Talk:Climate variability and change/Archive 4

Mention of a type of forcing factor is not evidence or an example
This section "Physical evidence for and examples of climatic change" contains several categories that are described but contain no example or evidence(eg Dendroclimatology). The potential for an effect is not an effect without an example or evidence. Someone should justify the inclusion of these in the section by citing a study on each item and summarizing the evidence for it. I am not objecting to the inclusion of these categories, rather, I am asking someone who knows more than I do to include an example and evidence to justify their inclusion.

Avram Primack (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External links and Further Reading
I would like to add a few links to this article that point to specific articles written by the World Bank on the topic as it pertains to water resources mgmt. (Miguelaaron (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC))


 * Thanks for asking (a most excellent way to avoid inadvertent edit warring). But how would these links improve the article?  Water resources, and the management thereof, are, at best, secondary issues consequential of climate change; I don't see that they are useful here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

+ Would it be possible to link to http://www.climate-change-guide.com? What would be the requirements in order for this site to be accepted? It contains information on a great variety of topics regarding climate change, allows its users to ask questions/post comments and has a news section. It is a new website and is already in the top 1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cousigreeno (talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotation resource
from http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,4 by Naomi Klein. This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 print edition of The Nation.

It sounds more global warming, unless there is a Current climate change wp article? Or something more comprehensive than just the warming aspects.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can say with confidence that I have no idea what you're talking about. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The terms climate change and global warming are used interchangably but they are not synonymous; global warming (due to increased greehouse gases and the greenhouse effect) results in climate change (a term encompassing more than just current warming, but other changes as well). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is ocean acidification really "part of climate change"?!??
"climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.[3]"

That's a bizarre statement, however well sourced. Is ocean acidification, the most easily and uncontroversial documented human impact on the environment, really to be lumped under "other" effects ? That's really a very POV statement as even anthropogenic denialists must accept that a litmus strip in the ocean shows increased acidification (unlike climate, it's something anyone can test themselves).

Given this a current climate change article may be advisable, while ocean acidification should be linked almost everywhere there is a link to anthropogenic global warming, as a parallel separate effect.


 * Attention 142.177.226.88: please sign your edits with four tildes: "~".
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Solar wind
Dave, thanks for your thoughtful edit comment indicating a lack of sources and problem with "some scientists". Are there any peer reviewed studies attributing climate change to variations in the solar wind?

Or is that theory of causal linkage scattered across too many WP articles? I wish I could read all about it in one place, like Solar wind and climate change or Cosmic rays and cloud cover. I think there have been a few attempts to create an article like that, but the title is eluding me at the moment. (I've been dealing with redirects and disambiguation links to my List of articles related to the Sun). --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

History of Climate Changes
Do you think it would be beneficial to add in some details about past climate changes? Although we can see these periods of climate changes in other articles I think it would be beneficial to give more details about instances such as the Little Ice Age. It would only give more detail and examples to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleLeeHoffmann (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing not discussed: the planet does not really give a shit about the climate. Most organisms don't care about the climate, as the species readily adapt, in most cases and, with evolution, constantly change over time. In some cases, lifeforms may do better with climate change, not worse. The only ones who care about climate change are humans, and they care mostly for selfish reasons, as they only care about how climate change affects them, and mostly the planet will adapt to pretty much anything you throw at it. That has been the constant history of this planet and will continue to be.

Most scientists, when polled, as well as most people in general, agreed that climate change is one of the least important problems facing humans, not the most, contrary to what some say. Only humans care, the rest of the planet will find it mostly uninteresting or irrelevant, since the climates are always changing, sometimes radically so.

I want to edit the page and add in History of Climate Changes, but the article has been locked because too many people at my University have been editing Wikipedia articles. I was wondering if anyone could help me out either by giving me their feedback on what I want to contribute and submitting these contributions or by giving me a way to edit the article on my own. The article says it has been semi-protected and won't let me gain any access to the edit page. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleLeeHoffmann (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Such a leap would be imprudent. See comments on your Talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Human Influence on local not global warming over CO2 limited to additional max. +100ppm +0.5° by sources
After IPPC scientific agreement was just for some human influence on climate exists not sure most and not that it would be irreversible. Of course nature can reduce CO2 after human CO2 sources gone out with all exploration maxima long before 2050 oil reached about(ASPO) 2020 -16% 2030 -33% 2050 -60% maxima coal reached about 2020-2035 gas 2015-2035 means max. 100ppm CO2 +0.5° possible and warming was most local at arctis areas not global and sea level rise >100 years normal most by river+coast erosion and sea bed change by continental drift. One possible main source for CO2 and methane was also wolld desertification up to 30 industry years & sahara dry time since 1970. After actual human CO2 rise staying in air it would need about 250 years for doubling with +2° but it doesn`t need reduction to 0 by oil+gas+coal for going down because +100ppm before means also about 1/4 more nature consumption with 550Gt nature exchange 3000Gt at all in atmosphere and 32Gt/J by humans added but just 12Gt left annually and rest is taken by land+sea plants. xxxxxxxxx@yahoo.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.73.219 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

terminology usage question: climate change &/or global warming?
If you believe this is not the best location for this question, please suggest that also.

An example "discussion" on Talk:Planet Earth: The Future.
 * It appears that in the United States the phrase "global warming" is used where in Europe the phrase "climate change" is preferred.
 * For all the uses of the phrases, they do not appear to be synonymous.
 * Is there standard for usage on wikipedia, or some kind of rule-of-thumb?
 * Climate change would appear to a broader term, including all climate, and thus forms of weather, such as storms and precipitation.
 * Global warming would appear to be much more limited to the average rising temperature of the Earth.
 * Neither phrase seems inclusive enough, and both are used by the media in overlapping ways.
 * Potential clarity may be to combine the two in a sentence, so the reader has an easier seeing the current relation, such as climate change (global warming) assuming global warming was applicable in that situation.
 * Comment requested, climate change &/or global warming and under what circumstances?
 * 99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If what you say were correct, the usage would fall under WP:ENGVAR, and only one should be used in an article, regardless of what the sources use. I don't think it is correct, but your argument doesn't lead to your desired result.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear the question is not directed toward you. Perhaps you'd answer questions you are asked instead, such as Portal_talk:Current_events/2012_June_6 and User talk:Viriditas?  99.181.141.238 (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clear the question makes no sense in English. I was just pointing that out.
 * For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the use of both terms in the same sentence, except in rare occurrences where both meanings are being used for separate unrelated concepts in the same sentence. Both "global warming (the current climate change)" and "global warming, and resultant climate change" should never occur in Wikipedia unless they occur commonly in reliable sources.  "Climate change (global warming)" is just unnecessary, but not wrong.  It wouldn't violate Wikipedia guidelines unless linked.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) See Talk:Global warming 99.181.142.87 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They disagree with you; although they notice a difference between the concepts, they note they should rarely be used in the same sentence. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Change "Lasting" to "Persistent"
The use "lasting" in the definition is coloquial. No state "lasts" due to natural variations in climate. Technically climate variations are called "persistent". See Hurst exponent. Climate variations have been shown to follow the Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics over 500 million years. e.g., Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics in long climatic proxy records. I recommend changing the definition to read: "Climate change is a significant and persistent change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years." For further evidence see ITIA publications on Hurst and Hurst climate. DLH (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request-remove word from first sentence from lede
Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years.

please remove the work statistical please change ranging from decades to millions of years to "on time scales from decades to millions of years."

