![]() | A news item involving Instrumental temperature record was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 January 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
![]() | On 17 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Instrumental temperature data of Earth's climate system. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I've ( William M. Connolley 20:03 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)) moved 2 paras to the end. These are:
the intro that someone copied in, viz:
"The historical temperature record shows the fluctuations of the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans throughout history. Climate scientists generally agree that Earth has undergone several cycles of global warming and global cooling in the last 20,000 years, with the average air temparature fluctuating within a range of about 3 Celsius degrees (5 Fahrenheit degrees), over this time period."
This is mangled info. Someone can straighten it out if they like. If you look over the last 20 kyr, the biggest signal you see is the end of the last ice age - so the stuff about little cycles is then in the noise.
There are various sub-cycles/sub-signals, of ??1500 year ish?? periodicity; and their are the D-O events etc etc. But the above para mangles that. *Also* it fits rather poorly with the emphasis of this subsection-now-a-page, ie on the last 150 or 1000 years - so it shouldn't be up there in the intro.
I've also pushed
"In January 2002, scientists released data showing that Antarctica had grown about 25% (???). Some editorial writers claimed that this contradicts the expectation that rising temperatures should cause the ice cap to shrink. However, the scientists studying the situation in the Antarctic who released this data point out that local cooling in some areas is consistent with an overall trend of global warming and say that "the ice-sheet growth that we have documented in our study area has absolutely nothing to do with any recent climate trends."[9]"
into the misc section. The first sentence is junk. If its to stay, someone has to find a decent ref to what its supposed to mean. Mind you, ref [9] is nice and its a pity I've misc'd it too...
The IPCC says that it has corrected the land station data to account for the urban heat island effect. To do: find and summarize their correction technique.
The comment above has been around for about a year, and still no one has shown me where in any IPCC report they have explained how they "account for" urban heat islands. So I'm inclined to say rather:
... or something along those lines. Work with me here, folks. Let's make an informative and neutral article. -- Uncle Ed
That looks fairly reasonable - I'd modify slightly:
( William M. Connolley 09:46 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)) There is at least a problem in the wording here. IPCC doesn't do research, it reports other peoples. But apart from that... see section 2.2.2.1 [1]. In particular:
Errr... shouldn't all this go into the UHI page?
I have started studying a paper on the temperature record in the USSR. The writers find no warming trend in rural stations and hint (or imply) that other researchers have selectively chosen data to fit their "warming" views. [ Read it yourself] and decide. -- Uncle Ed 17:52 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
Martin and William,
I'm not sure either of you is getting my point. I am not wondering whether a few hot cities are making the whole world hot.
I am wondering whether a large number of the temperature readings from weather stations in and near rapidly warming cities, when averaged with a relatively small number of temperature readings from rural and remote stations, are giving a false impression of global warming. That is, it might be that (A) the only parts of the world that are warming are the urban heat islands and (B) the only reason these are heating up is because cities absorb and generate heat; rather than (C) that carbon dioxide, etc. is causing worldwide warming.
Do you understand my point? (I'm not asking whether you agree with my point of view, but only whether my English is clear.) -- Uncle Ed 22:33 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
Thank you, both, for helping me to feel understood. Now I'll have a G-R-E-A-T weekend! ^_^ ( Uncle Ed)
I've received comments about this article in a Word document by Blair Trewin, one of the authors of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. This is done as part of this project for 3 SDGS. I will try to enter his comments into the Wikipedia article over the coming days/weeks and also raise discussion points here on the talk page. In case someone is watching this page and has worked on this Wikipedia article a lot and would be interested to collaborate, please reach out to me. In that case, I could e-mail you the marked up Word document for your careful consideration. I am a complete non-expert on this topic, so will struggle. EMsmile ( talk) 22:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Blair Trewin: "I think either as an addition to this section, or a new section (I prefer the latter), there should be a discussion of how global temperature datasets are developed from the base observations, and a listing of the main datasets. Reanalyses, and how they are used/not used, could also be introduced here - I see there is a Wikipedia article for ' Atmospheric Reanalysis', although it could do with some more content. (I'm not a reanalysis expert but can point you to some if you want that article strengthened)." EMsmile ( talk) 14:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I am continuing the article review with content expert Blair Trewin. He sent me the following: "I think there's two significant points to make a decision on:
Main other things outstanding from my perspective:
