Talk:Climate change

Better and more pictures showing also the temperature scale inside and time frame before

Lots of images interfering with page readability. Click to show.

NASA Global warming map showing main warming at northern hemisphere with most warming at arctis area with +2° and that is not explainable with greenhouse gases but streaming changes and also the base time frame not same comaprison time frame isn´t secured with satellite datas expleining also the difference between NASA-Goddard +0.73° & WMO/UNO +0.53° for middle value Global warming map Global cooling map 1965-1975 vs 1937-1946 Antarctica temps 1957-2006 showing warm up Antarctica temps 1982-2004 showing cool down Arctis ice map for 2008 and 2006 showing much ice left and swimming ice is not inreasing the sea level if molten just the greenland ice shield could increase molten 6-7m but was just rising about +0.2mm/a means just 2cm in 100 years so it`s not dangerous because before to much molten CO2 sources are out and next ice time there and also there was much more temperature increase already than the global middle value increase means on more increese of middle value unclear any more increase there because of different reasons and also polar bears prefere warmer climate there & increased in number near forefold already Methane Map 2011 shows more methane in northern hemisphere but much too less difference for temperature difference explanation NASA Methane Map showing high equatorial methane level in stratosphere carried up by up wind there at sahara desertification area since 1970 and surface near methane increase also in aral sea desertification area NASA CO2 Map mid tropospheric (8km) from July 2003 AIRS map showing CO2 high in northern hemisphere but much too less for explanation of temperature differences

Why isn't this article marked as POV?

There is no way that this is NOT a disputed topic. This is not about a flat earth, folks. Please do not collapse and push away this talk section. Allow discussion, (and see the talk on the Climate Change article neutrality) thank you.

This article is completely biased, if not bigoted in many sections. 'Climate Change' should not be marginalized to become a new synonym for Man-made Global Warming theories. Climate Change should address the dispute in some section, yet it should be objective and non-partisan in all general, and other sections that do not specifically address the AGW (man-made Global Warming theory).

Also, the FAQ section of the Talk page is completely disputable and very bigoted towards a pro-AGW (man-made global warming theory). It is inane to have such a FAQ, as well.

This is VERY important to correct, as it's a FEATURED article (somehow, without any dispute banner or sections on the counter theories and disputes).

The banner needs to be added at the top of the article (at the very least). There should not be a bigoted FAQ, as there are so many disputes, contradictions and ambiguity. The FAQ, at the least, should consider each side's rationale and should not be edited/filtered by those who have a bigoted point of view. It needs to be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How do we decide what is true? For most people, it depends on the media they listen to. Unless you are yourself a climate scientist (one of the tiny percentage of climate scientists who disagree with the idea that people are causing the climate to get warmer), then you listen to media that "doubt" global warming as part of their editorial stance. But when Wikipedia posts the "disputed" banner, they don't just mean that there is a dispute, but that there is disagreement among recognized authorities. That isn't the case with man-made global warming. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This clearly is a disputed topic, and the specific suggestion is that the article have the "infamous wiki banner: "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The article is extremely biased towards one point of view, and should at least mention critics, and not wrongly claim that some points are "unequivocal"... cwmacdougall 23:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can say something is "disputed", but we look for arguments based on what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. So far, the one-and-only suggestion in this thread is that we add the POV tag. However, the rules for that tag are that the substance of the dispute is to be discussed on the talk page. This is WP:SOAP unless you articulate a specific criticism and provide some reasoning based on cites to what wikipedia defines as reliable sources.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The "collapse" tag wrongly said there was no specific proposal, when there was, so clearly that tag should not be there; it was an appalling attempt to close down debate on the talk page. The WP:SOAP is the attempt to remove any hint of alternative views, which do exist among reputable scientists. Even the IPPC no longer believes what it argued several years ago, due to developing evidence, so that change should be mentioned. The article needs more work to meet the NPOV and quality standards of Wikipedia. cwmacdougall 1:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this Talk discussion of POV - the removal of an article talk discussion to suppress debate is one of the most offensive and disruptive editing practices I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Please desist in your offensive behaviour. I agree that the change 205.131.188.5 and I propose does require more evidence, but the purpose of a Talk page is to raise issues for further work. cwmacdougall 7:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A “Neutrality in Dispute” tag would be appropriate because:

1 - Editors’ behaviour: Some of the most active editors display very biased activity, attempting to crush discussion on the Talk page. In particular TS has deleted whole sections of Talk on more than one occasion, while NewsAndEventsGuy tried to silence me with unjustified allegations of disruptive editing, while he also collapsed a whole section on the false claim that it lacked specific recommendations. This biased behaviour suggests there is a problem of systematic bias to the whole article.

2 - New data: when data changes, science changes; the pause in global warming is now over 15 years old, contrary to IPPC predictions. The initial response a few years ago was, rightly, to say more data were needed. The article claims "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, but it must be equivocal if it hasn’t warmed for 15 years. Indeed the 2013 IPPC report, revised downward its forecasts of the speed and extent of warming in light of the new data. The article needs to be similarly revised, and is biased until it does.

3 - Extreme events: the article talks of forecasts of an "increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events”. Yet the 2013 IPPC report says "confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low” and there are no "robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes”. Again the article needs to be revised in light of changing views of the IPPC.

4 - Biased sources: clearly biased advocacy groups like Greenpeace are cited.

5 - Reputable critics: there are a good number of reputable academics critical of the dominant view. There are many examples including for example Dr Edward Wegman, Dr. Robert M. Carter, and Dr. Richard Lindzen. While it is right that Wikipedia should reflect the scientific consensus, readers should be aware that there serious scientists with different views.

cwmacdougall 12:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Re (1), alleged editorial misconduct is a strawman because even if true it is not one of the justifications for use of the POV tag described in the (usage notes for the tag)

Re (2), cwmacdougal makes the naked assertion that AGW "paused" for 15 years even though we have been begging for RSs to back up his statements. In any case, CW's premise (that global warming paused for 15 years) stands in contrast to what IPCC AR5 WG1 said when they officially released the "Summary for Policymakers" a couple months ago, "Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850".

Re(3), A. The full WG1 (science) report has not yet been released so arguments over what they might say are misplaced (unless you have a specific cite you have not yet shared with us) ; B. The draft still says there will be an increase in extreme events even if a signal in the current data is........ so far......... difficult to identify.

Re(4), without specifics this is handwaving and we'd be happy to discuss improvements instead of doing a WP:BATTLE over vague tag complaints; plus there are other approaches like the simple reversion approach you have been using for greenpeace references elsewhere.