This is the final sentence:

Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the distribution of weather patterns on times scales from from decades to millions of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agriculture effects
IMF, ADBI, CGDEV, IEE, every credible authority really, predicts (as of studies current in 2007 and later) a serious decline in agriculture outputs as a result of climate effects, one that will *NOT* be offset but in many cases aggregated by increased CO2.

The assumed fertilization effect, in other words, is nonsense or pseudoscience, or review of just the most authoritative sources shows a consensus that must be reflected in this article or a new one linked from it, say agriculture effects of higher CO2 levels. A similar article on ocean food yields with high atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification could parallel it.

None of the Wikipedia material on these subjects seems to be very current or properly referenced at present.

Authoritative sources recommended, in addition to the search above, include the University of Manitoba summary studies which concluded that many effects, e.g. pests, faster maturity of the crop, rot, etc., would be much worse in a warmer environment and that the soils in the more northerly areas were not suitable for most food crops - meaning that the only areas that had any reason to think they'd gain in yields from warming, won't. This did not even consider social effects like conflict and the fact that no infrastructure exists in those areas for those crops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.226.88 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 December 2011(UTC)


 * I completely agree. This should be added.  How do we go about building consensus on such a controversial topic?  Casting-off (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Internal vs External forcings
I understand that anything that happens on earth would be an "internal" forcing- so volcanism, plate tectonics and man should be moved to internal forcing section. The external forcings are solar output, orbital variations, cosmic rays (Svensmark hypothesis). Cosmic Rays needs its own subhead. Otherwise and excellent balanced article. Blouis79 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Errm, what makes you think that? Given, I'm not inclined to trust your unsupported opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a citation is needed for, "Forcing mechanisms can be either "internal" or "external". Internal forcing mechanisms are natural processes within the climate system itself (e.g., the thermohaline circulation). External forcing mechanisms can be either natural (e.g., changes in solar output) or anthropogenic (e.g., increased emissions of greenhouse gases)." --JohnTsams (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sea ice loss and ice sheets and partial reverts...
I just noticed that Watti Renew added some text about sea ice and ice sheets. I was about to remove half of it (antarctic ice cores don't belong into a section on arctic sea ice loss), but then noticed that IRWolfie- had removed exactly the other side part, essentially claiming recentism. I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion here instead of reverting different parts back and forth...

As far as I'm concerned, noting the 2012 record sea ice minimum is ok. Of course it is only a single year, but it is the culmination of an obvious and longer-term trend, and is described as such in the source provided. I've alread stated my problem with the ice cores above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Climatology describes longer term variations. Let's say for sake of argument that next year the minimum ice cover is greater, year on year, we wouldn't be including it as evidence that climate change isn't happening, precisely because it's about looking at the trends. We should just be describing the longer trends as dictated by the most reliable secondary sources (i.e the academic publications). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would remove/move the Antarctic ice cores text as well, as not being particularly relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me it would me much more relevant to add a paragraph about the precipitous decline in sea ice to the global warming article, particularly the Natural Systems section which mentions glacier decline already.  I went ahead and removed the ice cores paragraph under sea ice extent in this article as it's duplicated almost word-for-word a few headings below.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I perviously removed some stuff. The ice core stuff that was added is a copy of the existing ice core section (added when WR cut-n-pasted his stuff across), so should go. I'll do that (oh no I won't S-b-S did it already ). I'm dubious about the sea ice. Perhaps a brief mention, but this is the wrong article for current change William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Request move
The article looks good. I particularly like the animation showing the arctic sea ice minimum. For the last few decades. I'd love to see a similar animation for the prehistoric ice-ages. There's a minor change that needs to be made. As the lead paragraph points out, "[the term] "climate change" is often used to describe human-specific impacts." Against my wishes, it is now not just "often" but "almost always" used to refer to 20-century Global warming, so this article needs a slight change to its title to make the ambiguity idiot-proof. We need the title Climate change to be a disambiguation page, forking to this page and the global warming page. Is "Climate change (geological)" good? Can you think of something better? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta (talk • contribs)


 * Unnecessary. The text at the top of the article clarifies things. If people are incapable of reading the top of the article, a messy disambiguation isn't going to help. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with the reasons for the move and I disagree that the hatnote at the top is the correct way to handle it. If this weren't such a contentious issue I'd just boldly do as you suggest.  However, given the contention, such a change should not be done without broad discussion including large amounts of supporting evidence.  The most civil course of action right now is probably to hold off on any renames until all or almost all major English-language news organizations use the term "climate change" in a consistent way.  If that way is different than what this article describes, then move this article and either use a disambiguation page, a redirect, or a soft redirect or if necessary create a new article to reflect the actual usage.  If most or all news organizations are already using the term in a way that requires a move, please provide evidence here and allow at least a couple of weeks for discussion.  When there is enough evidence to start a discussion, please put notices both here and on Talk:Global warming. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Really I think we should be using the common name in the scientific literature, like for every scientific subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge Careers in climate change
I don't feel that Careers in climate change requires its own page and the content mentioned there may not bear mentioning on Wikipedia, given the lack of sources. I thought I should give editors of this article time to use the information found at that article if they see fit.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  20:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there anything there to merge? It looks like it would be better deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * just delete it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It bears a striking resemblance to the solid waste discharges of male bovines (either of the marketing variety or the damning-through-faint-praise variety). I concur with those above that a straight-up deletion seems warranted.  Sailsbystars (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've prodded it. It's not notable, and it looks like the article was created to make a subtle POV point, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's now up at Afd and is no longer unsourced. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

