Talk:Climate change/Archive 69

CO2 Fertilization
Possible addition, or to another article: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/06/04/the-co2-fertilization-effect-wont-deter-climate-change/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 10:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Q21 in the FAQ. --TS 02:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014
In the global warming article, 5th line, 10th word, which is a link-i.e., 'Greenhouse Gases', the spelling of gases if incorrect. Hence, it is my humble request to change the spelling of gases from 'gasses' to 'gases'. Thanking you Yours sincerely Vanaj Vidyan vanajvidyan@gmail.com

Vanaj Vidyan (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Gasses is an alternate spelling of gases. I don't see any evidence where either is preferred or has a strong national tie. Unless gases is used consistently throughout the rest of the article, I don't see a reason to change it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Change to lead sentence
Request for language change to match sources (AR4) Original: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are 95-100% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." To match sources (particularly AR4). Proposed: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Scientists are very extremely likely (> 95%) certain that more than half of the observed warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities." The current statement oversimplifies the causes and links observed temperature warming to the "very likely" statement which is incorrect. (i.e. there is not a 5% chance that it didn't warm, rather there is only a 5% chance that more than half of the observed warming is natural). "Primarily" is likewise synthesized from "most." I used "more than half" but "most" (> 50%) would match the "very likely" usage prebiously. I believe it is more accurate to use the defined language of AR4 for what "most", "likely" and "very likely" mean as AR4 already went through the "maths to words" experience and it becomes unnecessarily more vague to synthesize different language. I removed fossil fuel burning and deforestation as they are but a fraction of the total CO2 equivalents and are given undue weight from all anthropogenic causes. Concrete plants, methane production and water vapor are also, if not larger, CO2 equivalents likely to influence future warming (atmospheric lifetimes notwithstanding). Comments? --DHeyward (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks; At best if you push this you'll get us to up the certainty to 95% and add word "dominant" to coincide with AR5; There has been recent discussion of updating to AR5 but thus far we've been waiting for the expected January 2014 official release of the full report covering the physical science. (There will be two other installments on other aspects of the issue later.) The reason we were talking about updating in the first place is that the WG1 "Summary for Policymakers" has already been officially released.  At page 15 it says in a nutshell bubble "It is extremely likely (>95%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." (underlining supplied)  Unless there's some surprise change when the full report comes out, I expect we'll be tweaking text for AR5 at that time, but anyone can do it based on AR5 WG1 SPM (which I linked) if they want.  That happened already, I must have been asleep.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whence the need to clarify. They changed the word to "dominant" without changing the meaning .  It still means more than half.  The change was from 90% certainty to 95% certainty.  The fact that you highlighted "dominant" as being stronger language is a misunderstanding of what changed.

AR5 D3 section quote that supports "dominant" - ''It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}''
 * I have no problem with saying > 50% to clarify what "dominant" means. It's not a change from "most" though.  The substantive change from AR4 to AR5 was "very likely" to "extrememly likely".  "mostly" to "dominant" was neutral.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All of which are good reasons to wait for the final full report to be issued (in a few days, supposedly) so we don't end up rehashing matters do to wording tweaks in the official final document. And I didn't flag "predominant" as stronger but simply the verbiage that AR5 chose to emphasize above all else.  But I still think it makes sense to bide our time until the final-final-final official-final WG1 is out, so we don't go thru stuff now, and then find new things to include in a reopened debate a short time from now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you underlined the dominant cause, you suggested using quotes from AR5 SPM (and did so by using 95% confidence, instead of extremely likely). But you don't want to use > 50% for dominant even though the same source says "extremely likely" is > 95% and "dominant" is > 50% (same as "most" in AR4).  Using percentages is easier for everyone (which is why "extremely likely" should be > 95% (not even 95-100 should be used).  What's absolutely incorrect is to increase the confidence to 95% but keep "deforestation" and "fossil fuel burning".  That's mixing AR4 and AR5 and is incorrect. I'm not quite sure what you are objecting to.  The quote I cited was from AR5 SPM which is exactly where 95% comes from.  It's either all of it or none of it.  Mixing them is not an options.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On what page in this pdf is "dominant" defined, or are you just advocating >50% as a matter of editorial preference? Nevermind.  "More than half" is in the first bullet under the nutshell on page 15.  But the same bullet says that the best estimate of human GW is "similar to observed warming", at least since 1950.  Since theoretical human part is so close to observed overall, I feel that quoting "more than half" instead of quoting "dominant" plants seeds of error in reader's mind because one of these quotes would utter the word "half" and the other would not utter that word.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's clear you don't understand what they are saying. There are 3 items being discussed that form that statement. 1. The amount of warming attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases (likely 0.3 to 1.3C ).  2. The amount of cooling from anthropogenic causes (likely -0.6 to 0.1C).  3. Natural forcings (likely -0.1 to 0.1C).  The amount of warming attributed to greenhouse gases is larger than the amount of observed warming (0.6-0.7C) and is countered by the other forcings.  "Extremely likely" derives from the GHG forcing model tracking the observed temperature after subtracting the other two forcings.  That's where "similar to observed warming" comes from.  It tracks it when other forcings are removed.  The error in each individual forcing, however, means the magnitude of the tracked GHG contribution cannot be established beyond 50%.  Whence, at least 50% of the warming is from GHGs.  That's all it says. That is the scientific consensus in a nutshell.  "There is a 95% chance that there is a anthropogenic GHG signal in the observed temperature record in the last 50 years.  That signal is responsible for at least half of the observed warming in that time period."  OUr article should accurately reflect that because that is the scientific consensus in a nutshell.  Implying anything more than that, is incorrect and misrepresents what the source says.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you're talking about a 30-page summary of a 1000+ page report that hasn't even be released yet, this argument is premature. I'll be more interested in debating what this phrase and that phrase mean after we have the final-final WG1 full report that is abundantly cited in this 30-page summary.  Then we'll at least have the full deck of cards to argue about.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is fundamentally no different than AR4. It needs to be stated that way or it is wrong.  The difference between AR4 and AR5 is the change in confidence that the signal is present (90 to 95%).  The 50% of that warming being due to anthropogenic causes is unchanged.  Pick whether you want to say "90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for at least half of the observed warming" (AR4) or "95% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for at least half of the observed warming" (AR5).  That's the only difference.   --DHeyward (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah the old "pick one" trick. AR5 is cited after the sentence in question, so as it stands now, it is wrong - it contradicts the cited sources. The cited source says (P. 17), in a bold red emphasis box, "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of since 1750". As you know, we use the conclusions that the cited sources themselves draw to write Wikipedia text, not our own interpretations, or anything quote-mined from deep in the supporting text or diagrams. "The largest contribution to" we translate to "is primarily caused by" to avoid plagiarism, and to avoid the use of quotes in prose text. I see no problem with that. I'll put the article back to the cited version. If you have any suggestions for further improvement, maybe wait until you have discussed it with more than one editor, and please don't do it by issuing ultimatums. --Nigelj (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, it's not an ultimatum. "primarily" is 50%.  It's clearly in the the source.  Go read the SPM and this is about the .  It's not 95%-100% it's "greater than 95%" and while this is not significant distinction for lay people, it is for scientists and we should be accurat.  I have no problem with the source.  But the AR5 source says greater that 95% and more than 50%.  I was told to wait for AR5.  I have no preference of choosing AR4 over AR5, but we should use the percentages their language uses (like we almost did for "extremely likely" but not "primarily" or "mostly" which is 50%.  I will change to AR5 and you can see what it looks like.  The difference in the SPM is the increase in confidence that the signal is present but statistically there is no difference in the percentage attributed (> 50%)  See NEG and why he struck out his comment.  He saw the same thing and it's what the science of AR5 says.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Cut and paste from the source SPM AR5 - D3 bullet 1.
 * It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

--Source I didn't see anything on page 17 so please indicate what section you are referring to. DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I quoted a significant passage - more than enough for you to find with Ctrl-F. The conclusion I quoted was from the summary of the whole of Section C - 'Drivers of Climate Change'. I used the PDF page number; the page number printed on the page is 11. Choosing one bullet point from 33 pages is not the way to write a one-sentence summary for the first paragraph of the lede of this top-level article. This must be based on the summary authors' own summary, not ours. Per false precision free translations between "the largest contribution", "more than half" and "50%" do not result in three equivalent statements. In addition, Section C is about the 'Drivers of Climate Change' and the bullet point in Section D3, which you quote from, is about 'the observed increase in global average surface temperature'. As a lot of the intervening text makes clear, these are two separate topics, one important difference between them being the extensive effect of feedback mechanisms, and another being the varied distribution of heat into the upper and lower atmosphere, the surface and deep ocean waters, ice, etc. The sentence we are talking about used to be about "Warming [... which] is primarily caused by...", and is now about something else, which is far less clear. --Nigelj (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward, see AR5 WG1 SPM page 2, footnote 2, which reads
 * "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result.... Extremely Likely 95-100% ...." I admit the question of
 * >95% as opposed to 95-100%

is sort of a puny content dispute, but it does make me pause when evaluating remarks on the bigger issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)  PS  I belatedly realized that AR4's SPM says "extremely likely" is ">95%". So I suppose we could chalk this up to confusion over which SPM is being mentioned at any one time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

On "more than half", although the full WG1 report is not yet released (if I read the IPCC page correctly they think it will happen about Jan 30), a draft is online. It says at the bottom of each page "don't quote or cite" so I'm just posting this excerpt here as FYI. In the FAQ for chapter 10, in the draft they say
 * "The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that "it is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010."" (quotation in the original)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 5 January 201 (UTC)
 * @Nigelj, I assume you are questioning the attribution to fossil fuels and deforestation? I removed that and left anthropogenic greenhouse gasses per the source attributing change in temperature because this is presumably the article about surface warming ("Global warming").  Temperature changes are attibuted from a grouping of 3 separate forcings. CO2 is one component of one of those forcings.  Since this article is about warming, and not radiative forcing, and the fact that forcings of CO2 are attributed separately as a piece of all anthropogenic causes, calling out fossil fuels and land use changes and conflating it with the consensus on warming is incorrect.  IPCC does not do that in either AR4 or AR5.  Rather they have 3 forcings, 1) anthropogenic greenhouse gases, 2) anthropogenic cooling effects and 3) natural forcings.  They don't seperate out temperature increases observed in the world into CO2 and land use.  CO2 is part of AGHG. Land use albedo changes, particulate, soot, sulfur in fossil fuels, etc, are lumped into the anthropogenic cooling forcing (note that this forcing can be negative per AR5 most likely due to particulates).  The end result is that greater than half of the observed global surface warming is  attributable to anthropogenic causes with greater than a 95% confidence.  It is incorrect and a synthesis of data to say that CO2 and land use changes are responsible for that > 50% in surface temperature. Plagiarism is not an issue and red herring for writing inaccurate statements.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @NAEG, my only reason for >95% vs. 95%-100%, is that the scientists will almost always use it as a confidence interval. They seak the 95% confidence point and test the data (model) against it.  Other ways are as a tail of a probability density function.  The trap is to present the range as equally likely without knowing what statistics were used.  Therefore, while intuitively 95-100% encompasses the entire set, it is unknown where the drop is or how sensitive the test is which is why statisticians would specify only the percentage they tested against to avoid any inference that may not be supported. See confidence interval for more on why a specific notation may be preferred. --DHeyward (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to read any more long, citation-free screeds explaining global warming again to me and the world. Writing article text is easy: the hard part is choosing the best sources and the best parts of the chosen sources to summarise and paraphrase. For the last time: I say it is best to base this sentence on the summary to Section C in the AR5 document, not on any other bullet point or personal explanation. Here is is again: "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of since 1750." I'm prepared to discuss how best to summarise that, but I am not prepared to discuss the 'actual' mechanisms of global warming, nor how scientists work. --Nigelj (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can add that to a subsection I suppose but forcings, "fingerprints" and "global warming" are not the same. That's very clear.  The section pertaining to global surface temperature is the relevant section for this article and that is also very straight forward.  It's misleading to break out CO2 forcings from 1750.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Global Warming vs Climate Change Caused By Humans
It appears that this article should be titled Climate Change Caused By Humans. Let's also keep the politics and personal agendas out and stick with scientific facts, which by stating does not intend to validate the data interpretation within this article. All scientists have been advised at least once in their life to always question data and to theorize. As scientific history has shown, "facts" are not always facts. Let's keep with the science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.162.27 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific regarding the concerns you have? BlackHades (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead, whether to specify projected amount of further warming
Since the lead is supposed to avoid being overly-technical, I think it is problematic to attempt to explain the temperature ranges for different emission scenarios, or what will be Representative Concentration Pathways in AR5. We can't just take the low number from the low one and high number from the high one to SYNTH an overall range. (The archives have a lot of debate on that.) And the language we now use to describe the temp range projections is too complex for a lead (even though I helped draft it). SO INSTEAD, in the lead I think we should switch to text explaining that how much more it warms depends on net future emissions. I'll probably attempt some draft text, but first wanted to solicit some preliminary discussion on the issue. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only interesting part of RCP's are the upper and lower bounds of sea lecel rise. Because of the "pause" in measured surface temps but the continued increase in sea level rise, the upper limit of RCP8.5 of 1 meter of sea level rise is significant.  It is probably the most confident upper bound of any prediction. The surface temperature variation has a lot less confidence tan the sea level rise limits.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Climategate?
Any article on global warming that suppresses the data massaging at Britain's CRU clearly meets the definition of bias. It would be like discussing Ronald Regans Presidency without mentioning Iran/Contra (which I notice is covered on RR Wiki page.)

Come on boys. This is an encyclopedia not a political soapbox for your latest enviroscare. All legitimate sides of an issue should be covered. And I can't imagine that anyone thinks the the [word deleted] conspiracy uncovered at the CRU is unsubstantiated, "managed", but not unsubstantiated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoSheepDip (talk • contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

NoSheepDip (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * °Be polite, and welcoming to new users

°Assume good faith °Avoid personal attacks
 * Thanks HiLo, now I feel welcome.


 * Any editor, new or old, who turns up blatantly pushing a non-neutral POV with expressions like "your latest enviroscare" is deserving of little respect. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the repeated collapsing/uncollapsing is being discussed at AE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Time to archive
Per Talk, we should think about archiving when there's more than 10 threads or filesize exceeds 75k, which it does by nearly 30k. Since I've been in the thick of things, I'm gonna pass on deciding what to archive, but I hope someone else will take a crack at it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Add template
Can the requested template be added (once done) ? KVDP (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? We have the Keeling curve itself which is more informative.  Second, you defined a term called "winning" in a way that is not grounded in a reliable source or as a model of how climate would respond to reduced anthropogenic CO2.  If human caused GHG's went away tomorrow, that very small portion of the carbon cycle would be subject to balancing by other physical forces (i.e. How does an acidic ocean, a massive carbon reservoir,  respond to reduced atmospheric CO2,  Does it create a buffering source of CO2 that declines as slowly as it was added? I don't know. - And the ocean is just one of many of the climate systems that would respond.)   --DHeyward (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

FAQ Improvement
The current FAQ fails to answer the question as to why the main article is not considered in violation of Wikipedia policy by not mentioning controversy in the lead section.Slamond (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When you say 'controversy', what exactly are you referring to? — TPX 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that is clear. Large numbers of people think that talk radio hosts know more about global warming than scientists. The answer is: Wikipedia policy mentions genuine controversy, but not manufactured "controversy". For example, the article on vaccines does not mention the vaccines cause autism "controversy" in the lead. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The "autism theory" is not mentioned in the lead, and in general silly theories with no evidence should not be mentioned in scientific articles, though there may be a place for them in articles about current events. Second, there is not a "lot more scientific support" for doubts about global warming.  Ten years ago, there were a few dozen scientists who "doubted" global warming, but almost all of them have changed their minds due to a) the overwhelming increase in scientific evidence and b) the total lack of logic in the political discussion of the subject e.g. Fox News repeatedly telling their viewers that global warming is "only a theory", thus misrepresenting how scientists use the word "theory".  There is an article on the controversy, but this article is about the science. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

But articles gain more credence when they acknowledge the existence of other view points. Wikipedia is not a scientific document, bound by the Scientific Method. It is intended as a repository for information. The majority of Americans distrust scientific opinion when it is overwhelmingly funded by government. That is the nature of American Exceptionalism: to be skeptical of government. In 1930's Germany, 100% of the scientists agreed with the government's policies. I am open-minded to the science that proves Global Warming and my skepticism lies more within the realm of questioning whether it is a bad thing; considering the coming Ice Ages, et al. My overall point is that the article reads like a government brochure rather than a credible information source for the inquisitive among us. Slamond (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Which government? And sorry, but your Nazi reference both earns you a Godwin and is ahistorical nonsense. You might want to take a look at David Hilbert, Emmy Noether, Kurt Huber. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Change to opening sentence.
Just reading, "Global warming refers to an unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system" sounds a little ridiculous. I mean, do you really need to have "unequivocal" there? It's like whoever wrote it was trying to rub it in that they were right to someone who disagreed with them.

