Misplaced Pages

Talk:Climate change: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:18, 21 November 2009 editKauffner (talk | contribs)32,539 edits →telegraph.co.uk: restore← Previous edit Revision as of 13:25, 21 November 2009 edit undoStephan Schulz (talk | contribs)Administrators26,888 edits →telegraph.co.uk: ReplyNext edit →
Line 318: Line 318:


::::From e-mail by Phil Jones of Hadley CRU: '''I've just completed Mike 's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.''' Of course, the global warming theory never made any sense as science -- and now it appears to be a fraud as well. ] (]) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC) ::::From e-mail by Phil Jones of Hadley CRU: '''I've just completed Mike 's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.''' Of course, the global warming theory never made any sense as science -- and now it appears to be a fraud as well. ] (]) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:*Yawn*. Nothing of this discussion is about global warming or improving this article. If it has run its way through the blogosphere and something useful remains, it might go into ] as an interesting anecdote, although it would probably be better suited to out new article ]. --] (]) 13:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:25, 21 November 2009


WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

There is a request, submitted by AaThinker, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "This is a long-time featured article about a vital topic covering several prominent Misplaced Pages projects.".

Template:Spoken Misplaced Pages In Progress

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96Auto-archiving period: 31 days 
? faq page Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the for references at the bottom of the FAQ.

Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change? A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by over 99% of publishing climate scientists. See also: Scientific consensus on climate change Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place? A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)." Q3: Can't the increase of CO2 be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans? A3: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics, including academically trained ones, they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives:
  • Current human emissions of CO2 are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. This is easily seen in a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend.
  • Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels.
  • Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.
  • If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or in other words, less basic).
Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it? A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum. Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated? A5: Two reasons:
  • There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like the Global Warming Map, are static, meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly.
  • However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get", meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations. Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import.
Q6: Isn't climate change "just a theory"? A6: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess, but a scientific theory, roughly speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven, but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense), but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess. Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO2? A7: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years), so when methane emissions are reduced the concentration in the atmosphere soon falls, whereas CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles. See also: Clathrate gun hypothesis and Arctic methane release Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled? A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change. This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change. Q9: Did climate change end in 1998? A9: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998. More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out; thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement? A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name." Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD.

While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice sheet, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference:

Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists? A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and it has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years? A12: Measurements show that it has not. Claims that global sea ice amounts have stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice amounts.

Arctic sea ice cover is declining strongly; Antarctic sea ice cover has had some much smaller increases, though it may or may not be thinning, and the Southern Ocean is warming. The net global ice-cover trend is clearly downwards.

See also: Arctic sea ice decline See also: Antarctic sea ice § Recent trends and climate change Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming? A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming. The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, such as a short nine-paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975. (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.) The author of that article has repudiated the idea that it should be used to deny global warming. Q14: Doesn't water vapour cause 98% of the greenhouse effect? A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO2 or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms, any excess water vapour is removed by rainfall, and any deficit of water vapour is replenished by evaporation from the Earth's surface, which literally has oceans of water. Thus water vapour cannot act as a driver of climate change.

Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will however allow the atmosphere to hold more vapour. This will lead to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, whereas water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends.

