![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I picked up this greenhouse gas potency term from the Ozone article, because it well illustrates my problem with the various articles that deal with GH effect, radiative forcing etc. "Greenhouse gas potency" is an undefined term. That article states "Quantifying the greenhouse gas potency of ozone is difficult because it is not present in uniform concentrations across the globe." illustrating the usual confusion between the radiative forcing power of the gas and its global contribution to forcing but then goes on to produce a rare burst of apparent partial clarity:
"The annual global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is between 918–1022 tons carbon dioxide equivalent/tons tropospheric ozone. This means on a per-molecule basis, ozone in the troposphere has a radiative forcing effect roughly 1,000 times as strong as carbon dioxide. However, tropospheric ozone is a short-lived greenhouse gas, which decays in the atmosphere much more quickly than carbon dioxide."
Then it blows it all by saying: "This means that over a 20 year horizon, the global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is much less, roughly 62 to 69 tons carbon dioxide equivalent / tons tropospheric ozone. [1]"
Clearly GWP 1 and GWP 2 are different things.
This stuff is all over the place, employing undefined units which don't have the same dimensions or names, (sometimes the same names but different dimensions) and are used to compute percentages without stating which units were employed. These things contravene the most fundamental principles of scientific communication. endrant (for now) Plantsurfer ( talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The article states "For example methane and carbon monoxide (CO) are oxidised to give carbon dioxide." That would imply to the unwary reader that the greenhouse impact is increased by this increased CO2, whereas in fact the precise opposite is true, since methane is some 70-fold more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
The second paragraph needs a lot of work - it is full of difficult and probably inaccurate logic, and unexplained phenomena.
"Methane has three indirect effects in addition to forming CO2. The main chemical which destroys methane in the atmosphere is the hydroxyl radical (OH). Methane reacts with OH and so more methane means that the concentration of OH goes down. In turn this slows down the removal of methane from the atmosphere and so each methane molecule stays longer in the air." Leading to what exactly??
"The second effect is that the oxidation of methane can produce ozone." 'kay, so on a molar basis what is the greenhouse power of ozone compared with methane, and how many moles of methane does it take to make a mole of ozone??
"Thirdly, as well as making CO2 the oxidation of methane produces water. The oxidation of methane is a major source of water vapour in the stratosphere." Fine.
"CO and NMVOC also produce CO2 and increase methane" this seems unlikely, but if true the mechanism needs to be outlined. Presumably the increase in methane is due to decrease in the rate of oxidation ?? and not by synthesis ??
"because they remove OH from the atmosphere and their removal can produce ozone." eh? please explain this
"Halocarbons have an indirect effect because they destroy stratospheric ozone." OK, but link to article
"Finally hydrogen can lead to ozone production and CH4 increases as well as producing water vapour in the stratosphere.[10]" how does hydrogen promote O3 and CH4 increases, and if it is oxidised in the stratosphere state how. Plantsurfer ( talk) 19:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Since the topic of clouds is included in this article, is it possible to specify with a good citation whether clouds produce a stronger or weaker greenhouse effect than the same quantity of water vapour? Also, has the contribution of clouds to radiative forcing oncreased since pre-industrial levels? Plantsurfer ( talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33°C (59°F) colder than the present average of 14 °C (57 °F). - There is evidently something wrong with this. -- 85.71.27.102 ( talk) 11:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
What's the English spelling consensus for this article? At a glance it looks like British English (water vapour); maybe it would be a good idea to formalize this with a template here? -- Kierkkadon talk/ contribs 13:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Some details about a contest to market it? I don't edit GHG articles so I will let the regulars decide whether to include it and which article. Does it warrant its own article? http://ccemc.ca/about/ Link from source didn't work so I added it.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Carbon emission redirects here, but the article doesn't clearly explain the term. It doesn't seem to refer to emission of elemental carbon, but does it encompass emissions of all compounds of carbon, only gaseous compounds of carbon or some other still? — Kpalion (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
First, I find no mention of Earth's thermal radiation. The Earth and Jupiter are both planets that emit more energy than provided by extraterrestrial sources e.g. the Sun. Wikipedia mentions that the Earth's core remains molten due to heat that continues to be generated by decay of primordial radioactive elements. This radiation flux generates greatly more energy than human activity, and is not shown in any of your diagrams or mentioned in text. This indicates that the references that you quote are suspect or ignorant (scientists often concentrate of their field of interest to the exclusion reality). I had also expected some acknowledgement for soot generated by Communist China. Certainly a significant factor in polar ice melting; soot has high opacity absorbing much more radiation than gas molecules. Soot and mineral dust also have significant residence time in the atmosphere. Carbon Monoxide Wiki:"Worldwide, the largest source of carbon monoxide is natural in origin, due to photochemical reactions in the troposphere that generate about 5 x 10^12 kilograms per year.[3] Other natural sources of CO include volcanoes, forest fires, and other forms of combustion"; 0.1ppmv; "Carbon monoxide has an indirect radiative forcing effect by elevating concentrations of methane and tropospheric ozone"; highest concentrations over China. Soot Wiki:"Soot is theorized to be the second largest cause of global warming.[1][2]". Wiki Particulates: soot size .01-.1 micrometer. Nitrous Oxide Wiki: "Nitrous oxide is emitted by bacteria in soils and oceans, and thus has been a part of Earth's atmosphere for aeons. Agriculture is the main source of human-produced nitrous oxide: cultivating soil, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, and animal waste handling can all stimulate naturally occurring bacteria to produce more nitrous oxide. The livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide.[3] Industrial sources make up only about 20% of all anthropogenic sources, and include the production of nylon, and the burning of fossil fuel in internal combustion engines. Human activity is thought to account for 30%; tropical soils and oceanic release account for 70%.[4] Nitrous oxide reacts with ozone in the stratosphere. Nitrous oxide is the main naturally occurring regulator of stratospheric ozone. Nitrous oxide is a major greenhouse gas. Considered over a 100-year period, it has 298 times more impact per unit weight than carbon dioxide. Thus, despite its low concentration, nitrous oxide is the fourth largest contributor to these greenhouse gases. It ranks behind water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. Control of nitrous oxide is part of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[5]" Shjacks45 ( talk) 04:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a paper from Nature which probably should be referenced in the section about greenhouse gases and seems particularly relevant to the recent slowdown of global warming.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1999.html
It is a purely statistical survey of the warming over the last hundred years and points to various events which probably helped temporarily slow the rise at various points like the world wars, depressions, and the Montreal Protocol. They also point to a pronounced rise in the rate around 1960. Dmcq ( talk) 11:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"... 33 C° (59 F°) ..." Maybe I am missing something obvious, but https://www.google.com/search?q=33+celsius+in+fahrenheit&oq=33+celcius — Preceding unsigned comment added by John xyz123 ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand know. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John xyz123 ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Then, can you please explain what the sentence means? Would the earth's surface average about 33 celsius colder or would it average 59 farhenheit colder? Or is it supposed to mean something else. As the sentence stands, it is confusing because 33 celsius and 59 farhenheit are not the same temperature, but the sentence reads as if they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.85.233 ( talk) 01:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Boy, it took me awhile, but I get it now. It is so ingrained to see 33 C (59 F) as being the same temperature, what you see on a thermometer. As soon as I see this notation, my brain tries to see equivalent real temperature. So, I now read it as "Earth's surface would average about 33 degrees C less (colder) which is about 59 degrees F less. Thank you for taking the time to explain this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.128.128 ( talk) 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the C° and F° notation that we currently use was introduced by Vsmith ( talk · contribs) in this edit. The Celsius article says, "This is sometimes solved by using the symbol °C (pronounced "degrees Celsius") for a temperature, and C° (pronounced "Celsius degrees") for a temperature interval, although this usage is non-standard." I have never seen this notation before, and I see that it has not stopped the steady flow of people either commenting here, or altering the article, because that sentence is still quite widely misunderstood. I wonder if we should put a little more effort into explaining what we're actually saying, rather than hoping that a non-standard (and to my experience, obscure) notation and hidden markup comment will do the trick? -- Nigelj ( talk) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this sentence :- "Under ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, available Earth System Models project that the Earth's surface temperature could exceed historical analogs as early as 2047 affecting most ecosystems on Earth and the livelihoods of over 3 billion people worldwide" This is a projection from a computer model and computer models can predict anything, almost invariably what the modeller wants to predict. This speculation does not belong here or indeed anywhere on Wikipedia IMHO. Doubtless some Warmist will revert this. Smokey TheCat 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the cited Nature article is mainly concerned with 'when' - certainly not 'if' - I wonder if the sentence in question could be reworded to emphasise that. For example:
-- Nigelj ( talk) 13:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
== Misleading CO2/Energy ratio for ignite (and possibly also for other coal forms) The list of CO2 emmisions per energy unit suggest that ignite isn't much worse than other types of coal but the wikipedia page about ignite contradicts this. Presumably, the energy densities used for the table in this page have not been discounted for the energy lost to evaporation of moisture, and is therefore misleading. Helenuh ( talk) 11:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
51% of all greenhouse gas emission comes from animal agriculture making same the main source of greenhouse gas emission in the world. Therefore if animal agriculture is not adressed and replaced by other sustainable means of plant based food production there is no hope for this planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.52.237 ( talk) 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"Today, the stock of carbon in the atmosphere increases by more than 3 million tonnes per annum (0.04%) compared with the existing stock."
