Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:01, 20 July 2014

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

	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.
	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

Template:Vital 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: Climate change Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Globalization High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization 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. Lawrence Solomon (July 8, 2008). "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". CBS News. "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

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.

Lead too long

While the content of the introduction is of a high quality, it does not "briefly summarize" the article. I hesitate at putting this template in the article itself, due to its scientific nature and Featured status. However, the introduction is bloated and should be at most four paragraphs. Thanks, Greggydude (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, way to much information in the lead atm. There shouldn't be a wall of text. prokaryotes (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let's look at it collaboratively. The lead should summarise the article's main points, so first here is a list of the main headings of the body of the article:

1. Observed temperature changes
2. Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)
3. Feedback
4. Climate models
5. Observed and expected environmental effects
6. Observed and expected effects on social systems
7. Proposed policy responses to global warming
8. Discourse about global warming
9. Etymology

Here is my own outline of the paragraphs of the existing lead:

1. Global warming is... definition, plus some observed figures
2. Causes, per AR4
3. * Quote from AR5
4. Projections per AR4
5. Effects and impacts globally
6. Proposed policy responses - mitigation, adaptation etc
7. Emissions growth (brief)

It is clear that there is some correlation, but some room for improvement. Perhaps we should aim for something like the following:

1. Global warming is... definition, plus some observed figures
2. Causes: Forcings and feedbacks, plus models
3. Observed and expected environmental and social effects
4. Proposed policy responses - mitigation, adaptation etc
5. Discourse

It's still five paras, can anyone propose a better outline? Then we just need to write the paragraphs, based on the article text. Anything important currently in the lead, and referenced there, that is not in the body, should be merged into a better place rather than lost in the changes. --Nigelj (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort; I had in mind going back to the day this article appeared as a featured article and compare what's changed since then, and what should be updated, but have not done that yet. As a preliminary matter, the subject of article title & scope has been on my mind since a January talk thread linked in the "revisit" subsection below.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the latest IPCC statement needs to be in the lead. Other than that i agree with Nigelj's proposed improvements. It is also a matter of how many details we include in each paragraph. prokaryotes (talk)

Which of the multiple statements on the thousands of pages are you talking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ofc, i refer to current lead content - the main findings. prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion for quick result, move the part from the lead below IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers, to a new section called "General". This way readers are not confronted with a "wall of text". prokaryotes (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of when Mom told me to clean my room and I just shoved everything under the bed en masse. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am very much of the opinion that the lead is bloated and does not read well - I feel it is one of the weakest areas of this article, which is a shame since it is probably the most important. I fully support NigelJ's analysis and suggested structure. One dreadful example - in the very first sentence the use of the word "unequivocal" is terribly grating (much discussed, but inexplicably still present) - this is not part of a definition of global warming, which the opening sentence should be, but a comment on attitudes of scientists to global warming. Global warming is the identical phenomenon, regardless of whether it is seen as unequivocally true or not. Atshal (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for Lead paragraph

(A) I agree the lead is bloated.

(B) Before fixing the lead, we should look at the body

(C) Before reviewing the body, we should all be on the same page about article scope and to focus discussion I propose changing lead paragraph 1 so that it is consistent with the hatnote in place since 2011 ("This article is about the current change in Earth's climate.")

CURRENT TEXT

Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system. Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans. Despite the oceans' dominant role in energy storage, the term "global warming" is also used to refer to increases in average temperature of the air and sea at Earth's surface. Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. move the rest to body of article- Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

PROPOSED NEW FIRST PARAGRAPH

In common speech, "global warming" is often used to describe the climate change Earth is now experiencing.see RSs below It's an accepted scientific fact that the planet's climate system is warming up. The oceans, which provide a large buffer, have absorbed about 90% of the energy added to the climate system since 1970. Much of the rest heats the atmosphere, where global surface temperatures have increased by about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of this warming occurring since 1980.

In addition, add text (not yet drafted) to etymology section to include the narrow meaning of "global warming" related to increasing global surface temps

POSSIBLE RSs FOR SENTENCE 1

• 2011 Skeptical Science post while noting technical meaning notes

o sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

• May 2014 Guardian, re: a Yale study

The two terms are often used interchangeably but they generate very different responses, the researchers from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communications said.

• 2011 NPR's Richard Harris

We use both "climate change" and "global warming" interchangeably.

The term scientists prefer is actually "climate change," because that encompasses effects other than warming, such as changes in rainfall patterns, melting glaciers and rising sea levels. There are several scholarly journals using the term "climate change," such as Nature Climate Change and Climatic Change and the International Journal of Climate Change. The 1992 treaty that governs global warming is called the "Framework Convention on Climate Change."

Global warming is a familiar term, so we feel justified in using it as a more concrete, but less complete, expression of the phenomenon.

• Aug 2010 Guardian, re: 35th anniversary of Broeker's coining phrase 'global warming'

I strongly doubt whether Wally Broecker realised that when his 1975 Science paper was titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" he knew that the term would go on to gain such international traction. I doubt, therefore, that he gave it much thought whether it would withstand the rigours of intense scrutiny and debate that it would attract over the coming decades. * * * he two terms are largely interchangeable in common discussion, even though climate scientists will rightly argue there are subtle, but important distinctions.

• OXFam's faq

What is climate change? Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that there have been changes in the global climate since the early 1900s, and that these climate changes, and future climate change predicted over the next century, are largely due to human activities and excessive greenhouse gas emissions, which are warming up the Earth. This is climate change, often referred to as "global warming".

IN SUM This change would make the first paragraph consistent with the hatnote and better reflects the articles content. If the consensus is to use "global warming" to mean something other than the current climate change (e.g., being "just" about rising surf temps) then I think eds like DHeyward (talk · contribs) have a good point about the article going beyond its agreed scope. So what do YOU think? Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have two problems with this, straight away. First, WP:NOT says "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." We are not writing an article about the phrase 'global warming', and that (the phrase) should not be the subject of the first sentence. The phrase is the topic of the hatnote, but that is what the hatnote is for. The article is about the warming of the globe, and should start on that topic straight way. Secondly, there is a serious false dichotomy in the question, 'Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps?' A planet's climate depends on the total amount of energy in its climate system. If a planet's climate is going to change, there is only one possible axis of change, and only two possible directions of change: more energy or less energy. We use the shorthand 'warming' or 'cooling'. (Planets' global climates also depend on other things such as the size of the planet, the arrangement of liquid, solid and gas, the amount of free gas in the atmosphere and so on, but if our planet was changing size or shape, we would be unlikely to refer to that as a change in climate). Therefore when we see, for example increased storminess, a slowed jet stream, or increased flooding, these are not something other than global warming. They are part of global warming. They are part of the overall phenomenon. The global climate is changing, the change is in the direction of global warming, and this is the top-level article about that change, that warming. I don't know what nonsense American industrial advertisers have been putting onto US TV screens about this to lead to such confusion, or how American talk-show hosts and other media personalities have been trying to spin it, but here to me it still seems quite simple. And I don't think we have to alter our position away from describing and explaining the simple facts, per the scientific sources. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nigelj, do you agree with the hatnote's assertion that this article is about the current climate change, regardless of article title or verbiage in the first paragraph? If you say "no" then please identify a single aspect of the "current climate change" that does not belong in this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with the hatnote's assertion. --Nigelj (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Me too, thanks for the direct answer.

You gave two reasons for opposing

Reason A - "(the phrase 'global warming', should not be the subject of the first sentence. The phrase is the topic of the hatnote, but that is what the hatnote is for. The article is about the warming of the globe, and should start on that topic straight way."

ANSWER - If "subject" means like in grammar, we at least agree the topic is accurately stated by the hatnote (current climate change), which is named twice in the first sentence... first with "global warming" operating as the grammatical sentence subject, and secondly as "current climate change" operating as the grammatical subject of the subordinate clause. So both subjects (grammatical) appearing in the first sentence identify the topic. The rest of the paragraph expands on it. This proposed text was written in an attempt to introduce this subject to a non-specialist, most of whom have no clue about technical niceties and etymology of "global warming" vs "climate change". See Misplaced Pages:LEAD#Opening_paragraph.

Reason B - "...false dichotomy..."

ANSWER - Moot, since you were replying to talk page commentary not the proposed article revision.

Any response?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if I answered you again, I'd only be responding to further talk page commentary, so you would just say it is moot again. So I just say 'no' to your suggested text, and move on. --Nigelj (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Nigelj (talk · contribs)

At first I did type a reply, which I redacted when I couldn't see how it related directly to the proposal. But since you apparently feel that it does directly relate, I will re-enter it.

Reason B - "there is a serious false dichotomy in the question, 'Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps?'"

ANSWER - This source defines "false dichotomy"

The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced.

By that definition, there has to be a third unlisted possibility or else there is no false dichotomy. You did not identify a third possibility. Instead you appear to have embraced one of the two options in the question, as evidenced by (A) our agreement - setting aside the wording we use - that the hatnote "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate." is accurate, and (B) the rest of your post appears to lump into one pot both rising global surface temps and the myriad of interconnected responses permeating throughout the climate system. So what false dichotomy? We apparently agree - whatever words we use - that we're going to cover the whole shaking spider web of climate system stuff now underway. There is no third unlisted possibility making question a "false dichotomy". Is there?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how the proposed first sentence is an improvement, it appears to be much more confusing (with referring to RS's and uncommon wording). Also i do not agree with the approach of NAEG. We should focus on reducing the wall of text in the lead and not the context, or change definitions.The content is good as it is, just move some parts to improve readability. As i wrote above, the discussion about "Global Warming" belongs into the etymology section. prokaryotes (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't just shove EVERYTHING about "global warming" down into the body because that would not comply with Misplaced Pages:LEAD#Opening_paragraph, and whatever we do say in that paragraph about "global warming" needs an RS. Although I wrote the current first sentence I've changed my mind about it and think it is not supported by the RS I used. So something needs to change, it needs to be verified with RS, and it needs to introduce this article's topic (articulated in the hatnote "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate." ) to nonspecialists per Misplaced Pages:LEAD#Opening_paragraph. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A new proposal is here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes to hat notes at GW and CC and GW title discussion

"This article is about the current change in Earth's climate." This sounds much better, see also my recent talk page reply to you. prokaryotes (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds much better than what, and what should we do about it? As for your talk page, you just vaguely waved back to this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward (talk · contribs), thanks for this comment at a user talk page. In response, do you agree/disagree with the existing hatnote (in place since at least 2011) which reads "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate."? If you disagree, how would you change the hatnote? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the hatnote. We have a Climate Change article. It has some strange contortions to make it different from Global Warming but the hatnote seems to imply we have two articles on the same topic. That should not be. Scientists have long established the difference in GMST (Global Warming) and Climate Change. It is fair to simply say in the lead that this article is about GMST and for the broader topic of Climate Change see Climate Change.

