Talk:Climate change/Archive 71

Anthropogenic correlation
If global warming is caused by humans, measures of it ought to correlate with human population numbers. Have any attempts to correlate changes in global temperature or CO2 concentration with human population growth been published in the literature? Such correlations might provide some insight into the future of the phenomena. For example, if human population peaks in, say, 2080, global CO2 levels might also be expected to top out in this time frame. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Virgil H. Soule, from what I know of the literature, there has been not much research into this question, because GHG emissions/capita are highly correlated with lifestyle, and lifestyle is highly non-uniform across the globe. The Global North has far, far higher GHG/capita, but population growth is currently almost entirely restricted to the Global South. So, you're unlikely to find such a correlation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the previous comment regarding population growth. A correlation to world CO2 emissions would be much easier to find.  See also Richard_A._Muller.  You can be certain that Muller looked carefully at this question, and I think his work should be more fully discussed on Wikipedia because he is recognized as an honest broker on the subject.  Another reason for Wikipedia to highlight correlational studies (using multivariate analysis) is that they are extremely easy for the expert to believe and the nonexpert to understand.  See for example the very end of this section:Attribution_of_recent_climate_change and this graph:
 * File:Effect of various natural and human factors on global mean temperature between 1889-2006 (NASA).png, which I believe is based on a 2006 paper by Lean, J. L., and Rind, D. H. (2008): "How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006", Geophysical Research Letters 35 (18)
 * I think this Global warming article needs to highlight the study by Lean and Rind, and any subsequent studies of the same kind. --guyvan52 (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good question, in Africa the name for this typical question is evidence. BR. Trackteur (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons that geophysical/geochemical models are so important is that they can (hopefully) be used to analyze more than just a simple correlation. What matters, in addition to correlation is the size of the global warming signal and its phase relative to measured quantities like CO2. If a good predictive algorithm is developed, one handling all the nonlinearities and which successfully predicts the size and timing of global warming, then that is an advance. But just correlation between CO2 and global warming, or correlations between CO2 and population, or population and global warming, etc. etc. is only a small part of it all. Furthermore, there are lots of signals with trends that are correlated, but which are causally unrelated. A classic example from Yule [1926]: marriages in the Church of England have been on decline, so has the mortality rate: Correlation r = 0.95. Well, great, but the two signals (church marriages and mortality) are not related to each other. To really establish a correlation, data need to be detrended, and, then, the residual analyzed for correlation. Of course, it is the trend in global warming that is the biggest concern, so detrending reduces the significance of the whole exercise. DoctorTerrella (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * VHS: the correlation is not with the numbers of humans, but with certain human activity, specifically with the injection of CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels. And this does track industrialization, but the relation of this with population is complex.


 * It is unlikely that global warming will "top out" given any future reduction in population, industrialization, or even greenhouse cases themselves, because once the arctic icecap is lost there is a major increase in insolation. See the IPCC documents for the various scenarios. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the global warming problem is caused by humans trying to keep themselves warm and fed. In the Northern Hemisphere, the processes for accomplishing that are more complex than in the South, hence, the higher GHG/capita as noted above. Southern hemisphere humans contribute in their own ways, however, through deforestation and slash-and-burn agriculture, for example. In the extreme, if humans disappeared altogether, the world would revert to natural cycles that would vary between no ice (as in Cretaceous times) to completely iced over (snowball Earth). In the presence of humans it follows that more cooking fires worldwide would mean more CO2 emissions and that in some way ought to correlate with human population size. It's a little surprising that this isn't represented in the literature and in this article. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because simply establishing a "correlation" when the data have trends doesn't mean very much. We have a problem, but a simple correlation without a quantitative model doesn't really demonstrate anything. Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this page and you'll see why such a correlation is highly unlikely. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What attribution studies cover this? We should be discussing published good quality sources, not synthesising or speculating. . dave souza, talk 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * DoctorTerrella's valid point notwithstanding, I still like correlation studies because they do not rely on complicated computer models. They can only be used with variables that #1 fluctuate, and #2 have trivially understood causality.  Two good examples are vulcanism and solar cycles -- neither are caused by global warming and neither is caused by a third factor that also can change the climate.  Here the correlation studies show a negative result--neither is sufficient to explain the observed warming.  And, the correlation studies yield data that can test the computer models: we can compare "real" and "computational" volcanoes (or changes in the Sun's energy output).  But correlation studies to human population or even CO2 emissions are impossible due to the fact that CO2 emissions do not fluctuate, except on a seasonal timescale.  For obvious reasons we cannot correlate seasonal CO2 fluctuations with global temperatures and expect to learn anything about the greenhouse effect. --guyvan52 (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * guyvan52, I also like correlations, especially when their statistically significant presence can be either established or, even, not confirmed. I also like phenomenology, especially when theories are so messy that they don't have much by way of predictive power, something might be found with an exploratory search for a correlation. In the end, however, the significance of the correlation needs to be objectively established, and this necessarily involves a data set that is *different* from that used to find the correlation we want to test (the "hypothesis"). Unfortunately, most people analyzing historical data don't keep an objective data set separate. They tend to analyze all the available data and, then, report a "significance" from the very same data set. That is meaningless and contrary to the tried and true scientific method. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This article not NPOV.
This article is not NPOV. There are at least 57 scientists I can find that disagree in some way or other with anthropogenic "global warming." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. This article heavily emphasizes consensus. Watch out. If a vote were taken by 10 people that John should take out the trash, then what would Johns vote count? That would be consensus of course. Also consensus means nothing in Science. Consensus merely determines who is president of the USA or whether a new law should be passed or not. If 99% of individuals have consensus and only 1% are correct then what does consensus mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.125.229 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to confuse consensus with majority. Physical reality is indeed unaffected by majority or consensus. In fact, it's even unaffected by the quality of an argument. But in determining which explanation of reality is more useful and more likely to be a good approximation, consensus among experts is a very strong measure. If you go to 100 physicians for that lump under the skin, 97 of which tell you to get an operation followed by chemo, while 3 disagree with the consensus, one saying you should take two aspirins and plenty of orange juice, one saying that you should change to organic food, and the last one saying that you should buy his particular brand of Bach flower remedies, what would you do? Our article rightly follows the 97% of experts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What Stephan said. Also, you may want to read WP:FRINGE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This article has never had a Neutral Point of View, mainly because the people who edit it are the mad "scientists" who made up all the BS in the first place. For a start, the title is a lie. There is currently no global warming and there has not been any for 17 years. It only permits views from scientists - NOTE not SCIENCE but the views of the public sector academics who push this kind of non-science that "it's warming" when even a 10 year old can tell them it isn't. But you can't put in the obvious THAT IT'S NOT WARMING - because unless one of the morons in the public sector write a paper effectively saying "There's no need for my research", then you cannot get the alternative point of view. So, this article is just the eco-political views of a group of public sector employees with no track record of getting any predictions right and little or no real science with a sugar coating of scientifically sounding words to make it look like "science". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.52.236 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

incorrect link
The Scientific discussion section of this article has a link to Scientific opinion on climate change, which does not exist. (Rather, the article exists, but not the section of that article this link points to.) 70.112.237.191 (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've updated the link, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Food security deleted
I would like to delete the section on Global warming. I've previously written a critique of this section. In my opinion, Global warming already provides an adequate and brief summary on food impacts. There are sub-articles (effects of global warming and climate change and agriculture) that go into more detail. Enescot (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment above reposted from 


 * I've gone ahead and deleted this section. The studies that were referred to are now mentioned in climate change and agriculture. Enescot (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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


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


 * Because the reference cited at the end of the sentence says, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal". On the other hand, I also think that somehow the word has ended up in slightly the wrong place. I don't know too much about all the subtleties of English grammar, but I will say that the word sits nicely in the sentence I just quoted from the ref, but it sticks up a bit in our sentence, "Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in..." I wholeheartedly agree that it should be used very prominently in the opening of the article, but I'm not quite sure that it's in the exact right place yet. Maybe we need to look back at a much older version of the article, as I'm sure it's been there for ages, and read better before. --Nigelj (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a scientific fact. Facts are things that are well-defined, measurable and measured. It is none of those. I doubt that anyone can give me a coherent definition of a climate system, which is agreed to by all scientists,a ad if you want to say it is the sum total of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land surface, and biosphere, there is no recognized scientific group that is measuring the temperature of the aggregate. -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with User:Nigelj, that is, the word "unequivocal" is in there because it is supported by a reference. However, while I do not disagree with the statement, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal", that isn't what the lead says, so it would be nice if someone could find a better phrasing.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a sort of aside, I was trying to track down what appears to be an inconsistency between this article and Greenhouse gas, which led me to review Figure SPM.5 (page 14 of AR5 SPM). I noticed reference to H2Ostr. I don't recall what "str" means. Does someone else know?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just guessing, but could it stand for water vapor in the str atosphere? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I tried a quick search and turned up nothing. I am guessing they are trying to indicate water in gaseous, rather than liquid form, but I don't recall that terminology.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think its discussed at page 17 of the Discussed at page 17 in WG1's Chap 8 supp materials], towards bottom of left column.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, interesting reading. S Philbrick (Talk)  16:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * SP: Your notion of "fact" is rather idealistic. The presentation of something as "fact" often follows a lengthy, even contentious, determination and debate. (E.g.: the "fact" of heliocentricism.) In regards of GW various "things" have been measured, from various viewpoints, and the observation that the globe is warming is as well-founded — as unequivocal — as many other scientific "fact". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can be an idealist when it comes to using words correctly. As anyone who has paid the least attention to the challenges of measuring temperature knows, there are enormous issues with the temperature monitoring system. Despite those problems, I have no problems accepting that global temps are up over the last century or so. However, that is a very different statement than we have in our lead, so the challenge, as I see it, is how to say something that is not too mealy-mouthed, but is actually verifiable.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made clear over several discussions that I think the use of the word "unequivocal," while true and supported by sources, is bad writing and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It makes the article seem more persuasive than informative in style and that's not a good thing.  Sailsbystars (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Sailsbystars. Femkemilene (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying something is "unequivocal" is silly. We make all statements of fact as though a source supports them, this is not a special fact. The whole point of the scientific method is the nothing is beyond doubt and "unequivocal" means beyond doubt. Stating the that first fact is unequivocal seems to imply that the rest of the facts are somehow less certian. Chillum 02:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This has quickly turned into a complex thread. Despite a brief diversion into what might be meant by the term 'scientific fact', which is not really relevant to the article, it worries me that some people may be taking this as an opportunity to try to get some degree of doubt inserted into the opening sentence. Can we be clear that that is not going to happen: We are not here in mid 2014 to discuss the possibility that there is no such thing as global warming. What we are discussing is the best arrangement of the important, cited statements that belong in the opening few lines. This old version of the lede is interesting in that the 'unequivocal' bit appeared in the third sentence, but, given that space, IMHO it sat far more happily, and read much better. Another way of proceeding might be helped by this thesaurus entry. the source uses the word unequivocal, but there is no rule that says that we can't paraphrase, and here we find a good half dozen viable alternatives. --Nigelj (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


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

I agree with JDiala. Saying that global warming is "unequivocal" actually diminishes the point that needs to be made, that it is factual. I suggest simply saying that it is "observed". Really, adding qualifiers like "unequivocal" to something that is so obviously seen in the data doesn't add much to the discussion. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this: Global warming is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Using words like "unequivocal" immediately signals a political bias. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposed new paragraph 1
Below is a new proposal for the first paragraph. Goals include strikeout added by author to reflect later discussion In anticipation of a kneejerk reaction that the first words are not "global warming" let me explain the format before you read it please. The format is consistent with the MOS, which in WP:LEADPARAGRAPH admittedly says
 * Compromise solution to the complaint (by me) that the article title improperly emphasizes "global warming" instead of presenting both "global warming" and a variant of "climate change"
 * Change wording to preserve the meaning of "unequivocal" without using that word in the text (but still using it in the quote in the cite)
 * Comply with MOS in that it introduces topic to "nonspecialists"
 * Keep the gist of the rest of the current first paragraph, except bit on terminology
 * " If possible,  the page title should be the subject of the first sentence...", (bold underline added)

When there are multiple alternative names, putting them all into the grammatical subject clause of the sentence can distort the language of the sentence. The MOS doesn't like distorted language. But in MOS:alternative names it also likes to see alternative names somewhere in the first sentence
 * "Alternative names - By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence..."

By use of "if possible" the MOS implicitly recognizes sometimes it makes more sense to not have the article title as the first words. In the proposal below, I simply moved the title "global warming" and the common alternative names to the end of the sentence, as MOS allows us to do. The result is natural flowing language (in my opinion anyway) If we can agree on this, then we have (re)established consensus on the article's scope, resolved my issues with the article title, and addressed the objections over the phrasing using the word "unequivocal".... which means we can return to the proposed lead outline by to deal with the bloat. In addition, this consensus will become a landmark the next time someone complains about "global warming" vs "climate change". Everyone (except those future complainers) should be happy, no? Hope springs eternal you know.... REVISED PROPOSED NEW PARAGRAPH 1

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very good indeed. Well done and thank you NAEG. The only small niggle I have is that the crucial phrases appear in quotes. I can't find it again now, but there is a policy somewhere that says that each article is about the topic denoted by the title, not the words used in the title. I would suggest:
 * Global warming or anthropogenic climate change, the current warming of Earth's climate system and related effects, is also referred to simply as climate change.  Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is indeed warming up.  The oceans, which provide a large buffer, have absorbed about 90% of the energy added to the climate system since 1970.  Much of the rest heats the atmosphere, where global surface temperatures have increased by about $1.4 °F$ ($0.8 °C$) over the past 100 years, with about $1 °F$ ($0.6 °C$) of this warming occurring since 1980.
 * I have bolded the other term that redirects here anyway. If anyone's interested in doing so, I also think that indeed in "the climate system is indeed warming up" could be replaced by unequivocally. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I like it. Per Jefferson ("Never use two words when one will do") I would get rid of the "Indeed" in "indeed warming up". And per my scientific inclination, I would put Celsius first, Fahrenheit second. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Stephan, if you indent like I do, I think you expressed a preference for Nigelj's tweaking. Is that right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, I like both versions, and my comment applies to both. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Both are very good. I think the first sentence reads more smoothly as follows: Global warming, the current warming of Earth's climate system and related effects, is also referred to as anthropogenic climate change simply climate change. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Global warming, the current warming of Earth's climate system and related effects, is also referred to as anthropogenic climate change or simply climate change. prokaryotes (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Below is my third attempt. In this version, for clarity I have imported the existing hatnote, and as suggested "indeed" is deleted, C precedes F, and I started with Nigelj's first sentence but tweaked it more because I just now noticed the example in the MOS that follows this principle
 * When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.
 * The example reads
 * '' The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the north-western coast of continental Europe.