I think the source cited for the above is in error, the IPCC says billions:
"Atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase since the TAR (Figure 7.4), and the rate of increase appears to be higher, with the average annual increment rising from 3.2 ± 0.1 GtC yr–1 in the 1990s to 4.1 ± 0.1 GtC yr–1 in the period 2000 to 2005."
Keith McClary ( talk) 04:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that bitumen / oil sands be removed from the table of fuel carbon intensities. It is not a fuel and under no conceivable circumstance is it useful the way any of the other fuels in that table are. Though the life cycle emission intensities of fuels derived from bitumen / heavy crudes may be higher than conventional fuels, the vehicle or combustion emissions of gasolines/diesels derived from bitumen feedstocks are similar to those produced from fuels derived from conventional feedstocks since at that point it is all effectively just gasoline/diesel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.110.103 ( talk) 18:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
validity: the composition of the atmosphere as depicted can be found under: Atmosphere_of_Earth, Greenhouse gas, and the single Wikipedia sites of the gases.
phytoplankton and all green plants on the land fix carbon dioxide by photosynthesis with light-energy. The end products of photosynthesis are sugar and other organic products, and oxygen.
Methane origin: Methane#Production, Methane#Occurence
please write me, when you find mistakes -- Smiles :( :\ :o :() ( talk) 00:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Early in the article there is the following quote: When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17] Compound Formula Contribution (%) Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72% Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26% Methane CH4 4–9% Ozone O3 3–7%
Although H2O is by far the major greenhouse gas, it is barely mentioned in the rest of the article and is not included in any of the charts and tables. The effects of CO2 and CH4 are small compared to the effects of H2O, so the exclusion of H2O is a flaw that skews this article to the point of mis-information, and thus counters the Wikipedia charter. Please block it until it is corrected. 216.232.145.52 ( talk) 01:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC) S.Bowker Jan 18, 2014
perhaps the following quote from the article isn't complete: " Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (i.e., emissions produced by human activities) come from combustion of carbon-based fuels, principally wood, coal, oil, and natural gas" Briancady413 ( talk) 23:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
LPGs Propane and butane are used as propellent in aerosol spray cans . They are members of the family of gases called alkanes which includes Methane and they are far worse than Caarbon dioxide as greenhouse gases contributinh to global warming. Their use in this context should be banned by law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPGpropellent ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Closing early per WP:SNOW. I suggest the nominator review WP:COMMONNAME - we WP editors do not decide what is more scientifically accurate. We rely on editors of reliable sources to do that, and follow their usage. ( non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 01:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Greenhouse gas →
Heat trapping gas – More accurate scientific portrayal of mechanism, cultural confusion with term "greenhouse" (also potentially seen as a positive action) –
ChalkyChalky (
talk)
18:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Just stop converting to obscure, non scientific units, and stick to SI units everywhere. Then create some kind of auto-conversion, where a common component for the whole Wikipedia do whatever conversions is necessary/wanted for each individual end user. Temperature should be in Kelvin, and nothing else.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.110.220 ( talk) 08:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Frequent errors are made about this, so here's how the calculation works:
The article states that "without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about 15 °C (27 °F) colder than the present average of 14 °C (57 °F)."
Thus, present temperature with GHG = 14 °C (57.2 °F). Temperature in the absence of GHG = -1 °C (30.2 °F). Thus temperature difference of 15 °C is equivalent to 57.2-30.2 = 27 °F.
QED Hope this helps, Plantsurfer 16:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What are the sources for the claim that the average temperature without GHG would be -1 °C? These articles state it would be about -18 °C: Qiancheng Ma, Greenhouse Gases: Refining the Role of Carbon Dioxide Kenneth R. Lang, Heating by the greenhouse effect Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect What is a greenhouse gas? WMO, Causes of Climate Change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.183.243 ( talk) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Gray Body Variant of the Zero Dimensional EBM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.183.243 ( talk) 14:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases should be listed in "weighted order". For example "hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are now thought to contribute to anthropogenic global warming. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, these compounds are up to 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide", so HCFCs should be multiplied by 10000, while CO2 is multiplied by 1. Sorting should be done by the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.110.220 ( talk) 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Emissions Jabujunior ( talk) 09:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe the second halt of first paragraph in the "2.2 Atmospheric lifetime" section is wrong. first part says Jacob (1999) defines it as an average on time, while the rest of the paragraph treats it as a median value, which is clearly not the same since the distribution is not symetrical. -- Camion ( talk) 23:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The following reference:
gives a list of greenhouse effect contributions from various gaseous components:
Component | Effect | Contribution |
---|---|---|
H2O | 20.6 K | 62.0% |
CO2 | 7.2 K | 21.7% |
O3 | 2.4 K | 7.2% |
N2O | 1.4 K | 4.2% |
CH4 | 0.8 K | 2.4% |
Other | 0.8 K | 2.5% |
Total | 33.2 K | 100% |
This list differs from the data in the "Impacts on the overall greenhouse effect" section, so I am unclear what is being presented in the latter. Would anybody mind if I update the table accordingly? Praemonitus ( talk) 20:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello The Greenhouse gas section contains data from numerous sources showing the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial era and rising mean global temperatures and presents data showing for instance the heat absorption rates of various GHG's and the length of time they might persist in the atmosphere. There is definitely a correlation between increasing GHG concentrations and increasing global temperatures. Unfortunately the section has no data on how and why GHG's actually absorb infrared heat radiation and why they do this better than they absorb other types of thermal radiation, how a GHG's atomic structure interacts with thermal electromagnetic radiation in a way other gasses don't. Without definitive evidence the view that say Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas remains a belief supported by anecdotal evidence of the correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and rising mean global temperatures. If this were the whole case the thesis that rising CO2 concentrations are the cause of rising mean global temperatures is no more valid than the thesis that rising globes mean temperatures are the cause of rising CO2 concentrations. The fact that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere also isn't direct evidence to prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The US government recently declared Carbon Dioxide to not be a greenhouse gas. If that claim is to be effectively refuted direct evidence to prove CO2's thermal properties is urgently needed. Take three glass tanks and one infrared heat source like the sun. One tank contains a vacuum. One tank contains air. One tank contains Carbon Dioxide. For a given period of time the heat source is shone into each tank and its internal temperature monitored. When the heat source is removed it can be demonstrated that the tank containing the vacuum cools fastest and the tank containing the CO2 cools slowest. A simple laboratory experiment of this type would give clear evidence of CO2's thermal properties. Thank you for your time. Best wishes. Michael B Heath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.211.14 ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The section ;
2.3 "radiative forcing"
excludes, omits, or FAILS to include in this statement , as WOULD any document only claiming a similar conclusion of logic from this statement ;
START QUOTE
"Earth absorbs some of the radiant energy received from the sun, reflects some of it as light and reflects or radiates the rest back to space as heat.[38]
Earth's surface temperature depends on this balance between incoming and outgoing energy.[38] "
END QUOTE
that ; MOST of the near-stable temperatures at the surface, result from the Earth's own thermo- & radiant heat effects upon matter at the surface, being cooled by SPACE thermodynamically, via the SLOWING of air's compounds/normal matter (normal matter that cools thermodynamically) , and indirect thermodynamic cooling, via CONTINUAL thermodynamic CONTACT, with then cooler matter from higher-up - this is a fundamental part of what gross temperatures we are at... ALL the time - like how on a planet or moon in space, gross temperatures can be wildly different, from basic observational REASON - whether expressed as a single average, or a fluctuating-temperature-range ...
