![]() | 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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
I removed this:
While dinosaurs were around for a very long time, and could well have been so productive of greenhouse gases as to change the climate, the relevance to this article about a quite distinct episode of climate change is difficult to imagine. -- TS
Sorry, forgot to timestamp this. It was at least a day or two ago. -- TS 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Agriculture definitely is a major source of the anthropogenic component, and it's treated as such. The dinosaurs, though, aren't around to contribute to current warming. It doesn't belong in this article. -- TS 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the relationship between global cooling and global dimming discussed in the previous section is interesting, so I added a small piece of text about it. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Narssarssuaq: I have reverted your recent re-naming of the "Citations" and "References" sections. While it may seem obviously "incorrect" to you, you should keep in mind that this is not "obvious" to everyone else. Ask if you have questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
So the article feedback tool exists, and apparently there have been over 600 comments left in the article feedback for this article. Once you get through the trolling comments, there are some semi-constructive suggestions, though some are contradictory (too long vs. not enough info). One that a few mention that I think we could actually improve on is that there aren't enough pictures. We have plenty of graphs, to be sure, but there's a grand total of one explanatory graphic, and it's a bit cluttered one at that. Anyone have any ideas for better graphics we can use? Also, can anyone else find any other useful suggestions in the feedback tool we might want to use? I found two graphics from commons that might be helpful which I've placed below the fold Sailsbystars ( talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a difficult subject to encapsulate in an illustration, but I suppose we should try. Ice cores, tide gauges, Argo floats, and satellites may be among the best choices.
From Commons:
Newspapers and magazines have discovered for themselves the dangers of inappropriate use of illustrations on this topic, so great care must be taken to annotate any illustrations carefully, and to consider whether their presence could be misinterpreted. It would probably be a good idea to steer clear of animal pictures. -- TS 12:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't really like the new section. It is too much James Hansen's view William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed it. It was, for ref:
William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The current introduction does not really capture what needs to be conveyed to readers. I would like to propose the following updated lede:
"Global warming is of current interest, as concerns over climate change have shifted from a focus on global cooling in the 1970s (when NASA scientists indicated global temperatures could be reduced by 3.5°C and “trigger an ice age”) to the current focus on global warming (defined as the increase in average global temperatures of 0.74±0.18°C over the last 100 years). [3]"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138?ck=nck
If there are no objections, I would like to make this update. Peter Lemongello ( talk) 05:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's not get so involved in the exegesis of this paper we stray from the topic of what Peter wants to use it for: to slant the lede to the view that in the 1970s "NASA scientists" (all of 'em?) that we could be on the verge of triggering an ice age. By the way, has anyone read the answer to FAQ #13 recently? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There has earlier been a consensus that this article is too long. Is it time we embark on a project where it is made more concise?
This would entail three modules:
1. Deciding whether or not the article should be shortened.
2. Prudently deciding which information to retain, and
3. Copy-pasting all other information into more detailed articles, most of which already exist.
We are now in stage 1, and I think reasoned casual readers should have their say on this as well as expert editors. What is your opinion? Narssarssuaq ( talk) 16:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes the article is too long, but that suits everyone. The warmists who edit this article don't want to admit that almost everything on this page is junk and has been discredited. The sceptics are quite happy, because no one reads long articles like this and it is better the warmists were kept busy here than doing any serious damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 ( talk) 12:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Found this in Further reading on Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet ...
108.195.138.38 ( talk) 06:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
As in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.44.150 ( talk) 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Redundant postings. See
Talk:Climate_change_denial#Locate_here.3F
|
---|
|
{{
wikinews|Global warming underestimated, say scientists}}
99.112.215.152 (
talk)
09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(od) Here are its sources ...
from so-called "Long-term" effects of global warming article. 99.119.130.123 ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI I just started ANI proceeding against the IP in Michigan. Your comments in the proceeding are invited/requested. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sock trolling
|
---|
This British are now more skeptical: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/28/climate_survey_usa_uk_canada/ Let's add this reference to the "Public Opinion" section. Peter Lemongello ( talk) 05:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not quite there, I'm moving towards the view that the "opinions" section is a mistake. This article is about a scientific phenomenon, not a political question--even if it's often presented in that way by some people. The key comparator I would nominate is evolution. I think we should aim to present global warming in a very similar framework to that article. We really shouldn't pollute this article on a scientific matter with the bogus idea that uninformed or politically motivated views have any place at all. That in my opinion is a very contrary interpretation of the neutral point of view policy, and is damaging to our fundamental charge, to present the known facts with accuracy and due weight. The views of a million ignoramuses count for nothing against a single fact. -- TS 22:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(od) See Angus Reid Public Opinion article. 99.181.159.238 ( talk) 01:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC) |
If you believe this is not the best location for this question, please suggest that also.
An example "discussion" on Talk:Planet Earth: The Future.
(od) See related Talk:Climate change#terminology usage question: climate change &/or global warming? 99.181.132.75 ( talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing pointless rant per
WP:NOTSOAPBOX.
|
---|
|
Is there a separate article related to the velocity of climate change? In other words how fast is is changing and predictions on future velocity. An related example from Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet
99.181.142.87 ( talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
(od) Here is a multiple use of velocity in one article from Science News; Animals on the Move; A warming climate means shifting ranges and mixed-up relationships for a lot of species June 30th, 2012; Vol.181 #13 (p. 16) with excerpts "... the velocity one would have to move along Earth’s surface to maintain a constant local temperature. " and "... may not be able to move to new habitats fast enough to keep up with the pace at which climate change is altering local conditions (velocity of climate change is a measure of the pace required to maintain similar climatic conditions)." 99.119.130.13 ( talk) 05:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(od) What is the status on this discussion? 99.109.124.95 ( talk) 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(odd) It seems that 'velocity of global warming' would be a phrase very easily subject to misunderstanding by non-specialists. (which argues for and against inclusion.) One reason being velocity is often used as a synonym for 'speed' or 'rate' in everyday language, making it high probabile the term would be conflated with 'rate of global warm'. (again an argument both for and against inclusion) In addition because it's directional, there are scenarios where the term is inapplicable, for instances, presumably, for regions of large area and uniform current temperatures and uniform rate of warming, i.e. there is nowhere for ecosystems to migrate to. An undefined velocity or one of 0, would not mean that the historical or projected rate of warming is unknown or zero, only that for a given increase, there is no definition of the velocity. vr rm 22:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrrm ( talk • contribs)
I just added a graphic, based on IPCC AR4, showing that most of the BTUs are going into the ocean. I don't particularly like the resulting layout. Comments? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
(od) Added the graphic to Effects of global warming on oceans. 99.112.212.204 ( talk) 23:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
My account at Wikipedia is retired, but I would like to question the editors of this article very briefly. My understanding is that temperatures on Earth are well within range for the Holocene era. What seems of far greater interest is the rate of temperature change. Is the rate of temperature change over the past century well within range for the Holocene era? I have no idea what the answer is, but would think that this article should address it. If the global average surface temperature is analogous to the position of an object, then its rate of change is analogous to the speed of that object. And how about the acceleration of global temperature change? Is that within the normal range for the Holocene era? These seem like very basic questions, and it would be interesting to read the answers in this article, or at least find out why these basic questions are unanswerable according to reliable sources. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
(undent)Thanks for the reply, Rick. With all due respect to Kansas and Miami, there's a considerable difference between causing some disasters and population displacements like those of the past, versus apocalyptic warming. Also, this article already says stuff like this:
I don't think it's ever a mistake to try and put things in historical perspective. In any event, just from a pure physics standpoint, it would be much clearer if this article could plainly say that the current average global land temperature is X, its rate of increase is Y, and that increase is accelerating at rate Z. Ditto for upper ocean temperature. Anyway, I'm going to quietly slip back into retirement now. Cheers. :-) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for a good response, Anythingyouwant. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
A recent edit (re ocean acidification) prompts me to ask: do we deem Scientific American a reliable source for matters of scientific study? It is not a journal; it's a popular magazine that is aims more for "interest" than careful, comprehensive reporting of scientific developments. For any factoid mentioned there (that's not someone's unsourced opinion) there should be a source deeper in the scientific literature, which is what I think we should rely on. I didn't see anything on this in the archives. Any comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This article says that temperatures have been relatively stable from 2002 to 2009. That may true of surface atmospheric temperatures, but is it really true of ocean temperatures? I thought ocean temperatures continued their steady rise. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This should be useful in some part of the article. It discusses the standard deviation of global warming over the last century and the increase of heated extreme areas of the planet, along with how specific heat variations in specific places in 2010 and 2011 are indicative of global warming. And then it discusses the implications of all of the above. Silver seren C 00:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
So, can this be used somewhere in the article, perhaps discussing specific heat, cold, and other weather incidents in the past that this study discusses, links to global warming, and also discusses future projections of what will occur? Silver seren C 23:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I have started a new ANI regarding the Michigan global warming external link spammer. Since the current 30-day range block was put in place, this Michigan sock has engaged in 10 block-evading editing sessions (six of which were caught in time to impose short term blocks on specific IPs used). In an apparent attempt to keep a low profile, they seem to be targeting lower-traffic pages (probably not on many watchlists?). Per WP:ILLEGIT, "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart". An admin still has to push buttons to tell the server that the timer has restarted before the server erroneously allows it to expire on Sept 2. It is my belief the blocked range is for the user's home and they are slowed down now only by the inconvenience of editing elsewhere. Hopefully some interested admin will not let the 30-day range block erroneously expire on the server. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a problem with the following bit of the lede:
It's a cumbersome sentence, far too long, and is based on the findings of one paper (Warren, 2011). I also find it difficult to understand what this sentence means. What actually happens when the limits of adaptation are exceeded?