New NASA video
I've uploaded "The Ocean A Driving Force for Weather and Climate" Please feel free to help out and add the file where it might fit. It neatly describes the ocean's impact on climate. Thanks --DrLee (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good one! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've read in the feedback section, that kids are complaining about dry facts and "complicated talk" in the global warming articles. So I think that these videos (if NASA produces more of them) will help to understand the topic better. I hope that experienced people will integrate them in the articles where they might fit. Best regards --DrLee (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That depends on the video.  I have been harshly negative over another one at Talk:global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't this article (and the 'Global Warming' article) subject to the infamous wiki banner: "The neutrality of this article is disputed."?
This article is completely biased, if not bigoted in many sections. 'Climate Change' should not be marginalized to become a new synonym for Man-made Global Warming theories. Climate Change should address the dispute in some section, yet it should be objective and non-partisan in all general, and other sections that do not specifically address the AGW (man-made Global Warming theory). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this article is about climate change in general, it doesn't address global warming except in very broad terms - that is what the other article is for. As for "partisan" and "dispute", that seems to be politics and not science. If you have specific issues with the science presented here, then please address these with concrete suggestions to changes based upon reliable sources appropriate to the context you are addressing. --Kim D. Petersen 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This article SHOULD be about Climate Change in general, perhaps a lot more in regards to what we know about the past (as much of this content tends to focus on recent claims from recent studies (albeit many of those studies are disputed). However, it does address global warming and AGW. It does not really differentiate, as per this example:
 * Human influences
 * Main article: Global warming
 * In the context of climate variation, anthropogenic factors are human activities which affect the climate. The scientific consensus on climate change is "that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities,"[53] and it "is largely irreversible."[54]
 * And this example:
 * Certain human activities have also been identified as significant causes of recent climate change, often referred to as "global warming".[1]
 * Which cites a reference, fine. However, that reference contains rationale that is quite biased, containing language that attempts -without substance- to evade any debate to the contrary:
 * ^ America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. "(p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
 * This is incorrect, unless one lives in the non-debatable bubble from which this partisan scientific panel was commissioned. There is much research to the contrary and disputes with the IPCC research and those who glean their opinionated consensus, in order to create 'conclusive' results in papers that are used politically and scientifically (for further grants to sustain themselves). To say 'so thoroughly examined and tested' should be questionable, if not inane to any scientist looking for objectivity. To say 'serious scientific debate and careful examination of alternative explanations', to say 'settled facts', to say 'supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small' is simply not true, given those that have also researched this, our current observations (as of 2013) and disputed the theory of AGW. It's quite offensive, to say the least.
 * This is incorrect, unless one lives in the non-debatable bubble from which this partisan scientific panel was commissioned. There is much research to the contrary and disputes with the IPCC research and those who glean their opinionated consensus, in order to create 'conclusive' results in papers that are used politically and scientifically (for further grants to sustain themselves). To say 'so thoroughly examined and tested' should be questionable, if not inane to any scientist looking for objectivity. To say 'serious scientific debate and careful examination of alternative explanations', to say 'settled facts', to say 'supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small' is simply not true, given those that have also researched this, our current observations (as of 2013) and disputed the theory of AGW. It's quite offensive, to say the least.


 * Please add the banner that says the neutrality is disputed. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your assertions such as "this is incorrect, unless ..." is not worth anything. What Wikipedia need is reliable sources that represents the prevalence of evidence in the literature. What you (or i) personally question has no relevance. You will need to present reliable sources that supports the viewpoint that you feel is missing, and the reliable sources have to have sufficient adherence in the literature to present this alternate view. This is not politics where every view is relevant and has merit, nor is it journalism where all views are presented equally - it is a representation of where the scientific view is currently on this issue. --Kim D. Petersen 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My assertion that this article SHOULD contain the neutrality banner is valid. Please do not edit this section topic, this is a controversial topic -and the basic question is in regards to the missing banner. Take a poll, if you must. I assume there was such a banner at one time. What happened to it? Politics saying the 'science is settled'? You are correct, this should not be about politics, this should be about science relevant to this topic. It is amazing that there is a lack of (or censoring of) contrary arguments and facts. This only spreads ignorance and pushes acceptance of many 'reliable sources' within this article.


 * It is truly laughable is the article on Global Warming Controversy which ironically is redirected from Climate Change controversy. It too is a very biased article that, simply-put, slams any debate and contradicting science. It also clearly presents the science against the AGW theory and IPCC conclusions as bunk and has incredibly bigoted conclusions within the article. Totally preposterous, totally non-objective.


 * For example, "Many of the largely settled scientific issues, such as the human responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them – an ideological phenomenon categorised (sic) by academics and scientists as climate change denial." Where there actually was a sentence in the same paragraph that at least alludes to studies funded to produce desired results by 'both sides', it then continues to just slam the oil industry and provides no examples to the lobbyists on the other side. This continues within other sections as well. Most sections read like a FAQ of a pro-AGW site that provides what one could say are talking points without any consideration of the scientific argument against that talking point. It has graphs that are all the depict the same pro-AGW studies, it has silly picture depictions such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic_Global_Warming.svg). Another example can be seen obviously within the section on 'Arctic shrinkage' presents an opinion, from 2007 (when the the Arctic had a low-level of observed ice extent, relative to a small timeframe as goes most of this 'conclusive' data). However, what is the controversy? One would not know, given this section's pro-AGW content sans any other data/research. Whereas, one can find, from the same source (NISDC website) recent data that depicts the Arctic ice extent has grown in size, as of October 2013 (where the Arctic summer had just ended and data had been recently collected). This may be relative to post-2006/7; however, the point of much of this recent data from the late 70s (which was under a cooling trend) is that it does not conclude anything other than data relative to recent past data. Decades before, centuries before (of course, hundreds of thousands of years before) where previous cooling and warming trends sparred back and forth would have to be considered as well to claim any valid conclusion on Arctic ice extents being impacted by AGW or human influence.


 * What is even more laughable (although, really this is in all seriousness, NOT funny) is that there is a 'False balance' article that is grossly biased as well. Gee, it also has a section specifically for 'Global Warming', how convenient. For example: The article ironically libels scientists -as 'skeptics' who are concluded to be not equal to the pro-AGW scientists- who have done studies and written papers that result in contrary conclusions to those scientists who have done studies and written papers resulting in a promotion of the theory of AGW ("This paragraph puts scientists against skeptics, as though both are on equal grounds of knowledge, when in reality the scientists (even in 1992) have far more reason to believe that humanity is causing temperatures to rise than skeptics have to disagree."/"Giving equal voice to scientists on both sides makes it seem like there is a debate within the scientific community, even though there is a scientific consensus."). The article also marginalizes the controversy by equating it to disputes between atheists and creationists. Which likens it to something backed by many scientific studies vs. something that has a total lack of scientific studies to back it (as creationists back their theory on faith, perhaps one could say -for the record, in order to avoid being profiled by provinical folks of both sides who read this, I am not religious -yet, there is a 1/infinity chance for anything to be possible within perceived reality, as such, both atheists and creationists should take note). This is not flat-earth theory, there are MANY scientists and MANY studies (and no they are not funded by Exxon, just as not all pro-AGW is funded by the 'green' industry) and they need to be objectively represented. If there are 100 studies for pro-AGW, and there are only 50 for the contrary, then fine...but, all scientific studies must be presented. If Exxon funded one, if the 'Green' industry funds another, then mention that. Also, mention the methods, if controversial and contradicted by other studies. All should be treated objectively. It's not a contest, where one side could fund twice as many as the other then claim that they have more science (and biased media outlets/what people call "journalism") on their side so, therefore, all is settled -resulting in the push to ignore/censor or libel any scientific evidence the other side has.