Further tweaking sentence 1 in Nigelj's version so that it matches that approved template as closely as possible, and incorporating the other explicitly listed suggestions produces the following (and please pardon if I overlooked some other difference in others' suggestions that wasn't explicitly mentioned outside the text) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I dislike the sentence about "Multiple lines of scientific evidence," first thing I think about is "lines" as in a poem. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about, "multiple fields of scientific study show that the climate system is warming up". Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, I think this is a pretty good step in the right direction! The "multiple lines of evidence" bit doesn't seem so objectionable to me... If one wanted to, one could I suppose improve a bit by actually naming the aspects of warming mentioned in the source. "Scientific evidence for warming has been observed in the temperatures of the ocean, air, and surface, the decline of glaciers and snow cover, and the rise of sea level and water vapor concentration."  It's passive voice (blech), but you get the idea.  Just so long as we talk about each of those pieces of evidence somewhere in the article.... Sailsbystars (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) OK I used strikeout and undline in the above gray box to change "multiple scientific lines of evidence" to the wording from the quote resulting in "multiple scientific indicators"
 * (B) Sails, that's a good idea for the body of this article, or possibly a break out article on evidence of warming, but its too much detail for the lead in my opinion. This all started, after all, with appropriate complaints of lead bloat.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple is good too. :) Like I said, multiple lines of evidence was fine by me, and so is the revised version.  Another possibility (again, don't object to the current or original):  Many parts of the climate system show evidence of warming.  Only other tweak, maybe throw in one more sentence at the end for future warming: Global temperatures are expected to continue to rise (xx-xx C by 2100 | xx-xx C per doubling of CO2). Really needs to be at least something about the future in the lede. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "needs to be at least something about the future in the lede" Certainly, but that's already in a subsequent lead paragraph, which are not at issue at the moment.  We'll talk about projections and much more when we get back to the lead bloat issues.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A huge improvement. I think it's indeed better to use Celcius, also considering that the majority of non-US countries use this unit. Both multiple scientific indicators and multiple scientific lines of evidence sound okay to me. It is correct to state that the ocean is a buffer for global warming? It is simply part of the global warming, is it not? Femkemilene (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a really good point! Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Getting better with each revision. Why "warming up"? Why not just "warming"?Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I put it in and took it out again 2 or 3 times. Must be my upper midwest (USA) childhood roots, where we often "warm up leftovers for supper".  I'll take it out next time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Femkemilene's concerns about the word "buffer". I don;t see what it adds. However, I am concerned about the entire sentence. Why do we emphasize one of the five components of the climate system? While it absorbs the lion's share of the heat, there's no mention of the contribution to land or cryosphere. (I'm fine with omitting biosphere, which is a whole different issue.) When the subsequent sentence says much of the rest goes into the atmosphere, should the reader conclude that the temperature increases of the cryosphere and land are de minimus? I doubt that's true. So we either need to expand it, which would make it awkward, or simplify it. Why on earth do we need it in the lede? (Sorry, I know how hard this is, and I'm contributing more brickbats than construction suggestions.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposed new paragraph 1 (starting with NAEG V 4)
This version incorporates suggestions to find other way to say "multiple lines of evidence", to delete "up" from "warming up", and to omit description of ocean as a "buffer". The issue raised by about the sentence on ocean warming is not yet resolved.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal, but I preferred "multiple lines of evidence". --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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


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


 * You have a bad habit of altering location and headings of other editors comments. Please stop.  You are not the talk page hall monitor. You have not established any form of consensus outside a small walled garden of editors.  My comment is general and about the desire to broaden scope but with little scientific support.  If AR5 and GMST are your metrics, you've not expanded the definition.  OHC is a reg herring sub-set of surface temperature as nearly all warming occurs in the surface of the ocean (80-90%).  You didn't have consensus to change the title and backdooring that failure by changing the content is rather counter to the intent of consensus as well as WP:TITLE.  Insisting that "global warming" is beyond GMST and then only offering GMST metrics is not consistent.  Like I said, Encycolpedia Brittanica gets it correct.  Hansen gets it correct.  Climate change is the article that covers the effects of global warming beyond GMST including changes to the ocean, tree line, ice area, habitat, etc.  I ask again why you think GMST is inadequate as the definition?  Your failure to change the name to something broader should stop you from trying to broaden the article against that consensus.  --DHeyward (talk)
 * (A) Your complaints about the way I follow the WP:TPG have been addressed at your talk page
 * (B) The long-standing consensus here is that the topic is the climate change earth is currently experiencing. I'm not the guy trying to change it.
 * (C) Since it is your goal to overturn the years long consensus on article topic by narrowing the topic to nothing but trends in Global Mean Surface Temperature, I'm willing to AGF that you seriously want to try to accomplish that goal. In my view, the only way you can possibly achieve it is to start a new thread for that express purpose, use RFC and DR, and live with the resulting consensus whichever way it goes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

first sentence
I have some concerns. I'll start with a minor one, which might trouble some people, but I can live with it. I don't think global warming and climate change are exactly the same thing. However, I note that many, many sources are not so careful, and use the terms interchangeably. Those that do discuss differences don't suggest there are fundamental differences, but minor differences. Finally, we aren't strongly stating that the two concepts are identical, we are simply noting that both terms are in use. I do feel differently about anthropogenic climate change. The adjective "anthropogenic" either means (correctly) that we are talking about some subset of changes or (incorrectly) that we are taking about all changes and all are caused by man. Neither is an accurate summary of this article. For example, some portion of sea level change is due to Isostatic rebound. Some portion is due to movements of tectonic plates other than ice sheet melting. Some is due to erosion. None of these (except possibly erosion, which is not global warming) is man-made, so would have to be excluded form a discussion of anthropogenic climate change. The jury is still out on whether the cosmic ray influence on cloud production is material, but discussion of the issue, when settled, ought to be in an article about climate change, not shunted off to a Climate change (other than man-made) article. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was silent on all this stuff for several days pondering what to do. In a fit of multiple personality disorder I even stood in front of a mirror debating the different perspectives with myself, when one of the voices (Baron Harkonnen perhaps) bellowed, "Don't be a semantophile!"  I wrote the first grey box above within an hour of that revelation.
 * If you're worried about equating "global warming" with "anthropocentric climate change" best review AR4 WG3 glossary, where global warming is specifically defined as being anthropocentric. Based on one subset of sources your points are well taken, but the entire collection of sources just hasn't stabilized around the terms enough to say that your reasonable view on some of the sources is right to the exclusion of all other views.  There is more than one "right", which is why this keeps coming up.  So let's dwell with laser beams on the goal.  The goal is to introduce the topic - which is NOT necessarily defined by the title - to nonspecialists.  The topic, as our hatnote says, is the climate change earth is now going through.  We have sources that nuance meanings this way and that way but not the same way as each other and other sources that use the words interchangeably.   We want, errrr... at least I want..... any nonspecialist who comes in with one of the words in their head to plug in and read engaging coverage of the current climate change earth is going through that will eventually help the newbie nonspecialist make semantic sense of the terminology hash in an appropriate detail section or subarticle.   We're really screwing the elevator pooch if we try to do that by article title or in the lead, assuming we're trying to talk about the overall climate change earth is now going through.  I'll also add that "global warming" is apparently the dominant phrase in the USA, but "climate change" is the favorite in Britain.source.


 * As we continue to work on the lead, a headline I want to preserve is that scientists (AR5) are >95% certain that "most" of it is human caused. Thus the lead itself should undo any damage implied by bad semantics in the first sentence.   Thoughts?
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I could live with deleting 'anthropogenic climate change' from the first sentence. I included it based on others' comments in some other threads.  Maybe we should strike it in Ver 5 and see who pipes up? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for your considered and thoughtful responses. You make many good points, some I agree with. This is one where we differ, at least based upon my recollection, which we can look up if you think my recollection is flawed. It is quite understandable that we rely very heavily on the IPCC reports. Is there another scientific question where more scientists have pulled together in an organized way to address a question? I think it is unparalleled. However, the initial mandate contained one fundamental flaw. The group was not tasked with investigating and explaining the scientific underpinnings of climate change, they were tasked to "assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation." (Emphasis added.) The quote is from an IPCC report explaining its scope
 * This was, in my opinion, a mistake. By specifically limiting the scope of the study to human-induced issues, they ended up, not surprisingly, focusing on human-induced causes. However, this is a constraint placed upon the UN effort, which does not mean we have to adopt the same definition, We ought to use a sensible definition. To the extent there are negative effects of climate changes, those effects are negative whether the cause is human-induced or natural. While knowing the cause will help in identifying some mitigation approaches, mitigation efforts are not dependent on the cause. Our audience cares about climate change, first and foremost. What portion of that climate change is human caused, is an important issue, probably important enough to be in the lead, but that's not the same as saying we should define the subject matter as excluding climate changes issues to the extent they are natural.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I too find it frustrating that WG1 does a lot to look at human/nonhuman attribution issues but never defines the term 'global warming', but WG3 - which is not tasked to look at attribution issues - goes ahead and does so.  Seems like reliable authorities could easily provide two definitions; the technically narrow one and the neologistic commonname one. But oh well.   We agree that the article topic should cover the whole gamut of the current change in earth's climate (by whatever name) and not just the human component, yes? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have refs at the moment, but from memory I'm sure it can be argued that the percentage split of human/non-human causes is over 100%. Specifically, if it wasn't for the human alterations we would now be in a slowly cooling climate, heading gently towards the next ice age. On the other hand, there have been recent discussions somewhere here on WP where people were talking about more like a 50/50 split. I think this is certainly an interesting area, but as I say, I'm not really up to speed on the best published science. --Nigelj (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Another point that I've addressed before: The rise of energy in the ocean is not juxtaposed against temperature as "despite". As ocean heat content rises, it's a forcing. Currently equivalent to about 0.5 W*m-2. GMST is not "despite" ocean heat content anymore than it is "despite" rising GHGs. Anyone that has a pool or lives near an ocean understands this basic concept. "Despite" needs to be dropped because they are different, modeled different and not competing with each other. --DHeyward (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Despite" has already been removed from the new draft. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"current" vs "recent"
On a slightly different note, I really like this new lead, but I would suggest changing the word "current" to "recent" - climate generally refers to periods of the order of decades, but the word "current" implies something that is happening at this very moment in time. Year on year variability means there will be lulls and drops in global temperature on an inter annual scale, while the overall trend is still increasing over longer time periods, so the word "current" is not really accurate here as it puts too much emphasis on what is happening right now. I think "recent" is better as this implies a warming trend over a period of time in the near past, which better reflects what global warming is. Atshal (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good faith comment. "Recent" is certainly true since the warming started many years ago.  However, "recent" implies "not now" so I'm dead opposed to this suggestion because "not now" does not comport with the sources.  The sources say say that each second - right now - the climate system is warming with the energy equivalent of .... well you can take your pick of analogies and one obviously POV analogy makes the energy we're talking about equal to just over 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.  So although we can't use that POV analogy in the article, it nonetheless illustrates my point.  We must not suggest warming is "recent but not now", because it most definitely IS now.  In addition, due to the climate system's lag time and Earth's energy budget being positive, it will continue to warm for quite awhile even if GHG emissions instantly go to zero.  So "current" is definitely more in line with sources than "recent", even though "recent" is a valid part of the whole story.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you make about the word "recent" not implying that it is still ongoing, but I also think you are making a couple of errors in your analysis here. Year on year the climate system is not warming, if measured by average global temperature - there is always inter annual variability. Global warming is a trend, and a trend is measured over time. Using the word current implies that it is happening right now and at every moment, which I don't think is accurate - it happens and can only be measured over a period of time (e.g. 30 years is often suggested as the time period over which to consider climate). Within the time period there will be drops, and lulls, which contradicts the assertion that the warming must be "current" i.e. happening right now.
 * Secondly, I regard the term global warming as referring to warming that has already happened in the recent past, not just warming that is currently happening.
 * I just feel that "current" misrepresents something important about the nature of global warming. Atshal (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to add to this briefly, I agree with including the phrase "and related effects" part of the sentence, but that is also not consistent with "current". The related effects are the effects of warming that has taken place in the recent past - the effects of current warming will be seen in the future and are currently only projections. Atshal (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the smaller points, some of which are large in themselves, you're basically agreeing with DHeyward's desire to turn the article topic into a narrow discussion of GMST instead of changes underway in the entire climate system. That's being discussed in this other thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I really like the changes you suggest, and I think your version is far superior to the current opening paragraph. I just think the word "current" is too narrow in scope, and the recent warming over the last 150 years is part of the phenomenon, not just current warming (which IS variable year on year). Not a big deal in my mind really. And I certainly don't believe the scope of the article should be narrowed to solely mean temperatures, I don't know what gives you that idea. Atshal (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about misunderstanding.  And now that I think about it, what I should have said right off the bat is that I think your comment is based on a good faith but false reading and a good faith oversight.   The false reading is that of the word "current", which you seem to read as "this instant".  But that's not what it means.  Instead "current" means the present phase of earth's geologic history as defined by this episode of positive Earth's energy budget.   And we agree that we should be taking note of past warming, but you didn't really acknowledge that the second half of the very same paragraph (sentence 3 and 4) is devoted entirely to past warming.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, it seems we have the same position. Will this use of the word "current" be clear to readers of the article? It was not to me. Atshal (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You read a draft of a single paragraph. Have faith.  The rest of the lead overhaul is yet to come.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

where is global warming going
I am struggling with the last two sentences. Essentially, the proposed lead can be viewed in the following way: I recognize that we might not know the some of the answers, but it feels odd to refer to a climate system with 5 components, each of which has some energy flow and temperature change, and we can only talk about 2 of the ten possibilities, and then only for limited time spans. The lead is supposed to be for the most important things. Why is it important to know the energy flow into the oceans over the last 40 years or so? What conclusions about global warming can be drawn from that fact? Let me be clear–I am not disputing the factoid, or that it belongs in the article, I am questioning the prominence of what I view to be an obvious but uninteresting an unimportant piece of information.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Climate system, as a whole, is warming.
 * We'll tell you what proportion of the energy is going into one of the five components of the climate system, but not how much impact it has on the temperature.
 * We'll tell you how much the temperature has changed for another one of the components of the climate system, but we won't tell you how energy is involved (except to note it must be less than 10%)
 * We won't tell you how much energy flows into the land, or how the temperature changes
 * We won't tell you how much energy flows into the cryosphere, or how the temperature changes
 * We won't tell you how much energy flows into the biosphere, or how the temperature changes
 * Back up the horses... after I posted my initial reply (below) I realized we might not be communicating. The gray box is a proposed first paragraph for a lead, not a lead in its entirety.   In the thread on lead bloat Nigelj has posted an outline for an entire new lead.  There is room there to talk about temperature this and that, which might resolve some of this.  Key thing I wanted to flag is that the gray box is not an entire lead, if that helps.  If there was no confusion, then my original reply (below) still stands.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