"Global warming refers to the rise in the observed land and sea surface temperatures. More than half of the observed warming is attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases from such activities as fossil fuel consumption and cement production. Since <date> the mean global surface temperature has risen <X>. IPCC AR5 has adopted four Representative Concentration Pathways to estimate the effect of different greenhouse gas emission scenarios on future climate change including temperature. The estimated range of temperature increase for those scenarios in the year 2100 is <Y>. The term "global warming" is often used to describe the broad aspect of Climate change." For definition and why it's better to delineate the two terms, see NASA essay . They seem to have grappled with the same issue and chose scientific meanings so that confusion is easily corrected and not cluttered. It makes dealing with topics like the so-called "pause" or "hiatus" so much easier because when someone says "Global Warming Pause" and they have lots of sources that have used the term, it's not contradictory to the article and it's never "Climate Change Pause". Scoping it narrowly and pointing out where "global warming" is not representative of "climate change" then becomes easier. --DHeyward (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

To avoid confusion and with the recent reorganization, I want to be clear that my italicized quote is not a hat note. It is a proposal for the lead. There is plenty of factual surface temperature measurements (after all it is our longest recorded measurement). Proxies and reconstructions as well ice cores, glacial history of expansion and contraction, tree rings, urban heat island, ocean surface temperature record and alternate methods like the new arctic reconstruction (I forget the name but WMC subscribes to it and can name the authors). There's also GMST that's affected natural variability of ENSO, volcanic eruptions, aerosols. That's plenty of background for a single article on how all of those things affect our longest recorded measurement and most felt change in climate: the place where people live. Secondary effects of climate change like deep ocean heat content, sea level rise, isostatic adjustment, stratospheric changes, long-term land use change, changes in storms, drought, floods, etc, are where this article goes off into the weeds because those are not directly tied to GMST. By narrowly scoping the content to the scientific use, can direct the reader to specific articles that address their interest but not at the expense of conflicting information about what "Global Warming" is because the colloquial usage is too broad to not conflict with scientific usage. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Global warming refers to the rise in the observed land and sea surface temperatures." What RS do you propose citing for that definition? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

See OHC per ARGO, IPCC and or GISS? prokaryotes (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I provided it. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html NASA. They provide the entire history of terminology including first usage, Hansen's usage, the scientific debate in the 1970's about whether there would be cooling or warming ("Inadvertant Climate Modification"). That article provides a side box, and even more references.

1 Wallace Broecker, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Science, vol. 189 (8 August 1975), 460-463.

2 For example, see: MIT, Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man's Impact on Climate (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971).

3National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii.

4U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, "Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change, part 2" 100th Cong., 1st sess., 23 June 1988, p. 44.

Side bar -

Definitions

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

--DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also the dictionary --DHeyward (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And Encyclopedia Brittanica . global warming, the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries. ... Global warming is related to the more general phenomenon of climate change, which refers to changes in the totality of attributes that define climate. In addition to changes in air temperature, climate change involves changes to precipitation patterns, winds, ocean currents, and other measures of Earth’s climate. --DHeyward (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

NASA's "Climate by Any Other Name" (Dec 5 2008) has two problems. First, it is internally contradictory because it provides two definitions, the one quoted (which does not mention humans) and a second definition (which does). Second, it is also an RS supporting 'global warming' as a synonym for current climate change.

What's your reply to the argument that in the last couple years "climate change" is abundantly used to talk about climate changes both past and present, whereas "global warming" in the last couple of years is almost exclusively used to talk about the current climate change? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My reply is to simply state that it is often used to refer to the broader field of Climate Change but stick to a strict definition. Otherwise we end up in the weeds. You asked for sources for "Global Warming" being defined a certain way. It is much more difficult to support almost exclusively and current. There are sources that explain "Global Warming" in a broader context than GMST but those are evolving views, not universally accepted and usually in the context of political discourse. No one disagrees that "Global Warming" includes GMST. No one disagrees that "Climate Change" refers to the effect of anthropogenic changes that are warming the planet in various ways including GMST. Once you wade into the "Global Warming" is bigger han GMST you have to continually battle the narrower definition that is still used in reliable sources. Including more than GMST invites all sorts of tangents better dealt with in other articles that we already have.

It would take a lot of twisting to say the NASA article on the differences between Climate Change an Global Warming is a reliable source that they are the same thing. They are stating the exact opposite. GMST change is an effect of Climate Change. They are explicitly not the same thing and the article explains why they are careful not to confuse them.

--DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it OK with you to have articles for Younger Dryas and Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum and Little ice age ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We already do. Be clear though, that Global Warming is the period starting from about 1850 for GMST and Climate Change is the post industrial beginning around 1750. Again, Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change. --DHeyward (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

They obviously exist but that wasn't the question. Asked another way - Do you oppose having an article for the Younger Dryas, another for the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, and yet another for the Little ice age ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that once you let people separate 'global warming' from 'climate change', by saying that the first is only a measured rise in global mean surface temperatures, whereas the latter is all the storms and droughts and suchlike, then you have a dozen new ways of confusing the issue. Which one is caused by increased anthropogenic CO₂ levels, for example? Maybe that causes one, but that doesn't prove it causes the other. If the author of some paper uses one phrase and not the other then does whatever she says have no bearing on that other, until we get further studies? In the past, maybe not having being warmer for X million years means nothing, now scientists will have to prove that it's never been stormier, or dryer, or windier. I can see why people want to drive a wedge in here, but I can't see the scientific benefit of doing so. --Nigelj (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance to this article which is distinct from Climate Change. I don't oppose "Global Warming". Nor is "Global Warming" an epoch period within anthropogenic climate change as as we normally start the current anthropogenic era as starting in 1750 while GMST records start around 1850. --DHeyward (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

GW is an observable. Much like CO2 concentration, sea level rise and OHC. It is the output of the models as a temperature. Encylopedia Brittanica and NASA and IPCC have done it. Misplaced Pages is the novel approach that they are the same based off dubious reasons unrelated to science and presuming that the reader wouldn't understand the difference. --DHeyward (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward, Do you oppose having an article for the Younger Dryas, another for the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, and yet another for the Little ice age? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, what's the relevance other than WP:OSE? Do you or not and what is the relevance to this article? --DHeyward (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's directly relevant and seems to flag an inconsistency in your argument. On the one hand you seem to be opposed to an article dedicated to discussing the current climate change as our hatnote calls this article. Instead you want to cram the non-GMST current climate change info into the generic top-level article climate change. What about articles dedicated to other climate change events? We should be consistent in our treatment, do you agree?

All four articles Global warming, Younger Dryas, Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, and Little ice age attempt to discuss the overall climate change situation in their respective time period. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your silence so far suggests you think it's a good idea to cover the overall climate change situation for those past events in their dedicated articles. If dedicated articles for those past events is better than mashing them together in the generic climate change article, logic would suggest its a good thing to do for the current climate change as well. For a teensy moment, let's set aside article title, lead text, wording in the body.... would you be OK dedicating some article to detailed coverage of current climate change, without trying to smoosh that coverage into the top level generic article climate change? If you say "no" then please address the apparent inconsistency with articles dedicated to other climate change events? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And it's idiotic to maintain that the Climate Change article should be anything other than the anthropogenice change since 1750 (i.e. the IPCC isn't convened to address prior epochs - the "CC" isn't all encompassing and it's well defined and delineated). It's a lot like the the "hiatus" article starting with "A GW hiatus" as if anyone is ever talking about the current one. No other sources have a problem with identifying Climate Change with anthropogenic causes starting around 1750 and Global Warming being the record of Global Mean Surface temperatures since 1850. Why make it difficult or convoluted? Prior to 1850, climate is mostly paleoclimatology and no confuses Climate Change with extraterrestrial climate or anything on earth before 1750. Writing from these odd perspectives is why these articles suck. Other sources get it right. --DHeyward (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Great! We agree that we should dedicate some article to detailed coverage of current climate change.

You want that article to be called "climate change". I disagree. Although you say the phrase is "well defined and delineated" there are two different definitions of "climate change" in the IPCC AR5 WG1 glossary! WG1's definition says nothing about time (now vs paleo) nor necessarily including humans; "Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer." Then WG1 goes out of its way to articulate the different definition used by UNFCCC (which specifically says human causation). And of course, google scholar is full of sources talking about paleo climate change.

The trouble is, the paleo events all have names that everyone pretty much agrees on. The current event doesn't have a name that everyone agrees on (witness this thread and recurrence of others like it). You say potato, I say potatoe. But I'm not silly enough to say either of us is all right and the other is all wrong.

