![]() | 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 65 | ← | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | → | Archive 75 |
A source under Scientific Discussion, states "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW ["anthropogenic global warming"], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." The current version of the article states, "among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made." It seems best to stick with the phraseology of the source. While it's accurate to say that drunk driving causes auto accidents, it would be somewhat misleading to flip that around to say that auto accidents are caused by drunk driving. The figure cited in the source for the described statistic is 97.1%, not 97.2%. It's also signficant to know what percentage of the papers took a position on the issue in the first place. Frankly, saying that "66.4% of the articles discussing global climate change took absolutely no position on its cause," probably tells us more than the current statement. Thoughts? John2510 ( talk) 21:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
e/c
So what do you think of the text at Surveys of scientists' views on climate change#John Cook etal, 2013? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that the section of the article on global warming#Food security is in need of revision. I'm concerned that it places too much weight on a few studies, and does not explain that projected changes are highly uncertain. Another problem is how it explains changes in food production in relation to socio-economic changes. It mentions changes in population, but does not discuss how, even including the effects of climate change, socio-economic development may help to reduce malnutrition from present levels (see Easterling et al 2007). The section also heavily emphasizes negative impacts on food but places very little weight on positive effects.
References:
{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Invalid |display-authors=1
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link), Sec 5.1 FOOD PRODUCTION, PRICES, AND HUNGER,
pp.160-162Enescot ( talk) 08:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm worried that a casual reader could get an impression from that that does not reflect the balance of coverage in the sources. At a first reading such a reader may see the proposal above as, "Impacts uneven: some flooding and stuff, but also benefits like fewer deaths." That is not the balance of what the sources say. I would prefer to base our text on the authors' own summaries, rather than choose our own couple of points from long reports. So, if we're working from AR4 SP2, I would look at the SPM, [2] and then concentrate on the pull-out summaries in the coloured boxes. Here they are:
Summarising and paraphrasing these, I could come up with the following:
That's only a first pass, and is not specific enough regarding food and fresh water security yet. I also haven't been through any other sources at the moment. What I have here could be further condensed to make room for some more food-specific statements, but I would hesitate simply to quote-mine these, preferring to summarise an existing summary. -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A couple of links. Some of which may be citable.
This APS discussion is pretty in depth with a number of presenters about IPCC. Each particpant has a presentation and the discussion at the end is rather enlightening as the IPCC authors discuss where the science is lacking and what they want in terms of money (i.e. weather balloons in remote areas). They go over a number of the areas where the model and observation do not correlate and why. APS reviews it's position statement every 5 years. As a general rule, I'd suspect they are sceptical in the process but the final statement will probably not be as sceptical as they ask tough questions. It's good because mainstream lead IPCC authors are discussing the sausage making without the SPM cloud and can be open and direct where they feel the error is and the so-called "sceptics" also bring up their concerns. They are not particularly far from each other.
The experts (sorry for caps, cut and paste):
DR. JOHN CHRISTY, DR. WILLIAM COLLINS, DR. JUDITH CURRY, DR. ISAAC HELD, DR. RICHARD LINDZEN, DR. BENJAMIN SANTER
The APU APS members all seemed like the no BS types with impressive credentials in physics, climate or modelling. I'd point out that, at least in the transcript (even though they disagree to an extent but not as much as the press or our articles would have the public believe), it's enlightening to read about what they admit and concede to others. One of the things I learned was apparently a paper/research into measured vertical heating profiles and model predictions which I hadn't heard before.
Out of that came PCMDI group which was formed to shore up climate models from disciplines that do modeling more intensely than traditional climatologists. They developed CMIP5 model (and CMIP3, I believe) which is where all the forcings are derived. CMIP5 was intended to be accurate at a decade level for hindcast and forecast (there also a AMIP allued to, but I haven't found it). The coupled ocean-air model seems to be most accurate when the ocean temps are forced to observation (Xie et al) but it's mentioned in the APS meeting. It seemed there was a little resentment about PCMDI formation from the IPCC folks as it was formed to assess the numerical methods and models used (and ended up standardizing it all). The IPCC group believed they were an oil advocacy group. - DHeyward ( talk) 04:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks D. 75.139.42.110 ( talk) 12:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)jesse
It doesn't sound like that to me at all. In any case, WP:AGF. The proposal is for us to consider whether or not the cited sources is important enough to cite in the article, and if so in what context. We should discuss that, instead of hastily closing the issue. Is this source reputable? What statements in the article does it back up? Should any part of the article be rewritten in light of this source? The answers to all of these question may be no, but the proposal was made seriously and politely and deserves to be answered seriously and politely. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I had a go at tidying up the "Etymology" section, but I found all of the information in the section to be either wrong, or unverifiable:
1. There is a claim, based on a couple of sources, that the first use of the term "global warming" was in Broeker's 1975 Science paper. While this is verifiable based on the sources, it is also clearly wrong. A 5 minute search turns up multiple much older papers using the term "global warming" in very much the modern sense e.g. here is one from 1961: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1961.tb50036.x/asset/j.1749-6632.1961.tb50036.x.pdf?v=1&t=hs7ionk4&s=084326cfda11928d139529fde573339a26b630fc. It seems to be based originally on a WebofScience search on the RealClimate blog, which is a fairly dreadful way of establishing the first use of the term.
2. The next part of the section is a claim that the first time the National Academy of Science used the term "global warming" was in a 1979 report, but the cited source (Conway's article on the NASA website) does not say this is the first time, so a citation is needed for this. In my opinion this claim may well not be correct (especially since the term had been in use in the scientific community for at least 18 years by that point) - but it is actually quite a hard thing to know what the first usage of the term within this particular organisation is, and I certainly can't find any reliable sources.
3. Finally, there is the claim the that Jim Hansen popularised the term after his testimony to Congress. As far as I can tell, this is just the opinion of a NASA historian on a NASA scientist. There is no justification for it e.g. an observed spike in usage directly after June 1988. At best we can say "According to Erik Conway, the term 'global warming' was popularised after the June 1988 testimony of Jim Hansen..."
I think it is clear that, with current citations, 1 and 2 should be removed, leaving a whole section for the opinion of Erik Conway that the term 'global warming' was popularised after Hansen's testimony, with no empirical backing for the statement.
I think the options then are either to remove the section completely, or find sources that discuss the etymology and rewrite the section using those. Currently, the section is unacceptably poor in my opinion. Atshal ( talk) 14:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
(Redacted) 41.130.213.196 ( talk) 13:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been under the impression that climate models have OVER estimated observed surface temps, but UNDER estimate sea ice loss.
The physical realism of models is tested by examining their ability to simulate contemporary or past climates.[132] Climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate.[133] Not all effects of global warming are accurately predicted by the climate models used by the IPCC. Observed Arctic shrinkage has been faster than that predicted.[134] Precipitation increased proportional to atmospheric humidity, and hence significantly faster than global climate models predict.[135][136]
This doesn't reflect the latest IPCC explanation.
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-draft-lowers-global-warming-projections/
Since this is a "Talk" section, I'm throwing this out there and hoping someone more versed in climate models will correct this or confirm the wording as acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.198.56 ( talk) 00:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I've previously criticized [8] the section of the article that describes the impacts of climate change on food production ( global warming#Food security). Now that the IPCC 5th Assessment Impacts report has been published [9], I suggest that the entire social impacts section be revised. In my view, important areas of the IPCC report include the "key risks" of climate change listed on p.12 of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), and the risks organized into 5 "reasons for concern" (p.13 of the SPM). The FAQs is another useful source. I suggest that the new revision be based upon this information. Enescot ( talk) 07:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Is is really necessary to use the word unequivocal in the first sentence? I think it's on the redundant side. A better read would be: "Global warming refers to the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system." -- IamGlobalTemp ( talk) 00:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is one alternative... see the first couple paragraphs at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_69#Attempted_Lead_Rewrite NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In my view, the new redirect
Evidence of global warming ---->>>
Attribution of recent climate change was done in GF but little knowledge and probably shouldn't have said that, sorry the result is an
WP:EGG. There is a difference between
A. Evidence that the place is getting hotter, e.g. "evidence of global warming", and B. Evidence that it is caused mostly by us, or by pink unicorn farts, or whatever, e.g. "evidence supporting the attribution of global warming"
I was going to fix that myself, but I am unsure of a good place that would be a better redirect. That got me to wondering if Evidence of global warming should be turned into an article of its own. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
-- 97.96.223.153 ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)-- 97.96.223.153 ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)-- 97.96.223.153 ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't want to edit this article.. I just need it for homework please.←§ 97.96.223.153 ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Though, i updated all the broken PDF links to the first draft release of the Summary for Policymakers report, now pointing to the landing page http://www.climatechange2013.org/spm of said report. However, reference page numbers might be off(didn't checked on a case by case basis). To slim down on references i suggest to use only 1 reference for all the summary 2013 links. However, if we do this, page numbers would be gone. Good or bad idea? Prokaryotes ( talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Spending some time looking at past edits on this article, I applaud the wiki editors who have put up with so many AGW denialists. I just wanted this part of the intro to read "interGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change" instead of "interNATIONAL Panel on Climate Change." Just click the link to the wiki IPCC article or go to the IPCC's website. The Talk [ [10]] has some folks citing the Global Warming Policy Foundation and talking about how the models have over predicted change. That's a freqent denialist tack. While models (and there are many of them) have both over AND underpredicted different changes resulting from global warming, the evidence suggests the IPCC (which uses an ensemble of different models) has more frequently UNDERpredicted changes. Here's the cite for that claim--Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J., Oppenheimer, M., 2013. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change 23, 327–337. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008--and I can send if you can't find a copy. I also get a bad feeling with these folks who want to parse the difference between "global warming" and "climate change." They are used interchangeably. Global warming is the heating up of the globe (land and sea surface, ocean, cryosphere) by humans. Climate change is the same thing, though usually has a connotation more on the effects of a heating planet. Global warming was the dominant phrase up until right wingers figured out that "global warming" made it sound like climate scientists knew what they were talking about while "climate change" made it sound wishy-washy, like they were uncertain. There's a memo that the republican strategist frank luntz wrote where he encouraged republicans to use "climate change." Here's a link to a G uardian article talking on that Luntz memo. Bobbywego ( talk) 02:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
As suggested in this thread, I fixed the name of the IPCC. However, the rest of the thread is unhelpful WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Gibberish and collapsed as
WP:FORUM since there is no IPCC 2014 def of "climate change" in the article. Click 'show' to read anyway
|
---|
has so many "ors". Is this for IPCC's safety due to whims (or guesses) they are implicated upon? Besides what is pointed in each item connected by OR here must bring heavy weight scientific proof that it bestows real "climate change" otherwise again IPCC is in the brain storming guessing game. And why do they again go back to blame anthropogenic disturbance (due to C02)? because of the high % and if the rest does not have a significant contribution then why include it in their definition. Are you not perplexed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.21.81 ( talk) 05:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Besides using =OR= means that each item can stand independently as a sole source of climate change. Did you not find that a bit crazy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.21.81 ( talk) 05:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC) `You are referring to climate change definition 2010 of ipcc current only a few "or" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.218.218 ( talk) 09:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
Since my recent edits got reverted i ask to address them here, rather than reintroducing false, outdated data, sorting and broken Refs. I will re-add content which is deemed necessary but believe most edits have been an improvement.
