Jump to content

Talk:Climate change/Archive 72

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75

where does this go?

per WP:TPG each thread is supposed to discuss how to use WP:Reliable sources to make article improvement, not just hold a WP:forum. Click show to read anyway.

Global warming data was falsified see today,s drudge report. Sorry I am on my mobile rt now ,.2601:C:6783:8416:4D09:5CF6:573C:11D (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dat's easy: the Drudge report goes in the bin, and you're trolling William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No I'm actually not trolling but thank-you for the reply. Here are the links from Drudge. Pretty serious allegations and facts I would say. Is there a place in the article for these? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/01/10/meteorologist-anthony-watts-on-adjusted-us-temperature-data-in-the-business-and-trading-world-people-go-to-jail-for-such-manipulations-of-data/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/07/breathtaking-adjustments-to-arctic-temperature-record-is-there-any-global-warming-we-can-trust/

98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And how are you even allowed to edit this article? I'm calling a COI at best here, since we're name-calling.https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=333318598 98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Call what you like, no-one cares. Breitbart is so laughable no-one will even bother refute them and the Torygraph stuff is drivel too, e.g. http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/evil-nazi-communist-world-government.html

Do you have a very limited set of refs that you allow for this article? is this one any good? http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2015/02/10/global-warming-science-s-biggest-scandal98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Or is it only refs that agree with you? How about The Australian-are they acceptable? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/arctic-monkeys-climate-agencies-revise-weather-records/story-e6frg6xf-1227215290929?nk=8b4680c0e1ffeaab1ed2ca2d1ecb25e4 98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion pieces by non-expert smoke screeners are not reliable sources and are not acceptable for anything but the opinion of the authors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Basic rule of wikipedia is that any article with a lock in the top right corner has information that is purposely being excluded from the article due to a biased consensus among a small group of editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider the possibility that these opinion writers are poorly informed. — TPX 16:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Bull shit. The "basic rule" of WP is that all content is to be based on reliable sources. The lock is a last resort where we are tired of contending with vandals, and idiots who think they know everything, but in reality don't know even the basic rules of Wikipedia. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

One-i never logged-on or made changes to the article after seeing that there may be a problem--merely asked a few questions here on the TP, and immediately was accused of trolling which was incorrect btw- and Two-I think that it was a valid question to ask exactly WHICH resources would be considered appropriate for use in the article. I guess that i could go by the resources which are used in the article ref. section, but really there is no need to not AGF when obviously the topic made international news recently, of course people are going to see what WP has to say, and check-out the article, so YES there are going to be "ignorant" people such as myself here, THAT IS HOW IGNORANT PEOPLE TRY TO BECOME UNIGNORANT FYI, by trying to learn more about something which they do not know. If WP is going to be only for the knowledgeable about any certain topic---what good does that do? They already KNOW what's up lol.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

merely asked a few questions - no, that's false. You saidGlobal warming data was falsified see today,s drudge report. That's not a question, its a (false) assertion William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
That's the kind of "question" people propose when they want to suck AGF-minded people into an argument. (We call it trolling.) If you truly want to be less ignorant you need to drop the attitude, and respect those who are vastly more expert on the topic than you (such as William and Stephan). And learn the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The assertion, false or otherwise, was not made by myself. It was more like I was on my mobile but I wanted to know more about what was being said on the Drudge Report linked articles-(there were a few that day). I should have put that in quotes "Global warming data was falsified"--but that and something about leaving-out data from the 40s, bla bla bla, which I finally realized the source of ALL of the articles which was the one blogger----the blogger does have a point. The Atlantic Ocean is 31 degrees in Atlantic City today for instance (a record yes). Someone verified that temperature, but yesterday when we were having hurricane-force wind gusts, I noticed false-wrong-and inaccurate reporting of wind gust speed when checking multiple sources. Our local news only finally updated the wind speed reported after getting so many reports of trees falling and complaints. There is a big difference between a 65 mph and a 45 mph wind gust. -So when articles say that data used for calculating global warming was just estimated, guessed----however you say it, "falsified" actually FITS. I think that we have a right to know that temperatures that were not measured are used. As someone who lives in a micro-climate that is often different than what is reported, I care about accuracy. If micro-climates and estimated temperatures for some areas do not make a difference in global warming theory, then just say so. And as an experienced editor, I did know enough not to log-in and start editing the info. into the article but asked about it here on the TP-----and I may not be an expert on global warming, but articles on WP are not meant to be "left to the experts". Personally I appreciate WP editors who are experts in their fields, but when you bite other editors who are only trying to figure-out if something fits in an article or not, I think you have gone too far.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vague impeachment of how scientists determine mean global surface temperature seems to be the main bullet in this WP:forum discussion. Try talking about the subject using citations to what wikipedia calls a "reliable source", which Drudge ain't. Or, if you want to argue that Drudge is RS, it should be easy to find noncontroversial sources with the same material. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course Drudge is not a reliable source. The articles that Drudge had linked that day--some of them are not blocked for one thing, and two--those sources ARE GENERALLY reliable sources for WP. Did they have scandalous headlines like, "these scientists should be in prison!"-(paraphrased)yes, but those same sources are accepted on WP as reliable for other topics.....and ultimately, the primary source of all of the articles linked on Drudge, and the other mainstream media coverage that day was the one blogger who was pointed-out here as NOT being a reliable source for the purpose of this article.
I'm wondering if insisting on "certain" RS for this article---how much of those sources could be considered primary sources? And I'm trying to get a better understanding of what sources ARE considered RS for this article. And why some sources that would generally be considered reliable, are rejected in this particular area. 2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Is as far as it is a scientific topic, scientific sources are preferred. Unfortunately, the popular press has a hard time getting science (of any kind) correct. Bloggers are rarely acceptable, unless they are recognised experts in the field - and even then they are unacceptable as soon as WP:BLP enters the picture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Stephan's reply about blogs, if you're still irked about one being rejected you can take it up at the "reliable sources noticeboard". Meanwhile, the specific article for your issue is Instrumental_temperature_record. At the risk of continuing the forum, consider this.... unless we cover every square millimeter of earth's surface with sensors, there will always be some area of earth where one could argue "There were no readings at this spot, so it's all bogus!" Science does what it can, and then it does what can be done next. So what if we lack ideal coverage everywhere? Say one day the doc sticks something in your ear and it reads 106 degrees F, which is life-threatening. Protocol is usually to heap the patient with ice in short order. Do you want them to jump on that, or should they first get temps from under your big toenails too? After all, according to your logic the scientific conclusion that you have Hyperthermia is "bogus", since the entire area was not sampled.

So.... how about giving it a rest, eh? Or name a non-blog for once. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph-non-blog,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html (maybe NOT appropriate for this article and agreed that it is based-on the above-named blogger, but "non-blog")--also this was a top story that day on many major TV news outlets. Also-- if this is an acceptable ref., I don't know if it would be appropriate for this article http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8100 .....this whole topic of changing data, I don't know if it is connected or addressed properly in the article or on WP? Maybe it should have it's own article?....I'm NOT giving it a rest, and I'm still poking-around various climate change articles, (i think I've made at least some improvement to one sorry page).....but I'll try to be careful. I'm not logged-in but if I happen to see anything that needs changing with THIS particular article, I'll probably post it here on the TP just to be consistent with my IP, and to be sure that i don't over-step. 2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a comment piece by well-known denier Christopher Booker. You can safely assume that nothing he says on climate change is correlated with reality. Comment pieces in general are only useful for the opinion of their authors. I don't quite get your reference to the Weaver case - the NatPost lied, and Weaver got a court to tell them to stop. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the Telegraph explicitly denies responsibility for accuracy of content on that part of its site, which is another reason it fails our RS test. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you NewsAndEventsGuy for directing me to Instrumental temperature record. I agree that that would be a good place to add info. about this controversy. Maybe under a new heading? That article has old info. and multiple old tags/warnings, which should be updated and/or corrected. I also noticed that there is an internal link on this article's page to Instrumental temperature record, so it probably does not need to be repeated on this article. As a reader/user I am looking for a quick way to find references to the item that brought me to the article, and I'm pretty sure that is not where I would look, so if I am able to find a place for this material in the Instrumental temperature record, I may request an in-article link to the proposed sub-section. Sending readers/editors to Climate change denial etc. is not really appropriate, because that assumes that any discussion about controversy and discrepancies puts one in the position of being anti-science or anti-climate change when really they are just trying to check the facts-not take sides in a contentious issue 2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In reply to your statement, "I agree that that would be a good place to add info. about this controversy" I only "agree" that it is a good place to discuss the datasets and how they are used, on the basis of what wikipedia calls a "reliable source". See also, Global_warming_controversy#Analysis_of_temperature_records and Global_warming_hiatus#Area_of_coverage NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Poor sentence in lead: conflated anaphor

The observed increases in global average surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide have been much faster in recent decades than the natural changes of previous millennia, and levels [of (global average surface temperature) and (atmospheric carbon dioxide)] are [both?] now higher than at any time for hundreds of thousands of years prior.

Really? Current levels of both variables are anomalous for the same hundreds of thousands of years? And such a peculiar state of affairs isn't better handled by being more explicitly spelled out, rather than partially buried under the difficult cognitive shift from increases to levels (check your friends to see how many people can sort out the difference between a debt and a deficit without using their fingers). — MaxEnt 06:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a second reason this sentence annoyed me that took a moment longer to figure out. The plural 'levels' is often used to reference a dispersed measurement of a commingled commodity (e.g. "pollen levels are rising today"), so it isn't as quickly noticed here that it functions as a plural anaphor (one that you don't expect to begin with). — MaxEnt 06:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. That text was added Dec 10 2014 after I posted the results of months of discussion about this paragraph. (see this archived thread) and I have reverted.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Solar variation

Whoever wrote the sun activity section of this article should read the Wikipedia article on solar variation. At least make them agree with each other. Solar energy either caused previous hot/cold periods or it didn't. I'm surprised how little data is used for a theory, particularly a theory that stretches over geologic time. 24.128.186.53 (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about global warming over the last century or so, for earlier periods see climate change. See Global warming#Solar activity for evidence that current warming cannot be attributed to solar variation. If you think something specific should be added, please propose wording and sources. . . . dave souza, talk 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


The same ,predictable , solar variations seem to explain geologic global warming ( and cooling) fairly well. Known cooling and warming spells are graphed out in Solar Variations quite well. Current ( 1860s to present) are inconclusive - remember, just a few years ago the data pointed to global cooling - which as I recall was the consensus of experts who by the way were cashing in - somethings never change. 24.128.186.53 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There was never an expert consensus on global cooling, and experts never cashed in on it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop the presses!! There is new evidence (see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html) that noted climate "skeptic" Wei-Hock Soon was cashing in to a greater extent than previously known in collecting over $1.2 million from the fossil fuels industry for scientific papers he wrote claiming that solar variation explains GW. Let's not suppress this vital information about sordid collusiion! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Human C02 production

Lots of very basic facts missing from this article. The most obvious thing with regard to whether human activity is the primary driver of a c02 based warming scheme would be to show the percentage of human c02 emissions in comparison to natural forces. Here it is: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf The number is roughly 4%. This should be put in the lead somewhere as it is crucial to the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.138.138 (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)4
Yeah I didn't think the basic scientific facts would be allowed in. Too much politics involved for the facts to just be included even with no editorial comment on their meaning. BTW aren't you supposed to include some kind policy explanation for not including well sourced material highly important to the topic when the article is locked? I guess not...
Dear arithmetically challenged IP, please start signing your posts. Natural forces include absorption as well as sources of CO2. . . dave souza, talk 14:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention, the source covers the 1990s, which is ~20 years ago. Guettarda (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
How is it critical to the debate? What is your interpretation of that fact (outdated that it is)? I often see it misconstrued to mean that human impact is small, and therefore irrelevant compared to natural impact. The thing is, if you have a balanced system, and then add input to that system (even if only comparatively small to what was already present), you have disrupted the balance of the system. You want it in the lead, saying what exactly? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
We don't put missing "basic" facts in the WP:LEAD. We don't even put missing sophisticated facts in the WP:LEAD. We put all facts in the article body, and we summarize that info in the WP:LEAD. Besides that, the IP's table is from a 2004 report, which was updated annually up through 2011, so its too out of date to debate anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, NewsAndEventsGuy. 24.207.138.138, here is the explanation alluded to above. Look at the data you link to. First, note the number for CO2 produced by natural processes. Then, look at the number for CO2 absorbed by natural processes. Note that the latter number is larger. All of the naturally produced CO2 is absorbed, keeping the CO2 in the atmosphere roughly constant. Now, look at the number for CO2 produced by human activity. Add the two numbers to get the total CO2 produced. Note that the sum is larger than the CO2 absorbed. That is why CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Rick, feel free to defend your implication at my user talk page. AR4 is too out of date to debate (since we now have AR5). This 2004 emissions report is too far out of date to debate (since it was annually updated through 2011). Article talk pages really aren't suited for behavioral debates, so go ahead and explain how that simple observation violates WP:AGF, but per WP:TPG keep it at usertalk, eh? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I was just trying to assume good faith, and not put 24.207.138.138 down, but rather explain to him why he is mistaken. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but we should still limit how much teaching happens here so article-talk does not become a WP:FORUM. Besides, the IP's reply to JJ was not encouraging. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Solar activity" sentence

Relevant website about calibration: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/scrc/facilities/engineering-division/facilities/tsi-radiometer-facility/

I'd like to change this

"Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites.[104] These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth."

to this ...

"Since 1978, solar irradiance has been measured by satellites.[104] These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth."

Why? Because "output" is ambiguous, could mean all sorts of things (solar wind, even neutrinos!), so I prefer being specific, and we can be specific. The quantity of interest is "irradiance", as measured by the satellites alluded to ("since 1978"), and as per the figure shown at the right (sunspots are not an "output"). Also, I'd like to drop the word "precise" since, in fact, the irradiance measurements are relative, having "resolution" but not "accuracy" relative to an absolute baseline. Yes, irradiance data from multiple satellites have had there baselines adjusted to bring the data into near continuity, and this is what is shown in the figure, but there is some wiggle room in all of this. I don't think we need to get into this too much for this article, and we can avoid the issue completely by simply dropping "precise". Those are my thoughts. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good source. Since solar irradiance is jargony and links to a very short page with just one RS, lets try
"Since 1978, satellites in Earth orbit have been monitoring changes in solar radiation. Since these measurements have not increased, the past 30 years of global warming cannot be attributed to changes in the sun."
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, a technical point on the sentence: the "measurements" themselves have increased in number and quality, but they do not "show" or "indicate" an increase:

"Since 1978, satellites in Earth orbit have been monitoring changes in solar radiation. Since these measurements do not indicate an increase in radiation, the past 30 years of global warming cannot be attributed to changes in the sun." Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, to me anyway. ThanksNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
On the phrasing, perhaps this could suggest useful words: "The IPCC 'basically says that global warming is not caused by the sun,' says Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. 'The strongest evidence for this is the record of satellite measurements of solar output since the late 1970s that show no increasing trend in solar output during a period of rapid global warming.'”[1] . . dave souza, talk 10:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dave, does it suggest anything to you? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm unenthusiastic about taking a quote from a newspaper (Washington Post), one where the ambiguous phrase "output" is still used. I note that the same newspaper article also uses the more specific "irradiance", note that the figure we show in the wikiarticle actually is shows and is labeled "irradiance", still, I suppose I can live with "solar radiation". I do get concerned when we start using multiple phrases for the same thing, however. Consistency is not only desirable, but it can help reduce confusion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, the same newspaper article shows a figure (cited from Skeptical Science, which, in turn, is form somewhere else) claiming to show solar irradiance from 1880 to present. It is not clear what this actually is, since total irradiance can only be measured from space and this has only been done since 1978. It might be an inference based on an approximate correlation estimated from modern irradiance data and modern sunspot data, then IF that correlation is assumed to hold for other times, the historical sunspot data are used to estimate historical irradiance. This is tricky business, as there has clearly been some secular change in sunspot number, so there might be (we don't know) secular change in the correlation between sunspots and irradiance. Okay, possibly too much information for this article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The conclusion of the solar sentence is WP:OR. --->(These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.) I would suggest finding a ref. for that or removing it.ChangalangaIP (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Dave already provided one mid-thread NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean the pdf? It is "404 not found" and cannot find through site search either. If the reference can be found, and used, why not put it at the end of the conclusion sentence so that it does not appear to be WP:OR?ChangalangaIP (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
edit to say-there is a .pdf link to a complete pdf. but I'm having trouble ref. itChangalangaIP (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC) I recommend fixing the ref. and putting ref# 104 at the end of the second sentence.ChangalangaIP (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2

Perlman, David (25 February 2015). "Berkeley study directly IDs climate change culprit". SFGate. Retrieved 26 February 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) refers to * Feldman, D. R.; Collins, W. D.; Gero, P. J.; Torn, M. S.; Mlawer, E. J.; Shippert, T. R. (2015). "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010". Nature. Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/nature14240. Retrieved 26 February 2015. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) . . dave souza, talk 03:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

US senate vote: global warming not caused by humans

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

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

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

In breaking news, Senate to redefine π as 3 in accordance with Scripture. A triumph for Senator Jim Inhofe#Environmental issues, who's been saying since 28 July 2003 variously that "catastrophic global warming is a hoax", "manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and at times "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". As he's now again [[Chair of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which includes the Environment Agency, the future looks interesting. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
dave souza, please remind me: I'm pretty sure some US state actually did pass a law that π henceforth be defined as 3 in their state. The law was widely reported internationally and, the way I remember it, was repealed later, perhaps the following year. I don't recollect any reference to Scripture, though. Anybody remember which state it was and when? Or have I been taken in by a canard? Bishonen | talk 19:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC).
See Indiana Pi Bill. This was back in 1897. Another blatant example of pointy-heads obstructing the will of the majority!!!! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Aye, ye should ken the Guid Book better, and beware of canards, they're a randy lot. Appropriately enough, DuckDuckGo is your friend..[2]. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Lol. Either way the reason i posted this is to discuss if (and how) it should be added to the article. The reference i gave is notable enough and it's all over the news. But i don't think the environment much cares for a us senate vote. Nor do the scientists who know what they're talking about. On the other hand, imagine how silly this will look a hundred years from now if and when it is indisputed that global warming is (significantly) caused by humans. That makes it an interesting trivia. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the #Political discussion section of this article badly needs an update, with mention both of the hints of accord with China international developments, and the move of the U.S. Senate to a majority position of political denial of the science. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree and i doubt denial of science is exaggerated. If it is an exaggeration, this page would be very biased and/or not based on extensive scientific resources. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I think this is certainly an interesting new story. Does anyone where know a reporter? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The pantomime continues, and receives occasional coverage; Justin Gillis; John Schwartz (February 21, 2015). "Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher". Retrieved 2015-02-21. "In a Senate debate last month, Mr. Inhofe pointed to a poster with photos of scientists questioning the climate-change consensus, including Dr. Soon. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” the senator said. A spokeswoman for the senator said Friday that he was traveling and could not be reached for comment." . . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
What a hoot, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Data tampering

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

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

I don't think Breitbart and Daily Caller are reliable sources for this type of material. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And Christopher Booker is a denialist, may fall into WP:FRINGE, so not a good idea. We have an entire article on Climate change denial and Global warming conspiracy theory where this material may belong. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
As a pointer, a couple of blog comments by topic area experts:
Worth noting that that the sea surface temperature trend is adjusted downward. . . dave souza, talk 04:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. This material is only good for Climate change denial, not here. Booker got that completely wrong. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Homogenization of temp records

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

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

During all the buzz about Global warming hiatus I seem to recall some excellent forum posts at RealClimate on this subject. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
RealClimate is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yuck

Gee, where does this go?

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

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

Hammer Horror? In further movie news, "Although they believed they had found the perfect isolated Icelandic location to double for Fortitude, for the first time since records began there was no snow on the ground during the six weeks of scheduled winter filming. The production company had to bring in fake snow to cover the landscape." . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The "going" gets worse. Did you all see where for the "ceremonial start" of the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race in Anchorage they had to truck in snow? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Margins of error

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

No WP:RS, no consideration of WP:OR in this WP:FORUM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a lot of explanations and charts etc. in this article. But the reality is that everything hinges on the accuracy of the data in the first chart. All the other charts and information simply explain the phenomenon in the first chart. If the first chart is not accurate then nothing in the rest of the article means anything. And there is the problem. That first chart is full of holes. In any chart, for it to be accurate, all the data should be collected in the same manner with the same instrumentation. The chart claims to be a combined surface and atmospheric temperature chart. The chart begins in 1880 and extends past 2015. I can't be the only one who looked up and found that surface temperature has only been recorded since the 1950s. This means that comparing the period prior to the 1950's to the period after the 1950's consists of comparing apples with apples and oranges. There should at the very least be two separate charts, one showing atmospheric temperature from 1880 to present and a second chart showing surface temperature from 1950 to present. presenting this mixed data in the same chart renders the chart meaningless. Another problem that I have with this chart is that in the pre digital age the temperatures were taken almost exclusively with mercury thermometers which have a margin of error of +/- .4 degrees f. The readings since the 1970's were taken with a mixture of mercury and digital thermometers depending on location and today we use a combination of digital thermometers for atmosphere which have a margin of error of +/- 2 degrees f., and infrared and other more sophisticated techniques for recording surface temperatures. I am not informed enough to discus the margin of error for infrared measurements but if we are using equipment with a margin of error of +/- 2 degrees and the total global average increase in 135 years is claimed at about 1.2 degrees f. then how is this chart not negated by the margin of error alone? Reporting such a tiny change using the equipment we have been using is sort of like claiming an Earthquake with a magnitude of 1 every time a truck drives past the seismic equipment. If I am wrong about the way the data was collected, please someone correct me. I'm not a scientist, just an expert in old school instrumentation and how accurate and inaccurate many types of instruments are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Have you published your analysis in a reliable source? As this is a science article, a peer reviewed publication would be best. If you want something included in the article, I'm sure papers have been published on this issue, if you find one that you think should be summarised in the article please provide a link to it. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This is all deeply stupid; but nothing else very entertaining is going on, so:
the only data that we can rely on would be from the 1970's onward - drivel
the margin of error for the best digital thermometer is +/- 2.0 degrees - drivel
And anyway, you're in the wrong article. You want Instrumental temperature record William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
One very useful way of assessing the reliability of the data is to look at multiple subsets of independently acquired data: Northern-hemisphere/Southern-hemisphere, Land/Ocean, etc. These show a consistent picture of global warming. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I see, so critical thinking or any criticism of the shortcomings and failings of this article is blasphemy. Got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong; if such ruminations have merit they're called "potential papers to submit to the journals". Here, we work with summaries of WP:Reliable sources, which we have asked in vain for you to provide. That makes your ruminations the equivalent of standing on a soapbox, which is not what we do here. See also, WP:FORUM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn't "blasphemy", no. But your question has a very simple answer. Indeed, this issue of data consistency is standard discussion in reports on data recording global warming. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It is perhaps unnecessary at this point, since the recommended addition is not published, but I will note that the accuracy of a mean of measurements can be better than the accuracy of any one measurement, a phenomenon quantified in the Central Limit Theorem. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fossil fuel divestment

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

Human caused 90 or 95% certainty?

The present lede says, "In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities." In the next paragraph AR5 (2014) is introduced, but the following is not mentioned: "The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."[3] 'Extremely likely' will be defined somewhere in AR5 as 'More than 95% certain', but I can't at the moment find where, or I would have made the edit myself. Why are we headlining with out of date uncertainty estimates, a year after they were updated? This needs fixing, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's in the first footnote in the Summary for Policy Makers on page 1 " Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.". Mikenorton (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That's for AR4. I'm sure the definitions are the same for AR5, but we have to get these things right, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The quote comes from page 1 of AR5 that you linked to above. Mikenorton (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry for being thick! I thought you meant the first footnote of the relevant section in our article! I see it now. Sorry. Right. I'll have a go at the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. I made the edits. I hope people will agree with what I have done. I'm sorry that I'm by no means up-to-speed on Harvnb citations, so I'm afraid I have removed two of these and replaced them with references how I do understand them. I can only apologise, but these things should not prevent editors with only 11 years experience here, such as myself, from updating articles. I hope that someone who understands these things can reinstate them as necessary. --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Except of course the IPCC admits they have poor understanding of the complex dynamics of solar forcing, one of the holy trio of current natural climate cycle models. So I am willing to bet that the IPCC is hedging our bets a bit due to time frame. After all if its all human caused then maybe we can control the outcome. If not then not much was wasted compared to effects of climate change on human world. So that 90-95% might be "90-95 sure we need to act as if its human based" since human activity is all we can control and no stronger model contradicts human influence.
The 11 year cycle is probably not the whole story given that large changes in solar magnetic fields occur on other longer schedules. The IPCC chose to assume solar influence was constant based on satellite data starting in 1978. But that side steps two issues: lag in the climate system from a change occurring a few decades earlier than 1978 satellites and treating all satellite solar data as equal. Different (especially early) solar observation satellites were not all equally well suited for full power spectrum analysis. In fact much solar observation satellite data measures power only on a few specific wavelengths and ASSUMES that distribution of solar output across the spectrum is constant. Obviously nothing dramatic in spectrum that reaches the ground but something causes some mismatches between solar winds and solar magnetic fields variations and the 11 year cycles.
I have also seen some stuff mentioning atmospheric heating of the upper atmosphere by the solar wind which increases as the earth magnetic field weakens (also a dramatic change in last 30 years). Could there even be some direct solar ion synchrotron wave heating of the earth -- since that energy is not normally included in incident solar radiation spectrum effecting the earth. So it would be nice if some with better research skills tracked down whether there are still some missing or unexplored pieces for accurate climate modeling. Hand fitting past climate events to the models, only shows you have some of the major factors and can predict opportunity for events. When you have a tight fit between data and model without missing, extra or time skewed events - then you can really say you know where natural climate change ends and man-made starts. 70.114.133.167 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be arguing that you know better than the agreed summary of the world's climate scientists, with summary subject to agreement by all the governments in the WMO. If so, why don't you publish in peer reviewed scientific papers, so we have a reliable source showing your insights? . . dave souza, talk 05:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree with what you say, but unfortunately you will struggle to get any quotes that will be acceptable to the academics who edit here. This is because there aren't many talented scientists in this field [4] and those that are tend to be sceptical or overtly politically biased. But mostly those involved are both lacking in scientific understanding and are politically biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Climate change is a well defined term and does not mean either "ice age" or "earth's catching fire." Which authors are you suggesting do not consider evidence for climate change? Wiki authors or quoted authors? "It is expected," in a scientific context, means expected by whatever hypothesis, evidence, or theory is being presented. It's standard language and fine. There is pretty clear evidence towards impact on species, and given that we are already experiencing quite the global extinction event (even if no species went extinct from here on), it's not exactly impossible to predict. Evidence has been presented in countless peer reviewed scientific papers. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear IP 100.35.21.51, you might find more positive response, here, if you make specific suggested changes. In that spirit, perhaps, the following sentence addresses your concerns: "Overall, global warming will likely result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems.[153]" The source uses the phrase "with a high degree of confidence" instead of "will likely" and "climate change" instead of "global warming", even though this is what is more specifically meant. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Errm, well, if you don't want to change the article by making specific edits, what's the point of talking? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear IP, please see WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have concluded that it is better to get some sense that edits will not simply be reversed. I have already suggested a minimal edit to the specific noted phrase and will be happy to make it, but not to get into a back-and-forth. It makes me think that we are all equal, except some of us are more equal than others100.35.21.51 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)William A. Hoffman
See WP:WALLOFTEXT. Lost in your verbose generalized complaint is the specific proposal to which you refer. Additionally, if you wish to be taken seriously you need to show some receptivity to feedback. I've already posted to your talk page a request to indent and thread your posts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"Lost in your verbose generalized complaint" is not how to get cordial responses, and if that's what passes for discussion here, you can keep it. The comment was an introduction, with a clear concise detail and suggested replacement. I would have simply done the edit, but have found in the past that edits may be simply dismissively replaced with a comment about vandalism. Read the comment again, and see if in fact, the issue I raised is not one of neutral point of view. As to your comment about indenting, I have not seen it, and at the moment don't know how to do it. Threading? No idea. But I think I see how to indent. 100.35.21.51 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)100.35.21.51 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)William A. Hoffman
Read Help:Introduction to talk pages/User talk pages NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What does equality have to do with any of this? Sure, anybody can edit. But that doesn't give you any right to skate across all lanes of traffic however you please. Whether edits are retained depends on whether they meet the established WP criteria, such as WP:notability, WP:reliable sources, neutral point of view, etc. Expect a lot of honking if you ignore those. Likewise for poor argumentation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"What does equality have to do with any of this?" I have only an interest that the presentation of ideas has balance. We are not discussing Creationism, that fails to provide falsifiability and therefore fails to be a contrasting science at all. Issues I am challenging fail falsifiability themselves, eg the claim that such minor "climate" changes as have been recorded globally have led to global extinctions (and with no mention of newly discovered species, whether or not one believes "climate change" could have caused them). That's just one item. Consider it a test case.100.35.21.51 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)100.35.21.51 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)William A. Hoffman

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

We should probably thank the IP for calling attention to an outdated almost-verbatim line from AR4 WG2 (2007) about expected extinction. This needs updating. The SPM from AR5 WG2 (2014) says some extinctions have already been attributed to climate change. A text search of the SPM on the string "extinct" produces a number of hits, including this paragraph
"Increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts. Some risks of climate change are considerable at 1 or 2°C above preindustrial levels (as shown in Assessment Box SPM.1). Global climate change risks are high to very high with global mean temperature increase of 4°C or more above preindustrial levels in all reasons for concern (Assessment Box SPM.1), and include severe and widespread impacts on unique and threatened systems, substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, and the combination of high temperature and humidity compromising normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors in some areas for parts of the year (high confidence). The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger tipping points (thresholds for abrupt and irreversible change) remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points in the earth system or in interlinked human and natural systems increases with rising temperature (medium confidence)."
So I agree with the IP that the text needs revising in light of AR5, though I don't think that's the change the IP had in mind.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism section?

While I personally agree with current theories regarding global warming, I'm a bit surprised there is no section handling the pretty rampant criticism in this article. I mean, for such a polarized debate it's amazing only one view is fully represented in the article. Regardless of the validity of claims against it, they nevertheless have sufficient notoriety to be covered under the same umbrella. LiamSP (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this section not what you were looking for? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
We also have an entire article on global warming controversy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAQ is quite interesting. Unfortunately, in Q10 the links 7 to 11, except 9, are broken. --Rosemaker (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAQ here are just a whole lot non-science replies trotted out by the small group of editors most of whom were academics from a small group of universities who rejected any kind of real evidence on climate and got fed up trying to explain why only their views were allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an unexpected amount of useful text in that: The FAQ here are a lot [] science replies trotted out by [] group of editors most of whom were academics from [] universities who got fed up trying to explain []. I'd add a comma to clarify that the expert academic editors got fed up, not their universities. And it needs some grammar fill-in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

2012 World Bank report useful citation, newsworthy; placement?

108.73.113.176 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a question or suggestion to present? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the Kalamazoo Kid again. After a while you learn to ignore him. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Btw. The release link is part of this article external link collection. prokaryotes (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I didn't recognize him. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Extreme impacts

Global warming#Extreme impacts is dense and hard to understand. Compared to the original formulation when I first put this information in the article:

Incidence of extremely hot weather

Comparison of the incidence of extremely hot weather before the industrial revolution with the incidence of extremely hot weather now shows a significant increase in days that were, in terms of the locality, extremely hot. There was a smaller increase in days where there were high precipitation. [1][2]

"about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming" Nothing in particular is attributable to warming. What happens is that the likelihood increases. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I know it could be expressed better, but, in essence, it is just an exercise in probability. High-temperature days occurred in pre-industrial time, they just weren't as likely. The error is pointing at some particular event and proclaiming it was "caused by global warming." User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition, but are you aware that the current version is a quote from the study you cite? I agree we can break this down better, also this study is not only related to hot extremes, but also to precipitation extremes. I suggest we can rename the section to extreme weather, and contextualize the content. Additionally there is no error in the study findings as you suggest above, unless there is a peer reviewed article which states that. On the other hand there is science which supports the findings in the previous literature. prokaryotes (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Justin Gillis (April 27, 2015). "New Study Links Weather Extremes to Global Warming". The New York Times. Retrieved April 27, 2015. "The bottom line is that things are not that complicated," Dr. Knutti said. "You make the world a degree or two warmer, and there will be more hot days. There will be more moisture in the atmosphere, so that must come down somewhere."
  2. ^ E. M. Fischer & R. Knutti (April 27, 2015). "Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes" (online). Nature Climate Change. doi:10.1038/nclimate2617. Retrieved April 27, 2015. We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence. … Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming.

Climate inertia and SLR article

FYI, see new article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Climate_inertia and major overhaul at Sea level rise prokaryotes (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Putting a space heater in an ice house doesn't immediately melt everything or make water boil. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

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

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

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

The terms have become synonymous in common speech so who cares about this minor political whining drama side bar from many years ago? If we say anything it would be better in Politics of global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Please address the issue rather than dismissing it as a "political whining drama." Conway is only one viewpoint. If there are multiple WP:RSs who think that the change was pushed by the Republicans for political reasons, then under Wikipedia guidelines including WP:WEIGHT it should go in the section. --Nbauman (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Fine, I'll elaborate. We all agree (I think) that based on the RS's, Luntz' memo deserves mention somewhere. As it turns out, it has been a part of our article "Climate change denial" since Aug 2007. The issue at hand is Does this 1994 GOP memo deserve redundant mention here? I say opposed because this is a top-level main article that is already in need of updating, is long, and has to cover a vast landscape of subtopics. Real estate here is at a premium. In light of that, a 20-year old GOP memo just doesn't rate very high, compared to climate sensitivity, data modeling, feedbacks, cost-benefit analysis and the list goes on. Worse, dwelling on anything sounding like "They changed the name" feeds fuel to one of the most common skeptic myths listed at Skeptical Science (revised rebuttal here)and we should not help perpetuate that myth. Side bar, I've long favored tweaking our own nomenclature, and my current preference is to switch this article to "Climate change (the current global warming)" os something like that, but that proposal has never grown legs and is off topic for this thread about Luntz anyway. Does that help? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The fact, that this article links to John Cook's Warmist SkepticalScience.com blog, tells the reader all we need to know about the neutrality of this article. Carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.32.213.252 (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Well said NewsAndEventsGuy. prokaryotes (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Luntz is irrelevant, but the coverage didn't properly follow the source, leaving the obvious question, Where's Wally? So have consulted Weart's history, and added clarification. . . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, is this link worth adding to the article? http://www.climatecentral.org Research and reporting of climate change Jcardazzi (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

The 95% statistic

I corrected the lead where it originally stated "95% of scientists concur that most warming is due to humans". I've seen this stat bandied about on various sites and social media. It's actually 95% of published research that agrees that humans are primarily responsible. An important distinction, partly because some scientists publish a lot of research, while others hardly any if at all, so the 95% headline stat is misleading.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

I've also noticed it on other wiki pages, too. I would be grateful to my fellow wikipedia editors if they could correct this error if they see it.Oxr033 (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing two numbers. One number is the % of scientists that agree with the general notion that most global warming is caused by humans. The other number is an assessment of the the likelihood that premise is correct, i.e., the second number is a measure of confidence in the premise. I'm the original author of the text you tweaked. You are thinking of the first number, but the text and the supporting reference are discussing the second. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The 95% statistic is entirely bogus and the "research" on which this figure was based has been debunked. I believe the true figure is something like 3% - mostly because almost no papers that were supposedly part of the research said anything about temperatures.