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


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


 * The rest heats the continents, melts snow and ice, or warms the atmosphere.(insert AR5 cite and maybe add CC3.0 graphic) Global surface temperatures have increased by about $1.4 °F$ ($0.8 °C$) over the past 100 years, with about $1 °F$ ($0.6 °C$) of this warming occurring since 1980.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple indicators/lines of evidence

 * Having dwelt on challenges, I do want to support the idea of the multiple lines of inquiry point (while not yet finding the right wording.) It is not enough for a skeptic to challenge one tree study, or find some thermometer siting issues; there are quite a number of indicators, many consistent with a warming thesis, so the evidence for warming is not thin, but robust. I'm not quite sure how to word this, but I see it as a headline issue.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with "multiple lines of evidence" based on the existing quote which uses "multiple indicators". In addition there are plenty of RSs that use "multiple lines of evidence" and we could add one if need be.  I don't particularly care, but I also don't see an actionable suggestion for tweaking the current "multiple indicators" here, so unless there's a proposal I think this subsubsub topic is done? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should change "Multiple scientific indicators" into "Evidence has grown significantly in recent years" and show that the climate system is warming. - This is in line with the lead from the cited report. prokaryotes (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, I wouldn't. Before becoming president, Abe Lincoln was a trial lawyer.  One morning, he served as prosecutor and won using a particular interpretation of a point of law.  After lunch he was defense counsel in a nearly identical case.  Abe cited the same point of law, but vigorously argued a different interpretation.  Calling him to the bench, the judge asked him to defend his actions.  Said Lincoln, "Your Honor, this morning I may have been mistaken, but now I know I'm right!"
 * AR4 (in 2007) said the evidence showed that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal".(AR4 WG1 SPM)  We should not insert words that imply AR4 might have exaggerated, but in AR5 they know they're right.   Remember, at this precise bit of text we're only dealing with the fact of warming, for which the case was made years ago.  When we get to Attribution of climate change, you are correct that AR5 spm does say that evidence about the cause has grown substantially.  But we're not working on that bit of text yet.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. :) prokaryotes (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. :) prokaryotes (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

What points would I want to emphasize? I'd like to define it, identify the causes to the extent known, identify the impacts and identify the level of consensus in the existence, causes and effects.

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

However, didja know that 90% of the energy flow over the last 40 years ends up the ocean? wouldn't make my cut for the elevator pitch. If I get the call back for a more in-depth discussion, sure (assuming I can figure out why it matters) but in the initial speech? Not a chance.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I replied to this in the subsection with the thumbnail image "where is global warming going" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I still like the elevator pitch concept as an analogy, but it applies to the lead, not simply to the opening sentence.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Suggestions after ver 4 that I did not include because I think they are not actionable
 * Dropping "despite"; this was not actionable because it was already dropped in prior version
 * Changing "current" to "recent"; this was not actionable because the sources do not imply warming was recent but now halted. Instead sources discuss this warming episode in earth's geologic history; the sources say it started years ago, is happening now, and will continue.


 * Suggestions after ver 4 that are incorporated
 * In various locations multiple eds expressed okness and/or slight preference for changing "multiple indicators" back to the earlier draft's "multiple lines of evidence"; To forestall future criticism I also tracked down an RS to back up that phrasing.
 * "Anthropogenic climate change" was dropped from the first sentence as a result of discussion at this talk page, Nigelj's talk page, and Sphilbrick's talk page.


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


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


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


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

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC):I really want to be supportive, but I can't be fully supportive. On a positive note, I like the first two sentences. I'm struggling with the third, not because it is false, but because it is uninteresting, except to the extent it is being used to mislead, which is not our goal. As for the unprecedented changes, I realize this is the lead, and summarizes what is in the article.
 * Possible candidates:
 * Air temps - they are definitely higher now than in decades, but there is disagreement over whether recent years are higher than in the 30's. The actual measured temps ant he 30's were higher, but NOAA adjusts older temps down and recent temps up. Some question how valid these adjustments are. Perhaps they are valid, but our article doesn't seem to even acknowledge that one has to make these adjustment to make the claims about records.
 * Sea Level - probably the highest in millenia, but most of the increase over the past few thousand years is due to being in an inter-glacial. Recent increases are largely due to warming, but the increase are decelerating not accelerating.
 * Ice caps - the Arctic is smaller than many recent years, but not over millenia. The Antarctic recently set an all-time record for ice extent (admittedly,t he length of the record isn't all that long)
 * Hurricanes and tornadoes - recent level are below ling term averages
 * Snow cover - recent years have been higher than average
 * This is the top of my head, and maybe some will be challenged, but we need to make sure there are enough unprecedented events to justify the word "many".-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Without knowing your sources, it takes some guesswork to challenge these assertions. The first looked familiar, there's been a story around that in the raw temperature data from the continental USA, the hottest year on record is 1934. In 2012, an exciting new (unpublished) paper was announced, which had somehow forgotten about time of observation bias. These are U.S. specific, this article is about global (or at least NH) scale changes. Can you provide sources for clarification, if these comments are relevant to the article? . . dave souza, talk 06:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree we need "unprecedented" examples in body to say it in lead. Not sure if your list is stuff now in article (I haven't checked) or suggestions for what might find a place in the article.  But add to list...
 * CO2 level
 * Rate of CO2 increase
 * Vanishing midlatitude snowfields, revealing Neandertal hunting weapons to rot, after being preserved in situ all this time
 * As for the Antarctic sea ice extent, we agree it's an "all time record" and some sources say it was predicted by global warming theory, thus its another indicator of a warming world, not a cooling or static one.

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


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


 * (A) It's incorrect to phrase that implying that total Antarctica ice is increasing; See NASA, Nov 2012 "Ice Sheet Loss at Both Poles Increasing, Study Finds"
 * (B) As for sea ice, that's not right either. You're making an assumption that there is a lack of fresh water and low-salinity water to freeze just because it's winter.  Sure, there's isn't much new surface melting at the time.  So?  What other spigots could there be?  Warming southern oceans melting ice from under the shelves?  Continental drainage?  The temp of ice sheet's basal ice and water under the shelves varies very little compared to seasonal air temps. Please see "Why is southern sea ice increasing?" and the various references cited therein, and in the comments.  I haven't looked at the 1992 Manabe paper, but its claimed they saw the increase in sea ice coming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) Maybe it was true that Antarctica was losing ice in 2012, but in 2014, it set a record for "largest April extent on record, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)." Source
 * (B) I checked out Manabe. The increase wasn't important enough to even make it into the abstract. They do note, on page 113, that there was a surprising expected increase in the Weddell and Ross seas. Those aren't tiny, but are not the whole continent. That follows the statement "the change of sea ice is relatively small in the circumpolar ocean of the Southern Hemisphere, except..." It isn't clear to me whether the "relatively small" attribute applies to the whole area, or just the are net of those two seas. In any event, as the NSIDC graph shows, the area near the Weddell and Ross seas is very close to the long term average, and the excess ice is mostly in the Amundsen Sea and off Enderby Land. In other words, it hasn't grown where they predicted it would grow, and it has grown where they predicted it would not. Do you disagree?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On a positive note, Manabe et al does make a decent case that the expected changes in the two poles are likely to differ, due to a couple factors. That was interesting.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My reply to all is found under the subsection Talk:Global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


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

unprecedented changes
I think the almost-forum discussion about sea ice under the opening for NAEG Ver 5 (above) is a response to the sentence in NAEG Ver 5 about "unprecedented changes". To get back to the immediate issue, the questions is Does the body adequately report on "unprecedented changes" to warrant including this sentence in the lead? I'm ok dropping that sentence for the time being to move the rest of the lead-bloat reduction process along. Later I may want to work on List of unprecedented observations of global warming and revist. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So for Ver 5 I think the open items so far are the hatnote wordsmithing and finding out if there is an RS that supports the contention that the "factlet" about ocean warming is "unimportant", as I have asked here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

used to mislead

 * No problem, good challenges done in good faith make great writing.  Please explain "used to mislead" because I really don't know what you meant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also struggling with the Ocean warming issue, mainly because I think it has the possibility of being contentious. That isn't my goal, so I've been struggling with the best way to present the issue. I'll start by turning the Rip Van Winkle point on its head. I predict that when this article is reviewed 20 years hence, the attribution of warming to the oceans will not play a central theme. We all know why the 93% plays such a central role in AR5. It wasn't a point of emphasis in earlier IPCC reports. Why not? Surely the fact that the bulk of warming goes into the oceans isn't a new observation? No, it has always been the case that the ocean dominate the atmosphere in terms of heat content. However, in the recent IPCC report, they had to deal with the fact that air temps have been roughly flat over the last 17 years or so. Skeptics have pounced on this factoid, proclaiming it disproves global warming, even though it does nothing of the sort. However, climate scientists brought up the ocean warming issue as a way to explain how the system can warm, even if a small portion does not. Both sides are in the odd position of espousing a true statement, but neither statement means what they want their audience to think. 17 years of flat air temps does not disprove the science of global warming (though it provide a challenge to the modelers that hasn't yet been answered), while the ocean warming facklet fails to give an adequate explanation of how long wave radiation reflected in the atmosphere, manages to heat the ocean (and the lower layer, not the top layer) while not heating the air, and furthermore, why this should have changed over time. This is highly contentious and I doubt we will resolve it on these pages, but I don;t think we should be including a highly contentious piece of information that explains nothing so prominently in the article.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, not what I expected. I summarized all this for a research professor (not climate issues) in my family; their answer was that people often think science is about what is known, but what science is really about is learning enough to ask the next big question, then figuring out ways to answer it.   While you may harbor personal doubt about the motivations and meaning in ocean warming's coverage in AR5, a quick look at the full WG1 chap 3 (oceans) and search on "since AR4" gives an overview of a heap of work that's been done.  I suppose some eds might want to diss all that and the prominence given the issue in the every-7-year massive lit review represented by the IPCC assessment reports, but such editorial prejudices doesn't change what is stated in the RS.   We ought not make our decisions on what is contentious, but on what is in the sources.  And for that matter, not including this material is as contentious as including it, so that basis for decision making is canceled out.   Answer:  WP:FOC.   The distribution of earth;s energy gain is a fundamental issue to this topic, so I'm not persuaded that either (a) fears of wikipedia contention or (b) speculation about hidden motives by the IPCC are reasons to omit this material from the draft.  No doubt others will have various ways of supporting either perspective.  Have at it, folks.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can youtube vids be used as an RS?  For the body of this or other article (not this lead) here is an excerpt on the subject of this sub-thread.  It's just 3 min from a shipboard talk by Dr Steve Rintoul and includes, "When we talk about global warming, we're really talking about ocean warming in a real sense...." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Sphilbrick, what would you have predicted 24 years ago? When the FAR SPM p. xxvi said "the atmosphere is closely coupled to the oceans, so in order for the air to be warmed by the greenhouse effect, the oceans also have to be warmed, because of their thermal capacity this takes decades or centuries. This exchange of heat between atmosphere and ocean will act to slow down the temperature increase", and WG1 p. 76 "The ocean also plays an essential role in the global climate system. Over half of the solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is first absorbed by the ocean, where it is stored and redistributed by ocean currents before escaping to the atmosphere". Just wondering. .  dave souza, talk 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How timely. Today ClimateProgress blogger Joe Romm posted about the newly released "NOAA:State of the Climate 2013" saying "So the place where climate scientists predicted the overwhelming majority of the heat trapped by human emissions would end up is precisely where there has been rapid warming in the past 20 years." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dr Steve Rintoul said we need to know what is happening to the ocean. No disagreement. He says 90% of the heat is going into the oceans. No disagreement. He also says that when we talk about global warming, we are talking about ocean warming. Sorry, not so fast. If the only things that was happening was ocean warming, it would be worth investigation, and discussion of mitigation, but the conversation would be quite different. Read the list of the hundreds of bad things happening or predicted to happen, and most are driven by air temps. Predictions of more tornadoes? Air. Glaciers melting? Air. Heat waves? Air. Species lost? Mostly air. Food crop dislocations? Air. Even hurricanes, which are clearly ocean related, are driven by surface temps, and the allegation is that the deep ocean is heating more than the surface. Someone is sure to misread this as an argument that global warming can be ignored, because it won't affect as much as we thought. Not at all. on the one hand, I am simply disagreeing with the glib equivalence of global warming with ocean warming. More importantly, but not yet addressed, is how can it be that the heat went into the oceans and the air for decades, and then suddenly decided to skip the air and just go into the deep ocean. We didn't have good ocean measurements until Argo, which means we really don't have much history. The models are getting better, but we still know less than we need to.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh? Predictions of more tornadoes? Air??? Thought air movement had a lot to do with ocean temps. What makes you think that the climate variability known about for more than 20 years can fairly be represented as "suddenly decided to skip the air and just go into the deep ocean"?? You seem to be making this up: your argument appears to be that misinformed people will misread things and ignore what's been stated in good sources, so we should mislead them by omitting info.. . . dave souza, talk 21:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Dave souza:  Dave I do not appreciate the suggestion I'm making something up. Please retract it. All of us can make mistakes, and if I have, I'll admit it. But claiming I'm making something up is a BIG DEAL. Be specific. which statement do you think is in error:
 * Tornadoes are more common when air temps are high
 * Tornadoes are more common when ocean temps below the surface are high
 * Ocean temps have increased over the past two decades
 * Air temps are roughly flat over the last 17 years
 * Something else?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Insert: @ Sphilbrick, you've asked for a retraction to my statement "You seem to be making this up", which applies both to the argument that the significance of ocean warming is only significant due to the "factlets", and the "factlets" themselves which lack any source. Whether intentionally or not, you're accusing most scientists involved in climatology of using ocean energy absorption to mislead the public, and I take strong exception to that. I've no idea if you made up these points or read them somewhere, as shown below the "tornados" argument does appear in fringe sources. Clarification of where you found these points would resolve this question, though perhaps this is trending to get offtopic so this is not something I'd insist on. . . dave souza, talk 14:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll jump in.
 * (A) By moving conflict mediation over user behavior to user talk, we can just WP:FOC as it applies to article improvement
 * (B) In this WP:FOC corner we have the RS known as IPCC AR5 WG1; and in that WP:FOC corner we have an ed's desire to ignore what that RS sought to trumpet due to the ed's RS-free opinion that it somehow isn't relevant or isn't interesting except to extent the ed thinks it "is being used to mislead".
 * Personally, my WP:FOC money's on the RS.  I don't suppose we could move along now, and ask the ed behavior battle to move to user talk and make use of WP:THIRD if need be?  After all, there were no RSs cited in any S' remarks, so its more FORUM than discussion of article improvement.  And I participated in the FORUM too, so I'm not trying to slam on that account.  Just sayin' we're afield from talking about making a better article based on RS content here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I trust it is obvious that we aren't going to put everything from AR% in the article. By definition, or it would just be a reproduction of the document. Our job, as editors, is to extract what we judge to be the most important aspects of the report and incorporate them into a neutral summary of global warming. You think the ocean proportion is important, I think it is unimportant. At this point, I don't need an RS, because I'm not contending that the claim is false. I'm trying to explain why I think the factlet is unimportant; if you think my claims are false, I can supply an RS in support, but I haven't so far, because I don't think I've said anything that isn't well-known. So please let me know whether you think my argument is flawed, and why, and we can make progress. If you think the flaw is a matter of fact, I'll find an RS to support it. If you think there's an error of inference, we can discuss it. Fair?
 * I'll also ask you to explain why it belongs. The fact that it is true is not enough, as I hope I have demonstrated. It is a small interesting fact, and probably belongs in the article. (That, in itself, means it is more important than 99% of the material in the report, which is straight math—less than 1% of the stamens in AR5 get included in our article.) However, you want it, not just in the article, but in the opening paragraph, which means it must be in your view, one of the most important facts related to the subject.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "I think the factlet is unimportant; if you think my claims are false, I can supply an RS in support" If you want to change the RS-free claim into an RS-supported one.... whatcha waitin' for? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Just wanting to emphasize that I think this thread is entirely forum and non-actionable unless  supplies an RS; and then we can see if is enough to gain consensus for the proposition that ocean warming is "unimportant" and/or "used to mislead" on the topic of the current warming of earth's climate system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ Sphilbrick, you opened your list of "bad things" with "Predictions of more tornadoes?" Having searched a bit, about the nearest I've found in reliable sources is TAR WG! SPM p. 5 "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed", and "climate models currently lack the spatial detail required to make confident projections. For example, very small-scale phenomena, such as thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail and lightning, are not simulated in climate models." It does seem to be a bit of a theme in fringe sources, so you appear to be arguing that we shouldn't show the science because deniers have misrepresented it in their attempts to mislead. Similarly, "Air temps are roughly flat over the last 17 years" is a cherry-picked misrepresentation of what's been called the global warming hiatus, where air temps have increased over the last 17 or so years, but not as quickly as over the preceding 17 years. Since the WMO period for defining climate has long been 30 years, not such a big deal, and no reason to bowdlerise the lead. . dave souza, talk 08:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "bowdlerise"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bowdlerise. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
 * This thread appears to have reached an end. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Break for topic change: climate model predictions

