Talk:IPCC list of greenhouse gases

Old
(William M. Connolley 08:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)) IPCC, and the GW pages, use gases.

Keep this?
I see we're arguing about this page. Bear in mind that this page was created during one of the Vast Edit Wars and there may be a good argument for deleting the thing William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit
The summary statement says "This is a list of anthropogenic greenhouse gases as used by the IPCC TAR."

However, it is a list of LLGHG (long-lived greenhouse gases). Not the same thing. For example, water vapor is a Greenhouse gas, but not a LLGHG. And methane is a LLGHG, but not all methane is anthropogenic. While there is substantial overlap in the names, the radiative forcing values refer (I believe) to the total amount of the gas, not just the anthropogenic portion.

I think the edit is straightforward, but as there are a lot of people with a lot of interest and knowledge in these areas, I thought I'd mention it in the talk page first.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the absence of opposition, I'll make the edit.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Presentation
I accept these are the IPCC published numbers. But they are very strange. Take for example "HCFC-141b 18 ± 0.068 ppt" Does this mean the true figure is in a range of 17.932-18.068ppt or one of 17.432-18.568ppt? It is unhelpful rounding the central estimate and showing the precision of the unrounded estimate.

My other point is that the ppm and ppb numbers for CO2, CH4 and N2O are not comparable with the ppt for CFCs etc. CFC-12 at 538 ppt at first sight suggests that half the atmosphere (538/1000) is one particular CFC. It isn't. So more explanation is needed.--Rumping (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On the second point, it seems ppt means parts per (short) trillion not parts per thousand. Awful, if this table is supposed to be a reference.--Rumping (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent
I don't know why for the first chart one format is used, and for the remaining charts another format is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuan Lin (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Water Vapor is missing from the list.
The Greenhouse gases article lists water vapor as a greenhouse gas but it is missing from this article. 24.78.163.237 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Correctly so: this is the IPCC list of GHG's. And since WV isn't really a forcing, it isn't so interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Err, not so if the influence of H2O as a green house gas is much more significant than say CO2. Since CERN has recently shown the SUN's magnetic field affects the relationship between cloud creation and cosmic rays, water should be on the list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.66.180 (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said before, Correctly so: this is the IPCC list of GHG's. As for the other argument, you can have it on Greenhouse gases if you like, though the article itself explains the matter William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have altered a recently added comment on this. The inclusion of the 95%/90% claim seems undue weight, since it is not an important anthropogenic component. I am tempted to remove any mention that water vapor is omitted, but left it in for discussion. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I took it out. This is the IPCC list; there is no real reason to mention WV or to note that they don't. The 95% figure is trash, anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WMC is right, this is the IPCC list. Adding a comment that something is missing is verging on, or blundering into OR. Water vapor as a GHG isn't missing from Wikipedia, it is well-covered. Not to mention (as I was reminded by reading my earlier comment) that it isn't even correct to say that water vapor is missing. The list is a list of long-lived greenhouse gases. Water vapor does not qualify. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging this article and moving its content
I don't think we actually need this article at this point. The most valuable part of it is the combined table, which is great work, and deserves to be at Greenhouse gas, an article which receives far more daily views (~1,500 vs. 48) and where it would most likely replace that initial dotpoint list of greenhouse gases that's just not informative at all. Presumably, this article would then be redirected to that section as well.

The only other valuable elements here are the tables for Third and Fourth IPCC Reports, which are now 22 and 16 years in the past. Both of those should just be moved to the respective reports' pages.

Pinging @EMsmile about this suggestion. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mild support. I can see your rationale for merging & redirecting this article but could also imagine arguments for keeping it separate. Either way, that first combined table should for sure be moved (or excerpted/transcribed). Regarding the other two tables, I think I would perhaps keep them together (and possibly move to the end of greenhouse gas if we dissolve this article) as they may show an interesting evolution (or are they anyhow included in the combined table already? Sorry, my brain is shutting down, it's 1 am here, otherwise I'd check myself ;-) ). Moving them to the AR3 and AR4 report articles could also be an option; those articles would have very low pageviews nowadays, so it's a bit like making those tables disappear. EMsmile (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with ITK Chidgk1 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done the merger now. But I am struggeling with the formatting of the table - it seems too wide (at least on my screen). EMsmile (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:Bikesrcool as they have done a lot of work on this. EMsmile (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great merger proposal. I agree also. Bikesrcool (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @EMsmile I think have found an appropriate way to format that table. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)