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 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

/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 discussions archived 1 and 2. --TS 00:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page got fat again.

More archiving, usual criteria:

New images
- Images 1 and 2
- Image 3
Other views section
- Enescot reply to ABLegler
  - US National Research Council report
  - Royal Society document
CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries
Someone keeps reverting my edits
The introduction is very bad.

See history of archive 65 for annotations.

Usual offer applies: please revert any mistaken archiving without further discussion. --TS 00:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more removals:

Third paragraph in the opening section
Proposal to rename subsection headings
- CURRENT
- PROPOSED
"Unequivocal" -- again!
Does 1RR or 3RR apply to this article?
Geoengineering
Global warming-related article needing attention
Where is the citation backing up the word "continuing"

For reasons, see recent edit history of archive 65. Please do restore any section without further discussion if I have archived it in error. --TS 16:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation documentation

I have polished the canonical IPCC citation template and documentation (currently at User_talk:J._Johnson#Canonical IPCC citations. Peviously I was thinking of copying it here and letting it get buried in the archives, with a link from the FAQ. But the archives are static, and this will be revised when AR5 comes out. So I was wondering if it would be better to put the whole thing in the FAQ. Or perhaps a separate 'doc' subpage. Suggestions? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be most useful (due to ready accessibility) if it is in the FAQ. I say go for it, and mucho gracias for your efforts.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I wonder if the wiki programmer folks would be interested in creating an IPCC template? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm gonna' go for the FAQ. But only as pointer, as I find that as I work with these subtle changes suggest themselves; the work is still evolving. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, new and improved first paragraph

See article change I just made, in attempt to address the grammar and writing style comments of the above thread. Note that no one has complained about the reliability of the sources, or whether the text accurately reports what they say. If there are continuing debates about content, please reiterate them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Scientists say the evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal" should become "The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal". The statement is sourced to the IPCC, a UN body, and attributing it to "scientists" reminds me too much of tacky shampoo commercials. It could be "logical people who understand the science", but why do we have attribute the statement to anyone? Does the cited ref say scientists believe this, but others believe that? --Nigelj (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I hate tacky shampoo commercials. See revised edit on article page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better!--IanOfNorwich (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I moved a comma and added another to hopefully make it clearer what exactly the >90% certainty refers to - change it back if it doesn't work. Mikenorton (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Mike, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now how about changing:

"The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined that most of it is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels."

To:

"The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal. There are multiple lines of strong evidence that most of this warming is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.".

That's well supported by the sources.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or keeping it (Mikes version that is) and moving Ian's concepts into the first sentence of paragraph 2: "In addition to widespread melting of ice and rising sea levels, the instrumental temp.... etc" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the above comment about this being written poorly. It should be this. This is much better and takes out the buzz words that take away from the merit of the article.

Global warming is the current temperature rise in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated with greater than 90% certainty that a majority of this warming is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Examples of such activities are deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][8][A]

The instrumental temperature record shows that the average global surface temperature increased by 0.74 °C (1.33 °F) during the 20th century.[9] Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the IPCC. They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11 °F) for their highest.[10] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[11][12]

Also the end "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries." As someone reading this and not a climate scientist (im an electrical engineer) I have no idea if this refers to the Global Warming or the Man Made part. So do all the National Science Academies agree that the globe is warming or do they all agree that we are causing it. I do not know the answer so this should be fixed by someone who knows about this topic. I actualy do this for my job write documents like this so sorry about this but you never just put IPCC I don't know who they are you write Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) then change the next occurence t0 IPCC. I have put the 2 corrections on this into my paragraphs above.

To be honest the true problem is the writers seem to not know much about writing tech. You are mixing up the global warming with the causes which are 2 diffrent concepts. It would be BEST to use 2 paragraph intro one about the undisputed fact that the globe is warming and the other about the causes with the references about both seperate. Its really confusing. I am no expert im just saying it is and an expert should fix this. As is it sounds like its written by a political hack and I am much less likely to read the rest. While politics should have a part in funding they shoulden't be the ones explaining this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faridafarid (talk • contribs) 16:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could edit this but I can not for some reason here is how it should be first the unequivocal is fine at first I thought it wasent but the problem is that the quote is taken off the webpage by taking part of the phrase and not the whole thing. Here is how it should be when I can edit ill change it eventualy cause its funny bad now. Also it says recognized change to supported. I deleted the negative but you can add it back in either way this is so much better.

Global warming is the observed temperature rise in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that the Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level[2]. This finding is supported by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][8][A]

The instrumental temperature record shows that the average global surface temperature increased by 0.74 °C (1.33 °F) during the 20th century.[9] Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the IPCC. They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11 °F) for their highest.[10] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[11][12]

[Insert info about causes in a paragraph here not an expert] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Faridafarid, welcome to having a wikipedia account. Put 4 tildes "~" after your comments on talk pages so we can tell who's said what. As you've probably noticed changes to this page get closely scrutinised especially changes to the lede. It might be best to suggest changes one by one or at least highlight the changes you are proposing. Stick around we could use what I think NewsAndEventsGuy might call a wordsmith.

Changing to:"This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries." defiantly gets my vote, for starters.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian this is the 2nd time today you confused me. Please show our new editors how to use ~~strikeout~~ and insert tags so your draft edits are clear. It isn't such a big deal when posting draft rewrites of long-static sections (like Enescot does) but on dynamic text its very confusing what you want to put in and what you want to take out. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~strikeout~~ and insert would probably be better.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on above comments, and some new thought on my part I am about to change the article text as follows

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~~.[7][8][A]

for the following reasons:

The sources in this article do not say what the struck text says;
The best sources I know about are the ones cited in the lead to Global warming controversy, and they constitute a tenuous argument, most recently formulated here. In that thread I agreed with the argument, but the NPOV editor in me admits that in the great logic tree of life, this argument is a slender branch;
I agree with recent comments that saying this out loud makes us sound defensive in an intellectually silly sort of way; and
Saying it invites continual argument whether some group has taken a contrary position, and if any supposedly have, then we argue whether they're a group of national standing, for example see the argument over the Geological committee of the Polish Academy of Science.