EITHER way ... the sun's impact is actually very small, gross-temperature differences -wise.
in terms of its OVER-TIME impact, in things like the production of more complex gases from proto-organisms , and plants-impact , it has a much higher impact, when all kinds of produce FROM, plants, or removal of things BY, them, like consuming CO2 and producing O ... are taken into consideration ...
but in INITIAL terms, compared to some volcanic planet spinning wildly around a gas-giant ... our base ranges of temperature, are from, how hot our CORE is, and the COOLING , by SPACE (temperature-normalization-without-agitation).
Failing to INCLUDE THAT, in statements like the one above , falsely portray the cause of a huge number of interactions, some not even of both, normal-matter ... in an absurdly simplified , single-cause , single-blameable-source-of-confusion , 'confirming' , current-industry-bribes/funding-from way, and fails, to correctly leave-open, OTHER causes, by use of the grammer ;
"...depends on this... "
PUT SIMPLY / IN A SUMMARY-SENTENCE ...
"this" from that quote/external-paper ... is singular, when ; the causes of "...Earth's surface temperature..." are NOT, singular.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vurrath ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The section on sectors doesn't correspond with the other data (the pie chart). This seems to be because they focus is on the UK, whereas the the pie chart looks at global emissions. The problem is aggrevated by the fact that there is no emission data listed (for the UK then) for the other sectors.
Perhaps this can be fixed ?
I also listed some details on the CO2 emissions of humans. Appearantly, even the pie chart (which lists the global emissions per sector) doesn't mention this. So these emissions are not accounted for, despite being present in real life. According to micpohling, it is considerable though, about 8% of global emissions. So it should be taken up. Another thought I'm having is that these CO2 emissions are just for humans. So I doubt the CO2 emissions of animals are taken up either ? KVDP ( talk) 09:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Will anyone object if I add the following to Natural and anthropogenic sources of GHG :
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 28 GtCO2 are anthropogenic [4]. This is equivalent to 3.5% anthropogenic and 96.5% natural. This ratio is higher 4.5% to 95.5% if deforestation equivalent and rotting biomass are included (8.7 GtCO2 equivalent.)
24.138.60.176 ( talk) 17:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Kerry Russell October 21/2017
How about without the calculation?
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic including deforestation equivalent, biomass decomposition, and the burning of non-fossil fuels (8.7 GtCO2), and the burning of fossil fuels (28 GtCO2.) [4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic including deforestation equivalent, biomass decomposition, the burning of non-fossil fuels, the burning of fossil fuels and all other human sources. [4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic including deforestation equivalent, the burning of fossil fuels and all other human sources. [4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic (including deforestation equivalent). [4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic [4].
or
As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 emitted are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic [4]
(Note to ip by ( Drbogdan ( talk) 19:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)): if possible, please sign posts with four tildes)
24.138.60.176 ( talk) 19:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
How about:
24.138.60.176 ( talk) 20:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Kerry Russell
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Is ethylene a GHG? Since "to see if they emit methane and ethylene, which both contribute to the greenhouse effect." from https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45043989 216.250.156.66 ( talk) 00:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
We have two different definitions of Atmospheric lifetime. The first is how long on average an individual molecule remains in the atmosphere. The second is how long the excess CO2 concentration takes to decrease. Yale Climate Connections says:
The first definition should be removed. Keith McClary ( talk) 04:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Atmospheric lifetime
To me, the two statements "The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years." and "... some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years." seem inconsistent with each other:
Even if 80% of the emitted CO2 had a lifetime of only zero years, the fraction of 20% with a lifetime of many thousands of years would push up the average lifetime to at least many hundred years. That's much more than 30-95 years.
-- Dranas Wakonn ( talk) 05:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Greenhouse gas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Greenhouse gas 100.38.186.91 ( talk) 19:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The citation for the comparison of CO2 ppm from 1750 to present is faulty. Citation 6 only gives present day measurements, without including 1750 ppm measurements. This gives us a false trend line from the start. We need a more accurate citation from that time period if we are going to draw conclusions from the data presented in that link. ———— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B02A:41BA:1CB8:BCDA:84AA:B280 ( talk) 19:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is there a map showing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations? Isn't nitrous oxide (N2O) the relevant substance for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.177.11 ( talk) 20:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Removed thanks Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
It is rather big - maybe remove it? Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The whole article is very misleading, abject nonsense. - GenSQuantum
Especially sections in 2nd half are maybe duplicating other articles? Should some sections be removed especially some oudated ones? Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Who/what gives this user "Cracked Mirror" authority over the green house gas article and what is defined as a neutral point of view?
To balance this article in a non-bias manner, it needs modification. The assertion made that has been associated with human inducement of atmospheric carbon dioxide, is just that - an assertion, which lacks any empirical evidence. Political science is not climate science. https://tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
No empirical evidence exists, with regard of the assertion being made here. The edits I attempted to make outlined the actual scientific consensus. Which is 100% conjecture. Anthropogenic "global warming" is not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Cite Evidence. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GenSQuantum (
talk •
contribs)
02:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The most important edit I've attempted make was very simple and not controversial at all- Adding the words "It is believed that" before the word - Human, in the second paragraph. The reason being? Because there is no empirical evidence to accompany the claim/assertion.
The user TheMirrorCracked removed my edits, and has threatened me if I improve the article again. The fact is that the assertion being made is ONLY a belief. A belief, that lacks empirical scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Adding "it is believed" violates the neutral point of view policy at WP:WIKIVOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions."
You haven't made any headway with this line of argument, and I don't think you're going to. I'd suggest focusing on facts you can directly attribute to reliable sources. You've cited one source, but it reads as if the author isn't a high school graduate, and the claims in the citation have been refuted in several places. Since nobody was convinced by that, you might try citing other sources, along with short, specific statements about what facts from those sources you are citing.
