Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 2 August 2009

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

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: A map of the Eastern Settlement A satellite image of that area today A map of the Western Settlement A satellite image of that area today A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located 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: Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation, These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN), The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and 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 ^ 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. ^ "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020. 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) Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009. Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009. "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007. 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. The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012. "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009. Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017. The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða. "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009. 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. Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64. Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek. Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org. 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. 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. 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. Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007. 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. 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) Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes. Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN. "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011. Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

	Climate 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.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 4, 2007 Featured article review Kept
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. Weather Top‑importance This 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Top This 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. Environment This 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. Geology High‑importance This 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 High This 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. Arctic High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Misplaced Pages". The Denver Post.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Recent edit on economics

I've revised the section below:

Some economists have tried to estimate the aggregate net economic costs of damages from climate change across the globe. Such estimates have so far yielded no conclusive findings; in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (tC) (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide), with a mean of US$43 per tonne of carbon (US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide).

One widely publicized report on potential economic impact is the Stern Review. It suggests that extreme weather might reduce global gross domestic product by up to one percent, and that in a worst-case scenario global per capita consumption could fall 20 percent. The report's methodology, advocacy and conclusions have been criticized by many economists, primarily around the Review's assumptions of discounting and its choices of scenarios. Others have supported the general attempt to quantify economic risk, even if not the specific numbers.

I didn't like the way the IPCC SCC estimates were given without the caveats presented in the Report. My revision is below:

The IPCC report presents the aggregate net economic costs of damages from climate change across the globe (discounted to the specified year): in 2005, the average social cost of carbon from 100 peer-reviewed estimates is US$12 per tonne of CO₂, but the range of these estimates is large (-$3 to $95/tCO₂). The IPCC's gives these cost estimates with several caveats: 'Aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions and populations and very likely underestimate damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts.'

I thought the phasing of 'many economists' criticising the Stern Review is vague and not justified based on the citation given. I changed this to be more specific, ie. some actual economists who have criticised the Review. For balance, I did the same for economists supportive of the Review:

One widely publicized report on potential economic impact is the Stern Review, written by Sir Nicholas Stern. It suggests that extreme weather might reduce global gross domestic product by up to one percent, and that in a worst-case scenario global per capita consumption could fall by the equivalent of 20 percent. The response to the Stern Review was mixed. The Review's methodology, advocacy and conclusions were criticized by several economists, including Richard Tol, Gary Yohe,Robert Mendelsohnand William Nordhaus.Economists that have generally supported the Review include Terry Barker,William Cline,and Frank Ackerman.According to Barker, the costs of mitigating climate change are 'insignificant' relative to the risks of unmitigated climate change. Enescot (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up the prose. Cut out the confidence interval. You got this from page 22 of the SPM didn't you? The wording echoes it. I'm not an economist, but prose seems off. I'm reserving judgement for the second paragraph. Boris can you review this? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's from page 22. Why did you cut out the IPCC probability assessment? Enescot (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We made the decision last month to cut all the probability assessments actually. Looks like they're running a significance test. Boris might have a better answer, but very likely/90% certainly/probability/confidence/whatever looks like a one-sided confidence interval or 1 minus alpha. Alone it's rarely descriptive and more often misinterpreted than useful. In my opinion, a p-value would be better. The caveat is a hanging modifier, they tell you that it's underestimated, but not by how much. SPM is Summery to Policy Makers, you need to watch out when they're being political. They left it as a hanging modifier without telling by how much because it's probably not important economically or scientifically, but useful politically. I liked how you attributed the IPCC, didn't catch that; however the previous version seems better. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I didn't like the previous edit at all. I don't see the use in giving the social cost of carbon figure without some explanation. In my opinion, I would say that other issues are far more important than SCC estimates, namely:

• the uneven distributional impacts of climate change
• the difficulty in monetising/valuing damages of climate change