I request someone edit the line to the more neutral-sounding "Global warming refers to a rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system." Much more succinct and appropriate as the opening sentence the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.39.78 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an expression of the level of scientific certainty; IPCC AR5 WG1's big assessment report due out at the end of the month will be ~1000 pages; their summary is already out and is linked as the RS for the statement. The very first nutshell bubble of that summary of that 1000 page report begins as follows "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia."

- IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM p 2
 * Given the enormous amounts of money and energy spent in prior decades debating whether earth is warming up in the first place, when the international scientific community comes out and says there is so much data that part of the debate is now "unequivocal", including that in our coverage is not POV on our part, but rather is diligently reporting on the major aspects of the reliable sources of greatest WP:WEIGHT. So no, I'm opposed to removing the word the RS went out its way to trumpet in the first 10 words of the first nutshell bubble. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm actually with the IP on this one. I somehow missed that "unequivocal" got moved to the first sentence in the midst of all the tagging/untagging and hatting/unhatting of the past few weeks.  This is not okay for exactly the reasons pointed out by the IP.  It's not encyclopaedic to have the opening line of an article refer to its subject as unequivocal.  And it sounds like we're trying too hard.  And now the opening sentence doesn't really communicate that some warming has already happened.  I strongly suggest restoring the wording that was there before the new year and I'm sorely tempted to do it myself.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sails, I always love your thoughtfulness and r-a-r-e-l-y disagree (no wonder I love it and find it thoughtful!)  In that spirit, I'd love to see your mark up suggestions of what we should do, but I'd also love to see it here at talk.  I suggest doing it here instead of the article for the following reasons
 * (A) to avoid article-disruption while we work toward consensus,
 * (B) my opinion that it is hard to argue with the first nutshell on page 2 of the WG1 SPM. We've long treated IPCC assessments as the heaviest hitting of all RSs.
 * (C) to ask you to explain something I don't get. You say having this word in the first sentence is "unencyclopedic".  As you probably know, it is generally thought that "unencyclopedic" is an empty argument.  What I fail to understand is how the text of the second sentence, live since October 2011, can say "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal...."

- this version for example


 * but the new text based on the first nutshell bubble of AR5 WG1 SPM (page 2) can not say "Global warming refers to an unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system."
 * Seems entirely subjective to me, but I suppose I might not understand your opinion yet. Can you elaborate? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see the unequivocal point from both sides, and so could go either way on that at the moment. What I don't like is the refers to bit. I can't find it, but I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere that says that encyclopedia articles differ from dictionary entries in that they are about the subject itself, not about the words used in the title. I can't come up with somtheing better right now, but an old version, reproduced here for reference, read, "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation" --Nigelj (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so what about "Global warming is the unequivocal rise in the average temperature... etc etc"? After all, it is a key word in the first few words of the first sentence of the first nutshell bubble of the summary of the ~1000 page WG1 AR5 report.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know. That seems to beg the question as to whether or not global warming would be the slightly dubious rise, if the rise was indeed slightly dubious. It does sound like we're trying too hard. Maybe it's time to try a sentence that doesn't have global warming as the subject, or maybe doesn't even have global warming (WP:BOLDTITLE) at all. --Nigelj (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At that link, check out the Mississippi example. There is a bright red X on the parallel to "Global warming is a rise in temperature of the climate system, which scientists say is 'unequivocal'."  There is a bright green checkmark next to the parallel to "Global warming is among the most unequivocal scientific observations..." and that, more or less, is the proposed text based on the first nutshell of the SPM.  If you've got another approach, let's hear it!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with "The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011" is the straight repetition of each of the words of the title, immediately after having stated them apparently purely for the purpose of bolding them. Here, if we have an opening sentence whose subject is 'global warming' we need to get straight onto saying something definitive about it. "Global warming, since the 1950s, has led to many observed changes in the earth's climate that are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased." This is very close to the AR5 summary (the second sentence here is unchanged). However, I don't like has led to as there is no separation, but "GW is" seems awkward. Actually, that whole AR5 summary is perfect, if we go without bolding, but I assume that using it would be a copyvio, and I don't think we can start an article in quotes. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased"[AR5] --Nigelj (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Due to global warming, the earth's atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased. The warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." That's mostly just swapping the two sentences over. Still too close as WP:COPYVIO, but we could hack it about some more. --Nigelj (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is substantively different, but if enough of ya'll simply like it better, that text is faithful to AR5 SPM WG1 I suppose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So I had a gander at the SPM now and I have to admit I'm a bit surprised they don't actually have a summary of the summary. I.e. where they define global warming and climate change and the differences between them. Which is a bit surprising given that would be a crucial thing to convey to policy makers. Anyway, I think Nigel's suggestion might work. Here's my tweaked suggestion, where I built upon nigel's suggestion and added a bit about continuation (albeit a bit awkward): Basically, we need to hit the following points: My suggestion is still a little awkward. I deleted the unequivocal bit, but it could go back in. We do need to talk a bit about strength of the evidence in the lede, but I don't think in the lede paragraph, which should be mostly about defining the subject. For a good example, see how the wiki article on Evolution (the other famous "teach the controversy" punching bag) mentions the evidence (e.g. the fossil record) while not having to point out that the evidence is overwhelming. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Due to global warming, the earth's atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen, primarily due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over decades to millennia. This warming is predicted to continue, with the magnitude of future warming dependent largely on future greenhouse gas emissions."
 * It's already happening
 * Here are some of the manifestations
 * It'll continue
 * We done it
 * Thanks for working on this here. I'll post another approach in an outdented section, but my main comment is that it is hard to evaluate suggestions when we can't see what would be deleted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a possible alternative for the current first paragraph. I agree the first paragraph should define the subject, and the most important thing missing from most coverage is careful explanation whether the term "global warming" is being used to talk about surface temps or the overall climate system.  This will be especially true when WG1's final-final version is released at end of January, because it will talk about the "hiatus" (aka "global warming paused).... unless you look at the main energy repository - the ocean - where the RSs say there was no pause.  The dual usage of the term is a top-level part of the definition to establish right up front.  Accordingly, here's one way to address concerns that were raised about having "unequivocal" in the first sentence.....
 * Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's climate system, in which the oceans have stored 90% of the accumulated energy in recent decades. 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-change, with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.   Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.  Since 1998, the rate of warming of these surface temperatures has slowed, a phenomena sometimes called a "pause" or "hiatus" of warming surface temperatures.  Meanwhile, scientists say there has been no slowdown in ocean warming and describe warming of the overall climate system as "unequivocal". RSs for ocean warming might include....
 * Inside the warming hiatus: A 15-year pause for some regions and seasons, but not in the ocean
 * Global Warming 'Pause' Isn't What Climate Change Skeptics Say It Is
 * Climate change: The case of the missing heat

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, scientists say there has been no slowdown in ocean warming - no.  SPM page 6, bullet 4.  50/50 chance that ocean heat content from 0–700 m increased more slowly during 2003 to 2010 than during 1993 to 2002.  That ocean depth accounts for 60% net climate energy storage overall.  Again, more detail will be released with AR5 but it's a stretch to say that ocean warming hasn't slowed when scientists say there's a 50/50 chance that it has.  Certainly no consensus that it hasn't slowed and nothing that is juxtaposed against the pause/hiatus. Make sure you are comparing the right timeframes if you are taking about the last 10-15 years vs. the last 40. --DHeyward (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me that SPM differentiated between the different depths which I had forgotten, having been reading other sources. You neglected to pick the other cherry in that SPM paragraph, "Ocean heat uptake from 700–2000 m, where interannual variability is smaller, likely continued unabated from 1993 to 2009."  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh please. You have no idea what you are talking about.  Top 700 meters is where nearly all the warming happens.  To put it in perspective, the top 700m contribute nearly 10x to sea level rise than between 700-2000m.  Below 2000 meters, there's no measured warming trend.  They also changed sensors for the top 700 meters in the last decade.  It is completely inaccurate to claim that scientists have observed no slowdown in ocean warming during the pause/hiatus.  It's not a matter of cherrypicking, it's a statement of fact.  The only reason why it's 50/50 is the change in sensor, otherwise it would be "likely" that ocean warming has slowed.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll at least admit that I am interested in how others read the RSs also. We're better able to do that when we know what they all are.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, scientists say there has been no slowdown in ocean warming - this statement is still wrong and none of your sources support it, or the SPM or the upcoming AR5 when juxtaposed against the hiatus/pause.  Scientists don't say that at all.  There's lot's of theories as to why the oceans have behaved the way they are including depth, regional, hemispheric and seasonal hypotheses - but none say "that ocean warming continues unabated" especially after saying land temps are static.  Land models and measurements are also atmospheric, regional, hemispheric and seasonally dependent.  If you simply state that there is a worldwide average "pause/hiatus" in land temps, a similar phenomenon is observed in the ocean over roughly the same time period.  All the sources that have been listed say this.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Before this discussion wanders off into fairyland, I should note that official NOAA figures show a clear continuation in ocean warming:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Let's not start spouting nonsense when the facts are so easy to obtain. --TS 16:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's what the SPM says. "continues unabated" however is inaccurate.  Warming continues at a different rate.  It's not juxtaposed against the land temperature record as unobservable.  No one ever claimed ocean warming has been zero.  Let's try to stay out of fairyland that ocean warming has been decoupled from land warming.  I quoted what's in SPM and it's obvious in the graph:  50/50 chance that ocean heat content from 0–700 m increased more slowly during 2003 to 2010 than during 1993 to 2002.  Do you not see that?  --DHeyward (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the opening sentence (the topic of this thread), and indeed for most of the lede, we need do no more than summarise the red-box 'nutshell' summaries in the SPM. There is no need to start digging into the individual bullet points, let alone other sources or our own understanding of the science, the models or the sensors, to produce a top level summary of global warming for this top level article on the subject. This is not a blog or a forum for debating science. Has anyone else noticed that at seven paragraphs the lede is already far too long. It needs dramatically shortening to three or four paras (WP:LEADLENGTH) --Nigelj (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so "Meanwhile, ocean warming continues unabated" should be removed as a completely inaccurate synthesis. It's not in the nutshell summary, it's not supported by the bullets and it's not in the underlying research.  Where did it come from?  --22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Preach it brother Nigel, preach it! We can argue forever about details, and the details should all be in wikipedia somewhere.  But the lede should be a simple summary so that someone who's never studied global warming before (think high school student) broadly understands what it's all about.  For an introduction, the whole hiatus thing, ocean heat content or what have you is basically irrelevant.  Broadly, the intro paragraphs should be something like: 1.) simple lede (like I've suggested) 2.) History (Arrhenius -> Keeling -> IPCC) 3.) Observational evidence/previous warming (i.e. what it's done so far) 4.) Predicted future warming/emission pathways.  The current lede is too far bogged down in the details. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever gets axed, "global warming" is used to mean EITHER surface temps OR climate system overall. If you want a lead that gives a top level intro, it is imperative that BOTH MEANINGS make the cut, else the lead just tells one of the meanings but not the other.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Easily solved by replacing "earth's atmosphere and oceans" with "earth's climate" in my suggested lede. The climate article goes on to explain that it includes the lithosphere, atmosphere, cryosphere, and hydrosphere, so your concerns are covered without bloating the lede, but the nitpickers also can't claim we're leaving out the oceans.  Sailsbystars (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that "Global warming is the observed increase in the average surface temperatures across both land and ocean and its projected rise from anthropogenic greenhouse gases." That's about as simple as it needs to be.  The HADcrut and GISS datasets were created to measure it.  How those datasets are defined is the essence of the definition of global warming.  GW is generally expressed as a global temperature anomaly or global temperature change over time.  Everything else is measurements to support models, observations and theories about what drives the measured data observed in those datasets, or derivative effects.  The "climate system" seems to be more of a modeling concept with potentially varying degrees of complexity and coupling that's beyond "Global warming".  --DHeyward (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. That's a misleading statement.  Global warming is fundamentally about an energy imbalance created by increased GHG concentrations, and how Earth returns to equilibrium, which involved both the surface and subsurface and the cryosphere.  Surface temperature is one (important!) way of measuring the changes in the climate system, but should not be labelled as the sole definition of global warming.  Sailsbystars (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * I think you are conflating the broader topic of drivers of climate change with what is characterized as 'global warming.' GW is generally narrowly stated in terms of observed temperature and the temperature records.  Climate change has a number of related metrics.  The distinction is important in terms stating various levels of confidence with regard to what is changing, where, how fast, cause, etc.  Climate models define the various components you listed and try to reproduce the historical temperature record both spatially and temporally.  You are correct that the underlying interactions that drive surface warming are complex but it doesn't change how it is known and represented which is temperature at the surface.  See the category definition at  for the definition of climate change and global warming. --DHeyward (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to back you up on that? I've tried looking for a source to define global warming starting from pretty reliable sources, but most seem to avoid a definition one way or the other (the IPCC is particularly bad in this regard). This source supports your definition.  I would also point out something, of which you may not be aware, namely that the distinction between this article and climate change is that this article is about the current man-made climate change characterised by warming, whereas the climate change article is about climate changes in general, not just the current one (ostensibly).  Anthropogenic climate change redirects to this article, and perhaps it might be worth referring to that redirected name in the lede as well.  So basically, what I'm saying in a roundabout way, is that our current article deals with all aspects of the current warming, not just the surface temperature, so we either need to: change the name, remove anything that's not about the temperature, define in terms of the surface temperature, but make clear the interrerlation with oceans etc, or use a more expansive definition of global warming.  Sailsbystars (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are requesting. Category "Climate change" has been around quite awhile along with its definition. The established warming of 0.8C net increase to date has also been well-established. If the redirect for climate is wrong, please feel free to update it. 'Global warming', though, has always been about surface temperature measured by thermometers in both the past, present and future projections. HADcrut and GISS exist for this very purpose and their measurement units confirm it. IPCC is about climate change which is a broader topic that includes elements of modeling. A single temperature in degrees Celsius has always been the measurement for global warming. Other measurements of stored energy and flux are relegated to models and simulations of the climate system as it is perceived today. --DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From you source Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels. is accurate though I would either delete burning fossil fuels. (leaving by people) or add cement production which is very close to fossil fuels in terms of contribution to AGW.  Singling out fossil fuels over cement seems unwarranted.  Land use change is an order of magnitude less than fossil fuels and cement.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that the state of all the articles regarding climate change are rather pathetic. The comment way above about "fantasy land" explains why.  It seems that entrenched political positions have created blinders that don't allow scientific statements to be made without filtering.  I've pointed out a few of the statements that are factually inaccurate (and those with scientific backgrounds understand the distinction).  Those without, however, make the political statement before they make the scientific statement.  The definition of 'Global warming' only became complex when the politics and science diverged.  I'd submit that the definition ought not be submitted to such gyrations.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk about sources and not editors, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Since we are not a technical journal, but an encyclopedia, we need to explain that "global warming" is used in technical writing to mean a very limited metric (based on global surface temp) as well as the common English overall climate system warming. On the technical side, I'll add these RSs, which repeat the same limited-metric definition in terms of global surface temperature, (another technical term of art) But I agree with Sailsbystars that we're trying to report on contemporary warming of the overall climate system. I submit that IPCC AR4 and AR5 WG1 both imply that "global warming" refers to the systemic phenomena (not just surface temps) in their nutshell statements that "Warming of the climate system is "unquivocal". Then there is The current first paragraph was my attempt to address the two-meanings of the term, as we introduce the topic in the lead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IPCC AR4 WG3 Glossary "Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions. "
 * USA EPA glossary "Global Warming - The recent and ongoing global average increase in temperature near the Earths surface."]
 * RealClimate: What ocean heating reveals about global warming by Stefan Ramstorf "The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming...."
 * Comments on Stefan Rahmstorf’s Post at RealClimate “What ocean heating reveals about global warming” by Bob Tisdale, which starts off noting the different metrics used
 * "when we talk about 'global warming', we're really talking about ocean warming" - Dr Steve Rintoul, CSIRO, video


