# Talk:Global warming/Archive 50

## What is the effect of C02?

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century" and "James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another in recent decades, so that net warming has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases"

The article gives the sense that CO2 isn't the problem. If it hasn't been a problem but will be, this isn't entirely clear. --Karbinski (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. CO2 warms. CO2 also accumulates over long times. Aerosols cool, but only stay in the air for a relatively short term. Quite by accident (and, of course, if you follow Hansen), by 2000 the overall warming due to CO2 is about the same time as the cooling due to aerosols, so the net warming is about the same size as expected from the other anthropogenic forcings (Methane, CFCs, soot,...). Any idea how to make this clearer? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't like Hansen's push-me-pull-you. It's fundamentally misleading. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, its very clear if you read the paper and not the blogs written about it. Why is it misleading? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It's misleading as an approach because it makes out that some emissons are 'more important' than others with the same GWP. They are all a problem, whether rising or falling. The earth doesn't care what is making it hotter. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
So would you rather have it be something more like ${\displaystyle \Sigma \left({\text{greenhouse forcings}}\right)-{\text{aerosols}}}$? In other words, are you worried that it is implied that the aerosols only knock out CO2, when it is simply canceling the scalar value of its contribution, which could also be reached with a-little-of-this, a-little-of-that? Awickert (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As it is, I'd say _implied_ is a weak description of it, so yes. Extending the concern a little farther, shouldn't this article, for the non-expert adult, answer the question "why is it important to reduce C02 emmissions?" ? - that is the main thrust of most legislation. --Karbinski (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. My point was that hansen's arbitrary cancellings-out are just that - arbitrary. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
So I sort of like the statement that the CO2 pollution is canceled out by its own aerosols: let's try this, though. "James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that aerosols released by fossil fuel burning reflect about as much radiation as the CO2 released by fossil fuel burning absorbs. Therefore, the current net global warming is due to the sum of the warming effect of all greenhouse gases, minus the cooling effect of the aerosols." It's sort of rough, but do you like the idea better? Awickert (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Stephan Shulz for revert - can we make that distinction? That is, why is it momentary? --Karbinski (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

## Kuznets

So I took out the Kuznets stuff too [1]. There is probably a home for that article somewhere, but I doubt it belongs here - more likely somewhere like Kyoto. And the text needs neutralising, so to speak William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You did say in your comment that it needs better wording. This was my wording: "Carbon dioxide appears to follow a Kuznets curve, and its emissions appear to peak at a per capita GDP of approximately $30,000, so it might not be realistic to expect poor countries to cut their emissions until they reach that point. [121][122]" I would be interested in hearing any suggested improvements. Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Does the Environment, Development and Sustainability paper match your text? If not this is wp:SYN. The rest of the issue is a question of attribution... basically it's said in an OPED by 'some dude', so stating it as an absolute is not acceptable. NJGW (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I trimmed it, removed OR and put it back.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC) No, not happy with that, for quite a few reasons. The abstract itself says The results suggest that the EKC exists, which is weaker than the article text. Secondly, you certainly and Grundle probably haven't read the thing. Thirdly it isn't too hard to find other refs that say it doesn't exist (e.g. http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/stern.pdf) so the text, jumping on a single study, is unacceptable. It would be nice were it needless to say that the NYT article is junk and shouldn't be used, but alas you used it so it isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Um. For anyone with actual access to the article, have a looksee at figure 1b. Funny how the "fit" doesn't look anything like the data, although I'm sure it's "statistically significant". Reminds me of other economic "curve fitting". -Atmoz (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I edited and re-inserted according to the summary posted. If it had been different I wouldn't have re-inserted. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC) "according to the summary posted" - what does that mean. Poster where? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC) What I mean is that the original reasons given for the original rmvl did not justify the complete rmvlAndrewjlockley (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Both the NYT column and the Dutt article are far too vague and speculative to support the bare assertion "Carbon dioxide emissions appear to follow a Kuznets curve, peaking at a per capita GDP of approximately$30,000." A more accurate statement would be "according to economist Kuheli Dutt, there is a possibility that CO2 emissions may follow a Kuznets curve but this may well be a spurious correlation resulting from unrelated environmental policies." That's small beans for an overview article like this one, though it may be worth mentioning in one of the gazillion other GW-related articles scattered across Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Exclude - this result needs very good evidence and very strong references, otherwise it threatens to mislead us. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Add elsewhereAndrewjlockley (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

## More contrary evidence needs including but how?

I came across the following video[2] which suggests that there are at least two clear pieces of evidence that prove that global warming was not due to mankind. The two were that most global warming models predict a concentration of heating in the atmosphere which has not occurred, and that the long wave IR levels have risen which is in clear contradiction to the idea that global warming would reduce the amount of IR escaping to space. It is a real shame it was a video presentation because the quality of the evidence against manmade global warming is superb. (Ignore the intro, and OK it's by a young cons of Texas and presented by a former advisor of Thatcher, but even so, for anyone interested in the subject, with an open mind it really is worth a look) Bugsy (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The only way to include this would be for you or someone else to write down these arguments in the form of a scientific article and then submit that for peer review. If that article is accepted for publication and it then leads to a shift in the thinking of a substantial fraction of climate scientists, then it can be included in this wiki article. This then means that your article would have to be submitted to and accepted for publication by a top journal like Nature. Count Iblis (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It's also nonsense. Of course the overall IR radiation escaping to space in equilibrium will be (very nearly) constant, and balance the incoming sunlight. Otherwise the Earth would heat up without limit. And the discrepancies in tropospheric warming between models and reality are quite minor - I suspect this is inspired by the Douglass er all paper, which has been quite thoroughly debunked. Also, of course, refuting individual climate models will not get rid of the basic thermodynamics that predict the greenhouse effect - at most it reduces our abilities to predict the detailed effects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Bugsy you might want to give this a good going over http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/ and check out the points its making... and also take a look at this for a reference about science in general http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html skip sievert (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't second your recommendation, Skipsievert. There are better explanations of the scientific method elsewhere. The link you provide doesn't mention mathematics and doesn't meantion experimental error.Rick Norwood (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the main thing I was trying to get across http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/ - This is science and it is science at its best. It is explanatory as to the topic in discussion. skip sievert (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There are some problems with this one, too, especially on some of the charts that use numbers without units. The truth of the matter is that real science uses too much mathematics for the average citizen to understand, and when you try to explain science without using mathematics, it stops being real science. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in the truth of the matter, and talk pages are not a place to speculate about original research. Our standard for inclusion is "Verifiability, not Truth". Facts and citations can be verified; 'truths' are often open to dispute. noaa would be considered an excellent source for the article. I gave the link as an example of how science is used in this context of Global warming. skip sievert (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you said you gave the article as something Bugsy might want to read. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave the link as an example of how science is used in this context of Global warming for Bugsy or anyone else. skip sievert (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

## Alleged scientific fraud in Urban Heat Island Effect

Douglas J. Keenan has “formally alleged that he committed fraud in some of his research,including research cited by the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007) on “urban heat islands” (a critical issue).”[1]

Web sites with further information:

Shortened to: (Keenan alleges that Wang's UHI research is fraudulent)

Putting the longer statement under Urban Heat Island

I'd suggest finding a reliable source to backup these claims before trying to get them in the article (and, for that matter, misconduct claims regarding a single obscure researcher don't really merit inclusion here. Try the article on UHI instead). Given that the researcher's University officially cleared him of any wrongdoing, there is a pretty high bar to overcome before the evidence of any fraud (or willful coverup by his University) is valid. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
And since these are only two of several studies on the UHI, it does not belong here at all, unless reliable sources pick this up and claim it significantly affects the temperature record. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention WP:BLP: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" etc etc etc. If it's quoted from a reliable source that's one thing, but the self-published sources you cite here are right out, period. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly a factual case where a complaint has been on substantial evidence alleging fraud. However this is not the first time where figures have been fraudulently changed and I recommend watching this[3] video to anyone interested in the subject. I was particularly interested to read that many of the main conclusions of the IPCC reports were not from scientists and in several cases the scientists disagreed with the conclusions. In line with previous comments this would make the IPCC reports themselves unreliable sources for this article. Bugsy (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh heavens to Betsy, will you guys get off this "the scientists disagree with the IPCC" nonsense? We're not a timid bunch and you can bet that if the IPCC misrepresented the science a lot of us would be howling bloody murder. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is a REALLY big problem. If the GISS numbers are unreliable (and remember, they already contradict trends in both the modern proxies and the satellite measurements) global warming theory loses its primary evidential support for the assertion trace amounts of CO2 are driving climate temperature. The surface station surveys suggest the heat island effect may be quite large. TallDave7 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

## Celcius degrees versus degrees Celcius

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
"°C" ("degrees C" or "degrees Celsius") is the official convention for both temperature and changes in temperature. Awickert (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit re symbols for temperature changes. I can't find a source for this at the moment, but as I was taught, there is a distinction between "degrees Celcius" (symbolized as °C) and "Celcius degrees" (correctly, I believe, symbolized as C°). The former is used for reporting temperatures, as in "it's now 20 degrees Celcius outside". The latter is a unit of changes in temperature, as in "The temperature has gone up three Celcius degrees since this morning." (The same distinction applies re Fahrenheit. No such distinction occurs for the Kelvin scale because it starts at absolute zero.) The WP:MOSNUM doesn't appear to me to contradict this: it's only talking about units for temperature and is not mentioning the symbols for units of temperature changes. To me, the edit makes the text seem to nonsensically claim that the warming effect brings the temperature up to a temperature of 3 degrees (rather than stating that it raises the temperature by three degrees). Coppertwig (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, though I feel that's already apparent. Kerrow (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what you have been taught, but I've never seen this distinction anywhere. The correct unit, for both absolute temperatures and temperature differences, is °C/°F respectively. And, as a minor aside, the man the unit is named after is Anders Celsius. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec a go go) Your interpretation contradicts usage in both the professional literature and in the popular press; e.g., Newsweek says "average surface temperatures have increased 1 degree Fahrenheit (.5 degree Celsius)." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
So putting the ° before of after the word "degree" changes the meaning. Man, this is weird and confusing. But if it's the right to write it then let's. --McSly (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I dislike it, and have reverted back to the version that has been stable forever. K has broken 3RR, but doesn't seem to have been warned, so I just have William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I object sir, I did not break 3RR. Please check first before assuming. Also, William, I don't care about your personal feelings regarding the convention. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kerrow (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I can assure you that you did. If you think admins are going to be fooled by you writing "this is not a revert" [4] you're wrong. And you cannot mix "sir" with first-name terms. We are not on first name terms William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Stephan, i've never seen C° .... ever (well now i have (here)). The "celsius degree" thing (if it exists) seems to be an americanism (or britishism). None of my physics or chemistry books use this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec/ec) Can we get at least one example of a usage of C°? (i have to say that i'm extremely sceptical of the existance) But even then its a moot argument, since °C is the overwhelmingly common usage. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[5] (as explained in Celsius#Temperatures and intervals). -Atmoz (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Most scientists ignore such stupid conventions. If you publish in a scientific journal then they may have some guidlines for notations but no referee or editor will object or even notice if you do not stick to such ridiculous guidlines that stipulate how to use the degrees symbol. What tends to happen is that if you do something that most authors do not do, then you can get some comments. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if you used the degrees symbol "correctly" that you would be asked to change it back into the "incorrect" form, simply because everyone uses this symbol that way. Count Iblis (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal experience with both publication and editing is otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There are differences between different fields. In theoretical physics journals you can get away with almost anything. Count Iblis (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I've often suspected as much... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Atmoz wanted to give an example of C° - both his sources state that the same unit is used for temperatures and temperature differences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's °C, not C°, and the unit is spelled "Celsius". See 99.9F° for an interesting exception, though I doubt it is applicable to this discussion. --John (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

## Semi-protecting the talk page

I've read through the transcripts in Archive 49[6] that WMC got tired of anons essentially spamming the talk page. I am not polarized on the issue however this is in direct violation of WP:PP, where in it states "[...] A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time." There does not appear to be a community sanction, nor any reports from arbitration. I'm asking for some explanation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

When you read the Archive you would have (or should have) noticed that this was done with unanimous consent, even from those engaged in serious ongoing conflict with WMC. Policy should never trump common sense. More at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR, etc etc etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
As you probably saw, an anon was being a total waste of time by posting a skeptic's laundry list and refusing to engage in polite productive conversation; I think the talk page has become more efficient since then. I like it this way; maybe a healthy compromise would be a semi-protection that doesn't require an autoconfirmed account (does such a thing exist?). Awickert (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think such a feature is presently available (though in principle it would not be hard to implement). I don't recall how long it's been since our friend was disrupting the page. They tend to get bored and wander off, so if it's been a few weeks we could try lifting the semi-protection on a trial basis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I know about WP:IAR and WP:BURO Boris. The wording of you comment implies that I do not. I didn't say that I was in direct disagreement with the action take, I stated that I'm asking for explanation that goes beyond what has been described in the archives. Consensus among a limited group of editors—that is within the article talk space—cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. This is taken almost word for word from WP:CON. While it certainly makes sense to lock the article for a cool down period, the protection level is "indefinite". This holds strong negative implications. Look, I'm not going to judge, if you want, I can ask WP:AN for a neutral administrator to see what he or she thinks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, barring the account-not-autoconfirmed type of protection, which I would like because it would allow anons to make accounts and provide input right away, but disruptive accounts could be blocked and subsequently sockblocked if necessary, but which seems not to exist, maybe it would be best to lift the protection ASAP and see what happens. It's been a few weeks, so I think it would be OK (as per Boris, above). Awickert (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy aspect isn't very interesting. But if the anon has got bored, we can try unprot William M. Connolley (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's do it. If anons start soapboxing here again, we (you) can reprotect. Awickert (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

## Life as we know it

The following is a direct quote from the IPCC.

"Thus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible." p 23 of 36

Thus, it does not matter if it is true, only that it is found in a reliable source. Q Science (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First, the current text is subtly but significantly different. But more importantly, we do not have to add everything that is verifiable - we have to reflect all major pertinent views. I don't think this half sentence adds anything worthwhile, thus, per Strunk & White, I'd rather see it go. The article is long as it is, there is no reason to add every or even any embellishments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC)Wikipedia: the propagation of wrong information. Because someone else said it first. -Atmoz (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, life as I know it includes attractive girls sun-tanning on the beach... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to make sure I have this straight. Someone adds something from an IPCC report and you delete it because "it is not true". Funny, that's what most of the skeptics also claim but you won't let them do the same thing. If you think this is not true, then please provide a proper reference and we can use it in a section (or page) on known lies in the IPCC reports. Otherwise, we should leave the information there. Q Science (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's safe to assume WP:IAR if everyone agree something isn't true. Above rule is to resolve content disputes. Also sentences should reflect the spirit of what's being said in the source as well so it's not being taken out of context I mean. (Not that I have an opinion in this particular case.)
Apis (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the phrase was used in context exactly like the IPCC used it in the reference provided and I don't know of any reference that says that it is not true. Yet, these 2 people have claimed that this statement is a lie without providing ANY reference. What I don't understand is why it bothers them so much. Q Science (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
See Hydrothermal vent#Biological communities.[7] And it's not a lie, it's an idiom. -Atmoz (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
As I tried to point out, maybe a bit to subtly, above, it's a matter of how you interpret "life as we know it". If you take it as "no known form of life would survive without the natural greenhouse effect", then yes, it is plain wrong. But it can also be interpreted as "the current biosphere would not exist in this form (but there might be another one that we don't know)". Without the natural greenhouse effect we might not have come out of snowball earth, implying no liquid water on the surface, hence little to no photosynthesis and no oxygen atmosphere. I'd call that life very different from "as we know it". Anyways, I don't take this half-sentence as having any particular relevance. For me, it looks like something that has been added for rhetoric flourish, not like a carefully sourced scientific statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I understood your point. My point is that the phrase "as we know it" is pointless. "We" "know" that life can exist without the natural greenhouse effect because "we" have evidence that it does. In the event of a snowball earth, surface life would probably still exist because it exists in really cold places on the surface now. See McMurdo Dry Valleys#Biota too. "We" (humans, mammals, animals) probably wouldn't exist, but I don't think that's a valid interpretation of "as we know it". If the IPCC wanted to say that human life is dependent upon the natural greenhouse effect, that's fine. But they didn't. -Atmoz (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point, but that is not how most people would have interpreted that phrase (since that is not where WE live). Perhaps it is worth including just to explain that it only applies to "normal" life forms as opposed to extremophiles. Q Science (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not worth adding this at all. It diverges from the topic of the article, which is, after all, global warming, not the greenhouse effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
IMO it serves a very useful purpose, in that it clarifies "normal" levels of warming as distinct from global warming - the two are often conflated, and/or used as an argument that global warming cannot exist, since warming due to greenhouse gases is necessary to life as we know it. KillerChihuahua?!? 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And why wouldn't it have the opposite effect of making people confuse "the natural greenhouse effect" with global warming instead?
Apis (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's self evident from the 33 °C part, so it would only add unnecessary bulk... and it's not particularly relevant to the article anyway (global warming).
Apis (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest changing the lead to something like 'GW is caused by increases in Earth's natural greenhouse effect' to clarify this point. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Not my first choice, but certainly that would be acceptable to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
GW isn't caused by increases in Earth's natural greenhouse effect. And it's already included in the lead as "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century". -Atmoz (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, it will need some tweaking, he only said "something like..." it was not meant to be a finished edit. So how would you rephrase for accuracy, and to try to avoid misunderstandings on the part of the reader? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's my go at it: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century"... -Atmoz (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

## Temp rises

Suggest the +/- figures are chopped from the lead and put as a note. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely against. The uncertainty is as important as the rise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the wiki link on the +/- sign? I thought there used to be a link to the definition of uncertainty? Count Iblis (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well can we write it in prose then? Eg global warming is the recent increase in global average surface temperatures. When measured from 19xx to 20xx there has been a rise of around xC. This figure may be slightly inaccurate, and the true figure is beleived to lie in a range of xC to xC. Quite frankly I think this is much more accesible to the kids and moms and car mechanics who might want to read this article. Virtually everyone who edit's this article has got a science/maths/engineering degree and we should write for people who haven't. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
No. See Strunk and White. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Does Strunk and White take priority over readability? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Mu. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'll be more explicit than. The proposal by Andrew seems easier to understand for non-science/math people. In so far as that, it seems preferable to using +/- even if +/- is the technically preferred style standard. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
More explicit than what? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant stating my point more explicitly than it was done by question which did so implicitly. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you repeat that? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
No. Because I clearly need more sleep. Have a goodnight. I'll explain myself in the morning if it turns out I had something resembling a coherent thought. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The unscientific folks with whom I associate happen to be comfortable with +/-. I also think that it gives much more information. Awickert (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let us not dumb this thing down. Wasn't there a proposal to create a simplified article for the children? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the uncertainty in the uncertainty of 0.18°C? If it is something like 0.05°C or larger, then we should replace 0.18°C by 0.2°C. Count Iblis (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

it needs %confidence on the +/- tooAndrewjlockley (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree - does anyone know if these are 1-σ or 2-σ? Awickert (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It's on page 2 of the SPM, if one cares to look. -Atmoz (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I figured that would deserve a snark. I will care to look. Awickert (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
90%. Anyone else think this should be added? Awickert (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
As a note perhaps. -Atmoz (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Awickert (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Back from Wikibreak, good to see you guys. I know I'm coming in late, but page 2 of the SPM calls it "uncertainty intervals", and no necessarily "90% certainty." I've reworded it to "[...] These values are constructed with a 90% uncertainty interval." This is a little different wording for me, I'm used to calling it a confidence interval, is there a reason for this difference? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing; no difference AFAIK. I personally prefer confidence interval, or even better, "standard dev" or "standard error" so I know how they calc'ed it - but I think (?) this might be too complicated for one of those. Awickert (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

## Author and Publisher internal links

In the following version[8] the IPCC is linked over forty times, and likewise to many magazines and journals. Linking and relinking increases load times, parse time, and hampers reading with the "sea of blue". This is WP:OVERLINK. While it certainly makes sense to provide the reader with a means to determine who is behind the source, especially those less notable authors. I've delinked most of the common publishers, publishing dates, and several authors within references (there has been no edit to the body) in the following diff[9] in accordance with our MoS. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

## Chart error?

On the first chart, the 5 year average line, last point, appears to be high by about 0.02 C°.

The degree symbol, °, stands for the word degree, just like % stands for percent and is read as the word. If the degree symbol is before C (or F, K, or R) it is a temperature. If it is after the letter it is a temperature DIFFERENCE. For example, if the temperature changes from 21 °C to 23 °C it has increased by 2 C°. It is surprising to discover that this usage/meaning is not universal. However, correct interpretation can usually be determined from context. If I had read/heard that it increased by 2 °C that would be OK too. So, shrug. Dan Pangburn (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not universal" is a remarkable understatement: I have never once seen the degree sign follow the unit specifier either in the professional literature or in the popular press. Are there subfields where this is common? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures has lots of pages on "degree celsius"[10] - but not a single one on "celsius degrees"[11] (with or without "s" at end). And that really should be the end of that discussion.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Boris and Kim. I've never seen °C except for a recent discussion right here. Our article Degree symbol is completely silent on ° as a postfix. ℃ and ℉ are individual unicode code points, while C° and F° are not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And the argument makes absolutely no sense in an SI context, since C is Coulomb not celsius. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you look at the link given by Atmoz in the archived section above, you will see that the actual official usage is °C for both. Awickert (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never ever ever never ever seen it either. As Kim said: it makes no sense in a SI unit context. Although it's kind of funny in a strange way. :)
Apis (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean, it could probably be useful in some case if there was a widespread convention to write like that but there clearly isn't so it shouldn't be used in my opinion.
Apis (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it was a typo. Never seen it done like that before in uni degree, wiki, or whilst doing lefty-greeny treehugging.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seven comments on the shrug. I thought that the chart error would be more important. Dan Pangburn (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because there's no chart error - thanks for asking. It's likely because of the 5-year averaging window. It actually looks OK to me, it hits its year dead-on; I'm impressed that you can eyeball 0.02 °C. Awickert (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
PS - extensive discussion of this in the archives. Awickert (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
(Talk:Global warming/Archive 47#I call BS on that five year trend line) -Atmoz (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

## Sea Level

I haven't had time to really look into this [12] yet. Mishlai (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not hugely impressive that they think 3 foot is 81 cm mind you. --BozMo talk 08:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is very relevant here. WAIS collapse isn't in the century-scale SLR estimates, because it won't, and all the new amount is still disastrously large were it to occur William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

## Why we use only scientific papers for science in articles like this

There have been too many discussions on why only scientific sources are accepted for the science here, which have fortunately abated for the moment. At risk of being chitchatty, PhD Comics has an excellent, if caricatured, description of why this is so. Awickert (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The decision is to keep the See also section by concession, not all editors agree, but the decision remains. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

All links within the See also section is duplicated in the Navigation footebox {{Global warming}}, it is therefore unncessary. The "Books" template has been moved to the External links. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - de facto standard Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I restored the section, and agree with the reasoning described in the 2 oppose posts above. Mishlai (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Using page view statistics of the two articles linked within the "See also" section, Glossary of climate change recieves fewer than 100 page views[13]. Likewise Index of climate change articles receives fewer than 10 on average with an outlier on May 13[14]. Global warming oscillates between twenty thousand and ten thousand [15]. Several other articles link to these two pages besides Global warming, and accepting these values as the high bound, less than half a percent move from Global warming to Glossary of climate change, less for Index of climate change. Our readers are not using the "See also" section, it is invaluable to this article.

While I generally do not get involved in style debates, I agree with ChyranandChloe for this one: if they're already listed, there shouldn't be a see also. Awickert (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fully developed articles should not have a see also section. Incorporate the links into the text if they're important. -Atmoz (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The see also section ought to refer readers to other articles on similar climate and energy issues. Whilst it does refer to climate issues, it singularly fails to refer to energy issues and peak oil is clearly something that anyone with an interest on the constraints of energy use would wish to read. 88.109.64.30 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand the guideline that discourages this section but I think the idea of discouraging 'See also' is the fact that it tends to get cluttered with a lot of links that are only remotely relevant. This, however, is clearly not the case here. We have had only the two links to index and glossary in 'See also' for a long time. And the article made it through the FA process and revision with the See Also section, so it can't be such a problem.
(outdent) Splette, in my opinion you last comment is incoherent, taking a shotgun approach against secondary points in order to defer from the fundamental disagreement. You are asking for a criteria of exclusion, I am asking for a criteria of inclusion. The article has {{main}} and {{seealso}} links throughout. The central intent of the section is satisfied rendering it unnecessary. It feels that we're keeping this section out of some compulsory or personal expectation. We have iterated all essential points. What are our positions? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I get your point. I thought I gave reasons for an inclusion. Incoherent where? Anyway, where does it say again, that articles should avoid a 'see also' section? The rules of Wikiproject Medicine do not apply to us and among the general rules I found only this and that. It doesn't discourage 'See also' outright but suggests to keep it short, use common sense and that a perfect article doesn't have to have a 'See also' section. But you are right, lets hear the opinions of the others... Splette :) How's my driving? 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Splette and for the same reasons. It serves a different function than the links in the article and the box at the bottom of the page.
Apis (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Moved discussion to his Splette's talk since the COI was up until this point between the two of us. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to polarize on this issue, you comment wasn't so much as incoherent than long, and if it offended you I'm sorry. You seem to have a lot on your mind. Is there something you want to say? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no I am not offended. Sorry if I gave that impression and also sorry, my post was very long. Must have been my longest post in a year or so. But yes, perhaps its a good idea to resume the discussion here, since we are maybe the only two people who actually care about this section and there may be more important things to discuss on the GW talk page. I guess we agree, that its a good idea to generally keep 'see also', 'external links' and similar sections in an article as brief as possible. I am all in support of that: [17] [18] [19] [20] So, if I get you right, you see three issues with the section: It takes unnecessary space, from the style point of view its use is discouraged and its already in the box? I am not sure I got my point across in the other post, so I may repeat myself.

As for space, I don't see the problem. Just three lines. There are other ways to remove unnecessary stuff. For example pictures of drunken forrests or sea ice, that add no real info to the article. And you don't seem to have a problem with the many {{main}} and {{seealso}}s. Take the one in Economic and political debate. These ones alone are 3 lines long but only link to a handful of articles, most or all of them are also linked to in the navbox. So why are these okay but the 2 links in 'See also' that link to all the GW-related articles and explain the terms in the glossary are not ok? Aren't the index and glossary more important to guide readers who look for more information?

As for the style, there is no rule that forbids 'See also', not even in FAs. All thats stated in the rules is that a good article doesn't have to have such a section and that the danger is that they tend to get cluttered. Thats not the case here and lots of other FA articles also have a brief See Also section. So why not this one?

Finally the fact that its already linked to in the navbox at he bottom of the page. So are all/most of the other {{main}} and {{seealso}}s and many other links. The problem is that this box is well hidden and thus easily overlooked. The box is very extensive and the links to index and glossary are even in fineprint. If you don't know that an index and glossary even exists you'll never going to find it in this article without the 'See also' section.

Ok, not sure I made myself more clear now but I really care about the GW article and I want to make sure this topic is as accessable as possible for the average Wikipedia reader.

Regards, Splette :) How's my driving? 06:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My essential point is that a section is necessity. Necessity is a criteria of inclusion, which entails that I'm arguing from a question of: do we need it? I've positioned myself to answer no. The See also is a section devoted solely to a list of links. There are no links that can be added without duplication. Because there is no compelling reason to keep this section, it should therefore be removed.

Space, duplication, style guidelines and so forth are secondary or non-essential points. It is a red herring which leads an argument in a circle. Do not get caught in this roundabout. These points can be switched back and forth depending on who's presenting them; I've presented them in my second post[21] and you in yours. They essentially amount to nothing more than a warrant in an argument, which establishes your interest or intent. You can usually present your essential point in one paragraph.

Because of this, my answer is no. You do not need to repeat yourself, you do not need to bold your text to help me read, you do not need purport to yourself or I any ill or poorly developed intentions. I'm here to improve the article, and I know you are the same. The essential point is what I'm looking for. But. If you want. I'll reiterate responses to your last post. Just ask one more time. I've never held you to anything less, and I expect the same. Your thoughts are important, learn to develop them in an articulate and coherent way. You are capable. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Ill repost here then:

• I agree with Splette and for the same reasons. It serves a different function than the links in the article and the box at the bottom of the page.
• As for "do we need it?" I would say no, not really, or I guess it depends on what we mean with "need" in this case. However, in my opinion, the right thing to ask is: "does it improve the page?", in this case I would say yes.
Apis (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a good way to put it. I'm using a minimalist view. In my opinion its purpose is already accomplished, and the links are rarely used which can be observed from the page view distributions. For these reasons I believe we're to the point to come down and say: improvement isn't from how much you can impress the reader with. We know what they want from their clicking habits. And we won't burden them with anything more. Without the See also the remaining sections receive greater emphasis. I'll concede to what Splette thinks. After that we'll move the discussion back to Talk:Global warming and I'll close the thread. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

## Negotiations gather[ing] pace

WP article: UN negotiations are now gathering pace in advance of a key meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Original wording: UN negotiations to agree a new global treaty to regulate carbon pollution gather pace in advance of a key meeting in Copenhagen in December.

Clearly plagiarism, and possibly a copyvio as well. I'd reword it if I knew what it meant. Posting here instead of deleting it in the hopes that someone might be able to save it. -Atmoz (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"gathering pace" means picking up steam -- getting some momentum, starting to make more and more progress. Raul654 (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you really explaining the meaning of one idiom by using another one? ;-) Sorry I wasn't clear. I know what the idiom means, my confusion is what it means for negotiations to be gathering pace. My best guess is that it means that negotiators are negotiating. But that's not really clear, and if true it doesn't deserve mention in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it ok to copy if we give a ref. to the source? Count Iblis (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Brief quotations are generally ok, but they must be exact, inside quotation marks, and with a footnote. Paraphrases such as this should avoid using the same words. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

## effect of meat industry

how come there is not much mentioning of effect of meat industry and live stock which causes more CO2 and methane than cars and suvs http://govegbegreen.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkk2 (talkcontribs) 16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that we do not mention Rice paddies (just as big as ruminants) or mention cars and SUV's here. That would be covered in subarticles (and is): Climate_change_and_agriculture#Livestock. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a new section on sources, or at least a pie chart of GHG origins, would be good. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

## Climate change odds worse than thought

Anyone else notice the press release of the new MIT study [25]? It says it was published in the May 2009 Journal of Climate issue, but I'm not seeing it in the May issue. II | (t - c) 00:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here.[26] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

## Section order

At the moment the first three sections are Radiative forcing -> Temperature changes -> Feedback. I think it would make more sense to be Temperature changes -> Radiative forcing -> Feedback. This would put the basic "what's happening" (temperature changes) section first, and would also have the feedback section right after the forcing section instead of being interrupted with the description of temperature changes. Comments, questions, complaints? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the logic. Sounds like "what now, why, what might happen in the future". Awickert (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense, the first two items also follows the same construction used in the lead: temperature change → forcing. Feedback seems to be excluded somewhat from the lead, but is non-essential to this discussion. Support. Diff.[27] ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Forcing → feedback → temperature makes more sense to me. Without the forcing, there is no temperature change. -Atmoz (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Without temperature change, concern over global warming in the first place would seem silly. I am not certain, it makes sense, but it's not to the point where I'd want to change my position. While we're on section order, I think we should move the sub-subsection "Geoengineering" as the last subsection in the section "Responses to global warming", and merge "Emissions reduction" into "Mitigation", so the layout would be:
• Responses to global warming
• Mitigation
• Geoengineering
This follows the list order overviewed in the lead "[...] are mitigation to reduce further emissions; adaptation to reduce the damage caused by warming; and, more speculatively, geoengineering to reverse global warming." This and Geoengineering doesn't seem to be a form of mitigation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Temperature changes are going to be small compared to diurnal and yearly temperature ranges. It's actually the effects of GW that are a concern. I think it makes even more sense to group the temperature change section with the effects section (after climate models) than have it at the top. -Atmoz (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Plan it out, and show us what you've got. I'm not certain, I'm still looking for the big picture; and what you've got makes sense, I'm just looking for clarity now. If you explain to me what's on your mind, it might make it easier to see where it's headed. Right now I'm just following the construction used in the lead to guide the article layout. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. Note that you've got different levels on the headings. Geoeng can be grouped with mitigation. If it wasn't, then it should be last. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are the past two discussions: [28] [29]. Chapter 11 of AR4[30] considers geo-engineering a "cross-sectoral" option, which is essentially extends the definition from being denotative, as specifically defined in the AR4 glossary[31]; to being connotative, defined by how they're going to use it. To my understanding each chapter is written by a different group of people, and differences in definition isn't unknown. Chapter 11 is a "cross-sectoral perspective" on mitigation, meaning they're going to describe mitigation in the context of geo-engineering, economics, trade-offs, cost and potentials, so on—which makes sense, more context, better perspective. Geo-engineering isn't a form of Mitigation, although the two are used to accomplish the same goals. For these reasons I believe "Geoengineering" should be its own subsection under "Responses to global warming". What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Random passing comment: The truth of "Geo-engineering isn't a form of Mitigation" is heavily dependent on perspective - what the domain of affect is. eg: "mitigate - make less severe or harsh" - Geoeng can be seen as an effort to make the impact of global warming less harsh on [something]?. --Jaymax (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're right. Perspective is important, however on issues like this I prefer using the denotative definition rather than the connotative one. From the IPCC glossary[32] this is the denotative definition:

The two can overlap when you attempt to apply it. For example, in carbon-sequestration you're intervening with earth's energy balance by shoving carbon into the ground, however it's also mitigation since it's a technological change which substitutes a resource input. The difference remains great enough, however, that dividing the two would make more sense. Mitigation is more policy centered on reducing emissions, geo-engineering is more ambitious as it attempts to directly intervene with earth's climate system. This is my interpretation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Diff. [33] ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems sensible if you have an RS. Good homework! Can you mod the geoeng art too, to reflect that? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

## Clarifying second sentence in the lead

Almost forgot[34], I've finished "probably". In the last clause in the second sentence in the lead it states:

1. From the references provided, it's defined as "very likely" (page 4 of 84 and page 68 of 84)[35] or 95% certain[36].
2. The wording for "probably" is taken from the second reference [37], which itself describes the situation with certainty.
3. We decided in [38] not to burden the readers with probability estimates in the lead. The "Notes" section is more appropriate. It's also one reason why we have it in the first place.
4. Reword "natural phenomena" to "climate variability", this allows to us to introduce the term to the reader, and likewise provides an article to clarify the terms.

With these points in mind, this is what I have.

What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At a cursory glance seems reasonableAndrewjlockley (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Diff.[39] ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention again. I've reverted it. Because: "climate variability such as solar variation and volcanoes" is wrong. SV isn't CV; neither are V. They are forcings leading to CV William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is irony when you figure out that it's also a section in the table contents. Thanks for catching that WMC. Removed "probably" in this diff[40]; shouldn't be burdening the reader with modeling certainty in the lead, reasons are listed above (items 1 through 3). ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"while natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward". This is clumsy and misleading wording. volcanoes did not produce warming in pre-industrial times. Solar variation did, just as it did when the high levels of activity were sustained after 1950. Presumably this is refering to the "net" effect. If we are going to be true to the IPCC analysis, they also attributed the anthropogenic contribution of GHGs, not alone, but in combonination with aerosols, so this statement about GHGs "responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century" does not directly correspond to combined natural forcings, even though the IPCC, in the same section analyzed the anthropogenic forcings as a combination. Peer review research since the FAR calls our knowledge of the aerosol component and the skill of the models into question.--68.35.156.132 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"Solar variation" and "Volcanoes" are examples of "natural phenomena", this does not imply that the two enumerated are responsible for "climate change" as a whole. "most" qualifies the assertion with placed in the context of anthropogenic forgings and other natural phenomena; but it feels like something better can be done. I'm not good at prose, so I'm leaving it at that. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the anon is pointing out that attributing warming to volcanoes is poor wording, since they are always a cooling effect. Volcanic forcing can lead to warming, since when there aren't any it declines. and volcanoes and solar combined can lead to warming William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
How is this wording: "while natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes controlled temperature variations from pre-industrial times to 1950."? I cut the "and cooling thereafter" part out because I couldn't make it fit well in the text without sounding confusing to an uneducated reader; if someone thinks it's important and can make it fit - great. Awickert (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

## Geoengineering

This article is too speculative and may contain significant amounts of factual errors. Probably best to delete reference to geoengineering from the lead of Global warming article. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also the article on aerosol may be significantly factually inaccurate with regard to its effect on climate change. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead says "more speculatively" so it should be clear to readers of this page that it's "speculative" in regard to global warming at least. It's often mentioned in popular media so I think it's relevant to the article.

I'm not sure what's normal wikipedia policy on this, but it seems to me that de-linking a page is the wrong approach. It would be better to try to improve the pages themselves and address the problems there. There are notification templates to warn readers that an article might be factually inaccurate: e.g. {{disputed}}. If you feel that is the case, you could ad that and discuss it on respective articles talk page.
Apis (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to work on the geoengineering page if you point out areas of concern on the TP. I haven't done much on it for a while. I do think the link should stay though. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've done some on it, mainly link fixes. Feel free to help, anyone. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

## New study, human deaths & impact

I just added this; seems to be a perfectly fine source. If I put it in a bad spot, please move it to a better location in the article contents. Thanks! rootology/equality 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Found the actual report [41]. This isn't as rigorous as the Surgeon General, and it's not necessarily a causal study. The full report[42] reads a little like the WHO's political literature (e.g. mpower), the much thinner "methodology" is probably what you're looking for[43]. This is ultimately a synthesis report with independent studies cited within it. I usually like citing the primary source rather than an interpretation of it. For example, in WHO's MPOWER "1 billion deaths in this century" is the high end extrapolation of Guindon's study [44]—in addition to the assumption that everyone who consumes the product will die from it (only 90% do). The previous source, the news report, in my opinion, doesn't interpret the report very well. The 315,000 deaths are due to weather extremes, hunger, famines—however not all of it can be directly attributable to climate change. The new report also has causality all wrong: climate change doesn't kill, the attributed effects of climate change riddled with confounders which makes a causal link difficult to determine—fallacy of the undistributed middle. Cleaned up the prose in this diff[45] to reflect the actual report. I'm not the best writer, but this is what I've got. You'll find most of it on page 87, however some of it is scattered throughout the report (e.g. page 1). ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Got rid of the paragraph under WP:RS. This report isn't a scientific publication. They do not take into account any potential confounders—all they really did was synthesize two or three sources and called it good. It's a political work advocating for greater awareness and "justice"—it might be useful in that context, but for statistics it is not. I do not believe it should remain in the article. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up the external links to follow a stricter criteria of inclusion designed to be more relevant to the reader with original intent to improve the actual use of those resources provided. Exact guideline is available at WP:EL. This section is prone to link farming, less than essential relevance entries, and less than expected quality. The section divisions have been redefined to: "Research" and "Educational". This is my first sweep. There may be a few more that we may wish to review.

• The first entry is less than relevant, although interesting it is not directly concerns itself to Global warming, Effects of global warming may be more appropriate.
• The second is a video by Warren Washington, the content may be too narrowly focused to adequately address the whole topic, should be deferred to a relevant {{main}} article.
• I am placing "Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming page" under review for neutrality as the site concerns itself with advocacy, campaigns, and with a larger "donate" button. It also fails to be directly relevant to the scientific concept.
• The video from ABC, "Tipping Point", is too specific to adequately address the topic as a whole. Most links in the EL provide a strong, complete, list of works — as to one work concerning itself with one subject.
• The last link does not directly address itself to the entire topic Global warming; it is almost singularly concerned with the "Attributed and expected effects" with modest political motivation from the UN.

Removed hidden comments, listed above. The point is well established. Oldversion[46]. Diff[47]. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

## Not a crystal ball

It can be very tempting at times to "predict" the future with wikipedia. However, this article repeatedly violates WP:Crystal. I will be removing these inaccuracies as I find them. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If predictions are widely published in reliable sources, they're acceptable. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. "[...] not a collection of unverifiable speculation". As far as I'm aware, this article only contains carefully sourced predictions from the scientific literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And there were WMD in Iraq. Come on, science is a discipline where theories (aka predictions) are subject to test. Global warming only predicts things which can't be tested in any reasonable timescale and so it isn't a science. Global warming has never allowed itself to be subject to basic rigours of science: a test ... or at least the only test is that the IPCC predicted warming of 1.4-5.8C in 2001 since when the temperature has cooled. 88.110.50.43 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If you think the Global Warming article is violating wp:Crystal then you may wish to read wp:Crystal again and more closely. What is being done here is not at all like any of the examples given. Mishlai (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the three above. However, if you find statements that seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL because they aren't sourced or do not match the source, please mention them here and someone will take care of either sourcing or removing them. Awickert (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

## By using "anthropogenic" in the starting paragraph and not "man-made", are we trying to avoid criticism?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the promotion of more rare words but this is a hot issue right now, and trying to avoid criticism by using words that we know 40% of the readers aren't going to understand - on an introductory text - it starts getting weird. --AaThinker (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

you are quite right, personally I never talk of anthro-pathetic warming, because I've never heard the word used anywhere else and I've no doubt no one understands it - so 99% of people won't bother to read past the first paragraph, and since I personally think the whole article does not take a NPOV, that is just as well. 88.110.50.43 (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Criticism by whom? AGW (Anthropogenic global warming) is the standard term. This isn't an introductory text, as it isn't called "Introduction to Global Warming". Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
When I said introductory text I meant the introductory paragraph alone. --AaThinker (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Given that we're supposed to write for a general audience and not for experts, I wouldn't be opposed to replacing anthropogenic with something that fewer people would have to look up to understand. I don't really agree with the "not an introductory text" stance, the article should be as accessible as possible. But no, it's not about avoiding criticism. "man-made" is likely to invoke PC criticism for gender assumption. Perhaps something else? Mishlai (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Anything that makes the article more accessible to the general public is a plus. How about this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the Simple English Wikipedia's article on global warming. However, if we were aiming for a greater audience while still keeping the exact language of the main article, we could write an Introduction to global warming—similar to Introduction to viruses, Introduction to evolution, and so on.[48][49] ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
"Caused by human activity" works just as well. I don't mind anthropogenic though. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to prefer anthropogenic, though with some irony, since I'm fairly sure it is simply greek for man-made. I don't agree with the "intro" stuff either, this isn't intended to be a simple article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I like anthropogenic, but I don't have strong feelings about it. I was talking about writing a new article titled "Introduction to global warming", so that this article, "Global warming", doesn't have to have issues with how simple we have to write. It's sort of a gradient with the Simple English for children, Global warming for the more serious reader, and Introduction to global warming in between. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Intro to GW is a good idea, proposed before but never followed up. Have a go William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This is what I have in in mind. I've started a sandbox in User:ChyranandChloe/Workshop 16, and the scope of the project on the user talk. An "Introduction to" article really pushes the topic in two directions. The main article, Global warming, usually becomes much more intense, the introduction, however then becomes the build up to understanding the main article. Basically the introduction defines the terms, while the main uses and applies them. For example, we would answer: what is forcing, what is feedback, and how is it measured. Where as the main article would answer this is what's been measured, and this is what's known. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's probably unnecessary. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The use of the word anthropogenic remains a common subject of edit wars. Back in 2003, there was a separate wiki page for "anthropogenic global warming". However, it was removed for some reason. Later (16 May 2007), a new page was created as a redirect to this page, and the previous history was lost. The IPCC defines Global Warming this way
Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.
In my opinion, that should be the article's lead sentence. Anything else is synthesis. Q Science (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Umm, no. What you are suggesting is plagiarism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Not true, Q Science. You'll notice that what the article has is not substantially different from what the IPCC concludes. Not quoting a source verbatim does not constitute synthesis. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that AGW died when I moved it to [50] in 2004. This was in the old, mad days [51]. The page was rubbish William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a difficult issue. On one hand, Wikipedia's main goal is to make knowledge accessible to as many as possible, and in general I would prefer "human-caused" (etc) instead of unnecessary and less common words. On the other hand, if anthropogenic is what's commonly being used outside of Wikipedia we might be doing the readers a disservice by not using (and possibly introducing) the more "technical term" anthropogenic. Maybe avoiding uncommon words in the lead, but keeping the rest of the article more technical is a good compromise? I like Short Brigade Harvester Boris' suggestion.
Apis (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I also like SBHB's. Awickert (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

in audio. I don't have the accent (not even natively english) to do it myself. BTW, this (audio articles) is a great project in wikipedia: Wikipedia:Spoken articles --AaThinker (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On your behalf, I've added a "Spoken Wikipedia request" template to the top of the page. You might want to improve the reason; I just wrote "featured article".   Will Beback  talk  18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --AaThinker (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead of the radiative forcings section starts with "External forcing is a term used in climate science..." I'm not too happy with this. Either the header or the first sentence should be changed so they are self-consistent. -Atmoz (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

## Historical impacts of climate change

Historical impacts of climate change is ready for a link in now I think.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

## Cite doi

{{Cite doi}} is a template that transclude the citation data from a central source (the subpages of Template:Cite doi) into an article. There are three advantages and two disadvantages to using this system. The three advantages are: (1) consistency, a bot fills out all the pertinent fields (2) ease of use, this reduces human error and tedious editing; and (3) reducing article file size—reading through the article is easier when the citations are small and compact, the small {{Cite doi|...}} takes up less room than the eye sore of {{Cite journal|last=...}}. On the other hand the two disadvantages are: (1) because these templates are transcluded from a central source and may be reused, the "quotation" and other fields should not be used, and (2) security, each {{Cite doi}} instance is a vandalism vector.

Point one of the disadvantages can be solved by simply going back to using {{Cite journal}}. Point two of the disadvantages can be solved by: (1) Ckatz has protect the central template, (2) I'm planning on adding a feature to the {{Cite doi}} that'll hide the small "edit" button each time the template is transcluded[52], (3) since these templates are rarely edited, adding them to the watchlist should not be cumbersome to watch, and (4) the last form of mitigation is to use "cascading semi-protection" which would protect the templates transcluded into the article as well, this may be unethical as it may be inconsistent with WP:PP.

The consistency clause of WP:CITE entails that this article must remain "internally consistent", with the extension of setting the precedent of using the same or similar template. My position is to switch to {{Cite doi}} for the two advantages listed above. Therefore, under "stability" WP:MOS[53][54], I am seeking consensus for this transition. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I oppose. Of the three advantages, one and two can be achieved by using {{Cite journal | doi=}} instead of {{Cite doi}}. 3 is not an advantage. I think it is more useful for verification purposes to have all the pertinent information available to editors inline in the text when they are editing, instead of having to open the page, and then clicking on the ref link. -Atmoz (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to have the bot modified so that
1. Quotes can be added for the current page, but that they would not be visible in other pages using the same reference.
NB: This could be done by adding a 'quote' parameter to the cite doi template; or by manually specifying <ref>{cite doi|10.whatever}. "quote from this article".</ref>. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I added this to Template:Cite doi/doc . Q Science (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Changes to the template will automatically show up in the watch lists of everyone watching an article that uses that template. This way, no one would have to specifically add a watch for each used template.
When many articles use the same reference, sometimes the data is presented a little differently in each. Also, when someone finds a link to the complete source, the template provides a simple way to update all related pages. (This is a tremendous advantage. I have used it many times.) I have started a related thread at User_talk:Citation_bot. Q Science (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion after my edit summary actually went to my talk page first, a proposal on Template talk:Cite doi, and then here. I'm just trying to make it easier for Boris and those working on prose. Adding additional fields to {{Cite doi}} to allow a more customized control isn't a bad idea, I like it, but I can't think of a easy solution right off. This isn't the talk page for that kind of a proposal of course. Verification, in my opinion, is easier to do when going to the rendered version of the article. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. While I agree that the "noedit" flag is useful, I don't think it goes far enough because it is too easy to get around. (Just edit the section, remove the flag, click "show". There is no reasong to ever click "save".) I think it is best to report changes to everyone watching pages that contain the template. Q Science (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Citedoi seems pretty good as is to me. Never seen any major problems with it. Any determine vandals can use accounts. Seems like a non-issue. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the major advantages of {{cite doi}} that isn't mentioned above is that editing text is easier - the template call fills a lot less than a full {{cite journal}}, and is thus less intrusive. It makes it harder to quickly oversee a diff, but all in all i find it very useful. (especially the shared part, which makes "gnoming" a lot easier). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Before we can really begin discussing implementing it in the first place, I need to be able to modify the {{Cite doi}} template to utilize the noedit feature—the template uses cascading full protection. To place a small edit button next to every citation that has a doi number, seems to be a really bad idea on such a sensitive topic where a "reliable source" is often challenged. Need an administrator. Proposal for this feature is on the template's talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

## Graph Dates

I find the caption for the graph at the top of the page ("Global mean surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990") confusing, probably because I'm not a scientific type. At first, because it showed a date range, I thought it indicated the date range for the graph (the graph is so small it's difficult to see the actual dates without clicking on it). Am I understanding correctly that it means the 0% mark on the graph is equal to the average temperature between 1961 and 1990? Is there a reason for that date range? Could we use actual degrees celsius on the scale, or perhaps change the caption to "Global mean surface temperature anomaly relative to XX °C?"

I'm still relatively new when it comes to Wikipedia discussions and formatting, so let me know if I'm committing any faux pas in my post. J2jensen (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a percentage graph, but yes, the 0 value is the average anomaly of 1961 to 1990. The reason why the temperature anomaly is plotted, not an absolute temperature, is because it is much harder to determine an absolute temperature than a temperature difference. Thus all the data sets in reliable sources that we use (NASA GIS and Hadley Center HadCRUT) are actually anomalies. We just follow this convention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, if I was making the graph I would put a big black line or arrow or something though the graph at y=0 to make it clearer for the reader. The Squicks (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

## per country / per capita

The "per country" greenhouse gas image should be removed. It's based on the absurd notion that the reified abstractions known as nation-states are capable of acting to emit such gas.

The "per capita" image is meaningful because humans are actual actors who actually emit greenhouse gas through their actions.

The purpose of the "per country" image is to allow US-Americans to continue dragging their feet on taking any substantive action to curtail their wanton disregard for the planet, by making the Chinese (and others) look just as bad even though they're not (smog or no smog).

If we're going to have "per country" then we might as well have "per religion." "China" is no more capable of emitting greenhouse gas than "Confucianism" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per country is important politically, whether or not the US and China are going to ratify Kyoto or COP15 is based off of these estimates. Are you saying that "per country" should be disregarded because the US and China are dragging their feet? Your assertion sounds as if the image were to be removed, the public and potentially policy makers will forget this aspect and change their position on the issue. Furthermore your first assertion that simply because it doesn't make a lot of sense demographically—isn't reason enough alone to remove the image. Your comment sounds so PoV riddled that you would: (1) fail to recognize the political significance of placing per country and per capita in a juxtaposition even if it would work to your benefit in political awareness, and (2) to disregard objective positions contrary to your own. Thread closed under WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM, unless central points are addressed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying it should be removed because it is propaganda based on nonsense. This should have been clear after reading my first sentence. I'm not "soapboxing" or chit-chatting. "Thread" re-"opened." I'm raising a serious issue. Your point (1) is a serious one and I have considered it, but just because leaving the "per country" image will allow people to compare it with the legitimate image and come to the obvious conclusion that "per country" is propaganda based on nonsense doesn't justify including it. It seems intuitively obvious to me that the truth is better served by not polluting readers' minds with lies in the first place, rather than spreading lies with the hope that they'll be seen through. Your point (2) is irrelevant; there are people who believe in a flat Earth, but serious people no longer suffer such nonsense. --formerly 70.105.246.237
I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first part, but I'll assume it's a compliment of some sort. Thanks.
It is the truth that the image is nonsensical propaganda -- unless the reified abstractions known as nation-states have become autonomous actors capable of emitting greenhouse gas.
It isn't censorship to not include nonsense in articles. If it were, then I could add lorem ipsum to this article and expect you to defend my edit. Would you?
Can you provide evidence that the juxtaposition of the nonsense of the "per country" image against the facts of the "per capita" image is politically notable? I'm under the impression that nonsense is not given much political credibility, but is generally dismissed.
Consensus is irrelevant. (OH GOLLY DID I SAY THAT ALOUD?!) If enough science deniers managed to flood this article and achieve consensus that global warming is a Marxist conspiracy, and rewrite it to that effect, I doubt very much that you'd stand for it, nor would I.
How can I possibly clarify my position any further? The "per country" image is bullshit. How's that?
I'm not "appealing" to you or anyone else. I'm talking to myself on the talk page of an article with the tightest sphincter on Wikipedia. To add so much as a comma would require weeks of haggling. I know this. But that image is so absurd that I'm willing to talk to myself in public over it.
The image isn't there to "articulate the politics of global warming"; it's there because somebody assumed that "per country greenhouse gas emissions" was a meaningful sentence, and made an image to reflect that false assumption. It's managed to remain in the article because it looks snazzy and official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Countries - as political entities - are very much able to influence the emissions of their population and industries. You are nit-picking to a degree that's not useful. Why stop where you do? It's not people that burn most fossil fuels - engines do. Why not have "per engine" emissions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No, nation-states are not capable of influencing anything, because they are not autonomous actors -- they are reified abstractions. Humans influence things. Many humans (foolishly) identify as members of one reified abstraction or another, but this foolishness (which fuels war, imperialism, racism, and all sorts of nonsense) does not give those abstractions life or autonomy.
Engines are not autonomous actors, either. They are, however, physical objects used by humans in the process of emitting greenhouse gas, so "per engine" would indeed make more sense than "per country." But I think "per capita" should suffice, since humans are the actual autonomous actors.
Hope this helps clear your head! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) "Propaganda" and "lies" is a misnomer. There is no propaganda in telling the reader objective facts. Lying implies the image inaccurately displays those emissions. The Kyoto protocol was negotiated between countries, and the mandates were allocated to countries. Per country, while only a shallow factor in the mechanisms in those negotiations, is better described as not useful than as propaganda or as lies. Your arguments are hardly convincing for three reasons: (1) what you are proposing does not appear to substantially improve the article, (2) when you attack a point of view (nationalism) you become a PoV pusher yourself, this opens you for dismissal under WP:SPA, and (3) when you disregard the processes by which decisions are made on Wikipedia, you are excluded from it.

Thinking about it, "per capita responsibility for current atmospheric CO2 level" may be more appropriate than "per country greenhouse gas emissions in 2000", image available[55]. There are others, of course, such as ratio of GDP to CO2 emissions. Our discussions is centered on how to substantially improve the article, simply removing a image fails to be substantial: this was your job to be looking for a replacement image. You can persist in solely removing the image, or you can revise your position to replacing it—and that's where our discussion will be. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that for all your apologetics on behalf of the nonsensical image, you haven't risen to deny my point: that nation-states are not autonomous actors, but are merely reified abstractions. You can't deny my point, because to do so would be to affirm nonsense. Instead, you dance around my point, wave policy in my face, and imply through your choice of words that you're the authority figure on this matter and that I'm beneath you in some supposed hierarchy.
The "per country" image is propaganda, to the extent that nation-states are impotent, reified abstractions -- as opposed to autonomous actors capable of emitting greenhouse gas, as the image implies.
I didn't attack nationalism as part of an argument against the image, but as part of a discussion as to why many people accept such reification as normal (because their identities are wrapped up in those abstractions), and why such identification, while prevalent for that reason, is still irrelevant to the facts.
I don't know what you think I'm doing here, if not attempting to improve the article. I don't think malicious vandals generally take their concerns to the talk page, do they? As I've stated already, I have a serious concern that readers will be misled by the "per country" image, as it paints people like the Chinese as roughly equivalent to the US-Americans in their wanton disregard for the planet. Such equivalence is an intentional falsehood (I like to call intentional falsehoods "lies"), as evidenced by the existence of the accurate "per capita" data. (Why countenance "per country" when we have "per capita"? The answer is as obvious as the shift in red from one image to the other.)
The CO2 image you linked is certainly more interesting than the "per country" greenhouse gas image, but it would seem to be almost superfluous to the "per capita" image. I'm happy to see the nonsensical propaganda image simply deleted, as I would consider that an improvement to the article; but if you insist on replacing it with something (you haven't convinced me why this should be necessary), then I'd have no objections to the CO2 image. But again, I don't really see the point, either; "per capita" takes several gasses and zooms in on one year, whereas "CO2" takes several years and zooms in on one gas. I suppose they could be juxtaposed in an interesting way that would improve the article. /shrug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your basic point. Nation states are not "reified abstractions", they are quite real. They are not individuals, but they are quite autonomous as actors. And their actions do have massive influence on the physical world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Name an act committed by a nation-state...
...and exhale. That sudden overwhelming dread you felt just then was the realization that -- were I the petty sort -- you'd be compelled to eat your words. But I understand that the reification of abstractions is a deeply ingrained psychological illness affecting billions of human actors, so I won't pressure you to dig into that humble pie.
Did you have anything new to add to the discussion about the nonsensical propaganda image based on the reification of the abstractions known as "nation-states" into autonomous actors allegedly capable of emitting greenhouse gasses, and the damage done to global warming awareness (not to mention this particular article) by the propagation of such lies to the general public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
A state is the defining/acting party in:
• limiting emissions
• deciding what kind of power-plants are to be built (energy mix)
• what emission standards cars use
• what kind of agricultural practices are allowed.
• ...... etc etc.
A nation state is not an abstraction, it is a very real and tangible actor. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Human actors, all.
Where might I touch a nation-state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Name an act committed by a nation-state...
• Germany's attack on Russia in 1941
• The UK's ratification of the Kyoto treaty on May 31st, 2002
• The US founding West Point in 1802
...and if you disagree, name one action that Tony Blair performed, as opposed to the individual cells of his body. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Human actors, all.
...and Tony Blair is an autonomous actor, his individual cells are not. Your upside-down analogy fails.
Now, you can either keep digging your hole, or we can end this embarrassing episode and get back to discussing the subject at hand.
Right then. Now that we've established that the reified abstractions known as "nation-states" are not autonomous actors capable of emitting greenhouse gas, I think this would be a good time for the defenders of the nonsensical propaganda image, which is based on an established lie, to offer a serious justification for keeping it and misleading the readers of the article -- or to concede that it ought to be removed, and condescend to grace me with permission to do so in 4 days time.
Is it a date, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
So which human actor did attack Russia? Which human actor ratified Kyoto? Who exactly founded West Point? And Tony Blair's 71325s right biceps muscle cell begs to differ - it acts all on its own based on stimuli from its environment (that we collectively - not abstractly - have decided to call "Tony Blair"). Maybe you should read reification again. Love is abstract - the US is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the names of all the various multitudes of human actors involved in all the various multitudes of historical events, but I don't deny that those people had names and are potentially identifiable, as you seem to be doing.
Unless you're in communication with Tony Blair's muscle cells, I suggest you drop that silly dead end.
Now, may we finally return to the subject at hand? I contend that it is detrimental to the article to retain an image that attributes greenhouse gas emissions to nation-states rather than human beings. I've given my reasons for this, but have yet to be taken seriously. Instead, folks have elected to defend fallacies, displaying a bizarre need to retain absolute control over an article, even though they reduce its quality by doing so. That's Wikipedia for you! (I knew from the outset that I was wasting my time and talking to myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I do not believe the image is necessarily being defended, rather, you're asking the users of this talk page to preform an edit that is being held not to improve the article. This article is semi-protected; so to edit, you need to either lift semi-protection (WP:RPP) or become auto-confirmed (WP:UAL).

