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 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.
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (August 15, 2015). "On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage". Science Daily.

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.

Identify, Classify, and Consolidate Climate Change Categories

One of the biggest problems we have is that we need to identify, in their exact definitions, the various incarnations of climate and weather. For instance, the societal/political implications of decisions people make that affect the planet should be categorized as Anthropogenic Climate Change. The previously popularized implications of ACC, such as Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, etc., can be redirected to this top-level category. In addition, links to specific natural, i.e. non-anthropogenic, climate change can be included so if someone selected one of the alternate meanings of ACC, then they can be directed to such. This would also include historical periods such as ice ages, post-meteor impact causes, and other events. Michaelopolis (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV says that all our encyclopedic content must be represent the significant views and ideas that have been published by [[reliable sources on the topic. Unfortunately, I don't think that the classification process you're proposing has been prominently published in the scientific literature. --Nigelj (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly climatology is not a proper science. Second, given the corruption apparent even today, and the clear buddy review that is endemic in this non-science, it is clear, the academic literature cannot be considered "reliable" in its entirety and it is CERTAINLY NOT the only reliable source. Wikipedia does not have such a rule, it is not warranted by the behaviour of the academics in this subject, so please don't insult people by fabricating a rule that doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the SNOW in the SUMMER of 2015?

Obviously Global Warming caused the last Ice Age... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.14.161 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sno sno 'ere, wot source ya got? . . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple google search for August snow or July snowfall. Canadian news even reported cases of snowfall this summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.14.161 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the point here? Nothing in the article seems to be contradicted by this news, as far as I can tell. Gap9551 (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every so often people drop by this article to rant about something or another. You get used to it after a while. Best to just let them blow off steam and not get into a pointless to-and-fro. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz and Sierra Club denial of Satellite data

This video shows the typical demands to repress discussion, denial of the science, repeated citation of single bogus studies and the general lack of information of those pushing the global warming scare. May I suggest a new section dealing with the misinformation from those pushing the scare? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to suggest. But a politicians pitch is rarely a reliable source for a scientific topic (or indeed anything except his then-current official position). We have good academic sources both on climate change and on the larger political discussion. So I would reject your suggestion. On the factual issue, Cruz is either uninformed about the satellite data or cherry picking from a very limited pool of preliminary results. Or both. Or outright lying, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need to add actual evidence of severe weather increase to this point due to "global warming?"

IPCC AR5 p.2-5:

“…Extreme Events It is very likely that the numbers of cold days and nights have decreased and the numbers of warm days and nights have increased globally since about 1950. There is ONLY MEDIUM confidence that the length and frequency of warm spells, including heatwaves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century mostly due to lack of data or studies in Africa and South America. However, it is likely that heatwave frequency has increased during this period in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. [2.6.1] It is likely that since about 1950 the number of heavy precipitation events over land has increased in more regions than it has decreased. Regional trends vary but confidence is highest for central North America with very likely trends towards heavier precipitation events. [2.6.2.1] Confidence is LOW for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s WERE PROBABLY OVERSTATED. However, this masks important regional changes: the frequency and intensity of drought has likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950. [2.6.2.2] Confidence remains LOW for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. However, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic has increased since the 1970s. [2.6.3] Confidence in large scale trends in storminess or storminess proxies over the last century is LOW due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the Southern Hemisphere).[2.6.4] Because of insufficient studies and data quality issues confidence is also LOW for trends in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms.[2.6.2.2]…” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug3610 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Stephan said about "SNOW". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

This information should be added to the article:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