I added the IPCC quote to give an indication of these problems.Enescot (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the caveats are important. Rather than taking snippets from the IPCC, how about cutting it down to "These estimates mask uneven distributional impacts and do not include the costs of non-quantifiable impacts." ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the IPCC assessment of non-monetised impacts should be mentioned, i.e.,

It is likely that the globally aggregated figures from integrated assessment models underestimate climate costs because they do not include significant impacts that have not yet been monetised

I've rewritten the paragraph so that it contains no quotes. IPCC report page numbers are in brackets:

'One measure of climate change impacts is the social cost of carbon (SCC) {p821}. The SCC is a global aggregate estimate, and based on the marginal impact of emitting one more tonne of carbon (as carbon dioxide) at any point in time. The mean peer-reviewed SCC estimate is US$43 per tonne of carbon, with a standard deviation of US$83 per tonne {p813}. These values are from 2007 IPCC Assessment Report. SCC estimates are calculated using integrated assessment models. Not all climate change impacts are included in these models, and as a result, the true costs of climate change may larger or smaller than predicted. The IPCC concluded that climate change costs were probably underestimated by integrated assessment models {p813}. One problem with global aggregate estimates, like the SCC, is that they do not indicate of how the impacts of climate change will be distributed. According to the IPCC report, climate change impacts would likely be unevenly distributed between developing and developed countries {p795}. With modest warming (2 degrees Celsius global mean temperature increase above 1990 levels), many developing countries would be expected to suffer net negative market sector impacts, while net positive market sector impacts would be expected in many developed countries. Some population groups in developed countries are vulnerable to less than 2 degrees Celsius of warming. With 4 degrees Celisus of warming, net negative impacts would be expected in many developing and developed countries.'

References:

• Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer, A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez and F. Yamin. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds. (2007). "Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Cambridge University Press.
• Yohe, G.W., R.D. Lasco, Q.K. Ahmad, N.W. Arnell, S.J. Cohen, C. Hope, A.C. Janetos and R.T. Perez. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds. (2007). "Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Cambridge University Press.

Enescot (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The last half of the paragraph is page 796, right? Sentence one and two could be merged and articulated, don't assume the reader already knows what "aggregate estimate" and "marginal impact" is, the interpretation "as the marginal benefit of reducing carbon emissions" may be clearer. Move "These values are from 2007 IPCC Assessment Report" to the top, sticking in the middle seems odd. Need someone with more experience to really vet this, waiting for Boris to weigh in. Otherwise it looks good, thanks, you did good. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. The last paragraph's based on p796. The temperature is wrong in the last sentence, it should be Above 2-3 degrees Celisus of warming, net negative impacts would be expected in many developing and developed countries. Enescot (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The prose could be thinner, clearer, Misplaced Pages is not a mirror to the source, you're not trying to please an expert, in that sense we're articulators; make it make sense, make it clear. It's also a work in progress. You're capable. If you believe it's ready, please do. It could be better. Finish it up, post it, I'll give it a spin, and then back to you, how does that sound? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Northern_Hemisphere_ice_versus_irradiance

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Northern_Hemisphere_ice_versus_irradiance_.png A direct comparison: since 1953 solar average historic high and sudden acceleration of ice decrease. Here are sources from two images buiding this image:

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent, since 50's has markedly decreased with peaking of average solar irradiance (highest 55yr amount for over 400 yrs) from where gives National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA original data and University of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences image: Solar irradiance:

May soon be renamed to http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Northern_Hemisphere_ice_versus_irradiance_1953.png Smithsoni0201 (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to tell us? Splette :) 00:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That since 1953 ice suddenly began melting at greater rate as solar maximum began. What's wrong with images on global warming page? Who/what is Scibaby sockpuppet? Smithsoni0201 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but there are copyright concerns with this image. The image documentation states that NASA is the source, but it's pulled from UIUC's website. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant NOAA not NASA, how to take that part off? Smithsoni0201 (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you are a new editor, you may want to check out WP:SYNTHESIS Cheers, Splette :) 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that one out. What about the two images from page Seasonal extent 1900-2008.jpg and SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif? First gives context to melting, from half century constant then 20% to 50% loss within several decades. Second shows the mid-century and on of global warming and apparent solar forcing concurrent. Seems important overall.Smithsoni0201 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby, global warming is controversial, very controversial, as you can imagine, some people are well, they get banned for edit warring or some other offence, create multiple accounts, which furthers their offense, and so on; ignore it. These two images right? They're interesting, the first, which is from the University of Illinois, might have some use in Arctic shrinkage, not sure about the second. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So scibaby generic is sorta like sci-ence baby-sitted -ish :)> I'll try the first in Arctic shrinkage, they've little earlier than 1979 and on images. The second: Solar variation has http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Solar_Forcing_GISS_model.gif but the pages to info about their method are out, and the .1 .2 scale seems less than that from . There is a note at the bottem of that page from 2006(!). Could someone check that out, if it checks out would it be alright if I replace with mine coving 1610 on? Smithsoni0201 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides copyright (should get that worked out, how did you get it?), I don't see why not. Start a new thread in Talk:Solar variation, give a short intro, and make your bold edit to the article. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Southern Oscillation effect on tropospheric temperature

Kauffner found Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature and added the following (which was immediately removed).

A recent study found that 72 percent of global temperature variation since 1958 reflects the influence of a Pacific Ocean weather cycle called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation.

I agree with Awickert that it is too soon to place this in the lede. Q Science (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Q Science. To explain myself:

(a) I generally give an article at least a few months to marinate through the popular press and comments/response cycle

(b) I thought that its inclusion should be done correctly; as it was it was well-written and cited, but it was in a unrelated part of the lede, not mentioned in the body, and said only what the popular press said about it, making me think that the article is worth a read to make sure that they got it right. (I'm just a cynic - too often the news makes any new study on GW become a proclamation of doomsday and anything saying that it is complicated become definitive evidence against it.)

So I suggest time and reading. Awickert (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

According to realclimate that paper is nonsense. Or at least their conclusion. See here and here Splette :) 09:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

TO be fair the paper seems to be mainly ok but the headline conclusion not really supported in the paper content. Anyway agree not here not now--BozMo talk 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate accused the study of ignoring the overall temperature trend. I don't see any overall trend in the radiosonde data they used, so I don't see why this issue would invalidate the study. Kauffner (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Climate modelers acknowledge that their models do not adequately hindcast average global temperatures from 1950 to 1990 and apply a human influence factor to make up the deficit." How on earth did such an idiotic statement get past the reviewers??? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The authors of the study have admitted that the press release was misleading and their study has no bearing on any long-term temperature trends, just short term variability. See (and similar comments by the authors at RC and WUWT). Also, a number of responses are being penned for the next issue of JGR, so I'd wait a bit on this one. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How on earth can Misplaced Pages expect anyone to contribute to this article when even the discussions are censored to remove posts referring to peer reviewed articles. 88.109.180.222 (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has all the hallmarks of a group of priests discussing whether an article on satanism should be included in the church magazine. For years the people who have made this article so un NPOV have insisted "it has got to be peer reviewed". Now there is a clear article that has been peer reviewed, you now introduce a new criteria which can be summed up as: "it must be reviewed by the general consensus". This is not a balanced article, the editors are universally hostile to any suggestion that mankind is not warming the globe and no doubt this comment will be removed simply for pointing out that the whole editing process falls fould of the first edict of Misplaced Pages: NPOV. 88.109.180.222 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"... even the discussions are censored to remove posts referring to peer reviewed articles" - when?

Part of the peer-review process is that of replies to the article. My policy on any article is to give it a few months to get that process out of the way. Also, there seem to be allegations that the popular press is misrepresenting the article. This is one of the big things that I wanted to make sure of before it was put in. Would you like a copy of the original article for your own perusal?

