that "reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to stabilise their atmospheric concentrations would delay and reduce damages caused by climate change."

The petition was circulated together with a document written by individuals affiliated to OISM and to the George C Marshall Institute, another campaigning organisation. On 20 April 1998, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a warning about the document circulated with the petition because it had been presented "in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." The statement pointed out: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."

I think the above text supports the use of the term “non-scientists”. Indeed, “non-scientists” is probably too weak a description of the deliberate effort by some to undermine public understanding of human-induced global warming.

For the sake of additional clarity, I've provided two other supporting references below:

Memorandum by Professor Sir David King, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government – Section on “THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS”
Committee on the Science of Climate Change, US National Research Council (2001). "Summary". Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. pp. 1–3. ISBN 0-309-07574-2. Retrieved 2011-05-20. {{cite book}}: External link in |publisher= (help) "The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" (page 3).

Enescot (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Oil and Global Warming

Isnt there an inherent contradiction between Peak Oil and simple extrapolation CO2 use models? Doesnt global warming in the long run correct itself, since we can only burn so much oil-- less than 100 years worth? Mrdthree (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (?) not, or at least not for human values of "long run". There are plenty more fossil fuels than convenient oil - in particular coal and unconventional sources like oil shale and tar sands. Of course, in the really long run, the sun will go red giant, and we will have other things to worry about. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget fracking for shale gas, ocean mining of methane hydrates, and conversion of carbon sinks (permafrost, methane hydrates again, forests) from sinks to sources, such that even if we turn off our own emissions, feedbacks from the climate system could still emit vast amounts of GHGs until a new climate equilibrium is reached. But there I go with a general discussion..... since the thread offers no article improvement ideas, it should be collapsed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of peak oil and fossil fuel availability is discussed in the main SRES article. As that article states, emissions projections based on the SRES scenarios are comparable in range to those of the scenario literature. Peak oil has also been discussed in the IPCC reports (e.g., see 3.8.3 Historic Trends and Driving Forces and 4.3.1.3 Petroleum fuels), which are extensively referred to in this article. Enescot (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

I have been making general observations regarding the article and expressing my opinion that it should be made more general, less technical, and focus exclusively on what global warming is, using wikilinks to other more detailed articles to address the role of the IPCC, various climatic models, and proposed corrective actions. This proposed lede was taken largely from the current article lede, just generalized and heavily trimmed. Is there any support among the editors for revising the article in the same manner?

Although the terms "global warming" and "global cooling" can be used to describe cyclic variations in global temperature, the term "global warming" has been generally used since the mid-1970's to describe the current global warming event, which dates from the mid-1700's. Since the late 1800's, measured average global temperature has risen approximately 0.74°C(ref)NOAA Global Warming FAQ(/ref), and further warming is predicted by reputable scientific organizations including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

Predicted impacts of global warming include: rising sea levels; changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation; an expansion of subtropical deserts; the retreat of glaciers; permafrost and sea ice; more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events; species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes; and changes in agricultural yields.