You've repeated several times that "everybody's biased", "do it my way or else Wikipedia will have no credibility!" blah blah. Nobody cares. It's not convincing to me, nor to anyone else here so far. I'd drop it and try making plain bullet statements:
Avoid stating facts as opinion? The whole article is one big OPINION! which lacks ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
SageSolomon ( talk) 08:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
"Should greenhouse gas emissions continue at their rate in 2019, global warming could cause Earth's surface temperature to exceed historical values as early as 2047, with potentially harmful effects on ecosystems, biodiversity and human livelihoods.[12] At current emission rates, temperatures could increase by 2 °C, which the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) designated as the upper limit to avoid "dangerous" levels, by 2036."
What does 'exceed historical values' mean? The gist of this sentence, as a lay person, feels like, 'If we're not careful, global warming will start as early as 2047!' But that is at odds with the data showing that the process is well underway? The two sentences quoted don't feel consistent with each other. They probably are, but I think we need to clarify somehow.
78.145.241.12 ( talk) 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
In an article about greenhouse gases I don't expect more than half to be about their emissions, but instead just a scientific overview, like https://www.britannica.com/science/greenhouse-gas. Furthermore, GHG emissions is a topic an sich right? What do you all think of a split? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It should be stated explicitly in the absorption graphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjseed ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am wondering if the "Top-5 historic CO2 contributors by region over the years 1800 to 1988 (in %)" table in the Cumulative and Historical Emissions section is useful or is relevant still. The data from this table ends in 1988. This was over two decades ago. This data is not nearly as useful as data up to this point in history would be. I don't understand what specific purpose this data is adding to the page. Would it be better to have more updated data or to remove the table completely?
( Rebekah.Robinson ( talk) 04:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC))
Apologies for previous unwanted edits: I'm new here and still finding my way round.
I previously deleted the food types chart, as it was sitting next to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector which I was refining a bit, and didn't appear to have any related text nearby. I've realised it's probably meant to go with the bullet points further up, but another chart and a table were pushing it down. I've made a couple of changes to pull it up the page a bit. This include turning the table on sources of CO2 from fuel combustion into bullet points. Incidentally the figures in that table are dated, and aren't all relevant, as (according to the IEA) for example gas flaring, and cement production emissions are not classified as emissions from fuel consumption. I can look at updating when I get a moment.
Hope that's OK this time.
PolicyScientist ( talk) 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Attempted to upload a replacement for the out-of-date pie charts about GHG Emissions by Sector, but this was automatically blocked. I'm not sure how I get round this.
PolicyScientist ( talk) 17:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)PolicyScientist
This should work: http://earthfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Emissions-Sources.png PolicyScientist ( talk) 19:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
EarthFacts.info is my own project, attempting to make basic environmental data more accessible. I'm happy for the image to be used, so I've altered the copyright terms on the website so that certain content is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, including a revised version of the image (at the same URL). PolicyScientist ( talk) 11:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed some white space from the graph and changed the aspect ratio. Will replace file on Wikimedia Commons and use to replace the out of date pie charts. PolicyScientist ( talk) 16:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
A water molecule has an average residence time of only nine days, CH4 and CO2 have years or centuries. The next sentence says that this is the reason why water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. This is not correct. The word "Thus" in this sentence must be deleted. -- Vertigoswirl ( talk) 22:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
That is correct, the edits will need to be approved by Wiki Project Wales members or like minded energy asset demolition advisers. They guard the article like vultures over a corpse. -GenS — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is stated to be 30 - 95 years, however the source given states clearly that 'No single lifetime can be given' ( [1] page 731). I would suggest to use the same formulation in the table Hannes Keck (SLU) ( talk) 22:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. Be bold and add it yourself! Femke Nijsse ( talk) 22:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I clicked on the first citation and found that the website it came from had moved all of its documents to their new website. I went to the Wayback Machine and the last capture of the link that still had the document was this one https://web.archive.org/web/20181117121314/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf I don't know how to change the links in citations, so it would be nice if one of you did it for me. Biased White Harambe ( talk) 14:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I am wondering if it would makes sense to split off the article "Greenhouse gas emissions" into a separate article (currently it redirects to here). Perhaps this has already been discussed before. I just find this article has become very long and when other articles wikilink to "greenhouse gas emissions" they would probably prefer if it goes directly to an article about emissions. EMsmile ( talk) 03:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I see some overlap with greenhouse effect, or content which should perhaps be moved to greenhouse effect. For example the section "Impacts on the overall greenhouse effect". However, perhaps some kind of overlap between the two articles is unavoidable. Can we decide which type of content should be in which of the two articles? Is one the parent and one the sub-article or are they both on the same level? EMsmile ( talk) 10:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the entire section on natural processes is copied verbatim from this source. [1]
References
Some tables and links could do with a disclaimer that they have been outlawed by the Montreal Protocol. They look like they are being commonly used as a by-product of waste gas when they don't seem to be. Jordf32123 ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Efbrazil: Each graphic serves a purpose. I thought that, especially in this GHG article itself, the new GHG graphic (cumulative ~160 years of measurements) is both more inclusive and more on point than the CO2-only graphic (171 years—not that much of a difference in context). Re content: the GHG graphic shows forecast trends such as China's continued growth in comparison to other countries; the CO2 breakdown into land use etc is also ~informative but the graphic itself shows it to play second fiddle to fossil fuel+cement (bit of an odd breakdown if you ask me). I do favor the GHG graphic here, and leaving the CO2 graphic populating misc other articles that readers encounter, so they see both. — RCraig09 ( talk) 05:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Femkemilene: I know you are busy and fighting a virus, but: can you tell us based on your knowledge whether or not it is reasonable to exclude the effects of non-CO2 GHGs (methane etc) when considering cumulative GHG emissions since 1850? Almost all "cumulative" sources chart CO2 only, but I have been pursuing a more comprehensive GHG analysis, not CO2 alone. — RCraig09 ( talk) 20:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
We all know that the images in the lead are super important. I just wonder if we can do better on the image(s) used in this article. Firstly, I think we should only have one image, or a nice collage of several images, but not two. Secondly, the first image is the same as the one for Greenhouse effect which I find sub-optimal. The second image might be better but I find the caption doesn't make it clear how this image says anything about "greenhouse gases" (remembering we are writing for lay persons). EMsmile ( talk) 03:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I am the artist who created the image that is the current lead image in this article. I am biased, of course, but I do think it is rather good, esp. in that it conveys the change in wavelength that light energy experiences when it hits the Earth's surface by showing a change in amplitude of the waves as well as a change in the color of the arrows. I've even included the shadows that such enormous arrows would cast over the Earth's surface, which I think looks pretty neat! It shows the re-reflection of the same energy by various greenhouse gasses, and labels them as such. It shows waves on the shores of the oceans, it shows shadows from the clouds... Really-- I am not sure what the complaint exactly is. The image directly above makes almost no sense to me, with its rectangular arrows and numbers that don't seem to correspond to anything. It also has no visual "appeal" which doesn't help. I am open to suggestions you might have to the current lead image, or to replacing it with an improved image that conveys the same information, just ask. Also I am not at all sure what the problem is with having this image as the lead one here as well as at the article on Greenhouse effect, inasmuch as they are covering very much the same concept and there are (as far as I know) no better alternate images available (if I am wrong, then bring them on!) A loose necktie ( talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Carbon gas and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8#Carbon gas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
01:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jujohnson2020.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:45, 16 January 2022 (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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I picked up this greenhouse gas potency term from the Ozone article, because it well illustrates my problem with the various articles that deal with GH effect, radiative forcing etc. "Greenhouse gas potency" is an undefined term. That article states "Quantifying the greenhouse gas potency of ozone is difficult because it is not present in uniform concentrations across the globe." illustrating the usual confusion between the radiative forcing power of the gas and its global contribution to forcing but then goes on to produce a rare burst of apparent partial clarity:
"The annual global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is between 918–1022 tons carbon dioxide equivalent/tons tropospheric ozone. This means on a per-molecule basis, ozone in the troposphere has a radiative forcing effect roughly 1,000 times as strong as carbon dioxide. However, tropospheric ozone is a short-lived greenhouse gas, which decays in the atmosphere much more quickly than carbon dioxide."