Re(5), you have not provided any cites to WP:RS

Past requests for your sources include

• First request (in this thread) for specific complaint backed with reliable sources
• Second request (at user's talk page) for specific complaint backed with reliable sources
• Third request (implied in another thread on this talk page) for specific complaint backed with reliable sources

As I said when I collapsed the thread the first time, is WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

1 - The non-neutral tag is appropriate when the article "does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources." Evidence of biased behaviour by editors trying to suppress alternative perspectives is certainly evidence of this.

2 - Look for example at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

"Global mean surface temperatures...have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013".

3 - That's what the widely publicised final draft says. See 2.6.3. of:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf

4 - Greenpeace is an advocacy group, not an academic institution; I don't know how anyone could suggest it is ever RS.

5 - On Christmas Morning you asked for sources. I provided them on Boxing day. I don't think your complaint has a leg to stand on, especially as we are discussing my "I agree" comment on the Talk page, not the article itself.

The article is biased, and these are clear sourced examples; if I had good sources to counter all the biased points I would just edit the article. But the process will be a long one, and in the meantime, we need a warning to users that the article is biased. We should add a "neutrality disputed" tag to the article.

cwmacdougall 14:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) You left out the part about how the tag is to be used as a "last resort" after trying to discuss, including discussing WP:RS, as we are (finally) now doing.

(2) The cite to the Met Office paper is the only meat in this thread; I'll comment on this later (and being the only substantive thing in this thread it should be broken out and discussed separately.)

(3) The final "draft" is moot because it is a draft and says on the bottom of each page (paraphrasing) "Don't quote or cite"

(4) WP:SOFIXIT

(5) You have provided a single proposed WP:RS (Paper #1 in a 3-paper series from the Met Office). So that we can do a proper review, were your earlier remarks based on any additional proposed WP:RSs, or have you subsequently found any to support your remarks that you would like to now cite in support?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave five well sourced examples of why the article is biased and should have a tag; that should be enough. cwmacdougall 15:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You've made some spurious assertions without any clear proposals for improving the article, or adequate sources supporting your claims. . . dave souza, talk 16:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're the one making assertions; if you want to be taken seriously, add some evidence, as I've done, solidly. And the proposal is clear: add a "neutrality disputed" tag. cwmacdougall 17:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@ cwmacdougall, "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort." You've not made any actionable proposals, and content policies require published sources which you've failed to provide: the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide detailed proposals backed by sources, and show that your proposals don't give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe commentators. . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the the usage guidelines the tag may be removed when the basis for the tag is vague; I have rebutted 4-out-of-5 of your numbered paragraphs (#1,3,4,&5) which did not contain citations to any viable proposed WP:RS. Your remaining item, paragraph #2, does reference an RS - a 2013 paper from the Met Office. I have broken that issue out for separate discussion in a new subsection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Met Office paper and the last 15 years of global temps

In the (roundabout) discussion above, cwmacdougall asserted just one reliable source-supported reason why this article should bear the POV tag. He said

2 - New data: when data changes, science changes; the pause in global warming is now over 15 years old, contrary to IPCC predictions. The initial response a few years ago was, rightly, to say more data were needed. The article claims "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, but it must be equivocal if it hasn’t warmed for 15 years. Indeed the 2013 IPCC report, revised downward its forecasts of the speed and extent of warming in light of the new data. The article needs to be similarly revised, and is biased until it does.

and when he identified an WP:RS to support this argument he said:

Look for example at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF, "Global mean surface temperatures...have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013".

In the quote chosen by CW is the pesky little word "surface", which is left out of CW's analysis. Recall that the climate system has five parts (in lay terms the air, land, water, icy places, and living things). The "surface" is the interface between the atmosphere and the other four parts (the "surface" of the lithosphere/cryosphere/bioshere/hyrosphere). Elsewhere in the Met's 3-paper series they talk about continued warming of the other parts of the system. Nowhere does the MET say warming of the climate system is "equivocal"; CW's extrapolation to arrive at that conclusion is pure editorial original research.

Since the only RS-supported reason that has been suggested as a basis for this tag rests on WP:OR following a mis-reading of the Met's paper, a POV tag, if existed, would be removable under the usage note's removal-justification #2, "no satisfactory explanation has been given." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Do we cover this slowdown in surface temp increase elsewhere? Several interesting studies discuss this, including Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 and Cowtan and Way 2013 (link to RC report). There's also the question of whether the current temperatures actually do deviate from IPCC projections: Ars Technica cites studies snowing these projections have been on target so far, the Grauniad cites a more recent study reaching a similar conclusion. . dave souza, talk 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also dubious if there was a "pause" even in surface temps, as discussed in this blog post which I offer for talk page purposes only. But the RSs it links inline are generally pretty good. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't this article marked as POV? - Continued

I listed five well sourced arguments as to why there should be a POV tag. Let’s review them in light of the discussion so far:

1 - Editors’ behaviour: It has been demonstrated again that regular editors of this page edit in an extremely biased disruptive manner. NewsAndEventsGuy has yet again collapsed the discussion, on the false biased premise that only one of my five points was supported by RS, and in doing so hid crucial parts of my argument. Remember that TS deleted entire Talk discussions on at least two occasions. I have never seen such biased POV editing of Talk pages in Wikipedia before. It calls into question the neutrality of the entire article, and on its own is enough to justify a POV tag.

2 - New data: The Met reported no surface warming for 15 years. Perhaps the ocean depths or upper atmosphere have warmed, but with no surface warming you get no land ice melting, so no rise in water levels, and you get no movement North of dangerous insects, two of the alleged problems from "global warming”. It is a rather significant development, and leaving it and its potential implications out is a sign of POV.

3 - Extreme events: No one has contradicted my quotation from the IPCC draft saying they found no evidence of increased extreme weather events. The most anyone could say was that it was a draft, not the final report, and that they asked not to be quoted. But the fact that that is their preliminary conclusion is rather significant, and they can’t stop people from quoting it. Ignoring this RS point is again a sign of POV.

4 - Biased sources: No one has contradicted my point that the article cites biased advocacy groups. Their continued inclusion is a continued sign of POV.

5 - Reputable critics: No one has contradicted my point that there are reputable academics critical of the dominant view. Of course the conclusion should reflect the consensus, but to ignore respectable critical views on such an important and controversial subject is a sign of POV.