 * @NewsAndEventsGuy:  Speaking of timing, there's a paper coming out Monday which will identify some climate models which have correctly predicted recent sea surface temps. I don't know the name or the author, but will watch for it.
 * Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * this paper though behind paywall, so I haven't read it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's interesting. Well-estimated global warming by climate models, commentary by one of the authors with links to other papers on related topics. Also mentions some of the points we were discussing here. Don't know if this group of papers is approaching the point where WP coverage is appropriate. . dave souza, talk 21:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @, thanks that does look interesting. We're done with that portion of the thread (including an RS request) above the break then ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

ENSO is a natural and neutral physical cycle without any established link to global warming (like about a half-dozen other papers). The authors don't appear particularly notable for climate science and like stadium waves, trade winds, el nino modokai, stratospheric water vapor and various other peer-reviewed articles in nature, they are WAY too theoretical to include as establishing anything. They do have a place, but not in Encyclopedia articles where theories have not been alive long enough to establish veracity. --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Housekeeping

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

Comment by Prokaryotes

 * Small suggestion: "Global warming, also known as climate change, is the current warming of Earth's climate system and its related effects impacts."
 * I like this part now, "Multiple lines of scientific evidence".
 * Broad suggestion (need to acknowledge following parts): "Additions to Earth's energy budget in recent decades, from the increase in heat-trapping gases, is distributed into the Oceans (93%), melts the Cryosphere (deglaciation) and warmth continents and atmosphere." prokaryotes (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thoughts. My reply -
 * (A) Since our main article on that is EFFECTS of global warming, I'm not inclined to change to "impacts" unless you can show knock 'em dead RS or win consensus to change that article title.
 * (B) At least the way I envision it, the next paragraph would start talking about causes. If GHG were the only contributing factor, I might really like your approach, but it isn't the only contributing factor, and we recently had hot thread(s) about the need to mention the others.  It would be messy to try to combine all the causes into the same sentence that desribes where the accumulated energy goes, so it makes more sense to me to cover causes in a new paragraph.   It also makes more sense to separately talk about them, because that will lead into the summary of the policy debate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Hatnote
Going back some years and used in NAEG v5-

Suggestions for tweaking
 * 1)  --Nigelj (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- prokaryotes (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) This article is about the current change in Earth's climate.  "Climate change" can also refer generally to either cooling or warming trends at any point in earth's history.  Discussion of that general topic is at Climate change.  For other uses see Global warming (disambiguation)  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) This page is about the current warming of the Earth's climate system. "Climate change" can also refer generally to either cooling or warming trends at any point in earth's history.  Discussion of that general topic is at Climate change.  For other uses see Global warming (disambiguation)''   Number 4 is a combination of 1(first sentence), 3(second sentence), and related comments (change climate to "climate system") below.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) "This page is about the rise in global mean surface temperatures. For climate change in general please see Clmate Change. For the effects that global warming has on the ecosystem and related topics, please see Global warming (disambiguation). (Suggestion is by DHeyward in a comment in the discussion section) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion In suggestions 1 and 2, the first part was changed. Why? The first part seems perfectly fine to me, assuming our topic is the overall change in earth's climate now underway. Also, suggestions 1 and 2 still read just as weird to me when I read the hatnote together with sentence #1. Try doing that after erasing any past knowledge about this article from your brain. Even better, ask friends who don't know the article to try them out. We should be writing for those first-time article readers. What is the most clear for that audience? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The two reasons I changed the first part in #1 above were: (1) Good writing - less repetition of the word 'change' in close proximity and (2) thinking back to previous discussions about 'unequivocal', since we are going to continue on the basis that the climate is unequivocally warming, there is no reason to use an equivocal word like 'change' when we can unequivocally begin on the basis that the climate is currently 'warming'. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, good idea.  Can we change "climate" to "climate system" (without italics of course) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Climate system" works for me.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. --Nigelj (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a 4th suggestion based these comments.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"This page is about the rise in global mean surface temperatures. For climate change in general please see Climate Change.  For the effects that global warming has on the ecosystem and related topics, please see Global warming (disambiguation)." Encyclopedia Brittanica gets it.--DHeyward (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I copied that to the enumerated list of suggestions, where it appears as Suggestion #5. In the big picture, that's a repackaging of your suggestion following version 4 regarding the article topic.  My prior answer found at Talk:Global warming applies here also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the premise of suggestion #5. To me, based on my reading, 'Global warming' is the increase in total thermal energy in the global climate system, which leads to all kinds of things, one of which is a measurable rise in GMST. Writing an article about just one of the observable effects, while ignoring or excluding all the others by definition, seems actually negligent to me. --Nigelj (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that "'Global warming' is the increase in total thermal energy in the global climate system?" Not in a scientific journal.  Not in Encyclopedia Brittanica (it's online, have a go).  Not in AR4.  MAybe a blog replying to sceptics that doesn't deserve mention.  The main metric of anthropogenic climate change is 'Global Warming' and that is simply GMST.  HadCRUT, GISS, etc are all datasets measuring 'Global Warming' as the result of Climate Change but global warming is not the only effect of Climate Change.  It's exactly the way Hansen described it and it's exactly the way nearly every purported piece that seeks to educate people about climate change define it.  The choice we have is to enlighten the use of terminology or dumb it to a pop piece on how people feel.  The closest thing we get is when scientists explain the difference, the interpretation here seems to imply they are saying that Climate Change and global warming are the same.  They are not.  They are saying the people confuse the terms and a lack of change in GMST is not end of Climate Change.  Don't dumb down the language; use the article to enlighten the proper context.  Otherwise, we will be chasing our own tail describing a pause in GMST (called 'Global Warming' in a number of journals and papers) vs. positions that global warming has not stopped because the pop language is so vague -- and we are only making it more vague. --DHeyward (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This article's topic has been the overall climate change for years. In addition to sources supporting your desire to narrow the topic by purging everything unrelated to the technically nuanced meaning that Global warming is about GMST and that's all, we also have sources saying in ordinary speech the terms are often used "interchangeably".  Further evidence that both views are valid is fact that IPCC WG1 - dealing with the earth science aspect of the issue - did not endorse either use of the term "global warming" by offering a definition in the glossary of the TAR, AR4, or AR5.   I'm not inclined to change the topic at this late date and MakeNarrowerTopic still applies.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The expansion of the term beyond every other use doesn't make it correct. In fact, it is decidedly overbroad.  .  The earth was flat for an awfully long time. But I don't recall my question directed at what you read, rather where others have read a definition.  The absence of one in AR5 is not an endorsement of ignorance. --DHeyward (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rejection of the common name meanings isn't necessarily correct either. MakeNarrowerTopic still applies NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Common name" is too generous. It's "ignorant name" which should be corrected by any authoritative source while explaining why it's ignorant.  Accepting ignorance as common doesn't increase understanding, it obfuscates it ans is a tactic of sceptics.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Argument by Affirming a disjunct is not persuasive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Disjunctive syllogism is the argument you are looking for. It is not what you say it is.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a little snippet of discussion about hatnote versions #1 and #4 above, and opening para NAEG V5, copied from my talk page for others to muse over if helpful:
 * Re #4: I'd be OK with it, but the middle section seems a bit wordy to me. I don't know what this longer version says that the shorter doesn't, that (in context) is important enough to bloat extend the hatnote to the 'Global warming' article over.
 * ""Climate change" can also refer generally to either cooling or warming trends at any point in earth's history. Discussion of that general topic is at Climate change."
 * "For changes in climate in general, see Climate change."
 * --Nigelj (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My trouble with the hatnote in NAEG V5 arises when you erase from your brain anything you know about the articles (like a newcomer to the page) and read the hatnote and first sentence all at once. Ver 5's hatnote reads like this to me....
 * "This is about X. For this other thing see CLIMATE CHANGE.  Global warming, also known as CLIMATE CHANGE is the blah blah blah..."
 * It sounds like "climate change" is discussed at the other page, but "climate change" is discussed at THIS page. A complete newcomer to these pages and topic would be assisted, I think, with a teensy bit more verbiage.  At least, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. That's a good point - when you take the hatnote together with the opening sentence. You've convinced me. #4 it is. --Nigelj (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Therefore at the moment, my vote goes for hatnote #4 above. --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The increasing importance of oceans

 * Housekeeping... prior related threads include where is global warming going and used to mislead... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The current draft as above has "Ocean warming accounts for about 93% of the energy added to the climate system since 1970; the rest has melted ice and warmed the continents and atmosphere." based on AR5 Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean p. 257. My feeling is that the significance of this point is better shown by its position in the SPM, B.2 (following A, introduction; B, observed changes; and B.1 atmosphere, so the opening paragraph covers these main points though not exactly in the same order). The B.2 wording is "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence)." Suggested tweak to our wording:
 * "More than 90% of the additional energy stored in the climate system since 1970 has gone into ocean warming; the remainder has melted ice, and warmed the continents and atmosphere.". . dave souza, talk 15:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @, that phrasing is fine with me; the ref in NAEG V 5 supports it. Are you proposing we not only change the phrasing but also change the ref to the SPM?  (That is also fine with me, I'm just asking to clarify the suggestion.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @, the ref in NAEG V 5 to Chapter 3 covers the second part of the sentence better, "Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) and warming of the continents and atmosphere account for the remainder of the change in energy." The SPM covers the rounding off to "more than 90%" instead of the rather precise 93%, and indicates the significance of the point: so we could cite both; if only one is cited then Chapter 3 is more comprehensive. . dave souza, talk 17:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, with file size in mind, and Chap 3 supporting the whole thing, I !vote for just the one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