Oct. 30, 2015

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

747 Down Over ABQ (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See FAQ 21 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there does seem to have been some excitement about this study: * "NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did". Media Matters for America. 4 November 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
There have been a few years since 2008, and it's not the only recent study. * France-Presse, Agence (2 November 2015). "Melting ice in west Antarctica could raise seas by three metres, warns study". the Guardian. Retrieved 8 November 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) * "PRESS RELEASE: West Antarctica snow accumulation - News". British Antarctic Survey. 10 October 2014. Retrieved 8 November 2015. – "“In this region, the same storms that have driven increased snowfall inland have brought warmer ocean currents into contact with West Antarctic’s ice shelves, resulting in rapid thinning. Thus the increased snowfall we report here has not led to thickening of the ice sheet, but is in fact another symptom of the changes that are driving contemporary ice sheet loss."
But then, increased snow was expected: "the expected increase in precipitation due to the higher moisture holding capacity of warmer air" * Frieler, Katja; Clark, Peter U.; He, Feng; Buizert, Christo; Reese, Ronja; Ligtenberg, Stefan R. M.; Broeke, Michiel R. van den; Winkelmann, Ricarda; Levermann, Anders (2015). "Consistent evidence of increasing Antarctic accumulation with warming". Nature Climate Change. 5 (4). Nature Publishing Group: 348–352. doi:10.1038/nclimate2574. Retrieved 8 November 2015. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always somewhat between amused and bemused when the denialosphere enthusiastically accepts a paper that can be twisted to support their fantasy with unbridled support, while apparently all other papers coming from the same organisations through the same review processes and published in the same journals are obviously unreliable and politically motivated hack jobs... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ 21 is the right answer. Its just another paper, it contradicts lots of others, its probably wrong, but even if it were right it wouldn't be terribly exciting. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/11/02/mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/ is my take, if you're interested. Note me pointing you to Gavin William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was quote the exact words from the nasa.gov website. I don't understand why people are acting as if I did something wrong. 747 Down Over ABQ (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did nothing wrong. You did not just quote the exact words, because nasa.gov didn't write "This information should be added to the article" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is wholly biased and adding just one bit of information supporting the sceptic view would just tone down the blatant political propaganda which has done so much to grow the sceptic movement. So please do not add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check the NASA press release: the information supports mainstream views. I'm sceptical of any claims about it "supporting the sceptic view". . . dave souza, talk 08:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s...

I've just cut:

In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.^[1]^[2]

Because I don't like it (FWIW, if you want to read my personal opinions on this, they are here and linked articles; but don't take that to be what I'm arguing on wiki).

As we all know, the IPCC '90 didn't assert a clear human influence on climate; so writing "oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s" is quite deceptive; it implies that the oil companies had inside knowledge that they weren't sharing; that is entirely false William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Egan, Timothy (November 5, 2015). "Exxon Mobil and the G.O.P.: Fossil Fools". New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved November 9, 2015.

William M. Connolley Sorry you don't like it. Please specify policy or guideline. Sources do not include IPCC so not sure why IPCC was brought up. Hugh (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‎Drbogdan Thank you for bringing these important new sources to this article and others. Obviously this is a perfectly reasonable paraphrase of multiple highly reliable sources. Here are some additional highly significant well-formatted references to consider in support of adding these important recent developments to our project. Sources are strong enough that we may summarize across multiple reliable sources and in-text attribution is not necessary.

As early as 1981, ExxonMobil was planning for climate change, while actively misleading the public, according to a July, 2015 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

^ "The Climate Deception Dossiers". Union of Concerned Scientists. July 8, 2015. Retrieved November 8, 2015. For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change. Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven "deception dossiers"—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests. Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry.
^ "Former Exxon Employee Says Company Considered Climate Risks as Early as 1981". Union of Concerned Scientists. July 8, 2015. Retrieved November 8, 2015. Exxon employees considered how climate change should factor into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction as early as 1981, according to a former employee's email the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reviewed while researching a new report on fossil energy company lobbying campaigns. Yet as the new report, The Climate Deception Dossiers, chronicles, Exxon and other major fossil fuel companies did not take action to disclose or reduce climate risks in the ensuing years, but instead actively misled the public and policymakers about them. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^ Negin, Elliott (July 16, 2015). "ExxonMobil Is Still Spending Millions of Dollars on Climate Science Deniers". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 8, 2015. ...the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) revealed that Exxon was aware of the threat posed by climate change as early as 1981 and has intentionally been deceiving the public for decades...
^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved November 8, 2015. ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm's own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
^ Hall, Shannon (October 26, 2015). "Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago". Scientific American. Retrieved November 8, 2015. Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world's largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation...

In support of the 1970s date:

In July 1977, at a meeting of Exxon's Management Committee in Exxon corporate headquarters, a senior company scientist warned company executives of the danger of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases from the burning of fossil fuels.^[1]^[2]^[3]

^ Banerjee, Neela; Song, Lisa; Hasemyer, David (September 21, 2015). "Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago; Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions". InsideClimate News. Retrieved October 14, 2015. Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world's largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions.
^ Breslow, Jason M. (September 16, 2015). "Investigation Finds Exxon Ignored Its Own Early Climate Change Warnings". Frontline. PBS. Retrieved October 14, 2015. Despite its efforts for nearly two decades to raise doubts about the science of climate change, newly discovered company documents show that as early as 1977, Exxon research scientists warned company executives that carbon dioxide was increasing in the atmosphere and that the burning of fossil fuels was to blame.
^ Lorenzetti, Laura (September 16, 2015). "Exxon has known about climate change since the 1970s". Fortune. Retrieved October 14, 2015. Exxon research scientists warned about the effects of fossil fuels as early as 1977. Exxon has known about climate change for almost 40 years, despite its efforts to continue to promote fossil fuels and deny its existence throughout the 1990s as a leader of the Global Climate Coalition...

Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is a perfectly reasonable paraphrase - no, it isn't. If it was, I wouldn't have removed it. You may like it, but asserting that it is "obviously" reasonable is just silly. Why is the IPCC relevant? because as IPCC_First_Assessment_Report points out, "Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years...; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more". So in *1990* it was scientifically respectable to assert that position. therefore, asserting that Exxon et al. knew better in the 1970's is drivel William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it relevant to this article? Sources look a bit premature, but climate change denial would be a better home, or one of the other global warming controversy articles. This article's about the science, not the denial. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings up that DrB has added this to those other articles: [2]; [3] (that latter now reverted). Adding the same material to three articles is bad. I'd prefer that we discuss it in one place, though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've only looked at that new Exxon documents in passing - they were not really surprising for me. So I have not yet formed a strong opinion about if and where to include this aspect. But William, I don't quite understand your reasoning. The fact that the IPCC could not in 1990 unambiguously detect an anthropogenic signal in the temperature record does not mean that they (and/or Exxon) did not know that adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere could and would eventually cause significant global warming. The basic mechanism was well understood for quite a while earlier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a fair point. The answer is, it depends on what people are asserting Exxon said. At the moment, we're not even at that stage; we've just got the totally wrong could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years - this appears to read as though Exxon was funding deniers in the 1970s, but AFAIK no sources claim that. Would someone like to propose a non-broken text for inclusion? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - Thank you *very much* for the discussion - yes - the text/refs were added to the "Global warming" article and several other articles since, at the time and afaik atm, the edit seemed worthy - and relevant - to the articles - however - I'm flexible with this - and am agreeable to placement and relevance of the material per "WP:CONSENSUS" (after all, according to "WP:OWN", All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively) - in any case - Thanks again for the discussion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the "Global warming" article:

In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.^[1]^[2]

References

^ Egan, Timothy (November 5, 2015). "Exxon Mobil and the G.O.P.: Fossil Fools". New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved November 9, 2015.

The Original and Best

This seems to have been set off by this series at InsideClimate News – The Road Not Taken: After eight months of investigation, InsideClimate News presents this multi-part history of Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time.
It describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.
Includes Exxon's Gamble: because their own shareholders are raising these concerns, might the oil companies face retribution for fiduciary negligence should the investors’ warnings come true?
So, as much a business issue as anything. No, I've only skimmed some of them but this seems to be where it's coming from. The end result of investigative journalism, ~~not a fishing expedition.~~ . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone (on wiki) is suggesting a fishing expedition William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I've struck that – sure I've read it somewhere. . . dave souza, talk 15:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What might be relevant to climate change denial or Exxon is the objective fact that the NY AG has started an investigation to see whether there was wrong doing, without assuming the conclusion in whatever we say. In other words, don't be a POV pusher like all those climategate-jobs, who assume the fraud conclusion even even though no official process has made such a conclusion and for that matter, the many panels that have convened have all concluded no fraud was evident. No fair editor wants wiki to talk like that on either side of the issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This summer saw increased recognition of what oil companies knew and when they knew it. In addition to InsideClimate News, important significant original reporting came from the Union of Concerned Scientists (refs above) and the Los Angeles Times: Hugh (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 1992, the senior ice researcher, leading a Calgary-based research team in Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary Imperial Oil, assessed how global warming could affect Exxon’s Arctic operations, and reported that exploration and development costs in the Beaufort Sea might be lower, while higher sea levels and rougher seas could threaten the company’s coastal and offshore infrastructure.^[1]

^ Jerving, Sara; Jennings, Katie; Hirsch, Masako Melissa; Rust, Susanne (October 9, 2015). "What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 21, 2015.

The PBS News Hour piece on this last night (Thursday) was interesting. The NY AG's position is that Exxon-Mobil may have committed a fraud on the public, and possibly on the shareholders, by misstating what they knew, or had reason to suspect. Even more interesting were the comments by the Exxon V.P. It appears that Exxon is moving to a position that they were working with "government" scientists and others, and thus contributed to the current understanding of global warming. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IF Interested => NASA-TV/ustream and/or NASA-Audio (Thursday, November 12, 2015@12noon/et/usa)^[1] - NASA will detail the Role of Carbon on the Future Climate of the Earth - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BRIEF Followup - REPLAY LINK (Audio; 66:01)^[2]^[3] => http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/77531778 - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SUMMARY (and possible addition to article) (see below) - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NASA scientists report that human-made carbon dioxide (CO₂) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere if *half* of global-warming emissions^[4]^[5] are *not* absorbed.
(NASA simulation; November 9, 2015)

