This page 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. |
I'd like to avoid using the term "consensus" in contexts that imply that all scientists agree or that "the science is settled" - as this is the position advocated by Kyoto Protocol supporters in the global warming controversy, a proposition which I believe Wikipedia should not take a stand on.
So I propose using phrases like " IPCC assessment of the latest scientific research". This wording is, I believe, neutral. It does not say that there is (or is not) a consensus. It doesn't even say whether the IPCC's assessment is correct. The reader can visit the IPCC article to determine in his own mind whether he should accept their report as authoritative. Just about everyone does, I guess. But I want that to be something we leave up to the reader, instead of telling them that they must believe what that intergovermental panel says. -- Uncle Ed 13:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Search for "recent", "recently" in Wikipedia the recent encyclopedia lead to this page amongst others.
Shall the recent climate change still be "recent" when it gets its climax and Wikipedia begins to melt too ?
I agree that the most common term used in the recent world is similar to the title of this article. But it shall have to change one day. -- DLL .. T 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid "recent" will continue to describe the time period since the Little Ice Age until the next one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RonCram ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Have there been any responses to the claims made by the contributers to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Channel 4, UK, on the 9th of March 2007? Such as that temperature change has always led carbon change by a gap of 800 years? This would make it impossible for Carbon to be causing temperature changes. Another point made was that CO2 makes up 0.54% of the atmosphere and that human CO2 emissions are 6 gigatons per annum of that, whilst animals and plants create 130 gigatons and still more is produced by either volcanoes or the ocean than human activity. I really think that a lot of people will turn to Wikipedia for answers to these sorts of questions, but it was difficult to see them clearly laid out in this article.-- 82.43.176.137 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont see where B+G say "Bratcher and Giese claim the Earth was in a cooling trend from 1942 to 1975 and then saw warmer temperatures from 1976 through 2002." I don't think there is such a trend. B+G say "A similar situation existed in the early 1940’s when SST records show an equatorial Pacific cooling with the period from 1942–1976 generally cooler than the period following the 1976 climate shift [Zhang et al., 1997]." If you want them to say 42-76 (why do you say 75?) was cooler than 76 on then I'm happy with that, obviously. But if you want them to say a *global* cooling trend from 42-75/6 please quote them here William M. Connolley 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This heading (and hence possibly this section) is clearly POV. I have marked it as such. Ben Finn 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This section is completely POV. It makes a bunch of unsubstantiated "rebuttals" with the only source being (IMHO very bias) realclimate.org, which in turn links to a single source. This section needs to be vastly improved and IMHO I think a separate article should be created that discusses the lag. In the following I'll provide a list of what I think is wrong with this section:
Anyways, here is more information. Codingmonkey 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Having read through the (current) final section of this article something struck me about the line:
"Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties."
If the initial 'unknown' process started the periods of global warming how do we know that it didnt cause all the warming and the CO2 had no real effect ? If the source is unknown then it could be a short or long term driver of climate and could be relatively strong or weak compared to other factors since it is 'unknown' and its characteristics are not understood. Just a thought.... 194.6.79.200 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I cut out:
Firstly because its badly broken - it doesn't distinguish any kind of time scales; it asserts that CR *do* affect clouds when this is only speculation at the moment; etc. But more than that... this is already done higher up the page, considerably better. This is an unfortunate consequence of the name-change of this section :-( William M. Connolley 12:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were a bit hasty to delete in full the following which had been added in the "Arguments which dispute" section:
"Climate change elsewhere in the solar system In recent years warming has been observed on Mars [8], Jupiter [9], Pluto [10], and Neptune's largest moon Triton [11]. This points to a solar explanation for the recent warming on Earth."
It is an argument which disputes, so surely it would be better to discuss in full, rebutting where reasonable? In fact most of the articles linked to gave strong arguments why this wasn't thought to indicate a single solar irradiance cause (as opposed to e.g. changes in orbits, local climate changes, etc.)
The one I would take out would be Jupiter, where it was far from clear to me from the article linked to whether we were talking about global warming, or local warming caused by changes in Jupiter's atmosphere. -- Merlinme 13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
New version seems fair enough. Note, BTW, that as far as I know there are no actual temperature measurements involved (there are ?some? on Mars but even there the ice caps seem to be the main evidence). Pluto for example is done by some ?reliable? measures of the atmospheric density William M. Connolley 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
All the planets seem to be getting warmer - there seems to be a reason given why each one is not due to more heat from the sun ( isn't it strange that they are all getting hotter at the samr time - well coordinated dust storms, and human activity and just the right tilt, the planets must all have a good communications director). Are there any planet/s that are getting cooler? 159.105.80.141 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
On the whole I like the changes, although they perhaps make it a little heavy-going for your average lay person. However, I'm not sure about the "death spiral" bit. I thought there were processes which are believed to have eventually reduced CO2 levels because of changed atmospheric properties, e.g. rock weathering. Do the changes really help explain the ice core argument? -- Merlinme 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It is weak page.
If you want to attribute something you should also put out the numbers as to the percentage of the change that is attributed to that cause.
Dwc144 added [12]. I regard this as dubious:
Why? No other explanation is asked to explain itself. The T-causes-CO2 doesn't explain the changes at all - not why they start, how big they are or why they stop.
This is not the place for a detailed explanation of glacial-interglacial CO2 changes: that would belong on ice age I guess William M. Connolley 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This entire section seems to be someones opinion and synthesis (ie. does the BAS hold this view? its the only source..). My questions here are:
-- Kim D. Petersen 07:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Lets discuss the logic here. "By amplifying each other’s response, this “positive feedback” can turn a small initial perturbation into a large climate change. There is therefore no surprise that the temperature and CO2 rose in parallel, with the temperature initially in advance". Initial rise is one thing but the subsequent falls and rises also had the co2 lag. If the feedback had been of greater importance than the main driver then it would have begun to dominate which doesn't happen. Also since this is a time slice there is no initial rise. The fact is that very little can be concluded from the graph except that there is a correlation and that co2 lags temperature. Anything else is useless speculation. The whole argument is illogical and erroneous. I'd remove it but it would just be put back again. jg17 JG17 10:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It is flawed since if it worked there would be instances in the record where CO2 initiated warming. I mean one supposes that this feedback doctrine is at least possible. But you have no evidence for it so its misleading to be telling people that its a real effect.
Ah what the heck - throw it into the article. 90% certainty, given all the approximations etc in the theory, probably means more like maybe not for sure. When the Vikings were farming in Greenland did the CO2 precede or follow the icecap?
159.105.80.141 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Point to consider?
People often say that climate change is natural and use that as a counter argument to attempts at mitigation. However, I don't believe that argument in itself is a valid counter argument to undertaking mitigation. Even if climate change is mostly natural, it is still a situation that our civilisation needs to contend with. Of course one of the ways to deal with it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (the science behind that is not disputed at all as far as I'm aware - correct me if you have better information though). Simply saying that climate change is natural (even though it is not believed to be so) is not a counter argument against reducing greenhouse gas emission. I would almost go so far as to say that using the 'climate change is natural' argument is irrelevant to the entire debate.
I am sort of new to this so sorry if the format or section placing of this point is wrong. I wonder whether there is a case for putting a section like this into this article (or a more appropriate one? Open to suggestions). Anyway what do people think?... Gaz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.242.31.43 ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 May 2007.
The reference says:
"A climate model can be used to simulate the temperature changes that occur both from natural and anthropogenic causes. The simulations represented by the band in (a) were done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. Those encompassed by the band in (b) were done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and an estimate of sulphate aerosols, and those encompassed by the band in (c) were done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings included. From (b), it can be seen that inclusion of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of the observed temperature changes over the past century, but the best match with observations is obtained in (c) when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included. These results show that the forcings included are sufficient to explain the observed changes, but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed."
The article says:
"Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not."
I changed this to "...reproduce the observed global temperature changes better than those forced by natural factors alone."
I thought this was a better summary of the reference, however WMC has reverted it. WMC knows the science much better than I do, and rereading the reference, the inference is that graph a) (with no GHG forcing) doesn't explain the observed changes. However, I still think Wikipedia's claim is too strong: to me, "reproduce the observed global temperature changes" suggests that there's a near perfect match, and that's surely not the case. How about: ""Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols produce the best match to the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not produce a good match."? -- Merlinme 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Although others may disagree, I feel that in a section where problems with the CO2 theory are being listed, this choice of wording seems awfully biased, eg. by someone who is convinced by the CO2 theory and wants to hide the problems, or even "slip them under the rug", wanting those reading to ignore this section. I suggest that it is changed from "that complicates" to "that may contradict to", not any further though (eg. not to "disproves", for that is simply bias in the wrong direction). I know it may seem a subtle change, but to me "complicates isn't very neutral". TJ 16:28UTC 07/06/07
How about "Frequently asked questions" - thats really what this section is William M. Connolley 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This sentence: "However, a strictly "one-way" view of the relationship between CO2 and temperature contradicts basic results in physics, specifically the fact that the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by CO2 increases as its atmospheric concentration increases." is horrendously POV, OR, and absolutely cannot remain in the article without a source. It doesn't require a source for the greenhouse effect, but rather a source that a one-way view of CO2 causality "violates basic physics." Taking a position that some reputable scientists hold and saying it contradicts basic physics without a source is exactly the kind of statement Wikipedia can't make. Oren0 07:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Bohren even repeats the tired old global cooling nonsense William M. Connolley 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe "Previous research has demonstrated a reduction in cosmic rays between 1920 and 1980, when measurements were stopped. [1]". Reading the ref (I presume this [18]) says "Fair-weather potential gradient (PG) observations in Scotland and Shetland show a previously unreported annual decline from 1920 to 1980, when the measurements ceased." which is entirely different. CR measurements continue William M. Connolley 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact I cut the whole Sven para: "Henrik Svensmark at Danish National Space Center [2] contends that low-level clouds (which cool the Earth) are formed when cosmic rays come into the low atmosphere. [3]." - the Royal Soc stuff is new, but the rest isn't; and the Royal Soc stuff *doesn't* support the text - only the press release does; but thats nothing post-TAR William M. Connolley 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I demand this section be rewritten from a NPOV standpoint. Articles written so as to convey the impression that one side is more credible than the other must not be tolerated. If reference [19] was not good enough, then please someone else rewrite the section, or fix the context in which the reference was used. James Callahan 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If CO2 perfectly matched solar over the last century, that would be puzzling, because we know other forcings (e.g. sulphate) are important. Fortunately it doesn't match up. This lesson appears lost on the solar folk who are only happy when their wiggles match. Most of the rest we've been through before. In real life, no, there is orbital geometry too, which is more important (at least on ice age timescales, or so people assume, perhaps because it is known). CO2 input from anthro sources is not in any meaningful sense a "feedback" either, so I'm not sure what you mean William M. Connolley 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This user's last says that the user undid a past version. Yet, the changes are very different. In fact, it seems like the user was just trying to hide a past change that was earlier attempted at least once here. Is it possible to hide edits under the 'undo' function or am I just being paranoid? Brusegadi 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the following article" contradicts the information on this page. Should it be incorporated?