The current rise in global temperatures has been fairly rapid, and is attributed in large part to the presence of human-produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although greenhouse gases can be produced by natural events (volcanos, for example), the vast majority of scientists believe that the additional human sources such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural activity have created an imbalance in the global temperature-regulation system, and that corrective actions to reduce those human sources should be taken. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it, and it contains several claims that are either wrong, irrelevant, or misleading. First, the initial hedge ("can be used") adds no useful information. Secondly, global warming is overwhelmingly used not to refer to warming since the mid 1700s, but for the mostly anthropogenic warming in the 20th and 21st century. The 0.74 is since the late 19th century - it's easy to misread "late 1800's" as 1800. I'm not really happy by the "warming is predicted by organizations" - many individual scientists do so as well. "permafrost and sea ice" are not a predicted impact (changes to them are). "Fairly rapid" is a very weak statement - as far as we know, it's extremely rapid. Also, if it's current, it should be "is", not "has been". I like the "attributed in large part", but we should mention the rapid increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, not just their presence (they have been present, to some degree or other, for 200000 years). The natural sources of GHGs are a red herring here - the increase is clearly anthropogenic, and only a very small fringe thinks otherwise. I'm not to happy about the "imbalance in the global temperature-regulation system" - what would that system be? Finally, I would clearly separate the corrective actions from the recognition of anthropogenic warming - you will probably find all combinations ("human-caused, no action" (I think Lombog now falls into that group), "human caused, action" (many there), "not human-caused, no action" (strict deniers), and even "not human caused, action anyways" (e.g. from people who are concerned about energy resources). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me either, for all of Stephan's reasons, plus (A) I dislike bulk changes and prefer you take smaller bites so we can zero in, (B) by starting this new thread you are sort of whitewashing the fact that you tried to win a consensus to do a major overhaul along these lines in your prior thread titled "observations", and you failed to win that consensus, (C) I'm unwilling to embrace bulk edits by someone who admits they don't understand basic terms and can't supply citations for the changes they wish to make, as you admitted in that prior thread. Please beware of the Randy factor NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your forthrightness Stephan Schulz, but feel compelled (again, that word) to point out that even your reply is loaded with jargon (GHGs, deniers) and insider references (Lombog?). If I can't make a dent here, that's fine. I never honestly thought I could. I'd just honestly be thrilled to bits if some of the editors here seriously contemplated my suggestion that the article needs to be made more approachable and reader-friendly. My text above is not so much a specific example of what should be here so much as a general proposed style. Peace out. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of making the article more approachable and reader friendly. But, as per Einstein's razor, everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. In other words, in our quest for an approachable article, correctness not an acceptable casualty. As for jargon, let me point out that this is the talk page. I do expect a contributor who suggests a major change to the lede of a carefully balanced featured article to spend the time and effort to acquire a reasonable understanding of the domain of discourse. Sorry about the typo - I was referring to Bjørn Lomborg, who should be reasonable well-known. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, you have consistently - not to say obstructively - misunderstood what I've been getting at since I fist posted in this talk space. You obviously missed the suggestion by IanOfNorwich that I make specific suggestions in a separate section - and I am justifiably unhappy with your use bad faith use of the term "whitewash". Finally, I can't imagine - literally, it's dumbfounding to me - that you have failed, yet again, to understand that your "basic terms" aren't particularly basic to me, a college-educated civil engineer. If this is a general introductory article, then it should use general introductory terms. I will happily concede that you know more about global warming than I do. What you've failed to do in my case is pass on your knowledge in a coherent manner. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I retract and apologize for my "whitewash" remark since you started the new thread in good faith following another editor's suggestion. I stand by the rest of my comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz, I thank you for taking the time to seriously reply. You mention that this was a featured article. Yes it was. That was in 2006, when the article was about 58k bytes long. It's now over 147k bytes and growing inexorably toward 150k. You stated with what I took to be some indignation that you " ... expect a contributor who suggests a major change to the lede of a carefully balanced featured article to spend the time and effort to acquire a reasonable understanding of the domain of discourse ... " The domain of discourse isn't Global warming, it's the focus, technical level, and readability of the general (and introductory?) article on Global warming. I believe that you and other editors are assuming a base level of knowledge that simply isn't there. By way of example, you identify Bjørn Lomborg as someone who should be reasonably well-known. Perhaps he is, within certain technical communitites, but he isn't generally well-known any more than the IPCC is generally well-known. Recognizing that I have been unable to generate any consensus for changing the article, I gracefully withdraw with thanks for the consideration offered. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article had roughly 44KBytes of readable prose when it became featured. It has about 49KBytes now. Nearly all of the growth is in more extensive referencing, not in the text itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TW, before closing the door for good, please note that you DID persuade ME that the article is a difficult read to a newcomer, and more so if this is the first they've really dove into a issue with a lot of science. If you hadn't started your thread, I would not have suggested some alternative section headings. My idea may or may not be truly useful but I did hear you, at least in the biggest broadest picture. Think of it this way.... if some civil engineering client of yours comes to you with a concept-design issue plus a bunch of changes to the current set of design specs, even though they haven't taken time to bone up on technical details regarding those specs, its my guess you'll ask them to set aside their ideas about specification details, but you'll pay careful heed to their big picture concerns about design concept. I did hear your big picture comments. Addressing that is a slow process made up of a lot of nibbles. You might be particularly interested in Randy Olson's work. Anyway, I thank you for the big picture comments on accessibility. All editors should take heed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