 * In other words, wiki articles and some of their citations provide a Shell corporation of 'reliable sources'
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk • contribs)


 * Please stick to reliable sources and how these might conflict with our article, or on how our article misrepresents the sources it is based upon. It does not matter to Wikipedia how much you can argue your case if you do not demonstrate that your argument is based upon more than personal opinion, and assertions - this is not a debate forum. Please start by understanding WP:V, WP:NPOV (specifically the section on weight) the two major policies that you have adhere to here. --Kim D. Petersen 07:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do NOT suppress my responses. It addresses the issue of this article's biased POV approach and the greater issue of having shell articles (such as the 'False balance' article) that are used as reference/reliable sources in order to 'validate' POV. This is not about and has never been about personal opinions (ironically, as you mention 'our' article, when writing of it). I gave a few examples, but this article and many others within wiki that do NOT follow those policies. How can you write that *I* do not understand this, yet there are glaringly obvious assertions and biased/bigoted 'reliable sources' within this article. I would like a discussion as to WHY there is no banner that declares that the neutrality is disputed (or why it was removed, if it was in the past). The whole purpose of this section is about how this article is very much POV and should be NPOV. So, yes, I understand quite well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk • contribs)


 * Our (as in "Wikipedia's") article is based on reliable sources, several from the worlds most prestigious scientific organizations or from papers published in the most recognized peer-reviewed journals. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You have, so far, neither shown any understanding of the science nor any reliable source. This is how Randy is supposed to work. If you want to change the article, you need to follow WP:RS, not the examples in WP:SOAPBOX. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, please stop collapsing this section. And do not attempt to discredit me by citing 'Randy' and saying that I don't have an understanding of the science or the concept of reliable source. Stick to the point of this section, and either answer the question or not. The rationale for why OUR article does not have the 'neutrality is disputed' banner clearly needs to be discussed. This is a broad article that has become quite controversial and biased in content and assertion (especially, any related child articles, such as 'global warming' and 'global warming controversy' (again, the latter is laughable in content, given the nature of the title). It is clear that somehow AGW has been touted as the de facto synonym for GW. Recently, it has been marginalized, into the broad definition of Climate change itself -where it should be objectively said that any long or short-term warming is an aspect within the mechanics of the Climate and how it changes, it is NOT the same as Climate change).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Many 'reliable sources' are out-of-date. Noted by the IPCC and by those who do not subscribe to the conclusions of the IPCC that AGW has been the main contributor (or a major contributor at all) to claims of GW. For example, one may decide to view the wiki article that supposedly tells all you need to know about scientific opinion on climate change. Here, they will find outdated information, mostly from 2004, and up to 2007 (with some sources citing later dates, and mixed opinions -aside from UK and US gov't funded org's that have always subscribed to AGW as a major issue). It's suspicious that most of the source stacking stops at 2007 (IPCC report and a recent warm period).


 * Perhaps, one could say there is a 'False consensus', as the 'reliable sources' are very much stacked, providing the same conclusions from essentially the same sources. I don't have an issue with providing data and citing scientific papers, and mentioning the IPCC conclusions. However, there is a great imbalance and it is beyond disingenuous to say there is NO dispute here. There are other scientific studies and alternate conclusions drawn from the studies used by the IPCC. This is an issue, since the Climate change article declares from the outset that AGW is the cause of any recent warming and cites the IPCC's conclusion. Again, fine to have that opinion and citation, but it should also be known that this is a conclusion disputed by a large amount of scientists as well.


 * I understand that there are large organizations (i.e. IPCC) from which some of these 'reliable sources' are attributed, and from where sections in this article note conclusions that AGW is the cause of any recent warming, in the oceans or otherwise. Whether or not they are 'prestigious' is highly debatable. It is a UN organization, it contains political motives. It doesn't mean that the scientists who contribute are wrong or acting biased in every case. However, the IPCC publishes reports which support their mission. From the wiki article on IPCC, itself, "Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects." The IPCC has a mission to reach conclusions that support its mission of the 'risk of climate change caused by human activity...consequences...options'. These studies are supposed to be non-commissioned by the IPCC, sure, but they ARE sometimes commissioned by environmental and politically motivated activist groups. If they reach the conclusions that promote the mission of the IPCC (and others who support the IPCC's efforts, with more political and financial socio-economic interests), those studies are published and cited. Further, according to the IPCC wiki itself, "The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change." Therefore, it publishes reports that are relevant to a STATED agenda that it has subscribed to be its mission (no less).


 * Also, I have not yet attempted to change the article, and therefore there has been no WP:SOAPBOX within the article (or the talk, as I have been simply responding to accusations). All 'WE' -who believe this is a very POV article- are asking, is to simply reinstate/apply the 'neutrality is disputed' banner on this article and its' child articles regarding global warming that are also imbalanced by bias, ignoring and/or censoring alternative positions of GW (that it is far more complicated to assert AGW rather than a barrage of other reasons, OR that it cannot even be concluded that are not in a long-term warming trend -as of 2013.11.27).
 * Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to share them here: It is against Wikipedia policy, for you to use this as a soapbox, as is it, for us to engage you, when you aren't speaking about content that is backed by reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen 04:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not the article, this is a talk page. I should hope we are entitled to our own opinions as others are entitled to their opinions and conclusions. I was speaking about content and of some 'reliable sources' and theories/conclusions that these 'reliable sources' have promoted as indisputable fact. Ironically, one can point to the section below where this user wrote the following, "...I am concern the unsophisticated reader, say a young student doing a paper on climate change, could look at this and conclude that global warming is still debatable. I prefer the "global mean temperatures" example because it more explicitly shows the true nature of global warming. I realize that is not the primary purpose of this section, but given the amount of misinformation being propagated by moneyed interests about current climate change, I think it helps if Wikipedia can be explicit about the true nature of current climate change whenever possible. - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)" Please do not collapse my discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk)
 * You said
 * "This is not the article, this is a talk page. I should hope we are entitled to our own opinions..."
 * You were many times directed to our talk page guidelines, which say in part
 * "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