Burning forests 'is main agent of climate change' Independent, The (London), May 14, 2007 by Daniel Howden http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070514/ai_n19113378 User:E.D.R. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:52, August 25, 2007 (UTC).
I've moved the recently-added map lower, because I think it carries the wrong implications of "attribution" and shouldn't have priority by being at the top. This page (I assert) is about the attribution of climate change to different forcing agents; not about why countries have caused which proportion of CO2 emissions William M. Connolley 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
1. The phrase "The current best answer is..." is incredibly POV and inappropriate for this article. While it is true that some people may believe that it is "the best answer", that doesn't necessarily mean it is and it certainly should be reported as fact when it is opinion.
3. It is absolutely inappropriate to discuss the issue of greenhouse gas emission in the second paragraph without including discussion of the fact that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions has taken place AFTER the reported increase in global temperatures. Anything else is POV pushing.
3. "A summary of climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports". That isn't either accurate or sufficient. The IPCC doesn't summarize all climate research, it creates its own summary. So this phrase must be changed to reflect this fact. I suggest something like "An IPCC summary of climate research may be found in their assessment reports".
I don't like the current version of the "solar var" section; it reads too much like endorsing it. Quotes from the various articles linked need to be pulled in to make it clear that the people observing this stuff aren't claiming it. It would be nice to find a way to note how weak the stuff is - eg the pluto and neptune stuff is a trend from 2 points William M. Connolley 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Re [23] - I'm with Hermione. This is a science article; CCD is primarily political William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
William, I realise that you take a special interest here, so would you please reconsider the reversion of edits to make the article consistent with WP:SULF. Normally, I would applaud the use of the <POV> correct </POV> spelling, but global standardisation is a Good Thing. Dhatfield ( talk) 15:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#Water_vapour_is_the_most_important_greenhouse_gas.21 on why water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but not a climate forcing. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 08:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Several footnotes should be attributed to Gavin Schmidt (not "gavin" or "Gavin Smith" or other mistakes). But I cannot figure out how to edit them--they don't seem to show up in the editing page. Haven't been active lately, so have forgotten how to do this.
Jeeb ( talk) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Who the hell decided this article should be called "attribution of recent climate change?" This should be changed to "causes" IMMEDIATELY. I mean, seriously, the English language does not use the word "attribution" in this manner, at least not in America at any sort of reasonable level. I'll wait a few days, if it's not fixed, I'll do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.185.129 ( talk • contribs)
"Attribution" is less loaded than "causes" and seems to imply a more rational and scientific stance.The whole climate change debate is so politicised that the anthropomorphic aspect dominates the subject.If we attribute climate change to human activity, we understand it better than to say we "caused" it, as in accusing ourselves of wrong doing,ignorance,etc etc.Example;Recent legislation in California seeks to make high energy consuming big screen plasma televisions more energy efficient.One clown politician jumped on this and argued that next there would be laws limiting playstation use to an hour a day.USA=the consumers dream continues in the fog of childhood.I note there is no quick link to " Global warming controversy"?Should there be a link to this article found in wikipedia?If so,I don't know the way to enter it.Thanks Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 06:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Attribution is appropriate process when there are multiple causes to be sorted out. What is unfortunate, is that the article neglects to attribute bias in beliefs as a cause. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) This is becoming ridiculous.To state bias in beliefs is a cause is to return to burning witches and superstition;stick with facts and proof.If you have evidence of "bias" state clearly facts to show this.Science disputes "belief" as any influence on the real world except in the minds of believers.Superstition has no place here,thanks. Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 12:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This sentence needs some clarification:
While 66% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the last 250 years have resulted from burning fossil fuels, 33% have resulted from changes in land use, primarily deforestation.
I seriously doubt that there was any substantial impact on CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels during the 18th and 19th centuries. Steohawk ( talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this article needs more on positive feedbacks. Here's a science summary http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/su-ccl021009.php
Unless there's widespread disagreement, I'll start making some edits soon. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 12:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
What I'm thinking of is McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels (2004). "A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data" Climate Research 26 pp. 159-173. full text -- and similar papers that discuss the problem of the poor quality of the instrumental record.
The obvious question is: can we really (empirically) detect the signal of AGW in the noise of poor-quality temp records: from Heat-island contamination (McKitrick's argument), weather-station site issues, instrumental-calibration issues, etc.
Thanks in advance for pointers (to the archive?) and comments, Pete Tillman ( talk) 00:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to understand from this article why the major scientific bodies have determined that recent global warming is primarily caused by human activity. It is not enough to just say "most of the major bodies have determined it is so." Why? What is the evidence? Yes, certain gasses have increased in the atmosphere due to human activity, and the planet is warming. But how do we know that these two are connected to each other? What is the evidence? It is really hard for an average reader to gain this information from this article. I get the feeling that the emperor has no clothes. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I do feel some sympathy though for the view that there is too much "this report supports the view" and not enough actual evidence referenced William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not[10]. "Fingerprint" methods indicate that the pattern of change is closer to that expected from greenhouse gas-forced change than from natural change.[11]" Yes, but how? As far as I know, warming is warming. There have certainly been periods in the past where the earth has warmed naturally. What is it about this warming that indicates a human cause? What is the "fingerprint" of this warming that shows it is caused by humans and not natural? This article should not simply pass off such questions to "go read the footnote references". This issue is the whole reason why conservatives say their is no global warming problem. To gloss over these important questions, simply reinforces the conservative argument. I myself seriously wonder whether we have solid evidence that global warming is caused by humans, given that proponents seem to avoid these important questions. Merlinme's #3 is really what this whole article is about. If #3 is contentious, then the whole argument collapses like a deck of cards. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 15:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The number of Americans who believe in global warming has declined by 20 percentage points in recent years. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091023/ap_on_sc/us_climate_poll;_ylt=AvXSu6fsBisf5SrVsViFvk6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTMxaG1naWFxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDIzL3VzX2NsaW1hdGVfcG9sbARjcG9zAzcEcG9zAzQEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNwb2xsdXNiZWxpZWY- I think the reason for this decline is exemplified by the rude way my questions have been treated on this page. Those who believe in global warming seem to dismiss as 'stupid' those who want clarification of the evidence. My main point here is to improve the article, which is what this page is for. My main point is that the explanations of why we know global warming is not nature-caused is something too important to simply be dismissed to "go read the footnotes" or "trust the scientists". Those who have commented here have not read what I have been saying all along. It is not that I don't understand the footnotes; that is not the issue. My point is that an explanation of the reasoning for man-caused warming is too important a point to be relegated to the footnotes. I don't know how much clearer I can say it. If you think that those of us on the fence should just read the footnotes or trust the scientists, then you are sticking your head in the sand while public opinion is changing against you. Those who are posting here actually have trouble articulating just what the evidence is (e.g. "The fingerprint stuff actually gets quite tricky"). By sifting through all that was written here, I can kind of pick out a few reasons why the warming is manmade, not global. You seem to be saying that the location of the warming indicates it is only manmade, or the pace of the warming cannot be mathematically attributed to nature. But it is really hard to pick these things out amongst all your misunderstanding of what I am saying. And absolutely none of this explanation is contained within the article. Thus American public opinion continues to slide against global warming. Without a proper and clear explanation of what it is about the warming that indicates man-made, many of us are left with "The emperor has no clothes." -- Westwind273 ( talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
WMC wrote: "I don't understand your problem. What is there about Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not that you didn't understand? That isn't all the evidence, but it is a large part of it." WMC, you are not reading what I am writing. In what way do the "observed global temperature changes" of manmade warming differ from the changes "forced by natural factors alone"? Your quoted sentence does not explain this. Are the locations (longitude and latitude) of manmade warming different from those of natural warming? Is the pace of manmade warming different from the pace of natural warming? Does manmade warming happen at different levels in the atmosphere than natural warming? Is natural warming of the past caused by factors like solar flares which are not happening now to explain the warming? I'm trying to help you by throwing out a bunch of possibilities here. The main article should explain this. Otherwise public opinion will continue to slide. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Merlinme: A Wikipedia article is not a soundbite. If Wikipedia articles can describe things such as Einstein's theory of relativity, then certainly they ought to be able to describe what it is about the current warming that indicates a human cause rather than a natural one. It is quite elitist to say to users of Wikipedia "Global warming is caused by humans, but sorry, you're not smart enough to understand how we know that." Here is the inherent contradiction: You say that "attributing climate change to particular causes is quite hard." If that is true, then why are so many scientists apparently convinced that it is human-caused. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that "difficult attribution" and "overwhelming agreement of attribution" are inherently contradictory. This is something the common man can understand. So why leave it out of the Wikipedia article? It only leaves one with the taste of "the emperor has no clothes." I am not saying that the explanation is easy; I am only saying that it is not so difficult that it falls outside the scope of a Wikipedia article. If Wikipedia is simply a matter of "trusting the specialists", then why have an article on relativity at all? Why not just have an entry that says "Relativity -- E = mc2. As to why this is true, just trust the experts." Of course, the article on Relativity says much more than that. So why is it only the global warming articles that refer so often to "all scientific bodies agree" or "because this report said so". Have you ever taken the time to listen to the arguments of those who deny human-caused global warming? My points are precisely what they are saying -- that there is no evidence that the current warming is human caused. So then why would the Wikipedia article stick its head in the sand and refuse to explain why we know the warming is human caused? I am disappointed that you again seem to intentionally misunderstand my point. I don't want attribution of global warming to become simpler to understand; I am saying that, although it may be difficult to understand, it is not so difficult that it should be left out of the article entirely, or passed off to "most scientists agree". I am astounded by the strong resistance that you global warming supporters have to including an explanation in this article of why we know it is human-caused. Your resistance deepens my doubts about whether global warming is indeed human-caused. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 07:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I am not denying global warming is human caused. I just want the article to explain why we know it is human caused. For example, the article on the Apollo program goes into quite a bit of detail about how it was that we got men to the moon and back, even though it was quite difficult. If Wikipedia can explain the Apollo program in all its complexity, then why can't a Wikipedia article explain clearly why we know that global warming is human caused? It is only the global warming articles that are replete with "because all scientists agree" or "because such and such report says so". -- Westwind273 ( talk) 02:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are two web pages which contain the best explanations I've seen yet about why we know the warming is mostly human-caused:
http://www.edf.org/documents/5279_GlobalwarmingAttributuion.pdf
I would argue that this is not as complicated as everyone is making it out to be, although I will admit that it is more complicated than I originally supposed. Basically the story boils down to this: We know what causes naturally occuring global warming (increased sun activity, etc). These types of causes are not happening in enough quantity to explain the global warming that has taken place during the 20th century. At the same time, we know that human activity has dramatically increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Given what we know about how the atmosphere works (the effect of increased CO2, etc), it is overwhelmingly likely (90% probability) that most of the observed global warming in the 20th century was caused by human activity. Quite simply, other known natural causes of global warming are not occuring in enough quantity to account for the observed warming.
