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
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 5, 2004.
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple 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 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

Temp conversion error?

I hope i am doing this right. Just passing through, but under section "Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)" in the section "Greenhouse gasses", the following line exists:

On Earth, naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).

33 Celsius is not 59 Farenheit. I assume its a typo? That should probably be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.209.64 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A temperature reading of 33 Celsius is not equal to a temperature reading of 59 F, but a temperature difference of 33 C is equal to a temperature difference of about 59 F. Example: A temperature of 10 C corresponds to a temperature of 50 F. Likewise a temperature of 43 C corresponds to a temperature of 109.4 F. The difference between the two is (43 - 10) = 33 in Celsius, or (109.4 - 50) = 59.4 in Fahrenheit. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording allowed for some confusion. Changed to:

On Earth, naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases have a mean increase in temperature of about 33 °C (59 °F).

--A D Monroe III (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an improvement. GHGs have a warming effect. They don't have a temperature increase. The (near surface) air temperatures have an increase. TimOsborn (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim is right. The proposed wording is inaccurate, and doesn't even make physical sense. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the issue remains. It implies a temperature, not a temperature difference. We still need something better. Suggestions? --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing something, because I don't understand how the words "a mean warming effect" imply a temperature. Can you explain so that I can see where the confusion lies? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on the OP of this discussion. It's not clear to all readers that "warming effect" means "increase in temperature". It's only (more) clear in the statement following noting that Earth would be frozen without it -- an increase of 33 degrees. All I'm asking is for is an improvement in wording to make this obvious. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

"On Earth, naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases cause air temperature near the surface to be about 33 °C (59 °F) warmer than it would be in their absence."

Other suggestions welcome. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds excellent. Thank you. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a week with no further suggestions or concerns expressed, I've made that change. Thanks all. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. — Gorthian (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though all the links above are working, only two were actually modified, and the sixth link isn't even in the article. The bot has been shut down for now while multiple bugs get fixed. — Gorthian (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

This edit request to Global warming has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think it should mention about the purple polar bears that are being affected. 86.20.78.92 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section Global warming#Ecological systems, and a link to Climate change and ecosystems, with mention of polar bears, should suffice. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed: 97 to 100% agreed with the consensus: most of the current warming is anthropogenic

A citation is needed for this statement:

While up to 18% of scientists surveyed might disagree with the consensus view, when restricted to scientists publishing in the field of climate, 97 to 100% agreed with the consensus: most of the current warming is anthropogenic (caused by humans)

the statement is not supported by the provided source. The 18% almost certainly from Doran and Zimmerman "Examining the scientific consensus on climate change" (2009). That same article is also often sourced for a 97% figure, but that 97% did not agree with "most of the current warming is anthopogenic" but instead with "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures" Poodleboy (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would have no problem with changing the wording to match the wording in the book. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I favor

(A) Delete existing text in this section

(B) Add new text "Multiple assessments of scientists' individual opinions have found that 90-100% of publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing recent global warming." cite: "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming"