However, in a poll of 5000 (mostly sceptics) something like 95-98% said it warmed last century - but I didn't ask where it is currently warming because it would be such a stupid & idiotic question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, there are two entirely different ~95% numbers that you are confusing. The one we are citing is a statement of confidence expressed by the IPCC authors directly about the role of humans in climate change. That number is different from and unrelated to the surveys or counts of papers that you are thinking of. Dragons flight (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

climate change article naming

FYI, a user has begun a bulk moving of low-traffic articles starting "Climate change..." to "Global warming...."; I've already left a note on their talk page asking them to seek a consensus from climate-interested eds before changing any more. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Can I suggest, that you suggest a 'thread', rather than a 'threat'? They may take it the wrong way... :-) --Nigelj (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I meant to say thread. Dope! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

A possible entry on List of common misconceptions related to the Global warming hiatus is being discussed here. Comments are needed! SarrCat ∑;3 05:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Re "Trends"

There's yet another study (Karl, et al.; see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632) on the "missing heat" of the 1990s. This supposed reversal of global warming is notable because of how much the deniers have leaned into it. In that there now about half-a-dozen studies on this anti-trend, I wonder if the Global warming#Trends section ought to have some discussion of what might be happening a link to Global warming hiatus‎. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The use of "deniers" is so childish. Why not just say those who haven't yet seen the pause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That's been discussed quite a bit at Global warming hiatus‎ William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even know about Global warming hiatus‎. Okay, I'll revise my suggestion: let's have a link to "Trends". Hmm, I might even be so bold to do that myself. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The study conclusions are already part of the section Global warming#Warmest years prokaryotes (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The significance of the supposed hiatus is that it is taken as disproving a general warming trend. So it would be better placed in "Trends". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
This is pretty meaningless and there's something like a 100 excuses for the pause - including the latest denial from NOAA. But when you don't even mention the pause AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY DEFINED BY SCEPTICS, it would be really difficult to start denying the pause until you first admit it existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, all scientists are sceptics, so all you have to do is find the original peer-reviewed paper defining "the pause". Or do you mean deniers, who typically use blogs and opinion columns? So, have at it, provide the source you propose for this. . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, IP, what WP:RS do you rely on? Bear in mind you're not allowed to disrupt the talk page with just personal opinions (see WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. Talk pages are only for discussing article improvements (see WP:Talk page guidelines). Disrupting a talk page is grounds for being blocked from editing, and not answering simple direct questions is evidence of disruption. (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). So what source are you relying on? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Based on this IP's previous edits, I am suspicious that it may have an agenda. Dustin (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Religious discussion

I took out this section. The idea isn't implausible but having nothing but La Si in it isn't reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right in saying that a religious discussion doesn't begin and end with Laudato si'. But LaSi is a milestone and documents the readjustment of an organisation with 1.2 billion members worldwide. In the section Discussion by the public and in popular media we provide information about Exxon and some conservative think tanks. Until we have more material about a religious discourse I will add a sentence or two here instead. Neudabei (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether La Si turns out to be a milestone is yet to be seen. A proper "religious" section needs to begin with all the stuff that's gone before, not with recent news. Please see WP:BRD William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and global warming is a topic with a plethora of sources. For this to be due, it would need to have a substantive and enduring impact in the sources. Time will tell, but for now it seems undue, Second Quantization (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
We should be covering the religious perspective and a good starting place for finding more sources about more religions views is here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That looks useful. Possibly somewhat provocative question: does religion get its own section or is it just a subset of politics? Perhaps it depends on what the religious have said William M. Connolley (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Whew whee! I'm not going there! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Rename article?

NewsAndEventsGuy, suggested it last year. Today the term global warming is almost never used, either in the literature or in the media. Therefore WP should reflect that.

Disagree. Climate change covers the present period, too. Fiddling with the name is just pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Anthropogenic climate change then? Danhomer (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
But only briefly and not complete. Besides study papers, the term climate change is used today almost exclusively to describe the observed and projected warming and cooling. prokaryotes (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec)I would challenge 'exclusively' - a Google News search gives 5,201,000 for "global warming" [5] compared to 14,800,000 for "climate change" [6] (taking into account of course the limitations of such numbers). A clear majority there for climate change but not exclusive. Mikenorton (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
If you look at recent coverage, the term global warming is rarely mentioned, maybe GW is used in a ratio of 1:20 articles. If you guys think that GW is still the better term, well then i guess we have to see how the term is used later this year. At one point WP should reflect the terms used in the science and media. Though, GW might still be more used in talks between people. But I would guess a ratio of 1:3 with the focus on CC.prokaryotes (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It still gets 44,600,000 results on Google. I think banning use of the term was a Republican Party tactic a few years ago in US politics. Their ban didn't have much effect in my part of the world, and there's no reason why it should on WP. --Nigelj (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
A tactic laid out by the fossil fuel folks back in the seventies. (First deny that there is notable warming.) It is of great significance that the present climate change is warming, which the deniers keep trying to mute. What ever success they have with that in the popular media should not drive the title we use. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please keep the name. This whole article needs protecting from any further edits as it so well encapsulates the non-science of the alarmist movement. Future generations need to be able to see the stupidity of our own. These kinds of articles which have now been totally superseded by what actually happened to the climate are really good teaching aids and help open people's eyes to all the other subjects where the ideology behind this kind of movement isn't so easily shown to be false by the data showing the predicted warming did not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I hate it when people claim I said something without providing a WP:DIFF.

In this case, it's true I suggested something-or-other like the following

Current New
Climate change Climate change (in general)
Global warming Global warming (the current climate change)

This proposal grew no legs and backlash was deafening. I can live with the status quo. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

(In response to the initial proposal by Prokaryotes) I might understand why someone would support moving this article to the title "Climate change", but there are multiple reasons for which I would oppose such a move. For one, when you utilize Google search results, you are seeing the results from much more than just Global warming with the search "climate change". Another thing is that if someone actually just searches the title climate change, it's silly to think that the page would just be about the recent global warming rather than the subject of climate change in general. Global warming is significant, yes, but changing the title to climate change would be a bit too much in the way of recentism. Plus, even if what news sources put out happens to use "climate change" more than "global warming", that doesn't mean that readers don't know what global warming is. I would have thought that we would at least expect readers to know what global warming is when it is mentioned. For people thinking of global warming but who search for the title "climate change", there is even a hatnote on the climate change article. This proposal doesn't seem like it would do anything helpful in my honest opinion. Dustin (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • A planet's climate is in a constant state of change. (Like everything else in the universe) If we want to specify the human element in it we need something else. "global climate disruption" (or just "climate disruption") has already been suggested. Why doesn't Wikipedia already use that? 94.54.79.103 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
No, the article titles, Global Warming, and Climate Change, are fine as they are. In my opinion, it is probably best if editors concentrate on the written content of these and related articles. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
We already have an article on the effects of global warming. Mikenorton (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Mikenorton 94.54.79.103 (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

New article that needs starting "Morality of energy policy and climate change"

Are there enough RSs to start an article titled Morality of energy policy and climate change? Sub topics might include (just off top of head)

and much more. But I'm more of an earth-science guy. Anybody up on enough RSs to tackle that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for fossil fuel divestment and fossil-fuel phase-out but I also think that wikipedia is not in the business of telling people what is morally right. Wikipedia should be for informational purposes only, not for advice. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Since I never suggested "telling people what's right", it's unclear who you are arguing with, Brian. We should ask
(1) Are there sufficient sources that establish WP:NOTABILITY of "Morality of energy policy and climate change"?
(2) How can we summarize the RSs about "Morality of energy policy and climate change" with good, NPOV text?
A partial answer to #2 is to not state moral positions in wikivoice. But as I say, I know more about sources dealing with earth science.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Doh! Looks like we already have an article on Climate ethics NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it wouldn't be a super-common name for searches, but it might be worth redirecting the redlink to Climate ethics. Dustin (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I already made redirs for Morality of global warming and Morality of climate change NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear and you used to claim (falsely) that this subject was about science. If you're going to talk about the morality, what about the appalling behaviour of alarmists like William Connolley. What about the 1 million additional deaths during the winter months in the UK alone since this scam started. What about the people who died when they literally couldn't afford the cost of living when bio-fuels pushed up the price of food. And what about the huge benefits of CO2 as the globe is greening with record harvests. What about the lies from Lewandowsky about sceptics. What about the criminal behaviour of climategate academics who broke FOI law. What about the constant adjustments of the temperature record. The way groups like WWF write much of the IPCC report ... and the way the alarmists here won't dare allow the public to read the truth about the immoral alarmists on Wikipida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
And you apparently don't believe in the scientific consensus behind global warming. Comments such as yours are disruptive and don't even pretend to be trying to help. Well, as you should know, the reliable sources don't back up your claims. More of that "it was cold outside this winter" nonsense. Climate change occurs on the scale of decades to centuries, and a single season cannot change that. Dustin (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This looks like a single purpose non-account IP. Dustin (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
See the bit about "harmful posts" in the TPG. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: TPG? Dustin (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry... tip, if anyone spouts an acronym at you, try typing it in the search box preceeded by WP:, for example (WP:TPG). Anyway, I meant WP:TPG. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing IP's WP:SOAPBOXing not related to this discussion. (JJ)
The problem Wikipedia faces is that now the sceptics have won the argument, having spent years refusing to let us sceptics make any changes citing all kinds of excuses, you are now incapable of changing the article to reflect the current consensus view as you don't have anyone to put the dominant sceptic view. The simple fact is that these climate articles are so extreme in their view that they lack credibility. So what are you going to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC) — 82.30.52.236 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No they have not. What reason are you here for other than just to push your agenda? Dustin (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest the Wikipedia editors put back in the lede that global warming theory is "incontrovertable". That was amusing--not POV at all. Also use more studies by John Cook to improve the article's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.225.145 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of the 2015 January–June period sub-section

From the FAQ above : "However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get," meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations.[21] Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import." Moreover, the temperature are given without errors margin which is two times of the amplitude of the so call record as we can see on the NOAA website cited: "The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.53 °F ± 0.16 (0.85 °C ± 0.09) above the 20th century average; the highest in the January–June period in the 1880–2015 record, passing the previous record of 2010 by 0.16 °F (0.09 °C)." And a 6 month period is compared with a 12 month period !!! Is it a joke ??? Atchoum (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't quite figure out the point you're driving at, but that whole section simply doesn't belong in the article anyway, so I deleted it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The point is that the year 2014 could be 0.09°C over the year 2010 for example, but the margin error for the two value are 0.18°C ! So we don't know if 2014 is warmer or cooler than 2010 !Atchoum (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The popular press makes a lot of the "warmest year" business but scientifically it's not very relevant or interesting. This discussion is fairly good, despite being in Mother Jones. Gavin Schmidt made a (slightly more technical) post on the issue, especially notable for its concluding remarks: "The excitement (and backlash) over these annual numbers provides a window into some of problems in the public discourse on climate. A lot of energy and attention is focused on issues with little relevance to actual decision-making and with no particular implications for deeper understanding of the climate system." I would have deleted the section earlier if I knew about it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting articles. So, with NASA, NOAA and Berkeley, the probability that 2014 is the warmest year so far is 44%. I Agree with the concluding remarks too.Atchoum (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The probability is given for each data set and the statistical methods applied. However, we report the summary conclusion not absolute probability terms, because that's how it is communicated. There could be a section on methodologies, i suggest at the article for instrumental temperature, where the finer points are discussed. prokaryotes (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As a complete amateur, have tried to summarise wot Gavin Schmidt said. Hope this makes the subsection of some use, expert corrections will be much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 09:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Combustion of available fossil fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet

See this article. Count Iblis (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Identify, Classify, and Consolidate Climate Change Categories

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

WP:NPOV says that all our encyclopedic content must be represent the significant views and ideas that have been published by [[reliable sources on the topic. Unfortunately, I don't think that the classification process you're proposing has been prominently published in the scientific literature. --Nigelj (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Firstly climatology is not a proper science. Second, given the corruption apparent even today, and the clear buddy review that is endemic in this non-science, it is clear, the academic literature cannot be considered "reliable" in its entirety and it is CERTAINLY NOT the only reliable source. Wikipedia does not have such a rule, it is not warranted by the behaviour of the academics in this subject, so please don't insult people by fabricating a rule that doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What about all the SNOW in the SUMMER of 2015?