 * It's a tortured paragraph. "Despite the ocean?"  Do you really think it was misnamed?  "Despite the ocean," the rest of the paragraph, graphs and statements are about mean land+ocean surface temperatures.  There is a disambig note at the top.  Here's the category of "climate change"  Climate change refers to the variation in the Earth's greenhouse or regional climates over time. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere - or average weather - over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years. In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term "climate change" is often used to refer only to the ongoing changes in modern climate, including the average rise in surface temperature known as global warming..  I've bolded the hard part.  It doesn't have to be more complicated.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) Re Global warming definition, you cite something else in wikipedia which is not an RS; please just discuss the RSs (and lose the personal digs, 2nd request).
 * (B) Re First paragraphs stats on global surface temps, I'd be happy to move those sentences out of the lead to reduce lead details.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another RS to add to the list, An apparent hiatus in global warming?; Discussing multiple phenomena besides global surface temps they conclude "Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways."  So we have one set of RSs that give the techspeak technically limited definition, and another set that talks about it in terms of the overall climate system.  A NPOV presentation of these sources would explain both meanings. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you are seeing personal digs. Lead definitions are written in the WP voice.  The opening lead paragraph is tortured through various views about overall climate change components when it ought not be: "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 the mean global surface temperature has risen .  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 .  The term "global warming" is often used to describe the broad aspect of Climate change."  But here's NASA's take: .  They have a nice "Definition" box and explanation why it's just surface temperature and why WP shouldn't confuse the matter by usin GW when we mean CC.  Definitions - Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another. . --DHeyward (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When we finally do talk about RCPs, it will be SYNTH to manufacture a range by combining the low end of the likely range for the lowest RCP emissions pathway and the high end of the highest.  We made that mistake after AR4 and thoroughly debated the issue a year and half ago.  Meanwhile, DHeyward, do you explicitly deny the existence of RSs that talk of "global warming" as referring to the overall climate system, such as those linked above?  Do you explicitly deny the existence of a 2003 paper in Science, where the authors write "the popular term for the human influence on global climate is “global warming,” although it really means global heating, of which the observed global temperature increase is only one consequence"?   If you don't explicitly deny such RSs, how do you propose we deal with the fact that "global warming" has a WP:JARGON meaning, as well as a WP:COMMONNAME meaning?  You can't just point at "climate change" since that is prone to similar complaints that "climate change" doesn't necessarily mean on earth, or net positive forcings, or a contemporary process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DHeyward's suggested lead is I think a reasonable one, although I would add a bit more to the last sentence about the climatic changes induced by warming (e.g. sea level rise). NewsAndEventsGuy, I think DHeyward's last sentence addresses the fact that global warming and climate change are often conflated. I think things actually aren't too bad with the article if we tweak the section headings to identify the difference between global warming and resulting climate changes caused by global warming.  And perhaps add a section on changes caused by Co2, but not by warming (e.g. ocean acidification)  Not sure I agree that there are WP:SYN issues with using the low end of the lowest RCP and the high end of the highest RCP in the lede. In the article we should explain the ranges and the difference between modelling uncertainty and emission uncertainty. I also think the oceans would fit in nicely with a physics paragraph in the lede and section in the body of the article (oceans absorbing heat are why even though we're at crazy concentrations of CO2, we're not hitting the equivalent climates just yet).  Sailsbystars (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The biggest nutshell of the biggest RS of the greatest weight starts off with warming of the climate system, not just surface temps, so I'm vigorously opposed to starting off talking about a small metric of the total picture. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, and were that all the assessment reports said I would agree with you. But it also lacks an introduction (which bothers me to no end), and as I think you yourself pointed out, the AR4 glossary defines global warming in terms of surface temperature (does the AR5 glossary even exist yet?).  So I wouldn't read too much into it starting with the warming of the climate system.... This sort of thing is why I was talking about earlier that either the title for this article is inappropriate or we need to recast the article in terms of appropriately-defined "global warming" and it's resulting climate changes.... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Climate change is the appropriate place for warming of the climate system. It is quite clear that for fourty years, scientists have made distinctions between global warming and the broader climate system changes.  You were concerned about synthesizing something that AR5 doesn't say.  This is one of them.  "Global warming" didn't change it's definition in either the science or understanding so please don't synthesize a new definition.  The NASA source is a complete source dediocated to the definition and it explitly says what it is.  AR4 apparently does as well.  Read it.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer to stick to authoritative sources that define the term. NASA did it. It's all there with historical references. . As for ranges, that's for AR5 to decide what to report.  I don't "synth" anything nor do I need to find obscure ways to say simple things. Read the NASA reference. It explains what "Global warming" is and the distinction from "Climate change." It goes all the way back to the original use of the term in scientific literature. While individual papers can be sloppy with referring to "Global warming," WP does not have to be sloppy as we have articles on the relevant topics as is listed at the top of the page. NASA explains it all in that source. As a style, we should adopt their methodology as it is the scientific one used by our sources and avoids having to re-explain context with every element of climate change. I am not sure why you want exceptional uses of the phrase to be in the lead. It just makes it overly complicated. NASA's definition (in the Merriam Webster dictionary too) is Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. We can fill in a bit more but that's all we need to say.  Torturing it to mean the heat content of the ocean, is whimsical but not supported. Climate change, of which global warming is but a single metric, is the main topic where ocean heat storage belongs and can branch off from there. If people are confused about the difference/usage, we should correct it, not feed it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An aside to the above conversation, if we want to strictly follow IPCC convention... climate change=humans and climate variability=natural according to another page of the glossary. Personally, I would prefer we come up with a solution that doesn't involve completely rewriting three contentious articles... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AAAARRRGGGGGHHH but then they contradict themselves and say that climate variability can be caused by people too! this is what the IPCC authors make me want to acquire....  Sailsbystars (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @DHeyward, I once tried doing something similar vis-a-vis "global warming" and "climate change" though I think it was on a different article. Anyway, the subject has been discussed before here.  A quick check of archives on "climate change" produced this thread for one example.  See also our talk page FAQ #22. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And this edit by you. . You seemed to understand that NASA was authoritative then.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent that diff because I left with my approval text (based on the RSs) that under popular semantics, "climate change" and "global warming" are synonyms. Plus I was a newbie (3 months editing) who probably did not know about NOTJOURNAL, WP:COMMONNAME, nor the past consensus when this same issue was previously debated and eventually produced our FAQ 22.  Worth repeating - see NOTJOURNAL and WP:COMMONNAME.   You keep repeating your opinion that we should ignore NOTJOURNAL and embrace the scientific semantics of the phrase "global warming" to the exclusion of the popular meaning, but you haven't framed your opinion on the basis of any wikipedia policies or guidelines, just your desire to change the existing consensus (as expressed in FAQ 22).  Suppose you persuade us to embrace the scientific semantics of the term "global warming" such that we only talk about things specifically related to increasing global surface temperature, and shove all the rest over to "climate change".  How would that effect each of the subsections in Global warming, Climate change, and any other articles that would have to be modified?  In other words, to avoid disruptively restating/repeating/re-reviewing your opinion that we should do something-or-other based on the scientific meaning of the term, please formulate a comprehensive proposal so we know what you're talking about beyond the few paragraphs of the lead.  I acknowledge that is a large job, but it's your proposal to articulate beyond vaguely embracing the principle of following the technical meaning to the exclusion of the popular one. What's that gonna do to our articles overall? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I didn't misrepresent anything.  FAQ 22 doesn't support anything you said.  None of your references support your synthesis.  The FAQ cites a number of references that all refer to the increase in temperature when defining "global warming".  That's the colloquial meaning.  Not all the other climate change pheomena.  The scientific definition is more precise as defining "global warming" as the average surface sea and land temperatures, rather than just rising temperature.  Your arguments border on the absurd that IPCC should be extensively covered in "global warming" but not in the "Climate change" article despite the fact that CC is "Climate Change", it's a scientific document (not "commoner" document) and IPCC adheres to NASA's definition and distinction of the difference between the two.  You have no sources that say "climate change is global warming", rather you have specific articles that conflate the pause/hiatus of surface warming with climate change and attempt to correct the misconception that the "pause = climate change has stopped."  Please stop gyrating over what bloggers say and keep the articles concentrated on their topic.  IPCC deserves intensive coverage of all facets in "Climate change" and this article focuses on "Global warming" which is the most publicly visible of all the metrics of climate change.  It does not need to be redefined because a blogger says "Global warming has stopped."    Move on already.  This article should focus on "surface temps."  It has plenty of history, science, and data for a complete article.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just coming to the conversation and it's pretty large and circular. would you mind at this point summarizing your proposal edit please? Regards. Gaba (talk)  02:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "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 the mean global surface temperature has risen . 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 . The term "global warming" is often used to describe the broad aspect of Climate change." --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Take us thru the rest of the article, telling us whether each section can stay or go as currently presented, i.e., in an article about increasing global surface temps, can we have a section on feedbacks or computer models covering as much of the overall system as possible? Can we still talk about thermal expansion's contribution to sea level rise?  What do we do with the scope of climate change, for which long-standing consensus has been to have that article talk about the general concept regardless of geologic era?  Where do we put the assessment that 90% of the accumulated warming goes into the sea, or the RS that says "when we talk about global warming we're really talking about ocean warming" (linked elsewhere in thread).  Rattling off a few summary sentences without at least summarizing the implications in light of current context does not answer anyone's question, seems to me.
 * If the community dislikes my attempted lead rewrite (discussed in next subsection) another approach is to tweak the Dec 31 2013 lead for SPM 5 and and create a small sub-article specifically related to Global warming (technical meaning). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do we need it? We have IPCC reports and Climate change articles to cover it.  "Global warming" doesn't have "two meanings".  It has the scientific definition and then a misnomer for Climate change.  It's absurd to argue that IPCC results should be extensively covered in "Global warming" but not in "Climate change."  Really, the rest of the article would be about the measured metric, greenhouse gasses, history and projections.  Misnomers that refer to climate systems and climate change should be moved to articles that cover it and our header tells people where to go for that information.  Top italics: "This article is about the measured increase in the average surface temperature of the ocean and land. For general discussion of how the climate can change, see Climate change. For other uses, see Global warming (disambiguation)."  Why does this article have to cram all the other subjects into it?  It's very clear this article started properly with two graphs and charts on the right that hit the definition dead center.  It's ballooned into an absurd response to bloggers and the "pause/hiatus."   The definition did not change and the proper place to address climate change is in the climate change article.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? Because it's basic to good editing of major topics. See WP:SUMMARY. This is a top-level summary article. --Nigelj (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Attempted Lead Rewrite
When I last revised the lead, I preserved a lot of stuff that was there when I showed up, and a bit that was added over the next couple of years. Earlier today, in response to comments on Talk, I attempted a full rewrite, keeping nothing just because someone else had once liked it. Some of the text was recycled, and you can see what it looks like in this demo edit (which I have already self-reverted). I did not think about the images or whether they should be changed. To help discuss specifics here at talk, here is the text of the demo edit


 * Global warming is the popular term for the human influence on the earth's climate system.  Scientists are certain that the system is warming, and say that 90% of the added energy is being stored in the ocean.  The term "global warming" also has a technical meaning in the scientific literature, where it refers to increasing temperatures as measured at the surface of the land and sea.


 * According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is "extremely likely" (i.e., 95-100% certain) that human activities have been the dominant cause. The largest single contributor is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation.


 * The effects of global warming include rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and likely climate responses such as changes in the amount and timing of precipitation, desertification, and retreat of glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. Also likely are more extreme weather events including heat waves, droughts and heavy rainfall, as well as species extinction.  Effects significant to humans include the threat to food security from decreasing crop yields and the loss of habitat from inundation.


 * Researchers assess past climate change using geologic and other evidence, and project future climate change using computer models. These projections describe different possible futures in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and other factors.  Such work supports the mission of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose ultimate objective is to prevent dangerous climate change.  Possible policy responses to global warming include mitigation (i.e., prevention), adaptation to its effects, and climate engineering.

The result was a reduction in over 14,000 bytes. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. It's not a colloquial term.  It has a specific scientific meaning.  To the extent that people misunderstand it is not a reason to create your definition.  You are synthesizing a definition that has multiple sources all saying surface warming of the land and sea is the definition.  NASA has answered this specifically with the terms creation and use.  Even your "colloquial sources" which address only the hiatus/pause/whatever is incredulously undue weight and the start off acknowledging the scientific definition.  There is no need to come up with a new definition because of the hiatus/pause.  Climate change is larger in scope than surface temperature measurements and the contortions and gyrations to make them the same gives too much weight to the pause/hiatus and a complete ignorance of the history and scientific use of the term.  WP should strictly adhere to the sourced scientific definition for "global warming" and "climate change" and not merge them into a giant run-on sentence.  The article correctly has the global surface temperature as graphics because they are exactly what "global warming" is.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have provided RSs that describe "global warming" as a colloquial term as well as a scientific one. An RS that demonstrates this use is Mann & Kump's
 * "Dire Predictions - Understanding Global Warming: The illustrated guide to the findings of the IPCC".
 * which is not called
 * "Dire Predictions - Understanding Global Warming: The illustrated guide to increasing global surface temps"
 * One might dislike RSs that admit a dual meaning to this phrase, and one might despise so-called "sloppy" sources that use the phrase's colloquial meaning. That doesn't change the fact that both meanings are in the sources.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're citation in the article is "Modern Global Climate Change" from Science magazine. It doesn't even mention "Global warming" in the abstract and strictly follows scientific convention for "Climate change."  If anything, it supports the scientific naming, not your created colloquial naming which is abstract, vague and obtuse and not supported by reliable sources as a definition for "Global warming."  NASA and every scientific journal article does this and we should do the same.  "warming of the climate system" cannot and should not be synthesized into "Global warming."  You seem to have made that leap without support.  You again have synthesized that findings of the IPCC imply that it does not cover the scientific definition of "Global warming."  The IPCC certainly does cover land+sea temperature rise and predictions for it's continued rise and for the public, increase in surface temperature is the most visible aspect of climate change so addressing it would be perfectly valid.  Scientists use both terms with different meaning.  We could easily have papers "Understanding Sea level rise: The illustrated guide to the findings of the IPCC" and no one would bat an eye because, like Global warming, Sea level rise is a consequence of climate change.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I thought we buried the land use nonsense on Connelly's talk page? The equivalent statement about sulfur in coal highlights the logical fallacy of synthesis as well as the complete synthesis of a relationship not supported by AR5 as cited.  Climate change is driven by greenhouse gases.  Land use change contribute greenhouse gases.  They are both separately true statement.  But the net effect is "as likely as not" to cause climate change.  Just like "Sulfur in the atmosphere is a source of cooling" and "burning coal is a major source of sulfur in the atmosphere" (both of those statements are true) we cannot synthesize that burning coal is a major cooling effect.  Neither of the synthesis statements (land use and warming, coal burning and cooling) are supported by AR5.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At wmc's page, I said the opposite but more importantly.... Please follow WP:MULTI by continuing this discussion at its primary locationNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is politicization of a Wikipedia page, poignantly illustrated by the Warmist editorializing in the first sentence, that prevents Wikipedia from being accepted as a credible, objective source on this subject. Boulder "Denier"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.218.19 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Good time to return to the lead section
FYI The Core Contest NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Global warming is a WP:Featured article so it is not eligible in that contest. --Kim D. Petersen 02:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure enough, my bad. Thanks for catching that. Still, we had some discussion happening.  So.... now what?  Anyone?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some day if I ever have free time again, I'll make a userspace draft to try to clear up the current mess of usage involving climate change/global warming. That day is not today....  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a long thread, but it's an important topic. It looks like NewsAndEventsGuy has proposed two rewrites for the first paragraph or two. FWIW, although I don't think they're perfect, I think either of those rewrites is better than what's currently in the article. 107.3.156.34 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Are these three things lacking?
Potentially Ambiguous or Inconsistent Observations This article is currently difficult to read in the following sense. The typical reader, for better or worse, is aware through the mainstream media and elsewhere that not 100% of the observations about this topic support the conclusion. Many readers look to Wikipedia to present references and links to original source material on both sides of an issue. If there are references and links in this article to data and studies that might be ambiguous or do not fully support the conclusion, they are quite cumbersome to identify here. By Wikipedia standards I would have expected to find a section in the article titled something like "potentially ambiguous observations" or "potentially inconsistent data," but I don't see that here. I also can't find this type of information presented in a Wikipedia-friendly way on any of the "see also" or "disambiguation" links. Yes, there's an article about the public debate, but not a good Wikipedia-style write-up of the data and observations that are possibly ambiguous or inconsistent. "Anthropogenesis" There's no question of the importance of the topic in this article and elsewhere of anthropogenic factors in climate change, i.e. human influences on the climate. If I were reading a typical Wikipedia article I would expect to have a major heading called something like "anthropogenesis" or "anthropogenic factors in climate change." With such a big topic, most readers probably expect a separate Wikipedia article with a section heading here linking to that. Indeed, I tried searching for the topic and was surprised what I found -- nothing related to climate, but a redirect to an article on "homonization," "the process of becoming human." :) Similarly, searching for "anthropogenic climate change" brings the reader to this page which deals with much more than just anthropogenic factors.  Additionally, none of the "see also" or disambiguate links provide much useful material on the topic.  The article on "climate change," for example, has just one section entitled "human influences" that is predominantly one long quote.  In keeping with Wikipedia standards, I would expect a section heading and/or separate article with that title, at the very least cross-referencing to other articles and/or sections. Other possible causes besides humans Wikipedia is generally reader friendly for users who are well read.  In this context, readers are likely already aware that much/most/almost all of the data on climate change points to the human influences as the main source.  What many readers are looking for, and by Wikipedia standards would ordinarily find, is a convenient way to read about alternative viewpoints and hypotheses. Unfortunately, as currently written, while this article might have some of this information scattered under various headings and subheadings, there's no convenient place to get this type of information in an easily readable format. On other topics in Wikipedia, even, nay especially, controversial ones, there's often a page or at least a heading labeled something like "alternative viewpoints" or "alternative theories." The absence of that here keeps the article from living up to the high standards many have come to expect of Wikipedia. Similarly, none of the "see also" or disambiguate pages have this information. There is a page on the "global warming controversy," but that is about the "public debate" not the observations and theories, and, in any event, alternatives are relegated to scattered remarks in a long section on the "mainstream position." I propose a new section and/or page presenting this information in a format many Wikipedia users are familiar with. 107.3.156.34 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * People just make up all sorts of things, but what you read in the article is a discussion of the issue as you will find it discussed in what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. If you make a specific proposal that isn't base don handwaving, but is rather based on what wikipedia defines as reliable sources then we can discuss it.  As for "anthropogenisis" if you searched for that and arrived at an article about human origins, that is a good thing, because that's what that word means.  As for searching variants of the more relevant term "anthropogenic" and eventually finding your way here, note that the section on initial causes it says that the article that focuses specifically on causes of the current global warming is Attribution of climate change.  If there is an easier way to help people navigate to that article, we're open to suggestions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is about sources being objectively reliable. I was curious so I looked at one of the primary sources relied upon throughout this article, the 2013 IPCC Climate Change report. The IPCC is cited in six out of the first ten footnotes to the current Wikipedia article and shows up extensively in the body of the article and the remaining 233 footnotes.  What I found in the 2013 report was more nuanced than the way it's currently described.  For example, from the article, I would have had little idea that the IPCC defines guidelines about how it uses words like "likely," "very likely," and "almost certain" in virtually every aspect of the report, and that "likely" can be as low as 66%.  This suggests that I was right to say that "[t]he typical reader, for better or worse, is aware through the mainstream media and elsewhere that not 100% of the observations about this topic support the conclusion."