I have produced five examples of POV, well sourced. I’m sure, especially given point 1, that I could find many others. Readers need to be warned that the article is not neutral while we work to improve it. It needs the POV tag.

cwmacdougall 0:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a different definition of 'well sourced' than the rest of us because all you have presented above is a mishmash of assertion and the uncontested observation that various critics (mostly lay people with zero expertise) dispute the prevailing scientific understanding of global warming, a topic we devote multiple pages to. There is no evidence that your unwillingness to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines (notably WP:OR and WP:RS) infers editors are biased and our article is un-neutral. Unless you take the necessary time to read and understand what is being said, you are simply wasting everyone's time. — TPX 11:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't think the IPCC and the Met Office are good sources? You don't think deleting Talk discussions you don't like is proof of bias? Amazing... cwmacdougall 12:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe you care for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the reason why you keep getting the IPCC acronym wrong. But to answer your question: Yes, both the IPCC and Met Office are perfectly good sources, however your personal interpretation of their work, to the exclusion of all other measurements, is in question. Editors are always happy to improve the article and discuss particulars with you, so be specific, avoid accusations of bias and politely engage in the areas already expanded upon. — TPX 15:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read my comments? I don't think I've added "personal" interpretations. Re accusations of bias, that is the whole point - how else is a POV tag justified? cwmacdougall 13:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

cwmacdougall, thanks for correcting your earlier misspellings of IPCC, but did you actually read the sources you've suggested? If these aren't your personal interpretations, they look like the sort of quote-mining to be found on certain blogs. Like the ellipses in your bit from the Met Office, which misses the context that "Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation...." and evidently you're continuing such speculation while ignoring their summary conclusions that "The observations show that: • A wide range of climate quantities continue to show changes. For instance, we have observed a continued decline in Arctic sea ice and a rise in global sea level. These changes are consistent with our understanding of how the climate system responds to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases. • Global mean surface temperatures remain high, with the last decade being the warmest on record. •Although the rate of surface warming appears to have slowed considerably over the most recent decade, such slowing for a decade or so has been seen in the past in observations and is simulated in climate models, where they are temporary events." . . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dave, your objection might make sense if I was some denier arguing that global warming had been "disproven". I'm not; I'm just saying that the article's coverage is not a neutral balanced assessment of the sources. cwmacdougall 23:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

width=320

Not really. Compare how you interpret Paper#1 in the Met Office's 3-paper series.

You said (in your paragraph #2), "the pause in global warming is now over 15 years old, contrary to IPPC predictions" and according to you, this makes global warming "equivocal"

whereas the Met itself explains that the supposed "pause" just relates to surface temps and many other indicators in the climate system show ongoing warming.

The Met said ::"The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works."

You have given the paper a polar opposite reading.

width=320

Meanwhile,

you also said, "Readers need to be warned that the article is not neutral ..."

whereas

the POV tag rules say, "Do not use this template to 'warn' readers about the article."

We have made zero progress in either of these threads, and in my opinion, both of them were and remain WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM outside the scope of constructive dialogue envisioned by WP:ARBCC.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that much fuller assessment would be required than what I wrote on the Talk page; that actually was my point - that failure even to mention the apparent surface warming pause, and cover it in a neutral fashion, is bias. Thank you for the correction about the purpose of the POV tag, which I should have noted: "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight." That is what is needed, and we have made progress. I presented five well sourced examples of bias, and they have not been contradicted. It should have the tag. cwmacdougall 0:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(A) "Not been contradicted," huh? Please show me where it says that (in your words), "Editors’ behaviour" is grounds for the POV tag? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(B) CW, would you be satisfied with text saying something like, "In the last 15 years the rate of surface warming has slowed producing an overall warming of surface temperatures that, in the words of the Met Office, was 'relatively flat', but multiple indicators elsewhere in the climate system have been consistent with continued warming. (cite Met Office Paper). In addition, studies have shown that instead of just warming the air at earth's surface, the majority of global warming goes into the ocean, and warming of the deep ocean (below 700m) has continued throughout this period. (cite one of the many RSs)". Would that satisfy you? If not, then please produce some sample text to explain the gist of how you think the so-called "pause" can be addressed in a neutral manner? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC) PS... notice in the 2nd image I added, total energy added to the earth's climate system did not "pause"!!!! You can click on the thumbs to get more info about the data presented. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would not be satisfied with such an addition. Where are you suggesting to add it? Not to the over-burdened lede I hope. We know that there are blogs and other nexuses of disinformation out there that would prefer this article to appear to come to different conclusions. If we allow every contrarian thinker that turns up here to get another concession into the lede, all they have to do is increase the rate at which they are sent. I am of course not suggesting for a moment that any editor in this discussion is part of any such organised attempt to downplay anything, but am talking about the general principle of reflecting what the best RSs say, not what editors here would like to see. I don't see any need to introduce more than perhaps a mention that the Met Office has acknowledged that there has been an increase in speculation about 'flattening' and 'slow-downs' from those who do not understand the way that heat is distributed throughout the climate system. Even this is pretty tenuous, but could go into the Global warming#Discourse about global warming section if other RSs pick it up, IMHO. --Nigelj (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel, but I wasn't proposing and am not (yet) proposing any article changes. Instead, I'm just asking cwmacdougall (talk · contribs) about his current thought about the Met Office paper he cited to support his desire to add the POV tag. In the thread below, TS seems to think there has been some progress in this thread. CW earlier alleged the MET said AGW "paused" and is therefore "equivocal". We then discussed that RS at some length, but has CW's opinion of what the RS says changed? To seek an answer, I presented some hypothetical text and request for alternative hypothetical text from CW. So my question to CW still stands - do you think, CW, that what I wrote in this comment is a reasonable NPOV description of the Met source you cited, and if not what hypothetical text do you think does a better NPOV job of reporting the Met's findings? (Barring substantive preliminary discussion that leads to an ultimate answer to this question, this thread is still soap.)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about a longer reply, but I see you weren't really making a serious proposal anyway, so let me briefly say: it would be better, but not enough, and doesn't deal with my other four pieces of evidence of bias anyway.