Another point is the stated 4 degree C threshold. One of the "robust findings" of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is that "Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt." This statement is more conservative than the Warren (2011) paper. Enescot ( talk) 06:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry. I just wanted to thank the editor who reversed my addition from Mitt Romney's RNC acceptance speech. This is a featured article and no place for recentisms. I was only angry because I couldn't find it in The New York Times this morning. Also thank you to Forbes for capturing the candidate in action. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I come from the Nuclear power talk page where there are some members claiming power plant heat is a considerable contributing agent to global warming. Clearly I think it's of negligible importance right now, but would like to request some mention to it be made in the article somewhere dispelling this quasi-myth.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_170.shtml If we got lots and lots of power from nuclear fission or fusion, wouldn’t this contribute to global warming, because of all the extra energy being released into the environment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This report should be studied by people who are more knowledgeable than I am and incorporate it into this article as seen fit. The first paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1841 (click on the appropriate link in the upper right for the full text) The second paper can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236 (click on the appropriate link below the abstract to read the full text) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.60.90 ( talk) 05:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I've complained about this before, but in my opinion, this article does not adequately convey the strength of evidence that there is for global warming. The article over-emphasizes the instrumental temperature record at the expense of the other lines of evidence (e.g., see instrumental temperature record#Robustness of evidence and Physical impacts of climate change#Consistency of evidence for warming. The multiple lines of evidence for global warming is emphasized in several authoritative reports: IPCC 2007, USGCRP 2009 and US NRC 2010. Enescot ( talk) 03:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This was previously settled in the introductory section of the article. The IPCC projections do not take into account any model "uncertainty". The ranges given in the projections are strictly the ranges of model projections when the models are applied to the various emission scenerios. There is plenty of model uncertainty, as a voluminous diagnostic literature documents, but none of this uncertainty taken into account in the projected ranges. If this misleading term is to stay in the article, please supply a citation to support it.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
If we want to talk about model uncertainty in this article, we could start with the correlated positive surface albedo bias documented by Andreas Roesch, the under representation of precipitation by Wentz, the suggestion that the tropical cloud feedback may be negative rather than highly positive as in the models by Lindzen, the report by Stroeve and Scambos that the models are nearly 30 years behind in their melting of the Arctic, etc.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 09:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
WMC reverts saying "Oh stop it". What does that mean? It doesn't sound substantive. This "uncertainty" is something that has crept in after being previously decided, when similar claims about model projections were made in the introduction. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 09:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This statement has to be removed "(3) any additional emissions from climate feedbacks that were not included in the models IPCC used to prepare its report, i.e., greenhouse gas releases from permafrost.[97]" because it opens the can of worms, because diagnostic errors in the models are also a source of uncertainty in the projections. what is the point in including one without the other?
We have to decide whether we want to explain the range of IPCC model projections which don't including any uncertainty, or do we want to discuss all the reasons the IPCC model projections are actually uncertain. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 16:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This section is
WP:SOAP lacking suggestion for improving the article such as draft text with citations. click show to read anyway
|
---|
We are planning to hold a party to celebrate the end of climate hysteria and the return to common sense. However we cannot find the exact time when Kyoto ends. Looking here I see that there is nothing about the end of Kyoto. As political support is almost dead in the US and fading fast throughout the west, there can be little doubt that the end of Kyoto will effectively mark the end of "global warming". However, an awful lot of people globally now need to know the exact time to celebrate. It obviously expires on the 31st December, but the exact time varies by country. Should we use:
And 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 12:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yet again editors because of their own POV have removed any discussion they dislike. Well tough! Whether you like it or not Kyoto is dead. I have searched, this nonsense about a "second phase" is just political rhetoric with no basis in substance. IT IS NOT PART OF KYOTO protocol and what agreements are in place are puny in comparison. The fact is that the Kyoto protocol ceases or as wikipedia itself says: "Because any treaty change will require the ratification of the text by various countries' legislatures before the end of the commitment period on 31 December 2012," Without treaty ratification, the Kyoto protocol is dead, and as the most iconic thing about global warming, there is no question it must be in the lede. No question to anyone with a Neutral point of View. 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 08:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I have reported the handling of this talk subject to dispute resolution because I asked for evidence that the Kyoto protocol continues after 2012. No evidence was given, instead the discussion was closed with the ridiculous tag of "soap". It appears the only soap here is those who are denying the fact that Kyoto ends this year. This seems to be a good summary "What happens when the Kyoto Protocol expires?" [6]. It says: "In this article, we'll find out why Kyoto has so far failed in its purpose, and see what type of changes might make the next agreement (which will take effect when Kyoto expires in 2012) more successful." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
|
I don't particularly like the introduction to the section on " Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)". It uses technical language like "external forcing" and "radiative forcing" without properly explaining these terms. Some guides to climate change science (e.g., the EPA website, and the USGCRP's "climate literacy" booklet) are written for the general reader, and attempt to use non-technical language. Where technical terms are used, they are explained clearly. In my opinion, this article should adopt the same approach. Enescot ( talk) 04:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Erasing the benefits is a violation of NPOV. Wikistan should not be for or against physical processes, but should simply report all RS on both sides of the issue.
An additional benefit that I neglected to list is of course that the CSA states will soon be uninhabitable, but I'm looking for a good source that shows the vast benefit this offers to all mankind. Hcobb ( talk) 22:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Both friends and foes of climate science may be interested in this discussion about Hurricane Sandy. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
(1) a poll with lots of !votes has closed in favor of retaining a separate subsection; (2) Hurricane Sandy#Relation to global warming has been extensively revised; NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel that in the "pro vs. con" questions of global warming, too many aspects get lost, because the whole subject is a very complex group of questions and responses that can't be settled with a simple "yes" or "no".
Soapish editorializing without RSs; click show to read anyway
|
---|
Among those are the following: Is there global warming occurring? (most say yes) Is it caused by human activities? (most say yes) Is it a substantial amount? (still no consensus) Are there extreme bad results for the planet from global warming? (still subject to discussion) Is it overall a bad thing or are there some benefits (could be either) Should humans try to control greenhouse gases? (subject to debate) Should there be more cost/benefit analysis of what controls are appropriate? (seems to be much disagreement there) Could some of the controls cause extreme privation to a large number of people in the world? (certainly up for discussion) ETC. |
I believe this only scratches the surface, and while some of the more obvious questions seem to be settled, according to many people, the others deserve more attention than they are getting. And I don't believe the global warming and climate change articles do nearly enough justice to these questions. An example is renewable fuels, which are hailed by many as a huge benefit for the environment, while others feel they are absolute disasters to the environment and humans in general. Why can't there be more certainty on these questions in the articles, or at least not such wishy-washy information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 ( talk) 05:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
How exactly can we belive in "Global Warming" when there is more evidence to suggest that we are decellerating ino an ice age? 76.122.76.98 ( talk) 02:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOAP; no constructive ideas for article (in fact calling for its deletion!)... Click show to read anyway
|
---|
Now that we've past the deadline for amendments of Kyoto, that we've had no warming for 14 years and not even most climate scientists believe this nonsense any longer, it is time to move on. This present article is a joke. It is about a subject that doesn't exist - even the diehards must realise that now! Obviously a lot of the material could go into other articles. Some could be written up as the "history of the 20th century global warming scare". Others could for a new article on "climate change" science including global cooling, sunspots and natural variation. But global warming there is not, and I would like to know the procedure for having a more general debate than just the few remaining editors here who really don't seem to understand the wider context. So, what is the procedure for getting a wider debate going? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 21:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Mk 70.193.192.84 ( talk) 08:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Stephen, thanks for that. Obviously this is just preparatory work as most people seem to be in denial about Kyoto ending. Looking at the list of reasons for deletion, the one that fits best is this: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The rational will be that 1) that it will be darn near impossible to find any climate research talking about "global warming" because its part of popular culture. 2) that obviously after 16 years ... it's not current. 3) And that with Kyoto commitment having ceased ... it's now all in the past both politically & scientifically. Of course, the real reason for raising this is to try to get people to think sensibly about this so that you don't suddenly wake up with Kyoto having fallen apart and a AFD notice on your life's work on this article. In other words, start talking about it now ... and you control the change, or wait till it is forced on you. It's your choice! 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 22:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I've removed what I can only describe as a ridiculous "WP:Soap". The whole point is that the article cannot be improved and should be deleted so it is just stupid to close a discussion because it: "lacks suggestions for improving the article". The whole point about this proposal is that the article cannot be improved and should be deleted, so stopping discussion on the basis that there is no proposal to improve it is tantamount to saying that no talk page can ever discuss deleting an article. |
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/data/allscen.xls Special "Maria" nonsense scenario: Primary energy coal decreasing until 2040 then rising until 2090 3*2010 production combined with oil exploration rise up to 2050 and also 2100 still higher level than today and gas production rising up to 2080 near 3*2010 and 2100 still >2*2010 production = science ? Anything realistic inside ? Before IPCC SRES scenarios link inside picture instead article link without link to base datas ?