TreacherousWays: We all share the aspiration that the article should be as accessible as possible. The purpose of any Wikipedia article is to convey knowledge. It is hard to convey knowledge of a subject that you are not expert on without considerable research. On the other hand it can be hard to write accessibly on a topic that you are familiar with. Another problem is that for various reasons (which this article would cover better if only we knew how) the public perception (esp. in the US) of this issue appears to be significantly skewed away from the scientific understanding. In this context it is perhaps not surprising that both those who have researched the topic a bit and those who have not perceive bias in the other group. If you genuinely do wish to improve the article (as I assume you do) you have the ability to look at the article from a less technical perspective you can find parts of the article that you think are hard to understand and suggest that something is done about it and then we can all collaborate to improve it whilst retaining accuracy.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Strong push to change opening sentence of lede

FYI only - at the tail end of a l-o-n-g thread above I have started to forcefully push for a change in the opening sentence of the lede. This is just to call attention for a strong consensus. Please add remarks to that thread.

["add is believed to be" above]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your initiative. Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb (talk

Tangent issue: Problem in "Temperature changes" subsection

The WP article seems unnecessarily biased and "politically correct" - and doesn't fairly reflect logical questions about the extent of human influence on the earth's climate. For instance, WP states in another article that global temperature has risen dramatically about 11-9,000 years ago without any human CO2. Here's a link to the graph of world temperature over the last 12,000 years:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

If AGW theory is correct then what caused this huge temperature rise? The WP article completely ignores the problem of degrees - perhaps manmade CO2 can raise the temperature, but so can the earth, sky, oceans, and sun (obviously). So I support a complete revamping of the tone of the article to get away from the politically popular AGW theory and back to what is known as scientific fact. Thank you. Rortlieb (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb (talk • contribs) [reply]

Rortlieb raises a useful point, #Temperature changes discusses only the modern temp record but is illustrated by a graph of 2k years: there should be a brief discussion in the text of the 2k odd year paleoclimate and the PETM as discussed here to make it clear that it's happened more slowly before, with results that wouldn't have suited our current "civilisation". Interesting times . . dave souza, talk 20:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC) p.s. j n-g . . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) AGW is not a theory -- it is a scientifically observed physical phenomenom, as solid a scientific "fact" as any other. 2) Calling this article biased without showing any factual evidence in support only shows your own bias. (We see this kind of comment often enough -- shouldn't we cover it in the FAQ?) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rate this page" poll seems broken/bugged

Ever since seeing the "Rate this page" poll put on a page I was reading once, I at once checked to see if it was on the Global Warming page just for fun. It was not there at the time, as it seems it must have been still being implemented. But yesterday when I came here I saw it there, and I looked at the poll results. When I look at it, it shows this for ratings:

Trustworthy: 238609295 out of 5

Objective: 1.8 out of 5 (that was funny to see...)

Complete: 238609296 out of 5

Well-written: 252645137 out of 5

Obviously, something is terrible wrong with it. So I was wondering if anyone else sees it in this way when checking the results, and if it is indeed a wide-spread problem where it be appropriate to report this problem?

For one working properly, see the poll at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropy for an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general discussion or debate forum. Click "see all" to read debate/general discussion comments

Unfortunately 1.8 out of 5 for objectivity seems about right. The article fails to address the scientific fact of dramatic pre-human global warming. Check out this graph from a different WP article which shows dramatic global warming from 11-9,000 years ago:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

How - if AGW theory is correct - could such a dramatic temperature rise occur in the past without any human CO2 to cause it? The significant pre-human warming periods completely disprove the radical AGW theory that human CO2 is solely responsible for global warming, and begs the key question: What role does human CO2 play in global warming - major, minor or infinitesimal? The article would be credible if these questions were addressed. Without any discussion of this glaring problem for AGW theory, the article fails. 1.8 for objectivity is generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another graph from WP shows a sea level rise of approximately 140 feet in the last 24,000 years. The chart shows nearly all the rise happened before humans made any CO2. That this magnitude of global warming happened without any human CO2 creates an puzzle for AGW theory - to explain the mechanisms that drove warming before human CO2, and then isolate those mechanisms from human CO2 and then deduce what part of the present warming is due to nature and what part to man.