I think this article should use more of the concrete wording from the above two websites, along the lines that I just wrote. Just my humble opinion. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 06:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
excuse me Westwind273,added a link same day,later Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 13:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
see also IPCC link here http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm added later Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 12:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it somewhat redundant to have a section called "Attribution of 20th Century Climate Change" within an article called "Attribution of Recent Climate Change"? After all, isn't this what the whole article is supposed to be about? This seems to be a clever apology for the fact that this article talks about anything but what it is supposed to cover, which is a clear explanation of why we can attribute recent climate change to human causes, not repeated references to "all scientists agree" or "this study concluded". It is so sad that this article is so poorly written, since its topic is one of the most critical of our times. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"Recent climate change" is rather vague in my opinion. Given the current obssession with global warming and the nature of the article as dealing primarily with global warming, the definition of "recent" should be something like "from the beginning of the current warming trend" (which, according to even this hockeystick graph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png, began sometime after 1600 and before 1700, before the Industrial Revolution). In my brief scan of the article, the (relatively) exact DATE of the the inception of the warming trend is not mentioned; it says something about 1750 but that's not what the hockeystick says. I think a discussion on theoretical causes of this pre-industrial warming is warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 ( talk) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Another obscure piece of information is the link of volcanic activity to global temperature variations.The Pinatubo eruption was significant enough to show the effect of stratospheric dust reflecting sunlight and solar energy.This is discussed in the book "Superfreakonomics" with somewhat fanciful ideas about using sulphur to cool the planet(!).Also complicating the subject is the discovery of enormous areas of the Earths oceans that once become de-oxiginated by trillions of tons of algale blooms that thrived and provided oxygen into the atmosphere & ocean then died and sucked up oxygen as they decayed en masse.These dead zones were covered by sediment and were sealed under the surface to be discovered many millenia later when homo sapiens needed oil.Although brief, this wikipedia article provides all the basics.If needed,hundreds of books containing thousand of pages are available.Let's keep wikipedia succinct and brief, if possible.Thanks Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 07:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The first citation in the article points to a page that has dozens of megabytes of reports linked. Is that as close as these footnotes need take the reader? Citing so generally is akin to pointing someone to the library and saying, "the answer's in there somewhere." Can the article's writers do better? And if not, why bother with such citations? (If the writer genuinely went to the cited source for the cited information, then a page citation should not be too hard to include. And I was taught that citing material you did not read is unethical.) Thank you, Pcrh ( talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This article neglects to attribute the consensus probability specifically to Bayesian probability. The reader would benefit from a distinction made about frequency observed probability vs Bayesian Probabilities. A link to the Bayesian article should be provided. It is impossible to have frequency probability on a single global event, all the research is conducted in the greater Bayesian context. source [26] Which has inherent objective flaws and is subject to rapid changing views. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 22:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
A wikipedia search on 'MMGW' redirected me to this article. But this article doesn't even mention MMGW let alone explain what it means. 20.133.0.13 ( talk) 10:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO ( talk) 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. Ucucha 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Attribution of recent climate change →
Anthropogenic climate change — The title is vague. What is meant by recent? A better title would be
Anthropogenic climate change with a redir from the commonly used term
Anthropogenic global warming. Article titles should be descriptive, reflect common usage and define boundaries of the topic. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 04:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I reverted CD [31]. Given points 1 and 2 there seems little point adding "and natural" to point 3 William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/RTC%20Volume%203.pdf is useful. Its got Mars and all William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Also the recent RC article http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/ William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph is clear that the 18% figure refers to anthropogenic emissions, but this isn't obvious in the bullet points – "9% of global carbon dioxide emissions" etc. From ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e03.pdf this section of the cited document] these all refer to anthropogenic emissions, and I've edited accordingly. My browser couldn't find the server for the link in the citations, but a search brought up Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options which gives links to sections as well as the complete pdf. Should we change the link in the citation? . . dave souza, talk 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I already posted this on the wikipidia talk page "Climate Change and Agriculture" but it is relevant here as well. This article states that livestock agriculture contributes 18% of greenhouse gases. This seems to come from the article "Livestock's Long Shadow"<ref>{{cite web|title=Livestock's Long Shadow|url=http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHEQFjAB&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.fao.org%2Fdocrep%2Ffao%2F010%2Fa0701e%2Fa0701e00.pdf&ei=MNseUPmkAe30iwKzuoGwCw&usg=AFQjCNFW_mqPCkFzRvJ6-mhgII0_a9CQdA}}</ref>. However, the EPA states that the production of greenhouse gases by agriculture as a whole is 14% [4]. The wikipedia article on "Livestock's Long Shadow" also notes problems in the the methodology behind the 18% number [5] .
References
Could we have an expanded and more up to date section on "fingerprinting"? I always thought it was an important part of the attribution, and I believe there's been some recent progress; if I remember correctly there were a couple of big studies in the news which reported that fingerprinting supported an anthropogenic cause. Currently the article is vague as to what fingerprinting actually is, and it seems to point to 2001 reference. -- Merlinme ( talk) 11:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
A new paper [32] in Nature suggests that an abrupt shift in Atlantic sea-surface temperatures around 1970 may offer an alternate explanation for the puzzling "pause" in global warming from about 1940 to 1975. This decline has been conventionally ascribed to the influence of man-made aerosols. The new work suggests that changes in circulation-patterns in the Atlantic, perhaps influenced by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, may better account for the observed cooling. See When the North Atlantic caught a chill (Nature Science News) and A Sharp Ocean Chill and 20th Century Climate (Andrew Revkin, NY Times) for discussions and speculations. Plenty more in the blogosphere, if you're curious.
This is more a heads-up to work-in-progress, but perhaps our aerosol section here might need a caveat. Interesting work. Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Solar activity would have to be considered one of the dominant contributers to the warming, especially if deforestation and black carbon are included. Models do attribute most of the warming to the greenhouse gasses. But the language that previously listed was not only POV but incorrect. The IPCC considers the NET natural contribution to be negative, since it considers the cooling contribution of volcanic aerosols to be greater than the solar warming contribution.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 11:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out- going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
How about if we compromise by adding "except solar." to this. We could use the IPCC FAR quote: [1] [1]
-- Africangenesis ( talk) 22:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone fix the reference please!-- Africangenesis ( talk) 22:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
References
Recent estimates indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the second half of the 20th century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings ... In contrast, the direct radiative forcing due to increases in solar irradiance is estimated to be +0.12 (90% range from 0.06 to 0.3) W m–2. ... but over the entire period from 1984 to 2001, surface solar radiation has increased by about 0.16 W m–2 yr–1 on average (Pinker et al., 2005).
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
I am redirected to http://guide.opendns.com/main?url=ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackminardi ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"The dominant mechanisms to which recent climate change has been attributed all result from human activity" Where is the reference? Highly disputable! Solar emmission (not diffusion, not absorption) alone could cause this, yet the evidence is still lacking. This should not be offered as a statement of fact. There is plenty of naysayers still to be found. -- 71.245.164.83 ( talk) 03:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this bit from the opinion section:
Some scientists noted for their somewhat skeptical view of global warming accept that recent climate change is mostly anthropogenic. John Christy has said that he supports the American Geophysical Union (AGU) declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured.[22]
I don't see that this information is of great importance. If Christy hadn't changed his mind, then it might be worth noting his opinion alongside those of others, like Lindzen. But since he has changed his mind, he's now part of the consensus, and therefore not notable.
Enescot (
talk) 03:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added a new background section on some key concepts used in the article. I feel that the article should explain these concepts before using them. Ideally these definitions would be integrated into the main article, but I didn't feel up to doing this.
I've removed the picture of per capita GHG emissions. I don't see how this picture is directly relevant to this article. I've replaced it with a picture of rising CO2 levels.
I've retitled the section "Findings that complicate attribution to CO2" to "Difficulties in attribution". CO2 is not the only GHG. I've also moved the content of this section. The part describing CO2 acting as a feedback is now in a new section called "Earlier climate changes," while the sub-section "Warming on other planets?" is now in the list of scientists opposing global warming consensus article.
I've done this because I felt that the previous revision was not consistent with the IPCC report. As far as I'm aware, the main uncertainty in attribution is distinguishing human activity from internal climate variability. The previous revision of the section could give the impression that the CO2 forcing/feedback issue and "warming on other planets" are the principal scientific uncertainties. I do not think that these issues reflect mainstream scientific thinking in respect of attribution.