I have not denied reified abstractions because I don't necessarily disagree with it, what I disagree with is the link between this concept and an edit to the article. The section is titled "Economic and political debate", and I can claim that the scope of the section is political. Now say a politician from the United States wants to justify his or her position to be against the ratificiation of the Kyoto Protocol. If an image shifts responsibility from the US to China, then certainly it would be within the interest of the politician to make this point notable. The concept of reified abstractions is non-essential, even if per capita would provide a better measure.

You've asked how the image "per capita responsibility for current atmospheric CO2 level", that is total emissions since the 1980s is a convincing replacement. While "per country" is a good boiler plate for sound bites, debates leading to the Kyoto Protocol would certainly possess more depth. China is exempt from a number of sanctions allocated by the Kyoto Protocol, they are not responsible for current levels of greenhouse gases. The US on the other hand, argues with three points: that the current per capita emissions is enough to justify that China receive stricter sanctions, GDP per emission, and per country. Per country—while it is not substantial to an extent that it would be greater than or on par with per capita—is notable because it can be used to justify a position.[56] We've objectively document some of this, how well or detailed, is beyond the scope of removing the image. What you are asking is within my discretion to decline to. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Blah, blah, blah, NO, blah, blah, DENIED, blah, GO AWAY." Don't worry, the bot will sweep this thread under the archival rug in 7 days. It'll be as though I never raised the issue, and there will be peace in the valley for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
1. I agree this article. We all must work to prevent glabal warming. So, green house gas, The main cause of global warming, must be removed. We should try a small order. I hope that the global warming problem is solved as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstudents (talkcontribs) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

## Cooling trend?

Looks like this year, like last year, is colder than the previous several years.

How long would this have to continue before the article would mention it? This is not just a rhetorical question. Hypothetically speaking, if monthly temperatures continue to be colder than they were from 2001 to 2007, I am curious at what point we would reach "consensus" that there is a cooling trend. 76.19.65.163 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As soon as reliable sources (i.e. peer reviewed scientific papers) claim that there is a significant climatic cooling trend. Normally climatic trends are measured over 30 years, to average out normal fluctuations like the ENSO and the 11 year solar cycle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that when hell freezes over, there might be some acknowledgement of a cooling trend. It shouldn't matter whether the cause is CO2, ENSO, sunspots, or whatever. An article entitled "global warming" is logically about an objective trend regardless of cause. The phrase "During the last century" is quite misleading since it actually refers to 1905 to 2005. Shouldn't this information at least be in the footnote? Although more recent data is available, a deliberate decision has been made not to update. Worldwide weather station data wasn't collected systematically back in 1905.[57] GISS has adjusted the temperature record for 1905 fifty-five times in recent years! The satellite data is more a objective source -- and there is no particular long term trend in that data. Kauffner (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
So Schulz (re: AGW bias runs amuck) wants peer reviewed and 30 years. But they launched their AGW ideology after about 10 years of data and before the first wave of IPCC sponsored (bought and paid for) articles made it through the peer review process. Follow the computer "models", it’s all in the models. Their (now) minority consensus can probably revise the models to show where hell freezes over is just a sign of future warming. It doesn’t matter – they are killing the capitalist machine and that the only method that could have underwritten their agenda. The natural cycle deniers will be regulated by economic cycles… Mk 68.56.175.27 (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

## SRES emissions scenario picture

The model

Why is it that the only SRES model that we show in picture form is that for A2? My understanding of what the IPCC says is that no one scenario is any more likely to happen than the other. Why A2 over B1 or A1T or A1B or any of the others? The Squicks (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At the time of the 2001 report (which is where the work for that plot comes from), A2 was the model that had been the most frequently simulated. Call it a historical quirk perhaps. I suspect that people focused on it initially because it was at the upper end of the scenarios and for practical reasons people were interested in determining what the worst case might be. Dragons flight (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
A2 was the model that had been the most frequently simulated Why would that be the case? The Squicks (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't added up the numbers but for AR4 it's roughly comparable as to how many models ran A1B, A2, and B1.[58] As for your original question, the runs take a lot of work and if there are only enough resources to do one scenario then you have to choose something. You'd have to ask each individual modeler why they chose the scenario that they did. Note that the next round of simulations will use a completely different setup for GHG concentrations (which I think is good; the SRES scenarios never made much sense to me). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. The original reason that I asked is because, in my view, highlighting a worse case scenario by itself without context or anything else to compare it to gives the wrong impression to the reader about what the IPCC actually reported in general. The Squicks (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
If it is any "consolation", actual CO2 concentrations in the decade since SRES was published have actually increased slightly faster than any of the scenarios predicted. So our trajectory, at least in the first decade, is worse than the worse case scenario for CO2. (On the other hand, most of the scenarios predicted higher CH4 levels than actually observed.) Dragons flight (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you give me a link for that? (I'm not disbelieving you, but I have not heard of this in what I have read). The Squicks (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I think DF may be referring to Mike Raupach's work; try Google Scholar. It will be interesting to see the effect of the global recession on CO2 emissions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I will certainly take a look at that. Nevertheless, I am inherently skeptical of extrapolating what is a few year trend into some 75+ years of future predictions.
Regardless, the main point here is what did the IPCC say. It said that no one scenario is more probable than the other, leaving such determination to the reader . The Squicks (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I believe their position is that they are not assigning any probability to the various scenarios. The difference is subtle, but that's not the same as saying they are assessed as having equal likelihood. Dragons flight (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that's what I meant by writing leaving such determination to the reader. The IPCC passed the buck of determining probabilities to others and did not do so itself. The Squicks (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

## Images

Two sections may benefit from images: (1) "Responses to global warming" and (2) "Aerosols and soot". This article generally sticks scientific graphs and maps with the exception of Ice-albedo feedback—for integrity, to eliminate or reduce sensationalism, to eliminate eye candy. The section Responses to global warming may also be on the of most controversial as the economic and political debate is centered on this topic. Below are the images I've collected for this section. The best design for this section, in my opinion, is to do a {{Double image stack}} in "Mitigation". With that in mind the two I support are: (1) the last image the "phytoplankton bloom" which can used to describe both geoengineering and to a lesser extent mitigation; (2) the second is perhaps "carbon sequestration".

Nuclear power due to its low emittance and reliability, is seen as a possible alternative to fossil fuels.
Schematic showing both terrestrial and geological sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions from a coal-fired plant.
This three-bladed wind turbine is the most common modern design because it minimizes forces related to fatigue.
Jets have been suggested to deliver aerosol precursors to the stratosphere.[2]
An oceanic phytoplankton bloom in the South Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Argentina covering an area about 300 miles by 50 miles

"Aerosols and soot" is large enough for a single thumb size image. This is what I've got.

Aerosol over Northern India and Bangladesh.
Fires burning in Eastern China
This figure shows the level of agreement between a climate model driven by five factors and the historical temperature record.
The CLAW hypothesis proposes a feedback loop that operates between ocean ecosystems and the Earth's climate as phytoplankton blooms develop from sulfate aerosols.
Aeresols forcing.

ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh nooooooooo, not the jets...... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to use one or two of the first three in the first row of images. Wind turbines seem to be popping up like daisies, and there are many, many new permit requests (at least in the US of A) for nuclear plants. Places to put carbon seems good as well. As for the phytoplankton bloom, it seems less relevant and AFAIK a number of professionals have deemed seeding the oceans to be a Very Bad Idea, so there may not be consensus on that. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
What about File:ShipTracks_MODIS_2005may11.jpg for the aerosols section? -Atmoz (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Easily mistaken for cloud feedback, I think, Atmoz. I'm thinking of all the ways we won't get flak if we put an image in. Remember "per country / per capita". If we put nuclear power in, we'll be told that its too dangerous and the image should be removed. If we put a wind turbine in, we'll be told that its not sensible for everyone and the image should be removed. The image with the jets aren't actually releasing sulfate dust or aerosols into the atmosphere (they're refueling). I was thinking of the phytoplankton (the last image on the top row) because that's one that people usually don't think of, and because it can fit into both Mitigation and Geogenineering. Carbon sequestration seems to be a big thing, and I like how its a diagram. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the aerosol pics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still pro-power-facility and anti-phytoplankton, but that's just my (1) vote/opinion/few cents.
I like the graph in the 2nd row, and almost wonder why it isn't in the article when it seems to be important: is it one of the same models used in the IPCC report? That could be important. As for the second-row pictures, I don't know what the largest source of aerosols is (volcanic? dust?), but I think that the image chosen should represent that.Awickert (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Easily mistaken for cloud feedback. It may be mistaken as such, but it's not. Most of the forcing from aerosols is from indirect effects, which itself is mostly the cloud albedo effect shown in that image. I dislike the image with fire because soot is a relatively minor forcing. The DMS feedback is an interesting idea, but it's not even mentioned in this section. Plus, the most noticeable feature in the image is the contrails, as least to me. The graph is out for me. I don't expect an average reader to gain any understand from that graph in this section. -Atmoz (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I vote 100% for the carbon seq. picture, it would be a great addition. I don't have much of a preference for the second banana. The Squicks (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I see what you're talking about Atmoz, added the image to the gallery. Crossed out Phytoplankton. For, carbon sequestration, I'm not certain. Abstain. As for the second row, I like the graph, global warming art created the image, and we've cited them in the external links; it's references look good; I think the reader may benefit. I mean it probably won't be much harder than any of the other graphs, and we have a lot of graphs. Dropped the other three images: the CLAW hypothesis and two of dust/smoke forcing, so we're down to two for the second row.