The chart:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while the rise in temperature in your first graph looks dramatic, it happend over about 2000 years, or about 15 times slower than current climate change. And while our models are not perfect, we have some decent ideas about what causes ice ages (more precisely, glacials), and their end. In particular, they depend on the changes in orbital parameters - including the interplay of precession, eccentricity, and inclination, which dictate how much sun the polar areas get. See Milankovitch cycles. And of course your argument is structurally flawed to begin with - "people have died before there were guns, therefore guns don't kill people". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[| This SkepSci post] is long, but good and so are the comments.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries

~~CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries~~

FYI I have proposed a policy about links in edit summaries; Since this page is often the subject of improper overlinking in edit summaries by various IPs, I thought readers of this page would be an appropriate group to canvass, in case anyone has a pro or con opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The proposal failed and voting is closed, though I'd be grateful for comments on my talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should Global Warming be the exception to the rule?

Given that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, perpetrated by the power hungry and their paid (in full - with guranteed funding cancellation for lapse in submission) lap-dog ex-scientists, should Wikipedia not take the bold step of not towing the mainstream line? --Karbinski (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Meehl, G.A.; et al. (2007). "Frequently Asked Question 10.3: If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?". In S. Solomon, et al., (eds.) (ed.). Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2011-06-01. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
^ UNFCCC (n.d.). "Essential Background". UNFCCC website. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
^ UNFCCC (n.d.). "Full text of the Convention, Article 2". UNFCCC website. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
^ Rogner, H.-H., D. Zhou, R. Bradley. P. Crabbé, O. Edenhofer, B.Hare, L. Kuijpers, M. Yamaguchi (2007). "Executive summary". Introduction. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2011-05-21. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1073/pnas.0700609104, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi= 10.1073/pnas.0700609104 instead.
^ ^a ^b Dessai, S. (2001). "The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?" (PDF). Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12. Tyndall Centre website. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
^ Grubb, M. (July–September 2003). "The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol" (PDF). World Economics. 4 (3): 144–145. Retrieved 2010-03-25.
^ ^a ^b Liverman, D.M. (2008). "Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere" (PDF). Journal of Historical Geography. 35 (2): 279–296. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008. Retrieved 2011-05-10.
^ ^a ^b UNFCCC (n.d.). "Kyoto Protocol". UNFCCC website. Retrieved 2011-05-21.
^ Müller, Benito (February 2010). Copenhagen 2009: Failure or final wake-up call for our leaders? EV 49 (PDF). Dr Benito Müller's web page on the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies website. p. i. ISBN 978190755046. Retrieved 2010-05-18. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)^{[dead link]}
^ ^a ^b United Nations Environment Programme (November 2010). "Technical summary". The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2 °C or 1.5 °C? A preliminary assessment (advance copy) (PDF). UNEP website. Retrieved 2011-05-11. This publication is also available in e-book format
^ UNFCCC (30 March 2010). "Decision 2/CP. 15 Copenhagen Accord. In: Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Addendum. Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its fifteenth session" (PDF). United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland. p. 5. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
^ Cite error: The named reference statecl was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ IPCC (2007d). "1.1 Observations of climate change. In (section): Synthesis Report. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.))". Book version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.
^ IPCC (2007d). "2.4 Attribution of climate change. In (section): Synthesis Report. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.))". Book version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference spm1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ IPCC (2007d). "2. Causes of change. In (section): Summary for Policymakers. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.))". Book version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.
^ ^a ^b ^c IPCC (2007d). "3. Projected climate change and its impacts. In (section): Summary for Policymakers. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.))". Book version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.
^ IPCC (2007b). "Magnitudes of impact. In (section): Summary for Policymakers. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.)". Book version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.
^ Wang, M (2009). "A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years?". Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 (7). Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3607502W. doi:10.1029/2009GL037820. Retrieved 2 May 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Fischlin, A., G.F. Midgley, J.T. Price, R. Leemans, B. Gopal, C. Turley, M.D.A. Rounsevell, O.P. Dube, J. Tarazona, A.A. Velichko (2007). "Executive Summary. In (book chapter): Ecosystems, their properties, goods and services. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.)" (PDF). Book version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. This version: IPCC website. p. 213. Retrieved 2010-04-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer, A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez and F. Yamin (2007). "19.3.4 Ecosystems and biodiversity. In (book chapter): Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.)". Book version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[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.