See also: Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)? A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming.
  • A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "'His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,' said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that 'the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.'"
  • There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change. This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices.
  • Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates. Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit – it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Misplaced Pages's own article.
See also: Climate of Mars and Extraterrestrial atmosphere Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money? A16: No,
  • Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses.
  • Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
  • There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming.
    • Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data. Scientists could get paid to study climate even if global warming did not exist.
Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity? A17: It does, but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction. Q18: Should we include the view that climate change will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe? A18: This page is about the science of climate change. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying. Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) important? A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world, which include most large cities.
  • Earth's climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e. the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the higher absolute temperature but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate and the related effects on human societies. The IPCC AR6 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change.
Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is/was Scibaby? A20: Scibaby is/was a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,027 confirmed sock puppets, another 167 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them. Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer-reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...? A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:IINFO) of the What Misplaced Pages is not policy. Q22: Why does the article define "climate change" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before? A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "climate change" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. The article Climate variability and change deals with the more general concept. Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that climate change is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays? A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment:
  • Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
  • The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
  • Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
  1. Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation,
  2. These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN),
  3. The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and
  4. Cloud cover on Earth must be declining.
Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step." Q24: I read that something can't fix climate change. Is this true? A24: Yes, this is true for all plausible single things including: "electric cars", "planting trees", "low-carbon technology", "renewable energy", "Australia", "capitalism", "the doom & gloom approach", "a Ph.D. in thermodynamics". Note that it is problematic to use the word "fix" regarding climate change, as returning the climate to its pre-industrial state currently appears to be feasible only over a timeframe of thousands of years. Current efforts are instead aimed at mitigating (meaning limiting) climate change. Mitigation is strived for through the combination of many different things. See Climate change mitigation for details. References
  1. ^ Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  2. ^ "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
  3. Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help)
  4. Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  5. Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  6. Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  7. Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  8. "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007.
  9. Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.
  10. The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.
  11. "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
  12. Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  13. The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.
  14. "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.
  15. Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.
  16. Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.
  17. Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.
  18. Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org.
  19. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
  20. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
  21. Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
  22. Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
  23. Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
  24. Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
  25. Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes.
  27. Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN.
  28. "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011.
  29. Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.
Featured articleClimate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 17, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 4, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWeather Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEnvironment
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGeology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArctic High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:WP1.0
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Template:Weather-selected

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96Auto-archiving period: 31 days 

Too much influence on Earth?

There seems to be a lot of information on Global Warming on earth in this article but it seems to discount Global Warming that is affecting other planets as well; notably Mars. --RobertGary1 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming Graphs

Should we really have this many Hockey-stick graphs on the page? Skeptics might catch on to our plan to skew the data based on old errors.--EchoRevamped (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I had added a more recent graph from Satellite temperature measurements (File:Satellite Temperatures.png) to the graphs on this page. It is not currently supportive of the premise of global warming. It is however accurate and more recent than the graphs currently displayed. The current graph is 10 years out of date. The data on this page is stale. I will add the graph again unless I hear of any valid objections.Veteran0101 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to update this graph, but I am not sure where it is...did you add the updated version? Can we have one with actual error bars on it? Subsumee (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png . It is already linked to the following pages. 
   * Satellite temperature measurements
   * Leipzig Declaration
   * Talk:Global warming
   * Temperature record
   * User:Dragons flight/Images
   * Friends of Science
   * Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 7
   * List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Veteran0101 (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Are those lines linear least square fits to the individual data sets? If so, is there an accompanying R-squared "goodness-of-fit" value for each? Thank you. 72.57.184.21 (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
See Satellite temperature measurements for a further explanation. Veteran0101 (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
What "current graph" was 10 years out of date? As far as i can see, they are (and were) all pretty up2date. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I got permission to upload and use a 'Global Temperature' chart File:Chart-LongtermGTemps.jpg that demonstrates the various periods of global warming since 2500 BC. It offers a much better perspective and frame of reference on recent warming trends (and fluctuations). I'm just not sure where to incorporate it into the article yet.
-K10wnsta (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the though but no, we won't be using that. It is just about sourceless, and badly wrong, and we already have better ones William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It has no methodology, it's not published in a peer-reviewed venue, and it contains extremely dubious historical claims unrelated to climate (the Hebrew exodus from Egypt is generally considered a myth). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Its source is very legitimate (scientifically) and very clear. How is it 'badly wrong'? It's far more up to date than most of the charts provided on this page (and largely agrees with the data they present).
The Hebrew exodus may well be a myth, it's only pointed out for context as to the era. Any notable event (myth or otherwise) from that era can be used for frame of reference.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
How is it scientific? Where was it published? Does any other temperature reconstruction agree with this one? What data was used in generating the graph? Where can we verify it? How do we know it is not just someone who has drawn this out of free fantasy? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
K10wnsta-Your interest in global warming and your desire to improve this article is much appreciated. I want to encourage your continued exploration of this topic, and I'd like to suggest you start by reading this critique of the graph you discovered. It provides a concise explanation of why it's considered of dubious value.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Kim, the original chart, which should be sourced in the release (if I did it right), was compiled by a climatologist and meteorologist using three works: Climate and the Affairs of Man by Dr. Iben Browning, "Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers." By Michael Zahorchak, and Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.
Curtis, I thoroughly examined the information you linked as to the veracity of the chart's creators and a couple things trouble me about it:
  • The posting states: 'Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist...' but the claim doesn't mesh with the credentials listed in the link.
  • The posting attacks their character with the statement 'Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be' and cites a blog as its source. But if you go to that blog and check its source for the remark, it sends you back to another forum posting.
From a completely neutral perspective on the matter, those blogs and forums are rather questionable, especially given the obnoxious summaries of their discussion (ie. their titles even resort to name-calling). I'm not saying the meteorologist and climatologist are infallible in their discussion of the matter, but their credentials are a good deal more respectable than their detractors standing soapboxes behind a wall of anonymity.
--K10wnsta (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
So lets summarize:
  • The chart is not published anywhere (except on some website) => not scientific, not a reliable source (this alone makes the graph inadmissible)
  • The credentials of the "climatologist" are extremely dodgy. He hasn't published anything from what i can determine via Google scholar. He claims to be "one of the top ten climatologists in the world", but there are no mentions of him anywhere of notice.
  • The "meteorologist" is a broadcast meteorologist not a scientist. (The AMS seal doesn't require any education)
  • They compiled the graph from dodgy sources... (sorry but they are)
    1. Do you really think Iben Browning is reliable?
    2. A book by apparently a business investor
Sorry - but this tallies up to ... nothing really. Certainly not science --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and a graph without a Y-axis isn't really a graph at all.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ

Main page: Talk:Global warming/FAQ

I'm always amazed at how many members of the public (i.e. non-climate-scientists) feel that they have just thought out, or found out, or stumbled across the crucial scientific fact that all the world's experts have systematically missed for years or decades. In creationist circles, as noted in a short thread above, the same thing happened for a while over evolution. Yet it never happens in other areas of science (some where there is possibly more of a chance of a member of the public finding or thinking out something new, like entomology, or string theory, or hypersensitivity). The best thing here is the FAQ page, which apart from answering the question, by being pre-prepared also proves to each asker that they're not the first to think of it. --Nigelj (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Nigelj) Actually, it doesn't surprise me, and I think it's a natural reaction to the amount of shoddy partisan reporting that is done on the topic of global warming. Most people know little about the science of global warming, but all the non-scientists I've talked to have done a little bit of interested research. I think that the poor communication about the science behind global warming leads to people questioning the world around them and what they are told - which is a fantastic thing IMO - but leads to a number of intuitive objections to global warming which are not addressed in most readily-available resources. The FAQ here is an excellent source, but unfortunately by the time people land themselves on Wiki, they have rather entrenched views and have drawn the battle lines. So I guess this is more a philosophical reply to a philosophical question and not so directly related to this page, but I think I might ask some of my non-scientist friends (who lie across the political spectrum) if they'd mind reading through a few climate articles on Wiki and giving me feedback on what they do and don't feel satisfied about in the knowledge that they acquired in reading the articles. Awickert (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the FAQ could (or should) be brought out from being a subpage of a talk page, and be promoted to article status in its own right? What would it get called to meet WP naming guidelines? Could it keep the current collapsible format? Should it? Would it become just another junk-magnet to monitor and police? Maybe it doesn't get targeted so much now, because it is not so well read, but is that really a good thing? A lot of work and thought has clearly gone into it, for it to stay hidden away like it is. Just thinking out loud. --Nigelj (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the FAQ's purpose is to let people with good intentions avoid repeating the same discussion over and over again on the talk page. Therefore it needs to be on the talk page. Unfortunately there is nothing to be done for people without good intentions. Ignignot (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Cooling" on the global warming consensus

This news feature gives an excellent summary of how the current consensus on global warming seems to be crumbling:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/13/ED7O1A4IQU.DTL

