Talk:Climate change

Skip to table of contents

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

Template:Vital article

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

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

faq page

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated?

A5: Two reasons:

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

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

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

Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO₂?

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

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

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

Q9: Did climate change end in 1998?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A16: No,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Current status: Featured article

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

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

Weather FA‑class Top‑importance

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

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

Environment: Climate change FA‑class Top‑importance

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

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

Globalization FA‑class High‑importance

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

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.
"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013.

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

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96

/Terminology section /General discussion

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

US senate vote: global warming not caused by humans

Well, who cares about scientists or wikipedia, right? In the end the US senate runs the world and they decide what is the truth.

global warming exists (98 votes to 1)
it is not (significantly) caused by humans (50 out of 60 required votes)

Random reference. Either this page needs a major rewrite for rebalancing... Or perhaps the US senate should spend more time on wikipedia and listening to scientists. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In breaking news, Senate to redefine π as 3 in accordance with Scripture. A triumph for Senator Jim Inhofe#Environmental issues, who's been saying since 28 July 2003 variously that "catastrophic global warming is a hoax", "manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and at times "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". As he's now again [[Chair of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which includes the Environment Agency, the future looks interesting. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dave souza, please remind me: I'm pretty sure some US state actually did pass a law that π henceforth be defined as 3 in their state. The law was widely reported internationally and, the way I remember it, was repealed later, perhaps the following year. I don't recollect any reference to Scripture, though. Anybody remember which state it was and when? Or have I been taken in by a canard? Bishonen | talk 19:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

See Indiana Pi Bill. This was back in 1897. Another blatant example of pointy-heads obstructing the will of the majority!!!! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, ye should ken the Guid Book better, and beware of canards, they're a randy lot. Appropriately enough, DuckDuckGo is your friend..[1]. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Either way the reason i posted this is to discuss if (and how) it should be added to the article. The reference i gave is notable enough and it's all over the news. But i don't think the environment much cares for a us senate vote. Nor do the scientists who know what they're talking about. On the other hand, imagine how silly this will look a hundred years from now if and when it is indisputed that global warming is (significantly) caused by humans. That makes it an interesting trivia. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the #Political discussion section of this article badly needs an update, with mention both of the hints of accord with China international developments, and the move of the U.S. Senate to a majority position of political denial of the science. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and i doubt denial of science is exaggerated. If it is an exaggeration, this page would be very biased and/or not based on extensive scientific resources. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someone will pick this up. I think it should preferably be done by someone from the USA. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is certainly an interesting new story. Does anyone where know a reporter? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pantomime continues, and receives occasional coverage; Justin Gillis; John Schwartz (February 21, 2015). "Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher". Retrieved 2015-02-21. "In a Senate debate last month, Mr. Inhofe pointed to a poster with photos of scientists questioning the climate-change consensus, including Dr. Soon. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” the senator said. A spokeswoman for the senator said Friday that he was traveling and could not be reached for comment." . . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a hoot, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data tampering

What, if any content should be included in this or sub-articles of this article, about tampering of temperature readings? Per WP:BALANCE should anything be included?

Michael Bastasch (20 February 2015). "Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA". Daily Caller. Retrieved 25 February 2015.
James Delingpole (7 February 2015). "'BREATHTAKING' ADJUSTMENTS TO ARCTIC TEMPERATURE RECORD. IS THERE ANY 'GLOBAL WARMING' WE CAN TRUST?". Breitbart.com. Retrieved 25 February 2015.
Christopher Brooker (21 June 2014). "The scandal of fiddled global warming data". Telegraph. Retrieved 25 February 2015.
G. Cornelis van Kooten (30 August 2012). Climate Change, Climate Science and Economics: Prospects for an Alternative Energy Future. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 365. ISBN 978-94-007-4988-7.
Christopher Booker (7 February 2015). "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever". Telegraph. Retrieved 25 February 2015.

I am prepared to see the long list of those are denialist and its WP:FRINGE. But the question should at least be asked.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Breitbart and Daily Caller are reliable sources for this type of material. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Christopher Booker is a denialist, may fall into WP:FRINGE, so not a good idea. We have an entire article on Climate change denial and Global warming conspiracy theory where this material may belong. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a pointer, a couple of blog comments by topic area experts:

"Noise on the Telegraph". RealClimate. 11 February 2015. Retrieved 26 February 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
"Climatologists have manipulated data to REDUCE global warming". Variable Variability. 10 February 2015. Retrieved 26 February 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Worth noting that that the sea surface temperature trend is adjusted downward. . . dave souza, talk 04:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This material is only good for Climate change denial, not here. Booker got that completely wrong. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timmer, John (9 February 2015). "Temperature data is not "the biggest scientific scandal ever"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 26 February 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) provides a RS, though less informative than the expert blogs. . . dave souza, talk 04:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: We don't use WP:BALANCE for fringe theories. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does the van Kooten link fit in with these others? I just skimmed the part of it that was available, and I didn't see how it fit in. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homogenization of temp records

However, the topic of adjustments to the temp record is legit:

"Temperature bias from the village heat island". Variable Variability. 29 January 2015. Retrieved 26 February 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
"Changes in screen design leading to temperature trend biases". Variable Variability. 8 February 2015. Retrieved 26 February 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Fascinating, but not rs's by GW article standards. Looking at Instrumental temperature record, improvement to that article is overdue. . . . dave souza, talk 05:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During all the buzz about Global warming hiatus I seem to recall some excellent forum posts at RealClimate on this subject. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RealClimate is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human caused 90 or 95% certainty?

The present lede says, "In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities." In the next paragraph AR5 (2014) is introduced, but the following is not mentioned: "The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."[2] 'Extremely likely' will be defined somewhere in AR5 as 'More than 95% certain', but I can't at the moment find where, or I would have made the edit myself. Why are we headlining with out of date uncertainty estimates, a year after they were updated? This needs fixing, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the first footnote in the Summary for Policy Makers on page 1 " Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.". Mikenorton (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's for AR4. I'm sure the definitions are the same for AR5, but we have to get these things right, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote comes from page 1 of AR5 that you linked to above. Mikenorton (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry for being thick! I thought you meant the first footnote of the relevant section in our article! I see it now. Sorry. Right. I'll have a go at the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I made the edits. I hope people will agree with what I have done. I'm sorry that I'm by no means up-to-speed on Harvnb citations, so I'm afraid I have removed two of these and replaced them with references how I do understand them. I can only apologise, but these things should not prevent editors with only 11 years experience here, such as myself, from updating articles. I hope that someone who understands these things can reinstate them as necessary. --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except of course the IPCC admits they have poor understanding of the complex dynamics of solar forcing, one of the holy trio of current natural climate cycle models. So I am willing to bet that the IPCC is hedging our bets a bit due to time frame. After all if its all human caused then maybe we can control the outcome. If not then not much was wasted compared to effects of climate change on human world. So that 90-95% sure might be overstating

The 11 year cycle is probably not the whole story given that large changes in solar magnetic fields occur on other longer schedules. The IPCC chose to assume solar influence was constant based on satellite data starting in 1978. But that side steps two issues: lag in the climate system from a change occurring a few decades earlier than 1978 satellites and treating all satellite solar data as equal. Different (especially early) solar observation satellites were not all equally well suited for full power spectrum analysis. In fact much solar observation satellite data measures power only on a few specific wavelengths and ASSUMES that distribution of solar output across the spectrum is constant. Obviously nothing dramatic in spectrum that reaches the ground but something causes some mismatches between solar winds and solar magnetic fields variations and the 11 year cycles.

I have also seen some stuff mentioning atmospheric heating of the upper atmosphere by the solar wind which increases as the earth magnetic field weakens (also a dramatic change in last 30 years). So it would be nice if some with better research skills tracked down whether there are still some missing or unexplored pieces for accurate climate modeling. Hand fitting past climate events to the models, only shows you have some of the major factors and can predict opportunity for events. When you have a tight fit between data and model without missing, extra or time skewed events - then you can really say you know where natural climate change ends and man-made starts. 70.114.133.167 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck

Gee, where does this go?

"Climate change cause mummies to turn to 'black ooze'"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer Horror? In further movie news, "Although they believed they had found the perfect isolated Icelandic location to double for Fortitude, for the first time since records began there was no snow on the ground during the six weeks of scheduled winter filming. The production company had to bring in fake snow to cover the landscape." . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "going" gets worse. Did you all see where for the "ceremonial start" of the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race in Anchorage they had to truck in snow? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keeping with this theme, "Mount Everest’s Poop Situation Is About To Go From Bad To worse" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margins of error