References

^ Buis, Alan; Cole, Steve (November 9, 2015). "NASA Holds Media Briefing on Carbon's Role in Earth's Future Climate". NASA. Retrieved November 10, 2015.
^ ^a ^b Staff (November 12, 2015). "Audio (66:01) - NASA News Conference - Carbon & Climate Telecon". NASA. Retrieved November 12, 2015.
^ ^a ^b Buis, Alan; Ramsayer, Kate; Rasmussen, Carol (November 12, 2015). "A Breathing Planet, Off Balance". NASA. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
^ ^a ^b St. Fleur, Nicholas (November 10, 2015). "Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit Record, Report Says". New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2015.
^ ^a ^b Ritter, Karl (November 9, 2015). "UK: In 1st, global temps average could be 1 degree C higher". AP News. Retrieved November 11, 2015.

In light of Ted Cruz hearings and the evidence of warming adjustments, to Change the global temperature graph to RSS

In the Congressional meeting yesterday evidence was presented showing massive warming adjustments to surface data so that the whole 1940 to present warming could be explained by these warming adjustments alone. In sharp contrast, the global satellite temperature was stated by the majority of scientists to be the most credible scientifically. Moreover it is corroborated by the Meteorological balloon data. And independent evidence from growing Antarctic ice, that this year global sea ice is back to normal and even Greenland surface ice is growing strongly suggests that there is no current warming and that the surface data is corrupted either by these warming adjustments or by urban heating. Moreover the satellites are far more global than the surface data - and the increasing ice shows the areas they miss at the poles are not melting.

I would therefore propose that the present graph utilising the less scientifically valid surface data which is in no sense global nor accurate given the massive and judgemental adjustments should be removed and replaced with either UAH or RSS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isonomia (talk • contribs)

Are you serious? Ted Cruz is not a reliable source on Global warming. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that there are several independent surface temperature series, using different reconstruction methods, but all agreeing very closely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really being serious? On what scientific basis are you making such an absurd response to a perfectly reasonable proposal based on the science. The surface data does not corroborate with the Meteorological balloon data, the overwhelming majority of witnesses agreed that the satellite data is the most credible source to determine global temperature. Please base your response on the science and not some preconceived or even politically inspired response. Isonomia (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you in succeeding inserting that material in this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need luck because after all everyone here is acting on good faith and wants the best dataset to be used.Isonomia (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm sure you're joking. Or have I overlooked you presenting any kind of scientific reference? Cruz is a partisan politician, collecting whatever experts he likes. Satellite temperature measurements are one good tool, but a relatively recent one. Several satellite data sets have also been "adjusted" (corrected) many times, for orbital drift, clock drift, and several other problems, and are now in general, if not perfect, agreement with both each other and with the surface record, as long as they overlap. They are less suitable as the main image because they only cover a short period of time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan, the evidence was provided to congress by the scientists. The majority agreed that the Satellites were the best and unless I am very much mistaken the satellite is the only dataset that is corroborated by an independent dataset in the Meteorological balloons. Please keep this on the science and stop digressing into irrelevant political rhetoric. Isonomia (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see any scientific claim, let alone scientific reference (indeed, there is basically no reference presented by you so far, unless you consider some unspecified comments by unspecified scientists at "a congressional meeting" a proper reference). Let me inject some data, just for fun. Here is a comparison of Radiosonde ("balloon") data, satellite record, and surface record. For the satellite era (since roughly 1980), all 4 data sets run essentially in lock step. The satellite data set is not "independently corroborated" by the balloon data, rather, the balloon data is used to calibrate the interpretation of the satellite data. You are aware that the satellites see the microwave upwelling from the whole atmospheric column, and use models to separate the combined microwave signal into contributions from different layers of the atmosphere, right? The radiosonde data (measured at various defined altitudes) is used to build these models. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was the hearing in which Ted Cruz invited Mark Steyn, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer as witnesses, correct? — TPX 20:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really came back from the dead to say this? It hardly seems worth the effort William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I remind you that the basis for deciding what goes in here is the science and no the science is telling us that the satellites are the best indicator of global warming and as no one has given any good scientific reason not to use the satellites and the scientists are saying these are the most credible dataset, it it seems we will be compelled to use the satellites data. Isonomia (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh! Of course, if that's not a Poe, a better look into the science would help: or perhaps you should check out what the Admiral said at the "hearing" (but certainly Ted wasn't listening). First links: Why Is Shock Jock Mark Steyn Testifying At A Senate Hearing On Climate Science? | Blog | Media Matters for America and Rabett Run: Senate Hearing Live Blog. No doubt mainstream media will cover this shortly. . dave souza, talk 20:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read that right - since when has an admiral been a scientist? Isonomia (talk) 21:03, 9 December 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.