On the increasing importance: [1990][the FAR introduction pp. xxvii–xxviii includes "The Role of the Oceans. The oceans play a central role in shaping the climate through three distinct mechanisms…. thirdly, they sequester heat….". No quantification evident. [2007] The AR4 SPM "Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change" summarised as "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level" has as its fourth item (out of 6) "Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise". [2014]Interesting change from that to AR5, showing results of research over the last 7 years. . dave souza, talk 15:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref for info: IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 8, in : "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1} •	On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. Since AR4, instrumental biases in upper-ocean temperature records have been identified and reduced, enhancing confidence in the assessment of change." [skip bullet point on likelihood] "•	More than 60% of the net energy increase in the climate system is stored in the upper ocean (0–700 m) during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010, and about 30% is stored in the ocean below 700 m. The increase in upper ocean heat content during this time period estimated from a linear trend is likely 17 [15 to 19] × 1022 J 7 (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, Box 3.1}. . . dave souza, talk 08:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The world is 70% ocean. The bulk of energy is stored in the top layers. 0-30 meters and 0-700 meters are metrics often cited since 1970 (this is the bulk of the change. It's quite the obfuscation to not place numbers on the ocean.  Namely, as the ocean is a physical body with an average temperature, it can be modeled as a forcing.  This is in AR5 and if I recall, it's about 0.5 W*m-2.  There is no magical/mysterious force that warms the oceans differently.  There's lots of big numbres floating around that fail to take in the scope and size of the ocean.  There are even larger questions about the effect (or lack thereof) the energy has on flow, salinitiy, carbon sink/capacity, etc.  It's very mislading to just say the heat not at the surface is in the ocean and certainly not above the 50% threshold of certainty.  Oceans have warmed, sea levels have risen but glacial isostatic adjustment is much larger than the thermal changes in the ocean.  Tide gauge changes for tropical storm Sangy, for example were mostly isostatic adjustments related to a fulcrum effect of receding glaciers, not sea level rise. Please don't get carried away with todays effects of global warming with year 2100 effects of global warming. They are radically different. --DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So? How does that bear on the draft under discussion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because energy expressed in joules is a pointless number without volume of water if you are talking about warming. The oceans aren't becoming "increasingly important" as they've been here for quite some time.  Please review the top ocean warming to atmospheric warming in degrees and you will see a strongly coupled relationship.  17*10^22 joules is meaningless term without volume.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonresponsive, The question was "How does that bear on the draft under discussion?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, my bad heading. The oceans remain the predominant store of the increased energy from radiant forcing, their importance has increasingly been recognised in IPCC reports. Whether the increase from over 80% to over 90% is simply improved measurement or shows an increase due to cyclical effects such as ENSO, I don't know. . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also important to use numbers that are used in other budgets. Like other aspects of the climate model, it needs to be expressed in W*m-2 and is in the AR5 report. Joules is a meaningless quantity because it's just heat content at a moment in time and if you actually plot it as kT over time (i.e. beginning ocean energy + 40 years of measurement), you won't see a change.  It's a flat line.  The proper meaningful comparison is the estimate as a forcing that affects the output of the model that increases GMST.  If it's sinking/sourcing more energy than originally estimated, it's part of the forcing budget.  That's what everyone works with when describing the climate.  The increase that has been proposed to be going into the ocean is from a lack of heat in the atmosphere.  So if GHG's are radiating energy back toward the surface, and the surface isn't warming as fast as predicted, there is a proposed sink (in W*m-2) represented by the ocean (if it's cyclical, that energy comes back out).  That's the meaningful budget and the estimate of that budget over time is important and it's relationship to natural cycles is important (i.e. sink during la nina or source during el nino?? Who knows yet?).  I would stay away from "Joules" it's not used anywhere else (i.e. how many joules have been used to melt glaciers?  how many joules does it take to melt arctic ice -salty and fresh water ice, etc?)  It's touted as a big scary number but the perspective of the size of the ocean is lost.  Let's put it this way: A BOE calculation of 1550 W*m-2 from the sun hitting the 3.6*1014m2 of ocean for 12 hours (43200 seconds =1 watt is 1 Joule/sec) yields a daily energy of 2.4*1022 joules per day hitting the ocean. Models presume that it reradiates most of that but probably not in fine detail required to acccount for cyclical events like ENSO or rapidly forming and dissipating clounds). Compare the daily energy striking the ocean vs the accumulated estimated energy over 40 years.  It makes both of those metrics rather tedious to comprehend and it shouldn't be presented as net joules in the ocean considering how small it is to the amount of energy that ocean receives and radiates.  Rather, the forcing budget is the figure of merit and what should be presented.  Temperature is the second.  Joules should be omitted entirely as there is no comparative figure.  We don't model or represent the atmosphere in joules and it's for the same reason that the signal is lost in the noise.      --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, we have to introduce the topic to nonspecialists. RS free lectures that nonspecialists can't understand, ones that are based on your own claimed expertise and do not explicitly refer to the draft under discussion,  remind me of WP:NOTJOURNAL.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The very concept of joules has no meaning either in lay speak or technical.  It's "scary big number".  That's it.  It doesn't belong unless you want to put in other "scary big numbers" that give it perspective and context.  Change in "temperature" is the lay person's metric, "forcing" is a more scientific modeling metric to compare to CO2.  Joules is not everyday speak for anyone and I doubt it means anything to the reader.  Dump it.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about language for the draft seen seen in the gray box. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And what is useful metric of joules? It has no popular or scientific use.  Why joules?  Yottajoules by the end of the 21st century?  It adds no value to either the popular or scientific understanding or climate change or global warming.  What is its value? --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's some references related to Joules -> Orders of magnitude (energy) -- it's not particularly intuitive or useful for either pop sci or climatologist because they play in different arena's.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

After widespread expert input and discussion, the IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for policymakers has the wording "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence)." No joules in that wording, though to a scientist they may be implicit. For popular use, one metric is Hiroshima bombs per second, each of 8.8×1013 J according to Orders of magnitude (energy). . dave souza, talk 11:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Or a day's worth of sunlight hitting the earth. It's meaningless metrics using "scary numbers". --DHeyward (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Revised draft in comparison to NAEG Ver 5

 * Housekeeping... prior related threads include where is global warming going and used to mislead. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, V. 5 copied from above:

Proposed wording discussed in  section:

In my view NAEG Ver 5ds is preferable as it keeps oceans, ice, continents and atmosphere together rather than isolating oceans. . dave souza, talk 10:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too, I plan to use that in NAEG v6. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since these are terminology rather than names, might "also termed climate change" be better wording than "also known as"? Guettarda (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for input. I agree your suggestion is correct, but is the current version wrong?  I never hear people say "also termed" in everyday speech, but I do hear "also known as" quite a bit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Drop the 1950-1970 period if you are discussing glaciers in the same context. They were advancing and ocean temps are not measured with a lot confidence prior to 1970.  Sea ice is also not reliable until 1979.  If you replace "Global Warming" with "Climate Change" and vice versa, it would be more accurate.  It's a better opening to climate change, than global warming.  "Climate Change" is no more confused with past climatic changes than "global warming" is confuse to MWP. Or the some of the optimum warm periods.  --DHeyward (talk)


 * Not interested in sentence 1. The technically narrow definition of climate change provided by IPCC AR5 WG1 glossary says "Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer."

- IPCC AR5 WG1 Glossary
 * To associate the same term with the current time period and anthropogenic contribution, you have to embrace the commonname meaning, which UNFCCC appears to have formally done.
 * It's great we finally appear to agree on using the common names. Having taken that step, I'm not persuaded that the commonname form of "climate change" is any more correct than the commonname form "global warming", and since the article title is "global warming", I don't like the first sentence presented by DHeyward. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Now your getting warmer. "Climate Change" as in the "CC" in IPCC is universally accepted as the current climate change post 1750 unless it speaks about different era's.  UNFCC ("United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" doesn't have "current" in their name because it's widely accepted in all circles since at least Hansen's testimony to be climate change since 1750. They aren't chartered to avert adverse climate change in the next or previous ice age and work on a decadal and century framework.  "Climate Change" has been broadly used in the scientific community to refer to post-industrial climate change, whence the reference to paleoclimate when discussing past climate (i.e. "pre-industrial Holocene climate").  Global Warming, however, has never been broadly embraced as a euphemism or common name for "Climate Change" either currently or in the past by scientists and only sloppy, illiterate usage equates them. "Global Warming" refers to the GMST datasets beginning about 1850 to present and that most of that warming is related to anthropogenic "Climate Change." The cart doesn't push horse even if they are going in the same direction.  In fact, it's only been obfuscated since the so-called "pause" in GMST datasets that the meaning in illiterate space has embraced other aspects of climate change (such as ocean warming) to be "Global Warming."  We should avoid WP:RECENTISM and we should definitely avoid calling "Global Warming" what the sceptics want it to be ("Climate change").  Once again we are at the point where we can distinguish and inform readers what scientists mean and the difference between describing the temperature of where humans live (bottom of the troposphere, GMST = "Global Warming" from 1850 and our most robust historical dataset).  Or obfuscate with places they don't live or comprehend (joule heating of the ocean).  Broadening Global Warming is simply incorrect and we should strive to inform because the scientific community will not embrace the colloquial definition in technical papers and when newspaper headlines read "Global Warming has paused", readers shouldn't come to Wikipedia and read that the broad sentence means climate change has paused because they are terms for the same thing.  They should come to Wikipedia to find that the lower troposphere temperature rises have paused while Climate Change continues.  We cannot chase every nuance and flavor of how the press and sceptics treats headlines but we can rise above it by not chasing definitions that will only muddy the waters.  It turns the article on its head.  We simply can't have the multiple definitions with nuanced meaning and chase the press and sceptics.  It's why NASA, Encyclopedia Brittanica, AR4, Merriam Webster and a whole host of other sources that are definitive work to educate what GMST ("Global Warming") is and why Climate Change is not simply another name for Global Warming which is defined in so many places as GMST.  "Climate Change" should cover all this.  Holocene Climate can cover portions of todays climate.  But "Global Warming" is one dataset and it will be hard when the AP headline reader gets GMST confused with climate change because our article is different than the encyclopedia on his desk and the abstract scientific paper. --DHeyward (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Another definition, since you used EPA as source:

What defintion of GW do you want when/if EPA and other bodies acknowledge a pause but our article is written as if GW is CC? Warming is the cart, climate change is the horse, CO2 is the carrot. Don't switch them or claim they are the same or different order. Sceptics do that and it will bite when you use EPA to say something that is true but a contradictory statement from the same source is not allowed. --DHeyward (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can't format and indent correctly, no one can follow along and therefore you can't ever claim a new consensus has formed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think DHeyward has a valid point about the "also known as", disagree about putting numbers on the increase in the first paragraph. Revised proposal, essentially rethinking the first sentence: Obviously the wording is subject to review, consider this a first effort. . dave souza, talk 07:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , please sum up the "valid point" as you understand it, Dave. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, the valid point is that "Global warming, also known as climate change" is wrong in relation to ourclimate change article which includes such features as the long term global cooling from around1000AD to 1800AD, for example. Also useful to link the other article, hence "Global warming is the current observed climate change' showing a continuing increase in the average temperature of Earth's climate system," . . dave souza, talk 15:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting point and may deserve a new sub-heading. We have two phrases, and two sets of usages. Within Wikipedia, the two phrases are used as defined by the two articles, and personally I'm very happy with that. On the TV News, in scientific papers, and elsewhere, they are also used in different ways. The place where we have to be most careful to make our within-Wikipedia usage completely clear is in the hatnote, and we have just had a lengthy and I think constructive discussion about that above (I hope the new hatnote starts to appear in the NAEG grey boxes soon). However, in the opening sentence, we have a different requirement. Here, without actually contradicting or confusing the in-Wikipedia usages, we need to cover-off the TV News, man in the street, and any other (not incorrect) usage. It's not that hard. I suggest "Global warming, also often referred to simply as climate change, is the current warming of Earth's climate system and its related effects." There are three optional words there: also, often and simply. I'm not wedded to any of them, and people may feel that any one or two of them can go. I'd not like to lose all three though. --Nigelj (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * next day...., I appreciate the suggested revision to sentence one, but all I see that's different is changing the phrase "also known as" to "also often referred to simply as". Doesn't really look like a change to me, sorry to say, and doesn't address the objections being made to "also known as".  I'm hoping you will reconsider the "formatted like a semantics article" objection you were making last June when I post NAEG v 6 in a few minutes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

E/C


 * I have agreed (with Dave souza's summary above) all along assuming that is read a certain way. To disambiguate this discussion I'd like to coin two terms.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * GlobalWarming(COMMONNAME)  || Warming anywhere in the climate system and all related effects
 * GlobalWarming(TECHNICAL)   || Warming of global surface temps and that's all
 * }
 * It's quite obvious from context that your first sentence uses GlobalWarming(COMMONNAME), but suffers from the weakness that it only implies it is using GlobalWarming(COMMONNAME). I have the same complaint of my first sentence in NAEG v5 and several versions prior to v5.  If we only imply we mean the common name, then some will continue to read it wrong and then complain saying "Global warming  doesn't include ocean warming or other related effects".  Of course like our implied use of GlobalWarming(CommonName) such complaints will be probably be made with the phrase "global warming" and the complaint will be based on the implied use of GlobalWarming(TECHNICAL).   So we will continue to run into this same problem.  The solution to that problem is to tell the reader we are using GlobalWarming(COMMONAME).   So we need some version of
 * GlobalWarming(COMMONNAME) is ..... current climate change....warming and related effects.
 * In my first proposal (in June) I suggested a way that accomplishes this
 * In common speech, "global warming" is often used to describe the climate change Earth is now experiencing.
 * At the time Nigelj opposed, and if I understood correctly the main objection was that this makes it seem like this article will be a semantic discussion of the phrase "global warming" instead of the concept current climate change.  I don't read it that way, but I introduced the "also known as" phrase in response to Nigelj's criticisms.  However, I too agree with the way Dave souza summarized the "global warming" vs "climate change" problem.   So now that we've come full circle, can, , , and everyone else accept some form of
 * In common speech, "global warming"..... current climate change..... warming and related effects.
 * Advantages of such flagging "global warming" as GlobalWarming(COMMONAME) are
 * Consistent definition with climate change
 * Explicitly tells reader which def of global warming we're using
 * Prevents this same issue from continuing to be debated (I think hope and pray)
 * Disadvantages
 * Some might think this is formatted like an article about language, but personally I can live with that to accomplish these other goals.
 * Prevents this same issue from continuing to be debated (I think hope and pray)
 * Disadvantages
 * Some might think this is formatted like an article about language, but personally I can live with that to accomplish these other goals.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to keep Global Warming as the narrow definition using the two EPA and NASA explanations of how Global Warming is commonly used to refer to current Climate Change but in that research and technical reports it is the rising GMST of the lower atmosphere (not climate system, as that is COMMON for current climate change). Along that vein, if Climate Change cannot encompass Holocene Era Climate Change since the Industrial Revolution due to scope, that's where all the ocean warming, cryosphere changes, climate system, habitat, biosphere, etc belongs.  There is quite a bit of material just on GMST such as the different datasets, satellite, pre-satellite, instrument density, instrument temp history, instrument technical history, proxies, accuracy, compensation for things like UHI or lack of UHI, comparison with other CC metrics, etc, etc.  It seems much easier to point people to the appropriate page by explaining proper terminology than it is to try and answer every Climate Change question in Global Warming.  N.B. I use the term "proper terminology" in the context that that EPA and NASA does to teach the difference to the layperson reader rather than accept that all terminology is the same.  Acknowledging that readers may come to "Global Warming" and expecting "Climate Change" can easily be directed to the appropriate space just as EPA and NASA does. I simply don't see how to write a coherent "Global Warming" article with everything that has to be mixed and sorted if it is more than GMST.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks I know turning this into a narrow article about global mean surface temps is your #1 preference. Since you did not explicitly reject some form of
 * In common speech, "global warming"..... current climate change..... warming and related effects.
 * does your lack of outright rejection imply you could tolerate that as an acceptable compromise?
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the scope of your question is. I wholeheartedly agree that mentioning the common speech usage is necessary.  It's then necessary to correct it (as the EPA did in the two passages above which are written for lay persons, not scientists, in an entire).  Once the correction is made, the article should be narrowly tailored with reference to other articles that encompass the field beyond GMST.  That has a lot of benefits in that if it's overbroad, it's a quagmire for supporting non-GMST events and opens the article up for any little theory change on regarding climate.  The EPA does a very nice job of explaining common meaning and then redirecting the user to climate. As did NASA.  I prefer NASA as a source being a research body instead of a regulatory body but both are similar.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One other note, I believe the referencese to "Warming of the Climate System" all avoid a term like the "Global Warming of the Climate System." I don't believe that's an oversight but careful use.  "Ocean Warming", likewise is very straightforward about what is warming.  It's perhaps unfortunate that "Global Warming" was adopted as GMST, but it is what it is.  We know it can be confusing.  In reality, Oceans drive climate change and vice versa simply on momentum, heat content and planetary coverage but we'd be a bit over the top to write "Ocean Warming refers the current on-going climate change" and then proceed to cover every aspect of Climate Change as if being related in any way to "Ocean Warming" justified inclusion instead of a reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  DHeyward (talk • contribs)