Then it blows it all by saying: "This means that over a 20 year horizon, the global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is much less, roughly 62 to 69 tons carbon dioxide equivalent / tons tropospheric ozone. [1]"
Clearly GWP 1 and GWP 2 are different things.
This stuff is all over the place, employing undefined units which don't have the same dimensions or names, (sometimes the same names but different dimensions) and are used to compute percentages without stating which units were employed. These things contravene the most fundamental principles of scientific communication. endrant (for now) Plantsurfer ( talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The article states "For example methane and carbon monoxide (CO) are oxidised to give carbon dioxide." That would imply to the unwary reader that the greenhouse impact is increased by this increased CO2, whereas in fact the precise opposite is true, since methane is some 70-fold more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
The second paragraph needs a lot of work - it is full of difficult and probably inaccurate logic, and unexplained phenomena.
"Methane has three indirect effects in addition to forming CO2. The main chemical which destroys methane in the atmosphere is the hydroxyl radical (OH). Methane reacts with OH and so more methane means that the concentration of OH goes down. In turn this slows down the removal of methane from the atmosphere and so each methane molecule stays longer in the air." Leading to what exactly??
"The second effect is that the oxidation of methane can produce ozone." 'kay, so on a molar basis what is the greenhouse power of ozone compared with methane, and how many moles of methane does it take to make a mole of ozone??
"Thirdly, as well as making CO2 the oxidation of methane produces water. The oxidation of methane is a major source of water vapour in the stratosphere." Fine.
"CO and NMVOC also produce CO2 and increase methane" this seems unlikely, but if true the mechanism needs to be outlined. Presumably the increase in methane is due to decrease in the rate of oxidation ?? and not by synthesis ??
"because they remove OH from the atmosphere and their removal can produce ozone." eh? please explain this
"Halocarbons have an indirect effect because they destroy stratospheric ozone." OK, but link to article
"Finally hydrogen can lead to ozone production and CH4 increases as well as producing water vapour in the stratosphere.[10]" how does hydrogen promote O3 and CH4 increases, and if it is oxidised in the stratosphere state how. Plantsurfer ( talk) 19:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Since the topic of clouds is included in this article, is it possible to specify with a good citation whether clouds produce a stronger or weaker greenhouse effect than the same quantity of water vapour? Also, has the contribution of clouds to radiative forcing oncreased since pre-industrial levels? Plantsurfer ( talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33°C (59°F) colder than the present average of 14 °C (57 °F). - There is evidently something wrong with this. -- 85.71.27.102 ( talk) 11:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
What's the English spelling consensus for this article? At a glance it looks like British English (water vapour); maybe it would be a good idea to formalize this with a template here? -- Kierkkadon talk/ contribs 13:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Some details about a contest to market it? I don't edit GHG articles so I will let the regulars decide whether to include it and which article. Does it warrant its own article? http://ccemc.ca/about/ Link from source didn't work so I added it.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Carbon emission redirects here, but the article doesn't clearly explain the term. It doesn't seem to refer to emission of elemental carbon, but does it encompass emissions of all compounds of carbon, only gaseous compounds of carbon or some other still? — Kpalion (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
First, I find no mention of Earth's thermal radiation. The Earth and Jupiter are both planets that emit more energy than provided by extraterrestrial sources e.g. the Sun. Wikipedia mentions that the Earth's core remains molten due to heat that continues to be generated by decay of primordial radioactive elements. This radiation flux generates greatly more energy than human activity, and is not shown in any of your diagrams or mentioned in text. This indicates that the references that you quote are suspect or ignorant (scientists often concentrate of their field of interest to the exclusion reality). I had also expected some acknowledgement for soot generated by Communist China. Certainly a significant factor in polar ice melting; soot has high opacity absorbing much more radiation than gas molecules. Soot and mineral dust also have significant residence time in the atmosphere. Carbon Monoxide Wiki:"Worldwide, the largest source of carbon monoxide is natural in origin, due to photochemical reactions in the troposphere that generate about 5 x 10^12 kilograms per year.[3] Other natural sources of CO include volcanoes, forest fires, and other forms of combustion"; 0.1ppmv; "Carbon monoxide has an indirect radiative forcing effect by elevating concentrations of methane and tropospheric ozone"; highest concentrations over China. Soot Wiki:"Soot is theorized to be the second largest cause of global warming.[1][2]". Wiki Particulates: soot size .01-.1 micrometer. Nitrous Oxide Wiki: "Nitrous oxide is emitted by bacteria in soils and oceans, and thus has been a part of Earth's atmosphere for aeons. Agriculture is the main source of human-produced nitrous oxide: cultivating soil, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, and animal waste handling can all stimulate naturally occurring bacteria to produce more nitrous oxide. The livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide.[3] Industrial sources make up only about 20% of all anthropogenic sources, and include the production of nylon, and the burning of fossil fuel in internal combustion engines. Human activity is thought to account for 30%; tropical soils and oceanic release account for 70%.[4] Nitrous oxide reacts with ozone in the stratosphere. Nitrous oxide is the main naturally occurring regulator of stratospheric ozone. Nitrous oxide is a major greenhouse gas. Considered over a 100-year period, it has 298 times more impact per unit weight than carbon dioxide. Thus, despite its low concentration, nitrous oxide is the fourth largest contributor to these greenhouse gases. It ranks behind water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. Control of nitrous oxide is part of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[5]" Shjacks45 ( talk) 04:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a paper from Nature which probably should be referenced in the section about greenhouse gases and seems particularly relevant to the recent slowdown of global warming.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1999.html
It is a purely statistical survey of the warming over the last hundred years and points to various events which probably helped temporarily slow the rise at various points like the world wars, depressions, and the Montreal Protocol. They also point to a pronounced rise in the rate around 1960. Dmcq ( talk) 11:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"... 33 C° (59 F°) ..." Maybe I am missing something obvious, but https://www.google.com/search?q=33+celsius+in+fahrenheit&oq=33+celcius — Preceding unsigned comment added by John xyz123 ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand know. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John xyz123 ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Then, can you please explain what the sentence means? Would the earth's surface average about 33 celsius colder or would it average 59 farhenheit colder? Or is it supposed to mean something else. As the sentence stands, it is confusing because 33 celsius and 59 farhenheit are not the same temperature, but the sentence reads as if they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.85.233 ( talk) 01:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Boy, it took me awhile, but I get it now. It is so ingrained to see 33 C (59 F) as being the same temperature, what you see on a thermometer. As soon as I see this notation, my brain tries to see equivalent real temperature. So, I now read it as "Earth's surface would average about 33 degrees C less (colder) which is about 59 degrees F less. Thank you for taking the time to explain this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.128.128 ( talk) 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the C° and F° notation that we currently use was introduced by Vsmith ( talk · contribs) in this edit. The Celsius article says, "This is sometimes solved by using the symbol °C (pronounced "degrees Celsius") for a temperature, and C° (pronounced "Celsius degrees") for a temperature interval, although this usage is non-standard." I have never seen this notation before, and I see that it has not stopped the steady flow of people either commenting here, or altering the article, because that sentence is still quite widely misunderstood. I wonder if we should put a little more effort into explaining what we're actually saying, rather than hoping that a non-standard (and to my experience, obscure) notation and hidden markup comment will do the trick? -- Nigelj ( talk) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this sentence :- "Under ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, available Earth System Models project that the Earth's surface temperature could exceed historical analogs as early as 2047 affecting most ecosystems on Earth and the livelihoods of over 3 billion people worldwide" This is a projection from a computer model and computer models can predict anything, almost invariably what the modeller wants to predict. This speculation does not belong here or indeed anywhere on Wikipedia IMHO. Doubtless some Warmist will revert this. Smokey TheCat 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the cited Nature article is mainly concerned with 'when' - certainly not 'if' - I wonder if the sentence in question could be reworded to emphasise that. For example:
-- Nigelj ( talk) 13:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
== Misleading CO2/Energy ratio for ignite (and possibly also for other coal forms) The list of CO2 emmisions per energy unit suggest that ignite isn't much worse than other types of coal but the wikipedia page about ignite contradicts this. Presumably, the energy densities used for the table in this page have not been discounted for the energy lost to evaporation of moisture, and is therefore misleading. Helenuh ( talk) 11:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
51% of all greenhouse gas emission comes from animal agriculture making same the main source of greenhouse gas emission in the world. Therefore if animal agriculture is not adressed and replaced by other sustainable means of plant based food production there is no hope for this planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.52.237 ( talk) 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"Today, the stock of carbon in the atmosphere increases by more than 3 million tonnes per annum (0.04%) compared with the existing stock."