IPPC SRES scenarios have been written with cheating late exploration maximums for oil, gas and coal up to 2100 instead oil 2011-2015 gas and coal about 2025 with coal top from china. After IPCC itself 2007 +3Gt C/a in atmosphere with 765Gt all together means 250 years until doubled with just +2° impossible with realistic exploration maximums also if all exploration doubled 125 years to hold is impossible.
Doha world climate cheating conference to be canceld also by Tuvaluo Atoll with no sea- level rise since 30 years own measurement. IPPC is not invited to unnecessary conference. http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/weltklimarat-ipcc-nicht-auf-der-doha-unep-klimakonferenz-chairman-pachauri-wir-sind-nicht-eingeladen-worden/
The share of CO2 of greenhouse effect was oftly written to high with 20% instead about 7% also the source of CO2 by desertification special sahara border increase+200km since 1970 is missed with about 10 000km sahara border length mainly rising methane see also methane map.
Global warming was near all local around arctis with +1.5-2.5° by streaming changes. Normal sea level rise was because of river & coast erosion and continental drift near nothing from ice melting or temperature expansion at all not same place like warming with deep sea never to be warmed also in tropical areas. Storms like Sandy in USA are sure not by global warming because much to less and by greenhouse gases more equal spreaded means less temperature differences for storms. Most ice is in antarctis about 90% with ice increase both sides together there. A global warming would be much more positive than negative decreasing heating and increasing rain also in desertification areas. Dangerous are ice times caused by sun cycles with -120m not cm sea level, land and sea iced all year+increased desertification but SF6 green house gas can help. But about 1 promille of F fluoride production can be changed to SF6 every year without increasing world temperature also long time today.
EU also splitted before Doha conference. Of course CO2 still rising but totally harmless. With actually most increased coal burning also more sulfide cooling. Oil rise 2011 +1.5% based 2008 +0.77% mainly because of saudi arabia but gas +3% and coal +6% with china +8.8% 49.5% share 3.5 times USA with just 35 years reserves that level and indonesia as main exporter 17 years. Values before for C in CO2 left additionally in the atmosphere. Storms like Sandy are not by just +0.53° global warming most at arctis area. Thermal energy increase is to be related to boiling point of air and only temperature differences causing storms but greenhouse gas warming is relative equal. No statistics proving any change in storm numbers with long time ago datas not secured and more chaotic up & down.
Between NASA-Goddard +0.74° and WMO +0.53° was 0.21° difference added -0.21° to NASA-Goodard additive Global Warming world map shows near only arctis area warmed. Different and unsecured non satellite base temperature times mixed with satellite datas !
This
WP:SOAP is inappropriate anywhere; Besides that this talk page is not for that article so it does not belong here for that reason too. Click show to ready anyway
|
---|
Following is a copy and past from a personal talk page. The owner of the page suggested the subject should be discussed here, instead on his personal page. MrWorshipMe ( talk) 21:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
But the preface states no such thing, MrWorshipMe. When you say the preface states something it does not, in fact, state, you weaken your argument. By the way, Dave souza, scientist do not need to be paid to hold fringe beliefs. I know an excellent nuclear physicist at Oak Ridge who believes passionately that the story of Noah's Ark is literally true, and that all the scientific evidence confirms it. Since he works in nuclear physics instead of, say, geology or biology, he is able to hold on to his beliefs while doing good science. Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC) |
As has been seen in the previous brief interglacials, the period is ending with a brief very warm period wherein peat bogs form at high latitudes to lock in carbon for an extended ice age. It appears that human activities have merely delayed and not stopped this process. "Swedish boffins: An ICE AGE is coming, only CO2 can save us."
Another ref on same, as per request. Hcobb ( talk) 19:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree the Reg is not RS but there is this related post at sciencedaily. I have not tried to get my brain around this yet. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I recently reverted an addition by NewsAndEventsGuy, who added information on a study by Fasullo and Trenberth (2012). This study tested model estimates of climate sensitivity based on their ability to reproduce observed relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics. A brief summary of the findings of this study is now contained in climate sensitivity#Other experimental estimates. Enescot ( talk) 06:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to add this reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Please add this reference, which indicates global warming stopped 16 years ago. Thanks. Junaji ( talk) 02:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you say to a teenager who thinks they are doing great financially because they have $1000 invested at 10%, and they conveniently neglect to mention they also have $20,000 of court-ordered restitution to pay at 8%? That's the sort of logic behind these disingenuous claims that global warming stopped in 1998, because that logical fallacy only looks at certain air temperature readings, instead of looking at measurements from the climate system in the big picture. Since the vast majority of heating is going into the ocean heat sink, the thing to do is to look at the heat balance of the entire climate system, which shows that despite some warm surface air temps, the Earth's overall energy budget took no special notice of 1998. In my opinion, ocean heating should be added to Faq answer #3 as the main response. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is a diff (instead of just an old version link) for what is being discussed NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this (28 October) by User:Delphi234. The edit was added to the section on "Natural systems". I thought that it would be useful to post it here for other editors to look at:
Enescot ( talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I've added this section to make it easier to cite sources on this talk page. Enescot ( talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
I have not looked at these references, because the titles tell me they are entirely beside the point. Yes, there have been ice ages in the past and will be in the future. But Miami wasn't built then. Neither was New York. Global warming is not a problem on a scale of tens of millions of years. It is a problem on a scale of the next century. If Miami is under water, it will not do us any good to think, well, an ice age will be along in another million years or so. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I've commented on this before, but I do not think the maps of annual regional emissions are suitable. The article does not explain that cumulative emissions more closely reflect a nation's contribution to global warming than annual emissions. Another issue is the suitability of these maps for people with color blindness ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color). I've checked the appearance of these maps with color removed (i.e., in greyscale), and the contrast is inadequate. This also makes the images less suitable for printout using a non-color printer. Enescot ( talk) 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've prepared a pie chart which shows annual world greenhouse gas emissions, in 2005, by sector. I would like to replace the existing world map of annual per capita emissions with this pie chart.
![]() |
![]() |
Enescot ( talk) 01:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is currently in [Preview] but will likely be free-access in a month or two. In the USA edition it starts on page 50.
Also seen on Talk:Global_warming/Archive_67#Velocity of global warming? 209.26.202.234 ( talk) 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
After reading the Q & A in the top of this talk page, I see there is a mention of objections in the scientific community to the mainstream belief. This is not shown in the preface of the subject, where it says that there is no controversy among scientists. I would like the reference to scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and to the nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and to Freeman Dyson to show on the preface instead of the sentence which negate the existence of these scientists. Also, It would be a good Idea to include this image, Where it clearly shows there is still some controversy over global warming among scientists:
It would also be nice to include references to the lectures, and interviews given by the opposing scientists on this page in a later section.
I understand some people believe these scientists to have impure motives, but since I have found no such connections myself, unless evidence is shown regarding every scientist claimed to be bribed - this notion must be regarded as a conspiracy theory, and should not be a reason to make these pesky scientists disappear. MrWorshipMe ( talk) 21:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I updated the lede passage to better capture the shift in climate science thought over the last 30 years:
I think this better captures the evolution of thought. Junaji ( talk) 04:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
One source that addresses this subject is a 2008 paper, which produced results shown graphically as follows:
For additional discussion, see this too. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that there should definitely be a new section on the conspiracy theories/ skepticism. This article appears to be bias. Also, under the "See Also" we should have a link to Climate Controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 ( talk) 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that if this article is going to take global warming, a contreversial issue, and treat it like some plain dictionary entry it should never have became a featured article- it needs to actually note that this is a theory, that while is agreed on by many scientists, is still treated with skepticism. Just as a likely theory, I don't think this is quite fact yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 ( talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This article seriously needs to be edited... it's taking this like a fact. Global warming is a controversial theory. And there isn't enough data to build too much evidence. Anything that has to do with global warming is protected... even Hurricane Sandy. Anyone hear about some of those email dumps? Any mention of conspiracy theories? And the fact that no organizations within the scientific literature oppose it? No way. There has to be at least one or two.Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 ( talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I once tried to explain the proof that the square root of two is irrational to an intelligent and learned college administrator. This proof is more than two thousand years old, involves only a few lines of very elementary mathematics, and has been understood by millions of math majors over the years. He was totally unable to understand what I was talking about. Given the inability of most people to follow even a short, simple logical argument, it should not come as a surprise that global warming deniers cannot understand scientific evidence, and cannot see how feeble the arguments against global warming are. "You cannot reason someone out of an opinion that they did not reason themselves into in the first place." Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The NOAA put out the following statement in 2008. You can find it on page 23 of its 2008 State of the Climate National Overview in 2008
Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate
This seems to me to be a succinct and very good scientific statement that gives an objective standard by which to judge if the GCM models are wonky. It also seems superior to the answer provided in FAQ question 3 above. I propose to add the NOAA statement to FAQ question 3. TMLutas ( talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a diff for the first reverted text under discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed this recent addition to the lede by User:NewsAndEventsGuy:
I don't agree that this issue should be explained like this. In my opinion, the risks of climate change should be explained in a more generalized fashion, e.g., from effects of global warming#Physical impacts: "Human-induced warming could potentially lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible (see the section on Abrupt or irreversible changes). [4] [5] The probability of warming having unforeseen consequences increases with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change." [6] See also economics of global warming#Temperature. Enescot ( talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is a diff for the second reverted text under discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
For ease of reference, the reverted text reads (or should one say "read"?) as follows:
This text was also reverted and the discussion is below NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Reflist for above:
NSDIC_permafrost_study
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Cite error: The named reference "Warren2011" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
citation}}
: Check |chapter-url=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help), in
IPCC AR4 SYR 2007 .