There are many ways to express your above points without being condescending; please refrain from doing so again: politeness = effectiveness. Awickert (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Carbon sequestration

Added image in the section "Mitigation". Talked about it before, neared consensus, but didn't act on it, back in June. Tried to touch off on: mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering—in the caption, but it could be better. Wording is taken from the linked articles. Here's the diff. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Important new evidence of warming

A Canadian astronaut has visually verified that the ice caps are smaller than when he last viewed them from space (12 years ago). Should we include this evidence in the article? 18.100.0.132 (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but nah; that's a qualitative observation and while it makes a good story, there are many quantitative observations with much shorter measurement frequencies. Awickert (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Q&A Sun Changes Question

on Q12: "Are changes on the sun responsible for planetary warming? (No.)" - shouldn't this include a reference to solar variation since that article is specifically pointed at this issue? Also, that article appears to attribute about 20% of the climate changes to solar changes, which in my book is still a "No." but maybe a "No, but," 216.255.104.61 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Also, while I haven't logged on my account in a few years, I am not a sock puppet. I'll post while logged in from now on. Ignignot (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone is in the process of reorganizing the FAQ. I like the new format with drop-down boxes but I don't think he or she has properly summarized the questions and responses in all cases (such as the one you point out). When the reformatting is done I'll go back and reword things a bit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The FAQ is a great tool for summarizing the huge amount of discussion that has taken place on this contentious article, and I'm glad it is getting attention. Good luck rewording it. Ignignot (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very narrow and one-sided FAQ answers. The lack of balance argues strongly against the AGW bias to all but the most gullible readers. Looks like the AGW-ers are circling the wagons. Is this desperation preceding annihilation?Dikstr (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You miss-spelled "factually and well-sourced". Of course, the FAQ has been here for years, it's just now been moved into the header by some otherwise uninvolved Wikignome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Writelabor. What do you guys think about placing the "References" in a collapsible box? Or collapsing the FAQ box as a whole? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing the whole FAQ including the references would be good (though I don't know how to do it). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Notice

Please retain this notice for at least 2 weeks to allow interested parties time to see it. I feel that editors who are interested in Global Warming or Climate Change related articles may also be interested in participating in the following RfC: RfC: How should this page be disambiguated? --GoRight (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Caused by the human bodies?

How much of the CO2 in the earth's atmosphere comes from the CO2 producing human bodies of earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

None, essentially. The CO2 humans breathe out is created from atmospheric Oxygen and complex Carbon compounds the body dismantles to generate the energy that keeps it alive. Those complex Carbon compounds have been built ultimately by plants using photosynthesis, pulling CO2 out of the air and releasing Oxygen. It's only a cycle, there is no net addition of CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See carbon cycle. Besides the point, an individual human emits about a kilogram a day, don't know the variation. There's an estimated 6,707,000,000 population as of July 1, 2009—so that's about 6,707,000,000 kilograms of CO₂ a day. Remember that populations change with time (and season, metabolism, ect; but don't know the variations). So making a rough estimate, entered in world population from 1960 to 2005, made a least-squared logistic regression, and integrated from 1960 to 2009, got 2.369565E+11. Multiply this by 365, that's 8.5304E+13 kilograms since 1960. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge into economic and political debate

Cla68, there's duplication in the section "Skepticism".

• The setence added to the lead and the first sentence in the section states "A small number of scientists or political figures dispute all or some of the generally-accepted consensus on global warming science." Went over a sentence similar to that before in February, for example in the first paragraph in the lead, for the consensus to be "endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science" the dissenting "number" of scientist would in fact be "small". Those "political figures" who dispute the generally-accepted consensus are not small.
• The last sentnece in the paragraph "According to the newsmagazine Frontline, many of these scientists work or have worked for organizations that have received donations from large energy corporations." reiterates the last paragraph in the section "Economic and political debate" flipping from perspective of the energy corporations to the scientists "have downplayed IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections"

The section can be encompassed by the "Economic and political debate" (which used to be called "Controversy") either as a subsection if it grow to be large enough or integrated into the prose. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Diff. Not a lot I can merge though, sorry for your hard work, it was still interesting though. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not all skeptics are funded by energy companies. Freeman Dyson, for example. So I readded a shortened paragraph noting that and moving the wikilink to that section. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