What I don't see mentioned anywhere is the margins of error and reliability of data. While the data collected in more recent decades may be regarded as relatively accurate, older data could hardly be regarded as accurate. Any data from prior to modern instrumentation and a global proliferation of placement of instruments must be ignored as being grossly incomplete and inaccurate. So the only data that we can rely on would be from the 1970's onward. The first chart in the article shows a warming of about 0.8 degrees f. Considering that the margin of error for the best digital thermometer is +/- 2.0 degrees and digital thermometers have been used for data collecting for most of the last 45 years, then the climate fluctuation falls completely within the margin of error with plenty of room to spare. It should also be pointed out that most of the graphs used in the article use data whose collection methods changed radically over the course of the indicated time lines and therefore need to be interpreted in that light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:RS, no consideration of WP:OR in this WP:FORUM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of explanations and charts etc. in this article. But the reality is that everything hinges on the accuracy of the data in the first chart. All the other charts and information simply explain the phenomenon in the first chart. If the first chart is not accurate then nothing in the rest of the article means anything. And there is the problem. That first chart is full of holes. In any chart, for it to be accurate, all the data should be collected in the same manner with the same instrumentation. The chart claims to be a combined surface and atmospheric temperature chart. The chart begins in 1880 and extends past 2015. I can't be the only one who looked up and found that surface temperature has only been recorded since the 1950s. This means that comparing the period prior to the 1950's to the period after the 1950's consists of comparing apples with apples and oranges. There should at the very least be two separate charts, one showing atmospheric temperature from 1880 to present and a second chart showing surface temperature from 1950 to present. presenting this mixed data in the same chart renders the chart meaningless. Another problem that I have with this chart is that in the pre digital age the temperatures were taken almost exclusively with mercury thermometers which have a margin of error of +/- .4 degrees f. The readings since the 1970's were taken with a mixture of mercury and digital thermometers depending on location and today we use a combination of digital thermometers for atmosphere which have a margin of error of +/- 2 degrees f., and infrared and other more sophisticated techniques for recording surface temperatures. I am not informed enough to discus the margin of error for infrared measurements but if we are using equipment with a margin of error of +/- 2 degrees and the total global average increase in 135 years is claimed at about 1.2 degrees f. then how is this chart not negated by the margin of error alone? Reporting such a tiny change using the equipment we have been using is sort of like claiming an Earthquake with a magnitude of 1 every time a truck drives past the seismic equipment. If I am wrong about the way the data was collected, please someone correct me. I'm not a scientist, just an expert in old school instrumentation and how accurate and inaccurate many types of instruments are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you published your analysis in a reliable source? As this is a science article, a peer reviewed publication would be best. If you want something included in the article, I'm sure papers have been published on this issue, if you find one that you think should be summarised in the article please provide a link to it. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is all deeply stupid; but nothing else very entertaining is going on, so:

the only data that we can rely on would be from the 1970's onward - drivel

the margin of error for the best digital thermometer is +/- 2.0 degrees - drivel

And anyway, you're in the wrong article. You want Instrumental temperature record William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One very useful way of assessing the reliability of the data is to look at multiple subsets of independently acquired data: Northern-hemisphere/Southern-hemisphere, Land/Ocean, etc. These show a consistent picture of global warming. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so critical thinking or any criticism of the shortcomings and failings of this article is blasphemy. Got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong; if such ruminations have merit they're called "potential papers to submit to the journals". Here, we work with summaries of WP:Reliable sources, which we have asked in vain for you to provide. That makes your ruminations the equivalent of standing on a soapbox, which is not what we do here. See also, WP:FORUM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "blasphemy", no. But your question has a very simple answer. Indeed, this issue of data consistency is standard discussion in reports on data recording global warming. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps unnecessary at this point, since the recommended addition is not published, but I will note that the accuracy of a mean of measurements can be better than the accuracy of any one measurement, a phenomenon quantified in the Central Limit Theorem. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Shouldn't the Etymology section include a mention of Frank Luntz' urging Republicans to change the term from "global warming" to "climate change" as a way of "winning the global warming debate" against "unnecessary environmental regulations"? http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001330.php I've seen many references to this in WP:RSs.

I found some discussion about this in the archives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70#Proposed_deletion_of_.22Etymology.22_section_.28or_complete_rewrite.29 but I couldn't read everything.