In sum, the struck text seems to have a very high cost, skin-of-teeth sources, all for relatively little return on investment. So I guess I agree it should go away and I made that change today. I look forward to any dissenting opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS and I also struck this cite Oreskes, Naomi (December 2004). "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science. 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

because (pardon the double negative) it does not say there is no disagreeing body of national standing, and it does not say all the sci academies of industrialized nations agree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to find what source does support the statement. In going through a lot of the citations I find that generally inadequate specification (e.g., lack of page numbers) would make it difficult to locate the source. For which I think the proper response should be fixing the citaiton -- not emasculating the article. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find better cites than what we have in the articles I linked to, JJ, then please share. But beware of circular citations, which abound, since quoting something that is based on our wiki article is not an RS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of plummeting satellites, too. Are you saying some of your deletions were circularly referenced?

Where a significant quote or such is sourced only to another article, then the appropriate response would be to check the source in the other article, and possibly grab that. If the quote or material is not readily found -- perhaps because of the all too pervasive lack of specification, such as page numbers -- then the appropriate response would be to search the source for the specific location. Or at the least tag it for someone else to work on. I would say that deletion (except for BLP, copyright, etc.) should be the last resort. I think most of the material in this article could be faulted for an incomplete, improper, or incorrect citation, and if it simply blown away at the first fault then there will be very little left to fix. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly JJ... you are making assumptions about my research efforts. If you can find hat-hanger cites to salvage that text no one will be better pleased than I. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on comments from this thread, I propose to substitute the current lead paragraph 1 with this (cites omitted but I'll include them if this goes live)

Global warming is the ~~continuing rise in the~~ rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. ~~The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined~~According to scientists, such warming of the climate system is "unequivocal", as evidenced by temperature readings, the widespread melting of snow and ice, sea level rise, and other observations. Scientists are more than 90% certain that most of this warming is caused by human activities which increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth use the strange wording "according to scientists" - who else would determine it? All this fiddling with the lead is imho unecessary - and we really should look back on the wording we had a year ago for the lede and determine which flows and is cited better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we agree that the current lead doesn't flow, so I would welcome your sweat for alternatives more than your shooting down of mine. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is our [text as of 1 yr ago today]. One of the problems in the lead first paragraph, is that it cited the 2008 "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" - written by US NRC staff based on US NAS reports, for the notion that most of the warming "has been" caused by humans, (as opposed to "very likely us"). While I am convinced it is us, now the NPOV editor in me takes over. The US NAS itself just published a new review of climate change, in their 2011 final report (following four precursor panel reports) titled "America's Climate Choices", in which they say the cause is "very likely" us, based on a "preponderance" of the evidence, while citing IPCC's definition of "very likely" meaning >90% certain. So on this side of the scale we have a 2011 US NAS super-report saying the cause is "very likely" us (not is us). Does anyone have any suggested citations saying it is us for comparison? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I pointed out is the problem with what is supported. There is 2 things here The Globe Warming and the Cause. I am not an expert in this field and as someone trying to get info its very confusing.

The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal[2] and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined that most of it is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6]

Ok here you talk about the temp rise being unequivical and then state that it with 90% certainty they determined that it is caused by humans.

This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]

So does this mean that they all agree with the globe warming or the cause thats the problem. I still think it should be like this

Global warming is the observed temperature rise in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that the Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level[2]. This finding is supported by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][8][A]

The instrumental temperature record shows that the average global surface temperature increased by 0.74 °C (1.33 °F) during the 20th century.[9] Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the IPCC. They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11 °F) for their highest.[10] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[11][12]

[Insert info about causes in a paragraph here not an expert]Faridafarid (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a half proposal. When you tell us how you propose to include the part you omitted about the cause, then I will think about. Bear in mind this isn't for the body of the article, but the WP:lead to the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For further comments please see the new thread [here ] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Global warming" definition?

The way the prior discussion is going I wonder if we need to revisit the definition of global warming (and with a view to documenting this in the FAQ). A glance through the archives showed various prior discussions, but I didn't see ("said the blind man...") any authoritative scientific source. Curiously, the IPCC (TAR and AR4) doesn't seem to define "global warming" anywhere; the definition in the glossary is for "Global Warming Potential". The EPA has a definition ("an average increase in temperatures near the Earth's surface"), though I would be a lot happier with an IPCC definition. There is also a distinction to be made from "global warming" as a generic term for any such increase in temperature, and the current and continuing episode. And there is the general confusion of global warming itself, and "global warming" as a general reference to all of the related climate change consequences. I think it would be good if we could sort out all that, with some solid sources. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A noble goal, JJ. NASA follows EPA's definition and has a useful history of the term in this essay. We could say something like "Global warming in a scientific sense means an increase in the average near-surface temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. In a non-technical sense it also refers to the current episode of warming, and all of its effects, since the warming trend began in the 19th century." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice reference, it defines

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

In the past, there have been many edit wars to use a similar definition here, including many attempts to change the article name to the more correct "Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)" to explicitly include the effects of CO2. Q Science (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the NASA reference. I lean towards amending the second sentence to: "In a non-technical sense it also refers to the current episode of unusually rapid warming beginning in the 19th century and all of its climate changing effects~~, since the warming trend began in the 19th century~~."

I haven't dug out how the prior discussions went, but am hoping we might avoid any flare ups by establishing that while the term has a narrow technical meaning it is also used non-technically to refer to climate change generally (and specifically AGW).