Comments/objections on these suggestions changes by anyone? If not, we'll go ahead. EMsmile ( talk) 10:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Blair about this graph: "This figure is about records at the regional level, not in global means - I would move it to the regional temperatures section and introduce a discussion on extremes there." Answer by RCraig09 above was: "I think that the graphic is appropriate where it is, since it tallies temperature records worldwide. The already-crowded Regional temperature section is actually less appropriate since the graphic isn't concerned with regions per se." Answer by Blair: "It's a global aggregation of regional results (i.e. it is the percentage of gridpoints which set a record in each year). It doesn't relate directly to the global average temperature which is what is being discussed at this point." Do we follow Blair's argument? EMsmile ( talk) 15:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Blair about this graph: "This looks like something that's been produced specifically? (WMO has from time to time published something conceptually similar in its annual State of the Climate reports but hasn't distinguished strong from weak events). If it doesn't have a defined source then we probably need to have a link somewhere to how the strength of El Nino/La Nina events is defined". My reply to him: "The full explanation of the graph is accessible when clicking on the graph: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20210827_Global_surface_temperature_bar_chart_-_bars_color-coded_by_El_Ni%C3%B1o_and_La_Ni%C3%B1a_intensity.svg But I don’t understand it fully: does it explain the definition of strength for these events?" - His next reply was: "It does, although the text has a "very strong" category, which looks as if it is grouped with "strong" on the graph." EMsmile ( talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed an overlap with the article on global average surface temperature. To start with, they use exactly the same graph in the lead. The rest of that article also seems to be a wild mixture of content that is already in other articles. Any suggestions on improving this situation? Should anything be moved from there to here or vice versa? EMsmile ( talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear all, I'm not a climate expert, but an astronomer with keen interest in this topic. I struggled over the first figure in this article that gives the impression that global temperatures have "only" increased by less than 1 degree so far. This is of course due to the use of the very awkward base period 1950-1980 (see also point 13 of the expert review above). I would strongly suggest to use the same base period as the IPCC (and most other publications that I have seen on this topic), i.e. the "pre-industrial" time with instrumental temperature record, 1850-1900 (see. e.g. Fig. SPM-1 in the IPCC's AR6 report): https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf -- if you agree, I'd be happy to update the figure (or if the creator of that figure is still active, perhaps they can speak up). Regards, Ileo ( talk) 10:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Update: This week I discovered the Met Office has collected six datasets and normalized them to the presumptive "pre-industrial" temperature, 1850-1900 average. The chart is now updated to be based on that cooler reference period, so the change of more than 1 °C is now evident. — RCraig09 ( talk) 20:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
In this chart, the "0" value is what is considered the "pre-industrial" temperature level, which is the average of the years 1850 to 1900.or
In this chart, the "0" value is the average of the years 1850 to 1900 which is commonly called the "pre-industrial" temperature level? EMsmile ( talk) 07:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just added a wikilink to the caption of the image in the lead, and added "surface": Measured
global average surface temperature data from several scientific organisations is highly correlated.
. However, I noticed that we have two very similar articles, and I wonder which to link to. We have:
I wonder if there is potential for merging or for improving the article titles. Pinging also User:InformationToKnowledge. EMsmile ( talk) 09:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving Instrumental temperature record was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 January 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
![]() | On 17 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Instrumental temperature data of Earth's climate system. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I've ( William M. Connolley 20:03 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)) moved 2 paras to the end. These are:
the intro that someone copied in, viz:
"The historical temperature record shows the fluctuations of the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans throughout history. Climate scientists generally agree that Earth has undergone several cycles of global warming and global cooling in the last 20,000 years, with the average air temparature fluctuating within a range of about 3 Celsius degrees (5 Fahrenheit degrees), over this time period."
This is mangled info. Someone can straighten it out if they like. If you look over the last 20 kyr, the biggest signal you see is the end of the last ice age - so the stuff about little cycles is then in the noise.
There are various sub-cycles/sub-signals, of ??1500 year ish?? periodicity; and their are the D-O events etc etc. But the above para mangles that. *Also* it fits rather poorly with the emphasis of this subsection-now-a-page, ie on the last 150 or 1000 years - so it shouldn't be up there in the intro.
I've also pushed
"In January 2002, scientists released data showing that Antarctica had grown about 25% (???). Some editorial writers claimed that this contradicts the expectation that rising temperatures should cause the ice cap to shrink. However, the scientists studying the situation in the Antarctic who released this data point out that local cooling in some areas is consistent with an overall trend of global warming and say that "the ice-sheet growth that we have documented in our study area has absolutely nothing to do with any recent climate trends."[9]"
into the misc section. The first sentence is junk. If its to stay, someone has to find a decent ref to what its supposed to mean. Mind you, ref [9] is nice and its a pity I've misc'd it too...
The IPCC says that it has corrected the land station data to account for the urban heat island effect. To do: find and summarize their correction technique.
The comment above has been around for about a year, and still no one has shown me where in any IPCC report they have explained how they "account for" urban heat islands. So I'm inclined to say rather:
... or something along those lines. Work with me here, folks. Let's make an informative and neutral article. -- Uncle Ed
That looks fairly reasonable - I'd modify slightly:
( William M. Connolley 09:46 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)) There is at least a problem in the wording here. IPCC doesn't do research, it reports other peoples. But apart from that... see section 2.2.2.1 [1]. In particular:
Errr... shouldn't all this go into the UHI page?
I have started studying a paper on the temperature record in the USSR. The writers find no warming trend in rural stations and hint (or imply) that other researchers have selectively chosen data to fit their "warming" views. [ Read it yourself] and decide. -- Uncle Ed 17:52 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
Martin and William,
I'm not sure either of you is getting my point. I am not wondering whether a few hot cities are making the whole world hot.