Could someone please add this to the "Debate and skepticism" section of this article? TS Handon (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to look at WP:weight and Scientific opinion on climate change to understand why the article you're citing holds nothing relevant for this page. But, feel free to add Piers Corbyn to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Easterbrook is already listed and Carlin isn't a scientist.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:weight "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source". The BBC and about 50 other news outlets have stated that there has recently been cooling/no warming/paused warming. Neutrality requires that the article represent all significant viewpoints - which must include the viewpoint that we are currently in a cooling period. Only by redefining "reliable" to mean "scientific" and then only by limiting it to those with a clear self interest who believe we are currently and actively warming is it possible to claim WP:weight supports this lack of Neutrality (NPOV) in the article. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Also in WP:weight: "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." By my estimate something from 10-50% of all news articles on global warming either dismiss the idea of manmade warming, or state it to be hugely overblown. There is therefore a significant body of opinion that holds the opinion that global warming is a hoax, scam, etc. based on bad science. There is also strong evidence to support this view and clear allegations of misuse of data which simply isn't mentioned in the article, no way on earth can this article be said to be complying with WP:weight.88.110.76.120 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


And Corbyn is yet another weather man with airs of academe. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Global warming will spur growth of forests

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/20/20greenwire-global-warming-could-spur-growth-in-northwest-43219.html

This NYTimes reference provides a good summary of predicted increased growth of forests, due to global warming. Suggestions on where to add this? Tom Dietz (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick to peer-reviewed articles that are Critically Important, don't rely on Broadcast And Bulletin media, else You become Stale and Old hat—Content is King. -Atmoz (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Right. You’ll need the original piece as published in Forest Ecology and Management. However, the scope of the study appears to be too narrow for this article as it only concerns the Pacifc Northwest. But, it might be of some value to Effects of global warming and/or Regional effects of global warming.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Precipitation rates

"TAIPEI (AFP) – Global warming will cause the amount of heavy rain dumped on Taiwan to triple over the next 20 years.... Data showing the incidence of heavy rain has doubled in the past 45 years, coinciding with a global rise in temperatures, said Liu Shaw-chen of Taiwan's leading research institute Academia Sinica...." -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/taiwanclimatewarmingtyphoon

Presumably, additional heating induces more evaporation and transpiration, so does the global projection for total aggregate precipitation vary in proportion to temperature linearly? How much more total precipitation is associated with a 1 degree C. increase in temperature? 99.60.3.23 (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No-one else has stepped up (Boris?) so I will. Precip does not vary linearly with T, more like exponentially (so how much extra precip is assoc with 1 oC depends on what your base T is). Local precip will vary much more than global. You might find fig 10.6 of chapter 10 helpful: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Figure 10.36 on page 828 (PDF page 82) is also very helpful. But the different scenarios in this document, and the news I've been reading about, suggest that projections have been changing rapidly. What is the date of that AR4 report? 99.62.185.62 (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Its various parts have been published over much of 2007. See IPCC AR4. Cut-off for inclusion of results will have been somewhat earlier. As far as I can tell, nothing in your sources is substantially new - we just choose which of the many possible trajectories for emissions we are following. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A. How far are increased precipitation rates expected to raise 10-year flood plain levels?

B. How much have projections for future greenhouse gas concentrations changed over the past 10 years? 99.62.185.160 (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC) ]