What do you think of Sailsbystars' soluition below? Could you tolerate such a compromise?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You misrepresented what I said. This article should be about GMST as I, NASA, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Hansen, et al, have stated very clearly. Climate Change article should be about current climate change and not so obtuse as to think the current, overwhelming use of the term, both scientifically and in popular speech is, anything other than current climate change. Past climate change is referred to as events or epochs. The only phrase we have today is "Climate Change". Someday, it may have an epoch, but today both the terms "global warming" and "climate change" refer to the current and future effects of greenhouse gases and each term is different in scope and meaning. Global warming in nearly every context is from about 1850. Climate change in almost every context is from 1750. Misplaced Pages seems to be the only place that can't grasp this concept and has to reinvent the lexicon to chase politics and sceptics. No other sources have the problem of "global warming" and "climate change" being delineated. Increasing the scope of this article through its title helps nothing. It needs to be trimmed in scope to GMST, not expanded. --DHeyward (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Google returns millions of hits for each one, so definitive knowledge about how they are used "in almost every context" is a rather spectacular claim, especially since you and I have both cited sources that say common speech frequently uses them interchangeably. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Crazy idea... how about we rename this article to Global warming and anthropogenic climate change I'm sure there's someone somewhere will come up with some policy reason why it's a horrible idea. However, it's readily apparent that many, many reliable sources conflate the two (along with climate change as a synonym for both) such as the IPCC. However, under my suggested title, we can clearly subsume both the rise in surface temperature and the inextricably linked changes to the climate that follow. And then it's very easy to differentiate our climate change article from global warming and anthropogenic climate change. "For general changes in the climate see climate change." "For the ongoing human-created climate change, please see "Global warming and anthropogenic climate change." I'm just throwing this out there because it's clear that editors above have reached an impasse and I'd like to try to break that. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Great idea I can get behind Global warming and anthropogenic climate change just as much as my first suggestion of Global warming (current climate change). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is also the phrase AGW .... much more common than ACC :) If you want anthro, use AGW prokaryotes (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't Global warming (anthropogenic climate change) be better suited? I don't see what role the and is playing in the above suggested title. Regards. Gaba 20:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That is equally OK with me and is much better than using just "global warming" and much better than using just "climate change". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the title shouldn't be longer than three words, without any special characters. Because people typing the name into mobile phones and such. prokaryotes (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirects,man, redirects. The actual title of the article doesn't have to be short. I still use a short version of a horrifically long title to get to the page even though the shortcut would be an inappropriate name for the page itself. As for why "Global warming and anthropogenic climate change," it's superior to the parenthetical suggested by NAEG above because it implies that Global warming=anthropogenic climate change, which isn't necessarily true. Also, anthropogenic global warming is redundant. In any serious source, global warming always means the anthropogenic phenomenon, whereas "climate change" is ambiguous. My suggested title ain't short, but it appropriately described the content of the article. Although I suppose anthropogenic climate change could be a separate but broader article from global warming. Global warming is basically post 1970ish in most sources, whereas the ACC could encompass land use changes going back pretty far (at least 10,000 BP). The ACC associated with GW might make a whole separate article from the rest of ACC. So maybe splitting into 3 articles would also work? Anyway, just thinking out loud here, pardon my rambling. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But the problem with short versions is that most readers probably don't know them. Why can't we just explain everything in the hat note and leave the title as it stands? prokaryotes (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict

Although my POV guess is that humans are the cause instead of merely being the "dominant cause", I think we should still follow the sources and omit "anthropogenic" from this proposed name change. IPCC is quoted in the current lead

It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. (bold added)

If our article is about the full scope of the current climate change, including ongoing research into Attribution of climate change, then let's pick a title that covers the full breadth of the subject, instead of just the human part. At least until we have RSs that say humans are the cause, instead of just the dominant one. Dropping the A-word produces Global warming and the current climate change inspired by the title "Current sea level change"or succinctly Global warming and climate change. Another reason to omit "anthropogenic" is that it is redundant with "global warming", at least for those who hold the view that "global warming" necessarily means human induced climate change.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sailsbystars (talk · contribs) a relevant alternative to renaming is proposed here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Revisit article title and Scope

OP proposes a compromise that also addresses this thread here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision of section on social impacts

As discussed on previous threads , I've written a draft revision of the section of the article that deals with the social effects of climate change]:

"The effects of climate change on human systems have been detected on agriculture and indigenous peoples in the Arctic (Cramer et al: Executive summary, pp3-4). The future social impacts of climate change will be uneven (Volume-wide FAQs: FAQ 7 and 8, pp2-3). Many risks are expected to increase with higher magnitudes of global warming (Oppenheimer et al: pp39-46). All regions are at risk of experiencing negative impacts (Field et al: pp27-30). Low-latitude, less developed areas face the greatest risk (Oppenheimer et al: pp42-43). Examples of impacts include:

- Food: Crop production will probably be negatively affected in low latitude countries, while effects at northern latitudes may be positive or negative (Porter et al: p3). Global warming of around 4.6 °C relative to pre-industrial levels (see note) could pose a significant risk to global and regional food security (Summary for Policymakers: p18).

- Health: Generally impacts will be more negative than positive (Smith et al: p37: FAQ 11.2). Impacts include: the effects of extreme weather, leading to injury and loss of life (Smith et al: pp10-13); and indirect effects, such as undernutrition brought on by crop failures (Smith et al: pp22-24)."

Note: I've converted the reference temperature period in the source from the late-20th century to pre-industrial times (see: SPM: p14: Assessment Box SPM-1).

References: All taken from the IPCC 5th Assessment Working Group II report: Cramer et al (Chapter 18); Field et al (Technical Summary); Oppenheimer et al (Ch 19); Porter et al (Ch 7); Smith et al (Ch 11); Summary for Policymakers; Volume-wide FAQs.

Enescot (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you want to include the notes about the authors and page numbers directly into the article, but these should be in the references - nobody wants to read that (other than nerds, but that is to technical). Crucial findings should be backed up by more than one study. Though maybe mention the IPCC directly, especially refer to the impact study report, maybe even include the website to it https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/. Related video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMIFBJYpSgM prokaryotes (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll revise the citations to match the style used in the article. All the text that I've suggested is drawn from the IPCC assessment itself, which is based on many sources. Enescot (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Falsifiability

Could someone knowledgeable on this subject please write a section on the falsifiability of the theory of AGW? If for the sake of argument the proponents of this are wrong and no significant—let alone catastrophic—effects occur within some timeframe (assuming that worldwide C02 emissions have not significantly decreased during that period), would that prove the theory is wrong? If so, what is a consensus timeframe for that please? If not, what could disprove it?

Al Gore has in the past cited models that have already proven drastically off, such as the prediction by climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski of the entire disappearance of the summer Artic polar ice cap by 2013 as it remains somewhat shy of 1,000,000 square miles strong. I suppose the response to this is that that just means that that particular model was wrong and not the underlying theory: the creator of the model misunderstood the theory and what it signifies and predicts.

I don’t mean to take a position on this highly contentious issue. However, since it is deemed a mainstream scientific theory, then according to such illustrious personages in the history of science as Karl Popper and Albert Einstein, it must be falsifiable. The latter said, “All it would take to disprove my theory is one observation to the contrary .” Thus far, there hasn’t been one: clocks really do run slower as speed increases. Relativity dispensed with the perceived need for the invisible “aether” that was once thought to permeate the entire universe and thus provided an absolute frame of reference. That was once mainstream scientific thought.

One way to unequivocally prove AGW right is, unfortunately, to let events run their course and suffer the catastrophic consequences the theory’s proponents suggest will occur as a result. That would indeed be tragic. But if for the sake of argument no meaningful reduction of C02 emissions occurs, it seems to me in that event there must be some point in time where proponents of the theory acknowledge the theory to have been false (or at least its implied catastrophic results) if they have nothing more draconian to show for it beyond the odd category five hurricane or "super storm" that have occurred throughout history. If that not be the case, then can the theory really be called scientific? Therefore, what exactly is that timeframe? Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You cite a single study(or you refer to a opinion) from a few years ago in regards to sea ice estimates, however you do realize that sea ice has dramatically declined in recent years? Also recognize that cherry picking a single item to claim then this disproves the broad amount of data we have is a common denier tactic. In any instance refer to latest science, hence the latest IPCC report for instance. Also read WP:FORUM. Regards. prokaryotes (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I understand how contentious this issue is. As I also said, I am not taking a postion on the issue. I simply want myself and others to have the tools available to form an intelligent opinion in light of arguments and allegations made by skeptics.

Asking how this theory is falsifiable is not starting a mere forum discussion. Rather, it is making a positive, constructive suggestion that the issue of falsifiability regarding AGW needs to be addressed within the article as it is held to be a scientific theory by its proponents.

As for “cherry picking,” I never said one failed model or prediction proves anything other than that model was false. Likewise, I wouldn't maintain otherwise if several models’ predictions failed. I’m simply asking how the entire edifice of AGW can be falsified as it must be if it is scientific. Being able to be falsified certainly doesn’t make it false, just scientific. A public official can be corrupted. That doesn’t mean he or she has been. Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for instance, the observations of continued sea ice decline is a good indicator or the continued rise in observed temperatures ( even in La Nina years - which tend to be colder). prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think "catastrophic" is an easily quantifiable term, but really a subjective judgement call. So predictions of "catastrophic consequences" are inherently unfalsifiable unless you quantify what you mean by "catastrophic". On the other hand, concrete prediction (like a climate sensitivity of 1.5-4.5℃ per doubling of atmospheric CO₂) are at least potentially falsifiable, although over many years. All our scientific theories have implicit assumptions - gravity is pulling on my laptop, but it's not accelerating with 1g towards the floor (luckily) because it sits on my desk. That disproves neither Newton nor Einstein, it just shows that there can be confounding factors. Similarly, if we increase (say) output of sulphur dioxide, that can temporarily mask the climate forcing by increased CO₂. Again, similarly, if some of the models of heat transfer to the deeper ocean underestimate this transfer, the transient climate response may well be lower than estimated, even if the equilibrium climate response fits the model. Would that "falsify" AGW in your eyes? In other words, if you want a concrete answer on what would falsify a prediction, your must provide a precise definition of what you think is being predicted. And, if I may suggest so, you'd better fact-check your claims about Maslowski's work, and not take Al Gore's word for it, or even some bloggers word about Al Gore's word. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you certainly seem knowledgeable. Would you consider adding my requested section to the article to enhance the theory’s scientific stature in the eyes of the intelligent layperson? I do fear, however, that the average skeptic (or perhaps cynic) will allege that you are introducing “fudge factors” to “CYA” should future predictions fail.

As for fact checking, I have never considered the BBC to be merely “some blogger”: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

From your BBC link, emphasis in the first part "could", and i suggest you read Media coverage of climate change. prokaryotes (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14, if you'd like to get something added to the article, please propose exactly the wording you want, and show the reliable sources which support the addition. Can't see anything like that in this section, did you propose something elsewhere? . . dave souza, talk 16:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dave, I specifically asked if a section on the falsifiability of the theory of AGW (and its significant consequences) could be added to the article to enhance its scientific standing. I also (at least implicitly) acknowledged my own lack of expertise to add the section and thus appealed to someone else who is qualified to do so if interested, as I know many people are passionately so on this subject. If no one is interested in adding such a section, then no harm done in just asking. It seems a reasonable suggestion to evidence how a major criterion of what constitutes science applies to this scientific theory. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the criteria of science, used for example at McLean v. Arkansas. If it's worth adding such a section, then someone will doubtless have published a reliable source covering the point: we need such a source for any inclusion in the article, see WP:NOR. By the way, global warming is a group of facts, various scientific theories explain these facts, as shown in the article. . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The time is now, of course. See Earth's energy balance and this talk. We already know that a petite coed knocking back shots nonstop is not going to end well, and we can tell how fast the climate system is knocking back shots of extra solar energy.