Was this ever decided by consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The terms have become synonymous in common speech so who cares about this minor political whining drama side bar from many years ago? If we say anything it would be better in Politics of global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issue rather than dismissing it as a "political whining drama." Conway is only one viewpoint. If there are multiple WP:RSs who think that the change was pushed by the Republicans for political reasons, then under Wikipedia guidelines including WP:WEIGHT it should go in the section. --Nbauman (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll elaborate. We all agree (I think) that based on the RS's, Luntz' memo deserves mention somewhere. As it turns out, it has been a part of our article "Climate change denial" since Aug 2007. The issue at hand is Does this 1994 GOP memo deserve redundant mention here? I say opposed because this is a top-level main article that is already in need of updating, is long, and has to cover a vast landscape of subtopics. Real estate here is at a premium. In light of that, a 20-year old GOP memo just doesn't rate very high, compared to climate sensitivity, data modeling, feedbacks, cost-benefit analysis and the list goes on. Worse, dwelling on anything sounding like "They changed the name" feeds fuel to one of the most common skeptic myths listed at Skeptical Science (revised rebuttal here)and we should not help perpetuate that myth. Side bar, I've long favored tweaking our own nomenclature, and my current preference is to switch this article to "Climate change (the current global warming)" os something like that, but that proposal has never grown legs and is off topic for this thread about Luntz anyway. Does that help? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil fuel divestment

FYI, see new article Fossil fuel divestment NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many statements show selection for content, not broad scholarship, a misuse of the quoting process

Just because a quote can be found does not mean it is accurate or generally true. It is often almost certainly opposed, and too often, in my view, it is included in this article without a contrast. Some argument can be made that every comment can't be "equal time(d)" to coin a phrase, but many should then just be removed.

For example "Overall, it is expected that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems.[153]" The framing is blatantly circular rhetoric, since "climate change" could mean an ice age or the earth's catching on fire, but the evidence for such changes are not even really contemplated by the main authors. "It is expected" carries the gravitas of widely known and believed truth: "it is expected the sun will rise tomorrow". On the other hand, it is in fact unknown and not "expected" that whatever is going on at this time (even if a *whole century* can be inferred) will "result in the extinction of many species..."

There is simply not enough information to make such a claim, even with a quote, and it should not be included as if it were Writ. There are many other such unwarranted and unbalanced quotes and someone needs to comb through and either provide contrasting views, or delete the more egregious ones.

100.35.21.51 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)William A. Hoffman[reply]

Climate change is a well defined term and does not mean either "ice age" or "earth's catching fire." Which authors are you suggesting do not consider evidence for climate change? Wiki authors or quoted authors? "It is expected," in a scientific context, means expected by whatever hypothesis, evidence, or theory is being presented. It's standard language and fine. There is pretty clear evidence towards impact on species, and given that we are already experiencing quite the global extinction event (even if no species went extinct from here on), it's not exactly impossible to predict. Evidence has been presented in countless peer reviewed scientific papers. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP 100.35.21.51, you might find more positive response, here, if you make specific suggested changes. In that spirit, perhaps, the following sentence addresses your concerns: "Overall, global warming will likely result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems.[153]" The source uses the phrase "with a high degree of confidence" instead of "will likely" and "climate change" instead of "global warming", even though this is what is more specifically meant. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep this from becoming just a dialog and hope there will be better response to my points, instead of mere defensiveness**. Yet "climate change" is a portmanteau word that can be justified by about anything that might occur, from "ice age" to "catching fire". The rhetoric arises since no matter what does occur, it complies with "climate change", hardly more scientific than astrology, which in turn qualifies the information as proving what was ambiguously claimed, an interesting feedback in its own right. As to the entire issue of widespread extinction events, you do not even answer the point, when saying it was referenced, which I had already noted and about which I also said such a reference is not sufficient. Species were reported extinct well before anthropogenic global warming was active and are doing so now, but there are also new species being discovered and we don't hear that that's *due* to CO2 levels or incipient climate change. There is not enough information to make such a claim. I would also challenge you on your seeming zealotry**, but as I said, this should not become a dialog. It IS impossible to predict except as a bias makes it so. Nothing I have seen about an extinction has pinpointed either CO2 or the climate that has not changed more than weather and the "countless articles" just sounds like an appeal to authority. If counterexamples of papers are not found, and who publishes negative results?, at least some sense of balance is maintained in an encyclopedic environment if the sense of certainty of "It is expected" is replaced, with eg "It is thought by some (or even by many)...". Moreover, there are many such throwaway presumptions in the article. The editor should get out his blue pencil and take out all the other tendentious phrases, even those that have a reference. If this gets a bit more response, I might be convinced to take the time and make specific suggestions. Meantime, I'm trying to gather information about how the temperatures are acquired for global averaging (not how they might be acquired, but how they are acquired), and I find the subject area of "Global Warming" crowded with ambiguity, innuendo and supposition. One expert I recently talked to said the average temperature of two cities was the sum(city1, city2)/2. I hope not, but thought such information would be in a major headline in wikipedia's article "Global warming". Even the nature and determination of anomalies is missing, while the items I've described crowd the text.