NASA funded study shows increase in the suns radiation output

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a 2003 study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricTyle (talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You want Solar variation guv. Plus the grace to realise that we've already read all the 2003 studies of any interest. Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't sweat the condescension EricTyle. There are a number of editors that try to minimize any information that doesn't pander to their AGW GHG bias, especially that relating to the possibility that variations in total solar irradiance are significant climate change forcings Dikstr (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
What's being minimized? The study referred to in the space.com article was published by R. Willson, et al. in Geophysical Research Letters in 2003. It's used twice in the Solar variation article (footnotes 6 and 30). And if you really want to know what NASA says about the sun's influence on our climate, it's best to go to them directly: . Scroll down and see "Solar irradiance". Or, see NASA's FAQ What is the role of the sun and solar cycles in climate change and global warming?. You'll see that the "Solar variation" section in this article is consistent with what NASA says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtisSwain (talk • contribs) 21:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The JPL (NASA) references are worth perusing as a summary of the view of solar forcing among climate modelers at least up to the past decade. However, science marches on and more recent findings indicate variations of total solar irradiance may account for up to 50% of the climate forcing during the industrial era, for example: Scafetta, N., and B. J. West (2007), Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere, surface temperature records since 1600, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437.Dikstr (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop responding to Scibaby threads. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly a monument to the exchange of ideas.Dikstr (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Look the fact is the whole solar system is warming up because of increased radiation output from the sun. This is relevant to this article especially considering it begins "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation." This puts the data from NASA well within the scope of the article. EricTyle (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that "fact" is wrong. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q16. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cooling trend?

88.110.76.120-I think you raise some valid questions, but I believe they've already been covered in both the FAQ (see #3) and in the article itself under Temperature changes. Your suggestion that this article "explain that 8 years is not significant in scientific terms and that the recent cooling is much smaller than the overall warming during the instrumental record" is a good idea, and that's basically what the section on Temperature changes does. It's just articulated differently and it's not in the lede section. And, I think you're correct in that many commentators are saying that "global warming has stopped", but this is certainly not due to a "lack of reporting of the recent cooling by the scientific community." Where do you think the popular press get their temperature readings? They aren't monitoring global temperature trends themselves. They get their information from the scientific community, and then misinterpret it and spin it in a way that sells newspapers. That's why we use peer reviewed scientific literature and not the mass media. But, thank you for bringing up the whole "cooling trend" issue. It's a definitely a popular misperception, and it should probably be expounded upon in Global warming controversy.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, of course, the paper is not "from the NCEE", but from an unauthorized "report" by an unqualified individual employee - an economist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
More importantly, it appears that the whole 'cooling phase' issue only arises based on global temperature data that does not take proper account of the Arctic (i.e. Hadley Center data, rather than GISS data) If we're going to discuss the limitations of focussing on ~10 years of data in a century-sized trend with large 11- to 30-year cyclic trends, this is probably an even more important point. --Nigelj (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NASA research in journal Science indicates role of methane in global warming underestimated

I have added some content to the article, noting the latest peer reviewed NASA research in the journal Science that indicates the role of methane in global warming has been underestimated. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5953/716 and also see http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-10-29-methane-global-warming_N.htm Artwerkgal (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned when undoing my edit that there are other very recent sources. I went through all of them, and found these two:
  1. Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions published 12 October 2009
  2. Escape of methane gas from the seabed along the West Spitsbergen continental margin published 6 August 2009
I think that the first of these is definitely too recent, and the second is likely too recent, so I'll probably be removing them removing or resourcing associated material.
The issue with talking about new research, especially that published in journals like Nature and Science, is that there can be issues with the research. That is when other researchers write in comments, and the original authors respond. It is therefore important to wait to see if other scientists have issues with the research.
Others issues in contributing to this reasonably complicated-to-edit article is that every scientific source is peer-reviewed (making stating that redundant), and since it is a featured article, the sources should be referenced in the same style as the others, Awickert (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Are the ubiquitous IPCC reports peer reviewed? Are these a "scientific source." ? Artwerkgal (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The IPCC reports are summaries of peer-reviewed literature that are written by committees of scientists (peers). So yes. Awickert (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. The IPCC reports go through multiple levels of review, with both internal and external reviewers. You will often see "sceptics" claiming the status of IPCC reviewers. The IPCC also has the advantage that it only surveys existing literature, i.e. it already is one level higher than individual research papers, and thus more robust against errors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a thread of a banned user, but An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 may interest some watching this page. -Atmoz (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'thread of a banned user' is the abstract of a published paper in a highly respected journal. It has far more significance than most of the jibber-jabber in this section. Dikstr (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let's find a way to include this compelling data. 173.126.68.245 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC) 20:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Dikstr (talk)

