![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Record High Greenhouse Gases to Linger for Decades "Concentrations of the three main greenhouse gases blamed for global warming reached record levels in 2010 and will linger in the atmosphere for decades,even if the world stops emissions output today, the U.N.'s weather agency said on Monday." Scientific American November 21, 2011 by Tom Miles, excerpt ...
Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose by 2.3 parts per million to 389 ppm in 2010 from the previous year, higher than the 1990s average (1.5 ppm) and the past decade (2.0 ppm), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. If the world is to limit global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, scientists say emissions volumes must not have more than 450 ppm of carbon dioxide.
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(od) What was deleted was a 184.155.18.45 edit, not as Sailsbystars had in their/wp Edit Summary. 99.181.131.196 ( talk) 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Somebody read a magazine article related to global warming and wonders why that specific fact isn't mentioned in the article on global warming. Well, the fact as stated isn't exactly new, it's only extraordinary news to people who don't know about global warming. And this article tells you about it. So after reading it you don't need to read a magazine article spitting out some factoid, you know about global warming. -- TS 20:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think there are some major problems in one section of the introduction:
I'll outline the problems below:
I think this statement incorrect - there are 195 Parties to the FCCC - 194 states plus the
EU (27 nation states) making a total of 221 states (UNFCCC, 2011a).
There are no objective definitions of "dangerous/extremely dangerous" climate change or for "extremely dangerous" climate change, see IPCC (2001) and
UNFCCC#Interpreting Article 2. In my view, it is important that readers of the article be made aware that any definition of "dangerous" (or "extremely dangerous") climate change requires value judgements, and that such judgements are subjective. The citation provided to support the definitions of "dangerous" and "extremely dangerous" climate change represent the personal views of one author.
My suggested revision is as follows:
I've removed mention of the terms "climate change mitigation" and "geoengineering." I think that these definitions can be left to later on in the article. I think that it is more important to concentrate on what actions are being taken. As far as I'm aware, geoengineering hasn't as yet been implemented on a significant scale (unlike mitigation policies such as the CDM or adaptation policies in some countries), and is less well-understood than mitigation or adaptation. Also, the UNFCCC (2011d) emphasizes mitigation and adaptation. I've therefore left geoengineering out of my suggested revision.
I think that the existing revision focusses too heavily on the Kyoto Protocol. The present political consensus appears to be based more on "bottom-up" measures rather than the "top-down" approach of Kyoto. I also feel that the existing revision lacks objectivity, and appears to implicitly support Kyoto-like agreements, e.g., "Kyoto Protocol is their only (emphasis added) legally binding emissions agreement...".
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |editor=
(
help)Enescot ( talk) 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Search for Average Temperature of the Earth leads here, but I can't find it in the article. It talks in detail about the temperature anomalies from year to year but never says what value those anomalies are relative to. If the Earth is warming, what is its temperature now? What is the recent (holocene) temperature history of the Earth?
Alexselkirk1704 ( talk) 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if a map exists with Co2 emissions per square mile. Every map I see is either per capita or over all emissions. I just wanted to see where the most pollution is biased on land area. A map with this included would be awesome on this article. I have seen this info on states but not on a global level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.41 ( talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi friends i am adding How to control Global Warming on the article page so suggestions and references are welcome. Let me know what else i can do. Ashpreet92 ( talk) 23:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Renewable energy sources are capable of continually replenishing themselves. These include energy from water, wind, the sun, geothermal sources, and biomass sources such as energy crops. Many nations count on coal, oil, and natural gas to supply most of their energy needs; but relying on fossil fuels is problematic. Fossil fuels are a limited resource; eventually, the world will run out. Fossil fuels also cause air, water, and soil pollution; in addition, produce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, and hydropower, offer clean alternatives to fossil fuels. They produce little or no pollution or greenhouse gases, and they will never run out.
The ocean provides several forms of renewable energy, and each one is driven by different forces. Energy from ocean waves and tides, from the heat stored in sea water, can be harnessed to generate electricity, and ocean thermal energy can also be converted to electricity. Using current technologies, most ocean energy is not cost-effective compared to other renewable energy sources, but the ocean remains an important potential energy source for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.244.177 ( talk) 14:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Gee, take it easy, I was only adding a link to the see also section :P That usually never triggers any reaction like this. If you really want me to explain here how the link would improve the article, I would say that it's not an unrelated subject, and it shows that the scientific community has been wrong before which means that it can as well be wrong again. The article about global cooling has a link to this article in the see also section, so I don't see why this article could not have a link to that article in the same section. — Kri ( talk) 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It is ironic that people who get all their information about science from non-scientific, "conservative" (that is, pro-oil industry) news sources love to point out that "the scientific community has been wrong before". If they reject sources of information that "have been wrong before", they would logically reject all "conservative" news sources. Yes, scientists have been wrong, but they have been right more often that any other source of information. Except mathematicians. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a question for a wiki mechanic. When my mouse rolls over one of our citation footnote numbers in the text, I see a bar at the bottom of the screen that reports the full url. The weird thing is that for citation #1, the url in the bar ends with "note-0". For citation #126, the url in the rollover bar says "note=125". Is this normal wiki behavior that I just never noticed before? Either way.....why aren't they in synch? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is a snip from the current index. Something in this list does not belong:
7 Views on global warming
7.1 Global warming controversy 7.2 Politics 7.3 Public opinion 7.4 Other views
There are three sections devoted to describing various perspectives, and one that is an umbrella for various arguments debated in public media. IMO, the latter is nothing more than the sum of the other three, as they butt heads in public media. As such, the section "global warming controversy" strikes me as redundant and should be deleted and replaced with simply a SEE ALSO at the end of the article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
... Climate change ( global warming) is, in the words of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” ...
from http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,4 by Naomi Klein. This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 print edition of The Nation.
141.218.36.41 ( talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've readded the citations to the section on geoengineering. An editor noted that I needed to "dig a little deeper than the executive summary" to justify these statements. The IPCC reports are the most widely accepted statement of scientific opinion on climate change, and I therefore do not see the need for me to "justify" any of its conclusions. Enescot ( talk) 14:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The aim of geo-engineering options is to remove CO2 directly from the air, for example through ocean fertilization, or to block sunlight. However, little is known about effectiveness, costs or potential side-effects of the options. Blocking sunlight does not affect the expected escalation in atmospheric CO2 levels, but could reduce or eliminate the associated warming. Disconnecting CO2 concentration and global temperature in this way could induce other effects, such as the further acidification of the oceans (medium agreement, limited evidence).
Another policy response is geoengineering of the climate. Geoengineering encompasses a range of techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or to reflect incoming sunlight. Little is known about the effectiveness, costs or potential side effects of geoengineering options.
For the help of other editors, this is the old revision which I changed:
I've changed my my mind and agree with your criticisms. I've written a new revision which hopefully addresses your concerns:
Note that the citation style I've used below is purely for use on this talk page. If other editors are satisfied with my suggested revision, I'll change my citations to the citation style used in the rest of the global warming article.
Enescot (
talk)
17:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down on Scientists As the Earth Heated Up by Raymond S. Bradley ISBN-13: 978-1558498693 Publisher: Univ. of Massachusetts Press (July 31, 2011)
The Inquisition of Climate Science by James Lawrence Powell ISBN-13: 978-0231157186 Publisher: Columbia University Press (August 30, 2011)
99.190.87.173 ( talk) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
As part of the IPCC citation work I have created a Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/citation subpage that documents the canonical format (and other subpages with the AR specific details). I have also opened a discussion about this at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I am also adjusting the FAQ (consensus?? :). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Strong consensus that article is not notable. Discussion collapsed per
WP:NOTAFORUM; we need not waste any more time on it.