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)"Earth’s CO2 concentration is rapidly rising to a level not seen in ~30 to 100 million years, and Earth’s climate was extremely warm at these levels of CO2. If the world reaches such concentrations of atmospheric CO2, positive feedback processes can amplify global warming beyond current modeling estimates. The human species and global ecosystems will be placed in a climate state never before experienced in their evolutionary history and at an unprecedented rate. Note that these conclusions arise from observations from Earth’s past and not specifically from climate models."
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help)"All climate projections in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, due for release in 2013-14, are likely to be biased on the low side relative to global temperature because the models did not include the permafrost carbon feedback. Consequently, targets for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions based on these climate projections would be biased high. The treaty in negotiation sets a global target warming of 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100. If anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions targets do not account for CO2 and methane emissions from thawing permafrost, the world may overshoot this target."
-- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 06:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
As I've already stated, I do not agree with how uncertainty in the IPCC's temperature projections are discussed in the lede. One revision I've thought of is to simply move the quantitative IPCC projections from the lede to the "climate model" section, and replace them with "Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming the 21st century that would very likely be larger than that observed during the 20th century" [22]. The main text of the article has more information on the IPCC projections/feedbacks. As a result, my suggested revision would indirectly address the issue that NewsAndEventsGuy has raised. Enescot ( talk) 05:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
See the related thread below Talk:Global warming#Section on feedbacks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
This section contains useful content but I am concerned about some aspects of it. For a start, Svenmark's hypothesis gets a full paragraph, which I think is somewhat questionable. The article implicitly gives Svenmark's views considerably more weight than the extensive evidence supporting attribution to human activities (see attribution of recent climate change). Additionally, I don't see why James Hansen's views need to be mentioned. I can't see any reason why he needs to be directly quoted. Enescot ( talk) 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Shouldn't an article on global warming include this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png for reference? I'm not particularly good with editing in images and it's a touchy subject, so figured I'd see if someone more knowledgeable would help out. For the record I believe humans are definitely affecting our climate in a warming manner (...words, not good with I am). Pär Larsson ( talk) 18:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I undid this addition [25]:
I don't think that fringe views should be discussed in this top-level article. The section on "other views" already states "some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science,[194][196][197] see: list of scientists opposing global warming consensus." I've revised and moved the above edit to attribution of recent climate change. Enescot ( talk) 04:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please replace {{wict|benthic}} with [[wikt:benthic|benthic]] per WP:TFD/H 198.102.153.2 ( talk) 20:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A rant, lacking any suggestions re article.
|
---|
according to anggaosPulp and paper mills are among the worst polluters to air, water and land of any industry in the country."(Martin) It is the forth largest greenhouse gas producer in the United States. The process of making paper can be dangerous to our environment. As 'factory' is a synonyms of 'polluter', paper factory also produce pollutions. The smoke that factories release causes air pollution. The noises from working machines cause noise pollution. The waste that factories dump cause both water and land pollution. Somehow the chemicals they use in the process of production can be toxic to the environment. Both pollutions and toxic harm living things including us in many ways. Both deforestation and pollution destroy earth's ozone layer causing global warming. What if both of them are added up together? The earth is warming twice faster! Some poisonous gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are contributed to the earth's atmosphere forming greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases collects heat from the sun and prevents it from going out back to space causing the rise in temperature and the climates change. Changing in climates can be dangerous to living things. Greenhouse gases not only cause global warming but also acid rains. Water evaporated in to the atmosphere and falls down as rains when it's condensed is normal. What is not normal is that rains fall down the atmosphere through those poisonous gases resulted from pollution! It is not a very healthy environment for those who live by the factory or in the city, is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.232.214 ( talk) 07:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Discuss is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#It.27s_unethical_to_list_some_group_of_people_who_have_certain_views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Should we update the link?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
66.74.145.42 ( talk) 08:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This new graph has no 'graph paper' lines, or ticks on the axes, so you can't read figures from it. Also, Wikipedia's SVG -> PNG rendering engine seems to have no idea how to space the characters in the text. The new image has large white borders that further shrink the useful information at thumbnail size. Overall, not an improvement at this level of quality. Compare NASA's original with our version. -- Nigelj ( talk) 19:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the "feedbacks" section of the article would benefit from revision. In particular, I'm concerned about how the section describes carbon cycle feedbacks. It makes some pretty bold statements, and implies that the IPCC's projections are biased downwards. While this may reflect the view of some experts, I am not convinced that it reflects a consensus view.
There is also the issue of how much space is devoted to carbon cycle feedbacks in relation to other important feedbacks. For example, refer to these summaries by the UK Royal Society (pp8-10) and US National Research Council pp26-27 p200. Carbon cycle feedbacks are not the only factor that affect projections of future climate change. The water vapor feedback is important, yet it gets very little space. The same is true of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
There is very little information on abrupt or large-scale changes in climate system. This issue has featured in the IPCC reports [27] [28] [29] and other assessments [30]. I think that this article should provide a better summary of the issue. Enescot ( talk) 04:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Since I have not found the time to return to this, I have no additional comments.... and I don't expect to be around much for some months, either. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we mention Alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol and successor in the section on politics ? That page mentions some political/juridical changes, different from the Kyoto protocol. 109.133.115.188 ( talk) 10:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
There is some research into what effects Native Americans may have had on the atmosphere due to deforestation across North America and such before the, uh, colonization of the Americas. It's considered possible that global warming could have started earlier if it, wasn't for the genocide and taking over of land and so on that had the effect of slowing down deforestation....would that belong on this article? There's not really a history section.-- occono ( talk) 20:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have AFD'd Early anthropocene due to it being a textbook POVFORK split off from Anthropocene. Comments welcome at the AFD discussion page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
By editor agreement, this discussion has moved to
Talk:Effects of global warming (click show to read anyway)
|
---|
![]() Droughts are becoming more frequent and intense in arid and semiarid western North America as temperatures have been rising, advancing the timing and magnitude of spring snow melt floods and reducing river flow volume in summer. Direct effects of climate change include increased heat and water stress, altered crop phenology, and disrupted symbiotic interactions. These effects may be exacerbated by climate changes in river flow, and the combined effects are likely to reduce the abundance of native trees in favor of non-native herbaceous and drought-tolerant competitors, reduce the habitat quality for many native animals, and slow litter decomposition and nutrient cycling. Climate change effects on human water demand and irrigation may intensify these effects. [5] By 2012, North American corn prices had risen to a record $8.34 per bushel in August, leaving 20 of the 211 U.S. ethanol fuel plants idle. [6]
|
After a lengthy discussion at Talk:Effects of global warming#North American drought and corn prices, I have made an edit to that article which I believe addresses all of the concerns raised and propose for here because the price spike of the largest crop of the largest economy is central to the general issue of global warming, far more than the discussion in this article's "Food security" section, which describes relatively mild 2007 projections already overtaken by observed declines in crop production. Neo Poz ( talk) 05:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
A further refinement has stood at the Effects article addressing the globalization problems with the earlier version for a few days now without any discussion. I think it is appropriate for this article, but I want to give it at least a few more days from now. Neo Poz ( talk) 03:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This came up in a tangental discussion about an article for which it really isn't directly applicable, and I'd like to know where editors think it is most appropriate to include. [31] shows that IPCC projections have underestimated emissions, temperature, Arctic sea ice loss, Greenland and Antarctica glacier loss, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and thawing tundra. Neo Poz ( talk) 23:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the "geoengineering" section. I think that geoengineering is an important subject and should be mentioned in this article. In my opinion, the section could probably be improved (compare with [41] [42] [43]). For example, the risk of negative impacts from geoengineering is not mentioned. Another problem with geoengineering is the lack of international regulation. International regulation is needed because if one country implements geoengineering, other countries may also be affected. Enescot ( talk) 06:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I too was initially under the impression that GeoEng was essentially a subset of mitigation, but then the defn we give here (The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere) doesn't cover cloud-brightening, say. Can we perhaps agree whether GeoEng is a subset of Mitigation, or not? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | 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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
I removed this:
While dinosaurs were around for a very long time, and could well have been so productive of greenhouse gases as to change the climate, the relevance to this article about a quite distinct episode of climate change is difficult to imagine. -- TS
Sorry, forgot to timestamp this. It was at least a day or two ago. -- TS 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Agriculture definitely is a major source of the anthropogenic component, and it's treated as such. The dinosaurs, though, aren't around to contribute to current warming. It doesn't belong in this article. -- TS 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the relationship between global cooling and global dimming discussed in the previous section is interesting, so I added a small piece of text about it. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Narssarssuaq: I have reverted your recent re-naming of the "Citations" and "References" sections. While it may seem obviously "incorrect" to you, you should keep in mind that this is not "obvious" to everyone else. Ask if you have questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
So the article feedback tool exists, and apparently there have been over 600 comments left in the article feedback for this article. Once you get through the trolling comments, there are some semi-constructive suggestions, though some are contradictory (too long vs. not enough info). One that a few mention that I think we could actually improve on is that there aren't enough pictures. We have plenty of graphs, to be sure, but there's a grand total of one explanatory graphic, and it's a bit cluttered one at that. Anyone have any ideas for better graphics we can use? Also, can anyone else find any other useful suggestions in the feedback tool we might want to use? I found two graphics from commons that might be helpful which I've placed below the fold Sailsbystars ( talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a difficult subject to encapsulate in an illustration, but I suppose we should try. Ice cores, tide gauges, Argo floats, and satellites may be among the best choices.