When you try too hard to make things absolutely clear, sometimes the prose becomes contrived and hard to follow. At least, I've noticed that in my own writing. Still, let me take a shot at this. I'm not going to mess with the format, just with the prose.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks but please try again
 * (A) Lotsa eds have already bashed the use of "unequivocal" as a matter of style. I'm the ed who added to the current version ~3 years ago so I'm not trying to soften anything.  The bashing eds I mentioned are not attacking the idea and still want to use the quote that contains the word.  To move forward, I think we need to just pick other words to convey the idea as a matter of editor compromise.
 * (B) If you want me to climb on board with any other changes, please explain the specifics and the reasons of each. We'll be here forever if we just throw drafts around and expect other editors to first identify differences and then correctly guess the reasons for them.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've read the arguments for and against "unequivocal" but it is sourced and clear. "over decades to millennia" is unclear.  It can be read in a way not intended: we don't know if this has been going on for millennia, or merely for decades.  That's not what the quote means, but out of context it is one way to read the quote.  If unequivocal is a no-no, how about a synonym.  "The evidence for global warming is clear."


 * As for my other change, I had hoped the increase in clarity was apparent. Old version:  "Global warming is the current observed climate change showing a continuing increase in the average temperature of Earth's climate system, with related effects." tries to cram too many words into one sentence.  I tried for shorter, stronger words.  My suggestion: Global warming is the ongoing climate change which shows a continuing increase in the average temperature of Earth's climate."  My reasoning:  "ongoing" in place of "current" -- something that is current could have been absent yesterday and be gone tomorrow,  omit "observed" -- does anyone think we're talking about something that is unobserved, "which shows" to avoid "showing a continuing", too many gerunds, "climate" as clearer than "climate system" -- system is redundant, and finally "with related effects" is a weak ending to a strong sentence. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Rick, check out your sentence #2. Your sentence using "unequivocal" is redundant with Sentence #2.  In fact, sentence #2 is the result of a prior discussion about finding some other way to say "unequivocal".  See the discussion under [{Talk:Global warming#unequivocal]] leading up to the first grey box, and then an earlier version of sentence 2 replaced "unequivocal" in the first gray box.  So that last sentence of yours is redundant.


 * As for the rest of your suggestions, thanks for contribs and before I think about them I'd like to hear souza's response to the question I asked him.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Have responded to your question above. On the more recent suggestion, the last "is unequivocal" sentence becomes redundant it the earlier sentence is modified to say "Multiple lines of scientific evidence show unequivocally that the climate system is warming." Clearer, and grammatically correct (I think). . dave souza, talk 15:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Bump. I'll make some time to revisit next week NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

continued at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC) References

National Security
The Pentagon made a statement that global warming poses immediate risk to US national security. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy section
There's some introductory text in global warming that I think should be revised:


 * [...] These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions

The text on weighing the costs and benefits of policies is biased. The UNFCCC does not define the problem of climate change in terms of cost-benefit analysis, and economics is not the only way of interpreting this issue. The second sentence is unnecessary because the distribution of impacts is already covered in global warming and global warming.

Enescot (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for paying attention, E. Agree 2nd sentence should get the axe.  The first sentence is subject to more than one interpretation.   If you read with the assumption that "benefits" and "costs" is necessarily about economics (especially in a monetary sense) then of course I agree with you.  It is equally valid to read those words to include intangibles like "Justice, equity and responsibility" (quoted from TOC of link you posted).  How would you suggest fixing the first sentence's ambiguity? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view, it would be better to simply delete the entire paragraph, i.e.,:


 * There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should be. These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions.


 * Global warming covers these issues, and I don't see why they need to be discussed here as well. Enescot (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused about what you suggest keeping/deleting. How about replacing this comment and your prior comment with a restatement, using strikeout so we stay in synch? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to remove this paragraph:


 * There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should be. These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions.''


 * Enescot (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (A) Thanks for the handholding until I "got it"
 * (B) I agree to delete that; it does very little for us here
 * (C) Ccan you point to where we are currently elaborating on the equities mentioned in the first sentence and RS?
 * (D) Besides deleting that text, I also propose to change the section heading.  Mitigation/Adaptation are described in an AR4 SYNTH highlighted bullet item as "options" rather than "policy options".  The broader term "policy options" includes things like rate of deployment, who does what when, who pays, and how the equitities are balanced.  That's important stuff, but I think the goal of this section is to report on the tools available in the toolbox, which stops short of decisions on what to build ("policy") with those tools. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (C), global warming does mention fairness and equity issues as agreed internationally by parties to the UNFCCC. The section should be revised and updated some time.
 * (D) I agree with your suggested change.


 * Enescot (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Human-caused: more than half, 110%, or 160%?
I can't find the relevant discussions now, but I know that this has been brought up here fairly recently. AR5 says, "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST," which, while undeniably true, is extremely weak. This mainstream news article tackles the very issue head-on, and cites relevant studies. It turns out that human greenhouse gases are responsible for 160% of the observed rise in surface temperatures 1951 - 2010, but other human factors such as smog result in -50%, leaving a human contribution of 110%, with relatively small error bars. The 10% is probably in the deep ocean waiting for the next major El Nino event to bring it to the surface. The linked article is fairly explicit about Judith Curry's views too, which might be of interest to those on the List of scientists... article. --Nigelj (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds about right William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's allow that what we observe is limited to what has already occurred and that many future "tipping points" we can't see yet have already been triggered. We see cities flooding now in Miami, Norfolk, VA and even New York. Sea levels are rising because of the warming increasing the coefficient of expansion of the oceans as well as melting the polar ice caps. The warming is exponential. FEMA and the EPA have been warning us since 1985 that more than 100 East and Gulf coast cities with populations over 100,000 will be flooded 2 feet by 2050 and 4 to 6 feet by 2100. That's supported by the last IPCC report. Already we see methane releases, glaciers the size of Manhattan collapsing, lobsters leaving the Gulf of Maine, die offs of the plankton that produce oxygen that threaten a sixth global extinction event, but what we don't do is connect all the dots so we can see the synergy and the effect of burning carbon. If we stopped burning carbon right now and made carbon dealing a capital offense on account of it being responsible for threatening the lives of billions of people, what we have already done would continue tipping the tipping points, releasing the methane, adding to the species extinctions for another three or four centuries.142.0.102.78 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I get it. From 1951 to 2010 the observed surface temperatures rose N degrees. So N is 100% of the rise in observed surface temperatures during that period. If human greenhouse gasses caused 160% of N, then they caused 60% more of the rise in observed surface temperatures than were observed, which would be a contradiction, since 160 ≠ 100, unless there was more of a rise in observed surface temperatures than were observed, which means we're not talking about observed surface temperatures after all, but observed plus unobserved potential surface temperatures, right? Now I can see where the greenhouse gasses can be identified as the cause of 100% of the actually observed rise in the surface temperature (N), and that means greenhouse gasses must be the cause of the additional unobserved potential 60% portion of the rise. Then the non-greenhouse-gas(?) human factors of smog etc. subtract 50 percentage points from the unobserved potential greenhouse-gas-caused rise in surface temperatures leaving a net human contribution to the observed plus unobserved potential rise in surface temperatures of 110%. The remaining 10 percentage points of the unobserved potential rise in surface temperatures is probably in the deep ocean, but not hidden due to human causes, meaning that the human contribution to the rise in surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010 is 100% of the observed plus 10% more unobserved potential rise. But since N is a fixed constant equal to 100% of itself, there can be no such thing as 160% of the rise in OBSERVED surface temperatures, right? —Blanchette (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion reminds me of the expression “giving 110% effort”. All one can give is 100%.  Think pie chart - a pie chart showing the maximum percentage is all one color and is 100%.  This is fourth grade math.--CSvBibra (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The cited article says its 100%, but points out that while the man made warming would be 160% of what we see now, its offset to some extent, perhaps as much as 60%, by heat sinks like the ocean and the polar ice that are cooling things down temporarily at the expense of their warming up. As they continue to heat up we loose those checks and balances. That's part of what makes the process exponential, the other part is things like methane releases. Where we are the ones heating things up to the point where methane clathrates melt and release methane which is 25 times as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2 we need to consider that a human caused effect as well.142.0.102.78 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you mis-read it, N. After quoting the IPCC text you reference, the source says "It’s not just “more than half,” it’s also most likely close to 100%. In fact it’s just as likely that humans are responsible for about 160% of the global surface warming since 1950 as it is that we’re only responsible for 50%." That's a rhetorical way of saying our text "more than half" is nonsense. Which it is, but we still have to follow the sources, and IPCC said what it said. If there is an agreeable consensus statement to substitute, let's talk about it. Though as you may have noticed I have greatly curtailed my wiki time. As a side note, although I respect those authors immensely, their column in the Guardian is billed as a blog. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't an argument I'm interested in 'winning' at this stage (as NEAG is quite right about the IPCC text, reliable sources etc), but I do like clarity: It is perfectly possible for a contribution to something to equal more than 100% of the final something. Suppose your bank account balance has risen by $1000 during the past year. There is no reason why I couldn't have given you $1600 during the year (160% of the final increase). Maybe you gave me $500 back at various times. If nothing else was going on, that would have left you with $1100, so maybe you have a standing order for $8.33 a month to someone else set up somewhere? The article also says, "The curve is centered at about 110% – the most likely value for the human contribution to global warming."--Nigelj (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * An excellent point! I think best we'll manage in the lead of this top level article is to retain the IPCC's "most" language.  Are you happy with the way the body of the article discusses this?  How about at Attribution of global warming? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My amateur interpretation is that this deals with ranges of uncertainty, taking as a basis for discussion AR5 Chapter 10 pp. 883– 884. "Over the 1951–2010 period, the observed GMST increased by approximately 0.6°C." The best assessment is that forcings from increases in greenhouse gas likely contributed an increase 0.5°C to 1.3°C, other anthropogenic forcings likely contributed –0.6°C to 0.1°C. In December 2013 the same (news)blog authors argued that overall human forcings balanced out at approximately 0.6°C, and the IPCC text supported approximately 100% contribution. In this more recent post, they cite Gavin Schmidt's reading of Figure 10.5 which clearly shows the central estimate of net human caused effect exceeding the measured effect: "Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%." In other words, the average estimate of net human caused forcing is around 110% of the measured increase, it's extremely likely that human forcings were in the 80–130% range of the measured amount. Any variation from 100% would then be balanced by natural forcings or internal variability, each of which was estimated at –0.1°C to 0.1°C. From which, the IPCC summary on p. 869 looks rather understated: "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010." . . dave souza, talk 14:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the use of percentages greater than 100% is a mistake. I understand the point being made, but think the usage lacks clarity. If the warming plus cooling from all sources is (say) 4 degrees, and that warming plus cooling from human causes is 3 degrees, then it is clearer to say that 75% of the warming is from human causes. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we yet have a suggestion for an article tweak? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article says the earth is warming, and yet I keep reading scientific reports that it is not. http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/518497/Exclusive-interview-with-Dr-Benny-Peiser