|
---|
I came across this Wikipedia global warming page, but did not see reference made to this article from the peer-reviewed journal Science: The article is titled "Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum," and the results "imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought." This is a key finding that should be added. Samel Jankins ( talk) 00:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Scientists are constantly checking and revising their estimates. There's always "might be lower", "might be higher", etc. You can't let yourself fall into the trap of confirmation bias by simply picking and choosing the latest "there's a minute possibility than one of the variables in the simulation might not have been taken out to enough decimal places, but we're not sure." as "global warming is dead!" and ignoring the mountain of evidence and the just plain common sense to the contrary. the fact is this has always happened and the general consensus, taking ALL of these pieces of information into consideration, and not just a select few, has remained and does remain the same as it always been, and the same as everyone would know it to be where it not for the vigorous disinformation campaigns by wealthy morons and all the echo-heads blindly contributing. from what i can tell this article is good science. but none of what it says is all that significant or notable. so someone might have slightly overestimated the mean expected frequency of extreme weather events in certain scenarios. big deal. it happens all the time. welcome to the world of science, where people actually check their facts. Kevin Baas talk 18:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
"Littering the highway" is when someone takes 5 secs to say something and expects other editors take substantive action or we spend pages debating. I say PHOOEY. I have collapsed this thread twice. An allegedly new editor has reverted twice. If anyone besides me thinks this debate thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article - where specific means something like proposed text - please consider re-collapsing this thread. To get a substantive response, in my view, advocates of the Schmittner paper ought to do the grunt work of articulating a some specific article improvement, to which we can then reply in substance. "I think we should mention this paper" is not, IMO, substantive or specific. If you learn enough to write something, and take the time to write something, then we can talk about it.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal opinion, but I don't see anywhere in this article where the Schmittner et al. paper really fits in. However, I would definitely include it within a longer discussion of climate sensitivity. The paleoclimate evidence at the last glacial maximum is one of the few good independent constraints we have on Earth's climate sensitivity, and for that reason it is very useful. The fact that Schmittner have a relatively warm LGM, and by extension a relatively low climate sensitivity, is interesting. However, it is unlikely to be the last word on the LGM, and even if it were, people could continue to argue about how accurately LGM values of climate sensitivity can be used to measure sensitivity under current conditions. By itself, this research doesn't settle the question of what is Earth's climate sensitivity, but their result is definitely a data point that should be included within any serious discussion of that question. Dragons flight ( talk) 08:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Has anyone actually read the skeptical science critique I linked to at the start of this thread? A sample of the various points include this comment by one of the authors in an interview about the paper.... after listing an apparent contradiction and several caveats in their results, he said (bold supplied)
You can follow the link in the skepsci post to the source for that remark. Next, besides reporting that they could not confirm the max values of some other estimates, they also eliminated the lower end of the range. The last point I'll raise here is that even if the actual amount of warming from a doubling of CO2 (including all feedbacks) turns out to equal the upper values in the paper's estimate, that is hardly happy news because warming all by itself really isn't the problem. The problem is the effects of that warming. This paper suggests that the effects of warming are dramatically greater than we think. So if we include anything about this paper, we also have to say this paper suggests a much greater response to any warming than we thought. At the moment, I don't have a source to offer other than SkepSci, but the logic is obvious so it shouldn't be hard to find one. To quote the SkepSci post,
If we include this paper, we have to include the results, not the denialist cherrypicked and spun talking points. Do the advocates of this paper still want to include it? Or would you rather we take the authors advice, quoted above, and wait for their work to be developed further? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
|
This
WP:SOAP lacks specific suggestions, such as proposed draft text, for improving THIS article. click show to read anyway
|
---|
I've been using Wikipedia's Global Warming article for while now as an example of why you can't trust Wikipedia for any topic that's in the least bit controversial. This is primarily due to the growing extremism of right wing politics in the U.S. and the tactics and behavior of its adherents, with the whole Global Warming "controversy" being a poster child for how right wingers try to trump science and genuine research with their beliefs and ideology (and being just a little bit too successful at times.) This was especially the case with the Global Warming article, which has been in a near constant state of edit warfare for several years now, with tedious, frustrating struggles to keep the article even modestly genuinely reflective of the state of science involved rather than the volatile politics and crackpottery surrounding it. After the article's staunchest defenders either left out of frustration (like Raymond Arritt) or were pushed away (like William Connelley), I thought the article, which I considered already too unbalanced in the wrong direction, would quickly degrade further. Initially it looked very much like that would be the case, but I never did any further checking for a long while afterwards -- actually not until this morning. I had popped onto Wikipedia's Joseph McCarthy article looking for a ref to some info, and noticed that it too had become degraded with a successful right wing incursion (go to the article and scroll down -- you'll know it when you see it), which made me wonder how bad the Global Warming article had become. So I popped over here and....was pleasantly surprised. It seemed much more solid in its grounding in real science than the last time I checked, and I really like the new(ish) FAQ section you have on the Talk page -- clear, complete and very well referenced. So you get my kudos for all this. My suggestion actually involves the FAQ -- that's such a nice, informational FAQ that I think it deserves its own page. Granted that there are already too many climate change-related articles on Wikipedia, still -- that's too good of a FAQ to not have it more visible to the general Wikipedia audience somehow. So, for what it's worth.... 209.6.39.87 ( talk) aka CallMeBC —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
|
I understand that wikipedia is a "mouthpiece for reliable source", therefore I want to provide a link that has tons of reliable sources of dozens of major, renowned scientists with ample credentials from such prestigious firms as CERN, the Royal Society, top scientific journal Nature, Dr. Ivar Giaever a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor, Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world's top weather scientists, Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and others who all disagree with the "majority of scientists" who claim exists and is a crisis. I encourage you all to educate yourselves on the other side of the spectrum. Read the whole story with sources and everything here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1h8TpZBGC -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 03:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that an article which ignores the views, which are arguably supported by evidence and even if not deserve mention, of dozens of credible scientists who at the very least think Global Warming is not a crisis; many of whom believe global warming is a natural phenomenon that stopped in 1998 and not relevant in any way, can be considered to have a "reasonably balanced neutral point of view. Again, I encourage you all to read the link to American Thinker in my very first post that elaborates on some of these people and their views.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Dissent? ... Wikipedia is like Syria ... there is no dissent ... just a small group of malcontents who reject the overwhelming consensus of support for those running the show. Come on, it's got beyond a joke. The simple fact is that most politicians have stopped taking this subject seriously. Most teachers, most journalists, most people, have realised that a small group of zealots took over climate science and cherry picked the data to predict doom ... it's embarrassing that this article still exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.91.97 ( talk) 09:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Clear example of using WP as a WP:SOAPBOX |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Unfortunately, the utterly ridiculous concentration of this article on the so called "science" means that most of the historically important information on "global warming" has not been captured. Global warming was a very important social phenomena. It is an important point at which World wide environmentalism came face to face with world-wide global economies and world-wide (satellite based) science and communication provided a network of data to stimulate a debate about the future of mankind. Obviously a few environmentalists and enviro-scientists got their fingers burnt over global warming, as did a few "post-modern" scientists who gave up truth via hard science for truth via "consensus". So, it's pretty certain, that the end of large-scale interest in global warming will have some knock on effects to environmentalism and science. So, please can I make a plea that editors stop this ridiculous obsession regarding global warming being "science" and start appreciating that it is already history. So where is the section on global warming history? Where is an analysis of the political movement that brought this subject to the fore, and where is an analysis of the impacts of this movement on world politics? At the very least, Global warming has dramatically changed the debate about energy use in the same way as Chernobyll changed it about nuclear. It also redefined "environmentalism" for a generation as putting up bird-mincers in the wilderness rather than going to the wilderness to watch those birds. We have seen it used by the UN to try to exert worldwide influence ... again, if there ever were a worldwide "government", then this power grab under the pretence of saving the world from global warming would be seen as a key part of those events. In other words, let's start the serious work of documenting this historically important movement! 79.78.91.97 ( talk) 09:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
|
I have pretty much completed converting the IPCC citations in this article to the new format. However, in various cases I was not able find the material cited, so tagged the citation. Yes, this makes it a bit messy, but the answer for that is for some editors to grab the appropriate pdf files and search for the cited material, then add the location (section) to the citation. Ask if you have questions. Some of the non-IPCC citations also need to be checked and/or brought up to standard. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ref [4] I assume the point about the Urban Heat Island effect is that it causes a potential discrepancy to the temperature record not because it has a (minute) effect on Global Warming itself. That right? -- BozMo talk 10:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I've put together a draft revision of the article's lede.
Thanks for the reply. I'd first like to change the following paragraph of current revision shown below:
My suggested revision is (see the sub-section below for references):
the lede:
the section on adaptation:
To summarize the reasons behind my suggested revision:
Here's the current revision of the lede (2011-12-24, 14:30) for reference:
I have some problems with this revision. In my opinion, parts of it are too long, too technical/jargony, confusing, or imprecise/vague.
Cited sources are given later on in the references section. If other editors agree with parts of my suggested revision, I'll change the references to make them consistent with the rest of the article:
For the opening paragraph, I've added the IPCC's summary of the evidence for "unequivocal" warming. I think that including this short summary in the lede is entirely justified considering the article's subject matter.
I wasn't happy with the previous summary of the IPCC projections. I thought it was too long and confusing. My new summary is based on how the US National Research Council and US Global Change Research Program summarize the IPCC's work. I should note that the UNEP/IEA studies referred to in the introduction state that current policies are not consistent with holding warming to below 2 deg C. I think this addresses the possible concern that the IPCC's low-end temperature projection is misleading or outdated.
My summary of projected impacts is based mainly on the IPCC TAR's summary of "robust findings". The IPCC state that "a robust finding for climate change is defined as one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models, and assumptions and one that is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties." I've used the TAR's summary instead of AR4's because AR4's are, in my opinion, less suited for use in the lede.
I've removed the current revision's summary on adaptation. The summary is based on one paper, and in my opinion, is rather confusing. Instead, I suggest the following addition to the adaptation section of the article:
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link){{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Enescot ( talk) 14:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Too long; too many top-postings; too many unsigned paragraphs;too many long quotes from article. Please make specific proposals, one at a time. -- Nigelj ( talk) 16:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be great to have some links to the actual experimental studies that show the fingerprinting and proof of causes and the percentages.
Yes, I agree that air pollution from human activity is a major problem. I just want to know what percentage is this cause. Thanks. Ideally everyone would get on board with cleaning up our air quality. Anyone can see the smog over a major city.
Exact measured percentages of warming, with margins of error, from each possible cause, is precisely known? For example, the exact measured percentage of warming from natural solar events is measured? How? What is the exact measured cause by humans? 80% or more? The margin of error? How many studies done? Does anyone know what studies show the measurements that prove the exact percentages for each cause? I would love to see them. Thanks.
What are the other causes, if any? Solar? What percentage confirmed?
Just the facts please. Please, no politics or personal attacks. Thanks.
Data and evidence is all that truly matters, along with excellent repeated experiments. Joseph Prymak ( talk) 07:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Johnson, I will look around their website to see. Joseph Prymak ( talk) 16:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Use_of_quote_parameter_in_footnote_-_a_proposal_to_provide_better_guidance. Since this article uses lots of quotes, editors may wish to chime in. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
|quote=
" parameter. |quote=
, but perhaps better an imperfect tool than none at all. So I don't mind allowing that |quote=
is not entirely useless. Thank you for pointing that out. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
01:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)This article needs to be updated to reflect the fact there has been no warming for the last 15 years:
GoCacheGo ( talk) 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of this
WP:SOAP goes beyond a simple edit request
| ||
---|---|---|
Under the section "Other views" why not add In the media weathermen do not think humans are contributing to observed climate change, 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity. Or perhaps address this under section "Public opinion" one would think the "weathermen" on news shows would be a well informed segment of the public. The following article is based on a 2010 George Mason University survey. Essentially it finds that "63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity" Isn't the opinion of "industry media professionals" that work within the area of weather a significant item. I am more inclined to agree with a television weathermen than a politician who desires to tax carbon or impose cap 'n trade. Now it seems weird that there is an organization to "change the beliefs of weathermen that deny global warming" - refer to same URL. The Forecast the Facts campaign — led by 350.org, the League of Conservation Voters and the Citizen Engagement Lab — is pushing for more of a focus on global warming in weather forecasts, and is highlighting the many meteorologists who do not share their beliefs. “Our goal is nothing short of changing how the entire profession of meteorology tackles the issue of climate change,” the group explains on their website. “We’ll empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable.” According to the Washington Post, the reason for the campaign can be found in a 2010 George Mason University surveys, which found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity. So far, the campaign has identified 55 “deniers” in the meteorologist community and are looking for more. They define “deniers” as “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.” 108.75.223.67 ( talk) 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|
I've restored this category to the article. Although Category:Global warming is also a subcategory of Category:Climate change, I think removing this particular article from the top level cat is probably unwise. Global warming is a very big part of the topic and should be shown at top level rather than diffused.