Test System	Input	Result
105 pound coed	Add 1 shot per 20 minutes	Gets sloppy drunk; in best case she passes out before she kills herself by alcohol overdose
Earth's climate system	Add energy of ~400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day, every day	Don't let climate drink and drive

Pardon the mixed metaphor

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP said "I am not taking a postion on the issue. I simply want myself and others to have the tools available to form an intelligent opinion in light of arguments and allegations made by skeptics. " You can look up pretty much any skeptic argument you like and get answers based on the professional science literature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve done some limited research from the perspective of one not well-versed in climate matters. I found one article from perhaps a “just some blogger” who has given several ways AGW could be falsified. Some of them seem rather tongue-in-cheek to me, but most of them seem reasonable. If anyone is interested in reading the article and perhaps incorporating some of the author’s points into the article to assert that AGW does indeed meet the falsifiability criterion of a scientific theory, here is the link:http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

I’m sorry that I cannot contribute anything of substance to this article, but I do think that establishing falsifiability is an important aspect of this issue. Thanks to all.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Current events confirm global warming. To falsify global warming would be trivial. If, over five year averages, it stopped getting warmer, that would falsify global warming. Since global warming is a statement about averages, one cold day does not falsify global warming. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, a five year average is not the right measure. Determining the right measure is enormously complicated; no one I'm aware of has done so in a formal way. A couple scientists have made some casual claims, but I guarantee no one is saying that a five year period without warming would falsify the theory.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Using RCPs instead of SRES

Is there any particular reason the SRES-scenarios, used in AR4 and AR3 are still used in the article? I would like to replace them with the RCPs used in AR5. Femkemilene (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"unequivocal"?

Why does it say "Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature"? That's unnecessary. You wouldn't say something like, say, general relativity is the "unequivocal" theory of gravitation or something? It just sounds odd. JDiala (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it is a scientific fact. Because it's necessary to be perfectly clear given the amount of misinformation going around today. Because the consensus of WP editors favoured its inclusion. Regards. Gaba 20:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the reference cited at the end of the sentence says, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal". On the other hand, I also think that somehow the word has ended up in slightly the wrong place. I don't know too much about all the subtleties of English grammar, but I will say that the word sits nicely in the sentence I just quoted from the ref, but it sticks up a bit in our sentence, "Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in..." I wholeheartedly agree that it should be used very prominently in the opening of the article, but I'm not quite sure that it's in the exact right place yet. Maybe we need to look back at a much older version of the article, as I'm sure it's been there for ages, and read better before. --Nigelj (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a scientific fact. Facts are things that are well-defined, measurable and measured. It is none of those. I doubt that anyone can give me a coherent definition of a climate system, which is agreed to by all scientists,a ad if you want to say it is the sum total of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land surface, and biosphere, there is no recognized scientific group that is measuring the temperature of the aggregate. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with User:Nigelj, that is, the word "unequivocal" is in there because it is supported by a reference. However, while I do not disagree with the statement, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal", that isn't what the lead says, so it would be nice if someone could find a better phrasing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As a sort of aside, I was trying to track down what appears to be an inconsistency between this article and Greenhouse gas, which led me to review Figure SPM.5 (page 14 of AR5 SPM). I noticed reference to H₂O. I don't recall what "str" means. Does someone else know?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just guessing, but could it stand for water vapor in the stratosphere? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. I tried a quick search and turned up nothing. I am guessing they are trying to indicate water in gaseous, rather than liquid form, but I don't recall that terminology.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think its discussed at page 17 of the Discussed at page 17 in WG1's Chap 8 supp materials], towards bottom of left column.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting reading.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

SP: Your notion of "fact" is rather idealistic. The presentation of something as "fact" often follows a lengthy, even contentious, determination and debate. (E.g.: the "fact" of heliocentricism.) In regards of GW various "things" have been measured, from various viewpoints, and the observation that the globe is warming is as well-founded — as unequivocal — as many other scientific "fact". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can be an idealist when it comes to using words correctly. As anyone who has paid the least attention to the challenges of measuring temperature knows, there are enormous issues with the temperature monitoring system. Despite those problems, I have no problems accepting that global temps are up over the last century or so. However, that is a very different statement than we have in our lead, so the challenge, as I see it, is how to say something that is not too mealy-mouthed, but is actually verifiable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've made clear over several discussions that I think the use of the word "unequivocal," while true and supported by sources, is bad writing and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It makes the article seem more persuasive than informative in style and that's not a good thing. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Sailsbystars. Femkemilene (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying something is "unequivocal" is silly. We make all statements of fact as though a source supports them, this is not a special fact. The whole point of the scientific method is the nothing is beyond doubt and "unequivocal" means beyond doubt. Stating the that first fact is unequivocal seems to imply that the rest of the facts are somehow less certian. Chillum 02:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This has quickly turned into a complex thread. Despite a brief diversion into what might be meant by the term 'scientific fact', which is not really relevant to the article, it worries me that some people may be taking this as an opportunity to try to get some degree of doubt inserted into the opening sentence. Can we be clear that that is not going to happen: We are not here in mid 2014 to discuss the possibility that there is no such thing as global warming. What we are discussing is the best arrangement of the important, cited statements that belong in the opening few lines. This old version of the lede is interesting in that the 'unequivocal' bit appeared in the third sentence, but, given that space, IMHO it sat far more happily, and read much better. Another way of proceeding might be helped by this thesaurus entry. the source uses the word unequivocal, but there is no rule that says that we can't paraphrase, and here we find a good half dozen viable alternatives. --Nigelj (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Chillum: Do you know of the saying "the race is not always to the swift, nor the fight to the strong — but that is the way to bet"? For sure, science always allows for an exceedingly small chance of an upset. But the GREAT weight of evidence in this case is tantamount to there being, for all practical purposes, no chance that global warming is not happening. What is silly is equivocating this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposed new paragraph 1

Below is a new proposal for the first paragraph.

Goals include

• Compromise solution to the complaint (by me) that the article title improperly emphasizes "global warming" instead of presenting both "global warming" and a variant of "climate change"
• Change wording to preserve the meaning of "unequivocal" without using that word in the text (but still using it in the quote in the cite)
• Comply with MOS in that it introduces topic to "nonspecialists"
• Keep the gist of the rest of the current first paragraph, except bit on terminology

strikeout added by author to reflect later discussion In anticipation of a kneejerk reaction that the first words are not "global warming" let me explain the format before you read it please.

The format is consistent with the MOS, which in WP:LEADPARAGRAPH admittedly says

"If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence...", (bold underline added)

When there are multiple alternative names, putting them all into the grammatical subject clause of the sentence can distort the language of the sentence. The MOS doesn't like distorted language. But in MOS:alternative names it also likes to see alternative names somewhere in the first sentence

"Alternative names - By the design of Misplaced Pages's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence..."

By use of "if possible" the MOS implicitly recognizes sometimes it makes more sense to not have the article title as the first words. In the proposal below, I simply moved the title "global warming" and the common alternative names to the end of the sentence, as MOS allows us to do. The result is natural flowing language (in my opinion anyway)

If we can agree on this, then we have (re)established consensus on the article's scope, resolved my issues with the article title, and addressed the objections over the phrasing using the word "unequivocal".... which means we can return to the proposed lead outline by Nigelj (talk · contribs) to deal with the bloat. In addition, this consensus will become a landmark the next time someone complains about "global warming" vs "climate change". Everyone (except those future complainers) should be happy, no? Hope springs eternal you know....

REVISED PROPOSED NEW PARAGRAPH 1

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That's very good indeed. Well done and thank you NAEG. The only small niggle I have is that the crucial phrases appear in quotes. I can't find it again now, but there is a policy somewhere that says that each article is about the topic denoted by the title, not the words used in the title. I would suggest:

Global warming or anthropogenic climate change, the current warming of Earth's climate system and related effects, is also referred to simply as climate change. Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is indeed warming up. The oceans, which provide a large buffer, have absorbed about 90% of the energy added to the climate system since 1970. Much of the rest heats the atmosphere, where global surface temperatures have increased by about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of this warming occurring since 1980.

I have bolded the other term that redirects here anyway. If anyone's interested in doing so, I also think that indeed in "the climate system is indeed warming up" could be replaced by unequivocally. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Per Jefferson ("Never use two words when one will do") I would get rid of the "Indeed" in "indeed warming up". And per my scientific inclination, I would put Celsius first, Fahrenheit second. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephan, if you indent like I do, I think you expressed a preference for Nigelj's tweaking. Is that right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I like both versions, and my comment applies to both. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Both are very good. I think the first sentence reads more smoothly as follows: Global warming, the current warming of Earth's climate system and related effects, is also referred to as anthropogenic climate change simply climate change. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Global warming, the current warming of Earth's climate system and related effects, is also referred to as anthropogenic climate change or simply climate change. prokaryotes (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Below is my third attempt. In this version, for clarity I have imported the existing hatnote, and as suggested "indeed" is deleted, C precedes F, and I started with Nigelj's first sentence but tweaked it more because I just now noticed the example in the MOS that follows this principle

When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.

The example reads

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the north-western coast of continental Europe.

Further tweaking sentence 1 in Nigelj's version so that it matches that approved template as closely as possible, and incorporating the other explicitly listed suggestions produces the following (and please pardon if I overlooked some other difference in others' suggestions that wasn't explicitly mentioned outside the text)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I dislike the sentence about "Multiple lines of scientific evidence," first thing I think about is "lines" as in a poem. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How about, "multiple fields of scientific study show that the climate system is warming up". Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooooh, I think this is a pretty good step in the right direction! The "multiple lines of evidence" bit doesn't seem so objectionable to me... If one wanted to, one could I suppose improve a bit by actually naming the aspects of warming mentioned in the source. "Scientific evidence for warming has been observed in the temperatures of the ocean, air, and surface, the decline of glaciers and snow cover, and the rise of sea level and water vapor concentration." It's passive voice (blech), but you get the idea. Just so long as we talk about each of those pieces of evidence somewhere in the article.... Sailsbystars (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(A) OK I used strikeout and undline in the above gray box to change "multiple scientific lines of evidence" to the wording from the quote resulting in "multiple scientific indicators"