Why is Global Warming "settled?" Is Wikipedia setting itself up to be embarrassed, similar to how the Catholic Church preached the sun revolved around the earth and then looked like fools later? Why are wikipedia articles on theories written in such a way to make it seem utterly factual and that any deviance from the "settled science" is an exercise in futility conducted by fools? I think Wikipedia, in general, is on dangerous footing when it presents theories without credible opposition, and does so in a manner that implies dissension as foolish. If a theory is subsequently proven false, it will permanently damage the scientific credibility of Wikipedia. Maybe wisdom and prudence here would be to allow more debate on this theory than make things appear as settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.233.134 (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you read the section above, titled "This article is not NPOV." I don't think anybody is interested in rehashing that stuff. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to rehash anything (honestly), I just posted a link to an article that just came out. My concern is a philosophical one in general, that scientific articles on Wikipedia seem to take advocacy and agenda driven positions. I'm not countering global warming, I'm not a "denier", I am just a passive reader...a student, if you will, giving objective feedback.  Wikipedia says that the earth is "unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely"..notice the word "unequivocally" to imply basically that anyone who says otherwise is an idiot (forgive for lack of a better term, but that is precisely the implication). Basically, Wikipedia looks to be engaged in activism, in that this is "settled science". But this is an extremely dangerous game Wikipedia is playing. If the earth turns out NOT to be warming, guess who will look like the fool?   To me, I see an agenda when I read Wikipedia scientific articles that very often minimize room for dissension, and I wish Wikipedia would not do that.  I think articles on scientific theory should always allow rational room for dissension. I wish I could read dispassionate, objective presentations, but instead what I read are activist driven, agenda-driven 'science' with condescending implications against dissension. Dissension is a cornerstone of the advancement of science throughout history. And i see very little room here on WIkipedia for credible dissension. And I believe this is dangerous. I'm sorry if I am rehashing, but this is how I see it, and I am just another web reader.  Maybe if you hear a similar complaint "often enough" it might start making a cumulative case, don't you think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.233.134 (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If I sounded like I was making assumptions, I apologize. What I meant was, people who participated in the previous (similar) discussion probably don't want to repeat those arguments. I would still recommend you read that discussion, and I really don't want to get into detail here; in brief, consensus among editors at this point is that covering the "controversy," as it were, would be giving it undue weight. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, the tried and true Wikipedia method of silencing opposition...the ole' "Undue Weight" crutch. This is how you do it here on Wikipedia.  You first determine, objectively, that your "settled science" has X amount of weight (as if you are qualified to make that to begin with since you are not an objective being) and then you decide empirically that all other possible dissensions are not "worthy" of the greatness of the original theory, hence they cannot be mentioned due to "Undue Weight".  Imagine how many scientists throughout history would have never made a single discovery if they allowed a mob of college kids (mostly white males) to deny them rational dissension because of "Undue Weight". There IS valid counter theory to manmade global warming, I'm not saying it's true, but it is valid, whether or not you want to give it "weight", is irrelevant and has no bearing on objective truth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.105.151 (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The claimed "scientific report" linked in the OP's first post is nothing of the kind. It's a shallow, populist grab bag of non-science from all over the place. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For real scientific reports, read our cited references, and especially see the quoted text from US National Academy of Science.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, tabloids like the Daily Express are not reliable sources for anything, and in particular not for science issues. On the other hand, they thrive on fights, real or imagined. Benny Peiser is an anthropologist, not a climate scientist. Organisations that like to claim "unsettled science" or want headlines like to claim promote such people as "experts" when really their expertise is in other fields (if anywhere). Take a look at Peiser's publications (many of which are only edited, or published in low-quality pseudo-journals like Energy & Environment, which he also co-edited). How much do you find there that pertains to the physical processes of climate change? On the other hand, the IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, and even the Royal Society have put real and extensive expertise to the topic, and have published clear and highly regarded positions that show that yes, global warming is definitely happening, and much of it is anthropogenic with a degree of certainty that "withholding provisional consent would be perverse" (to use Stephen J. Gould's definition of "scientific fact"). Wikipedia dispassionately follows the expert opinion on scientific topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that the responses to arguments and FAQs are more those of an advocate than an independent arbiter. As a control engineer I would view the increases leading up to the turn of the century as two lagged step responses, rather than the start of the exponential runaway heralded by the IPCC. Time series analysis would certainly not indicate that the following plateau would follow the escalating atmospheric content of carbon dioxide. Phrases such as "hottest decade in history" are emotionally biased, while not actually claiming the a further increase will occur. The significant point of the whole argument is not whether human activity has caused a change, but whether continuing the activity will exacerbate such change. It is incontrovertible that fuel emissions have caused the atmospheric increase in CO2, the tonnage burned accounting for around double the increase. Two points are debatable. The first is whether the increase can in fact be stemmed, when developing nations are escalating their burning much faster than be compensated for by economic sacrifice in the rest. The second, more important, is the extent to which further CO2 increases will actually cause warming. In contrast to the early activist propaganda that a 'layer' of CO2 was 'reflecting' radiation back to the surface, it is becoming realised that the effect is entirely due to the 'colouring' of the atmosphere. This means that while some radiation can pass directly to space, wavelengths in the 'coloured bands' can only reach space from higher altitudes, where temperatures are much lower due to the thermodynamic lapse rate. Heat must travel to those altitudes by convection or by diffusion, being repeatedly absorbed and reradiated. Radiation spectra exist from as early as 1970. In the ensuing years many such spectra have been measured but do not seem to have been published. By correlating these spectra against the substantial increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the ensuing years an objective assessment could be made, independent of speculation and modelling. 58.178.51.244 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please concisely restate any RS-based article improvement suggestions contained in this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It will be very bad for Wikipedia (but not for me, I will relish the day actually), and highly embarrassing for Wikipedia and it's authors when Science ultimately trumps political dogma. I firmly believe there is a strong political motive to "imposing" man made global warming as "settled science" by a lot of the young, mostly white male authors on Wikipedia (who are left leaning, by the way).  Unfortunately, science cares not for the subjective whims of human beings, even if there are a lot of them that share the same political motive.   Eventually, Wikipedia will look foolish because it did not allow deviance and presented theory as if it was factual, violating one of the fundamental principles of sound science:  debate.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.105.151 (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need for "debate" when scientific facts scream at you and show you what is true and what is now. There is no need to "debate" with teenagers reading articles in Daily Mail and using one of many silly arguments "proving" that global warming isn't real based on their lack of understanding of basic scientific data. We don't need debate with people who still think that the Earth is flat, nor do wee need to debate with people who deny holocaust or the Moon landing. If there is a reliable, undeniable source of information that would question global warming, it will definitely appear in this article. Until then, fringe theories and manipulated arguments will not be accepted. Wikipedia will not be bullied by some stupid arguments (you will be embarassed!!1) to include nonsensical theories backed up by conspiracy theory blogs and tabloids. BeŻet (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014
This sentence: "Without the Earth's atmosphere, the temperature across almost the entire surface of the Earth would be below freezing." under greenhouse gasses is not supported by the citation, or the citations of the citation. All citations say is that the average temperature of earth would be below freezing. It could be true that the nearly the entire surface of the Earth would be below freezing, but that's not supported by the citations. Therefore to accurately reflect the citation the sentence should read something like: "Without the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's average temperature would be well below the freezing temperature of water." Also, the citation would be better off using the sources of the national geographic article instead of the article itself. I included them as references for my proposed change.

Cicero agricola (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014
Replacing oil! 1 December 2014 http://jonsthings.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/replacing-oil.html Burning oil does molecular nuclear fusion: 1	CmHn+pO2+T->n/2He+mCO2+L+Xray+E12	p=m	L= light 2	CmHn+pO2->n/2H2O+mCO2-E2 There is no chemical source of either helium, visible light or X rays. We also note that oxidising carbon fuels takes in energy. There is a more efficient way he to do molecular nuclear fusion. Fire up a steam plasma 3	H2O+T->He+O+L+Xray+E23	T= turbulence More about this later! In the present boil cycle, the amount of molecular nuclear fusion we do give her arms on local turbulence and carefully structures. Injecting the combustion products in a turbulent fashion, increases the energy output of the system. Titanium plating the boiler plate and Nimonic turbine blades we use doubles the power output of the system. During the annual shutdown, and applying a fake titanium plate will halve at oil or gas burn. To produce the same power outputs. So as taught to me at Sheffield University in 1983. Nuclear power this in dread of somebody noticing a conventionally five power station already does nuclear fusion. I was taught this, and my metallurgy master’s degree! Nice, simple and quick to applied. To be honest evaluating a steam plasma tube is the weekend’s work. We take a 1mx2cm glass tube, and an external source of steam. Like a paint stripper. We charge to the tumour up to two atmospheres. Then we strike up the steam plasma. We do get nuclear fusion: 4	2H++T ->He2++E24	E4= nearly the relativistic conversion of a whole hydrogen ion. We also get the more energetic hydrogen fission 5	H++e- ->n0 6	H++r n0->E25+L+Xray We also see the weekly exothermic fission of oxygen ions. And later, the fissioning of helium ions 7	16O2-+s n0->16H++18e-+E6 A hydrogen plasma is 20 times as exothermic. There will melt all the engineering plant we years! We prefer a steam plasma. Lightning demonstrates a 2m steam plasma will liberate a constant 11.6 MW. A running a steam engine only produces 2.4 MW per fire tube, as a combustion products pass through the tubes. They are still reach a service engineer 3000° C. And do not melt choose the presence of liquid water around them. The service of a lightning bolt reaches 10,000,000° C, as it does molecular nuclear fusion! Faithfully that is very localised heat. So people have survived being struck by a lightening down strike. 10x2m steam plasma tubes will happily run 100 MW power station continuously. From regular water. None of the endothermic oxidation of overpriced fossil fuels. A steam plasma tube looks to be eight times as exothermic as hyper toxic uranium fission tube. And generates no toxic radioactive waste. Fission tubes are 24 times as exothermic as fossil fuel burning. So a steam plasma tube is 192 times as exothermic as a 2m row of gas or oil burners. We need to submerge only 10 such tubes in a water boiler, to replace the burning of all fossil fuels. Ideally done during the annual shutdown. When there station fires up again, it will consume a minuscule trace of regular water. And burn no fossil fuels! So producing no carbon dioxide. But the extra 0.0004% carbon dioxide emitted by every day and by burning the fossil fuels, has just served to increase plant and animal life on earth. There is still a preindustrial two parts per million carbon dioxide in the global air. By 12.10pm every afternoon, we are back in to only 2ppm carbon dioxide in the global air. Photosynthesis is a major life support system on land and seas. Man is cities and towns are too minuscule an area to have any global significance at all. Nature has not even noticed that mankind has evolved. The dinosaurs had the earth for 650 million years. Mankind from he is the earliest hominids, has only been on earth for 5000! A static trace gas affects nothing. Which is why all science work on man made global warming stopped 2003. Hopefully nobody ever thought up manmade climate change was her thing other than biological nonsense from nuclear power! For the educated reporters are still writing copy on man made climate change. They need to go and get our high school education! Carbon dioxide levels are static. But now we can do nuclear fusion of hydrogen fission on earth. Direct access to the Energy System of the universe. Stars shine tutor hydrogen fission! The nuclear fusion only produces the heavier atomic masses endothermically. And this science was all worked out at the start of the industrial revolution. When mankind first use the steam cycle to generate electricity. He has stumbles across molecular nuclear fusion. Hydrogen fission is a more energetic and cleaner Energy System. It produces non other hyper toxic radioactive waste of uranium fission. It uses regular water. All the hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of it. Hydrogen fission produces no solid waste at all! The cleanest energy there is. My thanks to the PH D supervisor at Sheffield University who are medically started we are researching molecular nuclear fusion. In 2001. He ended my PH D, as he realise I could totally fix the phantom science of man made global warming. Hydrogen fission is a better Energy System.

Jonathan Thomason	JonThm9@aol.com

This user has to be a SOCK puppet for scibaby-none of that is related or even close to global warming much less science. Someone please bann this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armchairphysicist (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

78.144.150.28 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources - Not a blog - to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.

Featured Article With a Lead Like this?
I will not --at this instance --go into detail, but raise your hand if you think this lead failed WP:LEAD. Does a LEAD need to contain statements from reports? Does it need detailed stats about every year? I would be shocked if someone disagreed.--Inayity (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. Earlier this year there was a ton of discussion on the lead, and we worked hard and long on the first paragraph.  I think consensus was reached.  While anyone could have posted it at that point, I had sort of taken on a self-appointed clerical role and the reason I never posted it either is that I was hoping/intending we'd keep working on paragraph 2.  But then I got busy, and I guess everyone else did too.   The consensus draft for the first paragraph was posted to the article by me today in this edit.  The final thread in the series of discussion (with pointers to the earlier installments) is archived at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a wild read but is all of this detail needed? Is this a summary by any definition?:Possible responses to global warming include mitigation by emissions reduction, adaptation to its effects, building systems resilient to its effects, and possible future climate engineering. Most countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[17] whose ultimate objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change.[18] Parties to the UNFCCC have adopted a range of policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[19][20][21][22] and to assist in adaptation to global warming.[19][22][23][24] Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required,[25] and that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) relative to the pre-industrial level.[25][c] Reports published in 2011 by the United Nations Environment Programme[27] and the International Energy Agency[28] suggest that efforts as of the early 21st century to reduce emissions may be inadequate to meet the UNFCCC's 2 °C target.--Inayity (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The bold is hard to read, and the brevity obfuscates whatever proposal you have in mind but have not stated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Clunky text: In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) of the relevant scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that For the lead it is enough to be brief and say Scientist say BTW I have copy and pasted this into a readability checker do you want to know the results? DIY and see. --Inayity (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Tone and vagueness of "many unprecedented observations" in intro
I added the which tag after "Many" in the following sentence in the intro, saying this wasn't really explained in the article:
 * Many of the observed changes in the decades since the 1950s are unprecedented in comparison with those that have occurred over previous millennia.

User:I'm your Grandma. reverted this with the edit summary:
 * See plot of temperature for past 2000 years (Observed temperature changes) and plot of CO2 (Greenhouse gases), for examples.

This sentence references an IPCC quote:
 * since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia

There is a big difference between being unprecedented in the last few decades and being unprecedented in the last few millennia, and the Wikipedia version doesn't make this clear. The snippet "many observations are unprecedented" sounds more persuasive than documentary, and could be read as hyping. I find it especially problematic because it is vague. Yeah, lots of things are unprecedented; do they matter, or is the time scale we are choosing to talk about arbitrary? Which are we talking about, anyway? The term "unprecedented" doesn't really pop up later in the article to say "this is what that sentence in the intro is talking about, now in more detail". The edit summary does not really specify, just points me in a vague direction. But anyway, I was not asking for my own information; I was just trying to point out the article needs to be fixed to sound more neutral.

The underlying point is worth making. I would suggest more specific wording to point out things like:
 * Mean surface temperature in the 2000s is the highest it has been in about 120,000 years. (reading File:EPICA temperature plot.svg on temperature record)
 * The concentration of carbon dioxide is the highest it has been in about 650,000 years. (reading File:Evidence CO2.jpg)
 * Driven by worldwide industrialization in the past few centuries, the rates of increase of mean temperature and carbon dioxide are usually fast, with significant changes occurring in decades rather than thousands of years.

If we wanted to concisely change the existing sentence, we might say:
 * The observed increases in global average surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide have been much faster since the 1950s than the natural changes of previous millennia, and are now higher than at any time for hundreds of thousands of years prior.

I didn't see any charts showing similar trends for sea level to which this quote clearly applies, so maybe that's not included in the "many observations" even though that rise is pretty famous. (File:Sea level temp 140ky.gif seems to show a major increase a few thousand years before industrialization.) I don't know if it's simply a lagging phenomenon or if there's a different chart that would show the quote does apply clearly.