This is what we're down to: two to three images is probably as many as we can go for the top row, any more and they won't all fit. For the second row we can either do one thumb size image, or a sideways stack (example). If its a sideways stack the image will be really small. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I wrote I don't have much of a preference for the second banana, but- looking again- "Aeresols forcing" works well IMHO for that part. The Squicks (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

## Methane and Ozone

In the article, there is this sentance:

The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.[19][20]

The references provided do not support the statistics of methane and ozone. Are these elsewhere in the article? The fact tags I placed for this where reverted.

Also, this statement:

Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally-varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

has no reference, the only provided source is an image, which itself has no reference. To make such a statement without a text source and based only on a chart is a use of aprimary source, which is not supported by WP:PRIMARY. The fact tag I placed there was also reverted. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The satellite reconstructions are extensively sourced in Satellite temperature measurements. There are several reconstructions arriving at different values in the range given, hence it is not quite as simple as sticking a single reference in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That is understandable, but you cannot rely on sub-articles for sourcing. Each statement has to be substaniated within each article. In examing this article, I find it has changed considerably since the FAC was passed, and I find quite a few troubling reference problems, primarily by reviewing the sources provided I am finding quite a bit of data, primarily statistics that are not supported by the given references. I beleive if submited to a FA review, this article would likely be delisted without a fair amount of referencing work. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition, several new scholarly works that deal with the subject in depth are now printed, and new data is available that the article could now benifit from. Many of the statistics are more than a year old and have changed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)
"Each statement has to be substantiated within each article" just possibly, but certainly not each time it is used for example within an introduction, and where the subarticles are technical spin offs they have to do here. This article would be vastly improved by reducing the statement by statement approach necessitated by this kind of protest and sticking with coherence as a article substantiated at contestable points in a way in which someone with a reasonable intelligence could trace back to decent sources. At present it is fairly easy to find the sources but not very coherent. So in my view your approach is more likely to degrade than improve it. --BozMo talk 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You avoid that kind of problem typically by relying on a few comprehensive sources, rather than scattered sources focusing on individual topics. In the two specific instances I have cited, the sources in the lead also do not contain the statics as stated lower in the article. Those statistics are only stated in one place within the article, I don't think it unreasonable to expect the given source to contain that data. Or to place an additional source there to support the data, or to remove it, or to place a citation next to it until such a source could be provided. And with all due respect, I do have quite reasonable intelligence and have wrote several featured articles myself. Each statement that is potentially challengable or statistical requires a reference immediately following it at the next comma or period. I don't believe that simply because an article is of a wide scope, that it should not be subjected to the same referencing requirements of any other topic, but just the opposite, require them to be followed even more rigorously. To reiterate my point, there are instances, as the two I have cited above, which contain no source whatsoever within the article to substantiate them. I also think it would be worthwhile to request this article to be reviewed at FA for a more thorough look at it. I will try to review the sources in more detail and create a more solid and complete list of referencing problems that should be addressed to help the article maintain featured status. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a free world (well the bit I live in anyway). Also I would be glad to see the article improved. However the last Featured Article Review did not yield a single positive improvement to the article Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Global_warming/archive1 and the referencing is probably the least of its problems. It is the most edited and one of the more difficult topics in Wikipedia and a fact list is not as interesting an outcome as something which is readable. --BozMo talk 08:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that as it stands, this article does not meet the featured article criteria and should be delisted without a fair amount of work. I find it reads fairly well as it is, and it quite informorative. I am not proposing the article be re-wrote, just that statistical facts, paragraphs that lack references, should have their sources tracked down and added to the article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

## Percentages of Greenhouse effect per gas

This figure shows the level of agreement between a climate model driven by five factors and the historical temperature record.

The numbers given for the percentage of the greenhouse effect caused by each atmospheric gas have a number of problems.

"Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F). The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent."
1: You can't simply ignore clouds' effect. They have a DRAMATIC effect on the temperature, both due to Albedo (which tends to cause mild cooling during the day) and due to heat retention at night. Anyone who has gone outside early in the morning after an overcast night and compared the temperature with a morning after a clear night can feel the difference without even resorting to a thermometer.
2: The ranges are ridiculously huge. They are probably exaggerated due largely to ignoring clouds' effect on temperature. Of the gasses listed, Water Vapor is the only one that varies significantly from region to region. Even Carbon Dioxide is almost invariably 0.039% to 0.04% of the atmosphere. The only places where CO2 could comprise 26% of the Greenhouse effect, is in Deserts, where the humidity is so low there is almost NO greenhouse effect. Anyone living in or near a desert can testify as to how cold it usually is in the morning.
3: No explaination is given at all on what CAUSES the ranges to vary so much, particularly for the gasses whose percentages in the atmosphere are relatively constant.

In conclusion, I think this presentation of "Percentage of greenhouse effect" information is confusing, misleading and irrelevant. A better measure would be to show a graph, plotting Greenhouse Effect against Humidity, with a line showing the effect of each gas contributing to the whole instead of as a percentage, and showing the total overall effect. On the graph, the contributions of all of the other gasses would be shown as they are, a constant, while the contribution by Water Vapor is what actually varies.

Redwood Elf (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a WP:RS I guess that would be OK. Though it doesn't sound like a very sensible graph to draw, so my guess is you won't find such source William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You're talking about something that looks like this image, right? We were just talking about it two threads up in #Images. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is the image that RE means. I think he wants a picture demonstrating that CO2 is trivial compared to WV :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, I am looking for a graph demonstrating that the contribution of CO2 and the other "Trace" greenhouse gasses are more or less constant, while the contribution of water vapor is highly variable. Redwood Elf (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm no mind-reader, but perhaps the ideal solution for RE would be inclusion of something on the spatial heterogeneity of the water cycle and its response to warming, while citing the importance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas.
What I'm wondering about is the 33 degrees C part; I think that's just doing the blackbody radiation balance, which is simplest, but in reality, the resultant increased ice cover due to decreased temperature would drastically increase non-GHG albedo. That means that T would actually be much lower than the 33 degrees C below present-day T due to a likely-total snowball Earth. Does anyone else think this is an issue and we should recalculate? I guess it's probably fine as-is, unrealistically but conventionally assuming present-day albedo for both situations. Awickert (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the calc is usually done assuming no change in albedo. No atmosphere would mean no clouds which would also dramatically affect the albedo William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right, it is conventional. I was assuming a no-major-GHG atmosphere; athough a snowball Earth would not have a very active hydrologic cycle and therefore probably very few clouds, I'd assume that the high ice albedo would dominate. Anyway, should probably leave as-is for convention. My rambles of insomnia... Awickert (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the original question: As explained in the main article, greenhouse gas, the range is not a sign of real variability, but of the definition of the contribution. The effect of any particular gas depends on the mixture of gases, the effects do not simply add up. Water vapor, for example, would retain 70% of the heat if it were the only greenhouse gas and the rest of the atmosphere was transparent to IR. It contributes about 36% in the current mix. Likewise, if CO2 were the only greenhouse gas, it would account for (about) 26% of the current effect, but in the real atmosphere, it only accounts for 9%. The reason is that the gases absorb in overlapping ranges - a photon that already has been absorbed by H2O cannot also be absorbed by CO2. Should we make this more explicit in the article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Your description of the 36% is wrong. Personally, I've long felt these ranges (sourced only to RealClimate, as far as I know) are hackish. Rather than doing these include it/don't include it psuedo-experiments, it would be much more informative if a climate modeler actually reported figures for total infrared energy absorbed for each atmospheric component in the current atmosphere, but I've never seen anyone take the time to break out those numbers. Dragons flight (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• I thought it was referenced to Ramanathan&Coackley(1978)[59] table 6? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The approach is similar but the gases considered and numbers obtained are different. Dragons flight (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• DF, are you sure? I always interpreted "take a radiation model and remove each long-wave absorber [...] and see what difference it makes to the amount of long-wave absorbed" as a way of determining the effect of the gas in the current atmospheric mix. But as always, I'll be glad to learn something... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It is the same overlap problem, but in the opposite direction. If you take water vapor out of the atmosphere (for example), and then ask how much is the greenhouse gas effect reduced, then you have a problem because some of the energy that had been absorbed by H2O still get absorbed by the other gases. In other words this estimate is necessarily lower than the percentage of energy actually being absorbed by H2O, because the overlap bands allow some of the energy it would have absorbed to be captured by other gases. Just as the observation that water vapor alone could capture 70% of the thermal radiation is an overestimate of its activity in the current atmosphere, noting that an atmosphere without H2O captures 36% less energy is an underestimate of the fraction actually captured by H2O. The actual amount of energy captured by H2O vapor is probably close to the average of these two limits, but I've never seen anyone really do the estimate the right way. Dragons flight (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• "methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent"

Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't find this range in neither one of sources cited.--Adi (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang, Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7+8, 2007 pp 985-995
2. ^ Rasch, P. J.; Tilmes, S.; Turco, R. P.; Robock, A.; Oman, L.; Chen, C.; Stenchikov, G. L.; Garcia, R. R. (Nov 2008). "An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols". Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences. 366 (1882): 4007–4037. Bibcode:2008RSPTA.366.4007R. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0131. ISSN 1364-503X. PMID 18757276.