(B) Sails, that's a good idea for the body of this article, or possibly a break out article on evidence of warming, but its too much detail for the lead in my opinion. This all started, after all, with appropriate complaints of lead bloat.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Simple is good too. :) Like I said, multiple lines of evidence was fine by me, and so is the revised version. Another possibility (again, don't object to the current or original): Many parts of the climate system show evidence of warming. Only other tweak, maybe throw in one more sentence at the end for future warming: Global temperatures are expected to continue to rise (xx-xx C by 2100 | xx-xx C per doubling of CO2). Really needs to be at least something about the future in the lede. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"needs to be at least something about the future in the lede" Certainly, but that's already in a subsequent lead paragraph, which are not at issue at the moment. We'll talk about projections and much more when we get back to the lead bloat issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A huge improvement. I think it's indeed better to use Celcius, also considering that the majority of non-US countries use this unit. Both multiple scientific indicators and multiple scientific lines of evidence sound okay to me. It is correct to state that the ocean is a buffer for global warming? It is simply part of the global warming, is it not? Femkemilene (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a really good point! Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Getting better with each revision. Why "warming up"? Why not just "warming"?Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I put it in and took it out again 2 or 3 times. Must be my upper midwest (USA) childhood roots, where we often "warm up leftovers for supper". I'll take it out next time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Femkemilene's concerns about the word "buffer". I don;t see what it adds. However, I am concerned about the entire sentence. Why do we emphasize one of the five components of the climate system? While it absorbs the lion's share of the heat, there's no mention of the contribution to land or cryosphere. (I'm fine with omitting biosphere, which is a whole different issue.) When the subsequent sentence says much of the rest goes into the atmosphere, should the reader conclude that the temperature increases of the cryosphere and land are de minimus? I doubt that's true. So we either need to expand it, which would make it awkward, or simplify it. Why on earth do we need it in the lede? (Sorry, I know how hard this is, and I'm contributing more brickbats than construction suggestions.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposed new paragraph 1 (starting with NAEG V 4)

This version incorporates suggestions to find other way to say "multiple lines of evidence", to delete "up" from "warming up", and to omit description of ocean as a "buffer". The issue raised by sphilbrick (talk · contribs) about the sentence on ocean warming is not yet resolved.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but I preferred "multiple lines of evidence". --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

All of these versions omit the scientific definition of GW as the rise in global mean surface temperature while also providing GMST as the only measured metric. It also lumps anthropogenic and natural variation as the same. No one should confuse the two or believe the scientific community attributes the entire rise in temperature as anthropogenic. Their confidence extends to half of the observed GMST as anthropogenic. It is possible that it is all anthropogenic but that's not the consensus for high confidence. The term "unequivocally" is not scientific and scientific bodies have rejected that language. It's a political statement for governments. OHC is not nearly as well understood as GMST and doesn't have measurement history. It's along the same theory lines as stratospheric water vapor, stadium waves and trade winds as possible sources of error in the energy budget. The ocean has varying degrees of salinity, isothermal layers, natural variations such as ENSO. Stop trying to account for "missing heat" when there is no reason to do so except as a response to sceptics. There is no need to do so. Encyclopedia Brittanica gets it right and we should cue from them. --DHeyward (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

D, in order to change the current consensus on topic current change in earth's climate to the far narrower and more technical trends in GMSTglobal mean surface temperature will require RFC/DR. Have at it.

Personally, I'm reading all your subsidiary points as subsidiary to the matter of article topic and plan to wait for your RFC or DR process to respond. Alternatively, if you ever decide to accept the current consensus regarding the topic and wish to focus on some smaller point as we develope it, I'll be interested in such input, though I might not see it if it isn't added in sections on that particular point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a bad habit of altering location and headings of other editors comments. Please stop. You are not the talk page hall monitor. You have not established any form of consensus outside a small walled garden of editors. My comment is general and about the desire to broaden scope but with little scientific support. If AR5 and GMST are your metrics, you've not expanded the definition. OHC is a reg herring sub-set of surface temperature as nearly all warming occurs in the surface of the ocean (80-90%). You didn't have consensus to change the title and backdooring that failure by changing the content is rather counter to the intent of consensus as well as WP:TITLE. Insisting that "global warming" is beyond GMST and then only offering GMST metrics is not consistent. Like I said, Encycolpedia Brittanica gets it correct. Hansen gets it correct. Climate change is the article that covers the effects of global warming beyond GMST including changes to the ocean, tree line, ice area, habitat, etc. I ask again why you think GMST is inadequate as the definition? Your failure to change the name to something broader should stop you from trying to broaden the article against that consensus. --DHeyward (talk)

(A) Your complaints about the way I follow the WP:TPG have been addressed at your talk page

(B) The long-standing consensus here is that the topic is the climate change earth is currently experiencing. I'm not the guy trying to change it.

(C) Since it is your goal to overturn the years long consensus on article topic by narrowing the topic to nothing but trends in Global Mean Surface Temperature, I'm willing to AGF that you seriously want to try to accomplish that goal. In my view, the only way you can possibly achieve it is to start a new thread for that express purpose, use RFC and DR, and live with the resulting consensus whichever way it goes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

first sentence

I have some concerns. I'll start with a minor one, which might trouble some people, but I can live with it. I don't think global warming and climate change are exactly the same thing. However, I note that many, many sources are not so careful, and use the terms interchangeably. Those that do discuss differences don't suggest there are fundamental differences, but minor differences. Finally, we aren't strongly stating that the two concepts are identical, we are simply noting that both terms are in use. I do feel differently about anthropogenic climate change. The adjective "anthropogenic" either means (correctly) that we are talking about some subset of changes or (incorrectly) that we are taking about all changes and all are caused by man. Neither is an accurate summary of this article.

For example, some portion of sea level change is due to Isostatic rebound. Some portion is due to movements of tectonic plates other than ice sheet melting. Some is due to erosion. None of these (except possibly erosion, which is not global warming) is man-made, so would have to be excluded form a discussion of anthropogenic climate change. The jury is still out on whether the cosmic ray influence on cloud production is material, but discussion of the issue, when settled, ought to be in an article about climate change, not shunted off to a Climate change (other than man-made) article. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I was silent on all this stuff for several days pondering what to do. In a fit of multiple personality disorder I even stood in front of a mirror debating the different perspectives with myself, when one of the voices (Baron Harkonnen perhaps) bellowed, "Don't be a semantophile!" I wrote the first grey box above within an hour of that revelation.

If you're worried about equating "global warming" with "anthropocentric climate change" best review AR4 WG3 glossary, where global warming is specifically defined as being anthropocentric. Based on one subset of sources your points are well taken, but the entire collection of sources just hasn't stabilized around the terms enough to say that your reasonable view on some of the sources is right to the exclusion of all other views. There is more than one "right", which is why this keeps coming up. So let's dwell with laser beams on the goal. The goal is to introduce the topic - which is NOT necessarily defined by the title - to nonspecialists. The topic, as our hatnote says, is the climate change earth is now going through. We have sources that nuance meanings this way and that way but not the same way as each other and other sources that use the words interchangeably. We want, errrr... at least I want..... any nonspecialist who comes in with one of the words in their head to plug in and read engaging coverage of the current climate change earth is going through that will eventually help the newbie nonspecialist make semantic sense of the terminology hash in an appropriate detail section or subarticle. We're really screwing the elevator pooch if we try to do that by article title or in the lead, assuming we're trying to talk about the overall climate change earth is now going through. I'll also add that "global warming" is apparently the dominant phrase in the USA, but "climate change" is the favorite in Britain.source.

As we continue to work on the lead, a headline I want to preserve is that scientists (AR5) are >95% certain that "most" of it is human caused. Thus the lead itself should undo any damage implied by bad semantics in the first sentence. Thoughts?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I could live with deleting 'anthropogenic climate change' from the first sentence. I included it based on others' comments in some other threads. Maybe we should strike it in Ver 5 and see who pipes up? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks for your considered and thoughtful responses. You make many good points, some I agree with. This is one where we differ, at least based upon my recollection, which we can look up if you think my recollection is flawed. It is quite understandable that we rely very heavily on the IPCC reports. Is there another scientific question where more scientists have pulled together in an organized way to address a question? I think it is unparalleled. However, the initial mandate contained one fundamental flaw. The group was not tasked with investigating and explaining the scientific underpinnings of climate change, they were tasked to "assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation." (Emphasis added.) The quote is from an IPCC report explaining its scope

This was, in my opinion, a mistake. By specifically limiting the scope of the study to human-induced issues, they ended up, not surprisingly, focusing on human-induced causes. However, this is a constraint placed upon the UN effort, which does not mean we have to adopt the same definition, We ought to use a sensible definition. To the extent there are negative effects of climate changes, those effects are negative whether the cause is human-induced or natural. While knowing the cause will help in identifying some mitigation approaches, mitigation efforts are not dependent on the cause. Our audience cares about climate change, first and foremost. What portion of that climate change is human caused, is an important issue, probably important enough to be in the lead, but that's not the same as saying we should define the subject matter as excluding climate changes issues to the extent they are natural.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I too find it frustrating that WG1 does a lot to look at human/nonhuman attribution issues but never defines the term 'global warming', but WG3 - which is not tasked to look at attribution issues - goes ahead and does so. Seems like reliable authorities could easily provide two definitions; the technically narrow one and the neologistic commonname one. But oh well. We agree that the article topic should cover the whole gamut of the current change in earth's climate (by whatever name) and not just the human component, yes? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have refs at the moment, but from memory I'm sure it can be argued that the percentage split of human/non-human causes is over 100%. Specifically, if it wasn't for the human alterations we would now be in a slowly cooling climate, heading gently towards the next ice age. On the other hand, there have been recent discussions somewhere here on WP where people were talking about more like a 50/50 split. I think this is certainly an interesting area, but as I say, I'm not really up to speed on the best published science. --Nigelj (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Another point that I've addressed before: The rise of energy in the ocean is not juxtaposed against temperature as "despite". As ocean heat content rises, it's a forcing. Currently equivalent to about 0.5 W*m. GMST is not "despite" ocean heat content anymore than it is "despite" rising GHGs. Anyone that has a pool or lives near an ocean understands this basic concept. "Despite" needs to be dropped because they are different, modeled different and not competing with each other. --DHeyward (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Despite" has already been removed from the new draft. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"current" vs "recent"

On a slightly different note, I really like this new lead, but I would suggest changing the word "current" to "recent" - climate generally refers to periods of the order of decades, but the word "current" implies something that is happening at this very moment in time. Year on year variability means there will be lulls and drops in global temperature on an inter annual scale, while the overall trend is still increasing over longer time periods, so the word "current" is not really accurate here as it puts too much emphasis on what is happening right now. I think "recent" is better as this implies a warming trend over a period of time in the near past, which better reflects what global warming is. Atshal (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith comment. "Recent" is certainly true since the warming started many years ago. However, "recent" implies "not now" so I'm dead opposed to this suggestion because "not now" does not comport with the sources. The sources say say that each second - right now - the climate system is warming with the energy equivalent of .... well you can take your pick of analogies and one obviously POV analogy makes the energy we're talking about equal to just over 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. So although we can't use that POV analogy in the article, it nonetheless illustrates my point. We must not suggest warming is "recent but not now", because it most definitely IS now. In addition, due to the climate system's lag time and Earth's energy budget being positive, it will continue to warm for quite awhile even if GHG emissions instantly go to zero. So "current" is definitely more in line with sources than "recent", even though "recent" is a valid part of the whole story.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the point you make about the word "recent" not implying that it is still ongoing, but I also think you are making a couple of errors in your analysis here. Year on year the climate system is not warming, if measured by average global temperature - there is always inter annual variability. Global warming is a trend, and a trend is measured over time. Using the word current implies that it is happening right now and at every moment, which I don't think is accurate - it happens and can only be measured over a period of time (e.g. 30 years is often suggested as the time period over which to consider climate). Within the time period there will be drops, and lulls, which contradicts the assertion that the warming must be "current" i.e. happening right now.