I hope it is clear what I am getting at? I'm wondering what sort of wording other editors would like to see here. -- Beland (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent post! Thanks for your interest.  I agree we should polish that.  But we should also be polishing all the text after that sentence too, and hopefully others will pick up the baton.  For one,  offered up a possible outline for the lead (in the oldest of the three archived links in one of my comments yesterday).  Maybe that's a place to start. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, a very good post. One thing to recognize, here, is that there are two issues slightly wrapped up in this discussion and the last sentence in the first paragraphs of the introduction that is under question. One is the rate of change of the temperature (and related metrics) of the Earth system, and the other is the absolute value of that temperature (metrics). It appears that the sentence in the introduction is about rate of change. On the other hand, the first two bullet points given by Beland are about absolute value. So, I just wanted to make the obvious point that we should be aware of these two issues, both of which are important. 24.8.231.222 (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure what to make of those comments, but I'm not hearing "please no stop", so in the interest of a concrete fix without waiting for the entire intro to get resolved, I replaced the claim in the article intro. Feel free to improve as you see fit. -- Beland (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the outline I proposed six months ago, to save people hunting for it. I hope it may prove useful yet. Please feel free to copy and paste a relevant bit into a new section here if that would help. --Nigelj (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Journal or Encyclopedic entry?
On a related matter, I am not sure editors here realize references are not needed to this extent in a properly written lead WP:LEADCITE, because the lead is supposed to be a mirror of the article which contains the necessary references. When you have 3 and 4 references in a bulky verbose lead it does not help people read it. So just like someone said they cannot read bold text, very few can read the lead and get a summary of the issues, it reads like a scientific convention paper, not an encyclopedic entry.--Inayity (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The paragraph you cited, WP:LEADCITE, says in part "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." You're new here, right?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to use Newness as some kind of defense for this nonsense let me give you a headsup, do not bother with it. I did not reply to your other comment b.c i found them of no use to this discussion. So, NO I am not new HERE, where Here is Wikipedia. And WP:LEAD is something I know a Great deal about! Case by case, where is the editorial consensus for the excessive laborious references? Why not at 10 more just to make the point? ref are more needed around CONTROVERSIAL disputable material. Can you review the LEAD by reading it and tell me is all of that information controversial? --Inayity (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So I guess this is either complex, or controversial, is that why it needs 4 ref? Parties to the UNFCCC have adopted a range of policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[19][20][21][22] --Inayity (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Option A - Thump and holler
 * Option B - Work to restart the process
 * started at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70
 * continued at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_71
 * continued at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70
 * Which will more effectively yield results while complying with WP:ARBCC?
 * There are several ideas in those threads with more substance than generalized indictment.
 * One thing you will find in those threads is a broad agreement that the lead has accumulated a lot of stuff since FA status was granted, and everyone who spoke agreed it needs work. And we did a ton of work and got thru paragraph 1.   How about drafting a proposed second paragraph and posting it here?   Or you can insult this bit of the remaining accumulation and that bit of the remaining accumulation, but that doesn't seem very effective to me.  Your mileage may vary.  As for your specific example of accumulated stuff, no I don't suppose that needs 4 refs.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked the details (sorry) but I agree that part / most of the reason for the ridiculous numbers of citations in the lede was to beat back the bozos. If the bozos are gone, then the cites can and should be pruned William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On an even more contentious topic we ended up with grouping cites together to avoid the [3][4][5][6][7] effect, best to prune cites to a couple while making sure that useful cites are used somewhere in the body text rather than cluttering up the lead. . dave souza, talk 12:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you, but go further to agree with Inayity - before worrying about lead cites maybe we should work more on the lead text? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And, assuming that "bozos" don't read much, a somewhat shorter lead might be more effective. Just saying, Grandma (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Commonspeech and terms Global warming and Climate change in first sentence

 * Agree with both, we could try working without cites or perhaps best put drafts in a talk page section. For starters, why "Global warming and climate change are both used to refer the..."? Suggest "Global warming is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, the current climate change with its related effects." . . . dave souza, talk 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dave, I agree. In my recent change of this sentence I was just trying to accommodate a seeming wish to have climate change in there. If it was taken out, and yet somehow linked via a footnote or something, then that would, in my opinion, be even better. Grandma (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see that the use of the term climate change already appears in the italic preamble. Noting that, can we just take it out of the first sentence proper? Grandma (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dave, oppposed to dropping the COMMONSPEECH use of "climate change" in sentence 1 for reasons stated in the three archived threads and abundant additional archived debate elsewhere over the scope of this article viz-a-viz should we gut this article to focus in laser beam fashion on the narrow TECHSPEAK meaning of the term (rising global surface temps), and purge all discussion of greenhouse gas, policy, feedbacks, social impacts....  The consensus, of which I thought you were a supporting part, was to keep the article scope as it has always been and to add the COMMONSPEECH equivalent terms in the opening sentence.   Did I not understand your prior views, Dave? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, understood, we should live with it (given everything else). Grandma (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope lives! Thanks, I look forward to cleaning up the rest of the lead together. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My aim was to cover that at the end of the sentence, see below for a possible way of bringing it forward without getting into "also known as" stuff. . dave souza, talk 16:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Better check and make sure what the motivations are behind this sudden effort to wish to alter the lede.--MONGO 15:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mongo, we are here discussing content, not motivation. Thank you, Grandma (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Mongo, if you are unhappy with something specific, or if you can suggest a specific improvement, then please say it. Again, thank you, Grandma (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes...I disagree with all your edits so far...that's specific. While the lede is longish and has changed a fair bit since this article achieved FA, the subject matter does deserve expansion and in this case cites in the lede due to the subject matter.--MONGO 16:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be helpful, please say why you disagree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"observed century scale" vs "current long term"
Here's a small difference of opinion; I'm your Grandma wants to say that GW refers
 * to the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects.

And I want to say it refers
 * to the current long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects

The reasons I'm your Grandma prefers her version are perfectly valid. Her edit summary says "observed" because global warming is not just an inference, "century-scale" as opposed to paleo changes.  Although both are true, in my view attempting to convey that level of technical nuance in the opening sentence (A) expects too much and (B) puts 10th graders on the defensive with technical speak right off the bat. So I prefer "current long term" because its is simpler language for the lead. What do others think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC) I'd like to say
 * Century scale is incoherent gibberish....your option is the better of two bad ones.--MONGO 16:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lotsa my writing can be described like that (hopefully more like the latter than the former!) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Taking this and the above point together, how about "Global warming is the climate change observed over a century of continuing rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects." This highlights climate change as being the same thing over the current 1,000 year period. . . dave souza, talk 16:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like it! Grandma (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Global warming is the climate change currently underway as a result of Earth's positive radiation balance. It began over a century ago and is documented by multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming .[2][3]"


 * Now, NewsGuy, don't take it personally, but I prefer Dave's proposed sentence. Still, the positive radiation page should of be linked somehow, if not already done. Things are progressing! Grandma (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Dave and others...
 * Reasoning; Here's why I think some tweaks to Dave's suggestion would improve it
 * we can drop "and its related effects" because that is redundant with "climate change" in this phrasing.
 * plus Dave's text is susceptible to the mis-reading that we were definitely observing the rise in 1920s, 1930s, 1940s.... whereas there was some uncertainty whether it was headed up or down back then. Today we have lots of proxie records to back up the instrumental record, but most of them weren't being "observed" for over a century.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NewsGuy, my apologies, I was just out for a walk, thinking, and realizing that I didn't explain myself. We all tend to focus on slightly different issues, don't we?
 * (1) One thing I'm reacting to is the use of the expression "currently underway". I would have similar concerns about the word "presently". Why? Well, because we have climate-change deniers that confuse a trend occurring over many decades or a century (or more) with more rapid fluctuations. Indeed, some deniers claim that the recent seeming "pause" means we aren't having any more global warming. Some people even seem to think that a low temperature in some part of the world means we aren't having any more global warming. We need to avoid such confusion in the lead, so that is why I'm not in favor of "currently" or "presently" or similar. So that is one point.
 * (2) Also, I think the mention of "related effects" needs to be in this thesis sentence because this page (and even the last couple paragraphs in the lead) discuss related effects. Whether or not all those "related" issues should be there is another subject, but as long as they are, then I guess I favor some foreshadowing in the thesis sentence.
 * (3) I still like the word "observed" because it summarizes the factual nature of global warming. It is observed, not inferred, and while its cause is something that might be discussed (multiple causes, but mankind is THE major player), the fact remains, we have had real global warming.
 * (4) I think that some mention of "century" or similar needs to be in the thesis sentence because "global warming", in the sense of this particular article, is not about longer term paleoclimate change that has natural cause outside of mankind's own influence. Again, confusing paleoclimate with the recent historical (century-scale or whatever) global warming is often the subject of confusion among the public.
 * (5) I find the page Earth's positive radiation balance interesting, but I think the title sounds very technical, so much so, it might dissuade many readers from, well, continuing to read. Like I say, this page needs to be linked, even somewhere in the lead.
 * Anyway, those are my thoughts. Now I have to go eat some oatmeal, Grandma (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we go with Dave's suggestion? LadyLeodia (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * shall we at least acknowledge subsequent critique? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. You might respond to Grandma's points? Or find compromise. All of this seems very civilized. LadyLeodia (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI AE complaint
FYI, editors here may be interested (or not) in these other threads NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement filed by
 * The backstory has to do with Serten's going live with a draft of IPCC consensus


 * Okay, wow, that whole page IPCC consensus is, well, something else. Start with the first sentence in the "lede". No. Not good. LadyLeodia (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire thing is drivel. This is the best version William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The young lady looks for honeypots and found a ungentleman to lead her around? Nice pairing. Serten II (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As usual, I was right. It was drivel, and has been deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to help with it, User:Serten II/IPCC consensus is a userspace draft. . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As usual, the lady disappeared. Serten II (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015

 * answered=no

I request that the following information, easily verifiable with Wikipedia sources, be included in this article in order to provide an historical background to the heavily opinion-driven and prediction-weighted text.

The current global average temperature is about 15°C and for the last 500 million years, the earth has ranged between 12°C and 22°C, and for two-thirds of that time it has been within a degree or so of 22°C. Since the Holocene Optimum [] (apposite term chosen), the world has cooled slightly, with a recent uptick (see: Hockey Stick []) in the last 150 years. If it does not persist, we may descend into another glaciation like the one we emerged from 20,000 years ago, when London was buried under a mile of ice.

The Ice Age we are in began 2.5 million years ago, when the Arctic ice cap became perennial (see: Ice Age [], definition). In the last million years we have had 8 interglacials like the one we're in now, surrounded by glacials like the one we emerged from 14,000 years ago, when the sea level rose 22 meters in a few hundred years. After that, it continued to rise another 80 meters until it stabilized at a few mm a decade a few thousand years ago. 120,000 years ago, sea level was six meters higher than now, and atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppmv.

Oiler99 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have the wrong article. This article (Global warming) is about the recent warming, while the article Climate change is about climate change in general, and that article already contains the information that you present here. See the header on top of this article, where this is clearly delineated :) --Kim D. Petersen 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ - as answer above. - Arjayay (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * answered=no
 * The current warming began about 18,000 years ago, and the last 150 years of the anthropocene is a minor blip in the general cooling since the Holocene Optimum. This needs to be considered in any article pretending to be devoted to the science rather than to the psychology.  Choosing your starting point on a chart is classical statistical cherry-picking, and illegitimate.  It shows bad faith.  --Oiler99 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Take that up with for example. . . dave souza, talk 08:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mitigation section
I think that Global warming should be revised. In my opinion, the mitigation section is fairly good at present, but I think that there is some unnecessary overlap with Global warming. The mitigation section discusses low GHG stabilization targets, while the politics section discusses limiting global warming to 2 degrees C. I think that these two topics are similar and should be collated in one section. Enescot (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had another idea about revising information on the 2 °C target:
 * 1. In this article, information on progress towards 2 °C is collated and briefly summarized in global warming. Readers can be referred to climate change mitigation for more information.
 * 2. My draft summary on 1.5 / 2 °C for this article is below:


 * Near- and long-term trends in the global energy system are inconsistent with limiting global warming at below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (link to climate change mitigation) (IPCC AR5 WG3: Chapter 6 p418; Technical summary, Table TS.1, p54). Pledges made as part of the Cancún agreements are broadly consistent with having a likely chance (66 to 100% probability) of limiting global warming (in the 21st century) at below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (IPCC AR5 WG3 Summary for Policymakers p12).


 * References: IPCC AR5 WG3 Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change


 * Enescot (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a few extra lines on the emissions reductions necessary to meet 2 degrees C (see global warming). I've also made some other changes to the mitigation section as well. Enescot (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Images in the lead
I would like to replace two of the images in the lead section. The first is a world map of temperature changes. An update is available here. I think that the 1950-2014 trend map is the most appropriate since internal variability is less evident.

The second is the graph of recent CO2 changes and IPCC projections. The SRES scenarios are rather old. In my view, it would be better to use these scenarios instead (data available here).

Enescot (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me; Re the second one you mentioned, the authors (under CC 3.0) are SkepticalScience.  Since I lack graphics wizardry, I contacted them to see about getting an update.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your view on the time period shown in the new emissions graph? In my opinion, it would be best to show current emissions and projected emissions out until 2100. Enescot (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like the two approaches present different parts of the important information. Both? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Title/Alternate title conflict
On Dec 9, made a change to the definition in the lead section. This change introduced climate change in boldface, presumably as a alternate title. The current definition is:
 * Global warming and climate change both refer to the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects.

However, since Climate change is the title of it's own article and theoretically should not be used for an alternate (eg, you can't redirect it), I'd like to make a slight change:
 * Global warming and climate change can both refer to the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects, although climate change can also refer to climatic trends at any point in earth's history.

The hatnote and the inline comment (beginning with !-- DO NOT WIKILINK) can remain. Because my change is to the first sentence of the article, I present it here rather than being bold. What say you? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK by me, and thanks for caring.  FYI, although I posted the change, it was the result of a prolonged discussion broken across three archived threads.  The final thread in that series was Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ (with changes). I did notice the long discussions (mostly on Dec 9) but it was too complicated to gather all the names. BTW, I always sign my inline comments. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the argument above, but somehow in the article, some extra double-quotes crept in. I just removed these as per WP:WORDSASWORDS we use italics (or occasionally quotes, as in the hatnote which is already in italics) when using words to refer to the said words themselves. We do not use both, lest it starts to look like the use of scare quotes, e.g. 'so-called "climate change"', which of course has a different meaning again. --Nigelj (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)