I am wondering whether a large number of the temperature readings from weather stations in and near rapidly warming cities, when averaged with a relatively small number of temperature readings from rural and remote stations, are giving a false impression of global warming. That is, it might be that (A) the only parts of the world that are warming are the urban heat islands and (B) the only reason these are heating up is because cities absorb and generate heat; rather than (C) that carbon dioxide, etc. is causing worldwide warming.
Do you understand my point? (I'm not asking whether you agree with my point of view, but only whether my English is clear.) -- Uncle Ed 22:33 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
Thank you, both, for helping me to feel understood. Now I'll have a G-R-E-A-T weekend! ^_^ ( Uncle Ed)
I've received comments about this article in a Word document by Blair Trewin, one of the authors of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. This is done as part of this project for 3 SDGS. I will try to enter his comments into the Wikipedia article over the coming days/weeks and also raise discussion points here on the talk page. In case someone is watching this page and has worked on this Wikipedia article a lot and would be interested to collaborate, please reach out to me. In that case, I could e-mail you the marked up Word document for your careful consideration. I am a complete non-expert on this topic, so will struggle. EMsmile ( talk) 22:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Blair Trewin: "I think either as an addition to this section, or a new section (I prefer the latter), there should be a discussion of how global temperature datasets are developed from the base observations, and a listing of the main datasets. Reanalyses, and how they are used/not used, could also be introduced here - I see there is a Wikipedia article for ' Atmospheric Reanalysis', although it could do with some more content. (I'm not a reanalysis expert but can point you to some if you want that article strengthened)." EMsmile ( talk) 14:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I am continuing the article review with content expert Blair Trewin. He sent me the following: "I think there's two significant points to make a decision on:
Main other things outstanding from my perspective:
Comments/objections on these suggestions changes by anyone? If not, we'll go ahead. EMsmile ( talk) 10:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Blair about this graph: "This figure is about records at the regional level, not in global means - I would move it to the regional temperatures section and introduce a discussion on extremes there." Answer by RCraig09 above was: "I think that the graphic is appropriate where it is, since it tallies temperature records worldwide. The already-crowded Regional temperature section is actually less appropriate since the graphic isn't concerned with regions per se." Answer by Blair: "It's a global aggregation of regional results (i.e. it is the percentage of gridpoints which set a record in each year). It doesn't relate directly to the global average temperature which is what is being discussed at this point." Do we follow Blair's argument? EMsmile ( talk) 15:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Blair about this graph: "This looks like something that's been produced specifically? (WMO has from time to time published something conceptually similar in its annual State of the Climate reports but hasn't distinguished strong from weak events). If it doesn't have a defined source then we probably need to have a link somewhere to how the strength of El Nino/La Nina events is defined". My reply to him: "The full explanation of the graph is accessible when clicking on the graph: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20210827_Global_surface_temperature_bar_chart_-_bars_color-coded_by_El_Ni%C3%B1o_and_La_Ni%C3%B1a_intensity.svg But I don’t understand it fully: does it explain the definition of strength for these events?" - His next reply was: "It does, although the text has a "very strong" category, which looks as if it is grouped with "strong" on the graph." EMsmile ( talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed an overlap with the article on global average surface temperature. To start with, they use exactly the same graph in the lead. The rest of that article also seems to be a wild mixture of content that is already in other articles. Any suggestions on improving this situation? Should anything be moved from there to here or vice versa? EMsmile ( talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear all, I'm not a climate expert, but an astronomer with keen interest in this topic. I struggled over the first figure in this article that gives the impression that global temperatures have "only" increased by less than 1 degree so far. This is of course due to the use of the very awkward base period 1950-1980 (see also point 13 of the expert review above). I would strongly suggest to use the same base period as the IPCC (and most other publications that I have seen on this topic), i.e. the "pre-industrial" time with instrumental temperature record, 1850-1900 (see. e.g. Fig. SPM-1 in the IPCC's AR6 report): https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf -- if you agree, I'd be happy to update the figure (or if the creator of that figure is still active, perhaps they can speak up). Regards, Ileo ( talk) 10:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Update: This week I discovered the Met Office has collected six datasets and normalized them to the presumptive "pre-industrial" temperature, 1850-1900 average. The chart is now updated to be based on that cooler reference period, so the change of more than 1 °C is now evident. — RCraig09 ( talk) 20:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
In this chart, the "0" value is what is considered the "pre-industrial" temperature level, which is the average of the years 1850 to 1900.or
In this chart, the "0" value is the average of the years 1850 to 1900 which is commonly called the "pre-industrial" temperature level? EMsmile ( talk) 07:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just added a wikilink to the caption of the image in the lead, and added "surface": Measured
global average surface temperature data from several scientific organisations is highly correlated.
. However, I noticed that we have two very similar articles, and I wonder which to link to. We have:
I wonder if there is potential for merging or for improving the article titles. Pinging also User:InformationToKnowledge. EMsmile ( talk) 09:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)