What does Wikipedia:Categorization guideline (WP:CAT) suggest? The following:
The bolding is in the original. -- TS 10:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The article should explain why the red line representing the 5-year average global temperature has stopped rising. Does this mean the Kyoto Protocol worked? 76.173.97.27 ( talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
|
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1593
"The Runaway Greenhouse: implications for future climate change, geoengineering and planetary atmospheres
Colin Goldblatt, Andrew J. Watson
(Submitted on 8 Jan 2012)
The ultimate climate emergency is a "runaway greenhouse": a hot and water vapour rich atmosphere limits the emission of thermal radiation to space, causing runaway warming. Warming ceases only once the surface reaches ~1400K and emits radiation in the near-infrared, where water is not a good greenhouse gas. This would evaporate the entire ocean and exterminate all planetary life. Venus experienced a runaway greenhouse in the past, and we expect that Earth will in around 2 billion years as solar luminosity increases. But could we bring on such a catastrophe prematurely, by our current climate-altering activities? Here we review what is known about the runaway greenhouse to answer this question, describing the various limits on outgoing radiation and how climate will evolve between these. The good news is that almost all lines of evidence lead us to believe that is unlikely to be possible, even in principle, to trigger full a runaway greenhouse by addition of non-condensible greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, our understanding of the dynamics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer and cloud physics of hot and steamy atmospheres is weak. We cannot therefore completely rule out the possibility that human actions might cause a transition, if not to full runaway, then at least to a much warmer climate state than the present one. High climate sensitivity might provide a warning. If we, or more likely our remote descendants, are threatened with a runaway greenhouse then geoengineering to reflect sunlight might be life's only hope. ...[2 sentences cut to meet arXiv char limit]... The runaway greenhouse also remains relevant in planetary sciences and astrobiology: as extrasolar planets smaller and nearer to their stars are detected, some will be in a runaway greenhouse state."
Count Iblis ( talk) 15:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Solar-cycle-data.png, whilst nice, is beginning to show its age - see fig 9 of http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120119_Temperature.pdf for example William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't like [6]. "since 1850" is somewhere between wrong and too specific. The attribution to the "national science academies" looks wrong; thats IPCC-ery. I don't know what "by natural geological variability" is supposed to mean; it isn't in the reference added William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like someone to add some sort of date container here. 1850 is referred to on several pages linked to in the intro, including average temperature and retreat of glaciers, so clearly this article is about some phenomenon more recent than, for instance, the 16th century. That should be made clear. 19th century per suggestion above? Scott Illini ( talk) 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand, and did not manage to come up with a satisfactory solution myself. I hoped someone more familiar with the historical literature might chime in with the accepted description of the start of the warming trend.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Which of these is better grammar? "the current trend's projected continuation" or "the rising average temperature's projected continuation"? Reverting. Scott Illini ( talk) 19:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
edit conflict
I think the answer is that "her" relates to Mary, not "family". Grammatically speaking, the pronoun "her" does not refer to the adjective "red-headed" whatsoever. Looking at our analogous sentence, does the pronoun "its" refer to "global warming" in the sentence subject, or to the noun "temperature" in the sentence predicate, or maybe to "average temperature" (if you view the noun as an open compound word)?) IMO, its "temperature" or "average temperature". There is no reason to think that the pronoun "its" relates in any way to the adjective "rising". And so - lo and behold - I finally agree with Scott about something in this thread. The existing language communicates just fine, I think. But for the hyper grammar nerd, it does appear to be sloppy phrasing. What is the projected continuation of the "average temperature"? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)In this silly example, 'the family' refers to the red-headed Mary and her children....
I have now gone with the more general "natural causes". Relevant sentence in reference is "No model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century." Scott Illini ( talk) 19:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Please wikilink ecosystem services within this article. 99.19.44.50 ( talk) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence suggests the phrase "global warming" refers to currently observed warming and extrapolations from that trend. That is false, as demonstrated by the last section of the article. Wally Broecker's paper, that the etymology refers to, said “that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide”. "Global warming" was, and is, a specific prediction that the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans will rise due to greenhouse gas emissions from human industry. "Global warming" refers only to that specific predicted warming and not to any other warming from any other cause. Most importantly, it does not refer to attempts to explain observed warming. Not understanding that is the main cause of misunderstandings about global warming. Carl Kenner ( talk) 11:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
NOAA factually summarizes 2011 climate extremes here:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120119_global_stats.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this reversion, I notice that the text says "to the present" but the source (TAR) is dated 2001. I'm not sure what to do about that, if anything... I'm just saying that expressions like "to the present" based on old sources look more strained each day. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I see various problems in the FAQ on this talk page.
It is a FAQ, not an article. The RS policy doesn't apply William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The FAQ in
this page is better, we should re-write our FAQ in this style.
Count Iblis (
talk)
23:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Pewfly appears to be trying repeatedly to delete the content of the FAQ about "lists of scientists" - it remains relevant, please desist from such deletions and present any proposals for changes on this talk page. . . dave souza, talk 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
To be considered "riddled with flaws", (A) How many mistakes are required and (B) How egregious does a mistake have to be in order to be counted in the tally? IMO, this is the word choice that is arguably "most riddled with POV". That said, I am annoyed at Pewfly's attempt to delete instead of improve, and I agree we need Q2 in the FAQ. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect to NewsAndEventsGuy, who I can see is responsible and thoughtful editor, I think that saying "we're digital and not a musty paper encyclopedia" is something of a minefield. First, I find paper encyclopedias and reference books still valuable, as there is a lot of information that's not on the Internet, and deriding them as "musty" isn't really constructive to say. Secondly, it's the editors of this dynamic digital encyclopedia who themselves came up with WP:DATED, which states, "Avoid statements that date quickly, except on pages that are regularly updated, like current events pages," which this is not. "Avoid words such as ... currently and recently ... or phrases such as in modern times and the sixties. Instead, when writing about past events use more precise phrases such as during the 1990s or in August 1969. For future and current events, use phrases such as as of February 2012 or since the beginning of 2010 that indicate the time-dependence of the information to the reader."
I appreciate your measured approach to my WP:DATED edits, and I'm glad to be able to discuss this with NewsAndEventsGuy and other editors. Here are my questions:
I thank my fellow editors for giving these questions some thought. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NewsAndEvensGuy, you go too boldly, dave. I will rewrite rather than revert. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it was better before it was fiddled with. In particular I don't like [8] - GW overwhelmingly refers to the current stuff, not the past (and Global warming refers to the rise in the [[Instrumental temperature record|average temperature]] of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Since the early 20th century, makes no sense at all, because ITR can only refer to the current episode) William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kim, you have really confused me now because you seem to have contradicted yourself. In this thread you appear to have stated the following mutually exclusive opinions:
If I did not make a faithful restatement of your opinions in this thread, please explain where I went wrong, but if I did, do you see these as contradictory? Also, please see the other discussion of this topic in a subsequent thread on this talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Having seen the problems and hoops which people jumped through to get a first intro sentence, the problem is very easy to see: the original article was written about a current event: a massive rise in temperature, where selected scientific ideas were brought in to explain that event. That original event is now past history. We are now in a period of "high" temperatures, not rising temperatures. Therefore the very name "global warming", is now false or at least difficult to square with the current trend, unless you redefine the timescale, but not too long.
Whatever your view, there is no doubt that the sharp rise in temperature at the end of the 20th century had massive implications. There is also no doubt that public concern decreased when that trend did not continue. Irrespective of the cause or whether manmade warming were to continue, this was a significant socio-historical event which e.g. saw massive global changes, some of the first moves toward "global law", changes in inter-government co-operation, and indeed a very different perspective on planet earth as something shared by everyone. Monckton, e.g. sees in this political movement some kind of evil marxist conspiracy. The conspiracy is nothing to do with the climate science: it is political use of this event to further certain "left wing" ideas like global government. The paradox, may be that this is the first step to global government ... and what does wikipedia have recorded of what may be the most significant even in the development of human civilisation on planet earth? BUGGER ALL!!!
We have long known that "Global warming" is the popular subject the mass debate about the causes and implications to humans (not science) of the perceived warming. As such this is clearly and unequivocally a political argument - and if it had been treated as such - and seen as an argument with various viewpoints, then I doubt there would have been half as much agro and we would by now have obtained an accurate reflection of the progress and changes in nuances of this mass event. Instead, we have tired article, based on out of date "science" which fails to cover the range of debate in science ... particularly anything casting doubt on the political global warming campaign, because it has been used as a political propaganda by warmist editors who could not allow it to be honest.
So, as honesty, integrity and ethics are current subjects, I think it is time that Wikipedia made some movement in that direction and called a spade a spade. So I suggest the following:
81.106.237.60 ( talk) 10:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi yes,
Could you update one of the external sources? The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is listed as an educational external source. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is now the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and our new URL is www.C2ES.org.
Matulkar ( talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a minor, noncontroversial request as well. Under the Global Warming Controversy section, the last sentence should be changed to read: "Since 1990 in the United States, conservative think tanks have mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good."
After all, their mobilization is ongoing, as the information below it bears out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurling dervish ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The WSJ recently published an op-ed signed by a list of "16 skeptical scientists" – this has now been brought up with reference to the FAQ. For context see Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal - Forbes and Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com. . Get the Facts. . . dave souza, talk 14:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. The tags should either have the issues they refer to fixed and then the tags removed or, if they are unjustified, simply removed. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer ( talk) 21:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) There is a citation needed tag in ref #70, four verification needed tags on various references, three page needed tags on various references, a globalize banner in the Public opinion section and a dated info tag in the Particulates and soot section. There are also four untagged dead links, according to this tool. I agree that the majority of these tags are not serious by themselves, but they do seem to be starting to pile up on this article. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way:
note 43, containg a quote from Hegerl about "recent estimates", is a named ref called four times. I wonder if this quote really needs to be cited at four different places in the article. Anyone want take a look at that? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
00:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
No disrespect intended, and I may be completely off-base, but two "may"s and three "potential"s would lead the average reader to believe there's little knowledge to be gained from this rather stubby paragraph. I don't know that anything said in the feedback section can be definitely stated, but I think "possible" instead of the first "potential" is a slightly more accurate and solid word. I've researched plenty about such feedback processes; I'm sure there is some kind of consensus that they do exist to whatever degree, even though their direct impacts are unknown. The second sentence, too, reads like somewhat of a joke to me. A tipping point would, by definition, cause abrupt changes in the climate, so I don't know why the second "may/potential" is necessary at all. I would be bold and try to revamp this stuff myself, but I have no confidence that my edits would go unchallenged. Juliancolton ( talk) 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Attribution of recent climate change#Solar activity better than ...
and
99.181.139.43 ( talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
New section as #WP:DATED was getting unwieldy. To summarise: Kim D. Petersen thinks the old version was better. As of when he edited the article at 18:51, 29 January 2012, it looked like:
Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.
The current version, which I think was revised by NAEG, is as folows:
Global warming' refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, which started to increase in the late 19th century and is projected to keep going up without significant mitigation policies. Since the early 20th century, Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.
Once again, an effort by me to get the best of both wordings:
"Global warming refers to rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, both as shown in the Instrumental temperature record since around 1900, and its projected continuation upwards in future. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades. Future increases may be slowed if significant mitigation of climate change policies are successfully introduced.