(C) Elaborate in sub article Surveys of scientists' views on climate change

I could live with Rick's suggestion, unlesss someone proposes we use a different source altogether.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer NAEG's proposal, with the minor quibble that "..are causing recent global warming" seems like an odd mix of tenses. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the statements in the reply article are far more probabilistic than "causing recent warming", using phrases like "contributing" and "likely". If cause is used it should at best be "a cause". Researchers studying the consensus tend to use phrases and standards which exclude only deniers and not luke warmers. More of the past work can be retained, just by citing and representing the source actually used, Doran and Zimemerman (2009), it is cited in the synthesis article. This text would be an accurate representation of that source: While up to 18% of scientists surveyed might disagree with the consensus view, when restricted to scientists publishing in the field of climate, 97 to 100% agreed human activity is a significant contributing factor to the current warming.Poodleboy (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poodleboy, Doran is a SINGLE taking of scientists' pulse, and its already seven years old. In contrast this new paper reports on MULTIPLE takings of scientists' pulse and is from this year (2016). The rest I ignore for reasons others have already pointed out to you, e.g., WP:FORUM and WP:Original research.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boris, I agree its awkward and if we can agree I'd be pleased to alter the wording, which I borrowed from the abstact of the paper. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, most of the studies reviewed in the 2016 rely on their work from before the 2013 publication of IPCC AR5, and the considerable hiatus literature since. Poodleboy (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are implying hiatus research has altered scientific opinion, but you are not implying the RS on which your theory is predicated. Implied OR is still something I ignore.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you implied that time alone made Doran less relevant, I merely pointed out that the 2016 article merely rehashed the authors similarly old results, and that it was more than just time that had passed, a lot of developments in the science had also occurred and the pause had raised questions about the significance of the human contribution in the minds of scientists who are part of the consensus.Poodleboy (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that survey of surveys said 'We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust'. Anyway how about just scientists or climate change scientists rather than scientists who are part of the consensus thanks. The scientific consensus is not an affiliation like a trade union or political parties. Dmcq (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"pointing out" things which, accordivng to you, should be taken into accountl is impermissible WP:OR unless you have an RS . Since it is merely your conjecture that scientists opinions have changed I decline to debate the matter further, except to say that at some point repeated OR based argumentation becomes disruptive NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can agree with your B text, if you take the 100% down to 97%. The 100% was abstracts not scientists. Agreed? Poodleboy (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B gives a range that does not imply high accuracy. Your suggestion would imply accuracy and at that accuracy would contradict the source. Also you are doing OR again. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text says scientists and the only result higher that 97% is abstracts, that seems a legitimate distinction, there were numbers lower than 90% also that at least involved scientists. The abstracts methodology was always questionable anyway. Is this such a terrible price to pay for consensus? Poodleboy (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't second guess and reinterpret papers. The very first line says "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper". If you want to get your ideas into Wikipedia go and write a paper and get it peer reviewed. Do not go about analysing papers and coming up with your own conclusions. It does not say 90%-97%. Go and read WP:OR. Internalize what it says. Stop wasting other peoples' time. Look at the second pillar of WP:5P. It says "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Editors doing what you keep trying to do would destroy Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know I'm glad to hear that, because my argument is that we shouldn't reinterpret abstracts as scientists. The 100% figure is clearly identified as abstracts. I vote for no reinterpretation. Thou doth protest too much, methinks. Poodleboy (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not get to reinterpret the data. You are engaging in disruptive behaviour. It is no excuse that you think you know better than the author what they should have said. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of basing new text on the ABSTRACT (my original suggestion) I now think it would be better to base it on the text of the paper's body. The relevant parts might include

From pdf pg1 - Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that ‘human in fluence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.‘

(cite omitted)