India Throws Monkey Wrench into West's Global Warming Agenda

In bold defiance of the global-warming agenda, India is making it known that it rejects the science underpinning anthropogenic (human caused) climate-change theory. . Which makes it rather difficult for[REDACTED] to pretend that there is some kind of universal consensus. 88.109.45.213 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What a quality source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

IP, that's not a reliable source. Once that information is in a reliable source, it can probably be added to the Global warming controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean: Once a pro-global warming "scientist" decides to publish it in peer reviewed by other pro-global warming "scientists". The fact is that a government representing a major portion of the world's population has decided that they disagree with this whole article and you guys think you have the right to deny readers of[REDACTED] their right to know the full facts about the subject both scientific and political - you take the biscuit for your audacity! 88.109.45.213 (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "MacedoniaOnline.eu reports" Here's the article New America was citing, although Maceodonia seems to be on the other side. You're right, there's no universal consensus, what's your point? Also, Jairam Ramesh, as quoted said "We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere" and "Science has its limitation. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience." He's talking about political action to reduce emissions, he's not rejecting "science underpinning anthropogenic climate-change theory". ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your link is dead. Again, if any national governments are rejecting, in whole or part, the IPCC's consensus opinion on climate change, and it's noted in a reliable source, then add it to the global warming controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, India’s rejection of AGW science is very appropriate for the Global warming controversy article. It definitely should go there. This article is primarily about the science of global warming. Keep in mind that Jairam Ramesh is expressing his government's position, whereas the Indian National Science Academy, which is the premier scientific society representing all branches of science in India, strongly supports the scientific consensus on AGW. They are 5 time signatories of the Joint science academies' statements. --CurtisSwain (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Its simply negotiation strategy, as a precursor to the negotiations in Copenhagen. India of course wants to get out of targets as lightly as possible, so it rattles with the sables beforehand. Nothing in it indicates that India is breaking with the IPCC consensus, simply that it wants low targets. (its the usual confusion, being against Kyoto is not being against the science, and IPCC != Kyoto) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that mention is made in this article that India and China make similar contentions with regard to Kyoto. But if India now considers the science behind Kyoto as flawed, then its contentions become quite different. Not sure this article can reject this developement outright. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be ignored as long as there is no change in the scientific opinion as reflected by the contents of the relevant peer reviewed journals. Count Iblis (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So your position is that the article can misrepresent India's stance because "there is no change in the scientific opinion as reflected by the contents of the relevant peer reviewed journals" ? --Childhood's End (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does the article even present India's stance, let alone misrepresent it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Presented in the second and third paragraphs, here. They are not misrepresenting anyone's stance AFAIK. The Indian science academies can say that GW is occurring, and the government can come to their own conclusion. The former is represented on the scientific opinion page, the latter should probably be talked about on the global warming controversy page. Awickert (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think CoM and I are talking about this Misplaced Pages article, not the Macedonia Online article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oooooooh. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

India and China have had the position that while developed countries should reduce warming, their own development should not be hampered because the west had the opportunity to go through the industrial revolution without worrying about the atmosphere, and now they should have the same opportunity. Their conclusion is that if there is too much CO2 currently in the atmosphere, then the west should reduce it because they are by far the primary cause. Personally I think that is a negotiating position which will be smacked down by de facto import tarrifs in Copenhagen this year. Ignignot (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should tell India's prime minister that his country now rejects the science behind climate change. It seems he didn't get the memo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Global Temperature versus Carbon Dioxide

Please repost the historical graph showing global temperature and CO2 plotted together on the same graph versus year. The historical graph shows the relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide. After posting the graph for years, Why was the graph deleted?