I do appreciate why these sections had been included in the way they were. However, I do not think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article to read like a skeptic's FAQ. Issues discussed in this article should focus on mainstream scientific thinking, and not give undue weight to minority viewpoints. Enescot ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Add Portal:Global warming. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Un-Redline Clim-Past-Discuss.net ( Climate of the Past Discussions) please. 99.181.140.243 ( talk) 05:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This section states, "Over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.65 °C (1.17 °F) at the Earth's surface". However, the accompanying graph indicates that the .65 metric is for the past century. One of you special editors should fix that.-- 184.240.56.237 ( talk) 06:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The IPCC citations here are woefully incomplete and unspecific. I can't do much about the latter, but in line with Stephan's response to a query two years ago (" This is a Wiki. Feel free to improve the citations.") I shall be replacing the IPCC citations with a revised form, such as now implemented at Global warming. As using {{ Harv}} templates will be a lot easier for me, and I think a significant improvement in citations, I query: anyone strongly enough opposed to want to clean all this up themselves? :-) _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Largely done. Many of the IPCC citations were non-specific, and I have tagged them with "page needed". If anyone is looking for something to do it is quite straightforward to search the indicated source for the particular quote or material, then add the location to the citation in a manner consistent with other citations. This could also be done with several citations of the NAS report (I may come back and build a suitable reference for that). There has also been a start in converting citations to {{ Harv}} templates; it is, again, fairly straightforward to move a templated citation/reference from the text to the References section, replacing it with a Harv citation. Ask if you need help. _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Beware Climate Change Risk from A/C, Fridge Gases: U.N. "Soaring use of man-made gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners and fire extinguishers risks speeding up global warming and industry should adopt alternatives, a U.N." Scientific American November 21, 2011 by David Fogarty; excerpt ...
On average, HFCs survive in the atmosphere for 15 years and are about 1,600 times more potent in trapping heat in the air than CO2, underscoring growing alarm about these compounds. Combined with rapidly growing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, this will make it even harder for mankind to try to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius -- a threshold that risks dangerous climate change, scientists say. "In the future, HFC emissions have the potential to become very large. This is primarily due to growing demand in emerging economies and increasing populations," said the report by the United Nations Environment Programme released in Bali, Indonesia. ... HFCs are also used to make insulating foams and aerosols. ... HFCs do not damage the ozone layer, which shields the planet from cancer-causing ultra-violet radiation.
See China, India, Brazil, Montreal Protocol,
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The climate change attribution figure should be removed. It dates back to 2004, and significant diagnostic literature has been published since then that show that models had errors larger than the phenomenon of interest. Stroeve and Scambos described the models as 30 years behind the melting of the Arctic ice cap. Andreas Roesch showed a positive surface albedo bias that amounts to more than 3W/m^2 globally and annually average, and Wentz in the journal Science (2007) showed that none of the models produced even half of the increase in precipitation in the observations. This result was recently confirmed, showing that even the most recent models haven't fixed their under representation of the acceleration of the water cycle.
-- Africangenesis ( talk) 06:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I took this out ( [34]) twice.
This is the "Attribution of recent climate change" article, and 100 kyr type changes aren't obviously relevant. As I understand it, the T-dust-CO2 correlation comes from desertification and exposure or sea beds and the like during the depths of the ice age, and that isn't clearly relevant to recent change William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
---
There is no causal relationship inferred by the data or information added. However, the long term data clearly illustrates an inverse relationship between dust(aerosol) and the levels of CO2 and termperature. Long-term data in considering the attribution of RECENT climate change is absolutely necessary for context and the complete absense of it on this page indicates a clear and consistent effort to use it to present a point of view rather than a complete set of facts.
All aspects of climate change are relevant to recent climate change. One person making a determination that long-term change has no relevance to recent change is not acceptable. The effort to keep objective and complete data off of this page makes it a point of view, which is not appropriate.
"Desertification" refers more specifically to land that is transfomed by deforestation and inappropriate agriculture and is irrelevant to the addition of long term data. Mitigation of desertification is done through land reclamation and the introduction of biodiversity, and not related directly to the long term data. Furthermore, with the exposure of sea beds changing over both short and long term it is relevant to both, but since this is only one factor and one thoery, excluding additional data based on it is inappropriate and further serves to present a point of view. Valid data on climate change, even if it doesn't support the point of view of one person, needs to be evaluated objectively, and it's removal makes this article inaccurate and based on edits/removals on the page, largely the opinion of one William M. Connolley.
You were deleting my edits as I was making them. Please be more considerate of new and accurate information, even it you don't agree with the potential conclusions to which it leads readers. The fact that it was being deleted (twice) while I was editing it shows inadequate level of respect for the input of others on this topic.
And with that, I'm hoping you won't delete it a third time.
--- Mhannigan ( talk) 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
--- No, William, that statement is correct, obviously. All aspects of climate change are relevant to recent climate change. I did provide more than sufficient reason to include the data. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but that isn't a good enough reason to remove valid data - what is your reason for removing it?
I understand WP:BRD, which you have not followed: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."
The first thing you stateed was that you reverted my changes "twice". They disappeared AS I was editing - twice. The avoidance of this type of confusion is one of the reasons you should follow it. And certainly the only justification you've provided is that it's "obviously" not relevent. That's not a proper argument. You haven't offered on real reason for reverting the edit - "obviously" isn't a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhannigan ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I will explain again - The short term cannot correctly be considered without the CONTEXT of the larger picture. What you say is not logical. There is no way to attribute short term changes without climate change data that can potentially provide a baseline from which one can determine the short term data that is actually anomylous. Your logic is flawed - if we consider very short term data - say two years - if the two years were alike, we could conclude that climate change doesn't exist on any level and therefore there's nothing to attribute. If the years are vastly different, we could conclude something totally different. However, if we put that in context and found that the temperature was the same every other year for 50 years - average A on the even years, Averag B on the odd, the conclusion is completely different and more meaningful. How can you possibly justify removing the reference data? I think that you bear a bit more burden for explaining why you would REMOVE data that in and of itself does not provide a conclusion of any sort, but which may bear relevance to the topic. What is your evidence that that long term climate change offers absolutely no insight into short term climate change? I would love to know.
Under what situation could you justify removing contextual data in a scientific observation? That seems more "anti-science" and the promotion of a point of view. --- Mhannigan ( talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
--- William - I just saw this link from your user page. You have it linked as "I am famous". http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley It reads: William M. Connolley is a British Wikipedia editor known for his fanaticism in promoting the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and in censoring the views of critics and skeptics. He is the ringleader of the infamous global warming cabal at Wikipedia, a powerful pro-AGW group that has an iron grip on global warming-related articles. Any editors that attempt to introduce factual information that is against their point of view are ceaselessly harassed until they are forced to quit or are banned. Connolley--a Wikipedia editor since 2003--and the group enjoy tacit support from the Wikipedia hierarchy, who often turn a blind eye to the group's misdeeds. This certainly would explain why you are removing factual data.
It has also come to my attention that you are currently under Sanction from Wikepedia regarding reverting changes to Climate Change Related articles? [1] Aren't you currently in violation of those sanctions by doing more of the same? --- Mhannigan ( talk) 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Note that I put the data in the part of the article that states, With virtual certainty, scientific consensus has attributed various forms of climate change, chiefly cooling effects, to aerosols... My original intention with adding the graph is that it SUPPORTS this existing information. That was my original intention. I didn't expect such a backlash from anthropogenic global warming advocates to supress valid data. Look - the data is accurate, it MAY be relevent to recent changes (it's not up to me to decide that), and I added it to support EXISTING information in the article to make it better. I've never seen/experienced this kind of effort to keep valid, pertinent information out of an article. I don't have a dog in this fight. I was just trying to improve the article. I don't have more time to waste arguing with the anthropogenic global warming advocates that are watching over this page. I can't win here regardless of how important the information is to providing the truth. That's why I started the dispute process and that's where I will have to continue. Mhannigan ( talk) 19:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
References
Old: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/global-climate-change New: http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/climate/ModernGCC03KarlTrenberth.pdf ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxik ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 06:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Attribution of recent climate change → How we know humans are causing global warming – It's a lot more direct than the current name, and as such, in my opinion, fits the content better Jinkinson ( talk) 13:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
A study has been performed by P.V. Forster in 2007 that utilises the fact that CO2 emitted from anthropogenic sources such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation have a lower average mass number than those emitted from natural sources. The study determines the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that has been emitted from human sources by measuring the average number of neutrons in atmospheric CO2 molecules. The study conclusively showed that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere was produced by anthropogenic sources. This study was extended by G.J. Bowen and others in 2009, which involved measuring the lateral variation of atmospheric CO2 to determine zones of major CO2 sinks and sources.
I would like to propose that this information is added to the Fingerprint studies section for this page. I have several figures and of course references which can be supplied to support these statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Dello-Iacovo ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Land use change has affected CO2 and other greenhouse gasses but is no longer considered a net driver of climate change. This is stated in a number of ways in AR5. Specifically that afforestation has low confidence in mitigating climate change and that land use changes have forcings that offset whatever greenhouse forcings have been created. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"In view of the large spread of model results and incomplete process representation, there is low confidence on the magnitude of modelled future land carbon changes. {6.4.3}"
And Box 1.1, Figure 3. The removal of land use CO2 emissions to compare the older AR4 SRES and AR5 RCP's. It also is trying to compare emission vs. concentration models.
Figure TS.4 though is the definitive emission driven case that land use CO2 is not a driver of recent climate change even thought it is a significant source of GHG's since the industrial revolution (1750 with 0 fossil fuel use). Land carbon sinks are also significant. Albedo and non-forcing effects add even more uncertainty but it's pretty clear land use isn't a significant driver of recent climate change (since 1950) and is not expected to be a significant contributor going forward. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Picture File:Emissions_ar5.jpg
In an earlier comment in this thread, DHeyward wrote "land use CO2 is not a driver of recent climate change even thought it is a significant source of GHG's since the industrial revolution". However, the sources seem to say that CO2 has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere... if I understand it all correctly, plenty of 1750 CO2 emissions have escaped the various sinks and are still in the air "driving" climate change today. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Section: "Effect of cosmic rays"
Henrik Svensmark has suggested that the magnetic activity of the sun deflects cosmic rays, and that this may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei, and thereby have an ******affect****** on the climate.
(should be "effect")
Fixed, thanks. -- Merlinme ( talk) 10:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
We can use page 5 William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Also available as http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-2/ William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI this article was mentioned at Talk:Global warming#Should "Evidence of global warming" really redirect to "Attribution of climate change"? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The following sectionhas been erased,
What is being deemed wrong with it? Serten II ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Changes a while back in the CS1 templates resulted in some error messages in the Attribution of recent climate change#Notes section. Stamptrader recently made some changes to suppress those messages. However, these changes were sub-optimal, so I have reverted them, pending a deeper look into this to find a better way. To be continued. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a nice pic at http://www.realclimate-backup.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/?wpmp_switcher=desktop that we could perhaps use ( http://www.realclimate-backup.org/images/attribution.jpg to be specific) William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This page 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. |
This page 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. |
I'd like to avoid using the term "consensus" in contexts that imply that all scientists agree or that "the science is settled" - as this is the position advocated by Kyoto Protocol supporters in the global warming controversy, a proposition which I believe Wikipedia should not take a stand on.