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

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

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

What exactly is the point here? Nothing in the article seems to be contradicted by this news, as far as I can tell. Gap9551 (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Every so often people drop by this article to rant about something or another. You get used to it after a while. Best to just let them blow off steam and not get into a pointless to-and-fro. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz and Sierra Club denial of Satellite data

This video shows the typical demands to repress discussion, denial of the science, repeated citation of single bogus studies and the general lack of information of those pushing the global warming scare. May I suggest a new section dealing with the misinformation from those pushing the scare? [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

IPCC AR5 p.2-5:

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

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

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

This information should be added to the article:

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

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

Oct. 30, 2015

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

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

See FAQ 21 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, there does seem to have been some excitement about this study: * "NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did". Media Matters for America. 4 November 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
There have been a few years since 2008, and it's not the only recent study. * France-Presse, Agence (2 November 2015). "Melting ice in west Antarctica could raise seas by three metres, warns study". the Guardian. Retrieved 8 November 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) * "PRESS RELEASE: West Antarctica snow accumulation - News". British Antarctic Survey. 10 October 2014. Retrieved 8 November 2015. – "“In this region, the same storms that have driven increased snowfall inland have brought warmer ocean currents into contact with West Antarctic’s ice shelves, resulting in rapid thinning. Thus the increased snowfall we report here has not led to thickening of the ice sheet, but is in fact another symptom of the changes that are driving contemporary ice sheet loss."
But then, increased snow was expected: "the expected increase in precipitation due to the higher moisture holding capacity of warmer air" * Frieler, Katja; Clark, Peter U.; He, Feng; Buizert, Christo; Reese, Ronja; Ligtenberg, Stefan R. M.; Broeke, Michiel R. van den; Winkelmann, Ricarda; Levermann, Anders (2015). "Consistent evidence of increasing Antarctic accumulation with warming". Nature Climate Change. 5 (4). Nature Publishing Group: 348–352. doi:10.1038/nclimate2574. Retrieved 8 November 2015. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm always somewhat between amused and bemused when the denialosphere enthusiastically accepts a paper that can be twisted to support their fantasy with unbridled support, while apparently all other papers coming from the same organisations through the same review processes and published in the same journals are obviously unreliable and politically motivated hack jobs... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
FAQ 21 is the right answer. Its just another paper, it contradicts lots of others, its probably wrong, but even if it were right it wouldn't be terribly exciting. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/11/02/mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/ is my take, if you're interested. Note me pointing you to Gavin William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I've just cut:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


In support of the 1970s date:

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

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

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

Obviously this is a perfectly reasonable paraphrase - no, it isn't. If it was, I wouldn't have removed it. You may like it, but asserting that it is "obviously" reasonable is just silly. Why is the IPCC relevant? because as IPCC_First_Assessment_Report points out, "Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years...; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more". So in *1990* it was scientifically respectable to assert that position. therefore, asserting that Exxon et al. knew better in the 1970's is drivel William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
How is it relevant to this article? Sources look a bit premature, but climate change denial would be a better home, or one of the other global warming controversy articles. This article's about the science, not the denial. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Which brings up that DrB has added this to those other articles: [8]; [9] (that latter now reverted). Adding the same material to three articles is bad. I'd prefer that we discuss it in one place, though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I've only looked at that new Exxon documents in passing - they were not really surprising for me. So I have not yet formed a strong opinion about if and where to include this aspect. But William, I don't quite understand your reasoning. The fact that the IPCC could not in 1990 unambiguously detect an anthropogenic signal in the temperature record does not mean that they (and/or Exxon) did not know that adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere could and would eventually cause significant global warming. The basic mechanism was well understood for quite a while earlier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's a fair point. The answer is, it depends on what people are asserting Exxon said. At the moment, we're not even at that stage; we've just got the totally wrong could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years - this appears to read as though Exxon was funding deniers in the 1970s, but AFAIK no sources claim that. Would someone like to propose a non-broken text for inclusion? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Copied from the "Global warming" article:

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

References

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

The Original and Best

This seems to have been set off by this series at InsideClimate News – The Road Not Taken: After eight months of investigation, InsideClimate News presents this multi-part history of Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time.
It describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.
Includes Exxon's Gamble: because their own shareholders are raising these concerns, might the oil companies face retribution for fiduciary negligence should the investors’ warnings come true?
So, as much a business issue as anything. No, I've only skimmed some of them but this seems to be where it's coming from. The end result of investigative journalism, not a fishing expedition. . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone (on wiki) is suggesting a fishing expedition William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, I've struck that – sure I've read it somewhere. . . dave souza, talk 15:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

  1. ^ Jerving, Sara; Jennings, Katie; Hirsch, Masako Melissa; Rust, Susanne (October 9, 2015). "What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
The PBS News Hour piece on this last night (Thursday) was interesting. The NY AG's position is that Exxon-Mobil may have committed a fraud on the public, and possibly on the shareholders, by misstating what they knew, or had reason to suspect. Even more interesting were the comments by the Exxon V.P. It appears that Exxon is moving to a position that they were working with "government" scientists and others, and thus contributed to the current understanding of global warming. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Going nowhere

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

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

Are you serious? Ted Cruz is not a reliable source on Global warming. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that there are several independent surface temperature series, using different reconstruction methods, but all agreeing very closely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you really being serious? On what scientific basis are you making such an absurd response to a perfectly reasonable proposal based on the science. The surface data does not corroborate with the Meteorological balloon data, the overwhelming majority of witnesses agreed that the satellite data is the most credible source to determine global temperature. Please base your response on the science and not some preconceived or even politically inspired response. Isonomia (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Good luck to you in succeeding inserting that material in this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't need luck because after all everyone here is acting on good faith and wants the best dataset to be used.Isonomia (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm sure you're joking. Or have I overlooked you presenting any kind of scientific reference? Cruz is a partisan politician, collecting whatever experts he likes. Satellite temperature measurements are one good tool, but a relatively recent one. Several satellite data sets have also been "adjusted" (corrected) many times, for orbital drift, clock drift, and several other problems, and are now in general, if not perfect, agreement with both each other and with the surface record, as long as they overlap. They are less suitable as the main image because they only cover a short period of time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Stephan, the evidence was provided to congress by the scientists. The majority agreed that the Satellites were the best and unless I am very much mistaken the satellite is the only dataset that is corroborated by an independent dataset in the Meteorological balloons. Please keep this on the science and stop digressing into irrelevant political rhetoric. Isonomia (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I've yet to see any scientific claim, let alone scientific reference (indeed, there is basically no reference presented by you so far, unless you consider some unspecified comments by unspecified scientists at "a congressional meeting" a proper reference). Let me inject some data, just for fun. Here is a comparison of Radiosonde ("balloon") data, satellite record, and surface record. For the satellite era (since roughly 1980), all 4 data sets run essentially in lock step. The satellite data set is not "independently corroborated" by the balloon data, rather, the balloon data is used to calibrate the interpretation of the satellite data. You are aware that the satellites see the microwave upwelling from the whole atmospheric column, and use models to separate the combined microwave signal into contributions from different layers of the atmosphere, right? The radiosonde data (measured at various defined altitudes) is used to build these models. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This was the hearing in which Ted Cruz invited Mark Steyn, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer as witnesses, correct? — TPX 20:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You really came back from the dead to say this? It hardly seems worth the effort William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Might I remind you that the basis for deciding what goes in here is the science and no the science is telling us that the satellites are the best indicator of global warming and as no one has given any good scientific reason not to use the satellites and the scientists are saying these are the most credible dataset, it it seems we will be compelled to use the satellites data. Isonomia (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh! Of course, if that's not a Poe, a better look into the science would help: or perhaps you should check out what the Admiral said at the "hearing" (but certainly Ted wasn't listening). First links: Why Is Shock Jock Mark Steyn Testifying At A Senate Hearing On Climate Science? | Blog | Media Matters for America and Rabett Run: Senate Hearing Live Blog. No doubt mainstream media will cover this shortly. . dave souza, talk 20:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Did I read that right - since when has an admiral been a scientist? Isonomia (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Former Navy Rear Admiral and current Penn State meteorology professor David Titley, some of his comments are reported in Johnson, Scott K. (9 December 2015). "Senate Science Committee hearing challenges "dogma" of climate science". Ars Technica. Retrieved 9 December 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) You were asking about satellite records? .. . dave souza, talk 21:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the famous contrarian satellite data from UAH that reportedly showed a cooling trend, thus upsetting (supposedly) all other reports of warming. Which was shown to be faulty ten years ago because Christy and Spencer 1) failed to make a necessary adjustment for orbital decay, and 2) inverted the sign of a necessary diurnal adjustment. Isonomia, do catch up on the science, and read The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature (Science, 2 September 2005) and Correcting Temperature Data Sets (Science, 11 November 2005). See also [10] for an extended discussion.
But never the science, let's substitute a politician whose statements (according to Politifact) are "true" or "mostly true" only 22% of the time, and only "half true" another 12%. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry no one has cited any references other than me to a recent discussion on satellites which cover the concern raised at the committee of massive warming adjustments. As was pointed out, the adjustments of the surface data are so large that the whole warming from 1940 to present was due to this adjustment. This shows these temperatures are unreliable and unless anyone can find something that deal with these adjustments it seems a matter of urgency to change over to the more reliable satellite data. Isonomia (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I just gave you some references, and Stephan and Dave have given you others; start with those. What you did was accept a statement from a highly politicized context - perhaps I can go so far as to say, from a serial liar? - without any attempt at objective assessment. The deniers have been pushing this allegedly contrarian "satellite data" for years, but the claimed cooling effect was long ago shown to arise from misapplication of necessary adjustments; that claim was rejected. You have not shown that there is any "more reliable satellite data" that requires any kind of "change over", or what that "change over" should be. There is certainly not any urgency for doing that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want a useful discussion, we first need a clear statement to discuss. Who raised which concerns? Who pointed what out? What is your source? Is there a transcript? WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Or just talk in empty circles and laugh as those who respond pound the empty table with increasing fervor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy to pound table as long as beer lasts. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I note that there's a lot of POV push going on here, but may I remind you the basis of this article is the science. Can I ask whether anyone disputes any of the following:

  • That the majority of scientists at the congressional hearing agreed that the satellites provided the best scientific evidence of current warming
  • The evidence was presented showing massive warming adjustments to the surface so large that the entire warming from 1940 to present could be explained solely by these adjustments
  • That the satellites cover far more of the globe and that e.g. the surface data misses out large section of S.America and Africa and much of the ocean
  • That the surface data has recently been changed to show a warming trend that did not exist a few years ago as evidenced by all the discussion of the "pause". This shows the surface data can be amended almost at will and so does not reflect underlying physical properties so much as what those producing them want to include.
  • That the satellites are independently corroborated by the meteorological balloons
  • That whilst the satellites do not cover the poles, the evidence of growing Antarctic ice, no overall trend in global sea ice and growing Greenland surface ice since 1990 all support the lack of overall trend in the satellite records.
  • That several of the institutions or individuals involved in surface data have shown either a propensity to break the law or eco-activism inconsistent with scientific credibility. (Hansen from NASA was arrested 6 times, NOAA are currently refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena from their oversight committee, and the UEA broke UK FOI law, and there was a general culture of "hiding the decline" exposed in the Climategate emails.

If no one disagrees, subject to sight of the final congressional report, I would therefore like to make this compromise proposal: That the article be changed to show three graphs: the satellite records, the surface and the meteorological balloon data - in that order. The video is now online. The key part is here: [11] To quote Professor Judith Curry:

"The adjustments are rather huge, so to me the error bars should be much bigger, if they are making such large adjustments, so we really don't know too much about what's going on, there's a great deal of uncertainty, yes I do believe that overall we've been warming, but we've been warming for 200 maybe 400 years, and that's not caused by humans, there's natural variability involved."
"And this is exactly what has not been sorted out, now the ocean temperature is the current focus of controversy, the land data says they are sort of starting to agree, but there is a great deal of controversy and uncertainty in the treatment of the ocean temperatures, and that has not been sorted out, and especially looking in the recent period, in terms of trying to sort out what is going on with the hiatus or pause, we need to look at the satellite data, this the best data that we have and its global, and we need to sort out the differences between the satellite and the surface observations."

Isonomia (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So:
  • It's not "the scientists", it's just Curry.
  • It's not a published scientific paper, but just her personal opinion.
  • And she is not even saying "that the entire warming from 1940 to present could be explained solely by these adjustments" - that was suggested by one of the politicos, and supported by Steyn, another non-scientist (and, by the way, depressingly racist in public - see [12]).
And again, the satellite data is not independently corroborated, but the satellites are calibrated against radio sondes ("balloons"), so it's not really surprising if they agree where they intersect. Sorry, come back if you have something relevant, not political clowning in the silly season. It would also help your position if you would provide links to the images you suggest to add. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
To add to what Stephan Schulz said above: A You Tube video is not an appropriate reference in a scientific article. Isonomia's bullet points above are just conservative talking points, not serious discussion. Mentioning "climategate" as if it "exposed" something is a giveaway. Dr. Judith Curry is a scientist, but the conservatives have seized on the word "uncertainty", which has a specific scientific meaning, and have tried to change its scientific meaning to the popular meaning to claim that scientists are "uncertain" about climate change. Any of Dr. Curry's many scientific papers would be appropriate to cite here, if their findings were reported accurately. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
My favorite, other than a long intro paragraph with neither proposed text nor proposed RS to base it upon, was this "That the surface data has recently been changed to show a warming trend that did not exist a few years ago as evidenced by all the discussion of the "pause". That was hilarious since it ignore a main premise of science (i.e., that science strives to be self-correcting), and instead cites the dialogue under a mutual mistake as evidence that there was no mutual mistake in the first place. My other thought is.... someone should make sure all participants in this thread have received the no-fault {{subst:alert|cc}} FYI alert. As most here probably know, notice and sanctions more than 12 months old are no longer considered to be "notice" for purpose of new AE filings. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are we wasting our time discussing the opinions of right-wing radio host and denialist conspiracy theorist Mark Steyn, as peddled by Cruz. Let's close this discussion, shall we? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I am slipping this under the closure because I think Cwobeel has a good question, and I don't want anyone to think there is a paucity of answers. So (and not necessarily for discussion here so much as an enumeration of possibly good answers): where someone is reasonably well-behaved (i.e., not out-and-out uncivil, contentious, or otherwise WP:NOT) we assume good-faith, with the prospect they are perhaps merely confused or such, and we offer a good-faith answer. If they obdurately persist in error, rejecting reasonable explanations, then sometimes we have a little fun lambasting them. Partly for our own amusement (to relieve the tendentiousness of people who have no clue), though even still there is a little hope that a sharp enough poke might catch their attention. At the very least we don't want anyone thinking that "no one objected!" Sometimes community sentiment needs a definite demonstration for those who are inattentive. (If anyone wants to discuss any of this, please open an new discussion.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Seismic activity??