 * But even more to the point was an entire section of the IPCC report that's a potential start for some of the topics above that are lacking. Section TS.6 of the report is a "short overview of the key uncertainties in the understanding of the climate system and the ability to project changes in response to anthropogenic influences."  The title of that section of the report is "Key Uncertainties."  In it are about two dozen bullet pointed items including:


 * "On a global scale the mass loss from melting at calving fronts and iceberg calving are not yet comprehensively assessed. The largest uncertainty in estimated mass loss from glaciers comes from the Antarctic, and the observational record of ice–ocean interactions around both ice sheets remains poor."


 * "Observational uncertainties for climate variables other than temperature ... continue to hamper attribution of changes in many aspects of the climate system."


 * "There is low confidence in semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea level rise, and no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability."


 * If this is what I find in one of the main references for the article, I imagine there's a lot more material that would be relevant from other reliable sources. Again, I think the typical reader is looking for clear section headings and/or pages that address the "potentially ambiguous or inconsistent data and observations" and "other possible causes besides human."  Without those or something like it I think readers would sense something about this article is not living up to Wikipedia's reputation for thoroughness and reliability. 107.3.156.34 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The TS.6 section (a technical summary actually) is a mere one and a half pages long section in a report of over 1500 pages. We'd have to be very careful so as not to breach WP:UNDUE. Would you like to propose an edit to the article mentioning some of these uncertainties? Feel free to add as many reliable sources as you can find. If you present it here we can discuss it to see what could be a proper way to present the information you propose. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  12:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The comparison of the length of TS.6 to "1500 pages" is inapt. First, section TS.6 is written as a sub-section of an 80 page summary of the entire report.  Second, section TS.6 explicitly states:


 * "This final section of the Technical Summary provides readers with a short overview of key uncertainties in the understanding of the climate system and the ability to project changes in response to anthropogenic influences. The overview is not comprehensive and does not describe in detail the basis for these findings. These are found in the main body of this Technical Summary and in the underlying chapters to which each bullet points in the curly brackets."


 * Third, other parts of the technical summary besides TS.6 include "uncertainties." For example, the second page of the report summary, front-and-center in section TS.1, is dedicated entirely to the "Treatment of Uncertainty." And here are just a few other examples in the report summary outside TS.6 and TS.1:


 * P. 112, "There continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale over the instrumental record."


 * P. 112, "Compelling arguments both for and against significant increases in the land area affected by drought and/or dryness since the mid-20th century have resulted in a low confidence assessment of observed and attributable large-scale trends."


 * P. 76, "[T]here is still no universal strategy for transferring a model’s past performance to a relative weight of this model in a multi-model-ensemble mean of climate projections."


 * And these are just a few from just the summary of the IPCC report that is relied on extensively. Yet, nothing similar to these show up in the Wikipedia article, or at least not in a way that's practically noticeable.  Again, on this topic, as well as many others, Wikipedia readers expect to see clear major section headings entitled something like "ambiguous or inconsistent observations and data" and "other possible causes besides anthropogenesis."  107.3.156.34 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT I've yet to see a proposed edit. When you have one, please present it and we can discuss further. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like at least one of the statements I made earlier was even more on target than I thought. I had guessed that "[t]he typical reader, for better or worse, is aware through the mainstream media and elsewhere that not 100% of the observations about this topic support the conclusion." I was curious so I did a simple web search for "IPCC" (whose reports are heavily relied on here) and "dissent."  The search resulted in all sorts of material that's not even hinted at in this Wikipedia article.  Here's just one:


 * U.S. Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee "U.S. Senate Minority Report" is a 231 page document identifying 650 scientists by name who dissent from claims made in the IPCC report so heavily relied upon here, with hundreds of attributed quotes and citations. Yet I doubt a typical reader could readily find a single hint in the Wikipedia article that any of those scientists, quotes or citations exist.  :)  And what of readers who are familiar with this report and others?  Do you think they will think that none of the 650 scientists and numerous citations in that report or other reports is WP:Reliable?  :)  Or that everything there breaches WP:Undue?  :)  Or that all the scientists suddenly changed their minds in the last couple of years and collectively retracted their quotes, making the inclusion of their historically preserved quotes a violation of some other WP:POLICY?


 * Before commenting on some reason or other why this particular one item should or should not be included, recognize that this is just one source I found. Also, this document is a compilation of quotes, names and other material, not a political discourse.  More importantly, you don't have to convince me one way or another.  Reports and data like this are out there and many readers will be looking to easily find something that addresses the material that's identified above as lacking from the article.


 * I welcome others to WP:SOFIXIT to maintain the reputation of Wikipedia as thorough and reliable. Though I think the article needs, at the least, two more prominent section headings as I stated twice above, perhaps the following can be a first step.  Add a new Section 5 between current Sections 5 and 6 entitled "Uncertainties in Observations and Projections of the Climate System" (note the almost identical wording to actual headings used in the IPCC report which is relied on extensively in this Wikipedia article).  I suggest Admins be on board that this section is to clearly present the uncertainties for readers who are expecting this type of information, not to reiterate material that's elsewhere in the article.  Then, start the section something like, "Throughout many of its reports on the topic, the IPCC identifies uncertainties in (a) observations of changes in the climate system, (b) drivers of climate change, (c) understanding the climate system and its recent changes, and (d) projections of global and regional climate change" (note the verbatim language from that used in the IPCC report).  Then, add a sentence something like, "Some examples of the 'uncertainties' identified by IPCC are the following:."  Then add the six bullet point quotes above in this thread taken directly from the IPCC report and copy them into the new Section 5.  107.3.156.34 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You still haven't actually provided us with a citation we can actually look up and read for ourselves.  You aren't talking about Morano's congressional rhetoric by any chance? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm? These are quotes directly from the IPCC report that is extensively and repeatedly WP:CITEd in the current Wikipedia article. Citation #2, citation #3, citation #5 and citation #7 are just a few of the many uses of the source.  Just look at any of those footnotes.  Until I read through on your link, I wasn't familiar with the congressional rhetoric you're talking about, and I actually don't know what difference it would make to our discussions here.  But back on track, my paragraph just above yours is about the IPCC report.  107.3.156.34 (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Follow-on comment: looking into the link NewsAndEventsGuy provided, I noticed on Alexa that the web site for Morano, which I was previously unfamiliar with, climatedepot.com, started rising dramatically in popularity in the middle of 2013. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climatedepot.com .  No doubt even more people are coming to Wikipedia looking for this type of information, and not finding it they'll likely start to reconsider Wikipedia's reputation.  I encourage something like the proposal I made three paragraphs back, relying at least on the IPCC report, at least as a stopgap.  107.3.156.34 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 107 WP is a collaborative endeavour and you are very welcome to joint it. Present a specific edit proposal and we can help/discuss/amend/etc. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  03:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

FAQ 1 answer
The consensus is that the measured warming has a human component without regard to magnitude. The 97% cited states this in no uncertain terms and is not the same as IPCC. The answer convolves three separate areas into one misleading answer. 1). The IPCC report is a collection of research but research advances every day. There are various levels of agreement and disagreement stated in the report. 2). The "97%" is simply the implicit and explicit declarations that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's it and is plainly stated in the survey. 97% of papers agreed that a net addition of CO2 by humans would cause warming, no matter how small. "97%" and "IPCC report" are completely unrelated. 3). Nearly all scientists would agree that adding CO2 is a net warming forcing even those on the list of scientists that oppose the mainstream consensus.  The loosely defined term of consensus needs more work in the FAQ and IPCC, 97% and those opposed to the mainstream consensus need to be deconvolved.  Virtually all the scientists that are listed in the "oppose" article are in the 97% category that agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  --04:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you start by following the reference link given in the FAQ answer, then reading the two papers that are referenced there: and . You will see that the papers are quite clear on the points that worry you, stating for example, "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". --Nigelj (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am reminded of a reference to a Cox paper, which appeared in a rebuttal op-ed in defense of |this bit of open-access research into the level of consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should be reminded of it because there is a consensus. It's just not what has been expressed.  Cook is correct, the FAQ is not. If you want an analogy to tobacco, inhaling smoke from any burning plant material is carcinogenic.  Now try to extrapolate/conflate that with smoking marijuana.  There is overwhelming evidence that inhaling smoke from burning plant material is carcinogenic but it's not been extrapolated to marijuana use.  You may try to overreach and conflate the two topics as has been done here but I doubt you'd be successful.  The science is what it is and WP is not the place to synthesize correlations.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose one with a strong feeling on the matter could propose a revised answer for us to critique....... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read them both. One is restricted to researchers of 20 or more papers in climate fields (that was for IPCC), the other was not IPCC, and neither of them are related the criteria for the list of scientists that oppose consensus.  They've been conflated in that answer.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the answer conflates two things that aren't quite the same. I also agree with NAEG that someone ought to propose better wording. I briefly considered it, but came up with nothing helpful. Frankly, it probably isn't worth the effort.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Although the FAQ may not get that much traffic, we should strive for some consistency between it and other things that might be read by more people. So a quikie list of related sections, that should be fairly consistent, is - NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * FAQ Q# 1
 * Global_warming
 * Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 * Any other sections?
 * Unfortunately, without much consensus, the definition of "global warming" in the article was changed. The scientific definition of "global warming" is the net warming of global sea and land surface temperatures as measured by multiple sources such as Hadcrut and NASA GISS.  Now the article says that it has a colloquial definition that is neither robust or scientific (mostly to address the so-called pause, which has nothing to do with the record).  If the definition were changed back to the scientific meaning demonstrated in all of the literature, the FAQ #1 could be easily rewritten.  But the current "colloquial" definition has no sources for consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Do aerosols cancel out warming effect of CO2?
Sorry if I missed a discussion on this point somewhere above. Included in the text of the article in the section on soot and aerosols is a statement which is at odds with the idea that CO2 has been responsible for ANY warming in the last few decades:

"The effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion – CO2 and aerosols – have largely offset one another in recent decades, so that net warming has been due to the increase in non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane.[99]"

71.8.61.207 (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Jesse


 * CO2 is one of the causes of warming. Aerosols are a cause of cooling. Their effects roughly balance out (according to some sources). This means that CO2 DOES cause warming, but the combined effect of CO2 and aerosols is little warming. Don't mix up raw effect and net effect. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that this is a temporary state of things - the relevant aerosols have a short atmospheric life time, so their level tracks emissions, i.e. it changes quickly with emissions. CO 2 has a long atmospheric lifetime, so it accumulates over human-relevant lifetimes - a significant fraction of 1960s CO2 is still contributing to global warming today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting some eyes on it. As it turns out, the source uses the phrase "partially offsetting" (emphasis mine).  I have made that simple change; but the source was a paper in 2000, so the whole thing should be reexamined in light of AR5 and whatever other recent research applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't really like presenting things that way. It is rather simplistic and just because one can group the negative and positive terms in a variety of ways doesn't mean you should blame the remainder.  It is true in a certain sense that aerosol and CO2 effects roughly balance out, provided you care about global averages (it is not generally true locally) and you don't worry too much about the large uncertainties.  However, it is also true that the net effect of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone is about equal to the net direct and indirect effect of aerosols.  Using that group one might equally well say "The effect of non-CO2 pollution - other greenhouse gases and aerosols - have largely offset one another, so that the net warming has been due only to the increase in CO2."  That's equally true-ish, but describes the net effects very differently.  Either way of grouping terms and describing the overall effect as "due" to only the remainder involves a simplification, when in reality we need to pay attention to the evolution of all the major forcing components.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Dragons flight. It reminds me of a trope in sports stories, such as basketball. Two teams, each with a notable star play each other, and the stars contributions roughly match. It is common for the report to emphasize some third player as being the difference in the game. OK yeah, I get it, but if either of the top two stars were missing or ineffective, it would have been more important. It is misleading (while forgivable in sports stories) to suggest that the third item is the "cause".-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree but the real question is "How do we improve the article in this regard and on what basis?" For starters, there is a whole section on Aerosols in the AR5 WG1 technical summary, but I haven't tried to digest it yet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * RE: "Thanks for getting some eyes on it."  You're welcome.  Your simple edit was apropos.