From Commons:
Newspapers and magazines have discovered for themselves the dangers of inappropriate use of illustrations on this topic, so great care must be taken to annotate any illustrations carefully, and to consider whether their presence could be misinterpreted. It would probably be a good idea to steer clear of animal pictures. -- TS 12:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't really like the new section. It is too much James Hansen's view William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed it. It was, for ref:
William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The current introduction does not really capture what needs to be conveyed to readers. I would like to propose the following updated lede:
"Global warming is of current interest, as concerns over climate change have shifted from a focus on global cooling in the 1970s (when NASA scientists indicated global temperatures could be reduced by 3.5°C and “trigger an ice age”) to the current focus on global warming (defined as the increase in average global temperatures of 0.74±0.18°C over the last 100 years). [3]"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138?ck=nck
If there are no objections, I would like to make this update. Peter Lemongello ( talk) 05:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's not get so involved in the exegesis of this paper we stray from the topic of what Peter wants to use it for: to slant the lede to the view that in the 1970s "NASA scientists" (all of 'em?) that we could be on the verge of triggering an ice age. By the way, has anyone read the answer to FAQ #13 recently? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There has earlier been a consensus that this article is too long. Is it time we embark on a project where it is made more concise?
This would entail three modules:
1. Deciding whether or not the article should be shortened.
2. Prudently deciding which information to retain, and
3. Copy-pasting all other information into more detailed articles, most of which already exist.
We are now in stage 1, and I think reasoned casual readers should have their say on this as well as expert editors. What is your opinion? Narssarssuaq ( talk) 16:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes the article is too long, but that suits everyone. The warmists who edit this article don't want to admit that almost everything on this page is junk and has been discredited. The sceptics are quite happy, because no one reads long articles like this and it is better the warmists were kept busy here than doing any serious damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 ( talk) 12:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Found this in Further reading on Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet ...
108.195.138.38 ( talk) 06:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
As in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.44.150 ( talk) 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Redundant postings. See
Talk:Climate_change_denial#Locate_here.3F
|
---|
|
{{
wikinews|Global warming underestimated, say scientists}}
99.112.215.152 (
talk)
09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(od) Here are its sources ...
from so-called "Long-term" effects of global warming article. 99.119.130.123 ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI I just started ANI proceeding against the IP in Michigan. Your comments in the proceeding are invited/requested. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sock trolling
|
---|
This British are now more skeptical: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/28/climate_survey_usa_uk_canada/ Let's add this reference to the "Public Opinion" section. Peter Lemongello ( talk) 05:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not quite there, I'm moving towards the view that the "opinions" section is a mistake. This article is about a scientific phenomenon, not a political question--even if it's often presented in that way by some people. The key comparator I would nominate is evolution. I think we should aim to present global warming in a very similar framework to that article. We really shouldn't pollute this article on a scientific matter with the bogus idea that uninformed or politically motivated views have any place at all. That in my opinion is a very contrary interpretation of the neutral point of view policy, and is damaging to our fundamental charge, to present the known facts with accuracy and due weight. The views of a million ignoramuses count for nothing against a single fact. -- TS 22:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(od) See Angus Reid Public Opinion article. 99.181.159.238 ( talk) 01:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC) |
If you believe this is not the best location for this question, please suggest that also.
An example "discussion" on Talk:Planet Earth: The Future.
(od) See related Talk:Climate change#terminology usage question: climate change &/or global warming? 99.181.132.75 ( talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing pointless rant per
WP:NOTSOAPBOX.
|
---|
|
Is there a separate article related to the velocity of climate change? In other words how fast is is changing and predictions on future velocity. An related example from Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet
99.181.142.87 ( talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
(od) Here is a multiple use of velocity in one article from Science News; Animals on the Move; A warming climate means shifting ranges and mixed-up relationships for a lot of species June 30th, 2012; Vol.181 #13 (p. 16) with excerpts "... the velocity one would have to move along Earth’s surface to maintain a constant local temperature. " and "... may not be able to move to new habitats fast enough to keep up with the pace at which climate change is altering local conditions (velocity of climate change is a measure of the pace required to maintain similar climatic conditions)." 99.119.130.13 ( talk) 05:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(od) What is the status on this discussion? 99.109.124.95 ( talk) 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(odd) It seems that 'velocity of global warming' would be a phrase very easily subject to misunderstanding by non-specialists. (which argues for and against inclusion.) One reason being velocity is often used as a synonym for 'speed' or 'rate' in everyday language, making it high probabile the term would be conflated with 'rate of global warm'. (again an argument both for and against inclusion) In addition because it's directional, there are scenarios where the term is inapplicable, for instances, presumably, for regions of large area and uniform current temperatures and uniform rate of warming, i.e. there is nowhere for ecosystems to migrate to. An undefined velocity or one of 0, would not mean that the historical or projected rate of warming is unknown or zero, only that for a given increase, there is no definition of the velocity. vr rm 22:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrrm ( talk • contribs)
I just added a graphic, based on IPCC AR4, showing that most of the BTUs are going into the ocean. I don't particularly like the resulting layout. Comments? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
(od) Added the graphic to Effects of global warming on oceans. 99.112.212.204 ( talk) 23:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
My account at Wikipedia is retired, but I would like to question the editors of this article very briefly. My understanding is that temperatures on Earth are well within range for the Holocene era. What seems of far greater interest is the rate of temperature change. Is the rate of temperature change over the past century well within range for the Holocene era? I have no idea what the answer is, but would think that this article should address it. If the global average surface temperature is analogous to the position of an object, then its rate of change is analogous to the speed of that object. And how about the acceleration of global temperature change? Is that within the normal range for the Holocene era? These seem like very basic questions, and it would be interesting to read the answers in this article, or at least find out why these basic questions are unanswerable according to reliable sources. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
(undent)Thanks for the reply, Rick. With all due respect to Kansas and Miami, there's a considerable difference between causing some disasters and population displacements like those of the past, versus apocalyptic warming. Also, this article already says stuff like this:
I don't think it's ever a mistake to try and put things in historical perspective. In any event, just from a pure physics standpoint, it would be much clearer if this article could plainly say that the current average global land temperature is X, its rate of increase is Y, and that increase is accelerating at rate Z. Ditto for upper ocean temperature. Anyway, I'm going to quietly slip back into retirement now. Cheers. :-) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for a good response, Anythingyouwant. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
A recent edit (re ocean acidification) prompts me to ask: do we deem Scientific American a reliable source for matters of scientific study? It is not a journal; it's a popular magazine that is aims more for "interest" than careful, comprehensive reporting of scientific developments. For any factoid mentioned there (that's not someone's unsourced opinion) there should be a source deeper in the scientific literature, which is what I think we should rely on. I didn't see anything on this in the archives. Any comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This article says that temperatures have been relatively stable from 2002 to 2009. That may true of surface atmospheric temperatures, but is it really true of ocean temperatures? I thought ocean temperatures continued their steady rise. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This should be useful in some part of the article. It discusses the standard deviation of global warming over the last century and the increase of heated extreme areas of the planet, along with how specific heat variations in specific places in 2010 and 2011 are indicative of global warming. And then it discusses the implications of all of the above. Silver seren C 00:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
So, can this be used somewhere in the article, perhaps discussing specific heat, cold, and other weather incidents in the past that this study discusses, links to global warming, and also discusses future projections of what will occur? Silver seren C 23:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I have started a new ANI regarding the Michigan global warming external link spammer. Since the current 30-day range block was put in place, this Michigan sock has engaged in 10 block-evading editing sessions (six of which were caught in time to impose short term blocks on specific IPs used). In an apparent attempt to keep a low profile, they seem to be targeting lower-traffic pages (probably not on many watchlists?). Per WP:ILLEGIT, "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart". An admin still has to push buttons to tell the server that the timer has restarted before the server erroneously allows it to expire on Sept 2. It is my belief the blocked range is for the user's home and they are slowed down now only by the inconvenience of editing elsewhere. Hopefully some interested admin will not let the 30-day range block erroneously expire on the server. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a problem with the following bit of the lede:
It's a cumbersome sentence, far too long, and is based on the findings of one paper (Warren, 2011). I also find it difficult to understand what this sentence means. What actually happens when the limits of adaptation are exceeded?