Secondly, I regard the term global warming as referring to warming that has already happened in the recent past, not just warming that is currently happening.

I just feel that "current" misrepresents something important about the nature of global warming. Atshal (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to this briefly, I agree with including the phrase "and related effects" part of the sentence, but that is also not consistent with "current". The related effects are the effects of warming that has taken place in the recent past - the effects of current warming will be seen in the future and are currently only projections. Atshal (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Setting aside the smaller points, some of which are large in themselves, you're basically agreeing with DHeyward's desire to turn the article topic into a narrow discussion of GMST instead of changes underway in the entire climate system. That's being discussed in this other thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I really like the changes you suggest, and I think your version is far superior to the current opening paragraph. I just think the word "current" is too narrow in scope, and the recent warming over the last 150 years is part of the phenomenon, not just current warming (which IS variable year on year). Not a big deal in my mind really. And I certainly don't believe the scope of the article should be narrowed to solely mean temperatures, I don't know what gives you that idea. Atshal (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about misunderstanding. And now that I think about it, what I should have said right off the bat is that I think your comment is based on a good faith but false reading and a good faith oversight. The false reading is that of the word "current", which you seem to read as "this instant". But that's not what it means. Instead "current" means the present phase of earth's geologic history as defined by this episode of positive Earth's energy budget. And we agree that we should be taking note of past warming, but you didn't really acknowledge that the second half of the very same paragraph (sentence 3 and 4) is devoted entirely to past warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it seems we have the same position. Will this use of the word "current" be clear to readers of the article? It was not to me. Atshal (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You read a draft of a single paragraph. Have faith. The rest of the lead overhaul is yet to come. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

where is global warming going

I am struggling with the last two sentences. Essentially, the proposed lead can be viewed in the following way:

• The Climate system, as a whole, is warming.
• We'll tell you what proportion of the energy is going into one of the five components of the climate system, but not how much impact it has on the temperature.
• We'll tell you how much the temperature has changed for another one of the components of the climate system, but we won't tell you how energy is involved (except to note it must be less than 10%)
• We won't tell you how much energy flows into the land, or how the temperature changes
• We won't tell you how much energy flows into the cryosphere, or how the temperature changes
• We won't tell you how much energy flows into the biosphere, or how the temperature changes

I recognize that we might not know the some of the answers, but it feels odd to refer to a climate system with 5 components, each of which has some energy flow and temperature change, and we can only talk about 2 of the ten possibilities, and then only for limited time spans. The lead is supposed to be for the most important things. Why is it important to know the energy flow into the oceans over the last 40 years or so? What conclusions about global warming can be drawn from that fact? Let me be clear–I am not disputing the factoid, or that it belongs in the article, I am questioning the prominence of what I view to be an obvious but uninteresting an unimportant piece of information.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Back up the horses... after I posted my initial reply (below) I realized we might not be communicating. The gray box is a proposed first paragraph for a lead, not a lead in its entirety. In the thread on lead bloat Nigelj has posted an outline for an entire new lead. There is room there to talk about temperature this and that, which might resolve some of this. Key thing I wanted to flag is that the gray box is not an entire lead, if that helps. If there was no confusion, then my original reply (below) still stands. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Point taken (at least partially). I agree that you are working on the opening sentence, not suggesting it is the whole lead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to include the ocean bit to comply with the part of MOS:LEAD that says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context...." Since 90% of the crux of the matter (energy gain due to Earth's positive Energy budget) is going into the ocean, any stand-alone summary should say so. Were Rip Van Winkle to awaken 20 years hence and we omit this in his summary, he will lack a key piece of info. Certainly he will ask "How much has it gone up?" and "How much will it go up?" but he will not know enough to ask what "it" means, and he will falsely think the entire matter lies in whether "it" is going up or down. Once he learns more, he will know that "it" meant global mean surface temperature and that this is just one measurement for assessing a complex systemic topic. If I were he, I think I'd like to be told its a systemic problem and where 90% of the driving force is going right up front. In your elevator approach (see other subsection) we would purge all this stuff. I favor your other idea in an earlier comment (expand a bit). We could tweak the last sentence thus:

The rest heats the continents, melts snow and ice, or warms the atmosphere.(insert AR5 cite and maybe add CC3.0 graphic) Global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) over the past 100 years, with about 0.6 °C (1.0 °F) of this warming occurring since 1980.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple indicators/lines of evidence

Having dwelt on challenges, I do want to support the idea of the multiple lines of inquiry point (while not yet finding the right wording.) It is not enough for a skeptic to challenge one tree study, or find some thermometer siting issues; there are quite a number of indicators, many consistent with a warming thesis, so the evidence for warming is not thin, but robust. I'm not quite sure how to word this, but I see it as a headline issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be OK with "multiple lines of evidence" based on the existing quote which uses "multiple indicators". In addition there are plenty of RSs that use "multiple lines of evidence" and we could add one if need be. I don't particularly care, but I also don't see an actionable suggestion for tweaking the current "multiple indicators" here, so unless there's a proposal I think this subsubsub topic is done? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should change "Multiple scientific indicators" into "Evidence has grown significantly in recent years" and show that the climate system is warming. - This is in line with the lead from the cited report. prokaryotes (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Man, I wouldn't. Before becoming president, Abe Lincoln was a trial lawyer. One morning, he served as prosecutor and won using a particular interpretation of a point of law. After lunch he was defense counsel in a nearly identical case. Abe cited the same point of law, but vigorously argued a different interpretation. Calling him to the bench, the judge asked him to defend his actions. Said Lincoln, "Your Honor, this morning I may have been mistaken, but now I know I'm right!"

AR4 (in 2007) said the evidence showed that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal".(AR4 WG1 SPM) We should not insert words that imply AR4 might have exaggerated, but in AR5 they know they're right. Remember, at this precise bit of text we're only dealing with the fact of warming, for which the case was made years ago. When we get to Attribution of climate change, you are correct that AR5 spm does say that evidence about the cause has grown substantially. But we're not working on that bit of text yet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine. :) prokaryotes (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

ALTERNATIVE: Elevator pitch approach

Is it fair to apply the elevator pitch concept to the lead? (Not just this one, but any article). You have about a minute to explain something to another person. Presumably, you want to summarize it, and cover the most salient points in a very short speech.

Let's pretend I am meeting someone who has been in a coma for a couple decades, and I have the opportunity to bring them up to speed on global warming/climate change issues.

What points would I want to emphasize?

I'd like to define it, identify the causes to the extent known, identify the impacts and identify the level of consensus in the existence, causes and effects.

Defining the issue as the rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system is a good start. It defines the subject, and emphasizes the scope (global)

However, didja know that 90% of the energy flow over the last 40 years ends up the ocean? wouldn't make my cut for the elevator pitch. If I get the call back for a more in-depth discussion, sure (assuming I can figure out why it matters) but in the initial speech? Not a chance.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I replied to this in the subsection with the thumbnail image "where is global warming going" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I still like the elevator pitch concept as an analogy, but it applies to the lead, not simply to the opening sentence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposed new paragraph 1 (starting with NAEG V 5)

• Suggestions after ver 4 that I did not include because I think they are not actionable

• Dropping "despite"; this was not actionable because it was already dropped in prior version
• Changing "current" to "recent"; this was not actionable because the sources do not imply warming was recent but now halted. Instead sources discuss this warming episode in earth's geologic history; the sources say it started years ago, is happening now, and will continue.

• Suggestions after ver 4 that are incorporated

• In various locations multiple eds expressed okness and/or slight preference for changing "multiple indicators" back to the earlier draft's "multiple lines of evidence"; To forestall future criticism I also tracked down an RS to back up that phrasing.
• "Anthropogenic climate change" was dropped from the first sentence as a result of discussion at this talk page, Nigelj's talk page, and Sphilbrick's talk page.

• Suggestions after ver 4 that are actionable but were not included and therefore remain pending

• Overturn the long-standing consensus on article topic. The consensus goes back long before the topic was succinctly stated in the hatnote "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate. One ed wants to change the topic to a narrow scientific definition regarding trends in Global Mean Surface Temperature, and purge everything else. I'm opposed to changing the article topic in this manner, and I am confident most other regulars here are opposed as well. Certainly WP:Consensus can change. If you want to keep pursuing it, please start a thread dedicated to that purpose.

• Suggestions after ver 4 that are actionable and resulted in changes in this version though I'm not sure whether the changes resolve the original issue

• Comments by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) in the thread "where is global warming going" regarding the last 2 sentences in ver 4 and expressed another way in the thread Talk:Global_warming#ALTERNATIVE:_Elevator_pitch_approach. I need to insert apology here if I have inaccurately summarized your view, Sphilbrick, but here goes.... I think your preferred approach is to purge from the lead and preserve in the body the bit about "where is global warming going". However, without looking for a diff I seem to recall an earlier comment from you that another option would be to say something about the climate system components (continents and ice) that were omitted from ver 4. I opted for the latter and added an RS for continents, ice, and atmosphere. I also replaced the GMST statistics in the last two sentences with a broader statement of the effects (with supporting RS). Please note I do think there is a place for some GMST statistics in the lead, but think they will fit better in a later paragraph; I don't know what ideas others may have, but my plan for submitted drafts is to bring those numbers back in a future version with more paragraphs.

• Other

• Help!Please compare the first sentence to the part of the hatnote that says "For general discussion.... see Climate change. Can you suggest wording to better introduce that link in light of the draft's first sentence?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC):I really want to be supportive, but I can't be fully supportive. On a positive note, I like the first two sentences. I'm struggling with the third, not because it is false, but because it is uninteresting, except to the extent it is being used to mislead, which is not our goal. As for the unprecedented changes, I realize this is the lead, and summarizes what is in the article.