I think the source cited for the above is in error, the IPCC says billions:
"Atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase since the TAR (Figure 7.4), and the rate of increase appears to be higher, with the average annual increment rising from 3.2 ± 0.1 GtC yr–1 in the 1990s to 4.1 ± 0.1 GtC yr–1 in the period 2000 to 2005."
Keith McClary ( talk) 04:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that bitumen / oil sands be removed from the table of fuel carbon intensities. It is not a fuel and under no conceivable circumstance is it useful the way any of the other fuels in that table are. Though the life cycle emission intensities of fuels derived from bitumen / heavy crudes may be higher than conventional fuels, the vehicle or combustion emissions of gasolines/diesels derived from bitumen feedstocks are similar to those produced from fuels derived from conventional feedstocks since at that point it is all effectively just gasoline/diesel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.110.103 ( talk) 18:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
validity: the composition of the atmosphere as depicted can be found under: Atmosphere_of_Earth, Greenhouse gas, and the single Wikipedia sites of the gases.
phytoplankton and all green plants on the land fix carbon dioxide by photosynthesis with light-energy. The end products of photosynthesis are sugar and other organic products, and oxygen.
Methane origin: Methane#Production, Methane#Occurence
please write me, when you find mistakes -- Smiles :( :\ :o :() ( talk) 00:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Early in the article there is the following quote: When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17] Compound Formula Contribution (%) Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72% Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26% Methane CH4 4–9% Ozone O3 3–7%
Although H2O is by far the major greenhouse gas, it is barely mentioned in the rest of the article and is not included in any of the charts and tables. The effects of CO2 and CH4 are small compared to the effects of H2O, so the exclusion of H2O is a flaw that skews this article to the point of mis-information, and thus counters the Wikipedia charter. Please block it until it is corrected. 216.232.145.52 ( talk) 01:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC) S.Bowker Jan 18, 2014
perhaps the following quote from the article isn't complete: " Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (i.e., emissions produced by human activities) come from combustion of carbon-based fuels, principally wood, coal, oil, and natural gas" Briancady413 ( talk) 23:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
LPGs Propane and butane are used as propellent in aerosol spray cans . They are members of the family of gases called alkanes which includes Methane and they are far worse than Caarbon dioxide as greenhouse gases contributinh to global warming. Their use in this context should be banned by law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPGpropellent ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Closing early per WP:SNOW. I suggest the nominator review WP:COMMONNAME - we WP editors do not decide what is more scientifically accurate. We rely on editors of reliable sources to do that, and follow their usage. ( non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 01:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Greenhouse gas →
Heat trapping gas – More accurate scientific portrayal of mechanism, cultural confusion with term "greenhouse" (also potentially seen as a positive action) –
ChalkyChalky (
talk)
18:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Just stop converting to obscure, non scientific units, and stick to SI units everywhere. Then create some kind of auto-conversion, where a common component for the whole Wikipedia do whatever conversions is necessary/wanted for each individual end user. Temperature should be in Kelvin, and nothing else.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.110.220 ( talk) 08:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Frequent errors are made about this, so here's how the calculation works:
The article states that "without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about 15 °C (27 °F) colder than the present average of 14 °C (57 °F)."
Thus, present temperature with GHG = 14 °C (57.2 °F). Temperature in the absence of GHG = -1 °C (30.2 °F). Thus temperature difference of 15 °C is equivalent to 57.2-30.2 = 27 °F.
QED Hope this helps, Plantsurfer 16:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What are the sources for the claim that the average temperature without GHG would be -1 °C? These articles state it would be about -18 °C: Qiancheng Ma, Greenhouse Gases: Refining the Role of Carbon Dioxide Kenneth R. Lang, Heating by the greenhouse effect Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect What is a greenhouse gas? WMO, Causes of Climate Change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.183.243 ( talk) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Gray Body Variant of the Zero Dimensional EBM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.183.243 ( talk) 14:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases should be listed in "weighted order". For example "hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are now thought to contribute to anthropogenic global warming. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, these compounds are up to 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide", so HCFCs should be multiplied by 10000, while CO2 is multiplied by 1. Sorting should be done by the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.110.220 ( talk) 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Emissions Jabujunior ( talk) 09:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe the second halt of first paragraph in the "2.2 Atmospheric lifetime" section is wrong. first part says Jacob (1999) defines it as an average on time, while the rest of the paragraph treats it as a median value, which is clearly not the same since the distribution is not symetrical. -- Camion ( talk) 23:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The following reference:
gives a list of greenhouse effect contributions from various gaseous components:
Component | Effect | Contribution |
---|---|---|
H2O | 20.6 K | 62.0% |
CO2 | 7.2 K | 21.7% |
O3 | 2.4 K | 7.2% |
N2O | 1.4 K | 4.2% |
CH4 | 0.8 K | 2.4% |
Other | 0.8 K | 2.5% |
Total | 33.2 K | 100% |
This list differs from the data in the "Impacts on the overall greenhouse effect" section, so I am unclear what is being presented in the latter. Would anybody mind if I update the table accordingly? Praemonitus ( talk) 20:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello The Greenhouse gas section contains data from numerous sources showing the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial era and rising mean global temperatures and presents data showing for instance the heat absorption rates of various GHG's and the length of time they might persist in the atmosphere. There is definitely a correlation between increasing GHG concentrations and increasing global temperatures. Unfortunately the section has no data on how and why GHG's actually absorb infrared heat radiation and why they do this better than they absorb other types of thermal radiation, how a GHG's atomic structure interacts with thermal electromagnetic radiation in a way other gasses don't. Without definitive evidence the view that say Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas remains a belief supported by anecdotal evidence of the correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and rising mean global temperatures. If this were the whole case the thesis that rising CO2 concentrations are the cause of rising mean global temperatures is no more valid than the thesis that rising globes mean temperatures are the cause of rising CO2 concentrations. The fact that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere also isn't direct evidence to prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The US government recently declared Carbon Dioxide to not be a greenhouse gas. If that claim is to be effectively refuted direct evidence to prove CO2's thermal properties is urgently needed. Take three glass tanks and one infrared heat source like the sun. One tank contains a vacuum. One tank contains air. One tank contains Carbon Dioxide. For a given period of time the heat source is shone into each tank and its internal temperature monitored. When the heat source is removed it can be demonstrated that the tank containing the vacuum cools fastest and the tank containing the CO2 cools slowest. A simple laboratory experiment of this type would give clear evidence of CO2's thermal properties. Thank you for your time. Best wishes. Michael B Heath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.211.14 ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The section ;
2.3 "radiative forcing"
excludes, omits, or FAILS to include in this statement , as WOULD any document only claiming a similar conclusion of logic from this statement ;
START QUOTE
"Earth absorbs some of the radiant energy received from the sun, reflects some of it as light and reflects or radiates the rest back to space as heat.[38]
Earth's surface temperature depends on this balance between incoming and outgoing energy.[38] "
END QUOTE
that ; MOST of the near-stable temperatures at the surface, result from the Earth's own thermo- & radiant heat effects upon matter at the surface, being cooled by SPACE thermodynamically, via the SLOWING of air's compounds/normal matter (normal matter that cools thermodynamically) , and indirect thermodynamic cooling, via CONTINUAL thermodynamic CONTACT, with then cooler matter from higher-up - this is a fundamental part of what gross temperatures we are at... ALL the time - like how on a planet or moon in space, gross temperatures can be wildly different, from basic observational REASON - whether expressed as a single average, or a fluctuating-temperature-range ...