Inserting "unusally" above, in light of the following. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more definitions from US agenices; They all have a dimension that it is us, as opposed to very likely us.

EPA Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities. [[1]]

US GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM Key Finding #1: Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to humaninduced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)[[2]]

NOAA - NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Global Warming: An overall increase in world temperatures which may be caused by additional heat being trapped by greenhouse gases. [[3]]

NASA - EARTH OBSERVATORY Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels. [[4]]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'For scientific disputes...'

The article now begins, "For scientific disputes, see Scientific opinion on climate change..." We are not here to teach the controversy; there is no scientific dispute on any major point. There is a large and comprehensive 'Global warming and climate change' link template at the foot of the article and hundreds of hyperlinks throughout the text. I'm not even sure about "For the Sonny Rollins album see Global Warming (album)" - I've never heard of him or it and I don't think we're here to plug his album for him. I suggest a complete cull of the big block of whatever-these-things-are-called from the top of the page. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should axe most or all of that stuff. However, many people who are looking for the main article about the current episode of warming will first try searching on the phrase "climate change". Somehow the scope of these two articles (global warming and climate change ) needs to be crystal clear and instantly understood by newcomers, and that might require some of those whatever-these-things-are-called at the top of the page. I agree the rest should go away NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made a change, in two edits here (sorry, the main edit summary is on the first edit). The things are called hatnotes (d'oh, I knew that!), and I think this is a lot clearer, without introducing stray POV comments or leading people away to random, more obscure articles. The phrase I used is based on the lede of climate change, and tries to draw attention to the main disambiguation and definition problem we face here. People who want more detail will find all the links they need in either this or the other article, or in the large navbox that appears at the bottom of both of them. I hope colleagues find this an improvement - I've given it a lot of thought. --Nigelj (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this, N, and I changed your text to thisto avoid potential misreading by newbies.... after all, the current episode of warming is a longterm one too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Let's see how it sticks. --Nigelj (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more work on the lead - this relates to several recent threads

Several recent threads have addressed issues with the lead, and in particular the flow, the accessability, complaints about jargon, the defintions, etc. Also among the suggestions was the idea of going back a year to see what worked well. Pulling all those comments together, here is my proposed rewrite for lead paragraph #1 and the first part of #2. Note that the temp info from paragraph 2 was moved into paragraph 1, and was not simply deleted. Also the notions that the temp rise is continuing and that it is rapid are strongly implied but not explicitly stated - just for the sake of readability. Here is the text, and also a demo-diff so you can see the references and overall look. I reverted the demo to the current text pending comments.

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 1.4°F (0.8°C) with about 2/3 of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.[3][4][5][6]. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. [7][A]

[Here is the diff ] (Especially note the new reference about the last 3 decades.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first part is only partially correct in your rendering. Global warming is not only the past increase, but also the expected continuation, the attribution and the expected consequences here of. Generally there is too much focus on the past warming part for the first sentence of the lede.

Composition of the lede is supposed to be: first paragraph with a quick summary of the major theme and a definition, the rest of the paragraphs of the lede should summarize the body of the article. As i see it, this isn't what your proposed lede does. Which is why i once more refer back to old versions of the lede. We've had outside praise for that, as well as featured article status for it.

Now the large question: Why exactly are we fiddling so much with the lede? Has anything major happened to the body or the subject in general? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this.

Main objection: Redefinition of what global warming is. According to this, "global warming" is about the past - only - which it isn't. Continuing is the correct wording according to the scientific references that we have. And once more: Too much fiddling with the lede - too little work on the body. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim reverted my recent edit because Kim erroneously believes the following two bits of text are substantively different in content:

OLD: "Global warming is the continuing rise of average temperature....

NEW: "Global warming refers to the rising average temperature...."

Specifically, Kim alleges the new text is only about past change. Wrong. In the new text, the word "rising" is a present, repeat present participle. Therefore it means presently rising as in right now. Nowhere does the new text even hint at an end to the rise. Instead, the full paragraph of new text (follow Kims diff) explicitly states that the rate of rise has been increasing. Note that "has been" is in present perfect tense, again meaning right now. Not just in past, but now as well. Past and right now.... in other words "continuing". If Kim insists on changing the first phrase of the 1st sentence to insert the word continuing (as well as unneeded verbosity) I suppose I can live with it for a while. That would be more of a consensus seeking solution than just reverting a whole paragraph wouldn't it Kim?

Since (A) Kims content-based reason for revert is based on bad grammar, (B) no one else objected when I proposed this change, and (C) this new text uses Kims excellent suggestion of looking back a year to get the good features of that text plus addresses complaints that were recently made about flow and readability, I have restored the proposed new text.

Kims secondary reason for objecting is that there has been too little work on the body, but this complaint is irrelevant to the mertis of this edit and, as I have previously pointed out, anybody can suggest work for others to do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming is not just a concept about the present and the past. It is also about the future continuation. I would prefer that you keep a non-personal tone here. May i suggest that you look at the WP:BRD-cycle and not revert back to an edit that has just been reverted, without discussing it first? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(A) I short-circuited WP:BRD on grounds that your primary reason for objecting was based on an unambiguous grammar error (and I'm surprised you're complaining about that);

(B) You've changed your reason for objecting from being about the past to being about the future;

(C) If you really want the unnecessarily verbose form of the first ten words or so, please tweak my edit so "continuing" is put back even though that would not change the meaning;

(D) See your talk page for my response to your non-personal tone remark. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conflict edit, apparently. Responding to Kim's question why is there so much lead work and what has happened? ANSWER: In response to the recent thread "Add 'is believed to be'", I studied the sources in this article and found that they did not in fact jive with the lead first paragraph, specifically, we said humans ARE the cause, whereas the sources say we are most likely (as in > 90% certain). My POV rebels at having to dumb down the certainty that humans are the cause, but hey - that's what the sources say, and there has been a great deal of debate about this in recent threads.