The POV tag rules says: "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view." Re the first of my five points, what could be a more serious issue than evidence of censorship of the Talk discussion? The article should be tagged. cwmacdougall 1:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears that this user thinks I am (A) frivolous and (B) censoring. He won't participate in developing the discussion of the only RS he has proposed. He insists that editorial behavior is a reason to use the POV template. Frankly, I see no progress at all here and still think this thread is [[WP:SOAP] which deserves a hat. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I will weigh in as an outsider to this discussion (although not to climate change articles in general). I have just read through the lengthy discussion here. The claims made by cwmacdougall (talk · contribs) appear to be two-fold: firstly the editor raises claims about the content of the article, secondarily about treatment of discussion on the talk page. Points about the article appear to have been addressed quite satisfactorily. In my estimation, the points raised largely consist of using the POV tag to express cwmacdougall's opinion, which appears to be an original synthesis rather than views expressed in the sources cited. Indeed, the user appears to be drawing or implying conclusions in direct contradiction to the sources given. This is broadly an unacceptable use of the POV tag and should be eschewed as original research. The second matter, claims that the user's perceived treatment on the talk page should garner tagging the article as non-neutral, is to my experience a novel one, but one which is contrary to the purpose of the POV tag. I think using the POV tag (or any other tag) as a mark on articles of perceived treatment on the talk page is prima facie unreasonable and contrary to the intent of such tags, regardless of the veracity of such claims. Furthermore, I see in this discussion no validity to the claim that cwmacdougall was treated unfairly, nor evidence to that effect other than cwmacdougall's failure to gain consensus to add the tag to the article. My assessment is that this discussion should be hatted immediately and all editors should move on. I would suggest that if cwmacdougall wishes to change policy with regard to the POV tag (or indeed, any other tag), a policy discussion should be started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) rather than continuing it here. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you TeaDrinker (talk · contribs) for your comment. But, several of my five points have not been addressed at all, so how can you suggest they have been addressed satisfactorily? At most, of the five, it is only the warming pause issue that one could argue has had any significant discussion, but even on that the editor says he was not making a proposal, so what was he doing? And on that discussion, I did include some unsupported speculation on a Talk page as to why the issue might be important; I agree that actual changes to the article itself would require more, which is my point - if it was easy and quick I would just edit the article, not propose a tag. I agree my Talk page corruption argument for a POV tag is unusual, but it is rare only because I've never seen such appalling POV corruption (of several editors' contributions) of a Talk page before. It is solid evidence of more general POV problems with the article. cwmacdougall 3:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: Eleven days ago I presented five well sourced arguments for a POV tag to the article, in support of a proposal by another editor. At most only one has been refuted (re the warming pause), and even there I think the response is insufficient. Note especially point 1 - censorship of the Talk page - and point 3 - re the draft IPCC conclusion that there has been no increase in extreme events, either of which is serious enough alone to justify the POV tag, while points 4 and 5, re biased sources and exclusion of minority scientific views, at least add support. Consequently I have now added the POV tag. We should work together to ensure the article is genuinely written from a fair and balanced view of the current science, and recent developments, while of course following the mainstream view. cwmacdougall 12:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean five numbered paragraphs of SOAP, for which a flawed reading of a single RS was finally proposed after multiple requests and rebuttals on the other non-RS claims were made in numbered paragraphs, and now you are back to tag the article as a badge of shame because, in your words above, "Readers must be warned", even though we've already quoted the part of the template doc that forbids this use of the tag!

In my view, the terms SOAP and FORUM are now too mild, and we might need AE assistance. What do others think?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I had five RS points, and the reason for the tag, as discussed above is not as a "badge of shame" but is as described in our rules: "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view." cwmacdougall 12:69, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I can tell that your five points are not based on WP:RS evidence as there are no links to external sources - reliable or otherwise - in any of them. Taking the first one, 'Editors’ behaviour', if there was a link to a reliable source - a newspaper of note, a book of social analysis, a research paper - that said that editors’ behaviour on this Wikipedia article could be shown to be linked to errors in the article, then there would be something to discuss. Without quotes from and links to external sources, there's nothing new to look into, as the article itself is extremely well cited - not least of which is due to it being a featured article. --Nigelj (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources for 2 and 3 were clear external RS. The sources for the others were obvious internal evidence from the article or the talk page history. Re Editor's behaviour, when an editor behaves in an blatently biased fashion - deleting live Talk discussions he doesn't like - I would hope we could deal with the clear POV violation without waiting for it to reach the newspapers.

cwmacdougall 13:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the specific change to the article that you are proposing? So far I don't see any coming from you. Without a concrete change proposal, you are just wasting everyone's time.--McSly (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In this edit cw stated the following proposal. Uncollapsing the original SOAP, he said

"This clearly is a disputed topic, and the specific suggestion is that the article have the "infamous wiki banner: "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The article is extremely biased towards one point of view, and should at least mention critics, and not wrongly claim that some points are "unequivocal".. (underline added)

The two sources to which he refers were

• an RS from the Met Office, which we discussed
• a non-RS draft of AR5 from the IPCC, which he is tediously still talking about since we've already pointed out the bottom of each page says "do not quote or cite".

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So what if the IPCC say at the bottom "do not quote or cite"? They permitted it to go into the public domain, and we are permitted under fair comment rules to quote small parts; it is certainly RS. You yourself cited it in another context in this Talk page. Re specific changes If I had one simple modification, I would just edit the article. But in light of the sourced examples I cited and the demonstrably biased editors' behaviour on the talk page, everything needs to be reviewed to be sure of neutrality. cwmacdougall 14:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You neglect to mention that I cited the draft, which I explicitly said at the time was just for our talk page discussion, and this was in the context of a specific proposal for article text based on a real RS (AR5 WG1 SPM). Show me a specific RS-based proposal for article text that you have made, other than tagging the article because you say, "Readers must be warned" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

For the third time, my five sourced examples meet the requirement: "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view." What else would you need to justify the tag? I long ago withdrew the suggestion about "warning readers". And there is no reason why a draft can't be an RS. My specific suggestion is to have the POV Tag, while we review the whole article for neutrality, given the bias that has been shown to exist. cwmacdougall 16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:ARBCC#Casting aspersions, please either retract that comment or else provide us with a list of specific diffs in which you say "bias... has been shown to exist". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The main comment was re the article as a whole, rather than specific individuals, but you - NewsAndEventsGuy - on at least two occasions collapsed live Talk discussions hiding comments you disagreed with and TS on at least three occasions deleted entire Talk discussions (deleted not archived), the most appalling cases of blatant bias I have seen on Wikipedia. I will supply the links from the page history when I have time, as you appear to have forgotten. As you know, this was my example number one of bias requiring a POV tag. cwmacdougall 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

cwmacdougall, your main point seems to be trying to justify misuse of a POV tag. as has already been explained to you. As for collapsing or removing offtopic posts, as far as I've seen that complied fully with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Unlike your repeated and tendentious arguments which have failed to provide any adequately supported proposals for article improvements. . dave souza, talk 21:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Dave, be specific; I don't see any place in the Talk page guidelines that permits the kind of hiding and deleting of live discussions of which I am complaining. If that and my other well sourced examples of bias don't justify a POV tag, I don't know what could. cwmacdougall 21:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What live discussion? You've raised one usable reliable source, and as discussed at length above you were misrepresenting it. Make properly sourced proposals for article improvement, and if you do want to keep discussing the POV tag, comply fully with Template:POV/doc#When to use requirements. Note the requirement to "explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies" – your complaining about conduct is irrelevant to content policies. . dave souza, talk 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't consider the IPCC to be a "usable reliable source"???? You don't consider internal evidence of underhand behaviour (the stopping of which is certainly actionable) to be an adequate source for a POV tag??? What would you consider justification for a POV tag? cwmacdougall 04:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think an IPCC draft which states "Confidential – This document is being made available in preparation of WGI-12 only and should not be cited, quoted, or distributed" is a usable source? But then you've already been told that. As for behaviour, you can go to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE but frankly you're not likely to come out of it well. . dave souza, talk 05:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I still think my sources are good on all five points, but your comment and the issues you raise deserve a fuller response. I will post something next week, when I have more time. cwmacdougall 10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No return to old, disreputable practice