How do we feel about the section on Global_warming#Seismic_activity? It was added 20:18, 27 Oct. by SheriffIsInTown with a quite lame source. A quick search on Google Scholar shows a 2010 issue of Philo. Trans. A on this, but otherwise I don't see much study on this topic. Does AR5 say anything on this? (Other than re CO2 storage.) There was some discussion of this around April 2010 (Talk:Global warming/Archive 60), but I haven't found any prior appearance in the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That is an authentic study, i have replaced the source with Newsweek source. Sheriff | report | 00:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Sheriff | report | 00:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
You did not cite any "authentic" studies, you cited a blurb at about.com and something in Newsweek. Those are, at best, rumors of a study, and in themselves provide no basis for the point claimed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem worth a whole section, or indeed any mention at all. A Newsweek article is hardly a solid reference. True, there is seismic activity in the vicinity of ice sheets, and in increase in Greenland was reported back in 2010 (and picked up by the 2010 Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 38: 467-491). However, the Wikipedia section could be misinterpreted to suggest that populated areas could have significantly more earthquakes in future. In fact I don't think any scientist has called seismic activity a likely important impact of AGW. In particular, the words "seismic" and "earthquakes" are not in the index to AR5 WG1 and are not in the Summary for Policymakers of WG2, the Impacts group. I'd say someone should just delete the whole section. Spencer Weart (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not be deleted, it is very much encyclopedic and we will not do justice to encyclopedia if we do not include it. It's not our job to think what people will make of it, our job is to report the facts and leave it to the people what they make of it. Earthquakes are increasing in frequency and intensity and they are already occurring in populated areas and killing thousands of people. This small section will just tell people another reason why frequency and intensity of earthquakes might be increasing. It's sourced, it's encyclopedic and it should be included. It's our job and we should do it without any fear of what people might think of it. People reading Wikipedia are intelligent and they can make their own mind. Sheriff | report | 03:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Earthquakes are increasing in frequency and intensity"?? Do you have a (peer-reviewed) source for this? And if so, can you give any reason to think that it has anything to do with global climate change? I believe geophysicists would be astonished if a degree of surface warming caused tectonic changes--it takes a century or more for surface heat changes to penetrate even a few hundred meters of rock. As for being encyclopedic, if you put "Glacial Earthquake" in the Wikipedia search box you will find there exists an article dealing with the subject we are discussing. Spencer Weart (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You are taking the information out of context, it seems like you didn't even read that study. It says nowhere that "surface temperature penetrates the layers of earth and causes tectonic changes", not sure where you got this from? The study talks about "shifting weight changes because of glacial melting and how it effects the movement of tectonic plates." Sheriff | report | 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The effects of glacial unloading on seismicity are well studied and pretty well understood. Isostatic rebound is associated with a temporary increase in seismicity in the affected areas (see e.g. here), so this will only affect places that are currently under significant ice load such as Greenland and Antarctica. Mikenorton (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Still, it's notable and encyclopedic as one of the effects of Global warming, why don't we leave it to the reader to decide how much of an impact this can be. We are mentioning all other effects of Global warming then why not mention seismic activity even if it is of less significance that other effects. Sheriff | report | 13:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The point is, there is no evidence relating seismic activity to global warming (except -- maybe -- for minor earthquakes in the immediate vicinity of glaciers). Even if there's no evidence, could it do so in theory? I brought up slow penetration of surface warmth into deeper rocks (where earthquakes happen) since this is an elementary physics argument that surface warming should indeed have no effect on seismicity.Spencer Weart (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This article give summary of main effects, there are further articles like Effects of Global Warming and other sub articles like Deglaciation which are linked. Maybe in Deglaciation or Effects_of_global_warming#Cryosphere but not here because it isn't noteworthy enough. crandles (talk)

14:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I like the "read it before you cite it" rule (which I just made up). All I see is a list of papers, P. Do you have some proposed text based on something you read in that heap? Looks interesting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there's "no evidence", but rather a relative lack of RSs that have been around long enough to have been re-examined once or twice. See FAQ number 21. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed the bit sourced to a Newsweek bit re: the Nepal quake (previously it was sourced to about.com.) Such claims would require solid peer reviewed references. Vsmith (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Seismic activity section has been removed by Vsmith crandles (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We thank Spencer Weart for his insights on this. Sheriff: Dr. Weart has written a well-regarded book on global warming (see the article's references), and is properly considered an expert here; his comments should be given GREAT weight and respect. So while melting of ice sheets (etc.) due to global warming is likely to have some purely local effects, Dr. Weart's expert opinion that "[no] scientist has called seismic activity a likely important impact of AGW" is a strong showing that this extremely minor effect does not warrant mention. I strongly suggest that you study WP:WEIGHT, because the operative principle here is not to include everything and "leave it the reader" to assess matters, but to present matters as assessed by the experts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Weart, nice meeting you, I now understand why Vsmith did not wait for this discussion to conclude and went ahead to remove this section. J. Johnson (JJ), there is something called "Wikipedia policies" and we all must adhere to those while editing. If we need a better source then please tag the section with "better source" tag. We should avoid removing sources information whether we agree with it or not and I don't think it's primary in anyway. Appearance of the study in Newsweek makes it a secondary source as they did not conduct the study themselves. Sheriff | report | 01:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think this area of research will produce papers becoming increasingly related to this topic, as the eggheads explore the redistribution of mass, expected change in earth's axis and/or tilt, and hydrology around tectonically important places... but we'll have to wait and see. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you read all those papers and do you have a proposed edit? The heap looks interesting, but a TOC is not an RS, as I'm sure you'll agree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Per the Preface (also linked above)
Proposal In 2010 the Royal Society published an assessment of potential dynamic responses induced by climate change from the Earth’s crust, due to sea level rise and ice cap melting, as well as temperature rise in the Ocean and over land. The included studies discussed geomorphological hazards triggered through adjustment or modulation of a range of crustal and surface processes, including gas-hydrate destabilization, submarine (which includes potential for tsunami generation) and subaerial landslides, debris flows and glacial outburst floods, as well as volcanic and seismic activity.Preface Ref prokaryotes (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
All of which are as yet too insignificant to be even mentioned in the mainstream view, and therefore warrant no mention here. Per WP:WEIGHT. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Notice that Bill McGuire is one of the leading experts on this topic, Royal Society a leading science publisher. Earthquakes and methane destabilisation and climate change there is a lot of discussion about this topic in the main stream media, on Wikipedia, and in various papers. Though, some parts like tsunamis is only discussed rarely, but not all of it, to discard the entire part termed under seismic because of this, is odd. It is pretty solid science that when ice caps melt that the Earth's crust will rebound, hence seismicity. prokaryotes (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The solid part is in regard of the local effects due to isostatic rebound. Which might be of interest at McMurdo Station, but even there any seismic effects will probably be too minor to matter. I don't see there is any showing that GW will have any significant global impact from an increase in (say) M>5 earthquakes. I reckon there will be a greater hazard of electrocution as port facilities are flooded. Should we include that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I consider myself an inclusionist (within related context at least), thus i agree. But we should also include then studies as outlined here, How Climate Change Leads to Volcanoes (2015) / Study link It is also not local when there is a big eruption (see airspace dust clouds from eruptions)prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The effect of increasing volcanic activity, as in this paper, do seem worth mentioning to me. Perhaps we should rename the section currently called 'sea level rise' to 'effects of ice melting' or similar, to cover effects not just related to rising sea levels. Mikenorton (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"Geohazards", as in the RS posted by P, assuming we decide there are enough RSs and the topic has enough weight in the first place. There are a number of reasons Sea level rise should continue to be treated as a stand-alone. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Added something related to long term effects, please post here if you request adjustments, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
There has been a related addition also today about seismicity- This might be better addressed in relation to general thaw/deglaciation, see ice quakes (Cryoseism). Ping SheriffIsInTown prokaryotes (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, SheriffisinTown restored the "Seismic activity" section that Vsmith previously removed (03:52, 22 Dec.). Sheriff: were you thinking you could sneak this back in without anyone noticing? Well, I have re-removed it. Contrary to your edit summary The Guardian is not a better source. But the bigger problem is that this little factoid you keep drumming up simply is not significant. It is not a matter of finding "better sources". Rather, it is an effect so insignificant (and so localized) that (as yet) it lacks WP:WEIGHT. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
On reading the Guardian article, it appears to be a promotion by Bill McGuire for his 2012 book (Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes). The book might be a good reference ... but as J. Johnson says it's a matter of weight here. Would perhaps be appropriate on a sub article such as Effects of global warming. Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, it seems the subject has been addressed in the section Long term effects in this series of edits. Vsmith (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Orbital changes

Recent attention to this section has caught my eye, and on review I have trouble with the first sentence. Currently the first sentence says

(Current text)Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and are a natural source of climate change. At present, this phenomenon is contributing to a very slow cooling trend at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere during summer.[1][2][3][4]

A review of the refs seems to say that the oribital changes alone would be making some cooling, at least in some places, but the effect has been overwhelmed by the various causes of warming. The text as it now reads might give the reader the wrong notion that some places are cooling overall, due to orbit changes. That's not what the refs say so I propose the text be changed as follows.

(Proposed text)Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and are a natural source of climate change. The earth is now partway through the cooling phase of this phenomena, but the cooling effect of these small orbital changes is a only one component of earth's energy budget, and has been exceeded by the various factors which lead to global warming.[5][6]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Suppport, as proposer. But as I have elected to refrain from article editing for awhile, someone else would have to launch this if it gains consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I was editing this section of the article while you were writing this entry on the talk page, so I have already independently made some changes before seeing this discussion. The reasons for what I already changed are (i) that the 'current' changes are better described as recent since the rate of change of insolation is currently slowing down; (ii) it needs to be specific to summer, mid-to-high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, since they are NOT global but rather a redistribution between latitudes and between seasons; (iii) as you suggest, shouldn't discuss it in isolation of other forcings, which all combine to give the expected overall changes; (iv) similarly for future inception of a new glacial period, shouldn't discuss orbital cycles without also noting GHGs, especially CO2. I've made these changes and added a couple of refs and link to main article on Milankovitch. I'll hold off any further edits to see how this talk-page discussion progresses. TimOsborn (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Nicely done. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Refs for this section

References

  1. ^ Kaufman, D. S.; Schneider, D. P.; McKay, N. P.; Ammann, C. M.; Bradley, R. S.; Briffa, K. R.; Miller, G. H.; Otto-Bliesner, B. L.; Overpeck, J. T.; Vinther, B. M.; Abbott, M.; Axford, M.; Bird, Y.; Birks, B.; Bjune, H. J. B.; Briner, A. E.; Cook, J.; Chipman, T.; Francus, M.; Gajewski, P.; Geirsdottir, K.; Hu, A.; Kutchko, F. S.; Lamoureux, B.; Loso, S.; MacDonald, M.; Peros, G.; Porinchu, M.; Schiff, D.; Seppa, C.; Seppa, H.; Arctic Lakes 2k Project Members (2009). "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling". Science. 325 (5945): 1236–1239. doi:10.1126/science.1173983. PMID 19729653.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ "Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling". UCAR. 3 September 2009. Retrieved 8 June 2011.
  3. ^ Bello, David (4 September 2009). "Global Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling". Scientific American. Retrieved 8 June 2011.
  4. ^ Mann, M. E.; Zhang, Z.; Hughes, M. K.; Bradley, R. S.; Miller, S. K.; Rutherford, S.; Ni, F. (2008). "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (36): 13252–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105. PMC 2527990. PMID 18765811.
  5. ^ "Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling". UCAR. 3 September 2009. Retrieved 8 June 2011.
  6. ^ Bello, David (4 September 2009). "Global Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling". Scientific American. Retrieved 8 June 2011.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