Possible candidates:

• Air temps - they are definitely higher now than in decades, but there is disagreement over whether recent years are higher than in the 30's. The actual measured temps ant he 30's were higher, but NOAA adjusts older temps down and recent temps up. Some question how valid these adjustments are. Perhaps they are valid, but our article doesn't seem to even acknowledge that one has to make these adjustment to make the claims about records.
• Sea Level - probably the highest in millenia, but most of the increase over the past few thousand years is due to being in an inter-glacial. Recent increases are largely due to warming, but the increase are decelerating not accelerating.
• Ice caps - the Arctic is smaller than many recent years, but not over millenia. The Antarctic recently set an all-time record for ice extent (admittedly,t he length of the record isn't all that long)
• Hurricanes and tornadoes - recent level are below ling term averages
• Snow cover - recent years have been higher than average

This is the top of my head, and maybe some will be challenged, but we need to make sure there are enough unprecedented events to justify the word "many".--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree we need "unprecedented" examples in body to say it in lead. Not sure if your list is stuff now in article (I haven't checked) or suggestions for what might find a place in the article. But add to list...

• CO2 level
• Rate of CO2 increase
• Vanishing midlatitude snowfields, revealing Neandertal hunting weapons to rot, after being preserved in situ all this time

As for the Antarctic sea ice extent, we agree it's an "all time record" and some sources say it was predicted by global warming theory, thus its another indicator of a warming world, not a cooling or static one.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC) PS, Wonder if this has the makings for a "List of..." article? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've read one of the sources (or perhaps someone's summary); it struck me as strained. (One of the theories is that warming causes the ice to melt and run into the sea, where it then refreezes and increases the extent. The problem with that is that it is happening in winter, when it is too cold for the ice to melt, plus it isn't true that it is warmer, it is colder, with some minor local exceptions). I'll be more impressed if someone shows me an explanation that was written in advance, actually predicting the increase, plus I would like to hear why warming makes the South pole grow but the North pole shrink. There are differences, but I haven't heard a close to compelling argument which explains why warming increases extent in one place but decreases in another.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(A) It's incorrect to phrase that implying that total Antarctica ice is increasing; See NASA, Nov 2012 "Ice Sheet Loss at Both Poles Increasing, Study Finds"

(B) As for sea ice, that's not right either. You're making an assumption that there is a lack of fresh water and low-salinity water to freeze just because it's winter. Sure, there's isn't much new surface melting at the time. So? What other spigots could there be? Warming southern oceans melting ice from under the shelves? Continental drainage? The temp of ice sheet's basal ice and water under the shelves varies very little compared to seasonal air temps. Please see "Why is southern sea ice increasing?" and the various references cited therein, and in the comments. I haven't looked at the 1992 Manabe paper, but its claimed they saw the increase in sea ice coming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(A) Maybe it was true that Antarctica was losing ice in 2012, but in 2014, it set a record for "largest April extent on record, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)." Source

(B) I checked out Manabe. The increase wasn't important enough to even make it into the abstract. They do note, on page 113, that there was a surprising expected increase in the Weddell and Ross seas. Those aren't tiny, but are not the whole continent. That follows the statement "the change of sea ice is relatively small in the circumpolar ocean of the Southern Hemisphere, except..." It isn't clear to me whether the "relatively small" attribute applies to the whole area, or just the are net of those two seas. In any event, as the NSIDC graph shows, the area near the Weddell and Ross seas is very close to the long term average, and the excess ice is mostly in the Amundsen Sea and off Enderby Land. In other words, it hasn't grown where they predicted it would grow, and it has grown where they predicted it would not. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• On a positive note, Manabe et al does make a decent case that the expected changes in the two poles are likely to differ, due to a couple factors. That was interesting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

My reply to all is found under the subsection Talk:Global warming#unprecedented changes NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As a small aside, I see that Part I of the Manabe et al paper is referenced in AR$, but not int he ice chapter, in the modelling chapter. However, the comment about growth in Weddell and Ross Seas is in Part II, not referenced in AR4 or AR5 ice chapters.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

unprecedented changes

I think the almost-forum discussion about sea ice under the opening for NAEG Ver 5 (above) is a response to the sentence in NAEG Ver 5 about "unprecedented changes". To get back to the immediate issue, the questions is Does the body adequately report on "unprecedented changes" to warrant including this sentence in the lead? I'm ok dropping that sentence for the time being to move the rest of the lead-bloat reduction process along. Later I may want to work on List of unprecedented observations of global warming and revist. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So for Ver 5 I think the open items so far are the hatnote wordsmithing and finding out if there is an RS that supports the contention that the "factlet" about ocean warming is "unimportant", as I have asked here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

used to mislead

No problem, good challenges done in good faith make great writing. Please explain "used to mislead" because I really don't know what you meant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also struggling with the Ocean warming issue, mainly because I think it has the possibility of being contentious. That isn't my goal, so I've been struggling with the best way to present the issue. I'll start by turning the Rip Van Winkle point on its head. I predict that when this article is reviewed 20 years hence, the attribution of warming to the oceans will not play a central theme. We all know why the 93% plays such a central role in AR5. It wasn't a point of emphasis in earlier IPCC reports. Why not? Surely the fact that the bulk of warming goes into the oceans isn't a new observation? No, it has always been the case that the ocean dominate the atmosphere in terms of heat content. However, in the recent IPCC report, they had to deal with the fact that air temps have been roughly flat over the last 17 years or so. Skeptics have pounced on this factoid, proclaiming it disproves global warming, even though it does nothing of the sort. However, climate scientists brought up the ocean warming issue as a way to explain how the system can warm, even if a small portion does not. Both sides are in the odd position of espousing a true statement, but neither statement means what they want their audience to think. 17 years of flat air temps does not disprove the science of global warming (though it provide a challenge to the modelers that hasn't yet been answered), while the ocean warming facklet fails to give an adequate explanation of how long wave radiation reflected in the atmosphere, manages to heat the ocean (and the lower layer, not the top layer) while not heating the air, and furthermore, why this should have changed over time. This is highly contentious and I doubt we will resolve it on these pages, but I don;t think we should be including a highly contentious piece of information that explains nothing so prominently in the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, not what I expected. I summarized all this for a research professor (not climate issues) in my family; their answer was that people often think science is about what is known, but what science is really about is learning enough to ask the next big question, then figuring out ways to answer it. While you may harbor personal doubt about the motivations and meaning in ocean warming's coverage in AR5, a quick look at the full WG1 chap 3 (oceans) and search on "since AR4" gives an overview of a heap of work that's been done. I suppose some eds might want to diss all that and the prominence given the issue in the every-7-year massive lit review represented by the IPCC assessment reports, but such editorial prejudices doesn't change what is stated in the RS. We ought not make our decisions on what is contentious, but on what is in the sources. And for that matter, not including this material is as contentious as including it, so that basis for decision making is canceled out. Answer: WP:FOC. The distribution of earth;s energy gain is a fundamental issue to this topic, so I'm not persuaded that either (a) fears of wikipedia contention or (b) speculation about hidden motives by the IPCC are reasons to omit this material from the draft. No doubt others will have various ways of supporting either perspective. Have at it, folks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can youtube vids be used as an RS? For the body of this or other article (not this lead) here is an excerpt on the subject of this sub-thread. It's just 3 min from a shipboard talk by Dr Steve Rintoul and includes, "When we talk about global warming, we're really talking about ocean warming in a real sense...." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Sphilbrick, what would you have predicted 24 years ago? When the FAR SPM p. xxvi said "the atmosphere is closely coupled to the oceans, so in order for the air to be warmed by the greenhouse effect, the oceans also have to be warmed, because of their thermal capacity this takes decades or centuries. This exchange of heat between atmosphere and ocean will act to slow down the temperature increase", and WG1 p. 76 "The ocean also plays an essential role in the global climate system. Over half of the solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is first absorbed by the ocean, where it is stored and redistributed by ocean currents before escaping to the atmosphere". Just wondering. . dave souza, talk 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

How timely. Today ClimateProgress blogger Joe Romm posted about the newly released "NOAA:State of the Climate 2013" saying "So the place where climate scientists predicted the overwhelming majority of the heat trapped by human emissions would end up is precisely where there has been rapid warming in the past 20 years." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr Steve Rintoul said we need to know what is happening to the ocean. No disagreement. He says 90% of the heat is going into the oceans. No disagreement. He also says that when we talk about global warming, we are talking about ocean warming. Sorry, not so fast. If the only things that was happening was ocean warming, it would be worth investigation, and discussion of mitigation, but the conversation would be quite different. Read the list of the hundreds of bad things happening or predicted to happen, and most are driven by air temps. Predictions of more tornadoes? Air. Glaciers melting? Air. Heat waves? Air. Species lost? Mostly air. Food crop dislocations? Air. Even hurricanes, which are clearly ocean related, are driven by surface temps, and the allegation is that the deep ocean is heating more than the surface. Someone is sure to misread this as an argument that global warming can be ignored, because it won't affect as much as we thought. Not at all. on the one hand, I am simply disagreeing with the glib equivalence of global warming with ocean warming. More importantly , but not yet addressed, is how can it be that the heat went into the oceans and the air for decades, and then suddenly decided to skip the air and just go into the deep ocean. We didn't have good ocean measurements until Argo, which means we really don't have much history. The models are getting better, but we still know less than we need to.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Eh? Predictions of more tornadoes? Air??? Thought air movement had a lot to do with ocean temps. What makes you think that the climate variability known about for more than 20 years can fairly be represented as "suddenly decided to skip the air and just go into the deep ocean"?? You seem to be making this up: your argument appears to be that misinformed people will misread things and ignore what's been stated in good sources, so we should mislead them by omitting info.. . . dave souza, talk 21:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dave souza:Dave I do not appreciate the suggestion I'm making something up. Please retract it. All of us can make mistakes, and if I have, I'll admit it. But claiming I'm making something up is a BIG DEAL. Be specific. which statement do you think is in error:

1. Tornadoes are more common when air temps are high
2. Tornadoes are more common when ocean temps below the surface are high
3. Ocean temps have increased over the past two decades
4. Air temps are roughly flat over the last 17 years
5. Something else?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Insert: @ Sphilbrick, you've asked for a retraction to my statement "You seem to be making this up", which applies both to the argument that the significance of ocean warming is only significant due to the "factlets", and the "factlets" themselves which lack any source. Whether intentionally or not, you're accusing most scientists involved in climatology of using ocean energy absorption to mislead the public, and I take strong exception to that. I've no idea if you made up these points or read them somewhere, as shown below the "tornados" argument does appear in fringe sources. Clarification of where you found these points would resolve this question, though perhaps this is trending to get offtopic so this is not something I'd insist on. . . dave souza, talk 14:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll jump in.