I've not checked if the last point is supported by the reference. Although mitigation is discussed in the current version it's maybe a bit of a distraction. My understanding is that even anticipating extremely successful mitigation, projections still expect a long period of increasing global temperatures. Global warming might perhaps be halted in a fairly short time by some unforeseen and dramatic change in forcings, such as aerosols introduced by a sufficiently massive supervolcano or caldera eruption, nuclear war, or an asteroid impact. As such extreme circumstances cannot be foreseen, no-one's counting on them. Thus it may be best to leave out the sentence about mitigation, or expand it later in the lead. So, that's a summary of the current options, and another suggestion. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
"Global warming refers to the rise in average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans shown in the Instrumental temperature record since around 1900, and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring in the last three decades. Future increases may be slowed if significant mitigation of climate change policies are successfully introduced.
Versions using BOTH
Version using AND
Another approach - this is conceptual, and has not been wordsmithed; it is based on the opening text from 'way 'way back.
This discussion has stalled. In the meantime TS made a
reasonable change from "going up without" to "going up, in the absence of" significant mitigation policies. This prodded me to have a look at the source, which is specifically p. 15 of a National Academies report: there's no mention of mitigation on that page. As discussed above, we don't want to give the misleading impression that warming will be reversed if mitigation is introduced, so I've removed that part of the sentence. That now leaves:
Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, which started to increase in the late 19th century and is projected to keep going up.
How many feel that the proposals above are an improvement? There was some support, but then discussion diversified and stalled. . .
dave souza,
talk
21:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, there is some objection to defining GW as both past and projected in the same sentence. Here is an alternative that I think addresses those and all the other criticisms that have been raised in the past few months. I have not attempted to fully format the citations, and the last part, taken verbatim from the NASA webpage, could be wordsmithed a bit smoother.
Comments, anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I just posted my proposed text to the article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everyone: it is standard practice (I think even Kim will agree with me on this one :-) that when "et al." is used in a citation only the last name of the lead author (in some very rare cases, of the last two authors) is used; the initials are dropped. We have plenty of instances of these, but they are incorrect. I may do a mass correction. To add et al. in a citation template: I have found "|author= Jones et al." works well. "Display-authors" might also work if you want to keep all of the author metadata. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Reference lists in the natural sciences sometimes include works by numerous authors (occasionally a score or more). Furthermore, many of the authors in successive entries may be the same, though in a different order. To avoid an unwieldy string of names, and with apologies to those authors whose names are sacrificed, Chicago recommends the policy followed by the American Naturalist (see bibliog. 5): for references with ten authors or fewer, all should be listed; for references with eleven or more, only the first seven should be listed, followed by “et al.” (Where space is limited, the policy of the American Medical Association may be followed: up to six authors’ names are listed; if there are more than six, only the first three are listed, followed by “et al.”
— CMoS 15 - 17.30 Multiple authors )
I haven't looked at this page in a while, but I recall from the last time I did that most of the graphs had information from the twentieth century through the late 2000s. To make sure that I was not misremembering, I searched for more graphs, and they all looked like this. While still showing climate increase, they demonstrate that the rapid incline at the end of the twentieth century was only a brief spike that soon afterwards fell back down to slightly below average. Upon my most recent look at this page, I noticed that all of the graphs have been replaced with data that ends right before that spike fell, implying an exponential increase rather than the more gradual one. My instinct is to go looking for them through the history and restore them, but I thought there might be a good reason they had been reverted to less data. Unfortunately, I could not find the reason proposed for the removal of these graphs in the history of either the article or the talk page. Does anyone know why the presumably more accurate graphs were removed? If not, would someone with write privileges mind replacing the somewhat misleading pre-2000s graph? Either way, thanks! 98.234.186.68 ( talk) 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey sorry I have no idea how to use wikipedia, but the link used in the FAQ question on the list of skeptics compiled by various organizations is no longer functional. Please remove it:
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/about/Pages/pagenotfound.aspx/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.35.144.113 ( talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Dead link repaired. NameIsRon ( talk) 21:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Gibberish, click show to read anyway
|
---|
Nasa satellite picture in article shows warming just local and then not from CO2 but change of streamings and with -0.21° WMO/UNO datas most areas white not slight rose coloured same neutral. All exploration maxima long before 2050 oil reached about 2020 -16% 2030 -33% 2050 -60% Maxima coal 2020-2035 gas 2015-2035 but with cirrent human CO2 increase 250 years until doubled & +2°. kayuweboehm@yahoo.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.73.219 ( talk) 16:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC) |
How can one man decide what is "just plain wrong"? how can a valid theory be stricken from the record? How can censorship of good ideas be what wikipedia is about now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.244.4.66 ( talk) 06:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
As someone who was taught science and the philosophy of science, I don't mind people indulging in speculation and expressing their views. From the likes of the catholic church to climate "scientists" every group has a right to express views! That is why there's whole articles on religions and politics. But, I think we have a right to protect science and stop this kind of political POV push nonsense being called "science". It doesn't matter that this POV push is coming from the subject itself. People have views ... fine, but even if the whole world calls them a scientist, a view is a view unless it is backed by scientific proof. Science isn't a label, its a methodology and e.g. the church of scientology is science just because it has that in its name. As anyone taught science ought to know science is a simple subject with straightforward laws: you make predictions and then compare those with the actual results. If we take the key prediction of catastrophic warming it is that temperatures will rise with increased CO2. Even as a whole it has failed to predict climate since the first testable predictions were made in 2001. But this whole article is not about the 1C warming of real science. Instead it is overwhelmingly about the hysteria of massive scaled up warming from positive feedbacks.
Where is there any evidence of these positive feedbacks? The answer is that far from being evidence, if you take away the 1C trend, we have actually seen some kind of cooling over the last decade which has led to this stasis in temperature. It should be obvious even to none scientists that there is something very wrong here. Far from something adding to the basic CO2 effect, we have actually seen a cooler temperature than would be expected from real science. Even James Lovelock, inventor of Gaia has admitted something is very wrong. When even some of the strongest advocates are admitting it was wrong, it is incredible that the same unsubstantiated POV push continues to be portrayed as science.
There really are three simple choices:
The article doesn't seem to properly address the decreasing rate of change. see 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change outlining James Lovelock's view regarding the stabilization of temperatures over the last 12 years. -- Trödel 22:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some stuff like Soloman, but it was in Science Mag, which, in my view, is not the same as a peer reviewed journal. I don't have access to academic journals, but it seems likely to me that there would be articles reviewing the same data that supported the statements made in their article. The article seems to attribute the stability to the El Nino cycle, without any discussion of alternate theories, or if there are none, at least a discussion that the behavior is not completely understood. -- Trödel 21:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Nothing is certain. Scientists do not say that global warming is certain, just that all the evidence points in that direction. Sure, the article can mention that the rate appears to be slowing on the short term, though I don't know if that takes into account the last couple of years. But if we do mention we have to be careful to put it in context. After all, most of the data is ten year averages, so one fifteen year period is not strong evidence. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW.... suppose your hanging with friends in a hottub with the window cracked and winter air seeping in as the wind puffs outside. Do you and your friends argue endlessly about whether its warming or cooling too fast or too slow based on the air currents, or the water temp flowing around your tender parts? My point: Arguments about whether its warming or cooling, faster or slower, based solely on air temps are missing the point. The much more important measure is the heat sink represented by earth's oceans. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 140 quotes an article that does not support the claim made in the article and should be removed.
75.177.134.29 ( talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a geoengineering subsection in the "responses to global warming" section. The other two sections are, understandably, mitigation and adaptation. In the larger mitigation article, one of the mitigation measures is, appropriately, geoengineering. Thus, why does this one mitigation measure deserve another subsection on this article? Nicehumor ( talk) 12:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
May well be true, but does it really matter that much? William M. Connolley ( talk) 05:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I know many people who think "gee, they survive in the Sahara, so what if it gets a little warmer here? I don't like snow anyway.""Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation."
The forecast for Wednesday for Kolkata is: "Mostly cloudy in the morning, then clear. High of 41 °C with a heat index of 58 °C. Breezy. Winds from the South at 20 to 25 km/h." Count Iblis ( talk) 22:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The introduction is too long and thus potentially confusing, both to scientifically trained and casual audiences.
1. I propose starting with one sentence, and to move the rest to an introduction chapter.
2. I also propose the first sentence to be "Global warming is the observed rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and the estimated continuation of rising temperatures due to future emissions and the laws of physics." This captures a. the essence of the concept's two parts; the monitoring and the projections; and b. the quintessence of the background of the projections. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 02:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe one sentence is too short, but it is a good sentence, and might make a good first paragraph. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's give our unsigned contributor an honest answer. His argument takes this form. Scientists say that, when we flip a coin, on the average we will get half heads and half tails. But I flipped a coin ten times, and I got seven heads and three tails. This disproves the half heads, half tails theory, because it is statistically unlikely. The error, as every student of statstics knows (I wish!), is mining data for unlikely events that support your desired conclusion. Unlikely events occur. If you sort through the data looking for unlikely events, you will find them. You need to consider all of the data, not just the data you like. The overwhelming preponderence of the data shows global warming driven by man made greenhouse emissions. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the lede back to the old version. The one being proposed (which i overlooked because the proposal was without comment, and stale somewhere further up), has problems. The self-ref issue is an indication of this. The article is about the current rise - not about what it could be in other contexts. This is what we have disambiguation links for at the top of articles. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 21:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The agriculture article says that "agriculture" has a very bad negative effect in regards to climate change. This is actually very inaccurate. It should state that animal husbandry has a very bad effect on climate change, and thus the info should be available on this page aswell. This as it is one of the main reasons of production of methane gas, one of the worst GhG gases (allot more potent than CO²). In addition, I find it's useful to also mention that life in prehistoric times had allready been killed once (globally!) trough the effect of methane gas. Appearantly, the levels for this to happen were only 5x as large, excluding other gases (ie effect of CO² emissions from transport, ...) See http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-farted-their-way-to-extinction-british-scientists-say/ 91.182.243.253 ( talk) 16:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Where is "Rate this page"? Freedom Fan ( talk) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering where this paper, which deals with how variations in ozone in the lower stratosphere could be a contributory factor in global warnimg, could be worked into the article. Jprw ( talk) 13:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There is also judgment involved as for how to deal with review articles, and perhaps this is a good opportunity to raise this debate: Should all emphasis be put on the average or most likely findings, or should a certain amount of emphasis also be put on the worst available findings, in line with the precautionary principle? Narssarssuaq ( talk) 07:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Record High Greenhouse Gases to Linger for Decades "Concentrations of the three main greenhouse gases blamed for global warming reached record levels in 2010 and will linger in the atmosphere for decades,even if the world stops emissions output today, the U.N.'s weather agency said on Monday." Scientific American November 21, 2011 by Tom Miles, excerpt ...
Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose by 2.3 parts per million to 389 ppm in 2010 from the previous year, higher than the 1990s average (1.5 ppm) and the past decade (2.0 ppm), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. If the world is to limit global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, scientists say emissions volumes must not have more than 450 ppm of carbon dioxide.
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(od) What was deleted was a 184.155.18.45 edit, not as Sailsbystars had in their/wp Edit Summary. 99.181.131.196 ( talk) 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Somebody read a magazine article related to global warming and wonders why that specific fact isn't mentioned in the article on global warming. Well, the fact as stated isn't exactly new, it's only extraordinary news to people who don't know about global warming. And this article tells you about it. So after reading it you don't need to read a magazine article spitting out some factoid, you know about global warming. -- TS 20:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think there are some major problems in one section of the introduction:
I'll outline the problems below:
I think this statement incorrect - there are 195 Parties to the FCCC - 194 states plus the
EU (27 nation states) making a total of 221 states (UNFCCC, 2011a).
There are no objective definitions of "dangerous/extremely dangerous" climate change or for "extremely dangerous" climate change, see IPCC (2001) and
UNFCCC#Interpreting Article 2. In my view, it is important that readers of the article be made aware that any definition of "dangerous" (or "extremely dangerous") climate change requires value judgements, and that such judgements are subjective. The citation provided to support the definitions of "dangerous" and "extremely dangerous" climate change represent the personal views of one author.
My suggested revision is as follows:
I've removed mention of the terms "climate change mitigation" and "geoengineering." I think that these definitions can be left to later on in the article. I think that it is more important to concentrate on what actions are being taken. As far as I'm aware, geoengineering hasn't as yet been implemented on a significant scale (unlike mitigation policies such as the CDM or adaptation policies in some countries), and is less well-understood than mitigation or adaptation. Also, the UNFCCC (2011d) emphasizes mitigation and adaptation. I've therefore left geoengineering out of my suggested revision.
I think that the existing revision focusses too heavily on the Kyoto Protocol. The present political consensus appears to be based more on "bottom-up" measures rather than the "top-down" approach of Kyoto. I also feel that the existing revision lacks objectivity, and appears to implicitly support Kyoto-like agreements, e.g., "Kyoto Protocol is their only (emphasis added) legally binding emissions agreement...".
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |editor=
(
help)Enescot ( talk) 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Search for Average Temperature of the Earth leads here, but I can't find it in the article. It talks in detail about the temperature anomalies from year to year but never says what value those anomalies are relative to. If the Earth is warming, what is its temperature now? What is the recent (holocene) temperature history of the Earth?
Alexselkirk1704 ( talk) 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if a map exists with Co2 emissions per square mile. Every map I see is either per capita or over all emissions. I just wanted to see where the most pollution is biased on land area. A map with this included would be awesome on this article. I have seen this info on states but not on a global level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.41 ( talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi friends i am adding How to control Global Warming on the article page so suggestions and references are welcome. Let me know what else i can do. Ashpreet92 ( talk) 23:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Renewable energy sources are capable of continually replenishing themselves. These include energy from water, wind, the sun, geothermal sources, and biomass sources such as energy crops. Many nations count on coal, oil, and natural gas to supply most of their energy needs; but relying on fossil fuels is problematic. Fossil fuels are a limited resource; eventually, the world will run out. Fossil fuels also cause air, water, and soil pollution; in addition, produce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, and hydropower, offer clean alternatives to fossil fuels. They produce little or no pollution or greenhouse gases, and they will never run out.
The ocean provides several forms of renewable energy, and each one is driven by different forces. Energy from ocean waves and tides, from the heat stored in sea water, can be harnessed to generate electricity, and ocean thermal energy can also be converted to electricity. Using current technologies, most ocean energy is not cost-effective compared to other renewable energy sources, but the ocean remains an important potential energy source for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.244.177 ( talk) 14:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Gee, take it easy, I was only adding a link to the see also section :P That usually never triggers any reaction like this. If you really want me to explain here how the link would improve the article, I would say that it's not an unrelated subject, and it shows that the scientific community has been wrong before which means that it can as well be wrong again. The article about global cooling has a link to this article in the see also section, so I don't see why this article could not have a link to that article in the same section. — Kri ( talk) 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It is ironic that people who get all their information about science from non-scientific, "conservative" (that is, pro-oil industry) news sources love to point out that "the scientific community has been wrong before". If they reject sources of information that "have been wrong before", they would logically reject all "conservative" news sources. Yes, scientists have been wrong, but they have been right more often that any other source of information. Except mathematicians. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a question for a wiki mechanic. When my mouse rolls over one of our citation footnote numbers in the text, I see a bar at the bottom of the screen that reports the full url. The weird thing is that for citation #1, the url in the bar ends with "note-0". For citation #126, the url in the rollover bar says "note=125". Is this normal wiki behavior that I just never noticed before? Either way.....why aren't they in synch? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is a snip from the current index. Something in this list does not belong:
7 Views on global warming
7.1 Global warming controversy 7.2 Politics 7.3 Public opinion 7.4 Other views
There are three sections devoted to describing various perspectives, and one that is an umbrella for various arguments debated in public media. IMO, the latter is nothing more than the sum of the other three, as they butt heads in public media. As such, the section "global warming controversy" strikes me as redundant and should be deleted and replaced with simply a SEE ALSO at the end of the article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
... Climate change ( global warming) is, in the words of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” ...
from http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,4 by Naomi Klein. This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 print edition of The Nation.
141.218.36.41 ( talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've readded the citations to the section on geoengineering. An editor noted that I needed to "dig a little deeper than the executive summary" to justify these statements. The IPCC reports are the most widely accepted statement of scientific opinion on climate change, and I therefore do not see the need for me to "justify" any of its conclusions. Enescot ( talk) 14:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The aim of geo-engineering options is to remove CO2 directly from the air, for example through ocean fertilization, or to block sunlight. However, little is known about effectiveness, costs or potential side-effects of the options. Blocking sunlight does not affect the expected escalation in atmospheric CO2 levels, but could reduce or eliminate the associated warming. Disconnecting CO2 concentration and global temperature in this way could induce other effects, such as the further acidification of the oceans (medium agreement, limited evidence).
Another policy response is geoengineering of the climate. Geoengineering encompasses a range of techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or to reflect incoming sunlight. Little is known about the effectiveness, costs or potential side effects of geoengineering options.
For the help of other editors, this is the old revision which I changed:
I've changed my my mind and agree with your criticisms. I've written a new revision which hopefully addresses your concerns:
Note that the citation style I've used below is purely for use on this talk page. If other editors are satisfied with my suggested revision, I'll change my citations to the citation style used in the rest of the global warming article.
Enescot (
talk)
17:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down on Scientists As the Earth Heated Up by Raymond S. Bradley ISBN-13: 978-1558498693 Publisher: Univ. of Massachusetts Press (July 31, 2011)
The Inquisition of Climate Science by James Lawrence Powell ISBN-13: 978-0231157186 Publisher: Columbia University Press (August 30, 2011)
99.190.87.173 ( talk) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
As part of the IPCC citation work I have created a Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/citation subpage that documents the canonical format (and other subpages with the AR specific details). I have also opened a discussion about this at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I am also adjusting the FAQ (consensus?? :). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Strong consensus that article is not notable. Discussion collapsed per
WP:NOTAFORUM; we need not waste any more time on it.