From pdf pg 6 - We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 90%-100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology. This is supported by multiple independent studies despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature or of citation networks.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basing it on the starts of the introduction and conclusion seems reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you were just in the abstract. I was already pointing out that the dependence on the exact question and methodology. But you should keep in mind that the introduction is not a peer review result, the opinion of the authors that the IPCC statement articulates the consensus, is not the conclusion they were able to draw from the methodology they used.Poodleboy (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must realize by now that you are just not able to work in a way that is acceptable to you within the constraints of Wikipedia. You just seem unable to accept that we have to follow the authors rather than doing our own research from their data. They drew the conclusion from the data. The paper was peer reviewed. That is really the end of it. You are just pissing on Wikipedia with your opinions. Your opinion is worthless against a peer reviewed paper. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quit talking about me and talking about the substance. It is not original research to understand the paper, you should try it. "abstracts" are not "scientists" Poodleboy (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the papers and understanding them is fine. Putting forth on your own ideas here is not. This is a talk page for improving the article and original thought is not allowed in the article. Please desist from forum type discussions. Talk about your own ideas elsewhere where I'm sure there are lots of people eager to engage with you. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whose idea was it to put "scientists" together with "100%"? Where were you with your WP:OR accusations then? Are you sure you are not WP:POV editing? Do you have the patience required to reach a consensus, you keep mentioning waste of time? Poodleboy (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract says 'we'. At the start of the abstract they say 'The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.' I do not accuse the authors of OR. I accuse you of OR. Whether they are wrong or right is immaterial to WP:OR, we are not qualified to assess that. If you have a problem with the WP:OR policy go and try changing it but until then just stop wasting peoples time. Dmcq (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the authors of the paper itself, get it wrong. I can't argue with that.Poodleboy (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you think there is a problem WP:WEIGHT might be the best thing to look at. But WP:OR is simply verboten. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but note weight is due to the majority published expert view, and a minority view promoted by contrarians or deniers need not be shown at all. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any arguments based on WEIGHT also need to predicated on articulated RSs, not just your opinion. Discussions of appropriate weight inherently involve a comparison to other RSs, else they are just another form of OR.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should This Be Renamed "Global Static Temperature"? or "Slight Warming?"

I have just begun looking at the data concerning the global warming theory (including pro- and con-) & confess that I don't know the truth of this. But in looking at the data, as on the chart on the article page, I note that the shape of the graph is greatly influenced by the vertical scale. What would the graph look like if the vertical scale were laid out in 1 degree units -- relatively flat? What scale would be on an NPOV chart? And the chart shows about a 1 degree C increase in temperature in the last 1/2 century. Now if the increase had been .0001 degree, would we call that "warming" or "status quo," given that 0 change is unlikely, but that there are approximations of 0? So if the temp has gone up 1 degree in half a century, is not that relatively stable, that is, essentially static? And are there really reliable secondary sources on world wide temperature history based on thermometers say at the corners of every cubic mile of ocean, from the sea floor to the surface just to measure the temperature of the ocean? -- likewise for the temperature of the entire volume of the globe -- are there references to the temperature at the corners of every cubic mile of the earth, that sort of thing. Can we really know how many thermometers and where they have to be placed in order to generalize? And have the secondary sources covered such epistemological concerns?

The article launches forth with: "Global warming and climate change are terms for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system . . . ." Should that statement be revised to say "Slight Global warming . . . the observed slight century-scale rise . . ."? (PeacePeace (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

No. --McSly (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is relative, including both our knowledge and the temperature record. But we are very certain that the temperature increase over the last half century or so is indeed significant and probably unprecedented in speed. You can try arguing with a judge that being 50 kph over the speed limit is not even visible on a diagram that plots all speeds as factions of c, but that's unlikely to convince him or her. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest that you start by browsing our set of articles first, to get an overview of what we know and how we know what we know. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are absolute, too many climate models are "matching" anomalies and trends, but are running as much as a degree C cooler in absolute temperature. That is 7% less water vapor and explains how they are under representing the increased precipitation and acceleration of the water cycle that is associated with the warming in the observations. Poodleboy (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a physical point of view we should be measuring in degrees Kelvin and a 1°C rise is about 0.3% relative to that scale. So yes from a physical point of view it is only a slight warming, it is only a second order effect as a difference between warming and cooling, and that is part of what makes the science difficult. However for us human beings living on this planet it is extremely important as we can only live well in a fairly narrow band of temperatures and most of the species on earth can only survive in an even smaller range than us. Go up to 4°C and we're talking about severe difficulties around the world. So no 'slight' isn't reasonable when one considers it as affecting us. Plus on Wikipedia there is a policy that we name articles if at all possible according to how the topics are normally referred to. How did you find this article? I bet you didn't type 'global static temperature' or 'slight warming'. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious point of view. Some of the "but it's okay" crowd point out that global temperatures have been higher in the past, and life went on. I think the real problem with the on-going warming is not how much (however "slight"), nor the absolute temperature reached, but how fast it is coming. Although the article has one "main" link to Abrupt climate change, it is kind of buried. I wonder if the significance of being rapid ought to be given more prominence. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Celsius scale is in the right range for us, since we are in the regime where 1C increase results in about 7% water vapor increase. We don't have good information on whether the increase is rapid, since most paleo temperature proxies have resolutions of 20 to 100 years or worse and accuracies too small to rule out changes of comparable magnitude unless sustained for longer periods than ours so far.Poodleboy (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get that argument. If an increase by 1 °C increases water vapour by about 7%, so will an increase by 1 K, or by 1.8 °F. Why prefer one scale over the other based on that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current rise is pretty fast but I think without all the borders and fences most animals would be able to move to where it suited them rather than having to evolve to suit the new conditions. It is us that are liable to turn it into a major extinction event rather than a minor one. Not that that isn't happening already anyway Holocene extinction. Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"most animals would be able to move"....except for animals that already live on the extreme end of a naturally delimited range, or in a mountain habitat that simply keeps shrinking as climate zones move up-mountain, or depend on other ecosystem components that can't move as quickly (like, say, long-lived plants), or.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we update 2000_year_temperature_comparison?