Comment: luv the thought provoking analogies above. LOL

However, in response to comments about the effects of aerosols and non-CO2 gases: 1. Aerosols and CO2 that are produced together belong together. 2. From an editorial standpoint, it is easy to state that the effect of Aerosols is short-lived while that of CO2 is longer-lasting. No Problem (says me). 3 CH4 may be a star player in this game. Or, more accurately, CO2 is a trigger and CH4 is the bullet. A short-lived spike in temperatures of several degrees Celcius due to major releases of CH4 from the Arctic or continental shelves is nothing to sneeze at. (No citations provided at this time. I don't expect anything to be written.) 4. Given that the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers targets CO2 output levels for reduction in order to reduce future warming, 5. Some nations have responded by favoring CH4 over coal for energy production. 6. Accompanying increases in releases of CH4 during production, storage and use may result and may cause more warming than the extra CO2 would have caused. The bullet, CH4, may be it's own trigger. 7. Are we making things worse by using the Summary's emphasis on CO2 and by [unintentionally] downplaying the role of CH4? 8. While I worry about the methane problem, there is some solace to be found in that the temperature spikes caused by methane releases were exactly that--spikes. The spikes involved short term positive feedback cycles that resolved. [citations needed, I know]. Why is this important? It suggests that warming of the globe will NOT initiate a longer-term positive feedback cycle that involves water vapor. The spikes themselves should be horrible for man and the underlying warming trend in which the methane spikes appear should continue after the spikes resolve. 8. Generally speaking, the IPCC report should be a better source than is the Summary of same. The original sources used in the report would be even better. 9. Thousands of pages... I am willing to read a few hundreds of pages if interested parties should send them to me. Let me know. 10. Also, I will read through the IPCC section on aerosols if someone can convince me to do it. 11. There may be too much "thinking out loud" with nothing to contribute in my ramblings. 71.8.61.207 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Jesse

"Burning fossil fuels and deforestation" in lead
There's been some debate about using that phrase in the lead. For a long time, (2 years?) there has been no WP:LEADCITE, but the body text does support it, with a citation to TAR (2000). AR5 WG1 SPM identifies several things, but also says the dominant contributor is the buildup of greenhouse gas, especially CO2 since 1750. Maybe we can make something of that. In any case, if "Burning fossil fuels and deforestation" goes back into the lead, it should do so in a way that does not take an ax to all AR5 WG1 SPM references.... so add proposed text back manually please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AR5 WG1 SPM says, in the summary to section B5 (P. 9), "Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions." AR4 (cited at the end of the relevant sentence, but not in the quote used in the &lt;ref>) says in bold, "Global increases in concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution." We should base article text (especially in a lead summary) on the conclusions drawn by the cited source's authors, not by trawling around in the raw data, the sub-bullet points, or the diagrams, for snippets. Therefore, I would say that the only debate is whether to replace "deforestation" by "net land use change". I suggest that we should make it clear that we are talking about the cause of  concentration increases, and use a phrase very close to "primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions". --Nigelj (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good, thanks. I totally agree.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's in the "forcings" section of the report. It's not warming.  Forcings correlate to warming but are not the same.  If you look at the AR4 section on warming (and the title is "Global Warming" not net energy forcings), it's anthropogenic green house gases, including methane and water vapor, that are attributed for more than half the warming.  It's not burning of fossil fuels or cement plants (try to find the difference) or land use changes (which in AR5 are a cooling, not a warming effect).  It is pure synthesis to attribute a number (0.3 to 0.7C in the last 50 years) to 2 causes.  It's rubbish.  IPCC does not attribute any amount of warming to the singular effect of fossil fuel burning.  It's fair to discuss the various forcings in the body, but fossil fuel burning associated with a specific amount of warming is not.  Therefore, it's not a lead item in article global warming--DHeyward (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from forcings, the other things that affect global temperatures are mostly feedbacks. Water vapour, methane released due to warming tundra etc, and changes in albedo due to melting ice, are as much effects of the initial forcings as they are causes of further warming in their own rights. The sentence is about the main cause, and the sources say that main cause is the main source of, i.e. human activity. Forcings cause global warming, feedbacks are part of the response, and cause further effects – usually more warming although negative feedback loops do also exist. --Nigelj (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But we can try and prevent these causes, for example: Litering might not seem like a big deal to cause global warming. But it is. If you were to liter. Eventually it will evaporate. Turning into CO2 producing heat melting the poles. And if that happens the world could come to an end. Scientists predict that in 3010, about 1000 years from now the whole world will be covered in snow. Beacause once all the poles melt away do to our carelessness. The world will be flooded with cold water. But there wont be and factroys to produce green house gasses anymore so the water will simply freeze over the continents. Converting this world into an icy wasteland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.61.207 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 February 2014‎
 * It's all modeled as a forcing. The citation for the wording doesn't support it.  Cement plants are nearly half the source of man-made direct CO2.   Land use change including deforestation is modeled as a net cooling effect. Read the citation for that sentence and find the table.  It's anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the sum that is responsible for warming.  It's countered by anthropogenic cooling.  Natural variation is modeled as near 0.  This why warming tracks forcing but warming is not forcing.  Without cooling offsets like land use changes, the observed increase in surface temperature is estimated to be nearly double the current observed amount.  It's simply incorrect to call out fossil fuel burning (a definite component of warming, but not whole) and deforestation (modeled as a net cooling).  Tundra exposure is not deforestation.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AR5 WG1 SPM says
 * land-use-related albedo change is somewhat cooling, but it also references
 * land-use-related greenhouse gases buildup, though it seems to stop short of directly connecting the dots to compare to albedo change without wikipedia editors doing original research.
 * So why do keep saying IPCC claims "land use is cooling"?


 * At any rate, if AR5 WG1 draft paragraph 6.3.1 (CO2 Emissions and Their Fate Since 1750) survives until official publication we can probably say ""...human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, cement production, and land use changes (mainly deforestation).''"
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ar5 SPM page 12, chart SPM.5. Seconde to last line in the chart and the last anthropogenic item.  Called "Albedo change due to land use" -0.15 W m-2.  That's the forcing. There's also a temperature chart in the WG details.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the statement behind the chart in the document we can't cite (another reason not to even mention it). . Chapter 8-4 (page 6 in the PDF).  They discuss whether the CO2 contribution of land use change offsets albedo changes of land use (the difference is the net effect of land use change).  Bolding is theirs.  Basically, it says "keep it out" as albedo is cooling and the net change of whether it's overall a cooling or warming effect has low agreement.  They keep the albedo in the forcing models and any change to GHG's are lumped into the larger forcing.  No support for saying that land use change contributes to global warming.
 * There is robust evidence that anthropogenic land use change has increased the land surface albedo, which leads to a RF of -0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2
 * . There is still a large spread of estimates due to different assumptions for the albedo of natural and managed surfaces and the fraction of land use changes before 1750. Land use change causes additional modifications that are not radiative, but impact the surface temperature, in particular through the hydrologic cycle. These are more uncertain and they are difficult to quantify, but tend to offset the impact of albedo changes. As a consequence, there is low agreement on the sign of the net change in global mean temperature as a result of land use change. [8.3.5]
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
 * No need to prove the WP:POINT that land use's albedo shift is a neg forcing; no is disputing that so please stop arguing about it. In addition, when you do mention the neg forcing related to land use, let's be NPOV and mentioned GHG emissions related to the same phenomena.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the lead with what SPM says about overall forcing (pos), the largest contributor (CO2), and the main sources of CO2 (ff burning, cement production, and land use especially deforestration.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did you get deforestation? It is clearly misleading.  Land use change is only listed as a cooling forcing.  There is no agreement on it's net overall effect.  "Deforestation" is NOT SUPPORTED as being significant.  Please tell me where "deforestation" is listed as GHGs that have a consensus of warming?  It doesn't.  -DHeyward (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Check the citation I included, which contains the direct quote and page number.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Land-use is responsible for roughly 1/3 of carbon emissions - 1/3 of the carbon forcing is 0.54 W/m² which is significantly higher than the 0.15 W/m² of albedo change. That makes it your responsibility to find it explicitly stated in the AR5 that land-use is a negligible factor (especially since the AR5 states (directly) that uncorrected for urban-heat+landuse change could be responsible for as high as 10% of total warming - though more likely significantly lower, but still positive). --Kim D. Petersen 04:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Explicitly the AR5 estimates carbon emissions from land-use change to be (0.17–0.51 W/m²)[AR5 WGI 8.3.2.1] which is significantly higher than albedo changes which is (-0.15±0.10 W/m²) [AR5 WGI 8.3.5.6] --Kim D. Petersen 04:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullshiat. They explicitly say it isn't because the carbon contribution is an extremely low confidence and agreement while albedo changes have robust data and high confidence. (and I quote)

''There is still a large spread of estimates due to different assumptions for the albedo of natural and managed surfaces and the fraction of land use changes before 1750. Land use change causes additional modifications that are not radiative, but impact the surface temperature, in particular through the hydrologic cycle. These are more uncertain and they are difficult to quantify, but tend to offset the impact of albedo changes. As a consequence, there is low agreement on the sign of the net change in global mean temperature as a result of land use change. [8.3.5]''


 * Why is that bolded part hard to understand? They practically say "don't list land use change as a cause of warming because we don't." Do all the original research on the numbers you want but net result from AR5 is that albedo is quantifiable while carbon emissions is less so.  If AR5 can't even figure out the sign of temperature regarding land use changes, listing it as a "main driver" for warming seems to be a bit wrong.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you are confusing listing forcings with temperature. Albedo offsets the loss trees.  Blackened areas decrease albedo and non-blacked areas increase it.  They know with high confidence that albedo is a net cooling effect with robust data high confidence.  What they don't know is the effect of the loss of trees and what latitude deforestation/land use change is w.r.t. the temperature.  So as of now, they don't know and say so very explicitly.  Search for deforestation in your source and you will see. Read the bullet point that says "low agreeement on the sign of the net change".  The certainly don't conclude deforestation is a warming factor.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, i am not "confusing listing forcings with temperature" - since i have not at any point addressed temperature. Never mentioned. At. All. --Kim D. Petersen 07:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When they say " largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2)" that, by definition, is surface temperature (read the article, it says so). When they say "total radiative forcing is positive" they are talking about the net radiative forcing of all components. The model is a radiative model so that's how everything is modeled.  The statement "total radiative forcing is positive" includes both positive and negative forcings for various human and natural causes.  "land use" happens to be a net zero forcing.  It does not contribute anything to the "total radiative forcing is positive" equation.  It is a net neutral activity for GW.   When the statement cites "total radiative forcing is positive" it means both positive and negative forcings for modeled phenomenon on balance come out positive.  It's not just CO2 or carbon forcings.  The leap from  "total radiative forcing is positive" to "global warming" has to acknowledge that it includes forcings from all activities.  Anthropogenic land use change is one activity that has a zero sum for that model. --DHeyward (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why the devil are you only rapping on about albedo? Albedo is not the only forcing factor in land-use change. Your bolded part is in a section about albedo - not in a section about land-use change in general. There is low agreement on the sign of land-use change albedo - it is in the uncertainty:
 * Albedo change: -0.15±0.10 W/m² - which gives a range of -0.25 to +0.5 < can you see that the sign is uncertain?? There is no high confidence in cooling!
 * The confidence on greenhouse forcing from land-use change (you know the one you want to ignore, and which isn't addressed in the section that you keep repeating), is:
 * The impact of land use change on CO2 from 1850 to 2000 was assessed in AR4 to be 12–35 ppm (0.17–0.51 W m–2). (AR5 WG1 8.3.2.1)
 * To summarize: You ignore that land-use change is more than albedo, you assert certainty where no such certainty is evident. You then remove sourced statements from the article based upon your own interpretation of albedo => WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 07:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(A) In the sentence in question, deforestation and land use are listed as being GHG sources. (B) They are included as GHG sources with a direct quote from the RS (C) I think DHeyward is fixated on net land use changes, but that is not what the text is talking about and it is not what the direct quote was talking about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The lead is talking about the main contributions to a phenomenom known as "Global warming."  It's those big characters at the top.  The lead is talking about drivers of global surface "temperature change."  Net global warming temperature change has low agreement As a consequence, there is low agreement on the sign of the net change in global mean temperature as a result of land use change. [8.3.5]... You are synthesizing from CO2 contributions to surface warming by land use changes when the net effect is explicitly addressed.  Deforestation will increase albedo (cooling, with very high certainty using satellite data) and that the resulting change will possibly emit GHGs.  There is no agreement that it causes warming.  Certainly not something we should say or infer is a major contributor to global warming. It isn't.  'Global warming' is this article, not net greenhouse gas contributors.  It is perfectly fine to list fossil fuel burning and concrete plants (as I suggested) but not land use changes.  Planting a forest where there is high albedo might have a negative effect (warming), removing a tree where there is high albedo may cause cooling.  You cannot synthesize that deforestation has contributed to global warming because of CO2 when the net effect is zero.  AR5 explicitly says this in 8.3.5.   Do all the math you want, but when the experts do it, there is disagreement about whether deforestation/afforestation will have any impact on warming.  .  It's directly stated in AR5 that land use change, such as deforestation/afforestation, is unknown.  The confidence in surface albedo rising from land use change has risen since AR4 (it's in that same source) while contributions to CO2 have remained the same.  Whence, it is now different and there is low agreement that deforestation has contributed to global warming.  Take the blinders off and read it.  Keep in mind that this article is about "global warming" and not greenhouse gases.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's make it simpler. The statement "Affirming these findings in 2013, IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation."  Is based on a source about radiative forcings being positive for CO2.  Fossil fuel certainly adds a positive radiative forcing through CO2, CH4, etc.  Cement plants have a positive radiative forcing.  Land use changes, however do not have a positive net radiative forcing.  It is unknown.  New in AR5.  Certainly, it's added CO2, but that's not the net radiative forcing that is sourced, it's synthesized by WP to only be CO2.  IPCC AR5 certainly DOES NOT SAY and in fact SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE "IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming...land use changes such as deforestation."  is flat out wrong.  Land use change is not a large driver of global warming.  We should not state the exact opposite of IPCC's own statement.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Poll
Background: IN AR5 WG1 SPM, the IPCC said ""Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750." (p 11) "From 1750 to 2011, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have released 375 [345 to 405] GtC to the atmosphere, while deforestation and other land use change are estimated to have released 180 [100 to 260] GtC." (p 10)"

- IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM

Question: In light of the quoted text, is it appropriate to say in the lead of Global warming that "IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation"? If you answer "no" please indicate how you would change the text and then explain why.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes Our analysis doesn't really need to go beyond the language IPCC opted to flag in their nutshells, from which the quotes were taken, and the quotes say the biggest driver of global warming is GHG and that GHG comes from 3 main sources: Fossil fuels, cement manufacture, and land use such as deforestation.  They say it in their nutshell, so it is appropriate to say it in our lead.  Other ways land use contributes +/- forcings is worthy of mention in the body of the article, but doesn't change fact that this RS says land use is a mighty source of GHG emissions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Most certainly. The IPCC is the most reliable source to their own conclusions, and if they summarize their conclusions this way, then we as editors cannot do original research and determine that "they really shouldn't have done that", string up some readings of various subsections in the report, reach a different conclusion, and then remove the parts that we do not like. That much should be obvious ... but apparently isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 15:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct that we should not summarize their conclusions incorrectly. They don't interpret land use change as increasing global warming.  They attribute carbon in the atmosphere to land use change and albedo to land use change and other effects to land use change and come with a near zero forcing of temperature.  Net forcings of land use change (warming and cooling) are near 0 and have have little support as a source of significant warming or cooling.  Read page .  --DHeyward (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, should mention methane specifically too: from the methane article: "Cattle belch methane accounts for 16% of the world's annual methane emissions to the atmosphere.[41] One study reported that the livestock sector in general (primarily cattle, chickens, and pigs) produces 37% of all human-induced methane.[42]" (This article should mention cow-belch methane too.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonresponsive. Telling us what else it should say does not address the question.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No Because because that statement conflates one aspect of surface warming (CO2 radiative forcing) with the entire spectrum of warming. WP is synthesizing the connection of land use changes to imply warming when AR5 says the exact opposite.  This is a significant change from AR4.  Land use change is not considered a significant driver of "Global warming" despite CO2 emissions.  Below are direct quotes from IPCC AR5 sources.
 * From 8.3.5 in WG There is robust evidence that anthropogenic land use change has increased the land surface albedo, which leads to a RF of -0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2
 * There is still a large spread of estimates due to different assumptions for the albedo of natural and managed surfaces and the fraction of land use changes before 1750. Land use change causes additional modifications that are not radiative, but impact the surface temperature, in particular through the hydrologic cycle. These are more uncertain and they are difficult to quantify, but tend to offset the impact of albedo changes. As a consequence, there is low agreement on the sign of the net change in global mean temperature as a result of land use change. [8.3.5]
 * From page 8-35: "There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo — is about as likely as not." page 8-33 in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013
 * --DHeyward (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * D, at most all that says albedo change might have offset landuse's contribution to warming due to GHG buildup. Since the sentence that is the subject of this poll is not about net effect of land use, but rather is about (A) GHG being the single biggest warming and (B) a list of the big GHG sources, your remarks here seem to be unfounded, at least to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The quoted text is saying that (increased) atmospheric makes the largest contribution to total (increased) radiative forcing, and that fossil fuel combustion, cement production, deforestation and other land use change are the main contributors to atmospheric . That is very clear and I have to say that talk of albedo is off-topic here. --Nigelj (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be fine if the quoted text actually matched the article. But it doesn't.  The WP article says "global warming" (not total radiative forcing from CO2).  Land use change is not relevant to global warming.  Using "Global warming" as a euphemism for "radiative forcing from carbon/CO2" is also incorrect because it's used two ways in section B and C.  One way, (section B.5), is only the WMGHG/carbon in the atmosphere, the other is the net radiative forcing (section C).  Our lead sentences synthesizes a connection that the authors did not.  Land use change contributes to carbon.  Land use change does not contribute to overall global warming.  "IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from ... land use change."  Wrong.  Dead wrong.  Author never says it.  IPCC says "Total radiative forcing is positive" (meaning pluses outweigh negatives) but NEVER claims that land use change is a net positive or negative on global warming like the article does because IT DOESN'T.  The WP article is just wrong to state land use change as a contributor to "gobal warming" when the authors only intent was to state that carbon in the atmosphere went up but the net surface temp change due to land use change is near 0.   Read page 8.3.5 .   Search the SPM and you will find that Wikipedia made that connection up.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reword to "IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion cement production"
 * Reword to "IPCC says that the largest contributions to atmospheric green house gases is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation"
 * "Global warming" needs to be explained as a sum of radiative forcings and no-radiative forcings, of which land use change is near 0. -DHeyward (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes But could be extended (did not checked if this is addressed elsewhere), with pointing out slow feedbacks (slow climate inertia). Prokaryotes (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes The quoted text is very clear, and the first part of it at least is from the overall summary to section C, 'Drivers of Climate Change'. When summarising summaries, e.g. for a lede in a top-level article such as this, it is much better to use the original authors' actual summary or conclusions, rather than digging around in the sub-bullet points, or the captions to diagrams, looking for text, which is often a sign of quote-mining rather than summarising. --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except the original authors never intended (and doesn't) say that "land use change" is, was or will be a major contributor to global warming. It is a major contribution to CO2 but that is not the entire warming story. Section B is about carbon in the atmosphere and mentions land use because it contributes to CO2 in the atmosphere.  Section C is about net forcings of warming, but doesn't connect it to land use changes.  Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases are the largest forcing of warming - it's offset by other non-radiative and albedo land use changes.  WMGHG's come from all the sources listed.  However "global warming" is sum of all the temperature affecting processes.  Net land use changes such as deforestation is clearly NOT a large force for "global warming" despite the contribution it makes to CO2 because the total "net forcing" for land use change is a 50/50 shot at 0.  That is made very clear in the report. Read page 8.3.5 .   Search the SPM and you will find that Wikipedia made that connection up.  Insinuating that land use change is a component to average rise in surface temperature is akin to saying humans evolved from monkeys.  The different is lost on the casual reader but not the scientists that do the work.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The section you're looking for regarding land use and says, "Between 1750 and 2011, the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil, and gas flaring) and the production of cement have released 365 ± 30 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 gC) to the atmosphere (Table 6.1; Boden et al., 2011). Land use change activities, mainly deforestation, has released an additional 180 ± 80 PgC (Table 6.1). This carbon released by human activities is called anthropogenic carbon."Section 6.3.1 However, as I have said repeatedly here, we should be writing our top-level summary from the scientists' top-level summary, not from the detail. --Nigelj (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct about top-level summary. However, it is synthesis to attribute the activity in a statement about warming because the summary doesn't do that.  IPCC doesn't do that at either a high level or the details.  It's subtle.  It's synthesis to attribute the warming Bayesian test for GHG's to activities (the test passes for fossil fuels and cement, but does not for land use change).  The logical fallacy is apparent if we use atmospheric sulfur in coal in the opposite fashion.  Anthropogenic sulfur has a measurable cooling effect.  Sulfur from coal burning is a major source of anthropogenic sulfur in the atmosphere.  Using the synthesis type argument above, we should be able to say "anthropogenic forcings of cooling include sulfur in the atmosphere caused by such activities as coal burning."  This should raise immediate red flags because it creates the impression that the activity of coal burning is "cooling."  It's not.  Even though cooling and sulfur are related, and sulfur and coal are related, the synthesis is not because the relationship to activity is more complicated.  The same is true for land use change.  Warming and GHGs are related.  Land-use change adds GHGs.  Synthesizing a connection about the causes of warming with land use change, though, is no more valid than synthesizing a connection between burning coal and cooling.  IPCC is meticulous about not making those types of connections and we are synthesizing an untrue statement by creating a cause/effect relationship of activity to warming which IPCC never makes. --DHeyward (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * apples and oranges. The quoted IPCC report says what has caused change over the past 261 years.  The proposed change in the lead says what is driving change today.  Minor secondary point: The quoted IPCC report states two major causes of radiative forcing, and then mentions a third cause about half as large as the other two combined, but does not say it is the third greatest cause, though I assume it is. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure about anyone else, but I did not follow any of that due to pronouns and implied references that assume I know exactly what is meant. Speaking for myself, I'll be happy to think about your comment when I know what you were trying to say... care to rephrase? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The IPCC report quoted says "From 1750 to 2011".  The proposed change in the lead says "the largest driver of global warming is..."  The use of "is" implies that currently these are the three largest drivers, while the IPCC report says that historically these are causes.  It makes a difference.  I suspect a lot of the apparent contradictions in the various assertions above arises because changes in land use are important historically but have a more ambiguous impact today.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there has been a change in the main causes of global warming between 2011 and today?! You'll need a good citation for that claim. --Nigelj (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that there may have been a change in the main causes of global warming between 1750 and today.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Bump, to link back to this from a newly appearing redundant thread.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the picture of land use change as a driver of GHG's from AR5. Note the integral is significant however it is negligible in terms of a current driver of climate change now and going forward. Fossil fuels and cement drive climate change not land use. It is inaccurate to continue "land use change" as a significant component of recent or future warming. --DHeyward (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) File:Emissions_ar5.jpg

Do models actually make predictions for 20 years?
"The rate of global mean surface temperature rise over the past 20 years has been considerably less than that predicted by climate models." The source is a comment piece, and there's a lot of research going on in this area. A blog from a reputable statistician looks at the trend over a slightly longer period, and the context is interesting. So, I think this needs to be put in context and not presented in Wikipedia's voice as refuting models. . dave souza, talk 19:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, models make predictions over 20 years and the pause is discussed in AR5 and is a better source (including the number of model runs that predict it like in the cited comment piece above though I don't think it's necessary to have numbers). Box TS.3

"Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series. However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus. {2.4.3, 9.3.2, 9.4.1; Box 9.2}" (page 62 of Full AR5 report) - it is now citable I believe. I think it's important to use the AR5 attribution/voice rather than individual scientists pet theories (i.e. Stadium waves or deep ocean heating or bad models or climate variability sensitivity). AR5 leaves the pause/hiatus question in a broad category of possibilities with various levels of confidence but it is acknowledged similar to the comment piece. AR5 does not require rebuttal. --DHeyward (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm all for updating to AR5, we should also strive for excellent ongoing coverage of research/developments on the major unsettled issues. The slow down in surface warming is just one of these.  Adding to the list of research in this area is the very recent paper about pacific trade winds, "temporarily" tending to push warm surface waters into deeper realms.   But on the bigger issue, we are not a paper (ie, static) encyclopedia.   Thus, we are not bound to whatever IPCC says every 7 years, but need to keep current with the range of discussion on the open questions.


 * The upshot is that we need a paragraph on the "hiatus" and probably a full article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you understand the first statement? It was about a commentary piece in September 2013 about a difference in CMIP5 ensemble model results and observation.  This was covered in AR5 as well (not as commentary, but peer reviewed consensus).  You are correct that not every error attribution or research paper needs to be covered to explain the hiatus, per se.  AR5 covers what was initially listed  and is relevant as it relates to modelling, not as it relates to a physical explanation.  It's covered quite encyclopedically in the passage I quoted that leaves out bleeding edge theories as to why (usually focusing on physics that aren't modeled but that is not the only possibility).  Neither the September paper, Manns commentary on the trade winds paper, or whether the observations are statistically different from model margin of error (to understand that connection requires a deeper understanding of ensemble models that is not particularly relevant).  However, the AR5 paragraph covers modelling all in a neutral manner in broad terms since there is no particular theory that explains it.  Don't confuse explaining the hiatus with explaining the difference in model response to observation.  They are different. --DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I did. So as I was saying, I think we need a paragraph to discuss the "hiatus" and maybe a whole article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's important to show the context, and not just hint that "models are wrong",, dave souza, talk 08:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite because the hiatus has little relevance to the "models is wrong" issue. The sticking point is ensemble models with random initializations favor a certain side that is not in-line with observation.  The problem can't be attributed to "model error/wrong" or a "hiatus", but rather one or a combination of the three listed things in AR5.  As yet, it is unknown as to why the ensemble model run means don't correspond to the observed mean.  It can't be be attributed to ocean heating or trade winds or stadium wave or natural variation or any number of variables.  It is simply an observable at this point.  It's not the "hiatus" that is the issue, it's the difference between the observable mean and the ensemble mean.  They should be very close.  Some papers have forced the ensemble to replicate the ENSO (instead of predicting it) with a closer correlation.  But it's a modelling issue, not a hiatus issue.  Think of the dice game of craps.  The highest probable number is 7 at about 16.7%.  You'd expect that for random rolls of the dice, the highest number of rolls would be "7" (about 1 of 6 rolls).  There is a large standard deviation around 7 so it's unlikely that any single roll is "7" so the model std deviation for a seven is large.  But if you roll the dice 100 times and the average is "5", it's unlikely that you have a correct model for the dice.  Even though "5" is close to "7" and no one would blink at a single roll "5", they do blink if 100 rolls don't average to "7".  But the problem isn't why it's "5", the problem is why it isn't "7".  The topic discussed in AR5 addresses why it isn't "7" while a number of different researchers try to find out why it is "5".  The difference is important because if in the next 20 years the new number is "9", it's the same reasons why it isn't "7" today.  This is the difference between evaluating ensemble models and evaluating the error associated with a single model run and why the Mann and Tamino comments aren't particularly relevant.  AR5 addresses modeling which is really the only question.  Ultimately a model change may produce the observable, but until that happens the so-called "hiatus/pause" is associated only with the three notable claims in AR5 and is related to modeling.  To the extent that it's physical, has not been determined.  Whence, it should be addressed as modelling just as AR5 has addressed it as modelling.  The hiatus is described as "(a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and/or (c) model response error" and that's all we know and all we need to say.  Model error by itself is only one leg of the 3-legged stool. --DHeyward (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. If you don't have a source that says whatever it is you want us to learn, then forget it. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series. However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus. {2.4.3, 9.3.2, 9.4.1; Box 9.2}" (page 62 of Full AR5 report) - it is now citable I believe. I think it's important to use the AR5 attribution/voice rather than individual scientists pet theories (i.e. Stadium waves or deep ocean heating or bad models or climate variability). AR5 leaves the pause/hiatus question in a broad category of possibilities with various levels of confidence but it is acknowledged similar to the comment piece. AR5 does not require rebuttal. I can only lead you to the water.   --DHeyward (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That claim is only valid for water that was submitted for publication before July 31, 2012, see the IPCC WG1 AR5 cutoff dates. If we are a living encyclopedia, then we need to keep up, and when you write "pet theories" it just raises POV suspicions that you want to keep our coverage firmly on the left side of the larger wave in the curve. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[[File:Distribution_of_professional_opinion_on_anthropogenic_climate_change_-_by_Tobis_and_Ban.jpg | thumb]]
 * You can stop the personal attacks because it's your own ignorance that's showing. You're searching for missing heat that isn't known to be missing.  The hiatus is only a "problem" because running cmip5 ensembles favor one side using past initializations.  This is acknowledged but not corrected because it's unknown how to correct it (a, b  or c).  Last year, a paper was written on what happened when they forced CMIP5 surface ocean temps to the observed ocean temps instead of letting the model drive it and the ensemble models were much closer.  This is what is driving the theories of La Nina and trade winds but it's still modeled.   The "pet theories" that I listed included Curry's "stadium waves" and there are a number of them from all sides including solar RF and everything else.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Asking you to follow all the important relevant sources instead of just this one (IPCC AR5) is not a personal attack.  The real question is how do we improve our coverage of (A) what the models say and (B) what we have observed?  Do we just update every 7 years based on what IPCC said, or do we try to cover the major still-open questions and wide range of work being done to answer them? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way: I am significantly more toward the right end of your graph in terms of understanding than you are. That is pretty clear and I'll let you decide if implying the other side is a personal attack.  --11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dave, I think the Open Mind blog piece has it explained well, but is there anything like that in the peer-reviewed literature yet? I see that the Mann piece ends "Stay tuned!" I agree with NAEG that there is plenty of coverage of this in the popular media, and it would be good to put some balanced coverage into WP somewhere, sometime. 'The hiatus' is becoming a media meme, whether we cover it or not. --Nigelj (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's in AR5. This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus. {2.4.3, 9.3.2, 9.4.1; Box 9.2}" (page 62 of Full AR5 report).  --DHeyward (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been developments after AR5: some links which may help.. Climate change slowdown is due to warming of deep oceans, say scientists | Environment | The Guardian, We haven't hit the global warming pause button | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com, AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling, Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com, RealClimate: What ocean heating reveals about global warming, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience (author names interesting) RealClimate: The global temperature jigsaw and RealClimate: Global warming and ocean heat content – mostly news or blog articles, but with references to relevant peer reviewed studies. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And having drawn attention to a couple of authors, The Real Difference between Skeptics and Deniers | Open Mind ponders whether the 20 year period has any statistical significance. Which is about why I wondered about the alleged predictions. . dave souza, talk 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the section heading... I don't remember where I saw it (maybe on this talk page) but a couple years ago I recall seeing a fracas about whether models make "predictions" at all. One camp was quite hot under the collar that models make "projections", instead of predictions. Since I'm not a modeling expert and don't remember where I saw this, I'm hoping some of ya'll might chime in. William, you listening? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Monte Carlo method is similar to ensembles but not the same. The "pause/hiatus" is not particularly troubling.  It's the fact that lot's of initiated simulation runs (called ensembles) fall on one side.  If the "pause/hiatus" had ensemble runs around it, there wouldn't even be a need to discuss it.  It would be like discussing weather vs. climate.  It's significant only as the difference between simulated and observed trends of many model simulations.  There would be nothing to look for if this were not the case.  Broadly stated, it's either (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and/or (c) model response error.  Climatologists are looking for all three, not just Tamino's internal climate variability or Trade winds/deep ocean model response error or as from a few years ago, missing/incorrect stratospheric water vapor RF.  It would be inaccurate to make claims about individual theories that really have not played out yet but all fit into a, b or c of AR5. --DHeyward (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep writing as a modeler/analyst instead of a Wikipedia editor. From the perspective of the latter bunch, "there would be nothing to look for" if thousands of RSs were not discussing "the pause"/"the hiatus" etc.  Except they are, and that's what dictates notability for our coverage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep writing as if the science of climate change needs to respond to skeptics as if they run the show. Take a page from Mann and stop.  A 15 year hiatus is not a big deal and is replicated in history and in CMIP5 runs.  It's only a big deal because of ensemble runs trying to re-create this particular hiatus and the results.  It's viewed as a near term projection issue, not a "where's the heat" issue or "the models are wrong issue" or "it's more climate variability."  AR5 correctly identifies the three broad categories of why "this" hiatus is significant and it's ensemble modeling results, not the hiatus, that is atypical.  The guidance is to adjust near term projections down 10% from the model (I think I recall for 15-30 years).  It doesn't impact the 100 year projection.  That's the way the encyclopedia should present it because right now, that's about all that is known.  We can chase current theories but that is fraught with lots of changes and debate that need not occur and tends to make climate science look desperate when it is not.  There have been other papers presented at the cutting edge that don't pan out because it takes time to observe a change that have cycles of years or decades.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow all the sources, D. We are not supposed to be the voice of climate science.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's correct and it's why we should stick to a) defining exactly why and how the hiatus is relevant to global warming (Answer: it's only relevant because of the ensemble modelling replication is consistenly above the observations and has implications on near term projections. The duration of "no observable average surface temperature increase" is not relevant to global warming as that type of duration occurs in history and in long model runs) and b) the reasons why the ensemble models don't reproduce 1999-2012 temps when initialized is broadly grouped down to three main possibilities "(1) internal climate variability, (2) missing or incorrect RF, and/or (3) model response error."  All of the recent scientific journal articles you wish to cite in this nonjournal article fit into one of those broad categories.  We cannot list them all nor do we know which ones are correct and they often are critical of other theories (i.e. "stadium waves" vs. "La Nina" vs "Stratospheric Water Vapor", etc, etc).  We should not be a journal article that highlights individual, recent, specific competing theories without any way to discern their acceptance by scientists.  The IPCC sources are MUCH better because they go through that process.  When they did, they left it in broad categories even when there were peer-reviewed papers making claims as to the ensemble reproduction problem.  Again, take a clue from Mann and "stay tuned" because it's not a settled matter and is largely a non-issue in the big picture.  It's interesting to modelers that wish to get it right, but scientists (like Mann in that paper) says "Eh, take 10% off the near term projections but long term it's only 0.1C."  That's the "consensus," if you will, on the hiatus.  CMIP5 ensemble models are widely accepted despite the hiatus reproduction issue --DHeyward (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I believe this (Kosaka and Xie) is the origin of all the recent La Nina ties . They cite 4 other theories, all in the abstract.  They are a fifth. Sorting/citing all of them (and there are others) would be tedious without recent review as to what's still good and what's garbage.  That's why AR5 is a stable reference.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is very simple really, if a topic is notable enough in WP:RS then we mention it as per WP:NOTABLE, otherwise we do not as per WP:UNDUE. Can we list the sources to back an expansion on the hiatus issue? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How many do you want?  There are lots.  But they all fit nicely into the 3 categories mentioned in AR5.  For example, the editor comment for Xie is "The results suggest that the current hiatus is a normal instance of internal climate variability, and that long-term warming is likely to resume as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase."  "internal climate variability" is an explicit listing of AR5 I mentioned above.  There are lots of theories like that.  The problem with citing all of them is that it's not clear when and/or where a particular theory waxes and wanes.   --DHeyward (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gaba, While I get what you're saying it isn't packaged quite right.... NOTABLE applies to the very existence of an article and those sources do not have to be stated in the article; UNDUE applies to the question whether & how we use a source to support article text and have to be cited if we do use them - but only after notability of the article's subject has itself been established.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In Defense of a more neutral writing style: Are we "Science People" or are we not? D certainly seems to be. I am. (Mass and Heat Transfer, Fluid Dynamics, Thermo, Physical Chemistry, etc.) Nothing wrong with that, I hope. However, D is brushed aside quite breezily [with various arguments that are often incompatible and that are arbitrarily applied]. Thanks, D, for your time and consideration. Please consider [how editors of GW WP sometimes employ the following arguments]: 1. "Stick to the science," as in AR5, is a convenient argument that excludes peer reviewed articles that do not seem to support AGW. 2. Conversely, "we are not science people" is a convenient argument that a) excludes sections of AR5 that do not explicitly support AGW and b) allows inclusion of "cutting edge" peer reviewed articles that really have the feel of speculative pieces. Dang it, don't get mad at me. Please don't throw a graph at me. I respect everyone's hard work. Sincerely. But... there is an obvious bias in the editing of the Global Warming WP, both in the voicing of the article and in the as yet undone work. Yes, it is understood that high school students read WP but we don't have to indoctrinate them. Give them the good and the bad, the high and the low. They can take it. The Global Warming WP will be strengthened. Otherwise, good people such as D may quit trying. Heck, I can't defend myself from critics, much less AGW. (Double entendre intended). 71.8.61.207 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Jesse75.139.42.110 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)jesse
 * As I non-scientist, my thought is your views look a bit odd. What makes you think that AR5 "excludes peer reviewed articles that do not seem to support AGW"? . . dave souza, talk 11:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave. Thanks for your comment.  Wow!  I didn't say that.  The subject was "Stick to the science" - not "AR5".  The parenthetical phrase, "as in AR5," can be omitted without damaging the sentence.  Try reading it this way:  "Stick to the science" arguments exclude...articles.  Broadly, there are competing and exclusive rationals sometimes used by editors of WP to evaluate articles for possible inclusion in the Global Warming WP.  They are: 1.  "Stick to the science" and 2.  "We are not science people."  Article selection bias is unavoidable when these rationals are employed. [Note to editors: Please pardon the explicit finger pointing in this clarification.]75.139.42.110 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Jesse  I