(A) By moving conflict mediation over user behavior to user talk, we can just WP:FOC as it applies to article improvement

(B) In this WP:FOC corner we have the RS known as IPCC AR5 WG1; and in that WP:FOC corner we have an ed's desire to ignore what that RS sought to trumpet due to the ed's RS-free opinion that it somehow isn't relevant or isn't interesting except to extent the ed thinks it "is being used to mislead".

Personally, my WP:FOC money's on the RS. I don't suppose we could move along now, and ask the ed behavior battle to move to user talk and make use of WP:THIRD if need be? After all, there were no RSs cited in any S' remarks, so its more FORUM than discussion of article improvement. And I participated in the FORUM too, so I'm not trying to slam on that account. Just sayin' we're afield from talking about making a better article based on RS content here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

First, I trust it is obvious that we aren't going to put everything from AR% in the article. By definition, or it would just be a reproduction of the document. Our job, as editors, is to extract what we judge to be the most important aspects of the report and incorporate them into a neutral summary of global warming. You think the ocean proportion is important, I think it is unimportant. At this point, I don't need an RS, because I'm not contending that the claim is false. I'm trying to explain why I think the factlet is unimportant; if you think my claims are false, I can supply an RS in support, but I haven't so far, because I don't think I've said anything that isn't well-known. So please let me know whether you think my argument is flawed, and why, and we can make progress. If you think the flaw is a matter of fact, I'll find an RS to support it. If you think there's an error of inference, we can discuss it. Fair?

I'll also ask you to explain why it belongs. The fact that it is true is not enough, as I hope I have demonstrated. It is a small interesting fact, and probably belongs in the article. (That, in itself, means it is more important than 99% of the material in the report, which is straight math—less than 1% of the stamens in AR5 get included in our article.) However, you want it, not just in the article, but in the opening paragraph, which means it must be in your view, one of the most important facts related to the subject.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"I think the factlet is unimportant; if you think my claims are false, I can supply an RS in support" If you want to change the RS-free claim into an RS-supported one.... whatcha waitin' for? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Sphilbrick, you opened your list of "bad things" with "Predictions of more tornadoes?" Having searched a bit, about the nearest I've found in reliable sources is TAR WG! SPM p. 5 "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed", and "climate models currently lack the spatial detail required to make confident projections. For example, very small-scale phenomena, such as thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail and lightning, are not simulated in climate models." It does seem to be a bit of a theme in fringe sources, so you appear to be arguing that we shouldn't show the science because deniers have misrepresented it in their attempts to mislead. Similarly, "Air temps are roughly flat over the last 17 years" is a cherry-picked misrepresentation of what's been called the global warming hiatus, where air temps have increased over the last 17 or so years, but not as quickly as over the preceding 17 years. Since the WMO period for defining climate has long been 30 years, not such a big deal, and no reason to bowdlerise the lead. . dave souza, talk 08:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"bowdlerise"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bowdlerise. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Speaking of timing, there's a paper coming out Monday which will identify some climate models which have correctly predicted recent sea surface temps. I don't know the name or the author, but will watch for it.

Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Any housekeeping ideas, to reduce the file size and duplication in refs section? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Prokaryotes

Small suggestion: "Global warming, also known as climate change, is the current warming of Earth's climate system and its related effects impacts."

I like this part now, "Multiple lines of scientific evidence".

Broad suggestion (need to acknowledge following parts): "Additions to Earth's energy budget in recent decades, from the increase in heat-trapping gases, is distributed into the Oceans (93%), melts the Cryosphere (deglaciation) and warmth continents and atmosphere." prokaryotes (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughts. My reply -

(A) Since our main article on that is EFFECTS of global warming, I'm not inclined to change to "impacts" unless you can show knock 'em dead RS or win consensus to change that article title.

(B) At least the way I envision it, the next paragraph would start talking about causes. If GHG were the only contributing factor, I might really like your approach, but it isn't the only contributing factor, and we recently had hot thread(s) about the need to mention the others. It would be messy to try to combine all the causes into the same sentence that desribes where the accumulated energy goes, so it makes more sense to me to cover causes in a new paragraph. It also makes more sense to separately talk about them, because that will lead into the summary of the policy debate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work.Rick Norwood (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote

Going back some years and used in NAEG v5-

Suggestions for tweaking

1. This article is about the current warming of the Earth's climate. For changes in climate in general, see Climate change. For other uses, see Climate change (disambiguation). --Nigelj (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
2. This article is about the current warming and current climate change on Earth. For changes in climate in general, see Climate change. For other uses, see Climate change (disambiguation). -- prokaryotes (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
3. This article is about the current change in Earth's climate. "Climate change" can also refer generally to either cooling or warming trends at any point in earth's history. Discussion of that general topic is at Climate change. For other uses see Global warming (disambiguation) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
4. This page is about the current warming of the Earth's climate system. "Climate change" can also refer generally to either cooling or warming trends at any point in earth's history. Discussion of that general topic is at Climate change. For other uses see Global warming (disambiguation)'' Number 4 is a combination of 1(first sentence), 3(second sentence), and related comments (change climate to "climate system") below.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion In suggestions 1 and 2, the first part was changed. Why? The first part seems perfectly fine to me, assuming our topic is the overall change in earth's climate now underway. Also, suggestions 1 and 2 still read just as weird to me when I read the hatnote together with sentence #1. Try doing that after erasing any past knowledge about this article from your brain. Even better, ask friends who don't know the article to try them out. We should be writing for those first-time article readers. What is the most clear for that audience? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The two reasons I changed the first part in #1 above were: (1) Good writing - less repetition of the word 'change' in close proximity and (2) thinking back to previous discussions about 'unequivocal', since we are going to continue on the basis that the climate is unequivocally warming, there is no reason to use an equivocal word like 'change' when we can unequivocally begin on the basis that the climate is currently 'warming'. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good idea. Can we change "climate" to "cimate system" (without italics of course) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Climate system" works for me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a 4th suggestion based these comments.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

References

References

1. "Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850." p.3, IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 3, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
2. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" p.2, IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 2, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
3. "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
4. ^ America's Climate Choices. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 2011. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-309-14585-5. The average temperature of the Earth's surface increased by about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of this warming occurring over just the past three decades.
5. • Hartmann, D. L.; Klein Tank, A. M. G.; Rusticucci, M.; Alexander, L. V.; Brönnimann, S.; Charabi, Y.; Dentener, F. J.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Easterling, D. R.; Kaplan, A.; Soden, B. J.; Thorne, P. W.; Wild, M.; Zhai, P. M. (2013), "Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface" (PDF), {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help), FAQ 2.1, "Evidence for a warming world comes from multiple independent climate indicators, from high up in the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. They include changes in surface, atmospheric and oceanic temperatures; glaciers; snow cover; sea ice; sea level and atmospheric water vapour. Scientists from all over the world have independently verified this evidence many times."
6. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" p.2, IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 2, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
7. "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
8. • Hartmann, D. L.; Klein Tank, A. M. G.; Rusticucci, M.; Alexander, L. V.; Brönnimann, S.; Charabi, Y.; Dentener, F. J.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Easterling, D. R.; Kaplan, A.; Soden, B. J.; Thorne, P. W.; Wild, M.; Zhai, P. M. (2013), "Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface" (PDF), {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help), FAQ 2.1, "Evidence for a warming world comes from multiple independent climate indicators, from high up in the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. They include changes in surface, atmospheric and oceanic temperatures; glaciers; snow cover; sea ice; sea level and atmospheric water vapour. Scientists from all over the world have independently verified this evidence many times."
9. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" p.2, IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 2, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
10. "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
11. • Hartmann, D. L.; Klein Tank, A. M. G.; Rusticucci, M.; Alexander, L. V.; Brönnimann, S.; Charabi, Y.; Dentener, F. J.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Easterling, D. R.; Kaplan, A.; Soden, B. J.; Thorne, P. W.; Wild, M.; Zhai, P. M. (2013), "Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface" (PDF), {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help), FAQ 2.1, "Evidence for a warming world comes from multiple independent climate indicators, from high up in the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. They include changes in surface, atmospheric and oceanic temperatures; glaciers; snow cover; sea ice; sea level and atmospheric water vapour. Scientists from all over the world have independently verified this evidence many times."
12. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" p.2, IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 2, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
13. "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
14. • Hartmann, D. L.; Klein Tank, A. M. G.; Rusticucci, M.; Alexander, L. V.; Brönnimann, S.; Charabi, Y.; Dentener, F. J.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Easterling, D. R.; Kaplan, A.; Soden, B. J.; Thorne, P. W.; Wild, M.; Zhai, P. M. (2013), "Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface" (PDF), {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help), FAQ 2.1, "Evidence for a warming world comes from multiple independent climate indicators, from high up in the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. They include changes in surface, atmospheric and oceanic temperatures; glaciers; snow cover; sea ice; sea level and atmospheric water vapour. Scientists from all over the world have independently verified this evidence many times."
15. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" p.2, IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 2, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
16. "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help).
17. Hartmann et al. 2013 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHartmannKlein_TankRusticucciAlexander2013 (help) http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf FAQ 2.1, "Evidence for a warming world comes from multiple independent climate indicators, from high up in the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. They include changes in surface, atmospheric and oceanic temperatures; glaciers; snow cover; sea ice; sea level and atmospheric water vapour. Scientists from all over the world have independently verified this evidence many times."
18. "Myth vs Facts..." EPA (US). 2013.The U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have each independently concluded that warming of the climate system in recent decades is 'unequivocal'. This conclusion is not drawn from any one source of data but is based on multiple lines of evidence, including three worldwide temperature datasets showing nearly identical warming trends as well as numerous other independent indicators of global warming (e.g., rising sea levels, shrinking Arctic sea ice).
19. Rhein et al. 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRheinRintoulAokiCampos2013 (help) p 257. "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) and warming of the continents and atmosphere account for the remainder of the change in energy."
20. IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 2, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 (help). "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia."

• 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
• Top-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change 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
• FA-Class Globalization articles
• High-importance Globalization articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press