|
---|
I came across this Wikipedia global warming page, but did not see reference made to this article from the peer-reviewed journal Science: The article is titled "Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum," and the results "imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought." This is a key finding that should be added. Samel Jankins ( talk) 00:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Scientists are constantly checking and revising their estimates. There's always "might be lower", "might be higher", etc. You can't let yourself fall into the trap of confirmation bias by simply picking and choosing the latest "there's a minute possibility than one of the variables in the simulation might not have been taken out to enough decimal places, but we're not sure." as "global warming is dead!" and ignoring the mountain of evidence and the just plain common sense to the contrary. the fact is this has always happened and the general consensus, taking ALL of these pieces of information into consideration, and not just a select few, has remained and does remain the same as it always been, and the same as everyone would know it to be where it not for the vigorous disinformation campaigns by wealthy morons and all the echo-heads blindly contributing. from what i can tell this article is good science. but none of what it says is all that significant or notable. so someone might have slightly overestimated the mean expected frequency of extreme weather events in certain scenarios. big deal. it happens all the time. welcome to the world of science, where people actually check their facts. Kevin Baas talk 18:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
"Littering the highway" is when someone takes 5 secs to say something and expects other editors take substantive action or we spend pages debating. I say PHOOEY. I have collapsed this thread twice. An allegedly new editor has reverted twice. If anyone besides me thinks this debate thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article - where specific means something like proposed text - please consider re-collapsing this thread. To get a substantive response, in my view, advocates of the Schmittner paper ought to do the grunt work of articulating a some specific article improvement, to which we can then reply in substance. "I think we should mention this paper" is not, IMO, substantive or specific. If you learn enough to write something, and take the time to write something, then we can talk about it.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal opinion, but I don't see anywhere in this article where the Schmittner et al. paper really fits in. However, I would definitely include it within a longer discussion of climate sensitivity. The paleoclimate evidence at the last glacial maximum is one of the few good independent constraints we have on Earth's climate sensitivity, and for that reason it is very useful. The fact that Schmittner have a relatively warm LGM, and by extension a relatively low climate sensitivity, is interesting. However, it is unlikely to be the last word on the LGM, and even if it were, people could continue to argue about how accurately LGM values of climate sensitivity can be used to measure sensitivity under current conditions. By itself, this research doesn't settle the question of what is Earth's climate sensitivity, but their result is definitely a data point that should be included within any serious discussion of that question. Dragons flight ( talk) 08:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Has anyone actually read the skeptical science critique I linked to at the start of this thread? A sample of the various points include this comment by one of the authors in an interview about the paper.... after listing an apparent contradiction and several caveats in their results, he said (bold supplied)
You can follow the link in the skepsci post to the source for that remark. Next, besides reporting that they could not confirm the max values of some other estimates, they also eliminated the lower end of the range. The last point I'll raise here is that even if the actual amount of warming from a doubling of CO2 (including all feedbacks) turns out to equal the upper values in the paper's estimate, that is hardly happy news because warming all by itself really isn't the problem. The problem is the effects of that warming. This paper suggests that the effects of warming are dramatically greater than we think. So if we include anything about this paper, we also have to say this paper suggests a much greater response to any warming than we thought. At the moment, I don't have a source to offer other than SkepSci, but the logic is obvious so it shouldn't be hard to find one. To quote the SkepSci post,
If we include this paper, we have to include the results, not the denialist cherrypicked and spun talking points. Do the advocates of this paper still want to include it? Or would you rather we take the authors advice, quoted above, and wait for their work to be developed further? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
|
This
WP:SOAP lacks specific suggestions, such as proposed draft text, for improving THIS article. click show to read anyway
|
---|
I've been using Wikipedia's Global Warming article for while now as an example of why you can't trust Wikipedia for any topic that's in the least bit controversial. This is primarily due to the growing extremism of right wing politics in the U.S. and the tactics and behavior of its adherents, with the whole Global Warming "controversy" being a poster child for how right wingers try to trump science and genuine research with their beliefs and ideology (and being just a little bit too successful at times.) This was especially the case with the Global Warming article, which has been in a near constant state of edit warfare for several years now, with tedious, frustrating struggles to keep the article even modestly genuinely reflective of the state of science involved rather than the volatile politics and crackpottery surrounding it. After the article's staunchest defenders either left out of frustration (like Raymond Arritt) or were pushed away (like William Connelley), I thought the article, which I considered already too unbalanced in the wrong direction, would quickly degrade further. Initially it looked very much like that would be the case, but I never did any further checking for a long while afterwards -- actually not until this morning. I had popped onto Wikipedia's Joseph McCarthy article looking for a ref to some info, and noticed that it too had become degraded with a successful right wing incursion (go to the article and scroll down -- you'll know it when you see it), which made me wonder how bad the Global Warming article had become. So I popped over here and....was pleasantly surprised. It seemed much more solid in its grounding in real science than the last time I checked, and I really like the new(ish) FAQ section you have on the Talk page -- clear, complete and very well referenced. So you get my kudos for all this. My suggestion actually involves the FAQ -- that's such a nice, informational FAQ that I think it deserves its own page. Granted that there are already too many climate change-related articles on Wikipedia, still -- that's too good of a FAQ to not have it more visible to the general Wikipedia audience somehow. So, for what it's worth.... 209.6.39.87 ( talk) aka CallMeBC —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
|
I understand that wikipedia is a "mouthpiece for reliable source", therefore I want to provide a link that has tons of reliable sources of dozens of major, renowned scientists with ample credentials from such prestigious firms as CERN, the Royal Society, top scientific journal Nature, Dr. Ivar Giaever a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor, Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world's top weather scientists, Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and others who all disagree with the "majority of scientists" who claim exists and is a crisis. I encourage you all to educate yourselves on the other side of the spectrum. Read the whole story with sources and everything here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1h8TpZBGC -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 03:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that an article which ignores the views, which are arguably supported by evidence and even if not deserve mention, of dozens of credible scientists who at the very least think Global Warming is not a crisis; many of whom believe global warming is a natural phenomenon that stopped in 1998 and not relevant in any way, can be considered to have a "reasonably balanced neutral point of view. Again, I encourage you all to read the link to American Thinker in my very first post that elaborates on some of these people and their views.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Dissent? ... Wikipedia is like Syria ... there is no dissent ... just a small group of malcontents who reject the overwhelming consensus of support for those running the show. Come on, it's got beyond a joke. The simple fact is that most politicians have stopped taking this subject seriously. Most teachers, most journalists, most people, have realised that a small group of zealots took over climate science and cherry picked the data to predict doom ... it's embarrassing that this article still exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.91.97 ( talk) 09:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Clear example of using WP as a WP:SOAPBOX |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Unfortunately, the utterly ridiculous concentration of this article on the so called "science" means that most of the historically important information on "global warming" has not been captured. Global warming was a very important social phenomena. It is an important point at which World wide environmentalism came face to face with world-wide global economies and world-wide (satellite based) science and communication provided a network of data to stimulate a debate about the future of mankind. Obviously a few environmentalists and enviro-scientists got their fingers burnt over global warming, as did a few "post-modern" scientists who gave up truth via hard science for truth via "consensus". So, it's pretty certain, that the end of large-scale interest in global warming will have some knock on effects to environmentalism and science. So, please can I make a plea that editors stop this ridiculous obsession regarding global warming being "science" and start appreciating that it is already history. So where is the section on global warming history? Where is an analysis of the political movement that brought this subject to the fore, and where is an analysis of the impacts of this movement on world politics? At the very least, Global warming has dramatically changed the debate about energy use in the same way as Chernobyll changed it about nuclear. It also redefined "environmentalism" for a generation as putting up bird-mincers in the wilderness rather than going to the wilderness to watch those birds. We have seen it used by the UN to try to exert worldwide influence ... again, if there ever were a worldwide "government", then this power grab under the pretence of saving the world from global warming would be seen as a key part of those events. In other words, let's start the serious work of documenting this historically important movement! 79.78.91.97 ( talk) 09:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
|
I have pretty much completed converting the IPCC citations in this article to the new format. However, in various cases I was not able find the material cited, so tagged the citation. Yes, this makes it a bit messy, but the answer for that is for some editors to grab the appropriate pdf files and search for the cited material, then add the location (section) to the citation. Ask if you have questions. Some of the non-IPCC citations also need to be checked and/or brought up to standard. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ref [4] I assume the point about the Urban Heat Island effect is that it causes a potential discrepancy to the temperature record not because it has a (minute) effect on Global Warming itself. That right? -- BozMo talk 10:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I've put together a draft revision of the article's lede.
Thanks for the reply. I'd first like to change the following paragraph of current revision shown below:
My suggested revision is (see the sub-section below for references):
the lede:
the section on adaptation:
To summarize the reasons behind my suggested revision:
Here's the current revision of the lede (2011-12-24, 14:30) for reference:
I have some problems with this revision. In my opinion, parts of it are too long, too technical/jargony, confusing, or imprecise/vague.
Cited sources are given later on in the references section. If other editors agree with parts of my suggested revision, I'll change the references to make them consistent with the rest of the article:
For the opening paragraph, I've added the IPCC's summary of the evidence for "unequivocal" warming. I think that including this short summary in the lede is entirely justified considering the article's subject matter.
I wasn't happy with the previous summary of the IPCC projections. I thought it was too long and confusing. My new summary is based on how the US National Research Council and US Global Change Research Program summarize the IPCC's work. I should note that the UNEP/IEA studies referred to in the introduction state that current policies are not consistent with holding warming to below 2 deg C. I think this addresses the possible concern that the IPCC's low-end temperature projection is misleading or outdated.
My summary of projected impacts is based mainly on the IPCC TAR's summary of "robust findings". The IPCC state that "a robust finding for climate change is defined as one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models, and assumptions and one that is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties." I've used the TAR's summary instead of AR4's because AR4's are, in my opinion, less suited for use in the lede.
I've removed the current revision's summary on adaptation. The summary is based on one paper, and in my opinion, is rather confusing. Instead, I suggest the following addition to the adaptation section of the article:
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link){{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Enescot ( talk) 14:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Too long; too many top-postings; too many unsigned paragraphs;too many long quotes from article. Please make specific proposals, one at a time. -- Nigelj ( talk) 16:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be great to have some links to the actual experimental studies that show the fingerprinting and proof of causes and the percentages.
Yes, I agree that air pollution from human activity is a major problem. I just want to know what percentage is this cause. Thanks. Ideally everyone would get on board with cleaning up our air quality. Anyone can see the smog over a major city.
Exact measured percentages of warming, with margins of error, from each possible cause, is precisely known? For example, the exact measured percentage of warming from natural solar events is measured? How? What is the exact measured cause by humans? 80% or more? The margin of error? How many studies done? Does anyone know what studies show the measurements that prove the exact percentages for each cause? I would love to see them. Thanks.
What are the other causes, if any? Solar? What percentage confirmed?
Just the facts please. Please, no politics or personal attacks. Thanks.
Data and evidence is all that truly matters, along with excellent repeated experiments. Joseph Prymak ( talk) 07:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Johnson, I will look around their website to see. Joseph Prymak ( talk) 16:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Use_of_quote_parameter_in_footnote_-_a_proposal_to_provide_better_guidance. Since this article uses lots of quotes, editors may wish to chime in. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
|quote=
" parameter. |quote=
, but perhaps better an imperfect tool than none at all. So I don't mind allowing that |quote=
is not entirely useless. Thank you for pointing that out. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
01:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)This article needs to be updated to reflect the fact there has been no warming for the last 15 years:
GoCacheGo ( talk) 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of this
WP:SOAP goes beyond a simple edit request
| ||
---|---|---|
Under the section "Other views" why not add In the media weathermen do not think humans are contributing to observed climate change, 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity. Or perhaps address this under section "Public opinion" one would think the "weathermen" on news shows would be a well informed segment of the public. The following article is based on a 2010 George Mason University survey. Essentially it finds that "63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity" Isn't the opinion of "industry media professionals" that work within the area of weather a significant item. I am more inclined to agree with a television weathermen than a politician who desires to tax carbon or impose cap 'n trade. Now it seems weird that there is an organization to "change the beliefs of weathermen that deny global warming" - refer to same URL. The Forecast the Facts campaign — led by 350.org, the League of Conservation Voters and the Citizen Engagement Lab — is pushing for more of a focus on global warming in weather forecasts, and is highlighting the many meteorologists who do not share their beliefs. “Our goal is nothing short of changing how the entire profession of meteorology tackles the issue of climate change,” the group explains on their website. “We’ll empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable.” According to the Washington Post, the reason for the campaign can be found in a 2010 George Mason University surveys, which found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity. So far, the campaign has identified 55 “deniers” in the meteorologist community and are looking for more. They define “deniers” as “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.” 108.75.223.67 ( talk) 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|
I've restored this category to the article. Although Category:Global warming is also a subcategory of Category:Climate change, I think removing this particular article from the top level cat is probably unwise. Global warming is a very big part of the topic and should be shown at top level rather than diffused.