If that was the rock in the pond, all this 1st paragraph lead editing that Kim finds so curious is just the ripples as the text settles down into a smooth reading easy flowing lead appropriate form that includes the >90% certainty nuance. After my first edit along these lines 4-8 weeks ago or so, every subsequent change Ive made to paragraph 1 has been about refining that text in response to comments like yours. Note that the current form is directly based on some of the text from a year ago, as you suggested, Kim. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a few tweaks that I hope are non-controversial. On the subject of past-present-and-projected-future temperatures, I agree that it is important not to leave the lede ambiguous as to whether temperatures might have risen until recently, and/or might now be steady, and/or might be just about to fall again. There have been many misinformed blog-readers here in recent years who would have been delighted if they could have made this article give that impression. Unfortunately, I think many blog readers do not get past the lede, let alone into the scientific references, and so the wording here is very important. I tried putting continuing in there somewhere, and it didn't really work, for two reasons. (1) We now have 'and its related effects', which is new in the opening sentence. This means that we get three things in the list - the rise, its projected continuation, and its related effects - which quickly gets difficult to scan. (2) The sentence now starts with "Global warming refers to the rising average temperature..." rather than "is the increase in". So now the subject of the sentence is the temperature ('the rising average temperature' with its adjectives). So use of the word "it" later in the sentence refers not to the increase but now to the temperature - a different thing. This might be why that sentence just won't settle down, let alone stand being extended as in (1). BUT... I have found somewhere where we may be able to help. Later on we say, "scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by", which I think should read, "scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is being caused by". Is that a help? --Nigelj (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a help? I have not looked yet. I'd just like to thank Nigelj for a constructive effort at solution seeking. I'll look at the substance later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who complained before that it was bad. It is a lot better now then it was before.

collapsing combative unsourced comments; WP:NOTAFORUM; click show to read anyway

There is just one thing

and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.

Maybe site this. scientists are more then 100% certain that none of global warming is caused by man would be a true statement. I am sure there are a few. This would add credibility to the statement. Saying scientists just sounds to generic.Faridafarid (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I mean now that I think of this site something or nothing don't site scientists. It sounds like something you would do in a dental floss add.Faridafarid (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are nonsensical; you exhibit little understanding both this subject (and others you have jumped on) and Wikipedia. If wish to contribute you would be well advised to sit back and watch ("lurk") for a while. Otherwise your comments are likely to be collapsed and ignored. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers are more than 100% certain you are wrong (im an engineer). If you read my comment it has nothing to do with the subject at all so.... If I am using info from the IPC to support something I say one of the following. sientists from the IPC are more then 90% certain. Or just state the 90% by itself with the reference tagged (this is what I would do). Faridafarid (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section on "attribution and expected effects"

Introduction

There's a "not in citation given" tag in the introduction to the section on "attribution and expected effects". I've prepared a revision which hopefully addresses this problem:

"Detection" is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to a particular cause. "Attribution" of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence (Hegerl et al, 2007). Detection and attribution may also be applied to observed changes in physical, ecological and social systems (Rosenzweig et al, 2007).

References:

Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott, 2007: 9.1.2 What are Climate Change Detection and Attribution?: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Rosenzweig, C., G. Casassa, D.J. Karoly, A. Imeson, C. Liu, A. Menzel, S. Rawlins, T.L. Root, B. Seguin, P. Tryjanowski, 2007: 1.2 Methods of detection and attribution of observed changes: Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems. 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., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 79-131.

Please note that as previously discussed I have developed a standard IPCC reference form (see examples at Global warming#References and Climate change#Refernces, and all the details at User_talk:J._Johnson#Canonical IPCC citations.). I think we should also use Harv, which I will urge in a separate section. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree - other editors please refer to User talk:J. Johnson#Enescot comment and Talk:Global warming#Time for Harv? for details. Enescot (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trims to the section

I suggest that the "species migration" sub-section is moved to the climate change and ecosystems sub-article. I would also like the information on limits of human survivability in the "social systems" sub-section to be moved to the climate change, industry and society sub-article. In my opinion, these two topics are not important enough to be covered in this top-level article. Enescot (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me to mention species migration and provide a pointer instead of a subsection. However, I disagree with the level of import you place on the practical limits of human survivability. Unless people take the limits of adaptation into consideration, no one can have a well-informed discussion of the timing for emissions cutbacks or R&D investment for mitigation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the basis is for having human survivability mentioned in this article. There are an enormous number of individual studies on climate change impacts. Why should this very specific piece of research receive such great attention? In my opinion, the main criteria for judging importance for inclusion in this section of the article should be: Article 2 of the UNFCCC; the IPCC's "reasons for concern," "key vulnerabilities", and "robust findings and key uncertainties". In the IPCC Synthesis report, there are large number of important impacts, including those related to health and ecosystems, which are not mentioned in this article. It would not be possible to cover all of these impacts in this article, and I think mentioning human survivability places undue weight on one particular type of impact and research paper. Enescot (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reserving the option of revisiting the Sherwood paper as part of a larger discussion of limits to adaptation, I can live with it going away for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I suggest we change the title from

"Attribution and expected effects"

to

"Expected effects of global warming"

because the text of the section barely mentions attribution, and a fair bit of attribution discussion is in the section called "Initial causes of temperature changes (External forcings)" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote problem

Looks like we have a problem with non-ref footnotes. See "‹The template Cref2 is being considered for deletion.› [A]" in the lede for example. Think there are 4 in all. HELP:FOOT may help. I need to get some sleep and can't untangle it myself right now.....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Cref2 was developed to differentiate between footnotes as references, and footnotes as notes. There is no reason why notes should not contain notes. (If there is a problem, it is due to stuffing bibliographic details into footnotes, and thus into the source text, but that's a separate issue; see below.) It is easy enough stuff the 'crefs' back into 'refs', and I'll do so if that is agreeable. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time for Harv?