So I propose using phrases like " IPCC assessment of the latest scientific research". This wording is, I believe, neutral. It does not say that there is (or is not) a consensus. It doesn't even say whether the IPCC's assessment is correct. The reader can visit the IPCC article to determine in his own mind whether he should accept their report as authoritative. Just about everyone does, I guess. But I want that to be something we leave up to the reader, instead of telling them that they must believe what that intergovermental panel says. -- Uncle Ed 13:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Search for "recent", "recently" in Wikipedia the recent encyclopedia lead to this page amongst others.
Shall the recent climate change still be "recent" when it gets its climax and Wikipedia begins to melt too ?
I agree that the most common term used in the recent world is similar to the title of this article. But it shall have to change one day. -- DLL .. T 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid "recent" will continue to describe the time period since the Little Ice Age until the next one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RonCram ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Have there been any responses to the claims made by the contributers to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Channel 4, UK, on the 9th of March 2007? Such as that temperature change has always led carbon change by a gap of 800 years? This would make it impossible for Carbon to be causing temperature changes. Another point made was that CO2 makes up 0.54% of the atmosphere and that human CO2 emissions are 6 gigatons per annum of that, whilst animals and plants create 130 gigatons and still more is produced by either volcanoes or the ocean than human activity. I really think that a lot of people will turn to Wikipedia for answers to these sorts of questions, but it was difficult to see them clearly laid out in this article.-- 82.43.176.137 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont see where B+G say "Bratcher and Giese claim the Earth was in a cooling trend from 1942 to 1975 and then saw warmer temperatures from 1976 through 2002." I don't think there is such a trend. B+G say "A similar situation existed in the early 1940’s when SST records show an equatorial Pacific cooling with the period from 1942–1976 generally cooler than the period following the 1976 climate shift [Zhang et al., 1997]." If you want them to say 42-76 (why do you say 75?) was cooler than 76 on then I'm happy with that, obviously. But if you want them to say a *global* cooling trend from 42-75/6 please quote them here William M. Connolley 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This heading (and hence possibly this section) is clearly POV. I have marked it as such. Ben Finn 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This section is completely POV. It makes a bunch of unsubstantiated "rebuttals" with the only source being (IMHO very bias) realclimate.org, which in turn links to a single source. This section needs to be vastly improved and IMHO I think a separate article should be created that discusses the lag. In the following I'll provide a list of what I think is wrong with this section:
Anyways, here is more information. Codingmonkey 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Having read through the (current) final section of this article something struck me about the line:
"Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties."
If the initial 'unknown' process started the periods of global warming how do we know that it didnt cause all the warming and the CO2 had no real effect ? If the source is unknown then it could be a short or long term driver of climate and could be relatively strong or weak compared to other factors since it is 'unknown' and its characteristics are not understood. Just a thought.... 194.6.79.200 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I cut out:
Firstly because its badly broken - it doesn't distinguish any kind of time scales; it asserts that CR *do* affect clouds when this is only speculation at the moment; etc. But more than that... this is already done higher up the page, considerably better. This is an unfortunate consequence of the name-change of this section :-( William M. Connolley 12:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were a bit hasty to delete in full the following which had been added in the "Arguments which dispute" section:
"Climate change elsewhere in the solar system In recent years warming has been observed on Mars [8], Jupiter [9], Pluto [10], and Neptune's largest moon Triton [11]. This points to a solar explanation for the recent warming on Earth."
It is an argument which disputes, so surely it would be better to discuss in full, rebutting where reasonable? In fact most of the articles linked to gave strong arguments why this wasn't thought to indicate a single solar irradiance cause (as opposed to e.g. changes in orbits, local climate changes, etc.)
The one I would take out would be Jupiter, where it was far from clear to me from the article linked to whether we were talking about global warming, or local warming caused by changes in Jupiter's atmosphere. -- Merlinme 13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
New version seems fair enough. Note, BTW, that as far as I know there are no actual temperature measurements involved (there are ?some? on Mars but even there the ice caps seem to be the main evidence). Pluto for example is done by some ?reliable? measures of the atmospheric density William M. Connolley 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
All the planets seem to be getting warmer - there seems to be a reason given why each one is not due to more heat from the sun ( isn't it strange that they are all getting hotter at the samr time - well coordinated dust storms, and human activity and just the right tilt, the planets must all have a good communications director). Are there any planet/s that are getting cooler? 159.105.80.141 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
On the whole I like the changes, although they perhaps make it a little heavy-going for your average lay person. However, I'm not sure about the "death spiral" bit. I thought there were processes which are believed to have eventually reduced CO2 levels because of changed atmospheric properties, e.g. rock weathering. Do the changes really help explain the ice core argument? -- Merlinme 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It is weak page.
If you want to attribute something you should also put out the numbers as to the percentage of the change that is attributed to that cause.
Dwc144 added [12]. I regard this as dubious:
Why? No other explanation is asked to explain itself. The T-causes-CO2 doesn't explain the changes at all - not why they start, how big they are or why they stop.
This is not the place for a detailed explanation of glacial-interglacial CO2 changes: that would belong on ice age I guess William M. Connolley 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This entire section seems to be someones opinion and synthesis (ie. does the BAS hold this view? its the only source..). My questions here are:
-- Kim D. Petersen 07:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Lets discuss the logic here. "By amplifying each other’s response, this “positive feedback” can turn a small initial perturbation into a large climate change. There is therefore no surprise that the temperature and CO2 rose in parallel, with the temperature initially in advance". Initial rise is one thing but the subsequent falls and rises also had the co2 lag. If the feedback had been of greater importance than the main driver then it would have begun to dominate which doesn't happen. Also since this is a time slice there is no initial rise. The fact is that very little can be concluded from the graph except that there is a correlation and that co2 lags temperature. Anything else is useless speculation. The whole argument is illogical and erroneous. I'd remove it but it would just be put back again. jg17 JG17 10:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It is flawed since if it worked there would be instances in the record where CO2 initiated warming. I mean one supposes that this feedback doctrine is at least possible. But you have no evidence for it so its misleading to be telling people that its a real effect.
Ah what the heck - throw it into the article. 90% certainty, given all the approximations etc in the theory, probably means more like maybe not for sure. When the Vikings were farming in Greenland did the CO2 precede or follow the icecap?
159.105.80.141 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Point to consider?
People often say that climate change is natural and use that as a counter argument to attempts at mitigation. However, I don't believe that argument in itself is a valid counter argument to undertaking mitigation. Even if climate change is mostly natural, it is still a situation that our civilisation needs to contend with. Of course one of the ways to deal with it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (the science behind that is not disputed at all as far as I'm aware - correct me if you have better information though). Simply saying that climate change is natural (even though it is not believed to be so) is not a counter argument against reducing greenhouse gas emission. I would almost go so far as to say that using the 'climate change is natural' argument is irrelevant to the entire debate.
I am sort of new to this so sorry if the format or section placing of this point is wrong. I wonder whether there is a case for putting a section like this into this article (or a more appropriate one? Open to suggestions). Anyway what do people think?... Gaz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.242.31.43 ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 May 2007.
The reference says:
"A climate model can be used to simulate the temperature changes that occur both from natural and anthropogenic causes. The simulations represented by the band in (a) were done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. Those encompassed by the band in (b) were done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and an estimate of sulphate aerosols, and those encompassed by the band in (c) were done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings included. From (b), it can be seen that inclusion of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of the observed temperature changes over the past century, but the best match with observations is obtained in (c) when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included. These results show that the forcings included are sufficient to explain the observed changes, but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed."
The article says:
"Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not."
I changed this to "...reproduce the observed global temperature changes better than those forced by natural factors alone."
I thought this was a better summary of the reference, however WMC has reverted it. WMC knows the science much better than I do, and rereading the reference, the inference is that graph a) (with no GHG forcing) doesn't explain the observed changes. However, I still think Wikipedia's claim is too strong: to me, "reproduce the observed global temperature changes" suggests that there's a near perfect match, and that's surely not the case. How about: ""Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols produce the best match to the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not produce a good match."? -- Merlinme 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Although others may disagree, I feel that in a section where problems with the CO2 theory are being listed, this choice of wording seems awfully biased, eg. by someone who is convinced by the CO2 theory and wants to hide the problems, or even "slip them under the rug", wanting those reading to ignore this section. I suggest that it is changed from "that complicates" to "that may contradict to", not any further though (eg. not to "disproves", for that is simply bias in the wrong direction). I know it may seem a subtle change, but to me "complicates isn't very neutral". TJ 16:28UTC 07/06/07
How about "Frequently asked questions" - thats really what this section is William M. Connolley 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This sentence: "However, a strictly "one-way" view of the relationship between CO2 and temperature contradicts basic results in physics, specifically the fact that the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by CO2 increases as its atmospheric concentration increases." is horrendously POV, OR, and absolutely cannot remain in the article without a source. It doesn't require a source for the greenhouse effect, but rather a source that a one-way view of CO2 causality "violates basic physics." Taking a position that some reputable scientists hold and saying it contradicts basic physics without a source is exactly the kind of statement Wikipedia can't make. Oren0 07:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Bohren even repeats the tired old global cooling nonsense William M. Connolley 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe "Previous research has demonstrated a reduction in cosmic rays between 1920 and 1980, when measurements were stopped. [1]". Reading the ref (I presume this [18]) says "Fair-weather potential gradient (PG) observations in Scotland and Shetland show a previously unreported annual decline from 1920 to 1980, when the measurements ceased." which is entirely different. CR measurements continue William M. Connolley 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact I cut the whole Sven para: "Henrik Svensmark at Danish National Space Center [2] contends that low-level clouds (which cool the Earth) are formed when cosmic rays come into the low atmosphere. [3]." - the Royal Soc stuff is new, but the rest isn't; and the Royal Soc stuff *doesn't* support the text - only the press release does; but thats nothing post-TAR William M. Connolley 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I demand this section be rewritten from a NPOV standpoint. Articles written so as to convey the impression that one side is more credible than the other must not be tolerated. If reference [19] was not good enough, then please someone else rewrite the section, or fix the context in which the reference was used. James Callahan 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If CO2 perfectly matched solar over the last century, that would be puzzling, because we know other forcings (e.g. sulphate) are important. Fortunately it doesn't match up. This lesson appears lost on the solar folk who are only happy when their wiggles match. Most of the rest we've been through before. In real life, no, there is orbital geometry too, which is more important (at least on ice age timescales, or so people assume, perhaps because it is known). CO2 input from anthro sources is not in any meaningful sense a "feedback" either, so I'm not sure what you mean William M. Connolley 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This user's last says that the user undid a past version. Yet, the changes are very different. In fact, it seems like the user was just trying to hide a past change that was earlier attempted at least once here. Is it possible to hide edits under the 'undo' function or am I just being paranoid? Brusegadi 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the following article" contradicts the information on this page. Should it be incorporated?