prokaryotes (
talk)
23:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of recent page content edits
Improvements
Edits which have been criticized
If anything from these edits is wrong, point it out, rather than reverting everything. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion
Revert to
this edit (includes "Ship track img", and address issues here on a case by case basis.
prokaryotes (
talk)
23:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Please let us know when you're done tweaking the menu of things to talk about. Alternatively, organize the long list with section headings. When you string a whole lot of christmas lights together and keep fiddling, it makes it impossible to have meaningful discussion. Suggest studying WP:TALK for tips. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Volcanism is not an external forcing" is wrong William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC) e/c
Current reasons for objection (I may notice others later)
Suggested way to proceed
Discuss desired structural & organizational changes here first. You might consider either posting draft text here, or doing a large one-shot change as a demo edit, and then self reverting. That produces a diff to the proposal without going "live" until there's an agreement in principle that the structure/organization needs to change. I'm actually glad you brought it up, because I do think we could make the material more accessible to the average reader. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI I created a draft, beginning with the external links section, here. prokaryotes ( talk) 14:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC) While I might have overstepped WP:TPOC, I inserted a section heading and slightly tweaked Prokaryotes text so it makes sense with the new section heading. Please revert if objectionable NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Prokaryotes draft would omit the descriptive text for the various ext links. I don't have super strong feelings about it. It seems sorta helpful, but it does add bytes to an already long article. Thoughts, anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Prokaryotes wants to delete these five, which I have cut and pasted from the article.
Comments? Should any/all be restored to the article? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Reasons
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a
WP:FORUM and is not about article improvement by the IP's own admission. Click "show" to read anyway
|
---|
"Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980" The graph to the right clearly show a 1.0 change (from below -0.4, 1905-1910) to 0.6 (2000-2014) The value for 1980 is 0.2, making the changes 40% since 1980, and not 66%. Just another lie for the GWH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.117.192 ( talk) 00:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I take that to mean that you admit, that the article overview contains lies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.117.192 ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Again: A simple math argument shows the claim in the first paragraph to be wrong. Yes, I've noticed the citation, which is irrelevant, because the claim is still WRONG. Notice that the replies to my claim do not invalidate it, admit it in fact, than calls ME cherry-picker. hmm. I'm not trying to fix this, because the whole article is clearly biased to anyone going outside of wiki's scope. I'm just documenting, for prosperity, just how bad scientists can distort facts and how useless wiki has become on any current-research issue. what a shame. this is also why I'm not using signing the comment. Its about wiki, not me. About 2 years ago I've added into "talk" a question about how long of a period of no warming is needed so that it will actually be discussed in the main article. We're now up to 18 years, so any high school graduate can see from satellite data that there was zero trend since he was born. Of course, it is STILL not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.121.195 ( talk) 16:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
Please visit and comment at Talk:Climate_resilience#Scope of article "Climate resilience" vs "Adaptation to global warming" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Given none of the graphs on this page show a warming after 1998 in what sense can the intro honestly say "continuing"? I am not a climate change skeptic and I think warming is ongoing on theoretical grounds but the fact is that strong evidence for warming after 1998 is currently lacking and no empirical evidence for warming post 1998 is shown on the page. The intro should be agreement with presented evidence within the page Tullimonstrum ( talk) 09:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not saying the last decade isn't the warmest on record, I am not saying that the radiative balance has suddenly improved. I am not saying there has not some southern oscillation effect going on. I am just saying as a matter of empirical fact that there is no observed upward trend in the unadjusted data since 1998/2000 so saying "continuing" RIGHT NOW is a trifle misleading "Dispassionately reporting facts that might lead a reader to reach a contrary conclusion, especially on controversial topics, is similarly to be avoided - lest the reader be misled as to the consensus view of the truth." I though dispassionately reporting facts was NPOV. But even ignoring that, wow, just wow... Tullimonstrum ( talk) 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
My only point was the presented info does not match the intro. How that observation can be categorised as “original research” when it refers to the internal consistency of a page and how that internal inconsistency disappears by virtue of the fact there are plausible explanations of the hiatus elsewhere, I don’t fully understand. A time series with a flat lining 5 year moving average is not showing continuing change, you don’t have to be George Box to figure that out. It is just bizarre to claim a continuing change if the graphs on the same page don’t show it. If I altered it without discussing it first you'd delete my edits so I merely pointed out there is a mismatch. So either different data should be presented or the intro should change. Otherwise one gets the situation that got me here, people referring to “continuing climate change” and presenting a flat-lining graph as evidence. I am not a climate change skeptic but I am beginning to understand John's position!! (Sorry I missed the sarcasm before BTW) Tullimonstrum ( talk) 14:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
e/c
(A) Move the temp anomaly pic in the lead (to where I don't know)
(B) In its place add the image of total heat content (see thumbnail in this thread); for more info on that graph click the thumbnail to go to the image page
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Tullimonstrum ( talk · contribs) in this thread, we have noted (and RS content backs this up) that the first graph in the article is about SURFACE temps; that >90% of global warming's energy goes into the sea; we have referred you to RSs cited in Global warming hiatus, and to a Jeff Master's article talking about issues with the surface temp graph related to arctic data analysis. Unless I missed it, I don't think you have specifically discussed the content in any RSs. I think you've just been looking at the graph, and have been floating questions based on what you think you see in that graph. Well, OK. Question As far as your concerned, can we close this thread or do you still have a pending suggestion for article improvement based on RS content (and if so, please re-state your suggestion with discussion of the RS content on which it is based). NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I propose adding the following sentence both to the intro section of the article and also separately to the lower down "scientific discussion" section.
"Nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action."
The citation is here: http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
In that citation, the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research lists 197 organizations, and provides links to their websites. Unfortunately, the links are not to the specific parts of the websites where they evidence their support, but in my view the original page should be trusted as an authoritative statement, due to the scrutiny such an office would face for posting such a statement and list on this topic. I believe citing this number adds to users' understanding of the topic, because while the current version talks about the percentage-support in the literature, it does not discuss the number of important organizations that support this view. Please let me know your response and if the answer is yes, edit the page accordingly.
Thank you.
TheDumbMoney ( talk) 01:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)TheDumbMoney
---
You know, the experience of those who have walked past a smoke-belching factory and seen the temperature go up and the air become thick and uncomfortable as they approached it? The experience pf just watching the waves of heat rise above a traffic jam? Is this collected and documented anywhere? DeistCosmos ( talk) 05:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a love-hate thing going with the archival templates. Would someone better skilled than I please figure out why old threads are lingering? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
As discussed on previous threads [12], I've written a draft revision of the section of the article that deals with the social effects of climate change]:
Note: I've converted the reference temperature period in the source from the late-20th century to pre-industrial times (see: SPM: p14: Assessment Box SPM-1).
References: All taken from the IPCC 5th Assessment Working Group II report: Cramer et al (Chapter 18); Field et al ( Technical Summary); Oppenheimer et al (Ch 19); Porter et al (Ch 7); Smith et al (Ch 11); Summary for Policymakers; Volume-wide FAQs.