This is an article about a well established scientific topic. As such, it's relatively easy to identify when people are being unencyclopedic in their approach to the material.

I've removed one discussion section which provided no credible and specific discussion of needed enhancements or emendations to the material or its structure. In particular, handwaving denunciations of scientific material are not welcome anywhere on Wikipedia.

Specific and well supported identification of problems, on the other hand, are welcome. Finally, a reminder is due: the editing on this article, and related conduct, are governed by ARBCC, which is basically Wikipedia policy with sharper teeth. --TS 22:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBCC is the link NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The deletion of an entire talk section by TS is an act of vandalism, attempting to shut down debate, and should not be tolerated. I have restored the section. The old practice of discussion on the Talk page has served us well. cwmacdougall 7:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As long as productive discussion is possible, efforts should continue. --TS 01:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In my view, an admin hatting is in order.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there is some progress here. The current scientific interpretation of some data has been discussed at more length. As a person reasonably aware of the scientific case, I sometimes overlook the fact that many people only encounter the topic in very misleading blog posts that misrepresent the science. I think this discussion may provide fruitful material for the FAQ, and at least one editor is learning something new, so let's continue as long as good faith disagreements on sources remain. --TS 00:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible useful source

Nothing much we don't already know, I don't think, but this could be another useful source. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort Either here or at Climate change denial. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Also being discussed at Global warming conspiracy theory NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, NEAG. Somehow, that page had got removed from my watchlist, and I hadn't noticed. --Nigelj (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's bring the discussion together under a single heading.

The discussion is becoming fragmented, with the most recent posts under two different headings, neither the most recent heading.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really.... 100% of the last 13 edits (including typos etc) dealing with content instead of process have been under a single thread.

And that thread is Talk:Global warming#Why isn't this article marked as POV? - Continued

Per WP:TALK we should stay there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

100%? Er, actually not. Tony Sidaway's edit isn't. One of your edits isn't. And most people assume that the active thread is at the bottom of the page, not several threads up. It's not worth fighting about, but it is hard follow the discussion as it stands. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tony and I were talking process, not content, so those were not part of the 13 content-related posts in my tally. I've noticed that SOAP threads in my watchlist that are about to be archived have recently been getting "bumped" with last minute soapish posts on an increasing basis. That's how this current topic revived in a thread towards the top of the page. I've no objection to simply cutting and pasting the thread to the bottom of the page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My only interest is in increased readability. Since "Why Isn't...continued" continued the same topic in a new thread, why not a "Why Isn't... III"?Rick Norwood (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I share that goal, but we appear to have different ideas about achieving it. How about the idea of just cutting and pasting the most current thread to the bottom of the page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

CO2 Fertilization

Possible addition, or to another article: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/06/04/the-co2-fertilization-effect-wont-deter-climate-change/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 10:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see Q21 in the FAQ. --TS 02:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Change to lead sentence

Request for language change to match sources (AR4) Original:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are 95-100% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation."
To match sources (particularly AR4). Proposed:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Scientists are very extremely likely (> 95%) certain that more than half of the observed warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities."
The current statement oversimplifies the causes and links observed temperature warming to the "very likely" statement which is incorrect. (i.e. there is not a 5% chance that it didn't warm, rather there is only a 5% chance that more than half of the observed warming is natural). "Primarily" is likewise synthesized from "most." I used "more than half" but "most" (> 50%) would match the "very likely" usage prebiously. I believe it is more accurate to use the defined language of AR4 for what "most", "likely" and "very likely" mean as AR4 already went through the "maths to words" experience and it becomes unnecessarily more vague to synthesize different language. I removed fossil fuel burning and deforestation as they are but a fraction of the total CO2 equivalents and are given undue weight from all anthropogenic causes. Concrete plants, methane production and water vapor are also, if not larger, CO2 equivalents likely to influence future warming (atmospheric lifetimes notwithstanding). Comments? --DHeyward (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No thanks; At best if you push this you'll get us to up the certainty to 95% and add word "dominant" to coincide with AR5; There has been recent discussion of updating to AR5 but thus far we've been waiting for the expected January 2014 official release of the full report covering the physical science. (There will be two other installments on other aspects of the issue later.) The reason we were talking about updating in the first place is that the WG1 "Summary for Policymakers" has already been officially released. At page 15 it says in a nutshell bubble "It is extremely likely (>95%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." (underlining supplied) Unless there's some surprise change when the full report comes out, I expect we'll be tweaking text for AR5 at that time, but anyone can do it based on AR5 WG1 SPM (which I linked) if they want.That happened already, I must have been asleep. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Whence the need to clarify. They changed the word to "dominant" without changing the meaning [1]. It still means more than half. The change was from 90% certainty to 95% certainty. The fact that you highlighted "dominant" as being stronger language is a misunderstanding of what changed.