Burning forests 'is main agent of climate change' Independent, The (London), May 14, 2007 by Daniel Howden http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070514/ai_n19113378 User:E.D.R. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:52, August 25, 2007 (UTC).
I've moved the recently-added map lower, because I think it carries the wrong implications of "attribution" and shouldn't have priority by being at the top. This page (I assert) is about the attribution of climate change to different forcing agents; not about why countries have caused which proportion of CO2 emissions William M. Connolley 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
1. The phrase "The current best answer is..." is incredibly POV and inappropriate for this article. While it is true that some people may believe that it is "the best answer", that doesn't necessarily mean it is and it certainly should be reported as fact when it is opinion.
3. It is absolutely inappropriate to discuss the issue of greenhouse gas emission in the second paragraph without including discussion of the fact that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions has taken place AFTER the reported increase in global temperatures. Anything else is POV pushing.
3. "A summary of climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports". That isn't either accurate or sufficient. The IPCC doesn't summarize all climate research, it creates its own summary. So this phrase must be changed to reflect this fact. I suggest something like "An IPCC summary of climate research may be found in their assessment reports".
I don't like the current version of the "solar var" section; it reads too much like endorsing it. Quotes from the various articles linked need to be pulled in to make it clear that the people observing this stuff aren't claiming it. It would be nice to find a way to note how weak the stuff is - eg the pluto and neptune stuff is a trend from 2 points William M. Connolley 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Re [23] - I'm with Hermione. This is a science article; CCD is primarily political William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
William, I realise that you take a special interest here, so would you please reconsider the reversion of edits to make the article consistent with WP:SULF. Normally, I would applaud the use of the <POV> correct </POV> spelling, but global standardisation is a Good Thing. Dhatfield ( talk) 15:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#Water_vapour_is_the_most_important_greenhouse_gas.21 on why water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but not a climate forcing. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 08:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Several footnotes should be attributed to Gavin Schmidt (not "gavin" or "Gavin Smith" or other mistakes). But I cannot figure out how to edit them--they don't seem to show up in the editing page. Haven't been active lately, so have forgotten how to do this.
Jeeb ( talk) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Who the hell decided this article should be called "attribution of recent climate change?" This should be changed to "causes" IMMEDIATELY. I mean, seriously, the English language does not use the word "attribution" in this manner, at least not in America at any sort of reasonable level. I'll wait a few days, if it's not fixed, I'll do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.185.129 ( talk • contribs)
"Attribution" is less loaded than "causes" and seems to imply a more rational and scientific stance.The whole climate change debate is so politicised that the anthropomorphic aspect dominates the subject.If we attribute climate change to human activity, we understand it better than to say we "caused" it, as in accusing ourselves of wrong doing,ignorance,etc etc.Example;Recent legislation in California seeks to make high energy consuming big screen plasma televisions more energy efficient.One clown politician jumped on this and argued that next there would be laws limiting playstation use to an hour a day.USA=the consumers dream continues in the fog of childhood.I note there is no quick link to " Global warming controversy"?Should there be a link to this article found in wikipedia?If so,I don't know the way to enter it.Thanks Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 06:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Attribution is appropriate process when there are multiple causes to be sorted out. What is unfortunate, is that the article neglects to attribute bias in beliefs as a cause. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) This is becoming ridiculous.To state bias in beliefs is a cause is to return to burning witches and superstition;stick with facts and proof.If you have evidence of "bias" state clearly facts to show this.Science disputes "belief" as any influence on the real world except in the minds of believers.Superstition has no place here,thanks. Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 12:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This sentence needs some clarification:
While 66% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the last 250 years have resulted from burning fossil fuels, 33% have resulted from changes in land use, primarily deforestation.
I seriously doubt that there was any substantial impact on CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels during the 18th and 19th centuries. Steohawk ( talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this article needs more on positive feedbacks. Here's a science summary http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/su-ccl021009.php
Unless there's widespread disagreement, I'll start making some edits soon. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 12:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
What I'm thinking of is McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels (2004). "A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data" Climate Research 26 pp. 159-173. full text -- and similar papers that discuss the problem of the poor quality of the instrumental record.
The obvious question is: can we really (empirically) detect the signal of AGW in the noise of poor-quality temp records: from Heat-island contamination (McKitrick's argument), weather-station site issues, instrumental-calibration issues, etc.
Thanks in advance for pointers (to the archive?) and comments, Pete Tillman ( talk) 00:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to understand from this article why the major scientific bodies have determined that recent global warming is primarily caused by human activity. It is not enough to just say "most of the major bodies have determined it is so." Why? What is the evidence? Yes, certain gasses have increased in the atmosphere due to human activity, and the planet is warming. But how do we know that these two are connected to each other? What is the evidence? It is really hard for an average reader to gain this information from this article. I get the feeling that the emperor has no clothes. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I do feel some sympathy though for the view that there is too much "this report supports the view" and not enough actual evidence referenced William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not[10]. "Fingerprint" methods indicate that the pattern of change is closer to that expected from greenhouse gas-forced change than from natural change.[11]" Yes, but how? As far as I know, warming is warming. There have certainly been periods in the past where the earth has warmed naturally. What is it about this warming that indicates a human cause? What is the "fingerprint" of this warming that shows it is caused by humans and not natural? This article should not simply pass off such questions to "go read the footnote references". This issue is the whole reason why conservatives say their is no global warming problem. To gloss over these important questions, simply reinforces the conservative argument. I myself seriously wonder whether we have solid evidence that global warming is caused by humans, given that proponents seem to avoid these important questions. Merlinme's #3 is really what this whole article is about. If #3 is contentious, then the whole argument collapses like a deck of cards. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 15:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The number of Americans who believe in global warming has declined by 20 percentage points in recent years. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091023/ap_on_sc/us_climate_poll;_ylt=AvXSu6fsBisf5SrVsViFvk6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTMxaG1naWFxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDIzL3VzX2NsaW1hdGVfcG9sbARjcG9zAzcEcG9zAzQEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNwb2xsdXNiZWxpZWY- I think the reason for this decline is exemplified by the rude way my questions have been treated on this page. Those who believe in global warming seem to dismiss as 'stupid' those who want clarification of the evidence. My main point here is to improve the article, which is what this page is for. My main point is that the explanations of why we know global warming is not nature-caused is something too important to simply be dismissed to "go read the footnotes" or "trust the scientists". Those who have commented here have not read what I have been saying all along. It is not that I don't understand the footnotes; that is not the issue. My point is that an explanation of the reasoning for man-caused warming is too important a point to be relegated to the footnotes. I don't know how much clearer I can say it. If you think that those of us on the fence should just read the footnotes or trust the scientists, then you are sticking your head in the sand while public opinion is changing against you. Those who are posting here actually have trouble articulating just what the evidence is (e.g. "The fingerprint stuff actually gets quite tricky"). By sifting through all that was written here, I can kind of pick out a few reasons why the warming is manmade, not global. You seem to be saying that the location of the warming indicates it is only manmade, or the pace of the warming cannot be mathematically attributed to nature. But it is really hard to pick these things out amongst all your misunderstanding of what I am saying. And absolutely none of this explanation is contained within the article. Thus American public opinion continues to slide against global warming. Without a proper and clear explanation of what it is about the warming that indicates man-made, many of us are left with "The emperor has no clothes." -- Westwind273 ( talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
WMC wrote: "I don't understand your problem. What is there about Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not that you didn't understand? That isn't all the evidence, but it is a large part of it." WMC, you are not reading what I am writing. In what way do the "observed global temperature changes" of manmade warming differ from the changes "forced by natural factors alone"? Your quoted sentence does not explain this. Are the locations (longitude and latitude) of manmade warming different from those of natural warming? Is the pace of manmade warming different from the pace of natural warming? Does manmade warming happen at different levels in the atmosphere than natural warming? Is natural warming of the past caused by factors like solar flares which are not happening now to explain the warming? I'm trying to help you by throwing out a bunch of possibilities here. The main article should explain this. Otherwise public opinion will continue to slide. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Merlinme: A Wikipedia article is not a soundbite. If Wikipedia articles can describe things such as Einstein's theory of relativity, then certainly they ought to be able to describe what it is about the current warming that indicates a human cause rather than a natural one. It is quite elitist to say to users of Wikipedia "Global warming is caused by humans, but sorry, you're not smart enough to understand how we know that." Here is the inherent contradiction: You say that "attributing climate change to particular causes is quite hard." If that is true, then why are so many scientists apparently convinced that it is human-caused. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that "difficult attribution" and "overwhelming agreement of attribution" are inherently contradictory. This is something the common man can understand. So why leave it out of the Wikipedia article? It only leaves one with the taste of "the emperor has no clothes." I am not saying that the explanation is easy; I am only saying that it is not so difficult that it falls outside the scope of a Wikipedia article. If Wikipedia is simply a matter of "trusting the specialists", then why have an article on relativity at all? Why not just have an entry that says "Relativity -- E = mc2. As to why this is true, just trust the experts." Of course, the article on Relativity says much more than that. So why is it only the global warming articles that refer so often to "all scientific bodies agree" or "because this report said so". Have you ever taken the time to listen to the arguments of those who deny human-caused global warming? My points are precisely what they are saying -- that there is no evidence that the current warming is human caused. So then why would the Wikipedia article stick its head in the sand and refuse to explain why we know the warming is human caused? I am disappointed that you again seem to intentionally misunderstand my point. I don't want attribution of global warming to become simpler to understand; I am saying that, although it may be difficult to understand, it is not so difficult that it should be left out of the article entirely, or passed off to "most scientists agree". I am astounded by the strong resistance that you global warming supporters have to including an explanation in this article of why we know it is human-caused. Your resistance deepens my doubts about whether global warming is indeed human-caused. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 07:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I am not denying global warming is human caused. I just want the article to explain why we know it is human caused. For example, the article on the Apollo program goes into quite a bit of detail about how it was that we got men to the moon and back, even though it was quite difficult. If Wikipedia can explain the Apollo program in all its complexity, then why can't a Wikipedia article explain clearly why we know that global warming is human caused? It is only the global warming articles that are replete with "because all scientists agree" or "because such and such report says so". -- Westwind273 ( talk) 02:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are two web pages which contain the best explanations I've seen yet about why we know the warming is mostly human-caused:
http://www.edf.org/documents/5279_GlobalwarmingAttributuion.pdf
I would argue that this is not as complicated as everyone is making it out to be, although I will admit that it is more complicated than I originally supposed. Basically the story boils down to this: We know what causes naturally occuring global warming (increased sun activity, etc). These types of causes are not happening in enough quantity to explain the global warming that has taken place during the 20th century. At the same time, we know that human activity has dramatically increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Given what we know about how the atmosphere works (the effect of increased CO2, etc), it is overwhelmingly likely (90% probability) that most of the observed global warming in the 20th century was caused by human activity. Quite simply, other known natural causes of global warming are not occuring in enough quantity to account for the observed warming.