I don't understand why no one in 12 years has bothered to update the marker for "2004". 2015 was more than 0.3 C warmer than 2004, which would be literally off the chart by the scale used in this graph. If a graphic artist is unwilling to modify the chart, can we at least point this out in the caption? Dawei20 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016

Is http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/2016temperature.png accurate? https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/2016Jan-MarTempAnomalies_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg appears somewhat more substantial. EllenCT (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The two graphs show somewhat different data. The first one shows the temperature trend when averaged over the first six months of each year, while the second shows monthly temperature over the about past two and a half years. Both are from competent, trustworthy sources (NASA and Climate Central respectively). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milman, Oliver (2 August 2016). "Environmental records shattered as climate change 'plays out before us'". the Guardian. Retrieved 2 August 2016. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Interesting times. . . dave souza, talk 16:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That second graph doesn't explain what the baseline is and there is no zero value on the y axis. And shouldn't the beginning of one year start at the same place as the end of the previous year? Was there that much of a jump between December 2015 and January 2016? It's not a good candidate for this article, IMHO. — Gorthian (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows "Year to date" averages, so December 2015 is the average over all of 2015, during which the anomaly increased significantly. January 2016 is only January 2016, so it starts off immediately at the record value reached in December. So the image probably is technically ok, but I agree that it is easy to misunderstand and not very suitable for the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So it's basically a record of the running average anomaly, and restarts entirely at each new year. Thanks for the explanation. — Gorthian (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point of the first graph, but the second one is an odd way to present data for multiple years. It would be helpful to show it in context. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section: policy responses

I've been thinking of revising the paragraph of the lead that deals with policy responses to global warming. Here's my suggested revision:

Policy responses to global warming include mitigation by emissions reduction, adaptation to its effects, building systems resilient to its effects, and possible climate engineering. Most countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose ultimate objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required and that global warming should be limited to well below 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels, with efforts made to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C.

References: As cited in current revision and Paris agreement, Article 2, paragraph 1(a), p.3.

Enescot (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've a bit of a problem with that because it is a primary source, and because it is written by politicians it needs some interpretation to say what should be taken from it. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has the advantage of conciseness relative to the current version. The WP:PRIMARY concern could easily be addressed by citing a secondary source; COP21 had plenty of coverage. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with this in general. Here are three comments

First, is part of the proposed first sentence redundant? Here is a breakdown of that text-

Policy responses to global warming include

(A) mitigation by emissions reduction,

(B) adaptation to its effects,

(C) building systems resilient to its effects, and

(D) possible climate engineering.

As I understand the lingo, part C is redundant with part B and could be trimmed out.