 * The 'pause' in global warming is not even a thing | Graham Readfearn | Environment | theguardian.com interviews and links to video by Matt England at the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, author of the recent study, and links to other sources. . dave souza, talk 11:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's dated today, and is a great step in the right direction: published by the Guardian, it references all the right stuff, and comes to a well-thought-out conclusion. It's just a shame it's so 'chatty', and 'bloggy'. The time will come when we start to get sensibly written secondary sources, that are firmly based in good science, published in sensible places. When that happens, I think it will be time to write a paragraph. If that grows, we can WP:SPLIT it out into its own article. (Personally, I think if we give it a year or two, the graphs will be shooting off the paper again, and no one suddenly will care). --Nigelj (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "references all the right stuff?" Please read this when it was the hiatus explanation of the day (it's not a new problem).  While you're at that, take a look at Mann's explanation over here.  I already referenced Xie.  Seriously, this is going into a space that isn't definitive at all.  Trade winds are getting lots of play because it's shiny/new but it's only one of many.  The part the Guardian gets right is that the hiatus in measured surface temps is not an indication that climate change has stopped.  Everything else is just the new theory of the week, just like Xie was the theory in September and stratospheric water vapor was 2010's.   Let's not jump on the "cold fusion" bandwagon just yet. We are not a journal or newspaper and we cannot compare/contrast every single theory about why a series of ensemble models fail to correlate to a relatively short historical time period and there is no desperate need to account for it in the scientific community.  Temps will never shoot off the chart.  randomness dominates over the average increase so at 0.2C per decade on average, in a couple years you will see lot's of wiggles.  It will take 5 years to even spot a new trend just like it took at least that long to spot a "hiatus."   --DHeyward (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, models make predictions over 20 years.... No, not really. The language quoted from the comment piece is careless. We should not thoughtlessly duplicate it just to keep the "skeptics" happy William M. Connolley (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Ok, at this point the back and forth chatting got me a bit lost. If I may: what exactly are the parties involved proposing? Is there an actual specific edit being discussed? Please be as precise as possible. Thanks. Gaba (talk)  13:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave started the thread so he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his intention was to discuss the merits of some new text that Dave reverted here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that addition looked like an over-simple "models are wrong" interpretation of the much discussed short term "hiatus". Bringing it here resulted in discussion about how to cover that topic and the various interesting research being developed. . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first addition was not correct. Reword to explain the CMIP5 ensemble models (a type of randomization, of hundreds of possible scenarios from a given starting point in the past such as 1998) initialized with historical data, are warmer than the historical record in nearly all cases.  The distinction is important because both the historical record (now and since 1750/1870, whichever) and CMIP5 have hiatus periods in that range.  CMIP5 has broad consensus.  The variance of the ensemble mean and the observed mean between 1998-2012 is considered short-term, whence guidance to adjust short term results.  Long-term, it's not expected to matter.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks &.
 * are you against the addition? Against the addition and subsequent removal? Against the removal? Do you have a proposed edit? If not this should be the end of this thread. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm against that wording, because it's wrong. Adding a broad piece as it's covered in AR5 highlighting why it's significant scientifically, (short-term, ensemble mean variance relative to observed GMST mean and the 3 broad categories of cause of that variance), why it's not particularly troubling scientifically, and the guidance given of how to handle short term model projections from CMIP5. --DHeyward (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Topical: Lilley vs BAS
In BBC News - MPs Tim Yeo and Peter Lilley in climate committee clash, Dr Shuckburgh of BAS was questioned: "Lilley said a third of the total carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in human history had happened since 1997 and yet it had not resulted in a rise in the surface temperature of the earth", he asked "if this had reduced, increased or left unaltered her confidence in future projections." Her answers give a helpful summary, while Lilley added assertions that climate models had been "consistently running too hot". Reinforces the need to be cautious about wording in this article covering recent temps and model projections. . dave souza, talk 20:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then there is RealClimate's 2013 Global temperature which, even though it is a blog, can arguably qualify as a reliable source since it is written by an actual climate researcher, but in any case it cites its own sources.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a good post by Stefan Rahmstorf. Interesting how various recent explanations work together, partly lack of polar coverage when that's one of the fastest warming regions, and "The recent slower warming is mainly explained by the fact that in recent years the La Niña state in the tropical Pacific prevailed, in which the eastern Pacific is cold and the ocean stores more heat (2). This is due to an increase in the trade winds that push water westward across the tropical Pacific..." which ties in with the more recent England et al. study. The other studies cited above seem to reinforce this picture. . dave souza, talk 21:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since Xie's La Nina model forcing (or bootstrapping or however they injected actual SST's into CMIP5) in September, La Nina has been shiny/new numerically. Here's the rub and the grand sum of it all: Before Xie et al, before Balmaseda et al, before trade winds, before stratospheric water vapor, deep ocean warming and sulphur emissions, was there any climate scientists that changed their opinion because of any of these papers?  Is there any "Oh, well that explains it" moment for any scientist?  If they were sceptical before, they're still sceptical now.  If they believed the "hiatus" wasn't an issue before, they don't believe it is now.  This is shiny/new stuff for journals but in reality it's already discussed adequately in AR5 without needing to be shiny/new (and contrary to Lilley, the models are not "running hot" as that's not what it means when ensemble models try to repeat historical data over a short time span).  Tell me what's different about now and the Balmaseda/Trenberth paper available before AR5?  Mann published one too. Short of being able to predict when trade winds will stop blowing or when la nina conditions will shift to el nino, there's really nothing added except weather.  The models already have 15 year "pauses" as does the historical record.  To the extent we need to explain the "hiatus" in terms of the model, AR5 is adequate when it discusses ensemble models and what they mean.  Our Dear reader need not be flooded with things that don't change nary a thing about climate change. "Q: Why don't climate models predict the pause? A: They're not expected to predict when pauses will happen but they do have pauses during the simulations.  Q: Why don't ensemble models fed with historical starting points vary about the mean of observations?  A: A combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and/or (c) model response error are all potential sources for that observation over a 15 year period.  None, however affect the long term reliability of the model."  That's it.  Climate is still changing. Word the hiatus in a factual form of the Q/A and there is no more to see.  OOh, we could also add that the 2013 Hurricane season looked a lot like a really strong El Nino with lots of strong pacific storms and quiet in the atlantic (except it wasn't El Nino but it really looked like one but it wasn't even though it looked like one but if it wasn't how come it looked like it therefore it must be.  repeat ad nauseum to see why it's not important to satisfy/explain/convince someone an observation that looks like something it isn't.) .  --DHeyward (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

GLOBAL WARMING TALK illustrates a path forward in crafting a brilliant article. It is obvious from the Talk section that there are two distinct voices in the Global Warming debates. I would label them as follows: 1. Pure Science 2. Public Interest (Saving humanity/Politics/Religion/Current Events, etc.) Each voice is correct in its own way. Separately, neither voice adequately explains Global Warming. Yet, the voices cannot be merged, amalgamated, maybe, but not merged. (Note for DHeyward:  I'm with you on making a straightforward presentation of the relevant science but the public's interest in the science is small, their ability to understand the science is smaller and their attention span is nigh nonexistent when presented with hard science.  Also, as an issue for the public, Global Warming is bigger than the relevant science).

If I may be so bold as to make A MODEST PROPOSAL for a way in which to move forward with the Global Warming WP: Let us recognize each voice. Simply put, WP editors explain that two voices exist. Compare and contrast the voices. The dispassionate monotone of science provides the scaffold for the larger debates that unfold in the public arena. The voice of Pure Science, for example, explains in terse prose that global average surface temperatures are expected to rise 0.2 degrees C per decade on average and that the hiatus in warming means little in the long term. The Public Voice acknowledges the humanity of scientists who feel compelled to explain the hiatus. A list of some of the more interesting explanations is offered for public consumption. . We can work together, or we can squabble. What say you? Squabbling is more fun, initially, but it is less fulfilling.71.8.61.207 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Jesse71.8.61.207 (talk)Jesse
 * Yes, these sources clearly indicate the political dispute, and we have to be careful to present the science clearly in a way that avoids the sort of misrepresentation publicised recently by Lilley, Nige Lawson and newspapers such as the Daily Express. Unfortunately the BBC has a tendency to give undue weight to these contrarian claims. Both the so-called "hiatus" and the current storms in the UK are obviously short term variations of considerable research interest. A Global Perspective on the Recent Storms and Floods in the UK - Met Office, while noting that there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding, says there is "an increasing body of evidence that shows that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense, and that the rate of increase is consistent with what is expected from the fundamental physics of a warming world." . . dave souza, talk 10:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Guidance on using source material for the Pure Science voice. .   .   . Thanks again Dave. I hope not to wear out my welcome in Talk with expansive verbiage. Previously, I suggested that the GW WP recognize two voices.  Those voices are  1: Pure Science, and 2: Public Interest.   .   . First, some thoughts:  it is my opinion, in concert with others on this site, that there is a place in the GW WP for updated theories/opinions/ideas that may interest the public.   In my view, public interest material should be acknowledged as such so that the voice of Pure Science is not corrupted.  Also, one need not be a scientist to contribute to the Pure Science voice.  Keep those ideas coming.  Just don't get upset with harsh criticism on the suitability of those ideas.   .   .   .   . With respect to source material for the Pure Science voice some guidance for editors is humbly submitted. 1.  Be wary of STACKING THE DECK.  This is a logical fallacy wherein we pick and choose statements from various sources to garner a result that suits our purposes.  We then disregard the statements that don't suit us.  Isaac Asimov said it best in the foreword to his book, The Stars in Their Courses, "Oh gentle reader, but give me the power to pick and choose among the findings of science, taking those things that suit my purpose and discarding those that do not, and I will endeavor to prove anything."  Sorry if I misquoted.  It has been 30 years since I read Asimov's book.  2.  How does this apply to the editing of the GW WP?  Pure Science editors should not engage in the practice of parsing the latest sources for "cherries." It is deceptive to do so.  The context of the sources is often purposely disregarded and intentional error results.  This is especially true when there are statements in the source that are contrary to our [unstated] purposes.  Taking the favored statements and ignoring the ill-favored statements is an abuse of editorial discretion that assumes that our readers are ignorant and  unaware of our deceit.  And deceit it is.  Only a serious and objective scientist is equipped to evaluate sources based on context. The rest of us are not so equipped.  On a side note, be aware that serious scientists are not always objective.  Scientists are humans, too.  Trenberth and others sometimes engage in flights of fancy that provide fodder for both the public and for skeptics.  Hell, in the distant future we may find some of the fanciful ideas to be accurate.  In the meantime, AR5 provides a somewhat balanced filter for source material.  3.  How the heck are we supposed to gather and summarize Pure Science information for our readers?  a)  Stick primarily to summaries, e.g. AR4, AR5, etc.  b) Listen to the criticisms provided by DHeyward or by others with his logical proclivities.  Act affirmatively on those criticisms.  Don't use phrases or ideas that D finds to be "wrong."  Allow D to provide context as he digs through the bullet points of the full reports of AR5 or through original sources. Disclaimer:  I know nothing of DHeyward other than what I have read in the Talk section of this article and cannot speak for him in any way.  I sincerely hope that he continues his efforts with respect to this WP article.  c)  Generally, provide no "cherries" from "contrarian" sources except where accompanied by the information that is deemed "contrarian or by an acknowledgement of that "contrarian" information." To a Pure Science editor, there is NO CONTRARIAN information in GW sources.  We are neutral.  Right?  4)  I'm sleepy and going to bed now.   .   .   .  Note to Dave:  The agreement of theories with cherry picked current weather observations in no way implies truth.  The latest articles sometimes  make monkeys of us and are unusable in the context of Pure Science.   The MET article cited above implies that GW is indicated by [or consistent with] floods in the UK.  Right?   As a thought experiment, assume that the following Global Perspective device used by the MET is also applied to the current drought in California.  Whereas warming of the sea's surfaces produces more water vapor and more rain, it is also true that cooler sea surfaces produce less rain.  The surface of the seas have not warmed lately.  Some scientists say that the sea's surfaces may have cooled.  That California is suffering a drought fits nicely with cooling of the seas.  This cherry picked weather event is consistent with the fundamental physics of a cooling world......... There we have it:  The latest article from the MET has made monkeys of us.  It will happen again.  71.8.61.207 (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Jesse