I think this article should use more of the concrete wording from the above two websites, along the lines that I just wrote. Just my humble opinion. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 06:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
excuse me Westwind273,added a link same day,later Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 13:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
see also IPCC link here http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm added later Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 12:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it somewhat redundant to have a section called "Attribution of 20th Century Climate Change" within an article called "Attribution of Recent Climate Change"? After all, isn't this what the whole article is supposed to be about? This seems to be a clever apology for the fact that this article talks about anything but what it is supposed to cover, which is a clear explanation of why we can attribute recent climate change to human causes, not repeated references to "all scientists agree" or "this study concluded". It is so sad that this article is so poorly written, since its topic is one of the most critical of our times. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"Recent climate change" is rather vague in my opinion. Given the current obssession with global warming and the nature of the article as dealing primarily with global warming, the definition of "recent" should be something like "from the beginning of the current warming trend" (which, according to even this hockeystick graph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png, began sometime after 1600 and before 1700, before the Industrial Revolution). In my brief scan of the article, the (relatively) exact DATE of the the inception of the warming trend is not mentioned; it says something about 1750 but that's not what the hockeystick says. I think a discussion on theoretical causes of this pre-industrial warming is warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 ( talk) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Another obscure piece of information is the link of volcanic activity to global temperature variations.The Pinatubo eruption was significant enough to show the effect of stratospheric dust reflecting sunlight and solar energy.This is discussed in the book "Superfreakonomics" with somewhat fanciful ideas about using sulphur to cool the planet(!).Also complicating the subject is the discovery of enormous areas of the Earths oceans that once become de-oxiginated by trillions of tons of algale blooms that thrived and provided oxygen into the atmosphere & ocean then died and sucked up oxygen as they decayed en masse.These dead zones were covered by sediment and were sealed under the surface to be discovered many millenia later when homo sapiens needed oil.Although brief, this wikipedia article provides all the basics.If needed,hundreds of books containing thousand of pages are available.Let's keep wikipedia succinct and brief, if possible.Thanks Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 07:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The first citation in the article points to a page that has dozens of megabytes of reports linked. Is that as close as these footnotes need take the reader? Citing so generally is akin to pointing someone to the library and saying, "the answer's in there somewhere." Can the article's writers do better? And if not, why bother with such citations? (If the writer genuinely went to the cited source for the cited information, then a page citation should not be too hard to include. And I was taught that citing material you did not read is unethical.) Thank you, Pcrh ( talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This article neglects to attribute the consensus probability specifically to Bayesian probability. The reader would benefit from a distinction made about frequency observed probability vs Bayesian Probabilities. A link to the Bayesian article should be provided. It is impossible to have frequency probability on a single global event, all the research is conducted in the greater Bayesian context. source [26] Which has inherent objective flaws and is subject to rapid changing views. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 22:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
A wikipedia search on 'MMGW' redirected me to this article. But this article doesn't even mention MMGW let alone explain what it means. 20.133.0.13 ( talk) 10:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO ( talk) 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. Ucucha 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Attribution of recent climate change →
Anthropogenic climate change — The title is vague. What is meant by recent? A better title would be
Anthropogenic climate change with a redir from the commonly used term
Anthropogenic global warming. Article titles should be descriptive, reflect common usage and define boundaries of the topic. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 04:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I reverted CD [31]. Given points 1 and 2 there seems little point adding "and natural" to point 3 William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/RTC%20Volume%203.pdf is useful. Its got Mars and all William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Also the recent RC article http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/ William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph is clear that the 18% figure refers to anthropogenic emissions, but this isn't obvious in the bullet points – "9% of global carbon dioxide emissions" etc. From ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e03.pdf this section of the cited document] these all refer to anthropogenic emissions, and I've edited accordingly. My browser couldn't find the server for the link in the citations, but a search brought up Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options which gives links to sections as well as the complete pdf. Should we change the link in the citation? . . dave souza, talk 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I already posted this on the wikipidia talk page "Climate Change and Agriculture" but it is relevant here as well. This article states that livestock agriculture contributes 18% of greenhouse gases. This seems to come from the article "Livestock's Long Shadow"<ref>{{cite web|title=Livestock's Long Shadow|url=http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHEQFjAB&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.fao.org%2Fdocrep%2Ffao%2F010%2Fa0701e%2Fa0701e00.pdf&ei=MNseUPmkAe30iwKzuoGwCw&usg=AFQjCNFW_mqPCkFzRvJ6-mhgII0_a9CQdA}}</ref>. However, the EPA states that the production of greenhouse gases by agriculture as a whole is 14% [4]. The wikipedia article on "Livestock's Long Shadow" also notes problems in the the methodology behind the 18% number [5] .
References
Could we have an expanded and more up to date section on "fingerprinting"? I always thought it was an important part of the attribution, and I believe there's been some recent progress; if I remember correctly there were a couple of big studies in the news which reported that fingerprinting supported an anthropogenic cause. Currently the article is vague as to what fingerprinting actually is, and it seems to point to 2001 reference. -- Merlinme ( talk) 11:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
A new paper [32] in Nature suggests that an abrupt shift in Atlantic sea-surface temperatures around 1970 may offer an alternate explanation for the puzzling "pause" in global warming from about 1940 to 1975. This decline has been conventionally ascribed to the influence of man-made aerosols. The new work suggests that changes in circulation-patterns in the Atlantic, perhaps influenced by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, may better account for the observed cooling. See When the North Atlantic caught a chill (Nature Science News) and A Sharp Ocean Chill and 20th Century Climate (Andrew Revkin, NY Times) for discussions and speculations. Plenty more in the blogosphere, if you're curious.
This is more a heads-up to work-in-progress, but perhaps our aerosol section here might need a caveat. Interesting work. Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Solar activity would have to be considered one of the dominant contributers to the warming, especially if deforestation and black carbon are included. Models do attribute most of the warming to the greenhouse gasses. But the language that previously listed was not only POV but incorrect. The IPCC considers the NET natural contribution to be negative, since it considers the cooling contribution of volcanic aerosols to be greater than the solar warming contribution.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 11:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out- going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
How about if we compromise by adding "except solar." to this. We could use the IPCC FAR quote: [1] [1]
-- Africangenesis ( talk) 22:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone fix the reference please!-- Africangenesis ( talk) 22:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
References
Recent estimates indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the second half of the 20th century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings ... In contrast, the direct radiative forcing due to increases in solar irradiance is estimated to be +0.12 (90% range from 0.06 to 0.3) W m–2. ... but over the entire period from 1984 to 2001, surface solar radiation has increased by about 0.16 W m–2 yr–1 on average (Pinker et al., 2005).
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
I am redirected to http://guide.opendns.com/main?url=ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackminardi ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"The dominant mechanisms to which recent climate change has been attributed all result from human activity" Where is the reference? Highly disputable! Solar emmission (not diffusion, not absorption) alone could cause this, yet the evidence is still lacking. This should not be offered as a statement of fact. There is plenty of naysayers still to be found. -- 71.245.164.83 ( talk) 03:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this bit from the opinion section:
Some scientists noted for their somewhat skeptical view of global warming accept that recent climate change is mostly anthropogenic. John Christy has said that he supports the American Geophysical Union (AGU) declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured.[22]
I don't see that this information is of great importance. If Christy hadn't changed his mind, then it might be worth noting his opinion alongside those of others, like Lindzen. But since he has changed his mind, he's now part of the consensus, and therefore not notable.
Enescot (
talk) 03:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added a new background section on some key concepts used in the article. I feel that the article should explain these concepts before using them. Ideally these definitions would be integrated into the main article, but I didn't feel up to doing this.
I've removed the picture of per capita GHG emissions. I don't see how this picture is directly relevant to this article. I've replaced it with a picture of rising CO2 levels.
I've retitled the section "Findings that complicate attribution to CO2" to "Difficulties in attribution". CO2 is not the only GHG. I've also moved the content of this section. The part describing CO2 acting as a feedback is now in a new section called "Earlier climate changes," while the sub-section "Warming on other planets?" is now in the list of scientists opposing global warming consensus article.
I've done this because I felt that the previous revision was not consistent with the IPCC report. As far as I'm aware, the main uncertainty in attribution is distinguishing human activity from internal climate variability. The previous revision of the section could give the impression that the CO2 forcing/feedback issue and "warming on other planets" are the principal scientific uncertainties. I do not think that these issues reflect mainstream scientific thinking in respect of attribution.