Where is the Misplaced Pages rule that states the latest peer reviewed research cannot be included in articles? If this is the case, we better get our DELETE buttons ready, as there will be a great deal of material to remove from many technical articles to bring them into compliance! Y4spinmast8 (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
"The latest peer-reviewed research" can be included, but we ned to keep WP:WEIGHT in mind. Not every published paper can be included, especially not in a general article such as this. This paper is about a relatively obscure aspect of global warming, namely the global warming potential of different gasses in combination with other pollutants. It does not change the big picture. To be able to gauge the impact of this paper, we need to wait for reactions from the scientific community. Thus, there is no good reason to include it now (and probably never in this article, though it may be more suitable in global warming potential). People react skittish to the proposal to include this paper because Artwerkgal is an obvious (and now confirmed) sock puppet of the long-term abusive editor Scibaby, who has created on the order of 600 sock puppets, all to disrupt work on the global warming articles and, in particular, to waste our time. See Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Scibaby and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Scibaby. After people have explained the same story or very similar stories to about 50 or so new users, all of which eventually turn out to be disruptive socks, their enthusiasm for these discussions drops. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Development over time

The article should describe how the reports of the seriousness of global warming have changed over time. Is this methane problem as substantial, more substantial, or less substantial than the variations in median temperature predictions in the scientific literature over time? A tertiary source like an encyclopedia should be honest and forthright about how the secondary literature has changed. In this case it should be easy to compare projections from the 1990-era IPCC reports with modern projections, shouldn't it? 76.254.70.140 (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You've changed your IP, but you're still the same person. And you're still banned. -Atmoz (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Greenland ice sheet

A new study to keep track of for an possibly move into the effects section and/or article: Michiel van den Broeke et al, Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss in Science, compares climate-model simulated behavior of the Greenland ice sheet, with gravitational satellite data, and finds that a) they agree (validating GCMs (or Einstein ;-)), b) ice sheet reduction is about 190 cubic km/year in the 2000s, increasing to 273 cubic km/year for the last two years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes in the icesheet of Greenland validates Einstein? What did Einstein predict about the Greenland icesheet? DasV (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Einstein's Theory of general relativity is our best current description of gravity. So if the gravimetric and the climate models agree, you can see this either as a validation of climate modeling, or as a validation of gravity... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondary GHGs

Is it worth including this http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0902568106.full.pdf Maybe in one of the other GHG articles, if not this. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing scibaby junk

So it seems I need to justify removing the scibaby junk. I cut:

Recent research suggests the contribution of methane to global warming has been underestimated. A UN report indicates livestock generate more greenhouse gases on a global scale than the transportation sector.

Taking the second point first. The UN report (seems to have disappeared from , but available from ) actually says that if you include deforestation, pasture degrading then livestock CO2 is 11% (with large uncertainties). Compressing that down to "livestock generate..." is too inaccurate to be allowed to live. Our Greenhouse_gas page says trasnport is 14% (of total GHG) anyway, and 14 !< 11. For the first point, I have a long-standing preference for *not* including recent research unless there is a very good reason for including it; since it is here but a minor side-point, I can't see the need. There would be no harm in reconsidering this in 3 months time perhaps.

Anyway, (a) that whole section is too big and probbaly needs chopping (b) probably the more interesting thing about methane is that it has levelled out William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ack, that was me. I've been traveling and haven't kept up with you-know-who's antics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Methane from ruminants - not foregone

We have two sentences in this article that seem to report an open-and-shut case that livestock are a bad thing for the climate: "Recent research suggests the contribution of methane to global warming has been underestimated. A UN report indicates livestock generate more greenhouse gases on a global scale than the transportation sector."

Those references are not well formatted, but looks to me like a blog posting, and the other looks to be purely about the climate forcing effects of CH4 etc, not its production by animals.

I was recently at a talk by Patrick Holden of the Soil Association (name dropper!) who said that research is showing that the atmospheric methane contributions from farm animals could be traced directly to their bad diet and bad animal husbandry in the non-organic, non-free-range farming sector. says, "supplementation ... may reduce methane production per unit of milk or meat by a factor of 4-6". says, "Heifers on "ad lib" ryegrass in March and April produced only one-tenth the CH4 per kg of gain as heifers on LRG of 1 h". These paper were summarised for the NY Times at .