AR5 D3 section quote that supports "dominant" - It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

I have no problem with saying > 50% to clarify what "dominant" means. It's not a change from "most" though. The substantive change from AR4 to AR5 was "very likely" to "extrememly likely". "mostly" to "dominant" was neutral. --DHeyward (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All of which are good reasons to wait for the final full report to be issued (in a few days, supposedly) so we don't end up rehashing matters do to wording tweaks in the official final document. And I didn't flag "predominant" as stronger but simply the verbiage that AR5 chose to emphasize above all else. But I still think it makes sense to bide our time until the final-final-final official-final WG1 is out, so we don't go thru stuff now, and then find new things to include in a reopened debate a short time from now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So you underlined the dominant cause, you suggested using quotes from AR5 SPM (and did so by using 95% confidence, instead of extremely likely). But you don't want to use > 50% for dominant even though the same source says "extremely likely" is > 95% and "dominant" is > 50% (same as "most" in AR4). Using percentages is easier for everyone (which is why "extremely likely" should be > 95% (not even 95-100 should be used). What's absolutely incorrect is to increase the confidence to 95% but keep "deforestation" and "fossil fuel burning". That's mixing AR4 and AR5 and is incorrect. I'm not quite sure what you are objecting to. The quote I cited was from AR5 SPM which is exactly where 95% comes from. It's either all of it or none of it. Mixing them is not an options. --DHeyward (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

On what page in this pdf [2] is "dominant" defined, or are you just advocating >50% as a matter of editorial preference?Nevermind. "More than half" is in the first bullet under the nutshell on page 15. But the same bullet says that the best estimate of human GW is "similar to observed warming", at least since 1950. Since theoretical human part is so close to observed overall, I feel that quoting "more than half" instead of quoting "dominant" plants seeds of error in reader's mind because one of these quotes would utter the word "half" and the other would not utter that word. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's clear you don't understand what they are saying. There are 3 items being discussed that form that statement. 1. The amount of warming attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases (likely 0.3 to 1.3C ). 2. The amount of cooling from anthropogenic causes (likely -0.6 to 0.1C). 3. Natural forcings (likely -0.1 to 0.1C). The amount of warming attributed to greenhouse gases is larger than the amount of observed warming (0.6-0.7C) and is countered by the other forcings. "Extremely likely" derives from the GHG forcing model tracking the observed temperature after subtracting the other two forcings. That's where "similar to observed warming" comes from. It tracks it when other forcings are removed. The error in each individual forcing, however, means the magnitude of the tracked GHG contribution cannot be established beyond 50%. Whence, at least 50% of the warming is from GHGs. That's all it says. That is the scientific consensus in a nutshell. "There is a 95% chance that there is a anthropogenic GHG signal in the observed temperature record in the last 50 years. That signal is responsible for at least half of the observed warming in that time period." OUr article should accurately reflect that because that is the scientific consensus in a nutshell. Implying anything more than that, is incorrect and misrepresents what the source says. --DHeyward (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you're talking about a 30-page summary of a 1000+ page report that hasn't even be released yet, this argument is premature. I'll be more interested in debating what this phrase and that phrase mean after we have the final-final WG1 full report that is abundantly cited in this 30-page summary. Then we'll at least have the full deck of cards to argue about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is fundamentally no different than AR4. It needs to be stated that way or it is wrong. The difference between AR4 and AR5 is the change in confidence that the signal is present (90 to 95%). The 50% of that warming being due to anthropogenic causes is unchanged. Pick whether you want to say "90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for at least half of the observed warming" (AR4) or "95% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for at least half of the observed warming" (AR5). That's the only difference. --DHeyward (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah the old "pick one" trick. AR5 is cited after the sentence in question, so as it stands now, it is wrong - it contradicts the cited sources. The cited source says (P. 17), in a bold red emphasis box, "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ since 1750". As you know, we use the conclusions that the cited sources themselves draw to write Wikipedia text, not our own interpretations, or anything quote-mined from deep in the supporting text or diagrams. "The largest contribution to" we translate to "is primarily caused by" to avoid plagiarism, and to avoid the use of quotes in prose text. I see no problem with that. I'll put the article back to the cited version. If you have any suggestions for further improvement, maybe wait until you have discussed it with more than one editor, and please don't do it by issuing ultimatums. --Nigelj (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it's not an ultimatum. "primarily" is 50%. It's clearly in the the source. Go read the SPM and this is about the . It's not 95%-100% it's "greater than 95%" and while this is not significant distinction for lay people, it is for scientists and we should be accurat. I have no problem with the source. But the AR5 source says greater that 95% and more than 50%. I was told to wait for AR5. I have no preference of choosing AR4 over AR5, but we should use the percentages their language uses (like we almost did for "extremely likely" but not "primarily" or "mostly" which is 50%. I will change to AR5 and you can see what it looks like. The difference in the SPM is the increase in confidence that the signal is present but statistically there is no difference in the percentage attributed (> 50%) See NEG and why he struck out his comment. He saw the same thing and it's what the science of AR5 says. --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Cut and paste from the source SPM AR5 - D3 bullet 1.

• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

--Source [3] I didn't see anything on page 17 so please indicate what section you are referring to. DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I quoted a significant passage - more than enough for you to find with Ctrl-F. The conclusion I quoted was from the summary of the whole of Section C - 'Drivers of Climate Change'. I used the PDF page number; the page number printed on the page is 11. Choosing one bullet point from 33 pages is not the way to write a one-sentence summary for the first paragraph of the lede of this top-level article. This must be based on the summary authors' own summary, not ours. Per false precision free translations between "the largest contribution", "more than half" and "50%" do not result in three equivalent statements. In addition, Section C is about the 'Drivers of Climate Change' and the bullet point in Section D3, which you quote from, is about 'the observed increase in global average surface temperature'. As a lot of the intervening text makes clear, these are two separate topics, one important difference between them being the extensive effect of feedback mechanisms, and another being the varied distribution of heat into the upper and lower atmosphere, the surface and deep ocean waters, ice, etc. The sentence we are talking about used to be about "Warming [... which] is primarily caused by...", and is now about something else, which is far less clear. --Nigelj (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward, see AR5 WG1 SPM page 2, footnote 2, which reads

• "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result....Extremely Likely 95-100%...." I admit the question of

>95% as opposed to 95-100%

is sort of a puny content dispute, but it does make me pause when evaluating remarks on the bigger issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC) PS I belatedly realized that AR4's SPM says "extremely likely" is ">95%". So I suppose we could chalk this up to confusion over which SPM is being mentioned at any one time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

On "more than half", although the full WG1 report is not yet released (if I read the IPCC page correctly they think it will happen about Jan 30), a draft is online. It says at the bottom of each page "don't quote or cite" so I'm just posting this excerpt here as FYI. In the FAQ for chapter 10, in the draft they say

"The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that "it is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010."" (quotation in the original)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 5 January 201 (UTC)