What does Wikipedia:Categorization guideline (WP:CAT) suggest? The following:
The bolding is in the original. -- TS 10:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The article should explain why the red line representing the 5-year average global temperature has stopped rising. Does this mean the Kyoto Protocol worked? 76.173.97.27 ( talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
|
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1593
"The Runaway Greenhouse: implications for future climate change, geoengineering and planetary atmospheres
Colin Goldblatt, Andrew J. Watson
(Submitted on 8 Jan 2012)
The ultimate climate emergency is a "runaway greenhouse": a hot and water vapour rich atmosphere limits the emission of thermal radiation to space, causing runaway warming. Warming ceases only once the surface reaches ~1400K and emits radiation in the near-infrared, where water is not a good greenhouse gas. This would evaporate the entire ocean and exterminate all planetary life. Venus experienced a runaway greenhouse in the past, and we expect that Earth will in around 2 billion years as solar luminosity increases. But could we bring on such a catastrophe prematurely, by our current climate-altering activities? Here we review what is known about the runaway greenhouse to answer this question, describing the various limits on outgoing radiation and how climate will evolve between these. The good news is that almost all lines of evidence lead us to believe that is unlikely to be possible, even in principle, to trigger full a runaway greenhouse by addition of non-condensible greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, our understanding of the dynamics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer and cloud physics of hot and steamy atmospheres is weak. We cannot therefore completely rule out the possibility that human actions might cause a transition, if not to full runaway, then at least to a much warmer climate state than the present one. High climate sensitivity might provide a warning. If we, or more likely our remote descendants, are threatened with a runaway greenhouse then geoengineering to reflect sunlight might be life's only hope. ...[2 sentences cut to meet arXiv char limit]... The runaway greenhouse also remains relevant in planetary sciences and astrobiology: as extrasolar planets smaller and nearer to their stars are detected, some will be in a runaway greenhouse state."
Count Iblis ( talk) 15:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Solar-cycle-data.png, whilst nice, is beginning to show its age - see fig 9 of http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120119_Temperature.pdf for example William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't like [6]. "since 1850" is somewhere between wrong and too specific. The attribution to the "national science academies" looks wrong; thats IPCC-ery. I don't know what "by natural geological variability" is supposed to mean; it isn't in the reference added William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like someone to add some sort of date container here. 1850 is referred to on several pages linked to in the intro, including average temperature and retreat of glaciers, so clearly this article is about some phenomenon more recent than, for instance, the 16th century. That should be made clear. 19th century per suggestion above? Scott Illini ( talk) 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand, and did not manage to come up with a satisfactory solution myself. I hoped someone more familiar with the historical literature might chime in with the accepted description of the start of the warming trend.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Which of these is better grammar? "the current trend's projected continuation" or "the rising average temperature's projected continuation"? Reverting. Scott Illini ( talk) 19:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
edit conflict
I think the answer is that "her" relates to Mary, not "family". Grammatically speaking, the pronoun "her" does not refer to the adjective "red-headed" whatsoever. Looking at our analogous sentence, does the pronoun "its" refer to "global warming" in the sentence subject, or to the noun "temperature" in the sentence predicate, or maybe to "average temperature" (if you view the noun as an open compound word)?) IMO, its "temperature" or "average temperature". There is no reason to think that the pronoun "its" relates in any way to the adjective "rising". And so - lo and behold - I finally agree with Scott about something in this thread. The existing language communicates just fine, I think. But for the hyper grammar nerd, it does appear to be sloppy phrasing. What is the projected continuation of the "average temperature"? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)In this silly example, 'the family' refers to the red-headed Mary and her children....
I have now gone with the more general "natural causes". Relevant sentence in reference is "No model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century." Scott Illini ( talk) 19:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Please wikilink ecosystem services within this article. 99.19.44.50 ( talk) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence suggests the phrase "global warming" refers to currently observed warming and extrapolations from that trend. That is false, as demonstrated by the last section of the article. Wally Broecker's paper, that the etymology refers to, said “that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide”. "Global warming" was, and is, a specific prediction that the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans will rise due to greenhouse gas emissions from human industry. "Global warming" refers only to that specific predicted warming and not to any other warming from any other cause. Most importantly, it does not refer to attempts to explain observed warming. Not understanding that is the main cause of misunderstandings about global warming. Carl Kenner ( talk) 11:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
NOAA factually summarizes 2011 climate extremes here:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120119_global_stats.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this reversion, I notice that the text says "to the present" but the source (TAR) is dated 2001. I'm not sure what to do about that, if anything... I'm just saying that expressions like "to the present" based on old sources look more strained each day. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I see various problems in the FAQ on this talk page.
It is a FAQ, not an article. The RS policy doesn't apply William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The FAQ in
this page is better, we should re-write our FAQ in this style.
Count Iblis (
talk)
23:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Pewfly appears to be trying repeatedly to delete the content of the FAQ about "lists of scientists" - it remains relevant, please desist from such deletions and present any proposals for changes on this talk page. . . dave souza, talk 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
To be considered "riddled with flaws", (A) How many mistakes are required and (B) How egregious does a mistake have to be in order to be counted in the tally? IMO, this is the word choice that is arguably "most riddled with POV". That said, I am annoyed at Pewfly's attempt to delete instead of improve, and I agree we need Q2 in the FAQ. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect to NewsAndEventsGuy, who I can see is responsible and thoughtful editor, I think that saying "we're digital and not a musty paper encyclopedia" is something of a minefield. First, I find paper encyclopedias and reference books still valuable, as there is a lot of information that's not on the Internet, and deriding them as "musty" isn't really constructive to say. Secondly, it's the editors of this dynamic digital encyclopedia who themselves came up with WP:DATED, which states, "Avoid statements that date quickly, except on pages that are regularly updated, like current events pages," which this is not. "Avoid words such as ... currently and recently ... or phrases such as in modern times and the sixties. Instead, when writing about past events use more precise phrases such as during the 1990s or in August 1969. For future and current events, use phrases such as as of February 2012 or since the beginning of 2010 that indicate the time-dependence of the information to the reader."
I appreciate your measured approach to my WP:DATED edits, and I'm glad to be able to discuss this with NewsAndEventsGuy and other editors. Here are my questions:
I thank my fellow editors for giving these questions some thought. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NewsAndEvensGuy, you go too boldly, dave. I will rewrite rather than revert. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it was better before it was fiddled with. In particular I don't like [8] - GW overwhelmingly refers to the current stuff, not the past (and Global warming refers to the rise in the [[Instrumental temperature record|average temperature]] of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Since the early 20th century, makes no sense at all, because ITR can only refer to the current episode) William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kim, you have really confused me now because you seem to have contradicted yourself. In this thread you appear to have stated the following mutually exclusive opinions:
If I did not make a faithful restatement of your opinions in this thread, please explain where I went wrong, but if I did, do you see these as contradictory? Also, please see the other discussion of this topic in a subsequent thread on this talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Having seen the problems and hoops which people jumped through to get a first intro sentence, the problem is very easy to see: the original article was written about a current event: a massive rise in temperature, where selected scientific ideas were brought in to explain that event. That original event is now past history. We are now in a period of "high" temperatures, not rising temperatures. Therefore the very name "global warming", is now false or at least difficult to square with the current trend, unless you redefine the timescale, but not too long.
Whatever your view, there is no doubt that the sharp rise in temperature at the end of the 20th century had massive implications. There is also no doubt that public concern decreased when that trend did not continue. Irrespective of the cause or whether manmade warming were to continue, this was a significant socio-historical event which e.g. saw massive global changes, some of the first moves toward "global law", changes in inter-government co-operation, and indeed a very different perspective on planet earth as something shared by everyone. Monckton, e.g. sees in this political movement some kind of evil marxist conspiracy. The conspiracy is nothing to do with the climate science: it is political use of this event to further certain "left wing" ideas like global government. The paradox, may be that this is the first step to global government ... and what does wikipedia have recorded of what may be the most significant even in the development of human civilisation on planet earth? BUGGER ALL!!!
We have long known that "Global warming" is the popular subject the mass debate about the causes and implications to humans (not science) of the perceived warming. As such this is clearly and unequivocally a political argument - and if it had been treated as such - and seen as an argument with various viewpoints, then I doubt there would have been half as much agro and we would by now have obtained an accurate reflection of the progress and changes in nuances of this mass event. Instead, we have tired article, based on out of date "science" which fails to cover the range of debate in science ... particularly anything casting doubt on the political global warming campaign, because it has been used as a political propaganda by warmist editors who could not allow it to be honest.
So, as honesty, integrity and ethics are current subjects, I think it is time that Wikipedia made some movement in that direction and called a spade a spade. So I suggest the following:
81.106.237.60 ( talk) 10:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi yes,
Could you update one of the external sources? The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is listed as an educational external source. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is now the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and our new URL is www.C2ES.org.
Matulkar ( talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a minor, noncontroversial request as well. Under the Global Warming Controversy section, the last sentence should be changed to read: "Since 1990 in the United States, conservative think tanks have mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good."
After all, their mobilization is ongoing, as the information below it bears out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurling dervish ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The WSJ recently published an op-ed signed by a list of "16 skeptical scientists" – this has now been brought up with reference to the FAQ. For context see Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal - Forbes and Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com. . Get the Facts. . . dave souza, talk 14:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. The tags should either have the issues they refer to fixed and then the tags removed or, if they are unjustified, simply removed. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer ( talk) 21:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) There is a citation needed tag in ref #70, four verification needed tags on various references, three page needed tags on various references, a globalize banner in the Public opinion section and a dated info tag in the Particulates and soot section. There are also four untagged dead links, according to this tool. I agree that the majority of these tags are not serious by themselves, but they do seem to be starting to pile up on this article. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way:
note 43, containg a quote from Hegerl about "recent estimates", is a named ref called four times. I wonder if this quote really needs to be cited at four different places in the article. Anyone want take a look at that? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
00:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
No disrespect intended, and I may be completely off-base, but two "may"s and three "potential"s would lead the average reader to believe there's little knowledge to be gained from this rather stubby paragraph. I don't know that anything said in the feedback section can be definitely stated, but I think "possible" instead of the first "potential" is a slightly more accurate and solid word. I've researched plenty about such feedback processes; I'm sure there is some kind of consensus that they do exist to whatever degree, even though their direct impacts are unknown. The second sentence, too, reads like somewhat of a joke to me. A tipping point would, by definition, cause abrupt changes in the climate, so I don't know why the second "may/potential" is necessary at all. I would be bold and try to revamp this stuff myself, but I have no confidence that my edits would go unchallenged. Juliancolton ( talk) 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Attribution of recent climate change#Solar activity better than ...
and
99.181.139.43 ( talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
New section as #WP:DATED was getting unwieldy. To summarise: Kim D. Petersen thinks the old version was better. As of when he edited the article at 18:51, 29 January 2012, it looked like:
Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.
The current version, which I think was revised by NAEG, is as folows:
Global warming' refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, which started to increase in the late 19th century and is projected to keep going up without significant mitigation policies. Since the early 20th century, Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.
Once again, an effort by me to get the best of both wordings:
"Global warming refers to rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, both as shown in the Instrumental temperature record since around 1900, and its projected continuation upwards in future. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades. Future increases may be slowed if significant mitigation of climate change policies are successfully introduced.