SVG version of key for World map

I prepare new svg version of File:Key to world map showing surface temperature trends between 1950 and 2014.png > File:Key to world map showing surface temperature trends between 1950 and 2014.svg. I think, you can replace the png one. I have no privileges. --Pavouk (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the new image! Sailsbystars (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

2015 GISS data

The source data for the top graph, File:Global Temperature Anomaly.svg, has been updated. I hope to have time tomorrow when I shall update the graph. --Nigelj (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I have updated the graph. --Nigelj (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Footnote 1

Footnote 1 is not attached to anything. Maurreen (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. [a] is William M. Connolley (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence connects to Footnote 2. Footnote 1 is not connected to any text in the body of the article, as far as I can see. Maurreen (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It connects to within infobox top right where it says "World map showing surface temperature trends (°C per decade) between 1950 and 2014. Source: NASA GISS.[1]". crandles (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah. By "Footnote", M means "Citation" William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In most modern web browsers, if you click on the little caret after the number in the reference list, it will take to to the place where the footnote is referenced and even highlight it with slight grayish background. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Huh. I sometimes wondered why those little carat thingies were there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a jewel of a feature... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon Haiyan

I wonder if recent edits at Typhoon Haiyan, and the current discussion on the talk page, could benefit from some more eyes? --Nigelj (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Shutdown

Some uninvolved eyes required https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation, editor first tags content as copyvio, then for to lengthly quote, though there are no quotes. prokaryotes (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Irrespective of the dispute over quoting, that article is a real mess. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Was much worse, see edit history. prokaryotes (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Climate action for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate action is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate action until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC) (copied from notice posted by Shritwod 02:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC) on Prokaryotes here)

Removal of redundant citation

Citation number 9 on this article is identical to number 8. Additionally, the PDF referenced in citation 9 does not exist at the URL provided. --SnowdogU77 (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, SnowdogU77, it is the same document, but each citation has a different quotation. The one that was accessed earlier seems to have been linked to a preliminary copy; I updated the URL on that one. I don't know how to format that kind of reference more elegantly, but it works for now. — Gorthian (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Emissions due to land-use

Over the last three decades of the twentieth century, gross domestic product per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[83] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[84][85]:71 Emissions can be attributed to different regions. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue.[86][87]:289

Are CO2 emissions continuing to rise due to land-use change or not? If yes, what is exactly controversial? I don't have access to ref 87, but 86 it is a very old one (SAR, 1995). I think this needs some clarification. --Hiperfelix (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Data on CO2 emissions due to land use change are, to put it mildly, less robust than might be considered ideal. Within the field it's only controversial in the sense of "we're still trying to figure out the details." If you're a journalist trying to write an attention-grabbing headline you might well cast that as "controversial." But we don't write that way in Wikipedia. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm just trying to translate the article to Spanish. In promoting it to FA a user point out this apparently incoherence. Are estimates of emissions due to land-use change controversial? --Hiperfelix (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
A better way to put it would be "Attributions of emissions due to land-use change are subject to considerable uncertainty." The word "controversial" implies disagreement amongst strongly-held positions, rather than the ordinary progress of research into a topic where much remains to be learned. Good luck with your translation -- it can be quite difficult to convey shades of meaning. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over decades to millennia."

I thought it was the rate of change that was unprecedented? The earth was 14 degrees warmer millions of years ago. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

Note "millenia" means thousands of years, not millions. (See millenium.) Perhaps we should use plainer language; if the word is confusing to people, that's not good. So thanks for pointing this out. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
but that would still be false considering the swing between the medieval warm period and the little ice age that occurred in just the last 1000 years. Not that I'm expecting this article to ever conform to science though.

Units

See WP:NOTAFORUM and follow the advice therein.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is parts per million (ppm) used for CO2 concentration? It is not an SI unit. Biscuittin (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Parts per million is unitless, hence it can belong to whatever unit system you would like. :) Sailsbystars (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
To get an article published in a scientific journal, you have to use SI units. Have the SI units in the sources been converted to ppm for Wikipedia? If so, why? Biscuittin (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Unitless. . . dave souza, talk 20:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-SI units (e.g. degrees C, rpm, minute, etc.) are used in scientific publications. Also, source 87, a published scientific article, uses ppm. TelosCricket (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
How standards are slipping! I remember papers being rejected for not using SI units back in the 1980s. ppm is meaningless because it might be weight/weight, weight/volume or volume/volume. Assuming it is weight/weight, I would use mg/kg. Biscuittin (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Google Scholar finds plenty of papers from the 1980s that use ppm, from several different fields of science, e.g. [13], [14], [15]. For gases, ppm=ppmV is generally understood, so there is no ambiguity, and, as others have pointed out, ppm is unitless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Most publications use (and in fact explicitly specify) ppmv, for volume. I'm not sure how you think this is a slipping of standards, since it's been in common usage for a long time. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
What SI unit would ppm be converted from or to? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Presumably µL/L. Mikenorton (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
ppm (weight) would be mg/kg. I can see no reason for not using SI units. Why use an ambiguous measure when you could use a precise one? Biscuittin (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I can see a most excellent reason for not using an SI unit: where the source does not use such units. If you can show that we really, absolutely, MUST use SI units in the article, then (presumably) we would have conversion templates. But lacking such a showing, we use what the sources use. Which would include using SI units if the source uses them. And you have yet to show us any examples of actual problems. Your presumption here is that journals no longer use ppm. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but if you will google "site:www.sciencemag.org ppm" you will find copious hits. (And that is not going into the archives). So there really is no issue here, except that you are trying to generate one. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with you about the facts. I'm just appalled that science has become so sloppy. I wouldn't have dreamed of using anything other than SI units when I was at work, but that was a long time ago. Biscuittin (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Fine. You're venting about being appalled, but that is nothing to do with this article. The question has been answered. I think we're done here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
ppm might very well be the most sensible measure, and, as already said, it is a unitless quantity. It is a ratio. Many things are measured this way, including, sometimes, by scientists. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2016 to GLOBAL WARMING

What to add: "Furthermore, when examining the environmental history of global warming there is clear indication that globalization has greatly impacted the change in climate that we see today. Hunt (2015) states, “Nothing highlights the consequential nature of globalization like the prospect of worldwide climate change.” While some contend that the conversation about global warming has created a unification of the nations of the world, it has also created dissension. Hunt (2015) explains, “Rather than evoking a concerted international response, this threat has instead created divisions. While some saw global warming as pervasive and alarming, others engaged in denial.” The lack of agreement between nations about the validity of global warming posing as a threat has made it increasingly difficult to respond to the root of this problem at a global level.

The correlation between the decrease in the population of the poor and the increase in C02 emissions in developing countries presents another problem. As undeveloped nations strive for wealth in order to support their population and compete with developed nations, their C02 emissions continue to rise. Hunt (2015) states, “For countries in the developing category, the policy problem was more acute- and the potential implications for global warming were deeply worrisome. Giving high priority to economic development in order to pull substantial parts of the population out of poverty meant rising per capita levels of CO2 production and the populous countries such as India and China a large and growing addition to the total global CO2 production. Developing countries were further constrained by limited capital available to invest in renewable energy production and in conservation.” The consequence of the efforts to eliminate global poverty is the release of additional C02 emissions that aid in global warming. Maintaining a population of the poor limits C02 emissions over the short-term, but does not allow proper economic development in order to fund renewable resource projects. Given the financial and social hardships that many undeveloped nations face, protecting the environment over the long-term seems unfeasible and trivial when compared to the pervasive social problems that are unable to be properly addressed."

Hunt, M. H. (2015) The World Transformed 1945 to the Present. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Reason for addition:

I want to contribute to this page because I feel that information about the impact of globalization on global warming, that Hunt discusses, is not addressed. The page adequately discusses how nations have come together to combat global warming but does not touch upon the division that this conversation has caused. Also, this page fails to mention anything about the correlation between the decrease in the population of the poor and the increase in CO2 emissions in developing countries.

Chrisw29 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Average temperature of the Earth's climate system

The article starts with the assertion ″Global warming and climate change are terms for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system″. What is the average temperature of the Earth's climate system in degrees Celsius (°C) or degree Fahrenheit (°F)? Given that the overall rise of this average temperature of the Earth's climate system (of how much degrees?) is the argument for the existence of this article about Global Warming (i.e. since the end of the Little Ice Age!), this number is essential but missing.
--Handwerker (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Read beyond the intro; the actual temperature changes (not easily summarized in a single sentence) are discussed in the very first section.— Gorthian (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but the average temperature as the reference value for an average global temperature rise is not mentioned there. If a temperature rise from 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) or 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) can be calculated, as a reader of this article I would like to know about which average temperature we are talking exactly. --Handwerker (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, we need to give the baseline period for the anomaly. As it is the reader doesn't know if the rise is from pre-industrial conditions or the 20th century average or whatever else. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The average surface air temperature for the Earth was estimated by Jones et al. (1999) to be 14 degC, based mostly on observations from 1961-1990. This could be worked into the article as you think it would help.

Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199, doi:10.1029/1999RG900002 [16]

TimOsborn (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken Citation

  1. 178 is a broken link (it appears the college website restructured). There is a copy here: http://www.ocean3d.org/eas-4300/lectures-2011/Deutsch_sci_11.pdf But it appears it is a bootleg? Which is unfortunate, as it supports a nice little tidbit. Please change the link on the citation from the broken one to this new one, if it is an acceptable replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.143.159 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Found a copy hosted by the second author and used that URL. Thanks for the alert! — Gorthian (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Global warming vs. climate change

The term do not exactly describe the same phenomena. For example, Nasa write: "Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect." I suggest to, at least briefly, discuss these terms in the article. There have also been arguments that the term climate change downplays the real observations towards an ever-warmer planet in the long term. This could also be discussed here. 90.184.23.200 (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Which is why our article explicitly discusses the difference William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

So the effect that is happening to the planet is climate change not global warming,climate change has contributed to global warming..is it so?T.B Man-G (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Depletion of atmospheric oxygen

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11538-015-0126-0

"Ocean dynamics is known to have a strong effect on the global climate change and on the composition of the atmosphere. In particular, it is estimated that about 70 % of the atmospheric oxygen is produced in the oceans due to the photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton. However, the rate of oxygen production depends on water temperature and hence can be affected by the global warming. In this paper, we address this issue theoretically by considering a model of a coupled plankton–oxygen dynamics where the rate of oxygen production slowly changes with time to account for the ocean warming. We show that a sustainable oxygen production is only possible in an intermediate range of the production rate. If, in the course of time, the oxygen production rate becomes too low or too high, the system’s dynamics changes abruptly, resulting in the oxygen depletion and plankton extinction. Our results indicate that the depletion of atmospheric oxygen on global scale (which, if happens, obviously can kill most of life on Earth) is another possible catastrophic consequence of the global warming, a global ecological disaster that has been overlooked."

Count Iblis (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016

under the heading "Discourse about global warming" subheading "Scientific discussion", please change "Nearly all scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change" to "Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change" because the latter is how it is phrased in the citation used (citation number 89, page 2, beginning of second paragraph). Wikipedia should not make a stronger statement than is supported by its citations.

TeddyW (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree; the cited text says "Most", not "Nearly all". I'll make the change, but leave this request open in case someone else wants to re-word and re-cite based on information from Surveys of scientists' views on climate change. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, but "most" is problematic because it implies that the value could be as low as 50.0000001%. It would be nice to find some better sources eventually. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
What happened to the good old "Only a few climate scientists disagree..."?  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess until then it should rather be tagged as [weasel words]. -- ChamithN (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Done by A D Monroe III ChamithN (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It is weaselly, but that's what the source says. This is a technically accurate but poor compromise. There's a lot of more definite statements in Surveys of scientists' views on climate change, but I couldn't find one that summarized well to fit here. Please can others try to improve this? I don't want to be left labeled as a weasel-monger.  :( --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The sources are rather outdated, but used elsewhere so I've summarised them more accurately: the RS quoted text looked rather like quote mining when seen in context, so I've expanded that a bit. Scientific discussion is essentially in peer reviewed papers, so I've included that in the context of AR5. Hope that helps clarify things a bit. . . dave souza, talk 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
:) --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Temp conversion error?