- "Which authors are you suggesting do not consider evidence for climate change? Wiki authors or quoted authors?" is a bit breathless and I suggested nothing of that form, and "quite the global extinction event" sounds melodramatic. This is not a blog or merely a competitive message board. I look forward to reading other responses.

100.35.21.51 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)William A. Hoffman[reply]

You directly stated that you felt authors did not "contemplate the evidence" for climate change. Which authors, of this wiki or those quoted by it? What specific references do you feel are not sufficient, as you specifically claim? IPCC and scientific literature are not ambigious as to the definition of climate change. Feel free to browse this very article for more information on that definition. As for melodrama, see Holocene extinction. It isn't melodramatic except in so far the rate of extinction is high. That's a fact. I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your post as it is difficult to extrapolate concrete specific points. Do you have specific suggestions for edits? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You directly stated that you felt authors did not "contemplate the evidence" for climate change." No. I ironically contradicted my point about "ice age" and "catching fire" to say they were not contemplated. Who are you to ask for specific edits?100.35.21.51 (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)William A. Hoffman[reply]

Errm, well, if you don't want to change the article by making specific edits, what's the point of talking? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, please see WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have concluded that it is better to get some sense that edits will not simply be reversed. I have already suggested a minimal edit to the specific noted phrase and will be happy to make it, but not to get into a back-and-forth. It makes me think that we are all equal, except some of us are more equal than others100.35.21.51 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)William A. Hoffman[reply]

See WP:WALLOFTEXT. Lost in your verbose generalized complaint is the specific proposal to which you refer. Additionally, if you wish to be taken seriously you need to show some receptivity to feedback. I've already posted to your talk page a request to indent and thread your posts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Lost in your verbose generalized complaint" is not how to get cordial responses, and if that's what passes for discussion here, you can keep it. The comment was an introduction, with a clear concise detail and suggested replacement. I would have simply done the edit, but have found in the past that edits may be simply dismissively replaced with a comment about vandalism. Read the comment again, and see if in fact, the issue I raised is not one of neutral point of view. As to your comment about indenting, I have not seen it, and at the moment don't know how to do it. Threading? No idea. But I think I see how to indent. 100.35.21.51 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)100.35.21.51 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)William A. Hoffman[reply]

Read Help:Introduction to talk pages/User talk pages NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does equality have to do with any of this? Sure, anybody can edit. But that doesn't give you any right to skate across all lanes of traffic however you please. Whether edits are retained depends on whether they meet the established WP criteria, such as WP:notability, WP:reliable sources, neutral point of view, etc. Expect a lot of honking if you ignore those. Likewise for poor argumentation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"What does equality have to do with any of this?" I have only an interest that the presentation of ideas has balance. We are not discussing Creationism, that fails to provide falsifiability and therefore fails to be a contrasting science at all. Issues I am challenging fail falsifiability themselves, eg the claim that such minor "climate" changes as have been recorded globally have led to global extinctions (and with no mention of newly discovered species, whether or not one believes "climate change" could have caused them). That's just one item. Consider it a test case.100.35.21.51 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)100.35.21.51 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)William A. Hoffman[reply]

Ok. I'll try to understand your 'test case'. This article is not about minor climate changes but is about the specific climate changes caused by greenhouse gases that has been going on for about a hundred years at an ever accelerating pace. This has been observed and measured and is not in doubt (though ill-informed people sometimes "doubt" it). Therefore past climate changes, whether they led to global extinctions or not, have nothing to do with this article. I can see a tenuous connection if you want to take warning from what changing climate can do, with your second comment about newly discovered species, I cannot even guess what that could possibly have to do with this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably thank the IP for calling attention to an outdated almost-verbatim line from AR4 WG2 (2007) about expected extinction. This needs updating. The SPM from AR5 WG2 (2014) says some extinctions have already been attributed to climate change. A text search of the SPM on the string "extinct" produces a number of hits, including this paragraph

"Increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts. Some risks of climate change are considerable at 1 or 2°C above preindustrial levels (as shown in Assessment Box SPM.1). Global climate change risks are high to very high with global mean temperature increase of 4°C or more above preindustrial levels in all reasons for concern (Assessment Box SPM.1), and include severe and widespread impacts on unique and threatened systems, substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, and the combination of high temperature and humidity compromising normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors in some areas for parts of the year (high confidence). The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger tipping points (thresholds for abrupt and irreversible change) remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points in the earth system or in interlinked human and natural systems increases with rising temperature (medium confidence)."

So I agree with the IP that the text needs revising in light of AR5, though I don't think that's the change the IP had in mind.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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]