I've not checked if the last point is supported by the reference. Although mitigation is discussed in the current version it's maybe a bit of a distraction. My understanding is that even anticipating extremely successful mitigation, projections still expect a long period of increasing global temperatures. Global warming might perhaps be halted in a fairly short time by some unforeseen and dramatic change in forcings, such as aerosols introduced by a sufficiently massive supervolcano or caldera eruption, nuclear war, or an asteroid impact. As such extreme circumstances cannot be foreseen, no-one's counting on them. Thus it may be best to leave out the sentence about mitigation, or expand it later in the lead. So, that's a summary of the current options, and another suggestion. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
"Global warming refers to the rise in average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans shown in the Instrumental temperature record since around 1900, and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring in the last three decades. Future increases may be slowed if significant mitigation of climate change policies are successfully introduced.
Versions using BOTH
Version using AND
Another approach - this is conceptual, and has not been wordsmithed; it is based on the opening text from 'way 'way back.
This discussion has stalled. In the meantime TS made a
reasonable change from "going up without" to "going up, in the absence of" significant mitigation policies. This prodded me to have a look at the source, which is specifically p. 15 of a National Academies report: there's no mention of mitigation on that page. As discussed above, we don't want to give the misleading impression that warming will be reversed if mitigation is introduced, so I've removed that part of the sentence. That now leaves:
Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, which started to increase in the late 19th century and is projected to keep going up.
How many feel that the proposals above are an improvement? There was some support, but then discussion diversified and stalled. . .
dave souza,
talk
21:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, there is some objection to defining GW as both past and projected in the same sentence. Here is an alternative that I think addresses those and all the other criticisms that have been raised in the past few months. I have not attempted to fully format the citations, and the last part, taken verbatim from the NASA webpage, could be wordsmithed a bit smoother.
Comments, anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I just posted my proposed text to the article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everyone: it is standard practice (I think even Kim will agree with me on this one :-) that when "et al." is used in a citation only the last name of the lead author (in some very rare cases, of the last two authors) is used; the initials are dropped. We have plenty of instances of these, but they are incorrect. I may do a mass correction. To add et al. in a citation template: I have found "|author= Jones et al." works well. "Display-authors" might also work if you want to keep all of the author metadata. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Reference lists in the natural sciences sometimes include works by numerous authors (occasionally a score or more). Furthermore, many of the authors in successive entries may be the same, though in a different order. To avoid an unwieldy string of names, and with apologies to those authors whose names are sacrificed, Chicago recommends the policy followed by the American Naturalist (see bibliog. 5): for references with ten authors or fewer, all should be listed; for references with eleven or more, only the first seven should be listed, followed by “et al.” (Where space is limited, the policy of the American Medical Association may be followed: up to six authors’ names are listed; if there are more than six, only the first three are listed, followed by “et al.”
— CMoS 15 - 17.30 Multiple authors )
I haven't looked at this page in a while, but I recall from the last time I did that most of the graphs had information from the twentieth century through the late 2000s. To make sure that I was not misremembering, I searched for more graphs, and they all looked like this. While still showing climate increase, they demonstrate that the rapid incline at the end of the twentieth century was only a brief spike that soon afterwards fell back down to slightly below average. Upon my most recent look at this page, I noticed that all of the graphs have been replaced with data that ends right before that spike fell, implying an exponential increase rather than the more gradual one. My instinct is to go looking for them through the history and restore them, but I thought there might be a good reason they had been reverted to less data. Unfortunately, I could not find the reason proposed for the removal of these graphs in the history of either the article or the talk page. Does anyone know why the presumably more accurate graphs were removed? If not, would someone with write privileges mind replacing the somewhat misleading pre-2000s graph? Either way, thanks! 98.234.186.68 ( talk) 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey sorry I have no idea how to use wikipedia, but the link used in the FAQ question on the list of skeptics compiled by various organizations is no longer functional. Please remove it:
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/about/Pages/pagenotfound.aspx/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.35.144.113 ( talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Dead link repaired. NameIsRon ( talk) 21:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Gibberish, click show to read anyway
|
---|
Nasa satellite picture in article shows warming just local and then not from CO2 but change of streamings and with -0.21° WMO/UNO datas most areas white not slight rose coloured same neutral. All exploration maxima long before 2050 oil reached about 2020 -16% 2030 -33% 2050 -60% Maxima coal 2020-2035 gas 2015-2035 but with cirrent human CO2 increase 250 years until doubled & +2°. kayuweboehm@yahoo.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.73.219 ( talk) 16:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC) |
How can one man decide what is "just plain wrong"? how can a valid theory be stricken from the record? How can censorship of good ideas be what wikipedia is about now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.244.4.66 ( talk) 06:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
As someone who was taught science and the philosophy of science, I don't mind people indulging in speculation and expressing their views. From the likes of the catholic church to climate "scientists" every group has a right to express views! That is why there's whole articles on religions and politics. But, I think we have a right to protect science and stop this kind of political POV push nonsense being called "science". It doesn't matter that this POV push is coming from the subject itself. People have views ... fine, but even if the whole world calls them a scientist, a view is a view unless it is backed by scientific proof. Science isn't a label, its a methodology and e.g. the church of scientology is science just because it has that in its name. As anyone taught science ought to know science is a simple subject with straightforward laws: you make predictions and then compare those with the actual results. If we take the key prediction of catastrophic warming it is that temperatures will rise with increased CO2. Even as a whole it has failed to predict climate since the first testable predictions were made in 2001. But this whole article is not about the 1C warming of real science. Instead it is overwhelmingly about the hysteria of massive scaled up warming from positive feedbacks.
Where is there any evidence of these positive feedbacks? The answer is that far from being evidence, if you take away the 1C trend, we have actually seen some kind of cooling over the last decade which has led to this stasis in temperature. It should be obvious even to none scientists that there is something very wrong here. Far from something adding to the basic CO2 effect, we have actually seen a cooler temperature than would be expected from real science. Even James Lovelock, inventor of Gaia has admitted something is very wrong. When even some of the strongest advocates are admitting it was wrong, it is incredible that the same unsubstantiated POV push continues to be portrayed as science.
There really are three simple choices:
The article doesn't seem to properly address the decreasing rate of change. see 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change outlining James Lovelock's view regarding the stabilization of temperatures over the last 12 years. -- Trödel 22:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some stuff like Soloman, but it was in Science Mag, which, in my view, is not the same as a peer reviewed journal. I don't have access to academic journals, but it seems likely to me that there would be articles reviewing the same data that supported the statements made in their article. The article seems to attribute the stability to the El Nino cycle, without any discussion of alternate theories, or if there are none, at least a discussion that the behavior is not completely understood. -- Trödel 21:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Nothing is certain. Scientists do not say that global warming is certain, just that all the evidence points in that direction. Sure, the article can mention that the rate appears to be slowing on the short term, though I don't know if that takes into account the last couple of years. But if we do mention we have to be careful to put it in context. After all, most of the data is ten year averages, so one fifteen year period is not strong evidence. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW.... suppose your hanging with friends in a hottub with the window cracked and winter air seeping in as the wind puffs outside. Do you and your friends argue endlessly about whether its warming or cooling too fast or too slow based on the air currents, or the water temp flowing around your tender parts? My point: Arguments about whether its warming or cooling, faster or slower, based solely on air temps are missing the point. The much more important measure is the heat sink represented by earth's oceans. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 140 quotes an article that does not support the claim made in the article and should be removed.
75.177.134.29 ( talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a geoengineering subsection in the "responses to global warming" section. The other two sections are, understandably, mitigation and adaptation. In the larger mitigation article, one of the mitigation measures is, appropriately, geoengineering. Thus, why does this one mitigation measure deserve another subsection on this article? Nicehumor ( talk) 12:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
May well be true, but does it really matter that much? William M. Connolley ( talk) 05:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I know many people who think "gee, they survive in the Sahara, so what if it gets a little warmer here? I don't like snow anyway.""Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation."
The forecast for Wednesday for Kolkata is: "Mostly cloudy in the morning, then clear. High of 41 °C with a heat index of 58 °C. Breezy. Winds from the South at 20 to 25 km/h." Count Iblis ( talk) 22:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The introduction is too long and thus potentially confusing, both to scientifically trained and casual audiences.
1. I propose starting with one sentence, and to move the rest to an introduction chapter.
2. I also propose the first sentence to be "Global warming is the observed rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and the estimated continuation of rising temperatures due to future emissions and the laws of physics." This captures a. the essence of the concept's two parts; the monitoring and the projections; and b. the quintessence of the background of the projections. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 02:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe one sentence is too short, but it is a good sentence, and might make a good first paragraph. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's give our unsigned contributor an honest answer. His argument takes this form. Scientists say that, when we flip a coin, on the average we will get half heads and half tails. But I flipped a coin ten times, and I got seven heads and three tails. This disproves the half heads, half tails theory, because it is statistically unlikely. The error, as every student of statstics knows (I wish!), is mining data for unlikely events that support your desired conclusion. Unlikely events occur. If you sort through the data looking for unlikely events, you will find them. You need to consider all of the data, not just the data you like. The overwhelming preponderence of the data shows global warming driven by man made greenhouse emissions. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the lede back to the old version. The one being proposed (which i overlooked because the proposal was without comment, and stale somewhere further up), has problems. The self-ref issue is an indication of this. The article is about the current rise - not about what it could be in other contexts. This is what we have disambiguation links for at the top of articles. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 21:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The agriculture article says that "agriculture" has a very bad negative effect in regards to climate change. This is actually very inaccurate. It should state that animal husbandry has a very bad effect on climate change, and thus the info should be available on this page aswell. This as it is one of the main reasons of production of methane gas, one of the worst GhG gases (allot more potent than CO²). In addition, I find it's useful to also mention that life in prehistoric times had allready been killed once (globally!) trough the effect of methane gas. Appearantly, the levels for this to happen were only 5x as large, excluding other gases (ie effect of CO² emissions from transport, ...) See http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-farted-their-way-to-extinction-british-scientists-say/ 91.182.243.253 ( talk) 16:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Where is "Rate this page"? Freedom Fan ( talk) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering where this paper, which deals with how variations in ozone in the lower stratosphere could be a contributory factor in global warnimg, could be worked into the article. Jprw ( talk) 13:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There is also judgment involved as for how to deal with review articles, and perhaps this is a good opportunity to raise this debate: Should all emphasis be put on the average or most likely findings, or should a certain amount of emphasis also be put on the worst available findings, in line with the precautionary principle? Narssarssuaq ( talk) 07:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)