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

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

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

A temperature reading of 33 Celsius is not equal to a temperature reading of 59 F, but a temperature difference of 33 C is equal to a temperature difference of about 59 F. Example: A temperature of 10 C corresponds to a temperature of 50 F. Likewise a temperature of 43 C corresponds to a temperature of 109.4 F. The difference between the two is (43 - 10) = 33 in Celsius, or (109.4 - 50) = 59.4 in Fahrenheit. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The wording allowed for some confusion. Changed to:
On Earth, naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases have a mean increase in temperature of about 33 °C (59 °F).
--A D Monroe III (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Not an improvement. GHGs have a warming effect. They don't have a temperature increase. The (near surface) air temperatures have an increase. TimOsborn (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Tim is right. The proposed wording is inaccurate, and doesn't even make physical sense. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but the issue remains. It implies a temperature, not a temperature difference. We still need something better. Suggestions? --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm missing something, because I don't understand how the words "a mean warming effect" imply a temperature. Can you explain so that I can see where the confusion lies? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This is based on the OP of this discussion. It's not clear to all readers that "warming effect" means "increase in temperature". It's only (more) clear in the statement following noting that Earth would be frozen without it -- an increase of 33 degrees. All I'm asking is for is an improvement in wording to make this obvious. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
How about this?
"On Earth, naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases cause air temperature near the surface to be about 33 °C (59 °F) warmer than it would be in their absence."
Other suggestions welcome. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
That sounds excellent. Thank you. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
After a week with no further suggestions or concerns expressed, I've made that change. Thanks all. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

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

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

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

A citation is needed for this statement:

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

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

I, for one, would have no problem with changing the wording to match the wording in the book. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I favor
(A) Delete existing text in this section
(B) Add new text "Multiple assessments of scientists' individual opinions have found that 90-100% of publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing recent global warming." cite: "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming"
(C) Elaborate in sub article Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
I could live with Rick's suggestion, unlesss someone proposes we use a different source altogether.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Prefer NAEG's proposal, with the minor quibble that "..are causing recent global warming" seems like an odd mix of tenses. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Most of the statements in the reply article are far more probabilistic than "causing recent warming", using phrases like "contributing" and "likely". If cause is used it should at best be "a cause". Researchers studying the consensus tend to use phrases and standards which exclude only deniers and not luke warmers. More of the past work can be retained, just by citing and representing the source actually used, Doran and Zimemerman (2009), it is cited in the synthesis article. This text would be an accurate representation of that source: While up to 18% of scientists surveyed might disagree with the consensus view, when restricted to scientists publishing in the field of climate, 97 to 100% agreed human activity is a significant contributing factor to the current warming.Poodleboy (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Poodleboy, Doran is a SINGLE taking of scientists' pulse, and its already seven years old. In contrast this new paper reports on MULTIPLE takings of scientists' pulse and is from this year (2016). The rest I ignore for reasons others have already pointed out to you, e.g., WP:FORUM and WP:Original research.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Boris, I agree its awkward and if we can agree I'd be pleased to alter the wording, which I borrowed from the abstact of the paper. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, most of the studies reviewed in the 2016 rely on their work from before the 2013 publication of IPCC AR5, and the considerable hiatus literature since. Poodleboy (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
you are implying hiatus research has altered scientific opinion, but you are not implying the RS on which your theory is predicated. Implied OR is still something I ignore.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you implied that time alone made Doran less relevant, I merely pointed out that the 2016 article merely rehashed the authors similarly old results, and that it was more than just time that had passed, a lot of developments in the science had also occurred and the pause had raised questions about the significance of the human contribution in the minds of scientists who are part of the consensus.Poodleboy (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually that survey of surveys said 'We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust'. Anyway how about just scientists or climate change scientists rather than scientists who are part of the consensus thanks. The scientific consensus is not an affiliation like a trade union or political parties. Dmcq (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
"pointing out" things which, accordivng to you, should be taken into accountl is impermissible WP:OR unless you have an RS . Since it is merely your conjecture that scientists opinions have changed I decline to debate the matter further, except to say that at some point repeated OR based argumentation becomes disruptiveNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I think I can agree with your B text, if you take the 100% down to 97%. The 100% was abstracts not scientists. Agreed? Poodleboy (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
B gives a range that does not imply high accuracy. Your suggestion would imply accuracy and at that accuracy would contradict the source. Also you are doing OR again. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The text says scientists and the only result higher that 97% is abstracts, that seems a legitimate distinction, there were numbers lower than 90% also that at least involved scientists. The abstracts methodology was always questionable anyway. Is this such a terrible price to pay for consensus? Poodleboy (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't second guess and reinterpret papers. The very first line says "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper". If you want to get your ideas into Wikipedia go and write a paper and get it peer reviewed. Do not go about analysing papers and coming up with your own conclusions. It does not say 90%-97%. Go and read WP:OR. Internalize what it says. Stop wasting other peoples' time. Look at the second pillar of WP:5P. It says "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Editors doing what you keep trying to do would destroy Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Well you know I'm glad to hear that, because my argument is that we shouldn't reinterpret abstracts as scientists. The 100% figure is clearly identified as abstracts. I vote for no reinterpretation. Thou doth protest too much, methinks. Poodleboy (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
We do not get to reinterpret the data. You are engaging in disruptive behaviour. It is no excuse that you think you know better than the author what they should have said. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

(cite omitted)

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

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

Basing it on the starts of the introduction and conclusion seems reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know you were just in the abstract. I was already pointing out that the dependence on the exact question and methodology. But you should keep in mind that the introduction is not a peer review result, the opinion of the authors that the IPCC statement articulates the consensus, is not the conclusion they were able to draw from the methodology they used.Poodleboy (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
You must realize by now that you are just not able to work in a way that is acceptable to you within the constraints of Wikipedia. You just seem unable to accept that we have to follow the authors rather than doing our own research from their data. They drew the conclusion from the data. The paper was peer reviewed. That is really the end of it. You are just pissing on Wikipedia with your opinions. Your opinion is worthless against a peer reviewed paper. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Quit talking about me and talking about the substance. It is not original research to understand the paper, you should try it. "abstracts" are not "scientists" Poodleboy (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Reading the papers and understanding them is fine. Putting forth on your own ideas here is not. This is a talk page for improving the article and original thought is not allowed in the article. Please desist from forum type discussions. Talk about your own ideas elsewhere where I'm sure there are lots of people eager to engage with you. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Whose idea was it to put "scientists" together with "100%"? Where were you with your WP:OR accusations then? Are you sure you are not WP:POV editing? Do you have the patience required to reach a consensus, you keep mentioning waste of time? Poodleboy (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The abstract says 'we'. At the start of the abstract they say 'The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.' I do not accuse the authors of OR. I accuse you of OR. Whether they are wrong or right is immaterial to WP:OR, we are not qualified to assess that. If you have a problem with the WP:OR policy go and try changing it but until then just stop wasting peoples time. Dmcq (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, if the authors of the paper itself, get it wrong. I can't argue with that.Poodleboy (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. If you think there is a problem WP:WEIGHT might be the best thing to look at. But WP:OR is simply verboten. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree, but note weight is due to the majority published expert view, and a minority view promoted by contrarians or deniers need not be shown at all. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Any arguments based on WEIGHT also need to predicated on articulated RSs, not just your opinion. Discussions of appropriate weight inherently involve a comparison to other RSs, else they are just another form of OR.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Can we update 2000_year_temperature_comparison?

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

2016

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

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The two graphs show somewhat different data. The first one shows the temperature trend when averaged over the first six months of each year, while the second shows monthly temperature over the about past two and a half years. Both are from competent, trustworthy sources (NASA and Climate Central respectively). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
That second graph doesn't explain what the baseline is and there is no zero value on the y axis. And shouldn't the beginning of one year start at the same place as the end of the previous year? Was there that much of a jump between December 2015 and January 2016? It's not a good candidate for this article, IMHO. — Gorthian (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The image shows "Year to date" averages, so December 2015 is the average over all of 2015, during which the anomaly increased significantly. January 2016 is only January 2016, so it starts off immediately at the record value reached in December. So the image probably is technically ok, but I agree that it is easy to misunderstand and not very suitable for the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah. So it's basically a record of the running average anomaly, and restarts entirely at each new year. Thanks for the explanation. — Gorthian (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Coping vs Adapting

Until now, I had been using these words interchangeably. Oops. See "Coping Versus Adapting" at IRIN. This is likely an area where our articles need work to bring them up to date. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

No

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

The article launches forth with: "Global warming and climate change are terms for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system . . . ." Should that statement be revised to say "Slight Global warming . . . the observed slight century-scale rise . . ."? (PeacePeace (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC))
No. --McSly (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Everything is relative, including both our knowledge and the temperature record. But we are very certain that the temperature increase over the last half century or so is indeed significant and probably unprecedented in speed. You can try arguing with a judge that being 50 kph over the speed limit is not even visible on a diagram that plots all speeds as factions of c, but that's unlikely to convince him or her. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest that you start by browsing our set of articles first, to get an overview of what we know and how we know what we know. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Some things are absolute, too many climate models are "matching" anomalies and trends, but are running as much as a degree C cooler in absolute temperature. That is 7% less water vapor and explains how they are under representing the increased precipitation and acceleration of the water cycle that is associated with the warming in the observations. Poodleboy (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
From a physical point of view we should be measuring in degrees Kelvin and a 1°C rise is about 0.3% relative to that scale. So yes from a physical point of view it is only a slight warming, it is only a second order effect as a difference between warming and cooling, and that is part of what makes the science difficult. However for us human beings living on this planet it is extremely important as we can only live well in a fairly narrow band of temperatures and most of the species on earth can only survive in an even smaller range than us. Go up to 4°C and we're talking about severe difficulties around the world. So no 'slight' isn't reasonable when one considers it as affecting us. Plus on Wikipedia there is a policy that we name articles if at all possible according to how the topics are normally referred to. How did you find this article? I bet you didn't type 'global static temperature' or 'slight warming'. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Curious point of view. Some of the "but it's okay" crowd point out that global temperatures have been higher in the past, and life went on. I think the real problem with the on-going warming is not how much (however "slight"), nor the absolute temperature reached, but how fast it is coming. Although the article has one "main" link to Abrupt climate change, it is kind of buried. I wonder if the significance of being rapid ought to be given more prominence. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The Celsius scale is in the right range for us, since we are in the regime where 1C increase results in about 7% water vapor increase. We don't have good information on whether the increase is rapid, since most paleo temperature proxies have resolutions of 20 to 100 years or worse and accuracies too small to rule out changes of comparable magnitude unless sustained for longer periods than ours so far.Poodleboy (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't get that argument. If an increase by 1 °C increases water vapour by about 7%, so will an increase by 1 K, or by 1.8 °F. Why prefer one scale over the other based on that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course the Kelvin and Celcius degrees are the same size, but Celcius is defined on a range that is more relevant to the water cycle in our climate. Water freezes at zero C for instance. Approximations to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation are specified in terms of Celcius. Modern temperature records are in Celcius as are mostly relationships published in the proxy climate temperature literature. [17] Poodleboy (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I acknowledge the fact. I still don't understand the argument. And both Anders Celsius and the unit are spelled in English as in German, with only one 'c' for the whole term ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, it isn't much of an argument, it boils down to tradition and the water cycle. Poodleboy (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The current rise is pretty fast but I think without all the borders and fences most animals would be able to move to where it suited them rather than having to evolve to suit the new conditions. It is us that are liable to turn it into a major extinction event rather than a minor one. Not that that isn't happening already anyway Holocene extinction. Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
"most animals would be able to move"....except for animals that already live on the extreme end of a naturally delimited range, or in a mountain habitat that simply keeps shrinking as climate zones move up-mountain, or depend on other ecosystem components that can't move as quickly (like, say, long-lived plants), or.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Those changes need to be kept in perspective of what they experience seasonally, and over multidecade ocean modes. The Holocene optimum was warmer and the MWP also may well have been warmer. To often we underestimate their robustness and adaptability. Poodleboy (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Robustness and adaptability already in evidence in Louisiana, despite flooding which has "never happened before,” said the governor. Time to put this to bed; collapse of stout party. . . dave souza, talk 20:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The flooding probably has never happened before, given land use changes and attempts to channel the rivers, prior flooding would probably have been quite different. But the governor has no idea whether the rains have ever happened before. Even 60 years of experience is only about 1 sample of the climate, given multi-decade ocean modes. Poodleboy (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

section heading neutrality

FYI, this is a small thing, but if eds are interested, I have started a discussion of neutrality in section headings in the climate pages, and the thread is here. Although I used the recent example being played out above, there is a general principle that has often been an issue in these pages and at least in my view is worth taking a gnomish look at. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change/Archive_72&oldid=1136333986"