@Nigelj, I assume you are questioning the attribution to fossil fuels and deforestation? I removed that and left anthropogenic greenhouse gasses per the source attributing change in temperature because this is presumably the article about surface warming ("Global warming"). Temperature changes are attibuted from a grouping of 3 separate forcings. CO2 is one component of one of those forcings. Since this article is about warming, and not radiative forcing, and the fact that forcings of CO2 are attributed separately as a piece of all anthropogenic causes, calling out fossil fuels and land use changes and conflating it with the consensus on warming is incorrect. IPCC does not do that in either AR4 or AR5. Rather they have 3 forcings, 1) anthropogenic greenhouse gases, 2) anthropogenic cooling effects and 3) natural forcings. They don't seperate out temperature increases observed in the world into CO2 and land use. CO2 is part of AGHG. Land use albedo changes, particulate, soot, sulfur in fossil fuels, etc, are lumped into the anthropogenic cooling forcing (note that this forcing can be negative per AR5 most likely due to particulates). The end result is that greater than half of the observed global surface warming is attributable to anthropogenic causes with greater than a 95% confidence. It is incorrect and a synthesis of data to say that CO2 and land use changes are responsible for that > 50% in surface temperature. Plagiarism is not an issue and red herring for writing inaccurate statements. --DHeyward (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@NAEG, my only reason for >95% vs. 95%-100%, is that the scientists will almost always use it as a confidence interval. They seak the 95% confidence point and test the data (model) against it. Other ways are as a tail of a probability density function. The trap is to present the range as equally likely without knowing what statistics were used. Therefore, while intuitively 95-100% encompasses the entire set, it is unknown where the drop is or how sensitive the test is which is why statisticians would specify only the percentage they tested against to avoid any inference that may not be supported. See confidence interval for more on why a specific notation may be preferred. --DHeyward (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to read any more long, citation-free screeds explaining global warming again to me and the world. Writing article text is easy: the hard part is choosing the best sources and the best parts of the chosen sources to summarise and paraphrase. For the last time: I say it is best to base this sentence on the summary to Section C in the AR5 document, not on any other bullet point or personal explanation. Here is is again: "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ since 1750." I'm prepared to discuss how best to summarise that, but I am not prepared to discuss the 'actual' mechanisms of global warming, nor how scientists work. --Nigelj (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You can add that to a subsection I suppose but forcings, "fingerprints" and "global warming" are not the same. That's very clear. The section pertaining to global surface temperature is the relevant section for this article and that is also very straight forward. It's misleading to break out CO2 forcings from 1750. --DHeyward (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Global Warming vs Climate Change Caused By Humans

It appears that this article should be titled Climate Change Caused By Humans. Let's also keep the politics and personal agendas out and stick with scientific facts, which by stating does not intend to validate the data interpretation within this article. All scientists have been advised at least once in their life to always question data and to theorize. As scientific history has shown, "facts" are not always facts. Let's keep with the science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.162.27 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific regarding the concerns you have? BlackHades (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014

In the global warming article, 5th line, 10th word, which is a link-i.e., 'Greenhouse Gases', the spelling of gases if incorrect. Hence, it is my humble request to change the spelling of gases from 'gasses' to 'gases'. Thanking you Yours sincerely Vanaj Vidyan vanajvidyan@gmail.com Vanaj Vidyan (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: Gasses is an alternate spelling of gases. I don't see any evidence where either is preferred or has a strong national tie. Unless gases is used consistently throughout the rest of the article, I don't see a reason to change it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Burning fossil fuels and deforestation" in lead

There's been some debate about using that phrase in the lead. For a long time, (2 years?) there has been no WP:LEADCITE, but the body text does support it, with a citation to TAR (2000). AR5 WG1 SPM identifies several things, but also says the dominant contributor is the buildup of greenhouse gas, especially CO2 since 1750. Maybe we can make something of that. In any case, if "Burning fossil fuels and deforestation" goes back into the lead, it should do so in a way that does not take an ax to all AR5 WG1 SPM references.... so add proposed text back manually please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

AR5 WG1 SPM says, in the summary to section B5 (P. 9), "Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions." AR4 (cited at the end of the relevant sentence, but not in the quote used in the <ref>) says in bold, "Global increases in CO₂ concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution."[4] We should base article text (especially in a lead summary) on the conclusions drawn by the cited source's authors, not by trawling around in the raw data, the sub-bullet points, or the diagrams, for snippets. Therefore, I would say that the only debate is whether to replace "deforestation" by "net land use change". I suggest that we should make it clear that we are talking about the cause of CO₂ concentration increases, and use a phrase very close to "primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions". --Nigelj (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's good, thanks. I totally agree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's in the "forcings" section of the report. It's not warming. Forcings correlate to warming but are not the same. If you look at the AR4 section on warming (and the title is "Global Warming" not net energy forcings) , it's anthropogenic green house gases, including methane and water vapor, that are attributed for more than half the warming. It's not burning of fossil fuels or cement plants (try to find the difference) or land use changes (which in AR5 are a cooling, not a warming effect). It is pure synthesis to attribute a number (0.3 to 0.7C in the last 50 years) to 2 causes. It's rubbish. IPCC does not attribute any amount of warming to the singular effect of fossil fuel burning. It's fair to discuss the various forcings in the body, but fossil fuel burning associated with a specific amount of warming is not. Therefore, it's not a lead item in article global warming--DHeyward (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from forcings, the other things that affect global temperatures are mostly feedbacks. Water vapour, methane released due to warming tundra etc, and changes in albedo due to melting ice, are as much effects of the initial forcings as they are causes of further warming in their own rights. The sentence is about the main cause, and the sources say that main cause is the main source of CO₂, i.e. human activity. Forcings cause global warming, feedbacks are part of the response, and cause further effects – usually more warming although negative feedback loops do also exist. --Nigelj (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's all modeled as a forcing. The citation for the wording doesn't support it. Cement plants are nearly half the source of man-made direct CO2. Land use change including deforestation is modeled as a net cooling effect. Read the citation for that sentence and find the table. It's anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the sum that is responsible for warming. It's countered by anthropogenic cooling. Natural variation is modeled as near 0. This why warming tracks forcing but warming is not forcing. Without cooling offsets like land use changes, the observed increase in surface temperature is estimated to be nearly double the current observed amount. It's simply incorrect to call out fossil fuel burning (a definite component of warming, but not whole) and deforestation (modeled as a net cooling). Tundra exposure is not deforestation. --DHeyward (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

AR5 WG1 SPM says

• land-use-related albedo change is somewhat cooling, but it also references
• land-use-related greenhouse gases buildup, though it seems to stop short of directly connecting the dots to compare to albedo change without wikipedia editors doing original research.

So why do keep saying IPCC claims "land use is cooling"?

At any rate, if AR5 WG1 draft paragraph 6.3.1 (CO2 Emissions and Their Fate Since 1750) survives until official publication we can probably say ""...human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, cement production, and land use changes (mainly deforestation)."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ar5 SPM page 12, chart SPM.5. Seconde to last line in the chart and the last anthropogenic item. Called "Albedo change due to land use" -0.15 W m^-2. That's the forcing. There's also a temperature chart in the WG details. --DHeyward (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the statement behind the chart in the document we can't cite (another reason not to even mention it). [5]. Chapter 8-4 (page 6 in the PDF). They discuss whether the CO2 contribution of land use change offsets albedo changes of land use (the difference is the net effect of land use change). Bolding is theirs. Basically, it says "keep it out" as albedo is cooling and the net change of whether it's overall a cooling or warming effect has low agreement. They keep the albedo in the forcing models and any change to GHG's are lumped into the larger forcing. No support for saying that land use change contributes to global warming.

There is robust evidence that anthropogenic land use change has increased the land surface albedo, which leads to a RF of -0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2

. There is still a large spread of estimates due to different assumptions for the albedo of natural and managed surfaces and the fraction of land use changes before 1750. Land use change causes additional modifications that are not radiative, but impact the surface temperature, in particular through the hydrologic cycle. These are more uncertain and they are difficult to quantify, but tend to offset the impact of albedo changes. As a consequence, there is low agreement on the sign of the net change in global mean temperature as a result of land use change. [8.3.5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

No need to prove the WP:POINT that land use's albedo shift is a neg forcing; no is disputing that so please stop arguing about it. In addition, when you do mention the neg forcing related to land use, let's be NPOV and mentioned GHG emissions related to the same phenomena.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the lead with what SPM says about overall forcing (pos), the largest contributor (CO2), and the main sources of CO2 (ff burning, cement production, and land use especially deforestration.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get deforestation? It is clearly misleading. Land use change is only listed as a cooling forcing. There is no agreement on it's net overall effect. "Deforestation" is NOT SUPPORTED as being significant. Please tell me where "deforestation" is listed as GHGs that have a consensus of warming? It doesn't. -DHeyward (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Check the citation I included, which contains the direct quote and page number.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Land-use is responsible for roughly 1/3 of carbon emissions - 1/3 of the carbon forcing is 0.54 W/m² which is significantly higher than the 0.15 W/m² of albedo change. That makes it your responsibility to find it explicitly stated in the AR5 that land-use is a negligible factor (especially since the AR5 states (directly) that uncorrected for urban-heat+landuse change could be responsible for as high as 10% of total warming - though more likely significantly lower, but still positive). --Kim D. Petersen 04:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Explicitly the AR5 estimates carbon emissions from land-use change to be (0.17–0.51 W/m²)[AR5 WGI 8.3.2.1] which is significantly higher than albedo changes which is (-0.15±0.10 W/m²) [AR5 WGI 8.3.5.6] --Kim D. Petersen 04:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead, whether to specify projected amount of further warming

Since the lead is supposed to avoid being overly-technical, I think it is problematic to attempt to explain the temperature ranges for different emission scenarios, or what will be Representative Concentration Pathways in AR5. We can't just take the low number from the low one and high number from the high one to SYNTH an overall range. (The archives have a lot of debate on that.) And the language we now use to describe the temp range projections is too complex for a lead (even though I helped draft it). SO INSTEAD, in the lead I think we should switch to text explaining that how much more it warms depends on net future emissions. I'll probably attempt some draft text, but first wanted to solicit some preliminary discussion on the issue. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The only interesting part of RCP's are the upper and lower bounds of sea lecel rise. Because of the "pause" in measured surface temps but the continued increase in sea level rise, the upper limit of RCP8.5 of 1 meter of sea level rise is significant. It is probably the most confident upper bound of any prediction. The surface temperature variation has a lot less confidence tan the sea level rise limits. --DHeyward (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Section on food security

I think that the section of the article on global warming#Food security is in need of revision. I'm concerned that it places too much weight on a few studies, and does not explain that projected changes are highly uncertain. Another problem is how it explains changes in food production in relation to socio-economic changes. It mentions changes in population, but does not discuss how, even including the effects of climate change, socio-economic development may help to reduce malnutrition from present levels (see Easterling et al 2007). The section also heavily emphasizes negative impacts on food but places very little weight on positive effects.

References:

• Easterling, WE (2007). "5.6.5 Food security and vulnerability". In ML Parry, et al, (eds.) (ed.). Chapter 5: Food, Fibre, and Forest Products. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-88010-6. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); Invalid |display-authors=1 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

• Gornall, J., et al. Implications of climate change for agricultural productivity in the early twenty-first century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2010 365 2973-2989 doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0158 (published 16 August 2010)

• HLPE, 2012. Food security and climate change (section 2.2). A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome 2012

• US NRC (2011), Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia, Washington, D.C., USA: National Academies Press{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link), Sec 5.1 FOOD PRODUCTION, PRICES, AND HUNGER, pp.160-162

Enescot (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and it doesn't even mention the likely increased food production in Northern climages if the world continues to warm... cwmacdougall 11:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

user:cwmacdougall, yes it does - the whole second paragraph is about that, and don't forget that it only applies for small increases in future temperature, not for the larger projections. Which we get will depend on future cuts in global CO₂ emissions, and we still have seen nothing but increases so far. User:Enescot, your well-sourced alterations are always interesting, and usually very good. I'm sure you're well aware that this section is a short summary of the main article at Climate change and agriculture, which might be in need of an upgrade too. It hasn't been on my watchlist until now. And of course we have AR5 coming out bit by bit just at the moment too. --Nigelj (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

While WG1 is scheduled for public release Jan 30, the other parts are still some months out, though maybe their SPM's will arrive sooner. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Chap. 7 of the AR5 deals with food production http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ar5-outline.html (not yet released) The IPCC AR4 Impact report also states: "Ecosystems and species are very likely to show a wide range of vulnerabilities to climate change, depending on imminence of exposure to ecosystem-specific, critical thresholds (very high confidence)." http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter4.pdf Prokaryotes (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Climategate?

Any article on global warming that suppresses the data massaging at Britain's CRU clearly meets the definition of bias. It would be like discussing Ronald Regans Presidency without mentioning Iran/Contra (which I notice is covered on RR Wiki page.)

Come on boys. This is an encyclopedia not a political soapbox for your latest enviroscare. All legitimate sides of an issue should be covered. And I can't imagine that anyone thinks the the [word deleted] conspiracy uncovered at the CRU is unsubstantiated, "managed", but not unsubstantiated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoSheepDip (talk • contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

NoSheepDip (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

°Be polite, and welcoming to new users

 °Assume good faith
 °Avoid personal attacks

Thanks HiLo, now I feel welcome.

Any editor, new or old, who turns up blatantly pushing a non-neutral POV with expressions like "your latest enviroscare" is deserving of little respect. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)