Another point is the stated 4 degree C threshold. One of the "robust findings" of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is that "Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt." This statement is more conservative than the Warren (2011) paper. Enescot ( talk) 06:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry. I just wanted to thank the editor who reversed my addition from Mitt Romney's RNC acceptance speech. This is a featured article and no place for recentisms. I was only angry because I couldn't find it in The New York Times this morning. Also thank you to Forbes for capturing the candidate in action. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I come from the Nuclear power talk page where there are some members claiming power plant heat is a considerable contributing agent to global warming. Clearly I think it's of negligible importance right now, but would like to request some mention to it be made in the article somewhere dispelling this quasi-myth.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_170.shtml If we got lots and lots of power from nuclear fission or fusion, wouldn’t this contribute to global warming, because of all the extra energy being released into the environment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This report should be studied by people who are more knowledgeable than I am and incorporate it into this article as seen fit. The first paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1841 (click on the appropriate link in the upper right for the full text) The second paper can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236 (click on the appropriate link below the abstract to read the full text) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.60.90 ( talk) 05:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I've complained about this before, but in my opinion, this article does not adequately convey the strength of evidence that there is for global warming. The article over-emphasizes the instrumental temperature record at the expense of the other lines of evidence (e.g., see instrumental temperature record#Robustness of evidence and Physical impacts of climate change#Consistency of evidence for warming. The multiple lines of evidence for global warming is emphasized in several authoritative reports: IPCC 2007, USGCRP 2009 and US NRC 2010. Enescot ( talk) 03:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This was previously settled in the introductory section of the article. The IPCC projections do not take into account any model "uncertainty". The ranges given in the projections are strictly the ranges of model projections when the models are applied to the various emission scenerios. There is plenty of model uncertainty, as a voluminous diagnostic literature documents, but none of this uncertainty taken into account in the projected ranges. If this misleading term is to stay in the article, please supply a citation to support it.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
If we want to talk about model uncertainty in this article, we could start with the correlated positive surface albedo bias documented by Andreas Roesch, the under representation of precipitation by Wentz, the suggestion that the tropical cloud feedback may be negative rather than highly positive as in the models by Lindzen, the report by Stroeve and Scambos that the models are nearly 30 years behind in their melting of the Arctic, etc.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 09:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
WMC reverts saying "Oh stop it". What does that mean? It doesn't sound substantive. This "uncertainty" is something that has crept in after being previously decided, when similar claims about model projections were made in the introduction. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 09:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This statement has to be removed "(3) any additional emissions from climate feedbacks that were not included in the models IPCC used to prepare its report, i.e., greenhouse gas releases from permafrost.[97]" because it opens the can of worms, because diagnostic errors in the models are also a source of uncertainty in the projections. what is the point in including one without the other?
We have to decide whether we want to explain the range of IPCC model projections which don't including any uncertainty, or do we want to discuss all the reasons the IPCC model projections are actually uncertain. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 16:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This section is
WP:SOAP lacking suggestion for improving the article such as draft text with citations. click show to read anyway
|
---|
We are planning to hold a party to celebrate the end of climate hysteria and the return to common sense. However we cannot find the exact time when Kyoto ends. Looking here I see that there is nothing about the end of Kyoto. As political support is almost dead in the US and fading fast throughout the west, there can be little doubt that the end of Kyoto will effectively mark the end of "global warming". However, an awful lot of people globally now need to know the exact time to celebrate. It obviously expires on the 31st December, but the exact time varies by country. Should we use:
And 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 12:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yet again editors because of their own POV have removed any discussion they dislike. Well tough! Whether you like it or not Kyoto is dead. I have searched, this nonsense about a "second phase" is just political rhetoric with no basis in substance. IT IS NOT PART OF KYOTO protocol and what agreements are in place are puny in comparison. The fact is that the Kyoto protocol ceases or as wikipedia itself says: "Because any treaty change will require the ratification of the text by various countries' legislatures before the end of the commitment period on 31 December 2012," Without treaty ratification, the Kyoto protocol is dead, and as the most iconic thing about global warming, there is no question it must be in the lede. No question to anyone with a Neutral point of View. 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 08:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I have reported the handling of this talk subject to dispute resolution because I asked for evidence that the Kyoto protocol continues after 2012. No evidence was given, instead the discussion was closed with the ridiculous tag of "soap". It appears the only soap here is those who are denying the fact that Kyoto ends this year. This seems to be a good summary "What happens when the Kyoto Protocol expires?" [6]. It says: "In this article, we'll find out why Kyoto has so far failed in its purpose, and see what type of changes might make the next agreement (which will take effect when Kyoto expires in 2012) more successful." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
|
I don't particularly like the introduction to the section on " Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)". It uses technical language like "external forcing" and "radiative forcing" without properly explaining these terms. Some guides to climate change science (e.g., the EPA website, and the USGCRP's "climate literacy" booklet) are written for the general reader, and attempt to use non-technical language. Where technical terms are used, they are explained clearly. In my opinion, this article should adopt the same approach. Enescot ( talk) 04:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Erasing the benefits is a violation of NPOV. Wikistan should not be for or against physical processes, but should simply report all RS on both sides of the issue.
An additional benefit that I neglected to list is of course that the CSA states will soon be uninhabitable, but I'm looking for a good source that shows the vast benefit this offers to all mankind. Hcobb ( talk) 22:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Both friends and foes of climate science may be interested in this discussion about Hurricane Sandy. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
(1) a poll with lots of !votes has closed in favor of retaining a separate subsection; (2) Hurricane Sandy#Relation to global warming has been extensively revised; NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel that in the "pro vs. con" questions of global warming, too many aspects get lost, because the whole subject is a very complex group of questions and responses that can't be settled with a simple "yes" or "no".
Soapish editorializing without RSs; click show to read anyway
|
---|
Among those are the following: Is there global warming occurring? (most say yes) Is it caused by human activities? (most say yes) Is it a substantial amount? (still no consensus) Are there extreme bad results for the planet from global warming? (still subject to discussion) Is it overall a bad thing or are there some benefits (could be either) Should humans try to control greenhouse gases? (subject to debate) Should there be more cost/benefit analysis of what controls are appropriate? (seems to be much disagreement there) Could some of the controls cause extreme privation to a large number of people in the world? (certainly up for discussion) ETC. |
I believe this only scratches the surface, and while some of the more obvious questions seem to be settled, according to many people, the others deserve more attention than they are getting. And I don't believe the global warming and climate change articles do nearly enough justice to these questions. An example is renewable fuels, which are hailed by many as a huge benefit for the environment, while others feel they are absolute disasters to the environment and humans in general. Why can't there be more certainty on these questions in the articles, or at least not such wishy-washy information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 ( talk) 05:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
How exactly can we belive in "Global Warming" when there is more evidence to suggest that we are decellerating ino an ice age? 76.122.76.98 ( talk) 02:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOAP; no constructive ideas for article (in fact calling for its deletion!)... Click show to read anyway
|
---|
Now that we've past the deadline for amendments of Kyoto, that we've had no warming for 14 years and not even most climate scientists believe this nonsense any longer, it is time to move on. This present article is a joke. It is about a subject that doesn't exist - even the diehards must realise that now! Obviously a lot of the material could go into other articles. Some could be written up as the "history of the 20th century global warming scare". Others could for a new article on "climate change" science including global cooling, sunspots and natural variation. But global warming there is not, and I would like to know the procedure for having a more general debate than just the few remaining editors here who really don't seem to understand the wider context. So, what is the procedure for getting a wider debate going? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 21:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Mk 70.193.192.84 ( talk) 08:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Stephen, thanks for that. Obviously this is just preparatory work as most people seem to be in denial about Kyoto ending. Looking at the list of reasons for deletion, the one that fits best is this: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The rational will be that 1) that it will be darn near impossible to find any climate research talking about "global warming" because its part of popular culture. 2) that obviously after 16 years ... it's not current. 3) And that with Kyoto commitment having ceased ... it's now all in the past both politically & scientifically. Of course, the real reason for raising this is to try to get people to think sensibly about this so that you don't suddenly wake up with Kyoto having fallen apart and a AFD notice on your life's work on this article. In other words, start talking about it now ... and you control the change, or wait till it is forced on you. It's your choice! 82.14.206.26 ( talk) 22:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I've removed what I can only describe as a ridiculous "WP:Soap". The whole point is that the article cannot be improved and should be deleted so it is just stupid to close a discussion because it: "lacks suggestions for improving the article". The whole point about this proposal is that the article cannot be improved and should be deleted, so stopping discussion on the basis that there is no proposal to improve it is tantamount to saying that no talk page can ever discuss deleting an article. |
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/data/allscen.xls Special "Maria" nonsense scenario: Primary energy coal decreasing until 2040 then rising until 2090 3*2010 production combined with oil exploration rise up to 2050 and also 2100 still higher level than today and gas production rising up to 2080 near 3*2010 and 2100 still >2*2010 production = science ? Anything realistic inside ? Before IPCC SRES scenarios link inside picture instead article link without link to base datas ?
IPPC SRES scenarios have been written with cheating late exploration maximums for oil, gas and coal up to 2100 instead oil 2011-2015 gas and coal about 2025 with coal top from china. After IPCC itself 2007 +3Gt C/a in atmosphere with 765Gt all together means 250 years until doubled with just +2° impossible with realistic exploration maximums also if all exploration doubled 125 years to hold is impossible.
Doha world climate cheating conference to be canceld also by Tuvaluo Atoll with no sea- level rise since 30 years own measurement. IPPC is not invited to unnecessary conference. http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/weltklimarat-ipcc-nicht-auf-der-doha-unep-klimakonferenz-chairman-pachauri-wir-sind-nicht-eingeladen-worden/
The share of CO2 of greenhouse effect was oftly written to high with 20% instead about 7% also the source of CO2 by desertification special sahara border increase+200km since 1970 is missed with about 10 000km sahara border length mainly rising methane see also methane map.
Global warming was near all local around arctis with +1.5-2.5° by streaming changes. Normal sea level rise was because of river & coast erosion and continental drift near nothing from ice melting or temperature expansion at all not same place like warming with deep sea never to be warmed also in tropical areas. Storms like Sandy in USA are sure not by global warming because much to less and by greenhouse gases more equal spreaded means less temperature differences for storms. Most ice is in antarctis about 90% with ice increase both sides together there. A global warming would be much more positive than negative decreasing heating and increasing rain also in desertification areas. Dangerous are ice times caused by sun cycles with -120m not cm sea level, land and sea iced all year+increased desertification but SF6 green house gas can help. But about 1 promille of F fluoride production can be changed to SF6 every year without increasing world temperature also long time today.
EU also splitted before Doha conference. Of course CO2 still rising but totally harmless. With actually most increased coal burning also more sulfide cooling. Oil rise 2011 +1.5% based 2008 +0.77% mainly because of saudi arabia but gas +3% and coal +6% with china +8.8% 49.5% share 3.5 times USA with just 35 years reserves that level and indonesia as main exporter 17 years. Values before for C in CO2 left additionally in the atmosphere. Storms like Sandy are not by just +0.53° global warming most at arctis area. Thermal energy increase is to be related to boiling point of air and only temperature differences causing storms but greenhouse gas warming is relative equal. No statistics proving any change in storm numbers with long time ago datas not secured and more chaotic up & down.
Between NASA-Goddard +0.74° and WMO +0.53° was 0.21° difference added -0.21° to NASA-Goodard additive Global Warming world map shows near only arctis area warmed. Different and unsecured non satellite base temperature times mixed with satellite datas !
This
WP:SOAP is inappropriate anywhere; Besides that this talk page is not for that article so it does not belong here for that reason too. Click show to ready anyway
|
---|
Following is a copy and past from a personal talk page. The owner of the page suggested the subject should be discussed here, instead on his personal page. MrWorshipMe ( talk) 21:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
But the preface states no such thing, MrWorshipMe. When you say the preface states something it does not, in fact, state, you weaken your argument. By the way, Dave souza, scientist do not need to be paid to hold fringe beliefs. I know an excellent nuclear physicist at Oak Ridge who believes passionately that the story of Noah's Ark is literally true, and that all the scientific evidence confirms it. Since he works in nuclear physics instead of, say, geology or biology, he is able to hold on to his beliefs while doing good science. Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC) |
As has been seen in the previous brief interglacials, the period is ending with a brief very warm period wherein peat bogs form at high latitudes to lock in carbon for an extended ice age. It appears that human activities have merely delayed and not stopped this process. "Swedish boffins: An ICE AGE is coming, only CO2 can save us."
Another ref on same, as per request. Hcobb ( talk) 19:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree the Reg is not RS but there is this related post at sciencedaily. I have not tried to get my brain around this yet. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I recently reverted an addition by NewsAndEventsGuy, who added information on a study by Fasullo and Trenberth (2012). This study tested model estimates of climate sensitivity based on their ability to reproduce observed relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics. A brief summary of the findings of this study is now contained in climate sensitivity#Other experimental estimates. Enescot ( talk) 06:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to add this reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Please add this reference, which indicates global warming stopped 16 years ago. Thanks. Junaji ( talk) 02:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you say to a teenager who thinks they are doing great financially because they have $1000 invested at 10%, and they conveniently neglect to mention they also have $20,000 of court-ordered restitution to pay at 8%? That's the sort of logic behind these disingenuous claims that global warming stopped in 1998, because that logical fallacy only looks at certain air temperature readings, instead of looking at measurements from the climate system in the big picture. Since the vast majority of heating is going into the ocean heat sink, the thing to do is to look at the heat balance of the entire climate system, which shows that despite some warm surface air temps, the Earth's overall energy budget took no special notice of 1998. In my opinion, ocean heating should be added to Faq answer #3 as the main response. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is a diff (instead of just an old version link) for what is being discussed NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this (28 October) by User:Delphi234. The edit was added to the section on "Natural systems". I thought that it would be useful to post it here for other editors to look at:
Enescot ( talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I've added this section to make it easier to cite sources on this talk page. Enescot ( talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
I have not looked at these references, because the titles tell me they are entirely beside the point. Yes, there have been ice ages in the past and will be in the future. But Miami wasn't built then. Neither was New York. Global warming is not a problem on a scale of tens of millions of years. It is a problem on a scale of the next century. If Miami is under water, it will not do us any good to think, well, an ice age will be along in another million years or so. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I've commented on this before, but I do not think the maps of annual regional emissions are suitable. The article does not explain that cumulative emissions more closely reflect a nation's contribution to global warming than annual emissions. Another issue is the suitability of these maps for people with color blindness ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color). I've checked the appearance of these maps with color removed (i.e., in greyscale), and the contrast is inadequate. This also makes the images less suitable for printout using a non-color printer. Enescot ( talk) 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've prepared a pie chart which shows annual world greenhouse gas emissions, in 2005, by sector. I would like to replace the existing world map of annual per capita emissions with this pie chart.
![]() |
![]() |
Enescot ( talk) 01:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is currently in [Preview] but will likely be free-access in a month or two. In the USA edition it starts on page 50.
Also seen on Talk:Global_warming/Archive_67#Velocity of global warming? 209.26.202.234 ( talk) 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
After reading the Q & A in the top of this talk page, I see there is a mention of objections in the scientific community to the mainstream belief. This is not shown in the preface of the subject, where it says that there is no controversy among scientists. I would like the reference to scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and to the nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and to Freeman Dyson to show on the preface instead of the sentence which negate the existence of these scientists. Also, It would be a good Idea to include this image, Where it clearly shows there is still some controversy over global warming among scientists:
It would also be nice to include references to the lectures, and interviews given by the opposing scientists on this page in a later section.
I understand some people believe these scientists to have impure motives, but since I have found no such connections myself, unless evidence is shown regarding every scientist claimed to be bribed - this notion must be regarded as a conspiracy theory, and should not be a reason to make these pesky scientists disappear. MrWorshipMe ( talk) 21:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I updated the lede passage to better capture the shift in climate science thought over the last 30 years:
I think this better captures the evolution of thought. Junaji ( talk) 04:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
One source that addresses this subject is a 2008 paper, which produced results shown graphically as follows:
For additional discussion, see this too. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that there should definitely be a new section on the conspiracy theories/ skepticism. This article appears to be bias. Also, under the "See Also" we should have a link to Climate Controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 ( talk) 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that if this article is going to take global warming, a contreversial issue, and treat it like some plain dictionary entry it should never have became a featured article- it needs to actually note that this is a theory, that while is agreed on by many scientists, is still treated with skepticism. Just as a likely theory, I don't think this is quite fact yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 ( talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This article seriously needs to be edited... it's taking this like a fact. Global warming is a controversial theory. And there isn't enough data to build too much evidence. Anything that has to do with global warming is protected... even Hurricane Sandy. Anyone hear about some of those email dumps? Any mention of conspiracy theories? And the fact that no organizations within the scientific literature oppose it? No way. There has to be at least one or two.Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 ( talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I once tried to explain the proof that the square root of two is irrational to an intelligent and learned college administrator. This proof is more than two thousand years old, involves only a few lines of very elementary mathematics, and has been understood by millions of math majors over the years. He was totally unable to understand what I was talking about. Given the inability of most people to follow even a short, simple logical argument, it should not come as a surprise that global warming deniers cannot understand scientific evidence, and cannot see how feeble the arguments against global warming are. "You cannot reason someone out of an opinion that they did not reason themselves into in the first place." Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The NOAA put out the following statement in 2008. You can find it on page 23 of its 2008 State of the Climate National Overview in 2008
Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate
This seems to me to be a succinct and very good scientific statement that gives an objective standard by which to judge if the GCM models are wonky. It also seems superior to the answer provided in FAQ question 3 above. I propose to add the NOAA statement to FAQ question 3. TMLutas ( talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a diff for the first reverted text under discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed this recent addition to the lede by User:NewsAndEventsGuy:
I don't agree that this issue should be explained like this. In my opinion, the risks of climate change should be explained in a more generalized fashion, e.g., from effects of global warming#Physical impacts: "Human-induced warming could potentially lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible (see the section on Abrupt or irreversible changes). [4] [5] The probability of warming having unforeseen consequences increases with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change." [6] See also economics of global warming#Temperature. Enescot ( talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is a diff for the second reverted text under discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
For ease of reference, the reverted text reads (or should one say "read"?) as follows:
This text was also reverted and the discussion is below NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Reflist for above:
NSDIC_permafrost_study
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Cite error: The named reference "Warren2011" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
citation}}
: Check |chapter-url=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help), in
IPCC AR4 SYR 2007 .