I do appreciate why these sections had been included in the way they were. However, I do not think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article to read like a skeptic's FAQ. Issues discussed in this article should focus on mainstream scientific thinking, and not give undue weight to minority viewpoints. Enescot ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Add Portal:Global warming. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Un-Redline Clim-Past-Discuss.net ( Climate of the Past Discussions) please. 99.181.140.243 ( talk) 05:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This section states, "Over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.65 °C (1.17 °F) at the Earth's surface". However, the accompanying graph indicates that the .65 metric is for the past century. One of you special editors should fix that.-- 184.240.56.237 ( talk) 06:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The IPCC citations here are woefully incomplete and unspecific. I can't do much about the latter, but in line with Stephan's response to a query two years ago (" This is a Wiki. Feel free to improve the citations.") I shall be replacing the IPCC citations with a revised form, such as now implemented at Global warming. As using {{ Harv}} templates will be a lot easier for me, and I think a significant improvement in citations, I query: anyone strongly enough opposed to want to clean all this up themselves? :-) _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Largely done. Many of the IPCC citations were non-specific, and I have tagged them with "page needed". If anyone is looking for something to do it is quite straightforward to search the indicated source for the particular quote or material, then add the location to the citation in a manner consistent with other citations. This could also be done with several citations of the NAS report (I may come back and build a suitable reference for that). There has also been a start in converting citations to {{ Harv}} templates; it is, again, fairly straightforward to move a templated citation/reference from the text to the References section, replacing it with a Harv citation. Ask if you need help. _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Beware Climate Change Risk from A/C, Fridge Gases: U.N. "Soaring use of man-made gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners and fire extinguishers risks speeding up global warming and industry should adopt alternatives, a U.N." Scientific American November 21, 2011 by David Fogarty; excerpt ...
On average, HFCs survive in the atmosphere for 15 years and are about 1,600 times more potent in trapping heat in the air than CO2, underscoring growing alarm about these compounds. Combined with rapidly growing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, this will make it even harder for mankind to try to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius -- a threshold that risks dangerous climate change, scientists say. "In the future, HFC emissions have the potential to become very large. This is primarily due to growing demand in emerging economies and increasing populations," said the report by the United Nations Environment Programme released in Bali, Indonesia. ... HFCs are also used to make insulating foams and aerosols. ... HFCs do not damage the ozone layer, which shields the planet from cancer-causing ultra-violet radiation.
See China, India, Brazil, Montreal Protocol,
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The climate change attribution figure should be removed. It dates back to 2004, and significant diagnostic literature has been published since then that show that models had errors larger than the phenomenon of interest. Stroeve and Scambos described the models as 30 years behind the melting of the Arctic ice cap. Andreas Roesch showed a positive surface albedo bias that amounts to more than 3W/m^2 globally and annually average, and Wentz in the journal Science (2007) showed that none of the models produced even half of the increase in precipitation in the observations. This result was recently confirmed, showing that even the most recent models haven't fixed their under representation of the acceleration of the water cycle.
-- Africangenesis ( talk) 06:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I took this out ( [34]) twice.
This is the "Attribution of recent climate change" article, and 100 kyr type changes aren't obviously relevant. As I understand it, the T-dust-CO2 correlation comes from desertification and exposure or sea beds and the like during the depths of the ice age, and that isn't clearly relevant to recent change William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
---
There is no causal relationship inferred by the data or information added. However, the long term data clearly illustrates an inverse relationship between dust(aerosol) and the levels of CO2 and termperature. Long-term data in considering the attribution of RECENT climate change is absolutely necessary for context and the complete absense of it on this page indicates a clear and consistent effort to use it to present a point of view rather than a complete set of facts.
All aspects of climate change are relevant to recent climate change. One person making a determination that long-term change has no relevance to recent change is not acceptable. The effort to keep objective and complete data off of this page makes it a point of view, which is not appropriate.
"Desertification" refers more specifically to land that is transfomed by deforestation and inappropriate agriculture and is irrelevant to the addition of long term data. Mitigation of desertification is done through land reclamation and the introduction of biodiversity, and not related directly to the long term data. Furthermore, with the exposure of sea beds changing over both short and long term it is relevant to both, but since this is only one factor and one thoery, excluding additional data based on it is inappropriate and further serves to present a point of view. Valid data on climate change, even if it doesn't support the point of view of one person, needs to be evaluated objectively, and it's removal makes this article inaccurate and based on edits/removals on the page, largely the opinion of one William M. Connolley.
You were deleting my edits as I was making them. Please be more considerate of new and accurate information, even it you don't agree with the potential conclusions to which it leads readers. The fact that it was being deleted (twice) while I was editing it shows inadequate level of respect for the input of others on this topic.
And with that, I'm hoping you won't delete it a third time.
--- Mhannigan ( talk) 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
--- No, William, that statement is correct, obviously. All aspects of climate change are relevant to recent climate change. I did provide more than sufficient reason to include the data. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but that isn't a good enough reason to remove valid data - what is your reason for removing it?
I understand WP:BRD, which you have not followed: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."
The first thing you stateed was that you reverted my changes "twice". They disappeared AS I was editing - twice. The avoidance of this type of confusion is one of the reasons you should follow it. And certainly the only justification you've provided is that it's "obviously" not relevent. That's not a proper argument. You haven't offered on real reason for reverting the edit - "obviously" isn't a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhannigan ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I will explain again - The short term cannot correctly be considered without the CONTEXT of the larger picture. What you say is not logical. There is no way to attribute short term changes without climate change data that can potentially provide a baseline from which one can determine the short term data that is actually anomylous. Your logic is flawed - if we consider very short term data - say two years - if the two years were alike, we could conclude that climate change doesn't exist on any level and therefore there's nothing to attribute. If the years are vastly different, we could conclude something totally different. However, if we put that in context and found that the temperature was the same every other year for 50 years - average A on the even years, Averag B on the odd, the conclusion is completely different and more meaningful. How can you possibly justify removing the reference data? I think that you bear a bit more burden for explaining why you would REMOVE data that in and of itself does not provide a conclusion of any sort, but which may bear relevance to the topic. What is your evidence that that long term climate change offers absolutely no insight into short term climate change? I would love to know.
Under what situation could you justify removing contextual data in a scientific observation? That seems more "anti-science" and the promotion of a point of view. --- Mhannigan ( talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
--- William - I just saw this link from your user page. You have it linked as "I am famous". http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley It reads: William M. Connolley is a British Wikipedia editor known for his fanaticism in promoting the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and in censoring the views of critics and skeptics. He is the ringleader of the infamous global warming cabal at Wikipedia, a powerful pro-AGW group that has an iron grip on global warming-related articles. Any editors that attempt to introduce factual information that is against their point of view are ceaselessly harassed until they are forced to quit or are banned. Connolley--a Wikipedia editor since 2003--and the group enjoy tacit support from the Wikipedia hierarchy, who often turn a blind eye to the group's misdeeds. This certainly would explain why you are removing factual data.
It has also come to my attention that you are currently under Sanction from Wikepedia regarding reverting changes to Climate Change Related articles? [1] Aren't you currently in violation of those sanctions by doing more of the same? --- Mhannigan ( talk) 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Note that I put the data in the part of the article that states, With virtual certainty, scientific consensus has attributed various forms of climate change, chiefly cooling effects, to aerosols... My original intention with adding the graph is that it SUPPORTS this existing information. That was my original intention. I didn't expect such a backlash from anthropogenic global warming advocates to supress valid data. Look - the data is accurate, it MAY be relevent to recent changes (it's not up to me to decide that), and I added it to support EXISTING information in the article to make it better. I've never seen/experienced this kind of effort to keep valid, pertinent information out of an article. I don't have a dog in this fight. I was just trying to improve the article. I don't have more time to waste arguing with the anthropogenic global warming advocates that are watching over this page. I can't win here regardless of how important the information is to providing the truth. That's why I started the dispute process and that's where I will have to continue. Mhannigan ( talk) 19:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
References
Old: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/global-climate-change New: http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/climate/ModernGCC03KarlTrenberth.pdf ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxik ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 06:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Attribution of recent climate change → How we know humans are causing global warming – It's a lot more direct than the current name, and as such, in my opinion, fits the content better Jinkinson ( talk) 13:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
A study has been performed by P.V. Forster in 2007 that utilises the fact that CO2 emitted from anthropogenic sources such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation have a lower average mass number than those emitted from natural sources. The study determines the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that has been emitted from human sources by measuring the average number of neutrons in atmospheric CO2 molecules. The study conclusively showed that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere was produced by anthropogenic sources. This study was extended by G.J. Bowen and others in 2009, which involved measuring the lateral variation of atmospheric CO2 to determine zones of major CO2 sinks and sources.
I would like to propose that this information is added to the Fingerprint studies section for this page. I have several figures and of course references which can be supplied to support these statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Dello-Iacovo ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Land use change has affected CO2 and other greenhouse gasses but is no longer considered a net driver of climate change. This is stated in a number of ways in AR5. Specifically that afforestation has low confidence in mitigating climate change and that land use changes have forcings that offset whatever greenhouse forcings have been created. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"In view of the large spread of model results and incomplete process representation, there is low confidence on the magnitude of modelled future land carbon changes. {6.4.3}"
And Box 1.1, Figure 3. The removal of land use CO2 emissions to compare the older AR4 SRES and AR5 RCP's. It also is trying to compare emission vs. concentration models.
Figure TS.4 though is the definitive emission driven case that land use CO2 is not a driver of recent climate change even thought it is a significant source of GHG's since the industrial revolution (1750 with 0 fossil fuel use). Land carbon sinks are also significant. Albedo and non-forcing effects add even more uncertainty but it's pretty clear land use isn't a significant driver of recent climate change (since 1950) and is not expected to be a significant contributor going forward. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Picture File:Emissions_ar5.jpg
In an earlier comment in this thread, DHeyward wrote "land use CO2 is not a driver of recent climate change even thought it is a significant source of GHG's since the industrial revolution". However, the sources seem to say that CO2 has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere... if I understand it all correctly, plenty of 1750 CO2 emissions have escaped the various sinks and are still in the air "driving" climate change today. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Section: "Effect of cosmic rays"
Henrik Svensmark has suggested that the magnetic activity of the sun deflects cosmic rays, and that this may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei, and thereby have an ******affect****** on the climate.
(should be "effect")
Fixed, thanks. -- Merlinme ( talk) 10:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
We can use page 5 William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Also available as http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-2/ William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI this article was mentioned at Talk:Global warming#Should "Evidence of global warming" really redirect to "Attribution of climate change"? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The following sectionhas been erased,
What is being deemed wrong with it? Serten II ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Changes a while back in the CS1 templates resulted in some error messages in the Attribution of recent climate change#Notes section. Stamptrader recently made some changes to suppress those messages. However, these changes were sub-optimal, so I have reverted them, pending a deeper look into this to find a better way. To be continued. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a nice pic at http://www.realclimate-backup.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/?wpmp_switcher=desktop that we could perhaps use ( http://www.realclimate-backup.org/images/attribution.jpg to be specific) William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This page 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. |