[NYT-20151105-30] Egan, Timothy (November 5, 2015). "Exxon Mobil and the G.O.P.: Fossil Fools". New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2015.

[TG-20150708-31] Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved November 9, 2015.

[32] "The Climate Deception Dossiers". Union of Concerned Scientists. July 8, 2015. Retrieved November 8, 2015. For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change. Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven "deception dossiers"—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests. Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry.

[33] "Former Exxon Employee Says Company Considered Climate Risks as Early as 1981". Union of Concerned Scientists. July 8, 2015. Retrieved November 8, 2015. Exxon employees considered how climate change should factor into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction as early as 1981, according to a former employee's email the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reviewed while researching a new report on fossil energy company lobbying campaigns. Yet as the new report, The Climate Deception Dossiers, chronicles, Exxon and other major fossil fuel companies did not take action to disclose or reduce climate risks in the ensuing years, but instead actively misled the public and policymakers about them. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[34] Negin, Elliott (July 16, 2015). "ExxonMobil Is Still Spending Millions of Dollars on Climate Science Deniers". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 8, 2015. ...the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) revealed that Exxon was aware of the threat posed by climate change as early as 1981 and has intentionally been deceiving the public for decades...

[35] Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved November 8, 2015. ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm's own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

[36] Hall, Shannon (October 26, 2015). "Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago". Scientific American. Retrieved November 8, 2015. Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world's largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation...

[icn20150921-37] Banerjee, Neela; Song, Lisa; Hasemyer, David (September 21, 2015). "Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago; Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions". InsideClimate News. Retrieved October 14, 2015. Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world's largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions.

[38] Breslow, Jason M. (September 16, 2015). "Investigation Finds Exxon Ignored Its Own Early Climate Change Warnings". Frontline. PBS. Retrieved October 14, 2015. Despite its efforts for nearly two decades to raise doubts about the science of climate change, newly discovered company documents show that as early as 1977, Exxon research scientists warned company executives that carbon dioxide was increasing in the atmosphere and that the burning of fossil fuels was to blame.

[fortune20150916-39] Lorenzetti, Laura (September 16, 2015). "Exxon has known about climate change since the 1970s". Fortune. Retrieved October 14, 2015. Exxon research scientists warned about the effects of fossil fuels as early as 1977. Exxon has known about climate change for almost 40 years, despite its efforts to continue to promote fossil fuels and deny its existence throughout the 1990s as a leader of the Global Climate Coalition...

[NYT-20151105-40] Egan, Timothy (November 5, 2015). "Exxon Mobil and the G.O.P.: Fossil Fools". New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2015.

[TG-20150708-41] Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved November 9, 2015.

[latimes20151009-42] Jerving, Sara; Jennings, Katie; Hirsch, Masako Melissa; Rust, Susanne (October 9, 2015). "What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 21, 2015.

[NASA-20151109-43] Buis, Alan; Cole, Steve (November 9, 2015). "NASA Holds Media Briefing on Carbon's Role in Earth's Future Climate". NASA. Retrieved November 10, 2015.

[NASA-20151112b-44] Staff (November 12, 2015). "Audio (66:01) - NASA News Conference - Carbon & Climate Telecon". NASA. Retrieved November 12, 2015.

[NASA-20151112-ab-45] Buis, Alan; Ramsayer, Kate; Rasmussen, Carol (November 12, 2015). "A Breathing Planet, Off Balance". NASA. Retrieved November 13, 2015.

[NYT-20151110-46] St. Fleur, Nicholas (November 10, 2015). "Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit Record, Report Says". New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2015.

[AP-20151109-47] Ritter, Karl (November 9, 2015). "UK: In 1st, global temps average could be 1 degree C higher". AP News. Retrieved November 11, 2015.

[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]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Identify, Classify, and Consolidate Climate Change Categories

What about all the SNOW in the SUMMER of 2015?

Ted Cruz and Sierra Club denial of Satellite data

Need to add actual evidence of severe weather increase to this point due to "global warming?"

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s...

The Original and Best

NASA-TV/ustream (11/12/2015@12noon/et/usa) - "Global warming-related" News Briefing.

In light of Ted Cruz hearings and the evidence of warming adjustments, to Change the global temperature graph to RSS