Second, could we change "responses" to "Possible policy responses..." In our various sub articles we are describing these concepts in general, and we end up with articles about what they could do, as well as what they have actually done.

Third, when I was a newbie I was put off by "mitgation", and there's way too much 50 cent words when 25 cents would do. Could we write it ::Possible policy responses to global warming include [[Climate change mitigation|prevention]], [[Adaptation to global warming|adaptation]], and [[climate engineering]].

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, add "possible". Climate engineering is a possible policy response but can't really be considered as current policy response. TimOsborn (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS In addition to my earlier remark, Dmcq objected due to WP:PRIMARY. I don't wsee the problem here. The proposed text would say what the UNFCC's position is regarding dangerous climate change. Primary sources are fine when we report what the source says/thinks, etc., which is all we would be doing here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had explained myself but seemingly even that short statement was not properly understood. The document was quite a bit longer and was written by politicians and this is supposed to summarize a part of it. Interpreting, getting the important parts and summarizing requires a secondary source. I have no objection to primary source in the body of the article to back things up but I really would prefer to see secondary sources used in the lead for the overview. Otherwise it is verging into original research grabbing bits of primary sources one thinks are important. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this proposed POLICY paragraph we are trying to present a top-level summary of POLICY position of the planet's most encompassing group of POLICY MAKERS, i.e. the UNFCCC. Are you saying their own words are not RS for their own views?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we really have to have a cite here? (see WP:LEADCITE) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay to have a bit of the lead summarize a section of the article. I'm not certain if that is what you mean though. As to the POLICY in capital letters etc business, what they wrote is a reliable source but it is not a secondary source and I believe for the summary or an overview we really do need a secondary source to give context and assess weight and interpret what they mean in accordance with WP:OR. Surely we have some secondary source for this?, or do you have some problem with us trying to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the substance of my comment. I have stated an opinion that the proposed cite does in fact comply with "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". If you can connect the dots in a rebuttal or if you have a different cite to propose, I am listening. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complying with RS does not mean complying with the policies and guidelines. I was pointing at OR not RS. As to LEADCITE I agree with that. However we are talking here about something based on a primary source rather than summarizing a part of the article. I was not proposing a change, if I was I would have looked for a good source. Please do not talk about connecting the dots as if I am stupid. Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're stupid, just think your rhetorical baiting "or do you have some problem with us trying to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?" doesn't connect any dots, and so does not lead to article improvements. Since your concern is policy WP:OR, note that the section of that policy regarding WP:PRIMARY sources says in part "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The proposed cite supports the proposed text within the meaning of this sentence, does it not? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ask us to produce secondary sources for weight and interpretation. And I gave reasons why we can't just summarize what they said directly. We can either use LEADCITE or else do the job properly with a secondary source but summarizing a primary source is not covered by either of those and LEADCITE does not help with summarizing a primary source. You seem to want to put in that summary without a secondary source and seem to think it is other people's problem to find some secondary source to back up an editor's summary of a primary source. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Enescot: could you please repost the proposed text, and include the sources in the current version you suggested we also include? That might help move things forward NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about posting a secondary source to give it weight in the lead of the article? Or else just summarize what is in the article per LEADCITE? I really would like it to follow how things are done in Wikipedia. rather than just grabbing a primary source and taking bits out of it to put into the lead according to some editors interpretation of weight. Why do you want to stick an unsupported primary source into the lead? Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the very last citation in the paragraph [1] is a secondary source so that can be used for weight but it doesn't cover many points but there's a number at Paris Agreement which do for other bits. Dmcq (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll respond to Dmcq first. With respect, I have spend some time reading about this subject so I think I have some idea of what issues are important. I do not think I am placing undue emphasis on the 1.5 degrees C limit. For example, the importance of the earlier 2 C limit is discussed in the authoritative IPCC report and the IEA's World Energy Outlook. Reliable sources also show that the new 1.5 C limit is important [2] [3] [4]. Enescot (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2016 (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]