EITHER way ... the sun's impact is actually very small, gross-temperature differences -wise.
in terms of its OVER-TIME impact, in things like the production of more complex gases from proto-organisms , and plants-impact , it has a much higher impact, when all kinds of produce FROM, plants, or removal of things BY, them, like consuming CO2 and producing O ... are taken into consideration ...
but in INITIAL terms, compared to some volcanic planet spinning wildly around a gas-giant ... our base ranges of temperature, are from, how hot our CORE is, and the COOLING , by SPACE (temperature-normalization-without-agitation).
Failing to INCLUDE THAT, in statements like the one above , falsely portray the cause of a huge number of interactions, some not even of both, normal-matter ... in an absurdly simplified , single-cause , single-blameable-source-of-confusion , 'confirming' , current-industry-bribes/funding-from way, and fails, to correctly leave-open, OTHER causes, by use of the grammer ;
"...depends on this... "
PUT SIMPLY / IN A SUMMARY-SENTENCE ...
"this" from that quote/external-paper ... is singular, when ; the causes of "...Earth's surface temperature..." are NOT, singular.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vurrath ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The section on sectors doesn't correspond with the other data (the pie chart). This seems to be because they focus is on the UK, whereas the the pie chart looks at global emissions. The problem is aggrevated by the fact that there is no emission data listed (for the UK then) for the other sectors.
Perhaps this can be fixed ?
I also listed some details on the CO2 emissions of humans. Appearantly, even the pie chart (which lists the global emissions per sector) doesn't mention this. So these emissions are not accounted for, despite being present in real life. According to micpohling, it is considerable though, about 8% of global emissions. So it should be taken up. Another thought I'm having is that these CO2 emissions are just for humans. So I doubt the CO2 emissions of animals are taken up either ? KVDP ( talk) 09:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Will anyone object if I add the following to Natural and anthropogenic sources of GHG :
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 28 GtCO2 are anthropogenic [4]. This is equivalent to 3.5% anthropogenic and 96.5% natural. This ratio is higher 4.5% to 95.5% if deforestation equivalent and rotting biomass are included (8.7 GtCO2 equivalent.)
24.138.60.176 ( talk) 17:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Kerry Russell October 21/2017
How about without the calculation?
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic including deforestation equivalent, biomass decomposition, and the burning of non-fossil fuels (8.7 GtCO2), and the burning of fossil fuels (28 GtCO2.) [4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic including deforestation equivalent, biomass decomposition, the burning of non-fossil fuels, the burning of fossil fuels and all other human sources. [4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic including deforestation equivalent, the burning of fossil fuels and all other human sources. [4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic (including deforestation equivalent). [4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic [4].
or
As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 emitted are natural [3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic [4]
(Note to ip by ( Drbogdan ( talk) 19:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)): if possible, please sign posts with four tildes)
24.138.60.176 ( talk) 19:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
How about:
24.138.60.176 ( talk) 20:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Kerry Russell
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Is ethylene a GHG? Since "to see if they emit methane and ethylene, which both contribute to the greenhouse effect." from https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45043989 216.250.156.66 ( talk) 00:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
We have two different definitions of Atmospheric lifetime. The first is how long on average an individual molecule remains in the atmosphere. The second is how long the excess CO2 concentration takes to decrease. Yale Climate Connections says:
The first definition should be removed. Keith McClary ( talk) 04:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Atmospheric lifetime
To me, the two statements "The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years." and "... some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years." seem inconsistent with each other:
Even if 80% of the emitted CO2 had a lifetime of only zero years, the fraction of 20% with a lifetime of many thousands of years would push up the average lifetime to at least many hundred years. That's much more than 30-95 years.
-- Dranas Wakonn ( talk) 05:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Greenhouse gas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Greenhouse gas 100.38.186.91 ( talk) 19:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The citation for the comparison of CO2 ppm from 1750 to present is faulty. Citation 6 only gives present day measurements, without including 1750 ppm measurements. This gives us a false trend line from the start. We need a more accurate citation from that time period if we are going to draw conclusions from the data presented in that link. ———— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B02A:41BA:1CB8:BCDA:84AA:B280 ( talk) 19:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is there a map showing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations? Isn't nitrous oxide (N2O) the relevant substance for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.177.11 ( talk) 20:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Removed thanks Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
It is rather big - maybe remove it? Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The whole article is very misleading, abject nonsense. - GenSQuantum
Especially sections in 2nd half are maybe duplicating other articles? Should some sections be removed especially some oudated ones? Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Who/what gives this user "Cracked Mirror" authority over the green house gas article and what is defined as a neutral point of view?
To balance this article in a non-bias manner, it needs modification. The assertion made that has been associated with human inducement of atmospheric carbon dioxide, is just that - an assertion, which lacks any empirical evidence. Political science is not climate science. https://tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
No empirical evidence exists, with regard of the assertion being made here. The edits I attempted to make outlined the actual scientific consensus. Which is 100% conjecture. Anthropogenic "global warming" is not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Cite Evidence. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GenSQuantum (
talk •
contribs)
02:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The most important edit I've attempted make was very simple and not controversial at all- Adding the words "It is believed that" before the word - Human, in the second paragraph. The reason being? Because there is no empirical evidence to accompany the claim/assertion.
The user TheMirrorCracked removed my edits, and has threatened me if I improve the article again. The fact is that the assertion being made is ONLY a belief. A belief, that lacks empirical scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Adding "it is believed" violates the neutral point of view policy at WP:WIKIVOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions."
You haven't made any headway with this line of argument, and I don't think you're going to. I'd suggest focusing on facts you can directly attribute to reliable sources. You've cited one source, but it reads as if the author isn't a high school graduate, and the claims in the citation have been refuted in several places. Since nobody was convinced by that, you might try citing other sources, along with short, specific statements about what facts from those sources you are citing.