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)"Earth’s CO2 concentration is rapidly rising to a level not seen in ~30 to 100 million years, and Earth’s climate was extremely warm at these levels of CO2. If the world reaches such concentrations of atmospheric CO2, positive feedback processes can amplify global warming beyond current modeling estimates. The human species and global ecosystems will be placed in a climate state never before experienced in their evolutionary history and at an unprecedented rate. Note that these conclusions arise from observations from Earth’s past and not specifically from climate models."
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help)"All climate projections in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, due for release in 2013-14, are likely to be biased on the low side relative to global temperature because the models did not include the permafrost carbon feedback. Consequently, targets for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions based on these climate projections would be biased high. The treaty in negotiation sets a global target warming of 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100. If anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions targets do not account for CO2 and methane emissions from thawing permafrost, the world may overshoot this target."
-- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 06:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
As I've already stated, I do not agree with how uncertainty in the IPCC's temperature projections are discussed in the lede. One revision I've thought of is to simply move the quantitative IPCC projections from the lede to the "climate model" section, and replace them with "Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming the 21st century that would very likely be larger than that observed during the 20th century" [22]. The main text of the article has more information on the IPCC projections/feedbacks. As a result, my suggested revision would indirectly address the issue that NewsAndEventsGuy has raised. Enescot ( talk) 05:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
See the related thread below Talk:Global warming#Section on feedbacks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
This section contains useful content but I am concerned about some aspects of it. For a start, Svenmark's hypothesis gets a full paragraph, which I think is somewhat questionable. The article implicitly gives Svenmark's views considerably more weight than the extensive evidence supporting attribution to human activities (see attribution of recent climate change). Additionally, I don't see why James Hansen's views need to be mentioned. I can't see any reason why he needs to be directly quoted. Enescot ( talk) 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Shouldn't an article on global warming include this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png for reference? I'm not particularly good with editing in images and it's a touchy subject, so figured I'd see if someone more knowledgeable would help out. For the record I believe humans are definitely affecting our climate in a warming manner (...words, not good with I am). Pär Larsson ( talk) 18:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I undid this addition [25]:
I don't think that fringe views should be discussed in this top-level article. The section on "other views" already states "some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science,[194][196][197] see: list of scientists opposing global warming consensus." I've revised and moved the above edit to attribution of recent climate change. Enescot ( talk) 04:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please replace {{wict|benthic}} with [[wikt:benthic|benthic]] per WP:TFD/H 198.102.153.2 ( talk) 20:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A rant, lacking any suggestions re article.
|
---|
according to anggaosPulp and paper mills are among the worst polluters to air, water and land of any industry in the country."(Martin) It is the forth largest greenhouse gas producer in the United States. The process of making paper can be dangerous to our environment. As 'factory' is a synonyms of 'polluter', paper factory also produce pollutions. The smoke that factories release causes air pollution. The noises from working machines cause noise pollution. The waste that factories dump cause both water and land pollution. Somehow the chemicals they use in the process of production can be toxic to the environment. Both pollutions and toxic harm living things including us in many ways. Both deforestation and pollution destroy earth's ozone layer causing global warming. What if both of them are added up together? The earth is warming twice faster! Some poisonous gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are contributed to the earth's atmosphere forming greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases collects heat from the sun and prevents it from going out back to space causing the rise in temperature and the climates change. Changing in climates can be dangerous to living things. Greenhouse gases not only cause global warming but also acid rains. Water evaporated in to the atmosphere and falls down as rains when it's condensed is normal. What is not normal is that rains fall down the atmosphere through those poisonous gases resulted from pollution! It is not a very healthy environment for those who live by the factory or in the city, is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.232.214 ( talk) 07:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Discuss is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#It.27s_unethical_to_list_some_group_of_people_who_have_certain_views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Should we update the link?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
66.74.145.42 ( talk) 08:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This new graph has no 'graph paper' lines, or ticks on the axes, so you can't read figures from it. Also, Wikipedia's SVG -> PNG rendering engine seems to have no idea how to space the characters in the text. The new image has large white borders that further shrink the useful information at thumbnail size. Overall, not an improvement at this level of quality. Compare NASA's original with our version. -- Nigelj ( talk) 19:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the "feedbacks" section of the article would benefit from revision. In particular, I'm concerned about how the section describes carbon cycle feedbacks. It makes some pretty bold statements, and implies that the IPCC's projections are biased downwards. While this may reflect the view of some experts, I am not convinced that it reflects a consensus view.
There is also the issue of how much space is devoted to carbon cycle feedbacks in relation to other important feedbacks. For example, refer to these summaries by the UK Royal Society (pp8-10) and US National Research Council pp26-27 p200. Carbon cycle feedbacks are not the only factor that affect projections of future climate change. The water vapor feedback is important, yet it gets very little space. The same is true of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
There is very little information on abrupt or large-scale changes in climate system. This issue has featured in the IPCC reports [27] [28] [29] and other assessments [30]. I think that this article should provide a better summary of the issue. Enescot ( talk) 04:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Since I have not found the time to return to this, I have no additional comments.... and I don't expect to be around much for some months, either. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we mention Alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol and successor in the section on politics ? That page mentions some political/juridical changes, different from the Kyoto protocol. 109.133.115.188 ( talk) 10:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
There is some research into what effects Native Americans may have had on the atmosphere due to deforestation across North America and such before the, uh, colonization of the Americas. It's considered possible that global warming could have started earlier if it, wasn't for the genocide and taking over of land and so on that had the effect of slowing down deforestation....would that belong on this article? There's not really a history section.-- occono ( talk) 20:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have AFD'd Early anthropocene due to it being a textbook POVFORK split off from Anthropocene. Comments welcome at the AFD discussion page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
By editor agreement, this discussion has moved to
Talk:Effects of global warming (click show to read anyway)
|
---|
![]() Droughts are becoming more frequent and intense in arid and semiarid western North America as temperatures have been rising, advancing the timing and magnitude of spring snow melt floods and reducing river flow volume in summer. Direct effects of climate change include increased heat and water stress, altered crop phenology, and disrupted symbiotic interactions. These effects may be exacerbated by climate changes in river flow, and the combined effects are likely to reduce the abundance of native trees in favor of non-native herbaceous and drought-tolerant competitors, reduce the habitat quality for many native animals, and slow litter decomposition and nutrient cycling. Climate change effects on human water demand and irrigation may intensify these effects. [5] By 2012, North American corn prices had risen to a record $8.34 per bushel in August, leaving 20 of the 211 U.S. ethanol fuel plants idle. [6]
|
After a lengthy discussion at Talk:Effects of global warming#North American drought and corn prices, I have made an edit to that article which I believe addresses all of the concerns raised and propose for here because the price spike of the largest crop of the largest economy is central to the general issue of global warming, far more than the discussion in this article's "Food security" section, which describes relatively mild 2007 projections already overtaken by observed declines in crop production. Neo Poz ( talk) 05:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
A further refinement has stood at the Effects article addressing the globalization problems with the earlier version for a few days now without any discussion. I think it is appropriate for this article, but I want to give it at least a few more days from now. Neo Poz ( talk) 03:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This came up in a tangental discussion about an article for which it really isn't directly applicable, and I'd like to know where editors think it is most appropriate to include. [31] shows that IPCC projections have underestimated emissions, temperature, Arctic sea ice loss, Greenland and Antarctica glacier loss, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and thawing tundra. Neo Poz ( talk) 23:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the "geoengineering" section. I think that geoengineering is an important subject and should be mentioned in this article. In my opinion, the section could probably be improved (compare with [41] [42] [43]). For example, the risk of negative impacts from geoengineering is not mentioned. Another problem with geoengineering is the lack of international regulation. International regulation is needed because if one country implements geoengineering, other countries may also be affected. Enescot ( talk) 06:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I too was initially under the impression that GeoEng was essentially a subset of mitigation, but then the defn we give here (The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere) doesn't cover cloud-brightening, say. Can we perhaps agree whether GeoEng is a subset of Mitigation, or not? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)