See also User_talk:205.131.188.5 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And, if you read, I further said, "as others are entitled to their opinions and conclusions. I was speaking about content and of some 'reliable sources' and theories/conclusions that these 'reliable sources' have promoted as indisputable fact." Then, I quoted an immediate and recent example right below this section. This is not about a 'platform' or 'soapbox'. My original question has been continuously attempted to be discredited, and I'm sure there have been others who have brought this up. I can only imagine that they have been suppressed as well. There are many RS's in question on this page and others. I am simply pointing that out, and simply asking why the banner has been removed/has not been displayed on the article page (and its' child pages, such as GW, GW controversy, etc).
 * Your original question ("Why isn't this article (and the 'Global Warming' article) subject to the infamous wiki banner: "The neutrality of this article is disputed."?) is the WP:POV equivalent of "Why haven't you stopped beating your grandmother?" and therefore falls outside the talk page guidelines and the arbitration ruling at WP:ARBCC NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * More attempts to discredit. That is quite the example of equivalency and you use a morally reprehensible example. I'm surprised you didn't just equate it to 'beating a dead horse' -which with such a controversial subject- should not be painted upon this talk section either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Climate departure
There can be a new article called "Climate departure". Google reports 22,600,000 search results for climate departure. —Wavelength (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Waaaaay too soon. Looks like it was a term someone used it  their press release yesterday.  Also there are only 5,000 hits for "Climate departure."  Google searching w/o quotes will lead you astray..... Maybe a redirect... Sailsbystars (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Term is used in title of peer reviewed journal article that just appeared in Nature, and is discussed in multiple paragraphs of the article (behind paywall though).  I have not looked for earlier references to this term in the literature but I presume it is now commonplace since this new article just uses it matter-of-factly, as though everyone who might read the article already knows what it means.   At least that's my interp.   Anyway, here is one of many nonpaywall articles about this paper: see ScienceDaily's coverage.   The full cite for the nature paper and url is at the end of SciDaily's column
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree basically per Talk:Global warming/FAQ #21. I'm currently paywalled as well, but you can look at the ref. list for the article and see that it doesn't include any other articles using the term in their title.  This addition smacks of WP:Recentism, which is why these articles tend to degrade over time as people add whatever current news story to the article.    It's an interesting study and I like the metric, but there's no way this is deserving of it's own article at this point.  Let's wait some months to see if it catches on since wikiepedia has no deadline.  Sailsbystars (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not paywalled.  But I don't claim to know the origins of the term.  FAQ 21 might apply to the conclusions in this recent paper.  As for the term itself, it's just a term.  I don't believe FAQ 21 was intended to keep us from explaining the meanings of concepts.   "Climate departure" is just a define concept, just like "global warming equivalent" and "iceball earth" are defined concepts.   The SciDaily column is a perfectly valid RS for the meaning of "climate departure":
 * when "the future temperature at any given location on Earth... shift[s] completely outside the limits of historical precedents"
 * That said, I grant that FAQ 21 may work to downplay or keep out the new paper's conclusion, i.e. that (A) "climate departure" will occur, and (B) that it will occur in roughly 35-40 years.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PS My main criticism with this term and definition is that it does not explicitly utter the words "surface air temperature".   We really need to get specific whether we mean the overall earth energy budget (warmer/cooler climate system overall) or just warmer/cooler surface air temps (what the weatherpeople report on the evening news). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes in lead today (Oct 22)
In the first version posted by (the current version as I started to work on this comment), he added/restored text vaguely suggesting there is meaningful scientific debate on whether Global warming is properly attributed to human activities. The trouble is, there is not even a hint of meaningful scientific debate on that point in the RS attached to the text. So his attempted addition/restoration of text (part of an edit-war) is inconsistent with the RSs.

In addition, CFredkin was picking up an edit war where Embram left off... this unsupported suggestion that there is meaningful scientific debate was introduced and edit warred over by Embram, against whom I have filed an ANI complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's apparently a group of editors who are consistently reverting any entry, and deleting any citation to any source or paper, that indicates that the question of whether human activity is "the cause" of current global warming is still open to debate. On this page, I modified an entry to the effect that "human-induced effects are currently causing global warming", not by asserting the opposite, but by merely identifying anthropogenic global warming theory as holding that human-induced effects are the main cause of current global warming, and adding a link to another Wikipedia page that discusses the topic. I was doing so in accordance with WP:NPOV ("Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them" and "Avoid stating opinions as facts.")


 * In response, User:Gaba_p and User:Dave_souza reverted my edit three times, one of them insisting, as User:NewsAndEventsGuy suggests above, that "the scientific community ... has decided there's no longer any serious scientific debate" on the topic."


 * This was followed by postings on my talk page that making edits on a climate change page would result in sanctions against me. And not because I challenged AGW, only because I said there was a controversy and pointed to another Wikipedia page that talked about it!


 * Whatever happened to the Wikipedia policy of neutrality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embram (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Show us the RS for your desired change and then we can WP:FOC; until then you are just engaged in WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source that supports the wording of your change to this article. But I can tell you now you won't find one. While there remain many areas of uncertainty in the area global warming, the existence and attribution really are resolved science at this point as there are no credible alternatives.  This article doesn't even make that strong of a statement, it just says that CO2 warming exists.... even the Richard Lindzens and Roy Spencers of the world agree with that much.  Sailsbystars (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If the question is, are there other candidates for climate change / warming other than human activity, the answer is yes. There are a large number of peer reviewed scientific papers that identify correlation with climate change to "solar forcing". The debate might then be described as to what extent recent human activity has, or has not, overridden solar forcing. Therefore to assert "there are no credible alternatives" is overstating the case. If someone wants to identify that there is debate, and that solar forcing is an alternative, and cite actual peer reviewed papers to support that viewpoint, I suggest that would comply with Wikipedia norms and standards. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Solar forcing has been documented as occuring over a more gradual course of time, whereas peer reviewed articles illustrate that current climate change escalates at a higher rate. This precludes solar forcing from being seriously considered as a current influence. We would be doing the site a disservice by giving undue weight to each fringe theory that is floating around, I'd suggest sticking with established scientific knowledge instead. Justin.Parallax (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You may be correct. However we do know the Sun has been more active in the past century. See this image:


 * SunSw0rd (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Terminology "global warming" tentative merge idea forming
FYI in case you don't watch Global warming it has been suggested somewhat vigorously that we revamp our approach to the terms "climate change" and "global warming". Please consider commenting in that thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

1950-2013 temp rise


NASA recently (Jan 21, 2014) released this video (from here ). I think it would be a valuable addition to this article perhaps under physical evidence.

-- Cy be r XR ef ☎ 01:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this article "Climate change" covers the topic in general, including climate changes deep in earth's past, this is not the right place to discuss adding this. But I noticed the same thread was posted at Scientific opinion on climate change and I will reply on the merits there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. You want Global warming not this article William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014
In section "External forcing mechanisms" under the heading "Solar output" please change the sentence "The Sun is the predominant source for energy input to the Earth" to "The Sun is the predominant source of energy input to the Earth"

86.154.15.141 (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is deceptive to give arctic temps as the primary example
In the "Physical evidence for and examples of climatic change" section, I believe it is deceptive to give arctic temps as the primary example rather than world temps. Arctic temps are not at all representative of world trends, for well understood reasons. I can not think of any reason for cherry picking a region of the world that so misrepresents the world trend as the primary example, unless the intent is to deceive the readers. However, when I added a chart on the world trend, it was reverted by William M. Connolley with the statement "that doesn't make sense". Can anyone explain this to me? - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I'm actually a bit confused by that graph as well. It seems out of place.  It's in a section about proxies and such.... it would make more sense in my opinion to have a graph showing a proxy temperature record of 1k or more years... more so than the current graph or the proposed replacement.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * E.g. This one Sailsbystars (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png


 * The section is called Physical evidence for and examples of climatic change. Complaining about a graph of an example of climate change, in a section about examples of climatic change, makes no sense. If the section had been titled "global mean temperature" your complaint would make sense William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That image is absolutely not suitable. Please see the previous discussion to see why. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That link is unenlightening for this page because a.) it's six years old and b.) it's on a different article. I agree the graph would be wholly inappropriate on the global warming article, which is about the ongoing temperature rise starting in the mid-late 20th century.  However, this article is about climate change in general on many different time scales.  Change in isotope ratios (the graph I'm suggesting) is one example of both a temperature proxy and physical evidence for past climate changes.  Sailsbystars (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably was not clear why I thought the "global mean temperatures" were a better example of Physical evidence for and examples of climatic change than "arctic temperatures". If you look at the 65 year tend of arctic temperatures, the trend is negative.  I am concern the unsophisticated reader, say a young student doing a paper on climate change, could look at this and conclude that global warming is still debatable.  I prefer the "global mean temperatures" example because it more explicitly shows the true nature of global warming.  I realize that is not the primary purpose of this section, but given the amount of misinformation being propagated by moneyed interests about current climate change, I think it helps if Wikipedia can be explicit about the true nature of current climate change whenever possible. - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"could look at this and conclude that global warming is still debatable."

Any person who says that any science, I don't care what it is, that it is no longer debateable, is a fool.

64.66.20.198 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014
The page does not accurately represent the facts of "climate change" which has been conveniently and improperly redefined. It is nothing more than propaganda in it's current form. There is no proper discussion or reference to historical and geological climate change and variations.

96.18.174.60 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But if you do, please don't post it here because this article (Climate change) is about the generic concept regardless of time period. Our top article  about the current climate change is "global warming" so please post your revised comments at Talk:Global warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why I did not endorse a recent edit on classification of CO2 as forcing vs feedback
Recently unilaterally rearranged and incorrectly classified the various forcings. To his credit he did another sort to try to correct the matter when RSs were pointed out to him, so thanks for that. The final result was a technically correct and yet changed re-arrangement of these subsections. That makes it really hard for others to do a comparison to see what text has changed, so I
 * Reverted his entire series to a stable earlier version.
 * As he had done, I also deleted the section on magnetism since I concurred with Prokaryotes on that edit
 * As he had done, I included a new RS he added and with modifications some of his text

However, I left out the part about whether CO2 is a feedback or a forcing from this edit. One reason is that the one proposed RS strikes me as a rather weak bit of shorthand in terms of this specific question. In addition, they didn't have climate models at the PETM. Should the actual buildup of GHG back then be classed as a "feedback" or a "forcing". An 8th grader should be able to understand that instantly at a single reading, so I left out the confusing bit on the weak RS. But we could certainly talk about other ways to address that question. Are there other RSs that talk about whether GHGs are feedbacks or forcings?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It would help if we can manage to outline more precise why specific forcings are attributed as they are. A clear distinction should be made between natural variability, today's observed warming (anthropogenic impact) and responses, and how the terms are used in climate science (when modeling climate) and in more common terms by the media and in public talks. prokaryotes (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For which ""specific forcing" do you think the existing "attribution" is insufficiently explained? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The section "External forcings" and maybe "internal forcing" should contain a intro and could be sourced from AR4 or respectively from the related AR5 part. In particular, the term natural variability, is only one time mentioned, at the Glacier section. Climate sensitivity is not mentioned (not sure if linked), and modeling in respect to forcings is also not part of the article (instead the section internal forcing begins with, Scientists generally define the five components of earth's climate system to include atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere (restricted to the surface soils, rocks, and sediments), and biosphere, sourced from a glossar. It is also not clear why plate tectonics are listed, none of the references from that section points to a paper which does mention forcing in the abstract, the main article does not include forcing either. I think PT is a mechanism not a forcing, the section doesn't make the distinction. prokaryotes (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please repeat with bullets to identify the individaul problem areas. When you use run-on grammatically-challenged sentences with parentheticals  inside parentheticals comments lean towards gishgallop comments and are insufficiently comprehensible to involve collaborators (at least me) in a meaningful way.   If you use bullets (asterisks at start of each line) that will help zero in on specific areas for improvement via consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you do not understand what i wrote above you should not take part in the edits. prokaryotes (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you work a bit harder at communicating with me things will go a heck of a lot smoother, and you will have more time to put your stamp on a wider variety of articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We should make the distinction between mechanisms and forcings, thus plate tectonics needs to be separated and the title requires adjustment. prokaryotes (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Crappy grammar, separated from what and what title needs what adjustment? RSs to back you up? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, It is not clear why plate tectonics is listed as a forcing (none of the given references mention forcing), the section title you picked in a recent edit is not accurate, since mechanism and forcing are different things. It is your part to accurately set section titles/content and to back that up with RS, you put this there.... prokaryotes (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What does the "section title I picked in a recent edit" actually say? We would make a lot more progress if, as I have asked numerous times, you write specifically so people don't have to guess what you mean.  Once you specify the allegedly "not accurate" section title I chose, then feel free to explain with RSs why the one you are choosing is better.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Plate tectonics
Recently the user NewsAndEventsGuy changed section titles, i tried to explain to the editor that there have to be a distinction made between forcing and mechanism, for instance because the section Plate tectonics is not a forcing. However, the user refuses to cooperate and asks for RS, i tried to point out to him that he needs to provide RS if he changes the section scope, because none of the references given at Plate tectonics refers to forcing. prokaryotes (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) Since I am left to guess about the specific text changes at issue, I think P is talking about the text I reverted to the stable text before P's unilateral undiscussed article overhaul. I think I may have tweaked a word here or there, but P needs to be specific if he wants a different reply.
 * (B) The stable text about plate tectonics does need an RS for the classification of plate tectonics - we both agree on that.
 * (C) P wants to leap to his own invented RS-free text about plate tectonics classification instead of keeping the existing RS-free text about plate tectonics classification.
 * (D) I have simply asked P for an RS, whether it supports the stable text before he started, or supports his desired change, or - god forbid - it should teach both of us that some third option for classifing tectonics is correct even though neither of us have ever thought about it since neither of us have relevant RSs.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The existing classification of plate tectonics as an external (fill in the blank) has been stable for nearly 3 years, following a fair bit of discussion in this archived thread. I agree the text could be better cited to support the current way of classifying plate tectonics, but any argument proposing a change should explicitly discuss pros/cons of the arguments in that thread by comparing/contrasting them with the pro/con reasons for the proposed change.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from a fresh set of eyes
It seems to me that there are essentially 2 disputes at issue: I went and had a gander at the AR5. Chapters 5, 8, and 9, have some relevant info. Regarding plate tectonics... it really doesn't get a mention in the AR, so we're sort of at our discretion on how to deal with it. I'd actually suggest we take a third option and break out the external forcings into forcings during the holocene and forcings on geological time scales (and also why isn't there a section on feedbacks).... so something like this: The plate tectonics are clearly a forcing, but they get short shrift in the AR since they're pretty much irrelevant to the Holocene. Thoughts? Sailsbystars (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Should Plate tectonics go under External Forcing or somewhere else?
 * The general arrangement of the internal and external forcings sections
 * Internal forcings (variability)
 * Oceans
 * Life
 * External Forcings
 * Holocene Quaternary forcings (basically straight from the AR)
 * Solar Variability (e.g. sunspots, Little ice age)
 * Volcanism
 * Orbital variation
 * Anthropogenic acitivity
 * CO2 emissions
 * Forcings on Geological Time scales
 * Plate Tectonics
 * Solar Variability (e.g. faint young sun paradox)
 * Feedbacks
 * Ice-albedo
 * CO2
 * clouds
 * Water vapor
 * Thanks Sailsbystars, btw here is a bit more info on feedbacks. prokaryotes (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