Also please update the historical graphs of global temperature. Why do all the graphs stop at year 2000? This is 2009 already. Is the information that stale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.241.52 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which graph you are talking about - possibly File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png? It's used e.g. in Greenhouse gas and in Climate change. Most of the graphs are actually fairly current. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea level rise and ice sheets

I'm concerned about the information given in the article about sea level rise, i.e.,:

Additional anticipated effects include sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 meters (0.59 to 1.9 ft) in 2090-2100 relative to 1980-1999

The article does not mention that these IPCC estimates do not include 'future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow'. In my opinion, I don't think the estimates should be given without explaining this caveat. Enescot (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's there, described in retrospect. At the bottom of "Climate models", "observed Arctic shrinkage has been faster than that predicted." It's implicit, arctic shrinkage corresponds with sea levels. Whenever there's extrapolation, there are a lot of caveats. There are also other predicted effects besides changes in sea level. Too much weight probably, footnote? It belongs in the main article, BTW. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Enescot. I don't think that we should mirror the IPCC's approach and be way off with our number and include a little caveat. Pfeffer and others attack this problem. I suggest we use 0.8 meters, which is the average of the low scenarios that they ran. We should then have a footnote that gives the IPCC's numbers and their caveat about ignoring glacier dynamics. Awickert (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Debate and skepticism grammar error

Under "Debate and skepticism", the third sentence of the first paragraph is currently gramatically incorrect as written. A corrected version might read: "The exemption of developing countries from Kyoto Protocol restricions has been used as part of a rationale for non-ratification by the U.S. and criticism from Austria."

Thank you kindly. Because there is more than one rationale, I further changed it to "The exemption of developing countries from Kyoto Protocol restrictions has been used to rationalize non-ratification by the U.S. and criticism from Austria." Awickert (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Temperature Anomaly

The article uses the phrase temperature anomaly a number of times on graphs but does not define the term or obviously link to anything that explains what this is. A casual reader cannot tell what kind of measurements represent 'anomalous' deviation, and from what norm they are calculated. Is is possible for somebody with knowledge in this area to add an explanation? Mrstonky (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point; I've noticed that the term "anomaly" is confusing to laypeople. I'll try and reword. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Skeptics should get busy and entirely rewrite this global warming politically correct diatribe. Perhaps there are a group of editors trying to control science here? If so, corrupt editors, please rethink your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.10.244 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.) (2007). "IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2009-20-05. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. "At-a-glance: The Stern Review". BBC. 2006-10-30. Retrieved 2007-04-29.
3. Tol, R. and G. Yohe (2006). "A Review of the Stern Review" (PDF). World Economics. 7 (4): 233–250.
4. Mendelsohn, R. (2006-2007). "A Critique of the Stern Report" (PDF). Regulation. Retrieved 2009-20-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
5. Nordhaus, W. (2005). "The Economics of Climate Change, Part Two: Comments on the Stern Review. Chapter 5: William Nordhaus, Yale University, 'Opposite Ends of the Globe'". Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. Retrieved 2009-20-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
6. Barker, T. (August 2008). "The economics of avoiding dangerous climate change. An editorial essay on The Stern Review". Climatic Change. 89 (Volume 89, Numbers 3-4 / August, 2008): 173–194. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9433-x. Retrieved 2009-20-05. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
7. Cline, W. (January 5, 2008). "Comments on the Stern Review". Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. Retrieved 2009-20-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
8. Ackerman, F. (July 2007). "Debating Climate Economics: The Stern Review vs. Its Critics" (PDF). Report to Friends of the Earth-UK. Retrieved 2009-20-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
9. Terry Barker (April 14, 2008). "Full quote from IPCC on costs of climate change". FT.com. Retrieved 2008-04-14.
10. "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature". Journal of Geophysical Research. 2009-07-23. Retrieved 2009-07-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Weather articles
• Top-importance Weather articles
• Unsorted weather articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• FA-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• FA-Class Geology articles
• High-importance Geology articles
• High-importance FA-Class Geology articles
• WikiProject Geology articles
• FA-Class Arctic articles
• High-importance Arctic articles
• WikiProject Arctic articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press