Enescot ( talk) 08:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason the SRES-scenarios, used in AR4 and AR3 are still used in the article? I would like to replace them with the RCPs used in AR5. Femkemilene ( talk) 08:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable on this subject please write a section on the falsifiability of the theory of AGW? If for the sake of argument the proponents of this are wrong and no significant—let alone catastrophic—effects occur within some timeframe (assuming that worldwide C02 emissions have not significantly decreased during that period), would that prove the theory is wrong? If so, what is a consensus timeframe for that please? If not, what could disprove it?
Al Gore has in the past cited models that have already proven drastically off, such as the prediction by climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski of the entire disappearance of the summer Artic polar ice cap by 2013 as it remains somewhat shy of 1,000,000 square miles strong. I suppose the response to this is that that just means that that particular model was wrong and not the underlying theory: the creator of the model misunderstood the theory and what it signifies and predicts.
I don’t mean to take a position on this highly contentious issue. However, since it is deemed a mainstream scientific theory, then according to such illustrious personages in the history of science as Karl Popper and Albert Einstein, it must be falsifiable. The latter said, “All it would take to disprove my theory [of STR] is one observation to the contrary [of its predictions].” Thus far, there hasn’t been one: clocks really do run slower as speed increases. Relativity dispensed with the perceived need for the invisible “aether” that was once thought to permeate the entire universe and thus provided an absolute frame of reference. That was once mainstream scientific thought.
One way to unequivocally prove AGW right is, unfortunately, to let events run their course and suffer the catastrophic consequences the theory’s proponents suggest will occur as a result. That would indeed be tragic. But if for the sake of argument no meaningful reduction of C02 emissions occurs, it seems to me in that event there must be some point in time where proponents of the theory acknowledge the theory to have been false (or at least its implied catastrophic results) if they have nothing more draconian to show for it beyond the odd category five hurricane or "super storm" that have occurred throughout history. If that not be the case, then can the theory really be called scientific? Therefore, what exactly is that timeframe? Thank you. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 15:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Test System | Input | Result |
---|---|---|
105 pound coed | Add 1 shot per 20 minutes | Gets sloppy drunk; in best case she passes out before she kills herself by alcohol overdose |
Earth's climate system | Add energy of ~400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day, every day | Don't let climate drink and drive |
The OP said "I am not taking a postion on the issue. I simply want myself and others to have the tools available to form an intelligent opinion in light of arguments and allegations made by skeptics. "
You can look up pretty much any skeptic argument you like and
get answers based on the professional science literature.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
16:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Current events confirm global warming. To falsify global warming would be trivial. If, over five year averages, it stopped getting warmer, that would falsify global warming. Since global warming is a statement about averages, one cold day does not falsify global warming. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal - move from Global warming to Global warming (current climate change)
OP's Reasoning I like the article's current scope and am not suggesting we change the topic, only the name. Here's why
Sometime before my arrival here in 2011 eds had agreed to treat Climate change as a generic topic unrelated to geological time period (and references to non-earth climate changes have come and gone in that article). Meanwhile, we reported on the current climate change here at Global warming. There are two problems with this set up.
First, "global warming" has two meanings. The title doesn't really tell the reader which meaning will be emphasized by the text. The first is the original technical definition (just the increasing trend of global surface temps) now supported with an RS in the lead first paragraph. However, over time, "global warming" also became a WP:Neologism, serving as a synonym for current climate change. Before long so many RSs had embraced the neologistic meaning of the phrase "global warming" that it had became firmly established. So it has these two different meanings. Arguably, the text covers both meanings,,,, I did add some text to the lead's first paragraph awhile back to try to address this problem. However, complaints have still been raised about this article's scope - here is one notable recent thread where more than one ed spoke about revising the article's scope. IN SUM: "global warming" has two meanings, the original narrow one and also as a synonym for current climate change. You don't know which one is the emphasis from the current "global warming" article title, and we should recomit to covering the broad meaning here.
The second problem with the article title "Global warming" is that it is susceptible to claims of POV (whether POV exists is besides the point). Since the scope of this article currently encompasses current climate change, several recent studies become relevant. These studies show that there is a difference of public perception whether one says "global warming" or "climate change". ( Just one example) Since these terms have import for public perception, and since lots of RSs covering the broad topic use "global warming" and lots of others say "climate change", seems to me that the only way to avoid accusations of WP:POVNAMING is to move this article to Global warming (current climate change).
Reworking the lead is overdue, but I think we should get a consensus on this title/scope issue first. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
"i see no reason to reflect that extra in the title", please see WP:POVNAMING and the link I already posted " Just one example". The public reacts differently to these synonyms. Thus, we need a really really good reason to adopt one for our article title and not the other. Without such a reason we might be seen as POV pushing. Please see this additional example too - " It's all in a name: 'Global warming' versus 'climate change'" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
(1) The archives do not contain any discussion of the point I am raising, which is POV and confusion in the title, based on published research. I'll be organizing those sources and quotes sometime this week.
(2) Among the archives' threads containing "commonname", and eliminating my own references to that guideline (unrelated to the current point), most threads were debating whether we could use "global warming" to specifcally refer to the current warming instead of limiting ourselves to the generic meaning first used in the sci lit. The consensus was "yes" and I think we should keep doing that.
(3) The couple remaining archive threads compared "global warming" to "global warming in recent years" and "global climate change". To the extent reasons were given, the questionable google hit count method was used to show that at the time "global warming" wasthe hands down google-hit winner.... but those threads were old.
(4) Updating the admittedly dubious GoogleScholar hit-test... lets start the tally in 2008 since AR4 was released the year before. Google Scholar - uncheck patents & citations - years 2008 to 2014.... the results are
(5) So not only are there multiple published research reports discussing import of saying "global warming" versus "climate change", but since AR4 the professional literature appears to be embracing "climate change" over "global warming". Of course, without reading all the sources one can't know the context, so it's a shaky test. Just seemed like we were relying on that test to get where we are, so if we're going to ignore the essentially same test's different results today we should have a reason based in logic.NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
For example, the term climate change includes issues such as:
Curiously, the term "rainfall" occurs in the lead, but not in the body of the article.
Similarly, "drought" occurs in the lead, but not in the body.
Given that the lead it supposed to be a summary of material in the body, it appears that the article has been primarily about global warming, but someone decided to add some aspects of climate change to the lead, without adding them to the body.
In addition, the article barely mentions issues such as tornado frequency and intensity or hurricane frequency and intensity, both of which are prominent aspect of climate change but understandably not emphasized in an article referring to overall warming.
In other words, if the consensus were to change the title, it would require a substantial rewrite, as this article is primarily about global warming, and doesn't have adequate coverage of climate change issues. Addendum: It didn't sink in until after I posted that my point is largely an expansion of the point made by User:Prokaryotes-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
"While GW concentrates on just one effect, it is the name under which the current climate change is best known."(underline added)
Is there any dispute here besides what NAEG is generating? Was there any dispute more than ten minutes before he tagged the article? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record, my comment was that this article was so screwed up, it became "Climate Change" while the "Climate Change" article became global warming. That hasn't changed. This article should be about the increase in global mean surface temperature. That's the definition of global warming. Climate change is broader than surface temperature. As long as the OWNERS of the article insist on ignoring the scientific litereature (i.e. Hansen's very distinct use of the terms), this is just more deck chair shuffling. I in no way support an article title change and infact, would prefer that the article on Global Warming be written to reflect Global Warming and the article on Climate Change focus on Climate Change. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
While climate change has long covered variation over many centuries, Spencer R. Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming consistently uses this term to refer to the current changes: he specifically notes that Wallace Broecker wrote in 1975 Climatic change; are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?", taking the lead in warning in an influential Science magazine article that the world might be poised on the brink of a serious rise of temperature. "Complacency may not be warranted," he said. "We may be in for a climatic surprise." [14] So, a clear distinction. What's the problem? . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
OP proposes a compromise that also addresses this thread here NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
DHeyward ( talk · contribs), thanks for this comment at a user talk page. In response, do you agree/disagree with the existing hatnote (in place since at least 2011) which reads "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate."? If you disagree, how would you change the hatnote? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Global warming refers to the rise in the observed land and sea surface temperatures. More than half of the observed warming is attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases from such activities as fossil fuel consumption and cement production. Since <date> the mean global surface temperature has risen <X>. IPCC AR5 has adopted four Representative Concentration Pathways to estimate the effect of different greenhouse gas emission scenarios on future climate change including temperature. The estimated range of temperature increase for those scenarios in the year 2100 is <Y>. The term "global warming" is often used to describe the broad aspect of Climate change." For definition and why it's better to delineate the two terms, see NASA essay [17]. They seem to have grappled with the same issue and chose scientific meanings so that confusion is easily corrected and not cluttered. It makes dealing with topics like the so-called "pause" or "hiatus" so much easier because when someone says "Global Warming Pause" and they have lots of sources that have used the term, it's not contradictory to the article and it's never "Climate Change Pause". Scoping it narrowly and pointing out where "global warming" is not representative of "climate change" then becomes easier. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Global warming refers to the rise in the observed land and sea surface temperatures."What RS do you propose citing for that definition? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@DHeyward, Do you oppose having an article for the Younger Dryas, another for the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, and yet another for the Little ice age? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"well defined and delineated"there are two different definitions of "climate change" in the IPCC AR5 WG1 glossary! WG1's definition says nothing about time (now vs paleo) nor necessarily including humans; "Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer." Then WG1 goes out of its way to articulate the different definition used by UNFCCC (which specifically says human causation). And of course, google scholar is full of sources talking about paleo climate change.
edit conflict
It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. (bold added)
While the content of the introduction is of a high quality, it does not "briefly summarize" the article. I hesitate at putting this template in the article itself, due to its scientific nature and Featured status. However, the introduction is bloated and should be at most four paragraphs. Thanks, Greggydude ( talk) 09:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. Let's look at it collaboratively. The lead should summarise the article's main points, so first here is a list of the main headings of the body of the article:
Here is my own outline of the paragraphs of the existing lead:
It is clear that there is some correlation, but some room for improvement. Perhaps we should aim for something like the following:
It's still five paras, can anyone propose a better outline? Then we just need to write the paragraphs, based on the article text. Anything important currently in the lead, and referenced there, that is not in the body, should be merged into a better place rather than lost in the changes. -- Nigelj ( talk) 13:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I am very much of the opinion that the lead is bloated and does not read well - I feel it is one of the weakest areas of this article, which is a shame since it is probably the most important. I fully support NigelJ's analysis and suggested structure. One dreadful example - in the very first sentence the use of the word "unequivocal" is terribly grating (much discussed, but inexplicably still present) - this is not part of a definition of global warming, which the opening sentence should be, but a comment on attitudes of scientists to global warming. Global warming is the identical phenomenon, regardless of whether it is seen as unequivocally true or not. Atshal ( talk) 09:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
(A) I agree the lead is bloated.
(B) Before fixing the lead, we should look at the body
(C) Before reviewing the body, we should all be on the same page about article scope and to focus discussion I propose changing lead paragraph 1 so that it is consistent with the hatnote in place since 2011 ("This article is about the current change in Earth's climate.")
CURRENT TEXT
move the rest to body of article-Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850. [1]
PROPOSED NEW FIRST PARAGRAPH
POSSIBLE RSs FOR SENTENCE 1
[T]o sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".
The two terms are often used interchangeably but they generate very different responses, the researchers from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communications said.
We use both "climate change" and "global warming" interchangeably.
The term scientists prefer is actually "climate change," because that encompasses effects other than warming, such as changes in rainfall patterns, melting glaciers and rising sea levels. There are several scholarly journals using the term "climate change," such as Nature Climate Change and Climatic Change and the International Journal of Climate Change. The 1992 treaty that governs global warming is called the "Framework Convention on Climate Change."
Global warming is a familiar term, so we feel justified in using it as a more concrete, but less complete, expression of the phenomenon.
I strongly doubt whether Wally Broecker realised that when his 1975 Science paper was titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" he knew that the term would go on to gain such international traction. I doubt, therefore, that he gave it much thought whether it would withstand the rigours of intense scrutiny and debate that it would attract over the coming decades. * * * [T]he two terms are largely interchangeable in common discussion, even though climate scientists will rightly argue there are subtle, but important distinctions.
[Q.] What is climate change? [A.] Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that there have been changes in the global climate since the early 1900s, and that these climate changes, and future climate change predicted over the next century, are largely due to human activities and excessive greenhouse gas emissions, which are warming up the Earth. This is climate change, often referred to as "global warming".
IN SUM This change would make the first paragraph consistent with the hatnote and better reflects the articles content. If the consensus is to use "global warming" to mean something other than the current climate change (e.g., being "just" about rising surf temps) then I think eds like DHeyward ( talk · contribs) have a good point about the article going beyond its agreed scope. So what do YOU think? Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
"(the phrase 'global warming', should not be the subject of the first sentence. The phrase is the topic of the hatnote, but that is what the hatnote is for. The article is about the warming of the globe, and should start on that topic straight way."
"...false dichotomy..."
"there is a serious false dichotomy in the question, 'Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps?'"
The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced.
A new proposal is here NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Bump, since this thread has been referenced today. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Trackteur wants to pipe the phrase "human activities" in the lead to some other article. I've reverted a link to human behaviour, because that mostly deals with individual behaviour and not with the large-scale industry we engage in as a society. The user then piped it to anthropic principle, which I find a even less plausible (it's a cosmological principle basically saying that the universe is as it is because if it were different, we would not be there to observe it). Before we get into an edit war, I'd like to hear more opinions about the need for piping that term, and if that need exists, a suitable target. Please comment. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Archive note - This is a continuation of a long conversation that was not archived in chronological sequence. The order is...
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 06:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Global warming - (NAEG Ver 6)
Draft-Reviewers - Footnote alert! Please notice the suprascript letters, which are new in this version. In common speech, global warming and climate change[a] are both used to refer to the current warming of Earth's climate system and its related effects. Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming. [5] [6] More than 90% of the additional energy stored in the climate system since 1970 has gone into ocean warming; the remainder has melted ice, and warmed the continents and atmosphere. [7][b] Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over decades to millennia. [8]
Notes a. Insert this as a hidden inline comment DO NOT WIKILINK THIS! This use of "climate change" is the colloquial sense and means the current climate change; this is the article about that topic. A short explanation and wikilink for the article titled "Climate change" is in the hatnote right before this sentence. b. Insert this in text using Template:efn Scientific journals use "global warming" to describe an increasing global average temperature just at earth's surface, and most of these authorities further limit "global warming" to such increases caused by human activities or increasing greenhouse gases. |
Have at it, Folks. Thoughts?
I'll add one off the batt.... I tried long and hard to find a smooth way to explicitly mention we're using the COMMONNAME form as well as link to climate change in the first sentence, but - despite trying long and hard - I failed miserably. Then I realized the hatnote just linked to climate change a sentence or two before, so instead I inserted what will become (if this is approved) a hidden inline comment explaining what I just said. Its footnote [a] in this draft. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
" I wholeheartedly agree that mentioning the common speech usage is necessary. It's then necessary to correct it.." (with the scientific meaning that "global warming" is only GMST)I think this draft does that. Though to be fair to DHeyward's viewpoint, in the comment I just linked he went on to say after we satisfy the first part, we should then go on to overhaul the article topic entirely. I'm not ready to go that far, but he and I do think we solve a lot of problems with explicitly talking about the common vs scientific meanings of these words. Nigelj, If see something that is arguably wrong then we definitely need to know, but if you are opposed to "in common speech" just as matter of style could you live with it to move things forward, since others think it is important? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It is probably about time to wrap this up. I agree with dave souza about dropping "In common speech". I still think the sentence with "decades to millennia" is easily misunderstood and should be dropped. But unless you agree, I say go with what we've got. Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
An essay I was reading makes the excellent point that hidden inline comments like the one in this draft are not controlling (no ownership) and should point to the discussions where the reasons for whatever were previously decided. So we should add a thread pointer if this goes live and update when archived. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
References
The average temperature of the Earth's surface increased by about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of this warming occurring over just the past three decades.
While I personally welcome the recent edit of the 'Observed and expected effects on social systems' section by Enescot ( talk · contribs), I did think that our coverage of the executive summary of AR5 WG2 Chapter 18, 'Detection and Attribution of Observed Impacts', was a little too brief:
Not only a little brief, but could also too easily be misread as if we were saying that "The effects of climate change on human systems have only been detected in the agriculture of indigenous peoples in the Arctic." Therefore I have carefully extended our coverage, mainly of their section beginning 'Substantial new evidence has been collected on sensitivities of human systems to climate change.'
While this is certainly about 100 words longer, I hope Enescot and others will agree that it is a more rounded summary of that important document. If not, of course, further suggestions for improvement are always welcome. -- Nigelj ( talk) 11:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to delete the section on Global warming#Food security. I've previously written a critique of this section [23]. In my opinion, Global warming#Observed and expected effects on social systems already provides an adequate and brief summary on food impacts. There are sub-articles ( effects of global warming and climate change and agriculture) that go into more detail. Enescot ( talk) 07:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest to start the article with: Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rising of the average heat content in the Earth's climate system, which may or not reflect in a continuing rising of average temperature of Earth's climate system. Or alternate: Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rising of the average heat content in the Earth's climate system, which may reflect in a continuing rising of average temperature of Earth's climate system. If you have in hand a glass filled with ice cubes, you are (heating or warming?) the glass, even if the temperature remains constant, as long as there's melting ice. I know the IPCC document title, but if you fully read the papers you understand that the correct meaning is "rising energy content". Otherwise anyone explain me if common usage of heating has a different meaning as warming ? -- Robertiki ( talk) 03:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I deleted: "The dips are related to global recessions." because it implies the only way to have a stronger economy is to make more CO2. This is inaccurate because there are many ways to improve the economy without emitting more CO2. One way is to increase wind energy generation. NewsAndEventsGuy reverted my edit and I'm now asking for support from the community to delete this statement again on this page and on climate change mitigation. Thank you. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 20:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
With your permission, I wish to add an interwiki link to a quiz specifically targeted to the first two sections of this article:
Learning materials related to
this article (Quiz) at Wikiversity
The intent of the quiz is first, to give students with limited scientific literacy a pre-reading activity, and then to provide teachers with a testbank that contains randomized versions of the quiz.
If you approve, I will write at least one more quiz to cover subsequent sections. Also, I noticed that you already have a generic interlink to Wikiversity's global warming page. It's more than a bit weird, and I would prefer to have a separate interlink to my quizzes.
What do you think? -- guyvan52 ( talk) 18:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably should delete most or all external links because although they provide good background, they don't add anything to our Wikipedia article. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (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 65 | ← | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | → | Archive 75 |
A source under Scientific Discussion, states "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW ["anthropogenic global warming"], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." The current version of the article states, "among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made." It seems best to stick with the phraseology of the source. While it's accurate to say that drunk driving causes auto accidents, it would be somewhat misleading to flip that around to say that auto accidents are caused by drunk driving. The figure cited in the source for the described statistic is 97.1%, not 97.2%. It's also signficant to know what percentage of the papers took a position on the issue in the first place. Frankly, saying that "66.4% of the articles discussing global climate change took absolutely no position on its cause," probably tells us more than the current statement. Thoughts? John2510 ( talk) 21:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
e/c
So what do you think of the text at Surveys of scientists' views on climate change#John Cook etal, 2013? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that the section of the article on global warming#Food security is in need of revision. I'm concerned that it places too much weight on a few studies, and does not explain that projected changes are highly uncertain. Another problem is how it explains changes in food production in relation to socio-economic changes. It mentions changes in population, but does not discuss how, even including the effects of climate change, socio-economic development may help to reduce malnutrition from present levels (see Easterling et al 2007). The section also heavily emphasizes negative impacts on food but places very little weight on positive effects.
References:
{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Invalid |display-authors=1
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link), Sec 5.1 FOOD PRODUCTION, PRICES, AND HUNGER,
pp.160-162Enescot ( talk) 08:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm worried that a casual reader could get an impression from that that does not reflect the balance of coverage in the sources. At a first reading such a reader may see the proposal above as, "Impacts uneven: some flooding and stuff, but also benefits like fewer deaths." That is not the balance of what the sources say. I would prefer to base our text on the authors' own summaries, rather than choose our own couple of points from long reports. So, if we're working from AR4 SP2, I would look at the SPM, [2] and then concentrate on the pull-out summaries in the coloured boxes. Here they are:
Summarising and paraphrasing these, I could come up with the following:
That's only a first pass, and is not specific enough regarding food and fresh water security yet. I also haven't been through any other sources at the moment. What I have here could be further condensed to make room for some more food-specific statements, but I would hesitate simply to quote-mine these, preferring to summarise an existing summary. -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A couple of links. Some of which may be citable.
This APS discussion is pretty in depth with a number of presenters about IPCC. Each particpant has a presentation and the discussion at the end is rather enlightening as the IPCC authors discuss where the science is lacking and what they want in terms of money (i.e. weather balloons in remote areas). They go over a number of the areas where the model and observation do not correlate and why. APS reviews it's position statement every 5 years. As a general rule, I'd suspect they are sceptical in the process but the final statement will probably not be as sceptical as they ask tough questions. It's good because mainstream lead IPCC authors are discussing the sausage making without the SPM cloud and can be open and direct where they feel the error is and the so-called "sceptics" also bring up their concerns. They are not particularly far from each other.
The experts (sorry for caps, cut and paste):
DR. JOHN CHRISTY, DR. WILLIAM COLLINS, DR. JUDITH CURRY, DR. ISAAC HELD, DR. RICHARD LINDZEN, DR. BENJAMIN SANTER
The APU APS members all seemed like the no BS types with impressive credentials in physics, climate or modelling. I'd point out that, at least in the transcript (even though they disagree to an extent but not as much as the press or our articles would have the public believe), it's enlightening to read about what they admit and concede to others. One of the things I learned was apparently a paper/research into measured vertical heating profiles and model predictions which I hadn't heard before.
Out of that came PCMDI group which was formed to shore up climate models from disciplines that do modeling more intensely than traditional climatologists. They developed CMIP5 model (and CMIP3, I believe) which is where all the forcings are derived. CMIP5 was intended to be accurate at a decade level for hindcast and forecast (there also a AMIP allued to, but I haven't found it). The coupled ocean-air model seems to be most accurate when the ocean temps are forced to observation (Xie et al) but it's mentioned in the APS meeting. It seemed there was a little resentment about PCMDI formation from the IPCC folks as it was formed to assess the numerical methods and models used (and ended up standardizing it all). The IPCC group believed they were an oil advocacy group. - DHeyward ( talk) 04:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks D. 75.139.42.110 ( talk) 12:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)jesse
It doesn't sound like that to me at all. In any case, WP:AGF. The proposal is for us to consider whether or not the cited sources is important enough to cite in the article, and if so in what context. We should discuss that, instead of hastily closing the issue. Is this source reputable? What statements in the article does it back up? Should any part of the article be rewritten in light of this source? The answers to all of these question may be no, but the proposal was made seriously and politely and deserves to be answered seriously and politely. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I had a go at tidying up the "Etymology" section, but I found all of the information in the section to be either wrong, or unverifiable:
1. There is a claim, based on a couple of sources, that the first use of the term "global warming" was in Broeker's 1975 Science paper. While this is verifiable based on the sources, it is also clearly wrong. A 5 minute search turns up multiple much older papers using the term "global warming" in very much the modern sense e.g. here is one from 1961: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1961.tb50036.x/asset/j.1749-6632.1961.tb50036.x.pdf?v=1&t=hs7ionk4&s=084326cfda11928d139529fde573339a26b630fc. It seems to be based originally on a WebofScience search on the RealClimate blog, which is a fairly dreadful way of establishing the first use of the term.
2. The next part of the section is a claim that the first time the National Academy of Science used the term "global warming" was in a 1979 report, but the cited source (Conway's article on the NASA website) does not say this is the first time, so a citation is needed for this. In my opinion this claim may well not be correct (especially since the term had been in use in the scientific community for at least 18 years by that point) - but it is actually quite a hard thing to know what the first usage of the term within this particular organisation is, and I certainly can't find any reliable sources.
3. Finally, there is the claim the that Jim Hansen popularised the term after his testimony to Congress. As far as I can tell, this is just the opinion of a NASA historian on a NASA scientist. There is no justification for it e.g. an observed spike in usage directly after June 1988. At best we can say "According to Erik Conway, the term 'global warming' was popularised after the June 1988 testimony of Jim Hansen..."
I think it is clear that, with current citations, 1 and 2 should be removed, leaving a whole section for the opinion of Erik Conway that the term 'global warming' was popularised after Hansen's testimony, with no empirical backing for the statement.
I think the options then are either to remove the section completely, or find sources that discuss the etymology and rewrite the section using those. Currently, the section is unacceptably poor in my opinion. Atshal ( talk) 14:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
(Redacted) 41.130.213.196 ( talk) 13:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been under the impression that climate models have OVER estimated observed surface temps, but UNDER estimate sea ice loss.
The physical realism of models is tested by examining their ability to simulate contemporary or past climates.[132] Climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate.[133] Not all effects of global warming are accurately predicted by the climate models used by the IPCC. Observed Arctic shrinkage has been faster than that predicted.[134] Precipitation increased proportional to atmospheric humidity, and hence significantly faster than global climate models predict.[135][136]
This doesn't reflect the latest IPCC explanation.
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-draft-lowers-global-warming-projections/
Since this is a "Talk" section, I'm throwing this out there and hoping someone more versed in climate models will correct this or confirm the wording as acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.198.56 ( talk) 00:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I've previously criticized [8] the section of the article that describes the impacts of climate change on food production ( global warming#Food security). Now that the IPCC 5th Assessment Impacts report has been published [9], I suggest that the entire social impacts section be revised. In my view, important areas of the IPCC report include the "key risks" of climate change listed on p.12 of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), and the risks organized into 5 "reasons for concern" (p.13 of the SPM). The FAQs is another useful source. I suggest that the new revision be based upon this information. Enescot ( talk) 07:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Is is really necessary to use the word unequivocal in the first sentence? I think it's on the redundant side. A better read would be: "Global warming refers to the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system." -- IamGlobalTemp ( talk) 00:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is one alternative... see the first couple paragraphs at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_69#Attempted_Lead_Rewrite NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In my view, the new redirect
Evidence of global warming ---->>>
Attribution of recent climate change was done in GF but little knowledge and probably shouldn't have said that, sorry the result is an
WP:EGG. There is a difference between
A. Evidence that the place is getting hotter, e.g. "evidence of global warming", and B. Evidence that it is caused mostly by us, or by pink unicorn farts, or whatever, e.g. "evidence supporting the attribution of global warming"
I was going to fix that myself, but I am unsure of a good place that would be a better redirect. That got me to wondering if Evidence of global warming should be turned into an article of its own. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
-- 97.96.223.153 ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)-- 97.96.223.153 ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)-- 97.96.223.153 ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't want to edit this article.. I just need it for homework please.←§ 97.96.223.153 ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Though, i updated all the broken PDF links to the first draft release of the Summary for Policymakers report, now pointing to the landing page http://www.climatechange2013.org/spm of said report. However, reference page numbers might be off(didn't checked on a case by case basis). To slim down on references i suggest to use only 1 reference for all the summary 2013 links. However, if we do this, page numbers would be gone. Good or bad idea? Prokaryotes ( talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Spending some time looking at past edits on this article, I applaud the wiki editors who have put up with so many AGW denialists. I just wanted this part of the intro to read "interGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change" instead of "interNATIONAL Panel on Climate Change." Just click the link to the wiki IPCC article or go to the IPCC's website. The Talk [ [10]] has some folks citing the Global Warming Policy Foundation and talking about how the models have over predicted change. That's a freqent denialist tack. While models (and there are many of them) have both over AND underpredicted different changes resulting from global warming, the evidence suggests the IPCC (which uses an ensemble of different models) has more frequently UNDERpredicted changes. Here's the cite for that claim--Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J., Oppenheimer, M., 2013. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change 23, 327–337. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008--and I can send if you can't find a copy. I also get a bad feeling with these folks who want to parse the difference between "global warming" and "climate change." They are used interchangeably. Global warming is the heating up of the globe (land and sea surface, ocean, cryosphere) by humans. Climate change is the same thing, though usually has a connotation more on the effects of a heating planet. Global warming was the dominant phrase up until right wingers figured out that "global warming" made it sound like climate scientists knew what they were talking about while "climate change" made it sound wishy-washy, like they were uncertain. There's a memo that the republican strategist frank luntz wrote where he encouraged republicans to use "climate change." Here's a link to a G uardian article talking on that Luntz memo. Bobbywego ( talk) 02:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
As suggested in this thread, I fixed the name of the IPCC. However, the rest of the thread is unhelpful WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Gibberish and collapsed as
WP:FORUM since there is no IPCC 2014 def of "climate change" in the article. Click 'show' to read anyway
|
---|
has so many "ors". Is this for IPCC's safety due to whims (or guesses) they are implicated upon? Besides what is pointed in each item connected by OR here must bring heavy weight scientific proof that it bestows real "climate change" otherwise again IPCC is in the brain storming guessing game. And why do they again go back to blame anthropogenic disturbance (due to C02)? because of the high % and if the rest does not have a significant contribution then why include it in their definition. Are you not perplexed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.21.81 ( talk) 05:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Besides using =OR= means that each item can stand independently as a sole source of climate change. Did you not find that a bit crazy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.21.81 ( talk) 05:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC) `You are referring to climate change definition 2010 of ipcc current only a few "or" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.218.218 ( talk) 09:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
Since my recent edits got reverted i ask to address them here, rather than reintroducing false, outdated data, sorting and broken Refs. I will re-add content which is deemed necessary but believe most edits have been an improvement.