can a link be added to Disturbance (ecology)
Disturbance (ecology) seems relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.9.20 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Linking size of eruption to climatic impact
A few days ago, I added the following information to the article, in Volcanism: ''It is suggested that only eruptions that release around and above 0.1 Mt of SO2 can have a long term impact on the climate.[...] By contrast, eruptions below 0.1 Mt are not likely to cause climate changes on a scale of more than 1 year. However, their impact on the atmosphere is more subtle than direct radiative forcing, or it is the case that they result in temperature alterations comparable to natural variability. Nevertheless, since they are more frequent than the massive eruptions, they also constitute a significant class of phenomena''. The paper that I read can be found here: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/eodg/papers/2004Miles1.pdf.

In the conclusion (page 14), in the second (first complete one) paragraph it says “''For eruptions in the range of 0.1 Mt – 20 Mt, this model achieves a good representation of the global average properties it seeks to reproduce. Below this range it is probable that eruptions are not powerful enough to significantly perturb the stratosphere, and are less significant for global climate change for timescales of more than one year. Furthermore, the global average temperature perturbation from an eruption emitting less would be undetectable above natural variability. It is likely that eruptions of 0.1 Mt, where figure 4(c) peaks, affect the atmosphere in more subtle ways than direct radiative forcing, or result in temperature changes comparable with natural variability. Such mechanisms cannot be diagnosed with this model, but their sheer frequency suggests their importance.''”

Subsequently, the changes were reverted by prokaryotes (as requested, I’m using the brackets).

Here are my arguments in favour of the change:

Since “large enough” (as stated in the wiki article) is rather vague, I thought that the the paper makes an interesting point by quantifying the climatic impact of eruptions in terms of their dimension. I was trying to say that one single eruption will have a significant impact on the climate if it’s a large eruption, rather than being a small one. While it is true that smaller eruptions are significant through their frequency, the comparison between one small eruption and one large eruption ( = 1Mt) is more suggestive than “large enough”.

Was I missing the point or misinterpreting the paper? Or should I have added more details about the context?

Cheers, Marabruma (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you highlight where in the paper the conclusion is drawn, regarding your addition of: "SO2 can have a long term impact on the climate"? Also it is unclear what you mean with long term. prokaryotes (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn’t say that SO2 has a long term impact on the climate. My point was that SO2 is an indicator of the impact the eruption has. Thus, some eruptions can have a long term impact on the climate and one can look at the SO2 levels to find these eruptions.


 * As for long term, since the effects of the  small ones are not likely to persist for more than one year, long term would mean, by negation, more than one year. Since I specified the insignificant timescale (1 year) later on, I thought it clear that the significant (long term) timescale would be > 1 year. --Marabruma (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please quantify the time span, rather than adding just long term climate, which can be confusing. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the time span in the first part and I also changed the last sentence to emphasise the fact that small eruptions are not to be neglected. Here's the result.
 * It is suggested that only eruptions that inject around and above 0.1 Mt of SO2 into the stratosphere can have an effect lasting more than 1 year on the climate.[...] By contrast, eruptions below 0.1 Mt are not likely to cause climate changes on a scale of more than 1 year. However, their impact on the atmosphere is more subtle than direct radiative forcing, or it is the case that they result in temperature alterations comparable to natural variability. Nevertheless, since they are much more frequent than the massive eruptions, they can also generate significant climatic perturbations.


 * While at it we should add the following content too, "Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991 eruptions, and dispersal of this gas cloud around the world caused global temperatures to drop temporarily (1991 through 1993) by about 1°F (0.5°C)." from ref 40 of the article http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/ Further it should be more in line with these articles http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/s02aerosols.php and http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php Thus, adding mention of ozone implications, temperature changes and time spans and emphasis that the amount of sulfur in the erupting magma is the reason for the cooling and subsequently, "conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space and thus cool the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere." and "The sulfate aerosols also promote complex chemical reactions on their surfaces that alter chlorine and nitrogen chemical species in the stratosphere. This effect, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, generates chlorine monoxide (ClO), which destroys ozone (O3)." - taken from the two USGS links. Then we can add the 2004 study estimates on impact with another emphasis on the amount required to make a dent - again with the info on the short time scales (1-3 years massive cooling from the large scale impacts). And can you tell me on which page of the study the conclusion was made that "around 0.1 Mt of SO cause lasting effects of more than 1 year for the climate" ? prokaryotes (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In doing so, I would suggest restructuring the volcanism section. In order to keep it clear, it might be worth considering linking to other pages such as Volcanic gases. That is the place where there could (and should) be an elaborate description of the impact volcanic emissions have on climate, but the points here should be kept as short as possible without losing significant information. Otherwise, the section might turn into a massive block of text, which is generally unpleasant.
 * Moreover, in connection to the SO2 matter, it is unlocalised. However, the point is implied. In the abstract, it says that "eruptions that release around and above 0.1 Mt SO2 into the stratosphere have the maximum climatic impact". Then, in the conclusion, it says "Below this [0.1 Mt – 20Mt] range it is probable that eruptions are not powerful enough to significantly perturb the stratosphere, and are less significant for global climate change for timescales of more than one year". Therefore, "maximum climatic impact" means perturbations on a scale of 1 year or more. --Marabruma (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to propose a new paragraph, or do you want me to do it? prokaryotes (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A modified version of the first paragraph of the section.


 * Volcanic eruptions release gases, aerosol droplets and  ash particles into the stratosphere. Among these products, it is not ash the ash that causes climate changes, but the gases - in particular, sulphur dioxide .