When I revised the IPCC references in this article I followed the extant form of including the entire reference (template) in each note. But as I gained experience in other articles it has become strongly apparent that having the reference (the templated bibliographic details of a source) in a separate section, and only citing the source, using {{Harv}} templates, in the note is much easier. I have also worked out some improvements in the citation form (see my talk page, or Current sea level rise), and if I implement those I would also like to start converting to citing with Harv. Any objections? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, let's just think about Harv for IPCC references. Question: We have so many quoted blocks from IPCC, how would that work with Harv? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC citations for starters is fine with me, and hopefully no one kicks up a fuss about mixed modes. I haven't noticed any use of block quotes in the refs (though with all the template clutter they could be hiding there); probably you are thinking of the "|quote=" parameter in the citation template. I have never seen what the point of that is, and I think we'll be quite fine without it. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In [this version of the article], please see ref #3 and #4, which are examples of IPCC citations that use the quote parameter of the citation template. IMO, for article text that is expecially likely to be attacked, using block quotes from the source (in theory) reduces the number of kneejerk comments or edit wars.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What you are looking at is the quote parameter (in the template). And as I said, I have never seen what the point of that parameter is; we can get along fine without it.

So last call: any objections to converting to Harv? (At least for the IPCC citations.) _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that it's the best way, what are the alternatives? Harv is (iirc) on the way out and usually not used anymore. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my question, too: what are the alternatives? (Named refs are not an alternative -- they are a problem.) The only alternative I'm aware of is {{sfn}}, which seems to be a hybridized form of Harv and (yikes!!) named refs. I haven't seen anything about Harv going away; that sounds more like some people's wishful thinking. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

And I'm seriously confused. I tried to say that some way to include quotes, such as the examples I provided, is important and JJ seems to answer that they are not. I don't want to chop off the ability to include quotes. It saves everyone the hassle of looking for quotes in order to verify article text, and it will reduce kneejerk argumentative responses. Sure we can survive without quoting, but it is very useful. How would quoting work using Harv? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for any confusion! I totally agree we need to quote, and in no way do I mean that we stop quoting. (In text, or in footnotes.) What I mean is that we do not need the template "quote" parameter to do so -- it is unnecessary. E.g.:

<ref>{{Cite ...|quote="So-and-so says..."}}</ref>

is readily replaced with:

and the result is essentially identical. No problem! _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slow brain day here I guess. Please demonstrate by changing the article in your desired fashion for the first two or three IPCC references, including the quoted text now found in the template parameter, and then reverting your own edits pending discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, here is a side-by-side comparison. Original note using "|quote",^[1] and revised note with text outside the template.^[2]

References

^ Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). 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. IPCC. ISBN 92-9169-122-4. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), 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, IPCC, ISBN 92-9169-122-4 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."

And how I would do the note with Harv.^[1]

References

^ Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFIPCC_AR4_SYR2007 (help): "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."

We don't need no stinkin' "quote" parameter! _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that helps, but it still doesn't answer the question how would you HARV-ize these references while preserving the quotes in the new HARV-IPCC formatting you propose? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just like I have shown (above)? The second box uses Harv, and preserves the quote. The only difference from the first box is that "in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFIPCC_AR4_SYR2007 (help)" replaces (and links to) the complete bibliographic reference, which is located somewhere else. Nothing is lost! (Except some redundant clutter.) I think I should actually do one, so you can see it in context. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

citation template with quote parameter vs citation template without

OK, I understand that using the citation template we don't need the quote parameter, and you're example 1 and 2 appear to have identical results. But between those two choices, why not use the quote parameter? Reasons to use it appear to be (1) it exists, (2) it produces the same result, and (3) newcomer editors won't know all this carefully nuanced background, but will instead be more likely to see the help guide for the template, complete with info about the quote parameter. Also, at least for my brain, stringing info via

parameter 1 | parameter 2 | parameter 3 | parameter 4 |

is easy to comprehend, as oppposed to

parameter 1 | parameter 2 | parameter 3 | then something else

Is there some reason why, when using a citation template, you think we should not use the quote parameter? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several reasons. In reference to your points:

(1) Just because something can be done, or used, does not mean it should. Trying to do the quote within the citation confuses the link with the thing linked, and confuses the template (the linkage). (E.g., try editing a number of templates with long quotes and you will appreciate the advantage of having the closing braces in view, not at the end of some long string of text.)

(2) Narrowly speaking it does not produce the same result (look closely). More importantly, you may not understand the distinction between citing a source, and the source's reference, and have missed the point of using Harv: to pull the references (bibliographic detail) out of the text, and not have to repeat references (or even worse, use named refs) for each citation. E.g., if you have two different quotes from the same page/section of a source, quoting them using 'cite' means repeating details (perhaps inconsistently). It truly is much easier to use a Harv link to connect a quote to a reference than to build the quote within the reference.

(3) I think new editors are confused largely because we have not clarified the disinction (nuance) between a citation and a reference, nor provided good instruction. The documentation doesn't really urge use of the quote parameter, even suggests caution. That editors try to use this parameter is (I think) because they have no clear instruction, or even decent examples. One of the reasons I'm doing all of this is to provide decent examples, so that editors do not need to grope around for something that works.

Your brain might find it easier to comprehend quotes/citation/reference separately, rather than trying to stuff everything into one template.

- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enescot reply

I'm opposed to any information being deleted from IPCC citations. This is something I've noticed on current sea level rise and this article – see User talk:J. Johnson#Enescot comment. I think the following should be kept:

"{{cite book" style, rather than purely written text citations, as has been adopted in current sea level rise. In my opinion, cite book presents the citation information in a more consistent manner than written text, and I think it is worth keeping.
details on the section of the IPCC chapter in question, using " | contribution="
the name of the IPCC report chapter, using " | series="
the authors of the IPCC report chapter, using " | author="
the date when the url referred to was accessed, using " | accessdate="
details on the print and web publishers of the IPCC reports, i.e., the IPCC, GRID-Arendal, and CUP.

As I've stated on User talk:J. Johnson#Enescot comment, some of these details have been removed on recent revisions to climate change articles, notably on current sea level rise, where details on the chapter of the IPCC report referred to were removed from at least two citations. Without this information, users of the CUP version would not know where to find the supporting reference (see note). Also, the IPCC report chapters represent the work of the IPCC authors, and not the IPCC itself. This is of some significance, since in the SAR, there was a dispute between one lead author (David Pearce) and the IPCC over the content of the Summary for Policymakers document. In general, I think citations should contain as much information as possible, and I do not see what is to be gained from removing the information I've mentioned. Enescot (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if the IPCC or GRID-Arendal were to change their urls, there would be the same problem. Enescot (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is some confusion here. E.g., you mention "purely written text citations". We do need to distinguish between the reference to a source (or "work"), which includes all of the bibiliographic details, and is (indeed!) preferably generated using a citation template, and the citations to the source which show where each quote or point in the text is found. Much of the confusion is because editors often dump in an entire reference, with all the gory details, every time they cite something, the whole reference being used for the citation.

What I advocate is listing each reference (in its fullest bibliographic glory) once in a separate section ("References", "Bibliography", or such), then use some form of short citation (such as Harv) to link to the full reference. For instance, the first note in Current sea level rise goes to this note, which contains a citation to one of the IPCC reports. That citation has a Harv link which links to this reference, which is produced from a template.

So the use of a "citation" template has been kept (because I agree that it is more consistent), just not in the "citation" (properly speaking).

Some of the "loss of details" refers to use of a citation specification such as "Chapter 4, Section 4.4.9: Oceans and shallow seas". There is standard practice to the effect that "Chapter 4" is redundant where the chapter number is included in the section numbering, and can be left out without any loss of detail. I have generally tried to retain all such specification details (including page numbers), but in this particular detail I am ambivalent, and have gone both ways. If I have screwed up anywhere in this regard that is my fault, not a lack of the "style".

Listing the chapter authors is a tough question, which I need to defer till later. For now note that my "evolved" style is to list the lead author in the citation (such as here), which I think will suffice. (And yes, I do contemplate restoring that kind of detail where I removed it in this article.)

Though I have moved certain details of publication from the citation to the reference, I don't believe I have lost any (except the "places" of Cambridge University Press, which I feel is not useful). Note that if the IPCC or GRID-Arendal were to change their urls the ensuing mess would be much easier to handle if the changes are confined to a handful of references in one section, rather than more numerous citations buried all throughout the text.

Hope that helps to clarify. More on the authors issue later.

_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of IPCC authors

How to include the chapter authors in citations of the IPCC reports needs careful consideration. For chapters and technical summaries (but not the FAQs or SMPs) the IPCC Working Groups request attribution of all of the lead authors in (see example, bottom of page). However, this is a lot of cluttering details of extremely limited interest, and also contrary to long accepted practice of reducing lists of three or more authors to something like "Solomon et al.". My recommendation here is that we follow standard practice.

As to how this is to be done: one possibility is to do this within the cite/citaiton templates, using the "author" and "chapter" parameters. I recommend against this. First, because it is useful to use "author" for identifying the report as a whole. Second, because something like "Ch. 8" (in reference to a given report) is more meaningful to most of our readers (and most of our editors) than the unfamiliar "Randall 2007". Second, if each chapter has a separate reference (the full bibliographic record, noting the distinction I made in the section above between reference and citation) then there is a lot of repetition of material (full title, list of editors, publisher, ISBNs), which only confuses and hides the essential differences.

My recommendation is that attribution of the author(s) be done in the citation, like this:

1. ^ Solomon et al., Technical Summary, TS.1: Introduction, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.

2. ^ Bindoff et al., Chapter 5, Section 5.5: Changes in Sea Level, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.

where the IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 is the Harv link to the full reference:

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L. (ed.), 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{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7).

Note that the full reference contains all the bibliographic details, but is listed only once, with the contituent elements (the chapters) linking to it. Also, additional details of the citation specification -- such as chapter titles, section headers, or page numbers -- can be included in the citation.

This does not cover all possible details, but I hope that as far as it goes it will be satisfactory.

_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enescot reply

I think this mostly addresses the concerns I've raised in the previous thread. On my talk page, NewsAndEventsGuy requested that I post examples of where I felt that loss of citation information was important. I thought that I might as well post these examples here for other editors to look at. It should help to clarify the concerns that I raised previously. With the citation style you've put forward, the problem had concerning the citation in example 1 would not apply. I think that example 2 shows that retaining the name of the IPCC chapter may be beneficial for the "robustness" of citations, should any errors creep in.

Example 1

The most important example I feel is the loss of the IPCC chapter from the citation. Here is a citation I used in current sea level rise:

(1.1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). "Magnitudes of impact". Summary for Policymakers. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press. This version: GRID-Arendal website. ISBN 0521880106. Retrieved 2011-06-18. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

You changed this to:

(1.2) Magnitudes of impact, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007

As I stated earlier on, the above example does not apply to your current suggested citation style, where the SPM bit would be retained. I changed citation (1.2) to this:

(1.3) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Magnitudes of impact". Summary for Policymakers http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-15-magnitudes-of.html. Retrieved 2011-10-09. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007

which is pretty much the same as the citation style you've proposed.