[faq-30] Meehl, G.A.; et al. (2007). "Frequently Asked Question 10.3: If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?". In S. Solomon, et al., (eds.) (ed.). Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2011-06-01. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

[31] UNFCCC (n.d.). "Essential Background". UNFCCC website. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

[32] UNFCCC (n.d.). "Full text of the Convention, Article 2". UNFCCC website. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

[rogner-33] Rogner, H.-H., D. Zhou, R. Bradley. P. Crabbé, O. Edenhofer, B.Hare, L. Kuijpers, M. Yamaguchi (2007). "Executive summary". Introduction. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2011-05-21. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[34] Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1073/pnas.0700609104, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi= 10.1073/pnas.0700609104 instead.

[dessai-35] Dessai, S. (2001). "The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?" (PDF). Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12. Tyndall Centre website. Retrieved 2010-05-05.

[36] Grubb, M. (July–September 2003). "The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol" (PDF). World Economics. 4 (3): 144–145. Retrieved 2010-03-25.

[liverman-37] Liverman, D.M. (2008). "Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere" (PDF). Journal of Historical Geography. 35 (2): 279–296. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008. Retrieved 2011-05-10.

[kyoto-38] UNFCCC (n.d.). "Kyoto Protocol". UNFCCC website. Retrieved 2011-05-21.

[39] Müller, Benito (February 2010). Copenhagen 2009: Failure or final wake-up call for our leaders? EV 49 (PDF). Dr Benito Müller's web page on the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies website. p. i. ISBN 978190755046. Retrieved 2010-05-18. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)^{[dead link]}

[unep-40] United Nations Environment Programme (November 2010). "Technical summary". The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2 °C or 1.5 °C? A preliminary assessment (advance copy) (PDF). UNEP website. Retrieved 2011-05-11. This publication is also available in e-book format

[41] UNFCCC (30 March 2010). "Decision 2/CP. 15 Copenhagen Accord. In: Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Addendum. Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its fifteenth session" (PDF). United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland. p. 5. Retrieved 2010-05-17.

[statecl-42] Cite error: The named reference statecl was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[43] IPCC (2007d). "1.1 Observations of climate change. In (section): Synthesis Report. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.))". Book version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.

[44] IPCC (2007d). "2.4 Attribution of climate change. In (section): Synthesis Report. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.))". Book version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.

[spm1-45] Cite error: The named reference spm1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[46] IPCC (2007d). "2. Causes of change. In (section): Summary for Policymakers. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.))". Book version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.

[spm3-47] IPCC (2007d). "3. Projected climate change and its impacts. In (section): Summary for Policymakers. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.))". Book version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.

[48] IPCC (2007b). "Magnitudes of impact. In (section): Summary for Policymakers. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.)". Book version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.

[49] Wang, M (2009). "A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years?". Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 (7). Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3607502W. doi:10.1029/2009GL037820. Retrieved 2 May 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[50] Fischlin, A., G.F. Midgley, J.T. Price, R. Leemans, B. Gopal, C. Turley, M.D.A. Rounsevell, O.P. Dube, J. Tarazona, A.A. Velichko (2007). "Executive Summary. In (book chapter): Ecosystems, their properties, goods and services. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.)" (PDF). Book version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. This version: IPCC website. p. 213. Retrieved 2010-04-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[51] Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer, A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez and F. Yamin (2007). "19.3.4 Ecosystems and biodiversity. In (book chapter): Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.)". Book version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-04-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[D]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]