 * The eruptions considered to be large enough so as to affect the Earth's climate on a scale on more than 1 year are the ones that inject over 0.1  Mt of  SO2 into the stratosphere . This is due to the optical properties of SO2 and sulphate aerosols, which strongly absorb or scatter solar radiation. On average, such eruptions occur several times per century, and cause cooling (by partially blocking the transmission of solar radiation to the Earth's surface) for a period of a few years. For example, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the second largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century (after the 1912 eruption of Novarupta ) affected the climate substantially: global temperatures decreased by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). . Also,  the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 caused the Year Without a Summer. . Much larger eruptions, known as large igneous provinces, occur only a few times every hundred million years, but may cause global warming and mass extinctions. . 


 * On the other hand, considering small eruptions (injecting less than 0.1 Mt of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere), it is likely that their impact on the atmosphere is more subtle than direct radiative forcing. Moreover, the temperature changes that they would cause are comparable with natural variability. However, concluding that these eruptions are not important is not correct, since their occur at a much higher frequency than the large ones, so the overall quantity of SO2 released into the atmosphere leads to significant effects. 


 * There are a few edits which i consider an improvement, such as mentioning sulphur dioxide and ash particles in the first part. However, i find your additions clunky and it is still unclear what you try to communicate with the last part, "leads to significant effects", this is based on a 97 and 2004 paper, which i consider out of date. See latest findings, for instance http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/03/climate-technofixes-will-not-work/ prokaryotes (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am not yet proficient in the scientific writing style - I am still learning. Could you suggest a formulation that is clear instead of clunky?

The papers that I cited may be old, but they are cited in recent studies. Moreover, there are no other papers on their specific topics. As there has been no further research in those domains and until the studies are repeated, they are considered up to date.

As to the cited sources, papers are more reliable than websites since discoveries are first published in papers - certain important subtleties will reside in the papers, while they might be lost in a website article.

Finally, "significant effects" means the variations in global temperature which are distinguishable from natural variability. I think it transparent from the context, but if needed, it can be specified somewhere. --Marabruma (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you / we quantify the "effects" we can then determine better if it is considered significant (is that the term the authors used?)

"The eruptions considered to be large enough to affect the Earth's climate on a scale of more than 1 year are the ones that inject over 0.1 Mt of SO2 into the stratosphere. This is due to the optical properties of SO2 and sulphate aerosols, which strongly absorb or scatter solar radiation, creating a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. On average, such eruptions occur several times per century, and cause cooling (by partially blocking the transmission of solar radiation to the Earth's surface) for a period of a few years.
 * Proposal

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the second largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century affected the climate substantially, subsequently global temperatures decreased by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) for up to three years. Thus, the cooling over large parts of the Earth reduced surface temperatures in 1991-93, the equivalent to a reduction in net radiation of 4 watts per square meter. REF = http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/ The Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 caused the Year Without a Summer. Much larger eruptions, known as large igneous provinces, occur only a few times every fifty - hundred million years - through flood basalt, and caused in Earth past global warming and mass extinctions.

Small eruptions, with injections of less than 0.1 Mt of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere impact the atmosphere only subtle, temperature changes are comparable with natural variability. However, because smaller eruptions occur at a much higher frequency, they too have a significant impact on Earth's atmosphere.

Seismic monitoring maps current and future trends in volcanic activities, and tries to develop early warning systems. In climate modelling the aim is to study the physical mechanisms and feedbacks of volcanic forcings. REF http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6-2-2.html" prokaryotes (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the authors used the term “maximum climatic impact”, but since we are not discussing Mt. Toba (which almost wiped out the human race), I replaced it with “significant effects” because we are interested in eruptions like Pinatubo or Krakatau, which caused noticeable changes in the climate.

The proposal looks fine. My only comments concern the first sentence of the third paragraph, where "subtle,", should be replaced with "subtly, as". Also, there should be a comma after "stratosphere".

Cheers, Marabruma (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, great and thanks Marabruma for your positive feedback. Do you like to add the proposal with your edits, since the refs from you are at the bottom of this section. prokaryotes (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The proposal is in its place now. Thank you for your constructive input, as well. Cheers, Marabruma (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for the patience with me interfering :) prokaryotes (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Added Spoerer Minimum
The importance of the sunspot cycle to both the Medieval Warm Period (Between the Oort and Wolf Minima) and to the subsequent Little Ice Age needs to be addressed. I have done so. John D. Croft (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mount Tambora eruption
It is hard to believe that Mount Tambora (8 degrees southern latitude) eruption in 1815 had so strong effects in the Northern Hemisphere. The reason is the Equatorial Bulge of both, oceans and atmosphere, which limit interchange of oceanic water and atmospheric air across the Equator. That is the reason why hurricanes NEVER cross the Earth's Equator. Of course, I am not saying there is not any oscillation of oceanic waters and atmospheric air from southern hemisphere to the northern one or the other way around, but this interchange is due mainly to sun and moon tides. Let's put another example: Imagine there is a big volcanic eruption in Saturn's southern hemisphere. Would the volcanic ash cross Saturn Rings?. It would be still harder to believe, since Saturn's rotation movement only lasts 9 hours.

So, either I am confused or don't know the best references regarding this theme. It would be nice if someone responds this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fev (talk • contribs)


 * The "equatorial bulge" is not the reason that hurricanes don't cross the equator. Hurricane organisation depends on the Coriolis force, and that force is zero at the equator. Exchange of air masses is limited because of the way the wind system works, which also is influenced by the Coriolis force. However, Mount Tambora is close enough to the equator to inject aerosols into both hemispheric air systems - the Intertropical Convergence Zone has a significant extend, and moves north and south with the seasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

First sentence
The first sentence (always critical) presently reads:

Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years.

I'm mostly fine with this, but I wonder if we might remove the word "lasting". This word doesn't add much to the content, and, indeed, it is not especially consistent with the word "change". I also am not sure that we need "statistical distribution". While weather and climate can be analyzed with statistics, it is also true that they both evolve continuously in time, and so statistical analyses need to be done carefully, mostly by decimating to remove autocorrelation. This is more than, perhaps, needs to be said, yes. The main point, however, is that the first sentence doesn't need to explain everything. It just needs to set the stage for the explanatory material that follows.

While I fear that this whole subject has already been hashed over many times, I'd like suggest a first sentence like the following:

Climate change is a significant change in weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, @NewsAndEventsGuy has changed the first sentence in the lead to


 * "Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years)."


 * In the first sentence in the Terminology section that immediately follows we have


 * "The most general definition of climate change is a change in the statistical properties of the climate system when considered over long periods of time, regardless of cause."


 * So, if we accept the first sentence of the lead (as I now think is appropriate), are we not getting redundant by almost immediately repeating the definition in the section on terminology? Perhaps we should scrap the short section on terms, and just use the lead to define the term? DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work, because contents of the WP:LEAD are restricted to summarizing the body of the article.  For that reason every well-written lead is at least a little redundant with the rest of the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)