Example 2

I made an error in a url link to an IPCC report chapter:

(2.1) Fischlin, A. (2007). "4.4.9 Oceans and shallow seas - Impacts". Chapter 4: Ecosystems, their Properties, Goods and Services. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press (CUP), Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Print version: CUP. This version: IPCC website. ISBN 0521880106. Retrieved 2011-07-29. {{cite book}}: Invalid |display-authors=1 (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)^: 234

However, as you can see, the rest of the citation gives more than enough information for another editor to track down the correct url/supporting text. Citation 1.1 was changed to:

(2.2) Fischlin, A., Section 4.4.9: Oceans and shallow seas - Impacts, p. 234, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.^{[verification needed]}

Citation 2.2 is less helpful than 2.1, and unfortunately redirects the reader to the WG1 report, and not WG2. This is probably because 2.1 contains the incorrect url which links to a WG1 report. The difference is that the single error in 2.1 is much easier to correct than the two errors in 2.2. Enescot (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder

There is a good issue to take up regarding chapter titles and section headers. But the style I propose does not preclude any options here (is even more accomodating), so I would like to defer that until some other details are sorted out.

Regarding your #Example 1 (above), I am not clear on what the issue is. I will point out that (as I think I have stated before) in making these conversions I am not trying (generally) to improve them, to make up all the deficiencies of the originals. In this case I did drop the "Summary for Policymakers" (a disimprovement -- sorry). In this case the citation could done more particularly (more fully) as:

(1.4) Summary for Policymakers, section C: Current knowledge about future impacts: Magnitudes of impact, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007

Which is to say: chapter (the SMP), section ("number" and title), and subsection. This is a bit lengthy, which gets back to the discussion I would like to defer a bit. The point I would make here is that omitting or inserting any of this identifying text ("detail"), for better or worse, is fully accomodable; this does not really bear on the use of Harv or the IPCC citation.

There are some minor issues here, such as citing the IPCC as author. More accurately it should be the Working Group, but I think it is quite acceptable leave off the "author" in this case. If the IPCC is cited as the author, then the acronym is preferable.

The "retrieved" date (access date) is also well left off. Even though we are linking to a web page, that refers to the work, which is not as changeable as a web page, having a definite form and publication date. (We have also discussed errata on my talk page.)

A more significant difference, not obviously visible, is that you used a {{cite book}} template for the citation (followed by the "in IPCC..."), where I just wrote it out. (Likely this is what you meant above by "purely written text citations".) I could quibble about how that was used, but I don't see (yet??) any problem in the concept.

I have to go now, so back to Example 2 later.

_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Having slept on the matter I now recall why I am adverse to using a template in the citation in the manner of example 1.3. My biggest objection is the inclusion of bibliographic details (the reference) in the article text, where the intermingling confuses and obfuscates both text and reference. To the extent that only details of the citation (such as chapter, section, page) are included, and not of the reference (series, publisher, isbn, etc.), are included this objection is minimized. But I am also concerned that having {{cite xxx}} or {{citation}} templates in the notes would confuse the different usage in citations and references, sliding back to having the entire reference buried in the text. (And even to named refs.) So while at one level this particular use of {{cite xxx}} is not exactly an issue in switching to Harv, at another level it is. I am somewhat opposed, but open to further discussion. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your #Example 2 I believe your point is about which form an error is most easily detected and corrected. (Note that I did detect the error, and tagged it.) In that case I suspect the original error was due to misreading "Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" for "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". You have to agree that the signal-to-noise ratio here is pretty low, because of all the redundant clutter. This exactly why I want to use Harv, so cluttering details can be pulled out of the text and put into a separate section and linked to with Harv. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in the section on public opinion

There is a remarkable degree of bias in this section towards UK and US public opinion. I've highlighted in bold what I view to be the most biased text:

In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149] A 2010 poll by the Office of National Statistics found that 75% of UK respondents were at least "fairly convinced" that the world's climate is changing, compared to 87% in a similar survey in 2006.[150] A January 2011 ICM poll in the UK found 83% of respondents viewed climate change as a current or imminent threat, while 14% said it was no threat. Opinion was unchanged from an August 2009 poll asking the same question, though there had been a slight polarisation of opposing views.[151]

A survey in October, 2009 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed decreasing public perception in the United States that global warming was a serious problem. All political persuasions showed reduced concern with lowest concern among Republicans, only 35% of whom considered there to be solid evidence of global warming.[152] The cause of this marked difference in public opinion between the United States and the global public is uncertain but the hypothesis has been advanced that clearer communication by scientists both directly and through the media would be helpful in adequately informing the American public of the scientific consensus and the basis for it.[153] The U.S. public appears to be unaware of the extent of scientific consensus regarding the issue, with 59% believing that scientists disagree "significantly" on global warming.[154]

By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]

On the other hand, in May 2011 a joint poll by Yale and George Mason Universities found that nearly half the people in the USA (47%) attribute global warming to human activities, compared to 36% blaming it on natural causes. Only 5% of the 35% who were "disengaged", "doubtful", or "dismissive" of global warming were aware that 97% of publishing US climate scientists agree global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans.[157]

Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.[158]

In the United States, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) eleventh annual survey on environmental policy issues, 75% said they believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California.[159]

A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[160]

A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[161]

Suggested revision

I suggest that the text in bold is removed and moved to the sub-article on public opinion on global warming. My revision includes info on a poll (in bold) by the World Bank focussing on developing countries viewpoints. I think this addition is important since it goes some way to addressing what I view to be the bias towards developed countries views and "is warming happening?" questions. More information should be included on questions concerning what should be done about global warming:

In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149]

A 2009 poll commissioned by the World Bank targeted public attitudes in developing countries towards climate policy (World Bank, p.2). Polling was conducted among 13,518 respondents in 15 nations - Bangladesh, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Senegal, Turkey, the United States, and Vietnam. The publics in all countries polled saw climate change as a serious problem (World Bank, p.2). In most countries, the public believed that scientists agree that climate change is an urgent problem which is understood well enough that action should be taken (World Bank, p.3). In 14 countries, clear majorities thought that if their countries act on climate change, other countries would be encouraged to act (World Bank, p.3). In nearly all countries, majorities supported key national steps to deal with climate change, even when the steps were described only in terms of costs, not benefits (World Bank, p.3).