(edit conflict)
 * Tidbit science quotes made in general being applied as specific is egregiously wrong. They even know it's wrong with the disclaimer.  "We know there's nothing we can attribute to climate change but, pssst, look at this event we're attributing to Climate Change."  Utterly rubbish to even mention "an increasing body of evidence that shows that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense, and that the rate of increase is consistent with what is expected from the fundamental physics of a warming world" during a weather report.   Today around the world there is drought, rain, floods, blizzards, ice storms, record hot temps and record cold temps.  Here's something to think about -  It's a truism to say "Today's weather is consistent with a warming world." You can say it on any day of the year, anywhere on earth.
 * What's more interesting (from a weather perspective) is all of these papers/reports simply sound like a "la nina" (warm western pacific ocean temps, strong trade winds, cool phase of eastern ocean).  I can even note a neat relationship where "la nina-like" conditions correlate to solar max (and this is one of the longest solar max periods we have seen - Solar cycle 24)  .   "Solar max" is maximum number of visible sunspots and occurs when the magnetic field of the sun collapses and reverses.  It occurs when the solar magnetic field is weakest (this one has been so drawn out it had a weak quadrapole for a while). The NASA article goes on to make a connection of ozone/NOx  levels to la nina and solar max (not to TSI, but that the number of UV wavelength radiation increases which is part of TSI - solar cycles are significant enough to be modeled but it's a constant 11 year repeating cycle). The lack of a solar magnetic field quite nicely brings in all these random science articles (i.e. "Strong trade winds responsible for hiatus", "extended La Nina like conditions") and weather reports like dry western US (la nina-like), cold eastern US winter (la nina-like), and wet UK winter (la nina-like).  It's a slippery slope to just randomly cobble together bleeding edge research papers or press releases as supporting or denying climate change.  It would take about three direct quotes from those very reliably sourced papers above and the "trades winds" paper in Nature to leave the impression that the hiatus is explained by sunspots and the longest solar max period in 100 years (since Solar cycle 14).  I'm not proposing that - mind you - just that it would be real easy to do it.  In fact, we should undo the cobbled bits already in the article.
 * I don't mind splitting the tone as long as the cobbling of articles to explain things that may not exist (like pauses) or weather (like hurricanes, la nina and rain). This shouldn't be the place where people make a connection to their latest weather report and if the average reader does get the impression that their weather was caused by global warming, it's a crappy article.   --DHeyward (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha! Yes! Now we are getting somewhere!  NewsAndEventsGuy?  Dave?   Others?   Do you see just how right you are?   DHeyward (and you and I as well)  love to play "connect the dots" between the the more settled science and the latest cutting edge ideas.  There is definitely a place in the GW WP for cutting edge science articles, even for speculative  articles.  Damn!  It's fun.  And some of the connections may lead somewhere, eventually.  It ain't pure science.  It can't be presented as pure science.  Some articles and some of the connections made/implied/allowed in articles is... garbage, as D points out.  Yet, there is fresh material that is of interest to scientists and to laymen.
 * So, how do we present this Public Interest information? Let me know if there is interest. 75.139.42.110 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Jesse

Neutrality
Come of it, there's nothing neutral about this global warming page. The earth has cooled since 2001. The warming rate from 1975 to 1998 was no larger than that from 1917 to 1946. Several times in the 21st century, earth's surface temperature has been below the peak in the 1870s. There was much wilder fluctuations in the earth's temperature in the late 19th century then we've experienced recently and it didn't have any negative effect on flora or fauna. Overall, what global warming we've had has provided a net positive effect with an explosion in food production and global population. The article just relies on a self-selected group of climate scientists paid to say that climate change will be alarming, making assertions via their union (the IPCC). None of the confidence levels that they attribute are scientific, they're simply statements of opinion. In essence, this entire subject is complete, unadulterated bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdey123 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of moving your comment in a new section. My response to your comment would be that Wiki articles are made up of verifiable statements, from reliable sources - they are not really about what is 'true'. The vast majority of published work disagrees with what you believe. Perhaps they are all wrong, and you are correct, but what goes into the Wiki article is based on what published sources say, the overwhelming majority of which assert global warming is real and man is very likely to be the major cause. Your personal opinion, and mine, does not really matter. As it happens, I am one of the scientists producing the "bullshit" you are talking about. I assure you I am not part of a conspiracy!


 * I do think there is an issue with neutrality, but that is more to do with the tone, choice of non-neutral language in places and interpretation of some non scientific sources. The science, however, is very good. Atshal (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * IMPACT of Non-Neutral Writing. Hi Atshal.  Thanks for your efforts on behalf of neutral writing. Unfortunately, the uproar over your simple edit supports Jdey123's primary assertion that the GW WP is not neutral.  Folks??? Is that what we want?  Do we want the entire article, good science included, to be dismissed because of tone, non-neutral language and some [biased] interpretations of non-scientific articles?  Jdey123 aside, must we be so determined to express our own opinions as to ignore our responsibilities as editors?   Must we to be sappers of our own work?    Insert Sad Face here71.8.61.207 (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Jesse 71.8.61.207 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)jesse 71.8.61.207 (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)jesse75.139.42.110 (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)jesse

Challenge v Undermine
An edit war has just begun, with this edit. The entire paper is available here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi - I will leave a copy of the message I put on your page here so others may. I don't really think this is a big deal particularly.


 * One of the issues that interests me on wikipedia, and one of the reasons I make edits, is the neutrality of articles. I do not think my edit was a "bold edit" particularly - but one that is clearly likely to be more accurate and is also more neutral. "Challenge" is a much broader term and does not infer motives in quite the way that 'undermine' does and does not have the same negative connotations. The claim that all such think tanks were aiming to 'undermine' is actually quite a big claim and one that is probably unknowable. The best you can do is write that this particular author claimed these think tanks were trying to undermine something. 'Challenge' is a more appropriate word since it is a much broader term, definitely accurate since it is incontrovertable - both 'sides' on this particular debate would certainly agree with it. It is a less strong claim, but one that can be made without the need to add something like "It has been claimed that" to preface it. Atshal (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Spending a few moments looking over the abstract of the source, it appears the phrase in question has been lifted almost word for word from the abstract, except for the wiki author replacing the word "challenge" with "undermine". The source says "this paper analyzes the counter-claims promoted by the conservative movement between 1990 and 1997 as it mobilized to challenge the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem" while prior to my edit the wiki version says "From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem". Clearly keeping the authors original wording is a better reflection of the source than changing 'challenge' to the less neutral 'undermine'. Atshal (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Undermine is definitely the correct word to describe the systematic efforts to derail progress on climate regulation. However, I can't support that word choice based on the current source.  I just read about 75% of the paper and they much more often use the word challenge.  If we want to use undermine we're gonna need a source that uses that word more than once.  Anyone have a copy of Merchants of Doubt??  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is not to battle to justify how to include the word "undermine". Wikipedia is not here to forward any particular stance on a topic, but to neutrally present information. If people think including a small section on conservative think tanks in the 1990s is justified, and I have no opinion on that, that is fine. To actively look to portray thing you don't like or agree with in a negative light is not. The person who added this little section and changed the word "challenge" to the word "undermine" in the direct quote " mobilized to challenge the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem" had a reason for doing so, and it seems quite likely it was to present the topic in a manner which agrees with their own personal stance. Not cool. Atshal (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In the context of the rest of the article, actually, I don't really see a huge difference between using the two terms. It's pretty clear from the rest of the article that said challenges were so much sound and fury, signifying nothing regardless of which word is used in this statement.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not really a big deal, and was surprised at the reaction. I do think the change is an improvement though, however minor. Atshal (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sails, thanks for reading the paper. Upon another look myself I do admit that "undermine" applied to only one of the three main strategies they identified, and which are summarized in our text. @Ashtal, just meeting you, thank you for working gracefully with BRD. Above in good faith you said I changed a word from the abstract. That is incorrect. "Undermine" comes from the body of the article itself, though as I just said to Sailsbystars, my first quick read wrongly concluded it applied to the whole paper. Rather it is in a summary not of the entire paper but of a section of the paper. Specifically, the authors sorted think tank strategies and came up with three general categories. The first was to cast doubt on the science and there were several approaches ("themes") they identified. In summarizing that portion of their paper the authors concluded "Through each of these five themes, the conservative movement attempts to discredit the scientific evidence for global warming and, thereby, undermine its credibility in the eyes in the public. Thus, this first and fundamental counter-claim allows the conservative movement to challenge the scientific basis of global warming as a legitimate problem. This counter -claim is essential to the conservative movement's agenda, since lay people and policy-makers must rely primarily upon science for evidence of global warming. By presenting this science as uncertain at best and completely wrong at worst, the conservative movement directly challenges the claim that global warming is a legitimate problem."

- - The source cited in our article, bold added, pdf searchable text here

In this paragraph at least, + I think this is a wrap, but I may float another edit later, consistent with the more limited application of "undermine". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "challenge" refers to how, and
 * "undermine" refers to why
 * Neutral Writing Through Word Choice. Hi NAEG.  I know you work hard on this stuff.  If I may use the above issue to offer some constructive criticism for editors: Word choice matters both in the selection of sources for use in GW WP and in the treatment of material taken from the selected sources.  For example, the legitimacy of the source cited above is strengthened by the author's use of the neutral word "challenge" in the Abstract, even while the word "undermine" is used in sections of the body of the paper.  "Challenge" fits within the context of the entire work. We can us "challenge" without worry about context or about our subjective judgment of the author's intent.  "Undermine" fits not so well.  Also, trying to find a way to use the "more limited application of 'undermine,' gives the appearance of non-neutrality.  "When in doubt - don't," is an expression that can be applied to the proposed use of "undermine" in GW WP.  .   .   .Some general thoughts for all of us on good editing through the use of neutral language: 1. Choose "neutral" language as a matter of routine. 2.  Look for neutral language in our sources and be wary of sources that use non-neutral language. 3. Don't use non-neutral language and then justify that use. 4. Don't try to win every battle in favor of non-neutral language.  71.8.61.207 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)jesse


 * Thanks for the civil discussion. Looking over the history of the page I see that NewAndEventsGuy has contributed a lot, and I think the page is an excellent one and he has one an excellent job. But I would second Jesse's point above - there is no particular reason to go looking for a justification to include the word 'undermine'. I think that type of action actually gives ammunition to the people wanting to criticise the whole page as being strongly biased. The page should not be a platform for a particular belief or judgement about motives. Make the page genuinely neutral, both in the language and choice of material to include, and the science will speak for itself. Atshal (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fact that POV comes in a lot of forms creates a "particular reason" to adhere to what the RSs actually say - we must not fall into the "false balance" thing. The word "challenge" is ambiguous.  This particular RS doesn't merely say "challenge" like MLK challenged segregation.  This particular RS says "Challenge" like the think tanks are "undermining" i.e., intentionally seeking false balance to manipulate public opinion.  That's not me talking, that's the authors talking when they say "undermine".  I'm not "looking for a justification".  I'm looking to report what RSs say without us getting in the way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a false balance - balance does not have anything to do with it. An exact quote was taken from that source and one word replaced with another (less neutral) word, with no justification. The part of the article that you mention is simply the authors speculating on motives, and interpreting actions. I don't see why their opinion is particularly noteworthy. It is very different to the scientific discussion elsewhere in the article, and I think that including the opinions of people, simply because you like their opinion, in a way diminishes the rest of the article, which is based on scientific understanding, consensus and fact. 2001:630:E4:42ED:FFFF:FFFF:D3D6:F62A (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A Variation on STACKING THE DECK, an additional note for editors. Previously, it was suggested that editors should be wary of the logical fallacy known as, "Stacking the Deck." By this device, we pick and choose statements from various sources to garner a result that suits our [often unstated] purposes. The issue in, "Challenge v. Undermine," is a variant form of "Stacking the Deck." In this particular case, a single word is gleaned from one section of the body of an article and then substituted into a phrase taken from the Abstract of that same article to produce a result to suit the editor. .  .   .As editors, it is easy fall into this logical trap as we aim to shorten longer works into just a few concise statements. For heaven's sake, don't do it on purpose. LOL 75.139.42.110 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC) jesse


 * "Challenge" is the better word. "undermining science" seems a bit more nefarious than the reliable sources.  It is correct to have the breakout that you did but "challenge" refers to science and "undermine" refers to support for political action.  "They challenged the science in order to undermine public support for cap and trade" for example, is the proper use of "undermine" and "challenge."  That's how NAEG stated it earlier so I am befuddled as to why that is not reasonable now.  The use of "undermining science" is not neutral just as saying "highlighting flaws and shortcomings in the science" would not be an acceptable description.    --DHeyward (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the journal "Social Problems" an RS?

 * BTW, I'd also question the reliability of the source. They have a specific and open agenda.  Just like we wouldn't consider papers published by a petroleum organization, the "Society for the Study of Social Problems: In Pursuit of Social Justice" seems a bit directed to conclusions.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * NON-NEUTRAL SOURCE. Hmmm.  Yeah.  I agree about the source for the Think Tank paragraph.  It's on the SSSP website.  "Society for the Study of Social Problems In Pursuit of Social Justice" does seem directed to conclusions and thus by its nature non-scientific.  That's not good.  A predilection to bias if not an outright assumption of bias is indicated.  It's in the job description![Humor intended.]  It would be very difficult to reasonably argue that this source is neutral.  Far from it.
 * Oh well. I like the paragraph on Think Tanks and it was my intent to allow time to pass and then to fix a small discrepancy in the writing.  The GW page asserts that the Think Tanks mobilized from 1990-1997.  The source does not say that at all.  Instead, the paper analyzes the counter-claims... between 1990 and 1997.
 * My affinity for the paragraph aside, at this point, it may be best to just scrap this tidbit of information from the 1990's. The GW page has a lot of good science information to convey and need not be unnecessarily encumbered with non-science information from questionable sources that provides fodder for critics.  No harm intended:  Can we get a retraction of this paragraph from the editor who installed said paragraph?  Editor?   75.139.42.110 (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Jesse

This source was originally published in Social Problems, an academic journal. If I understand correctly, the IP and DHeyward are challenging the source's reliability on the basis that an advocacy group liked it enough to repost a copy on the advocacy group's website. What is it about papers originally published in Social Problems that violates WP:RS ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a particular issue with this journal, but I do think social science articles have to be treated a little differently and more carefully than science articles, since there tends to be more conjecture and opinion of the authors in them. As for the comment itself, I feel it neither adds nor detracts from the article. There are many far better and more informative articles regarding public opinion on climate change that could be included e.g just in the last month http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2093.html Atshal (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Social Problems" is the journal for the advocacy group. The advocacy group pays for it's publishing, hires it's editors, etc.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This makes you suspicious, I suppose, but is not evidence of a lack of peer review/intellectual integrity. Personally, I'd never heard of the journal before, but one journal-ranking site I looked up placed it in the top 10%.  Anyone else ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Petroleum groups do the same thing. "Peer-reviewed" by their own staff or group members.  I don't think we would use them much.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Big claims need big evidence. So you're saying it so spits on rigorous peer reviewed standards that its little more than a self-published rag?  Or are you saying something else?  Include basis for the opinion, please.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

University of California Press, publisher of Social Problems, is a respected academic press.Rick Norwood (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors must MAKE CHOICES in order to MAINTAIN the appearance of NEUTRALITY on Science issues. Spitting is not neutral.  No Spitting Allowed.  Same for the suggestion of spitting.  Please Let Us Be Less Contentious.  :::::  The UC Press is well respected.  The journal, "Social Problems," is respected.  The particular article cited seems fine to me in regard to the writing, citations, etc., and I like the paragraph on Think Tanks.:::::  However, for an editor of a science page, it is simply better to avoid the appearance of bias by choosing sources that are not readily associated with advocacy [groups] or other non-neutral entities. Keep the focus on the science. 71.8.61.207 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)jesse
 * UCP will print any academic journal if you pay them. You can self-publish your climate book if you like.  BTW, there are better sources for the same information.  The distinction is their peer review policy which appears to not include non-members.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The chart at the article's beginning was last updated on January 31, 2013
How do we update it for the past year?

74.98.43.6 (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The plot is taken from this NASA page. When they update their data, so can we. As far as I can tell, we have the most recent version, which includes a data point for 2013. If you look at the history of the image page, you can see that a new version has been updated several time, the last time this January. Also see the FAQ, Q7. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed response of Geoengineering
I been trying to catch up on Global Warming and make myself more informed, when I went to Proposed Policy Response:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. I distinctly remember wikipedia talking back in 2006-ish of 3 major types of solutions; however, I only see two--Mitigation and Adaptation. What happen to the other solution to Global Warming? I remember it having risks, but it didn't sound to dangerous because everyone consider it a last resort. I felt that it also gave alot of political weight to both the Mitigation and Adaptation solutions as alternatives, so without it politicians now sound less ridiculous when they say "migation does nothing" or "global warming isn't real." (Similar to how military force gives weight to peace talks and negotiations.) People came up with the third solution because it very real, so real we came up a solutions that we push boundaries of environmental ethics with its risks. So, what happened to the third solution to Global Warming? Could we add it back in for the sake of a complete overview? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.84.45 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By golly, you're right. We used to have such a section, and the lead does say
 * "Proposed policy responses to global warming include mitigation by emissions reduction, adaptation to its effects, and possible future geoengineering."NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, we let the ball drop on a talk thread about this last year. I have restored the text (with revised name "climate engineering") and linked the archives in the edit summary.  Thanks for reminding us of dangling business.  Anyone wanna renew the BRD process with a revert?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed geoengineering link in lead -- to climate engineering per article rename. Vsmith (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for doing this~!(from 108.206.84.45) Physics16 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)