prokaryotes (
talk)
23:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of recent page content edits
Improvements
Edits which have been criticized
If anything from these edits is wrong, point it out, rather than reverting everything. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion
Revert to
this edit (includes "Ship track img", and address issues here on a case by case basis.
prokaryotes (
talk)
23:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Please let us know when you're done tweaking the menu of things to talk about. Alternatively, organize the long list with section headings. When you string a whole lot of christmas lights together and keep fiddling, it makes it impossible to have meaningful discussion. Suggest studying WP:TALK for tips. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Volcanism is not an external forcing" is wrong William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC) e/c
Current reasons for objection (I may notice others later)
Suggested way to proceed
Discuss desired structural & organizational changes here first. You might consider either posting draft text here, or doing a large one-shot change as a demo edit, and then self reverting. That produces a diff to the proposal without going "live" until there's an agreement in principle that the structure/organization needs to change. I'm actually glad you brought it up, because I do think we could make the material more accessible to the average reader. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI I created a draft, beginning with the external links section, here. prokaryotes ( talk) 14:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC) While I might have overstepped WP:TPOC, I inserted a section heading and slightly tweaked Prokaryotes text so it makes sense with the new section heading. Please revert if objectionable NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Prokaryotes draft would omit the descriptive text for the various ext links. I don't have super strong feelings about it. It seems sorta helpful, but it does add bytes to an already long article. Thoughts, anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Prokaryotes wants to delete these five, which I have cut and pasted from the article.
Comments? Should any/all be restored to the article? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Reasons
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a
WP:FORUM and is not about article improvement by the IP's own admission. Click "show" to read anyway
|
---|
"Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980" The graph to the right clearly show a 1.0 change (from below -0.4, 1905-1910) to 0.6 (2000-2014) The value for 1980 is 0.2, making the changes 40% since 1980, and not 66%. Just another lie for the GWH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.117.192 ( talk) 00:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I take that to mean that you admit, that the article overview contains lies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.117.192 ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Again: A simple math argument shows the claim in the first paragraph to be wrong. Yes, I've noticed the citation, which is irrelevant, because the claim is still WRONG. Notice that the replies to my claim do not invalidate it, admit it in fact, than calls ME cherry-picker. hmm. I'm not trying to fix this, because the whole article is clearly biased to anyone going outside of wiki's scope. I'm just documenting, for prosperity, just how bad scientists can distort facts and how useless wiki has become on any current-research issue. what a shame. this is also why I'm not using signing the comment. Its about wiki, not me. About 2 years ago I've added into "talk" a question about how long of a period of no warming is needed so that it will actually be discussed in the main article. We're now up to 18 years, so any high school graduate can see from satellite data that there was zero trend since he was born. Of course, it is STILL not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.121.195 ( talk) 16:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
Please visit and comment at Talk:Climate_resilience#Scope of article "Climate resilience" vs "Adaptation to global warming" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Given none of the graphs on this page show a warming after 1998 in what sense can the intro honestly say "continuing"? I am not a climate change skeptic and I think warming is ongoing on theoretical grounds but the fact is that strong evidence for warming after 1998 is currently lacking and no empirical evidence for warming post 1998 is shown on the page. The intro should be agreement with presented evidence within the page Tullimonstrum ( talk) 09:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not saying the last decade isn't the warmest on record, I am not saying that the radiative balance has suddenly improved. I am not saying there has not some southern oscillation effect going on. I am just saying as a matter of empirical fact that there is no observed upward trend in the unadjusted data since 1998/2000 so saying "continuing" RIGHT NOW is a trifle misleading "Dispassionately reporting facts that might lead a reader to reach a contrary conclusion, especially on controversial topics, is similarly to be avoided - lest the reader be misled as to the consensus view of the truth." I though dispassionately reporting facts was NPOV. But even ignoring that, wow, just wow... Tullimonstrum ( talk) 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
My only point was the presented info does not match the intro. How that observation can be categorised as “original research” when it refers to the internal consistency of a page and how that internal inconsistency disappears by virtue of the fact there are plausible explanations of the hiatus elsewhere, I don’t fully understand. A time series with a flat lining 5 year moving average is not showing continuing change, you don’t have to be George Box to figure that out. It is just bizarre to claim a continuing change if the graphs on the same page don’t show it. If I altered it without discussing it first you'd delete my edits so I merely pointed out there is a mismatch. So either different data should be presented or the intro should change. Otherwise one gets the situation that got me here, people referring to “continuing climate change” and presenting a flat-lining graph as evidence. I am not a climate change skeptic but I am beginning to understand John's position!! (Sorry I missed the sarcasm before BTW) Tullimonstrum ( talk) 14:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
e/c
(A) Move the temp anomaly pic in the lead (to where I don't know)
(B) In its place add the image of total heat content (see thumbnail in this thread); for more info on that graph click the thumbnail to go to the image page
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Tullimonstrum ( talk · contribs) in this thread, we have noted (and RS content backs this up) that the first graph in the article is about SURFACE temps; that >90% of global warming's energy goes into the sea; we have referred you to RSs cited in Global warming hiatus, and to a Jeff Master's article talking about issues with the surface temp graph related to arctic data analysis. Unless I missed it, I don't think you have specifically discussed the content in any RSs. I think you've just been looking at the graph, and have been floating questions based on what you think you see in that graph. Well, OK. Question As far as your concerned, can we close this thread or do you still have a pending suggestion for article improvement based on RS content (and if so, please re-state your suggestion with discussion of the RS content on which it is based). NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I propose adding the following sentence both to the intro section of the article and also separately to the lower down "scientific discussion" section.
"Nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action."
The citation is here: http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
In that citation, the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research lists 197 organizations, and provides links to their websites. Unfortunately, the links are not to the specific parts of the websites where they evidence their support, but in my view the original page should be trusted as an authoritative statement, due to the scrutiny such an office would face for posting such a statement and list on this topic. I believe citing this number adds to users' understanding of the topic, because while the current version talks about the percentage-support in the literature, it does not discuss the number of important organizations that support this view. Please let me know your response and if the answer is yes, edit the page accordingly.
Thank you.
TheDumbMoney ( talk) 01:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)TheDumbMoney
---
You know, the experience of those who have walked past a smoke-belching factory and seen the temperature go up and the air become thick and uncomfortable as they approached it? The experience pf just watching the waves of heat rise above a traffic jam? Is this collected and documented anywhere? DeistCosmos ( talk) 05:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a love-hate thing going with the archival templates. Would someone better skilled than I please figure out why old threads are lingering? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
As discussed on previous threads [12], I've written a draft revision of the section of the article that deals with the social effects of climate change]:
Note: I've converted the reference temperature period in the source from the late-20th century to pre-industrial times (see: SPM: p14: Assessment Box SPM-1).
References: All taken from the IPCC 5th Assessment Working Group II report: Cramer et al (Chapter 18); Field et al ( Technical Summary); Oppenheimer et al (Ch 19); Porter et al (Ch 7); Smith et al (Ch 11); Summary for Policymakers; Volume-wide FAQs.
Enescot ( talk) 08:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason the SRES-scenarios, used in AR4 and AR3 are still used in the article? I would like to replace them with the RCPs used in AR5. Femkemilene ( talk) 08:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable on this subject please write a section on the falsifiability of the theory of AGW? If for the sake of argument the proponents of this are wrong and no significant—let alone catastrophic—effects occur within some timeframe (assuming that worldwide C02 emissions have not significantly decreased during that period), would that prove the theory is wrong? If so, what is a consensus timeframe for that please? If not, what could disprove it?
Al Gore has in the past cited models that have already proven drastically off, such as the prediction by climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski of the entire disappearance of the summer Artic polar ice cap by 2013 as it remains somewhat shy of 1,000,000 square miles strong. I suppose the response to this is that that just means that that particular model was wrong and not the underlying theory: the creator of the model misunderstood the theory and what it signifies and predicts.
I don’t mean to take a position on this highly contentious issue. However, since it is deemed a mainstream scientific theory, then according to such illustrious personages in the history of science as Karl Popper and Albert Einstein, it must be falsifiable. The latter said, “All it would take to disprove my theory [of STR] is one observation to the contrary [of its predictions].” Thus far, there hasn’t been one: clocks really do run slower as speed increases. Relativity dispensed with the perceived need for the invisible “aether” that was once thought to permeate the entire universe and thus provided an absolute frame of reference. That was once mainstream scientific thought.
One way to unequivocally prove AGW right is, unfortunately, to let events run their course and suffer the catastrophic consequences the theory’s proponents suggest will occur as a result. That would indeed be tragic. But if for the sake of argument no meaningful reduction of C02 emissions occurs, it seems to me in that event there must be some point in time where proponents of the theory acknowledge the theory to have been false (or at least its implied catastrophic results) if they have nothing more draconian to show for it beyond the odd category five hurricane or "super storm" that have occurred throughout history. If that not be the case, then can the theory really be called scientific? Therefore, what exactly is that timeframe? Thank you. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 15:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Test System | Input | Result |
---|---|---|
105 pound coed | Add 1 shot per 20 minutes | Gets sloppy drunk; in best case she passes out before she kills herself by alcohol overdose |
Earth's climate system | Add energy of ~400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day, every day | Don't let climate drink and drive |
The OP said "I am not taking a postion on the issue. I simply want myself and others to have the tools available to form an intelligent opinion in light of arguments and allegations made by skeptics. "
You can look up pretty much any skeptic argument you like and
get answers based on the professional science literature.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
16:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Current events confirm global warming. To falsify global warming would be trivial. If, over five year averages, it stopped getting warmer, that would falsify global warming. Since global warming is a statement about averages, one cold day does not falsify global warming. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal - move from Global warming to Global warming (current climate change)
OP's Reasoning I like the article's current scope and am not suggesting we change the topic, only the name. Here's why
Sometime before my arrival here in 2011 eds had agreed to treat Climate change as a generic topic unrelated to geological time period (and references to non-earth climate changes have come and gone in that article). Meanwhile, we reported on the current climate change here at Global warming. There are two problems with this set up.
First, "global warming" has two meanings. The title doesn't really tell the reader which meaning will be emphasized by the text. The first is the original technical definition (just the increasing trend of global surface temps) now supported with an RS in the lead first paragraph. However, over time, "global warming" also became a WP:Neologism, serving as a synonym for current climate change. Before long so many RSs had embraced the neologistic meaning of the phrase "global warming" that it had became firmly established. So it has these two different meanings. Arguably, the text covers both meanings,,,, I did add some text to the lead's first paragraph awhile back to try to address this problem. However, complaints have still been raised about this article's scope - here is one notable recent thread where more than one ed spoke about revising the article's scope. IN SUM: "global warming" has two meanings, the original narrow one and also as a synonym for current climate change. You don't know which one is the emphasis from the current "global warming" article title, and we should recomit to covering the broad meaning here.
The second problem with the article title "Global warming" is that it is susceptible to claims of POV (whether POV exists is besides the point). Since the scope of this article currently encompasses current climate change, several recent studies become relevant. These studies show that there is a difference of public perception whether one says "global warming" or "climate change". ( Just one example) Since these terms have import for public perception, and since lots of RSs covering the broad topic use "global warming" and lots of others say "climate change", seems to me that the only way to avoid accusations of WP:POVNAMING is to move this article to Global warming (current climate change).
Reworking the lead is overdue, but I think we should get a consensus on this title/scope issue first. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
"i see no reason to reflect that extra in the title", please see WP:POVNAMING and the link I already posted " Just one example". The public reacts differently to these synonyms. Thus, we need a really really good reason to adopt one for our article title and not the other. Without such a reason we might be seen as POV pushing. Please see this additional example too - " It's all in a name: 'Global warming' versus 'climate change'" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
(1) The archives do not contain any discussion of the point I am raising, which is POV and confusion in the title, based on published research. I'll be organizing those sources and quotes sometime this week.
(2) Among the archives' threads containing "commonname", and eliminating my own references to that guideline (unrelated to the current point), most threads were debating whether we could use "global warming" to specifcally refer to the current warming instead of limiting ourselves to the generic meaning first used in the sci lit. The consensus was "yes" and I think we should keep doing that.
(3) The couple remaining archive threads compared "global warming" to "global warming in recent years" and "global climate change". To the extent reasons were given, the questionable google hit count method was used to show that at the time "global warming" wasthe hands down google-hit winner.... but those threads were old.
(4) Updating the admittedly dubious GoogleScholar hit-test... lets start the tally in 2008 since AR4 was released the year before. Google Scholar - uncheck patents & citations - years 2008 to 2014.... the results are
(5) So not only are there multiple published research reports discussing import of saying "global warming" versus "climate change", but since AR4 the professional literature appears to be embracing "climate change" over "global warming". Of course, without reading all the sources one can't know the context, so it's a shaky test. Just seemed like we were relying on that test to get where we are, so if we're going to ignore the essentially same test's different results today we should have a reason based in logic.NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
For example, the term climate change includes issues such as:
Curiously, the term "rainfall" occurs in the lead, but not in the body of the article.
Similarly, "drought" occurs in the lead, but not in the body.
Given that the lead it supposed to be a summary of material in the body, it appears that the article has been primarily about global warming, but someone decided to add some aspects of climate change to the lead, without adding them to the body.
In addition, the article barely mentions issues such as tornado frequency and intensity or hurricane frequency and intensity, both of which are prominent aspect of climate change but understandably not emphasized in an article referring to overall warming.
In other words, if the consensus were to change the title, it would require a substantial rewrite, as this article is primarily about global warming, and doesn't have adequate coverage of climate change issues. Addendum: It didn't sink in until after I posted that my point is largely an expansion of the point made by User:Prokaryotes-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
"While GW concentrates on just one effect, it is the name under which the current climate change is best known."(underline added)
Is there any dispute here besides what NAEG is generating? Was there any dispute more than ten minutes before he tagged the article? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record, my comment was that this article was so screwed up, it became "Climate Change" while the "Climate Change" article became global warming. That hasn't changed. This article should be about the increase in global mean surface temperature. That's the definition of global warming. Climate change is broader than surface temperature. As long as the OWNERS of the article insist on ignoring the scientific litereature (i.e. Hansen's very distinct use of the terms), this is just more deck chair shuffling. I in no way support an article title change and infact, would prefer that the article on Global Warming be written to reflect Global Warming and the article on Climate Change focus on Climate Change. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
While climate change has long covered variation over many centuries, Spencer R. Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming consistently uses this term to refer to the current changes: he specifically notes that Wallace Broecker wrote in 1975 Climatic change; are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?", taking the lead in warning in an influential Science magazine article that the world might be poised on the brink of a serious rise of temperature. "Complacency may not be warranted," he said. "We may be in for a climatic surprise." [14] So, a clear distinction. What's the problem? . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
OP proposes a compromise that also addresses this thread here NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
DHeyward ( talk · contribs), thanks for this comment at a user talk page. In response, do you agree/disagree with the existing hatnote (in place since at least 2011) which reads "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate."? If you disagree, how would you change the hatnote? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Global warming refers to the rise in the observed land and sea surface temperatures. More than half of the observed warming is attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases from such activities as fossil fuel consumption and cement production. Since <date> the mean global surface temperature has risen <X>. IPCC AR5 has adopted four Representative Concentration Pathways to estimate the effect of different greenhouse gas emission scenarios on future climate change including temperature. The estimated range of temperature increase for those scenarios in the year 2100 is <Y>. The term "global warming" is often used to describe the broad aspect of Climate change." For definition and why it's better to delineate the two terms, see NASA essay [17]. They seem to have grappled with the same issue and chose scientific meanings so that confusion is easily corrected and not cluttered. It makes dealing with topics like the so-called "pause" or "hiatus" so much easier because when someone says "Global Warming Pause" and they have lots of sources that have used the term, it's not contradictory to the article and it's never "Climate Change Pause". Scoping it narrowly and pointing out where "global warming" is not representative of "climate change" then becomes easier. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Global warming refers to the rise in the observed land and sea surface temperatures."What RS do you propose citing for that definition? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@DHeyward, Do you oppose having an article for the Younger Dryas, another for the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, and yet another for the Little ice age? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"well defined and delineated"there are two different definitions of "climate change" in the IPCC AR5 WG1 glossary! WG1's definition says nothing about time (now vs paleo) nor necessarily including humans; "Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer." Then WG1 goes out of its way to articulate the different definition used by UNFCCC (which specifically says human causation). And of course, google scholar is full of sources talking about paleo climate change.
edit conflict
It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. (bold added)
While the content of the introduction is of a high quality, it does not "briefly summarize" the article. I hesitate at putting this template in the article itself, due to its scientific nature and Featured status. However, the introduction is bloated and should be at most four paragraphs. Thanks, Greggydude ( talk) 09:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. Let's look at it collaboratively. The lead should summarise the article's main points, so first here is a list of the main headings of the body of the article:
Here is my own outline of the paragraphs of the existing lead:
It is clear that there is some correlation, but some room for improvement. Perhaps we should aim for something like the following:
It's still five paras, can anyone propose a better outline? Then we just need to write the paragraphs, based on the article text. Anything important currently in the lead, and referenced there, that is not in the body, should be merged into a better place rather than lost in the changes. -- Nigelj ( talk) 13:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I am very much of the opinion that the lead is bloated and does not read well - I feel it is one of the weakest areas of this article, which is a shame since it is probably the most important. I fully support NigelJ's analysis and suggested structure. One dreadful example - in the very first sentence the use of the word "unequivocal" is terribly grating (much discussed, but inexplicably still present) - this is not part of a definition of global warming, which the opening sentence should be, but a comment on attitudes of scientists to global warming. Global warming is the identical phenomenon, regardless of whether it is seen as unequivocally true or not. Atshal ( talk) 09:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
(A) I agree the lead is bloated.
(B) Before fixing the lead, we should look at the body
(C) Before reviewing the body, we should all be on the same page about article scope and to focus discussion I propose changing lead paragraph 1 so that it is consistent with the hatnote in place since 2011 ("This article is about the current change in Earth's climate.")
CURRENT TEXT
move the rest to body of article-Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850. [1]
PROPOSED NEW FIRST PARAGRAPH
POSSIBLE RSs FOR SENTENCE 1
[T]o sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".
The two terms are often used interchangeably but they generate very different responses, the researchers from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communications said.
We use both "climate change" and "global warming" interchangeably.
The term scientists prefer is actually "climate change," because that encompasses effects other than warming, such as changes in rainfall patterns, melting glaciers and rising sea levels. There are several scholarly journals using the term "climate change," such as Nature Climate Change and Climatic Change and the International Journal of Climate Change. The 1992 treaty that governs global warming is called the "Framework Convention on Climate Change."
Global warming is a familiar term, so we feel justified in using it as a more concrete, but less complete, expression of the phenomenon.
I strongly doubt whether Wally Broecker realised that when his 1975 Science paper was titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" he knew that the term would go on to gain such international traction. I doubt, therefore, that he gave it much thought whether it would withstand the rigours of intense scrutiny and debate that it would attract over the coming decades. * * * [T]he two terms are largely interchangeable in common discussion, even though climate scientists will rightly argue there are subtle, but important distinctions.
[Q.] What is climate change? [A.] Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that there have been changes in the global climate since the early 1900s, and that these climate changes, and future climate change predicted over the next century, are largely due to human activities and excessive greenhouse gas emissions, which are warming up the Earth. This is climate change, often referred to as "global warming".
IN SUM This change would make the first paragraph consistent with the hatnote and better reflects the articles content. If the consensus is to use "global warming" to mean something other than the current climate change (e.g., being "just" about rising surf temps) then I think eds like DHeyward ( talk · contribs) have a good point about the article going beyond its agreed scope. So what do YOU think? Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
"(the phrase 'global warming', should not be the subject of the first sentence. The phrase is the topic of the hatnote, but that is what the hatnote is for. The article is about the warming of the globe, and should start on that topic straight way."
"...false dichotomy..."
"there is a serious false dichotomy in the question, 'Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps?'"
The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced.
A new proposal is here NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Bump, since this thread has been referenced today. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Trackteur wants to pipe the phrase "human activities" in the lead to some other article. I've reverted a link to human behaviour, because that mostly deals with individual behaviour and not with the large-scale industry we engage in as a society. The user then piped it to anthropic principle, which I find a even less plausible (it's a cosmological principle basically saying that the universe is as it is because if it were different, we would not be there to observe it). Before we get into an edit war, I'd like to hear more opinions about the need for piping that term, and if that need exists, a suitable target. Please comment. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Archive note - This is a continuation of a long conversation that was not archived in chronological sequence. The order is...
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 06:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Global warming - (NAEG Ver 6)
Draft-Reviewers - Footnote alert! Please notice the suprascript letters, which are new in this version. In common speech, global warming and climate change[a] are both used to refer to the current warming of Earth's climate system and its related effects. Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming. [5] [6] More than 90% of the additional energy stored in the climate system since 1970 has gone into ocean warming; the remainder has melted ice, and warmed the continents and atmosphere. [7][b] Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over decades to millennia. [8]
Notes a. Insert this as a hidden inline comment DO NOT WIKILINK THIS! This use of "climate change" is the colloquial sense and means the current climate change; this is the article about that topic. A short explanation and wikilink for the article titled "Climate change" is in the hatnote right before this sentence. b. Insert this in text using Template:efn Scientific journals use "global warming" to describe an increasing global average temperature just at earth's surface, and most of these authorities further limit "global warming" to such increases caused by human activities or increasing greenhouse gases. |
Have at it, Folks. Thoughts?
I'll add one off the batt.... I tried long and hard to find a smooth way to explicitly mention we're using the COMMONNAME form as well as link to climate change in the first sentence, but - despite trying long and hard - I failed miserably. Then I realized the hatnote just linked to climate change a sentence or two before, so instead I inserted what will become (if this is approved) a hidden inline comment explaining what I just said. Its footnote [a] in this draft. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
" I wholeheartedly agree that mentioning the common speech usage is necessary. It's then necessary to correct it.." (with the scientific meaning that "global warming" is only GMST)I think this draft does that. Though to be fair to DHeyward's viewpoint, in the comment I just linked he went on to say after we satisfy the first part, we should then go on to overhaul the article topic entirely. I'm not ready to go that far, but he and I do think we solve a lot of problems with explicitly talking about the common vs scientific meanings of these words. Nigelj, If see something that is arguably wrong then we definitely need to know, but if you are opposed to "in common speech" just as matter of style could you live with it to move things forward, since others think it is important? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It is probably about time to wrap this up. I agree with dave souza about dropping "In common speech". I still think the sentence with "decades to millennia" is easily misunderstood and should be dropped. But unless you agree, I say go with what we've got. Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
An essay I was reading makes the excellent point that hidden inline comments like the one in this draft are not controlling (no ownership) and should point to the discussions where the reasons for whatever were previously decided. So we should add a thread pointer if this goes live and update when archived. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
References
The average temperature of the Earth's surface increased by about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of this warming occurring over just the past three decades.
While I personally welcome the recent edit of the 'Observed and expected effects on social systems' section by Enescot ( talk · contribs), I did think that our coverage of the executive summary of AR5 WG2 Chapter 18, 'Detection and Attribution of Observed Impacts', was a little too brief:
Not only a little brief, but could also too easily be misread as if we were saying that "The effects of climate change on human systems have only been detected in the agriculture of indigenous peoples in the Arctic." Therefore I have carefully extended our coverage, mainly of their section beginning 'Substantial new evidence has been collected on sensitivities of human systems to climate change.'
While this is certainly about 100 words longer, I hope Enescot and others will agree that it is a more rounded summary of that important document. If not, of course, further suggestions for improvement are always welcome. -- Nigelj ( talk) 11:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to delete the section on Global warming#Food security. I've previously written a critique of this section [23]. In my opinion, Global warming#Observed and expected effects on social systems already provides an adequate and brief summary on food impacts. There are sub-articles ( effects of global warming and climate change and agriculture) that go into more detail. Enescot ( talk) 07:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest to start the article with: Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rising of the average heat content in the Earth's climate system, which may or not reflect in a continuing rising of average temperature of Earth's climate system. Or alternate: Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rising of the average heat content in the Earth's climate system, which may reflect in a continuing rising of average temperature of Earth's climate system. If you have in hand a glass filled with ice cubes, you are (heating or warming?) the glass, even if the temperature remains constant, as long as there's melting ice. I know the IPCC document title, but if you fully read the papers you understand that the correct meaning is "rising energy content". Otherwise anyone explain me if common usage of heating has a different meaning as warming ? -- Robertiki ( talk) 03:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I deleted: "The dips are related to global recessions." because it implies the only way to have a stronger economy is to make more CO2. This is inaccurate because there are many ways to improve the economy without emitting more CO2. One way is to increase wind energy generation. NewsAndEventsGuy reverted my edit and I'm now asking for support from the community to delete this statement again on this page and on climate change mitigation. Thank you. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 20:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
With your permission, I wish to add an interwiki link to a quiz specifically targeted to the first two sections of this article:
Learning materials related to
this article (Quiz) at Wikiversity
The intent of the quiz is first, to give students with limited scientific literacy a pre-reading activity, and then to provide teachers with a testbank that contains randomized versions of the quiz.
If you approve, I will write at least one more quiz to cover subsequent sections. Also, I noticed that you already have a generic interlink to Wikiversity's global warming page. It's more than a bit weird, and I would prefer to have a separate interlink to my quizzes.
What do you think? -- guyvan52 ( talk) 18:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably should delete most or all external links because although they provide good background, they don't add anything to our Wikipedia article. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)