You've repeated several times that "everybody's biased", "do it my way or else Wikipedia will have no credibility!" blah blah. Nobody cares. It's not convincing to me, nor to anyone else here so far. I'd drop it and try making plain bullet statements:
Avoid stating facts as opinion? The whole article is one big OPINION! which lacks ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
SageSolomon ( talk) 08:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
"Should greenhouse gas emissions continue at their rate in 2019, global warming could cause Earth's surface temperature to exceed historical values as early as 2047, with potentially harmful effects on ecosystems, biodiversity and human livelihoods.[12] At current emission rates, temperatures could increase by 2 °C, which the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) designated as the upper limit to avoid "dangerous" levels, by 2036."
What does 'exceed historical values' mean? The gist of this sentence, as a lay person, feels like, 'If we're not careful, global warming will start as early as 2047!' But that is at odds with the data showing that the process is well underway? The two sentences quoted don't feel consistent with each other. They probably are, but I think we need to clarify somehow.
78.145.241.12 ( talk) 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
In an article about greenhouse gases I don't expect more than half to be about their emissions, but instead just a scientific overview, like https://www.britannica.com/science/greenhouse-gas. Furthermore, GHG emissions is a topic an sich right? What do you all think of a split? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It should be stated explicitly in the absorption graphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjseed ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am wondering if the "Top-5 historic CO2 contributors by region over the years 1800 to 1988 (in %)" table in the Cumulative and Historical Emissions section is useful or is relevant still. The data from this table ends in 1988. This was over two decades ago. This data is not nearly as useful as data up to this point in history would be. I don't understand what specific purpose this data is adding to the page. Would it be better to have more updated data or to remove the table completely?
( Rebekah.Robinson ( talk) 04:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC))
Apologies for previous unwanted edits: I'm new here and still finding my way round.
I previously deleted the food types chart, as it was sitting next to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector which I was refining a bit, and didn't appear to have any related text nearby. I've realised it's probably meant to go with the bullet points further up, but another chart and a table were pushing it down. I've made a couple of changes to pull it up the page a bit. This include turning the table on sources of CO2 from fuel combustion into bullet points. Incidentally the figures in that table are dated, and aren't all relevant, as (according to the IEA) for example gas flaring, and cement production emissions are not classified as emissions from fuel consumption. I can look at updating when I get a moment.
Hope that's OK this time.
PolicyScientist ( talk) 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Attempted to upload a replacement for the out-of-date pie charts about GHG Emissions by Sector, but this was automatically blocked. I'm not sure how I get round this.
PolicyScientist ( talk) 17:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)PolicyScientist
This should work: http://earthfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Emissions-Sources.png PolicyScientist ( talk) 19:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
EarthFacts.info is my own project, attempting to make basic environmental data more accessible. I'm happy for the image to be used, so I've altered the copyright terms on the website so that certain content is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, including a revised version of the image (at the same URL). PolicyScientist ( talk) 11:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed some white space from the graph and changed the aspect ratio. Will replace file on Wikimedia Commons and use to replace the out of date pie charts. PolicyScientist ( talk) 16:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
A water molecule has an average residence time of only nine days, CH4 and CO2 have years or centuries. The next sentence says that this is the reason why water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. This is not correct. The word "Thus" in this sentence must be deleted. -- Vertigoswirl ( talk) 22:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
That is correct, the edits will need to be approved by Wiki Project Wales members or like minded energy asset demolition advisers. They guard the article like vultures over a corpse. -GenS — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is stated to be 30 - 95 years, however the source given states clearly that 'No single lifetime can be given' ( [1] page 731). I would suggest to use the same formulation in the table Hannes Keck (SLU) ( talk) 22:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. Be bold and add it yourself! Femke Nijsse ( talk) 22:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I clicked on the first citation and found that the website it came from had moved all of its documents to their new website. I went to the Wayback Machine and the last capture of the link that still had the document was this one https://web.archive.org/web/20181117121314/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf I don't know how to change the links in citations, so it would be nice if one of you did it for me. Biased White Harambe ( talk) 14:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I am wondering if it would makes sense to split off the article "Greenhouse gas emissions" into a separate article (currently it redirects to here). Perhaps this has already been discussed before. I just find this article has become very long and when other articles wikilink to "greenhouse gas emissions" they would probably prefer if it goes directly to an article about emissions. EMsmile ( talk) 03:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I see some overlap with greenhouse effect, or content which should perhaps be moved to greenhouse effect. For example the section "Impacts on the overall greenhouse effect". However, perhaps some kind of overlap between the two articles is unavoidable. Can we decide which type of content should be in which of the two articles? Is one the parent and one the sub-article or are they both on the same level? EMsmile ( talk) 10:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the entire section on natural processes is copied verbatim from this source. [1]
References
Some tables and links could do with a disclaimer that they have been outlawed by the Montreal Protocol. They look like they are being commonly used as a by-product of waste gas when they don't seem to be. Jordf32123 ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Efbrazil: Each graphic serves a purpose. I thought that, especially in this GHG article itself, the new GHG graphic (cumulative ~160 years of measurements) is both more inclusive and more on point than the CO2-only graphic (171 years—not that much of a difference in context). Re content: the GHG graphic shows forecast trends such as China's continued growth in comparison to other countries; the CO2 breakdown into land use etc is also ~informative but the graphic itself shows it to play second fiddle to fossil fuel+cement (bit of an odd breakdown if you ask me). I do favor the GHG graphic here, and leaving the CO2 graphic populating misc other articles that readers encounter, so they see both. — RCraig09 ( talk) 05:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Femkemilene: I know you are busy and fighting a virus, but: can you tell us based on your knowledge whether or not it is reasonable to exclude the effects of non-CO2 GHGs (methane etc) when considering cumulative GHG emissions since 1850? Almost all "cumulative" sources chart CO2 only, but I have been pursuing a more comprehensive GHG analysis, not CO2 alone. — RCraig09 ( talk) 20:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
We all know that the images in the lead are super important. I just wonder if we can do better on the image(s) used in this article. Firstly, I think we should only have one image, or a nice collage of several images, but not two. Secondly, the first image is the same as the one for Greenhouse effect which I find sub-optimal. The second image might be better but I find the caption doesn't make it clear how this image says anything about "greenhouse gases" (remembering we are writing for lay persons). EMsmile ( talk) 03:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I am the artist who created the image that is the current lead image in this article. I am biased, of course, but I do think it is rather good, esp. in that it conveys the change in wavelength that light energy experiences when it hits the Earth's surface by showing a change in amplitude of the waves as well as a change in the color of the arrows. I've even included the shadows that such enormous arrows would cast over the Earth's surface, which I think looks pretty neat! It shows the re-reflection of the same energy by various greenhouse gasses, and labels them as such. It shows waves on the shores of the oceans, it shows shadows from the clouds... Really-- I am not sure what the complaint exactly is. The image directly above makes almost no sense to me, with its rectangular arrows and numbers that don't seem to correspond to anything. It also has no visual "appeal" which doesn't help. I am open to suggestions you might have to the current lead image, or to replacing it with an improved image that conveys the same information, just ask. Also I am not at all sure what the problem is with having this image as the lead one here as well as at the article on Greenhouse effect, inasmuch as they are covering very much the same concept and there are (as far as I know) no better alternate images available (if I am wrong, then bring them on!) A loose necktie ( talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Carbon gas and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8#Carbon gas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
01:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jujohnson2020.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)