By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]

Additional reference:

World Bank (2009-12-03). World Development Report 2010: Public Attitudes to Climate Change: Findings from a Multi Country Poll (PDF). World Bank. Retrieved 2011-10-10.

Enescot (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we include a snippet about "Region X" from an older worldwide poll, that won't necessarily communicate the most recent results for Region X. For example, in the last non-bold text you propose to keep (from 2010) one gets the impression that concern has dropped in Europe but there's no explanatory text. Meanwhile, [new info for that region] made headlines just last week, where Europeans are, according to the poll, more concerned about climate change than about economic turmoil. Personally, I'd be happy to see all of the public opinion text move to the public opinion article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much bold text. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd rather see these large draft text sections indented (instead of italicized), and to call attention, use italics (instead of bold). It would make it much easier to read IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptic views are now NPOV

In an article in the independent, Hansen said: "Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming," [5] The requirement of wikipedia are for neutral point of view. Can I spell that out neutral POINT OF VIEW. Hansen has now said the neutral point of view ... not the scientific neutral point of view ... but the neutral point of view an average point of view of all humanity not a very insular group who have a particular outlook on science. The neutral point of view is now decidedly sceptical.

The inference is very clear, that the article should represent a neutral point of view. That means as the argument is now decidedly in favour of sceptics, then the sceptic view should be represented in a substantial part of the article.

Can I just point out that Hansen specifically says: "global warming". This is an article about global warming. The neutral point of view as articulated by one of the people often referred to here as the authority for the "science" has stated unequivocally that the sceptic argument is winning. How much of the sceptic position do we see here? Does it mention the pause in temperature? The lack of trend in climate extremes? The failure of almost every climate prediction? The multitude of evidence against positive feedbacks? No, there is not one attempt to represent a neutral point of view, only the view of people like Hansen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And can I just emphasis, that whenever a sceptic like Monckton has the opportunity to test public opinion (i.e. the neutral point of view), they win the debate. When the argument is put to the test, the sceptics win! There is no question that NPOV is sceptical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that NPOV does not mean Popular POV. See WP:UNDUE; the public, who are "being won over", are not experts, nor even knowledgeable at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Hansen has now said the minority view is that of people like him. Global warming is a popular subject. THE POV here is to define this subject as science. Global warming is not a scientific subject. If you want an article on the science, then flag it up and use the appropriate scientific name like AGW and leave the popular article to reflect the political debate. A popular subject like this must be definition reflect the popular POV. If you want a scientific article, then please go away and create one, but don't pretend that global warming should be dominated the minority view of scientists like Hansen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I did not put that well. A better description is that global warming is the poplar perception of a range of issues from sunspots to CO2 forcing. Hansen ascribes to a particularly narrow viewpoint which ascribes all climate change to a very narrow set of drivers such as CO2. The public want to read about all the science and given a poplar name, the article must reflect the poplar interpretation and not the narrow view of Hansen as to the scope of the article. As for reliable sources, in a poplar article on a poplar subject (not the scientific AGW), the reliable sources are clearly those sources thought to be reliable by public. BBC, good papers. To arbitrarily restrict the reliable sources to those supported by the minority view is clearly POV push and would be like an article on some church doctrine only being able to refer to catholic (not all) writings on the subject. > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To see how a popular subject with scientific content is dealt with I would like to draw everyone's attention to Extraterrestrial life This has the following sections:

Background
Possible Basis
Beliefs
Scientific Search
The Drake equation
Candidate locations in the Solar System
See also, etc.

This clearly shows that the scientific section is very much a minority where a subject refers to the popular area. There are some here who are trying to argue that because the e.g. search for aliens is scientific, then an article on aliens must be written by the scientists searching for extra terrestrial life. This is palpable nonsense. A minority science view of a subject, and by that I mean the small minority's view of is important in the subject, is not supported by WP:UNDUE. Like Aliens, Global warming is a contentious view, scientists disagree just as many in the public still believe outrageous calims like 60m sea level rise a burning up earth and that it is all the sins of mankind. This is the public perception of the alarmists. I don't think an article on global warming should fail to mention all the strange beliefs that have at one time or other been pushed by alarmists and called science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just before I do some real work, can I suggest we include a section on popular portrayal of global warming. There are many wonderful pictures of a globe burning. Can we get one of these? We ought to mention the many predictions of mass deaths etc. these again are an important facet to understand this cult movement. Wikiepedia needs to record this popular culture. We need to record the way a bit of science was portrayed as this doomsday cult - that is what global warming really means - the popular doomsday cult - end of the world. There are some excellent sources we could start by referring to which list all the claims made about global warming. Perhaps we should start by categorising these?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[30] Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). 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. IPCC. ISBN 92-9169-122-4. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[31] Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), 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, IPCC, ISBN 92-9169-122-4 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."

[32] Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFIPCC_AR4_SYR2007 (help): "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[1]

[2]

[1]

Some aggressive archiving

Citation documentation

Lead, new and improved first paragraph

"Global warming" definition?

'For scientific disputes...'

Yet more work on the lead - this relates to several recent threads

Section on "attribution and expected effects"

Introduction

Trims to the section

Title

Footnote problem

Time for Harv?

citation template with quote parameter vs citation template without

More questions

Enescot reply

Citation of IPCC authors

Enescot reply

Example 1

Example 2

Rejoinder

Bias in the section on public opinion

Suggested revision

Sceptic views are now NPOV