In the light of these papers, should we balance the existing statements with something hopeful based on these results? Is this matter covered in more depth in one or more of the other related WP articles where more detail would be appropriate? --Nigelj (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I've just seen that the offending sentences have been removed as more scibaby junk. OK, shall we just forget it, then? --Nigelj (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Quite interesting but perhaps Greenhouse_gas is a better place for it anyway --BozMo talk 19:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The matter is only mentioned briefly, and neutrally, there, but the point is already made in Methane, although using different references. It only seems worth getting into all this when somebody tries to make a spurious point by overlooking the facts and possibilities. Maybe it shouldn't be, but at least my refs are on record here now, if any of us want to add a subsection or paragraph somewhere.
It does seem to be part of a pattern that AGW deniers are beginning to pick up: "CO2? Oh, that's mostly volcanoes. CH4? Oh, that's animal farts. Nothing to do with my 4x4 or my shopping habits (cheap meat), and nothing we can do about any of it". So it might be worth covering in detail somewhere. --Nigelj (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Lifetime of methane in the atmosphere

Tne article doesn't mention what the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is. I think I read somewhere that this is just a few years. Count Iblis (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_potential gives 12 +/- 3 years. Probably the nest place for it. --BozMo talk 19:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

telegraph.co.uk

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?: how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And? -Atmoz (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
...and that "squeeze" refers to the 2003 de-Freitas scandal at Climate Research, where an editor pushed highly flawed papers through "peer" review, the publisher called in Hans von Storch as editor in chief to clean up, but did not like it when he really tried it, leading to the resignation of von Storch and half the editorial board of the journal. Six year old news, and not a conspiracy either, but rather an attempt to reestablish the integrity of scientific publishing in this venue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
No, the article is highly critical of de Freitas. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The blog doesn't even mention de Freitas. -Atmoz (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The article is about recent email disclosures, not de Freitas (only a later comment mentions de Freitas), the article is not about de Freitas, it is not "six year old news." Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. And the line you chose to quote misrepresents exactly the reaction to the de-Freitas/von-Storch/Climate Research controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Erm? You can't be serious? Just read the first paragraph and ask yourself whether this is a reliable source or not. If you come to the former rather than the latter conclusion then i'm truly sorry for you. If you come to the latter conclusion - then what are you posting it here for? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It discusses the open possibility that they might be fake and carefully avoids claiming that they are not. --BozMo talk 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
First someone says it's about de Freitas, but it's not about de Freitas. Then someone misquotes the first paragraph and says they feel sorry for me. No need. Posted, done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you expected. Your first post wasn't clear what you thought should be done to our article based on your source. The "squeeze" was about de Freitas. But the article didn't mention de Freitas. I'm not a mind reader (not sure about the other who responded), so you actually need to write what you're thinking. How would you use this source (or perhaps a better one) to improve the article? -Atmoz (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Sorry - but i don't seem to recall that i have misquoted anything from that article.... On the other hand you might have noticed that you yourself quoted the text: "how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process." which is located deep within that article - and that part is about the de Freitas controversy in Climate change and is from 2003. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay much attention to a piece about "alleged emails – supposedly exchanged" that talks of "conspiracy" and "eco-fascist activists." It doesn't exactly appear to be a piece of quality journalism. --CurtisSwain (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Look hard and you'll find my name in there. Meanwhile, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be bigger than just the telegraph:

Isonomia (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my my, this is dynamite, take e.g. this from http://www.climateaudit.org/

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
<snip>
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil

Wow! How on earth are we going to include this in the article? Isonomia (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no way the article can ignore all this stuff!

Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models): The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Phil Jones (witholding of data): The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil. PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! Garygateaux (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
From e-mail by Phil Jones of Hadley CRU: I've just completed Mike 's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Of course, the global warming theory never made any sense as science -- and now it appears to be a fraud as well. Kauffner (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5953/716
  2. http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693&Itemid=587
Categories: