Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 11:40, 13 January 2025

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

faq page Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the for references at the bottom of the FAQ. Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change? A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by over 99% of publishing climate scientists. See also: Scientific consensus on climate change Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place? A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)." Q3: Can't the increase of CO2 be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans? A3: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics, including academically trained ones, they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives: Current human emissions of CO2 are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. This is easily seen in a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels. Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels. If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or in other words, less basic). Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it? A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum. Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated? A5: Two reasons: There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like the Global Warming Map, are static, meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly. However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get", meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations. Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import. Q6: Isn't climate change "just a theory"? A6: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess, but a scientific theory, roughly speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven, but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense), but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess. Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO2? A7: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years), so when methane emissions are reduced the concentration in the atmosphere soon falls, whereas CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles. See also: Clathrate gun hypothesis and Arctic methane release Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled? A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change. This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change. Q9: Did climate change end in 1998? A9: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998. More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out; thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement? A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name." Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD. While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice sheet, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference: A map of the Eastern Settlement A satellite image of that area today A map of the Western Settlement A satellite image of that area today A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists? A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and it has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years? A12: Measurements show that it has not. Claims that global sea ice amounts have stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice amounts. Arctic sea ice cover is declining strongly; Antarctic sea ice cover has had some much smaller increases, though it may or may not be thinning, and the Southern Ocean is warming. The net global ice-cover trend is clearly downwards. See also: Arctic sea ice decline See also: Antarctic sea ice § Recent trends and climate change Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming? A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming. The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, such as a short nine-paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975. (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.) The author of that article has repudiated the idea that it should be used to deny global warming. Q14: Doesn't water vapour cause 98% of the greenhouse effect? A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO2 or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms, any excess water vapour is removed by rainfall, and any deficit of water vapour is replenished by evaporation from the Earth's surface, which literally has oceans of water. Thus water vapour cannot act as a driver of climate change. Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will however allow the atmosphere to hold more vapour. This will lead to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, whereas water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends. See also: Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)? A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming. A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "'His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,' said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that 'the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.'" There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change. This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices. Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates. Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit – it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Misplaced Pages's own article. See also: Climate of Mars and Extraterrestrial atmosphere Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money? A16: No, Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses. Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work. There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming. Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data. Scientists could get paid to study climate even if global warming did not exist. Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity? A17: It does, but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction. Q18: Should we include the view that climate change will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe? A18: This page is about the science of climate change. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying. Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) important? A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world, which include most large cities. Earth's climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e. the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the higher absolute temperature but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate and the related effects on human societies. The IPCC AR6 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change. Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is/was Scibaby? A20: Scibaby is/was a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,027 confirmed sock puppets, another 167 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them. Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer-reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...? A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:IINFO) of the What Misplaced Pages is not policy. Q22: Why does the article define "climate change" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before? A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "climate change" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. The article Climate variability and change deals with the more general concept. Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that climate change is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays? A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment: Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires: Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation, These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN), The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and Cloud cover on Earth must be declining. Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step." Q24: I read that something can't fix climate change. Is this true? A24: Yes, this is true for all plausible single things including: "electric cars", "planting trees", "low-carbon technology", "renewable energy", "Australia", "capitalism", "the doom & gloom approach", "a Ph.D. in thermodynamics". Note that it is problematic to use the word "fix" regarding climate change, as returning the climate to its pre-industrial state currently appears to be feasible only over a timeframe of thousands of years. Current efforts are instead aimed at mitigating (meaning limiting) climate change. Mitigation is strived for through the combination of many different things. See Climate change mitigation for details. References ^ Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020. ^ "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020. Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help) Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009. Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009. "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007. Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467. The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012. "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009. Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017. The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða. "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009. Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64. Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek. Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008. Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes. Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN. "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011. Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006, and on October 31, 2021.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 4, 2007 Featured article review Kept March 26, 2020 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2021 Featured article review Kept News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 5, 2004, and October 11, 2018. Current status: Featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Antarctica High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Arctic High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Environment Top‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Effective Altruism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Geography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Misplaced Pages requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Misplaced Pages requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Geology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Globalization High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sanitation Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Weather: Climate Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Top-importance). Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Misplaced Pages". The Denver Post. "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (August 15, 2015). "On Misplaced Pages, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage". Science Daily. "The guardians of Misplaced Pages's climate page: An intensely devoted core keeps a bastion of climate science honest". Mashable. November 11, 2020. "Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Misplaced Pages". BBC. November 18, 2021. Marco Silva (December 24, 2021). "Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Misplaced Pages". BBC. Olivia Steiert (September 9, 2024). "Declaring crisis? Temporal constructions of climate change on Misplaced Pages". Public Understanding of Science.

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

Other talk page banners

This page has agreed on a consistent citation style. Please follow those standards when adding sources. Ask on the talk page if you need help or have questions. This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Global warming Climate change Discussions: RM, Global warming → Climate change, Not moved, 11 June 2018, discussion RM, Global warming → Climate change, Moved, 21 August 2020, discussion This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007 and 2008. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened: October 27 to November 2, 2013 November 3 to 9, 2013 November 10 to 16, 2013 November 17 to 23, 2013 April 16 to 22, 2023 This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. Comments: "a great primer on the subject", "Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen", pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy.", wishes Misplaced Pages offered better links to basic weather science. Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

On 3 August 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Global warming to Climate change. The result of the discussion was moved.

Section sizes Section size for Climate change (49 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 14,861 14,861 Terminology 3,669 3,669 Global temperature rise 70 26,240 Temperatures prior to present-day global warming 2,663 2,663 Warming since the Industrial Revolution 10,738 17,299 Differences by region 6,561 6,561 Future global temperatures 6,208 6,208 Causes of recent global temperature rise 2,597 30,393 Greenhouse gases 8,363 8,363 Land surface changes 3,727 3,727 Other factors 22 15,706 Aerosols and clouds 4,560 4,560 Solar and volcanic activity 5,004 5,004 Climate change feedbacks 6,120 6,120 Modelling 4,013 4,013 Impacts 290 28,363 Environmental effects 4,588 4,588 Tipping points and long-term impacts 5,533 5,533 Nature and wildlife 7,139 7,139 Humans 1,903 10,813 Health and food 2,908 2,908 Livelihoods and inequality 3,049 3,049 Climate migration 2,953 2,953 Reducing and recapturing emissions 4,082 20,332 Clean energy 8,135 8,135 Energy conservation 1,719 1,719 Agriculture and industry 3,477 3,477 Carbon dioxide removal 2,919 2,919 Adaptation 7,773 7,773 Policies and politics 2,381 16,248 Policy options 1,616 3,663 Climate justice 2,047 2,047 International climate agreements 6,851 6,851 National responses 3,353 3,353 Society 14 8,148 Denial and misinformation 2,541 2,541 Public awareness and opinion 4,007 5,593 Climate movement 1,586 1,586 History 61 11,194 Early discoveries 6,198 6,198 Development of a scientific consensus 4,935 4,935 See also 353 353 References 35 109,068 Sources 366 109,033 IPCC reports 5,383 5,383 Other peer-reviewed sources 49,178 49,178 Books, reports and legal documents 30,524 30,524 Non-technical sources 23,582 23,582 External links 1,161 1,161 Total 281,816 281,816

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96

/Terminology section /General discussion

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Daily pageviews of this article (experimental)Pageviews summary: size=91, age=106, days=60, min=2044, max=3706, latest=3101. The pageviews file file is stale; please update it; see § Instructions.

Carbon capture rates for CCS

Hi everyone. I have a few proposals regarding statements on carbon capture and storage in this article. Here's my first proposal. We have an unsourced sentence that says:

Where energy production or CO₂-intensive heavy industries continue to produce waste CO₂, the gas can be captured and stored instead of released to the atmosphere.

I propose changing it to:

Where energy production or CO₂-intensive heavy industries continue to produce waste CO₂, technology can sometimes be used to capture and store most of the gas instead of releasing it to the atmosphere.

As explained in the World Resources Institute source, "today’s carbon capture systems do not capture 100% of emissions. Most are designed to capture 90%, but reported capture rates are lower in some cases." Additionally, it is not economically or geologically feasible to deploy CCS at all or even most facilities. There are 2,400 coal power plants in the world and thus far we have managed to add CCS to four of them. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Lebling, Katie; Gangotra, Ankita; Hausker, Karl; Byrum, Zachary (2023-11-13). "7 Things to Know About Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration". World Resources Institute.

Carbon sequestration section

The Carbon sequestration section has contents that describe carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture and storage. These three concepts are often confused. The vast majority of carbon sequestration happens through spontaneous, non-anthropogenic processes that have been going on for hundreds of millions of years and will continue if we just leave the forests alone. Most of the content in this section is about human activity that aims to increase the amount of carbon that is sequestered, i.e. carbon dioxide removal. There is also some content on carbon capture and storage, which technically involves sequestration but is usually deployed in processes that desequester more carbon than they sequester.

I propose 1) Retitling this section as "Carbon dioxide removal" and 2) Moving the two sentences on CCS to the end of the first paragraph in the "Clean energy" section. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Paper about our work & suggestions

A paper by Olivia Steiert came out on the work we do here, analysing how our group dynamics and our interpretation of policies and guidelines resulted in the current article.

The paper analyses whether we consider climate change as an event (vs process), and if we call it a crisis. It's somewhat critical of us doing neither sufficiently clearly. The paper doesn't give that many pointers how we could achieve this however. We've made progress over the last 6 years in changing the article to be more about climate change now, rather than climate change in the future, but I wonder if there is more to do here. (changing the crisis framing is a discussion I won't reopen). If there are no objections, I might send Steiert an email asking her to join us. In the meantime, I'm suggesting two changes in the lead

The current rise in global average temperature is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution -->

Amplified warming in the Arctic has contributed to thawing permafrost, retreat of glaciers and sea ice decline --> something in the present tense. I'd suggest leaving out polar amplification too. The quote doesn't fully capture this sentence anyway, and the source doesn't make the connection between polar amplification and these specific impacts. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this, interesting article. The study uses the May 2022 version of this article, I wonder what she'd think of the current version.

As for the sentence, The current rise in..., I believe we had added "since the Industrial Revolution" to clarify what is meant by current. Bogazicili (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I'd like to keep since the Industrial Revolution. One of the criticism in the article is that we are vague in terms of our tenses. When things happened, are happening, or will happen. (Why is it so hard to arrive at a clear understanding of when climate change is happening and why do temporal constructions of this event vary so broadly)

since the Industrial Revolution gives precision and clarity to that sentence. I think it accurately describes rough timescale of human-induced climate change.

Other overview sources might say things like The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by nearly 50% since 1750

If you click Industrial Revolution, it largely matches with above: Beginning in Great Britain, the Industrial Revolution spread to continental Europe and the United States, from around 1760 to about 1820–1840. Bogazicili (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My thinking here is that "since the industrial revolution" may be a bit misleading, in the sense that most warming really happened in the last 50 years, rather than over such a long period of time. I'm also appreciating the simplicity of the POTD description below, and would like to move away from a WP:seaofblue in terms of number of links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good point, but I think we should add that (in the last 50 years part) into the lead, instead of removing "since the Industrial Revolution" part. I know you value conciseness but I think this time precision beats conciseness.

Again, the study was up to May 2022 version of this article. This is the 31 May 2022 version of the article. I think the current version of the lead is much more precise, as we define since when the current climate change has been happening. Industrial activities (NASA source) started with industrial revolution. Of course it was limited in 18th century. In 19th century it was few countries (UK etc), with coal etc. With technology (oil etc) and more countries industrializing, warming increased in 20th century, which is your point.

Also note that many cumulative emissions graphs go back to 1750 Our World in Data. I'll check few more sources tomorrow, including WP:Tertiary sources, to see how they cover it. Bogazicili (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The prose quality of the first paragraph was definitely better in that version at least. I don't think "adding to greenhouse gases" is correct English. If I can find time, I might suggest a new version of our opening in a separate discussion section.

My guess is that many sources don't talk about "industrial revolution" in their first paragraph, instead only use that when they go into the weeds of the topic.

• NASA describes it as happening from the mid-20th century in their first paras (https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/what-is-climate-change/)
• Met Office describes it similar to us (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/what-is-climate-change), from the mid-1850s we started polluting.
• WMO doesn't describe the time period, except by refering to a pre-industrial baseline (https://wmo.int/topics/climate-change)

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: here are some WP:Tertiary sources I found with Oxford Reference Online database through Misplaced Pages Library.

There are lots of results. Only some of them are below:

The first two have detailed entries. I'd recommend you to check them:

• Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather (2 ed.) doi:10.1093/acref/9780199765324.001.0001. Global Warming entry. Notes both pre-industrial increase and increase since 1970.

The term global warming has become synonymous in the press with human-induced climate change. ... Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased such that 2009 values of about 385 ppmv are over 36 percent higher than preindustrial values of 280 ppmv and over half that increase has occurred since 1970 (Figure 1).

• Encyclopedia of Global Change doi:10.1093/acref/9780195108255.001.0001.

Climate Change entry:

An Overview
... During the past two centuries, anthropogenic activity has resulted in large increases in the atmospheric greenhouse gas content, which has caused a detectable increase in global temperatures and are predicted to continue to increase for many decades before the climate system reaches a new equilibrium. ...

Global warming entry:

..Levels rose to 275 ppmv during the warm interglacial phases, and that level is also considered representative of the preindustrial era of the nineteenth century...

The two below have shorter entries:

• A Dictionary of Weather (3 ed.) doi:10.1093/acref/9780191988356.001.0001. Separate entries for global warming and climate change (climatic change). Not mentioned there.
• A Dictionary of Human Geography doi:10.1093/acref/9780199599868.001.0001. Climate change entry. Not mentioned there, but source mentions Anthropocene.

By the way, there is an entire encyclopedia on climate change communication, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication.

I think we should mention something like pre-industrial in the first paragraph. But we can shift things around. For example, the last sentence in first paragraph cites IPCC AR6 WG1 Technical Summary 2021, p. 67. That page mentions:

Since 1750, changes in the drivers of the climate system are dominated by the warming influence of increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations and a cooling influence from aerosols, both resulting from human activities

p.4:

Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities

I'll make my proposal below in a new section Bogazicili (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Article housekeeping

Thanks Femke for removing unused references and other tidying. I could pitch in to help with that kind of thing for an hour or two this week. What else needs to be done? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I intend to clean up after myself, but got sidetracked. For the areas I edited, some of the citations aren't to chapters but to overall IPCC reports. I'll be fixing those. Bogazicili (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bogazicili!

In terms of housekeeping, I try to do the following every one/two years:

• See if overcitation has slipped in, which is often a red flag for text-source integrity issues. One example is overcitation after "Smaller contributions come from black carbon, organic carbon from combustion of fossil fuels and biofuels, and from anthropogenic dust", which has 6 sources. (I you could help here!)
• Check if jargon such as anthropogenic has slipped back in, and reword using plain English
• Reread the article, and check if there is text-source integrity for surprising statements
• Reread the article, and update numbers which need updating.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Not that big of an issue, but the source formatting is also slightly messy and inconsistent in places (e.g. Harvnb is used for most things but not all, some things are missing various fields, etc). Sgubaldo (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of work that you've been doing regularly! I'll take on the overcitation thing. Will indicate here when I've finished checking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll have much more time to work on this tomorrow (Sunday). I think I added most of the AR6 citations. I'll be fixing those tomorrow. And then I can also pitch in with the rest of the housekeeping. Bogazicili (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I fixed the parts I had added. Bogazicili (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:1880- Global surface temperature - heat map animation - NASA SVS.webm, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Misplaced Pages's picture of the day (POTD) for November 12, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-11-12. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Misplaced Pages talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• view
• talk
• edit
• history
• watch
• file page

Suggestions for the first sentence

The first sentence is awkward, and I'd love to craft a new first sentence before we get to be on the main page. The "in common usage" is especially jarring, and may fall slightly foul of WP:REFER. I have two suggestions:

1. Climate change encompasses global warming—Earth’s ongoing temperature increase—and its wider effects on Earth's climate.
2. Current climate change is the ongoing rise in global average temperatures and the resulting effects on Earth's climate.

It's a common thing that more text gets bolded than the title alone, to clarify immediately to the reader what the topic is where there is some need for disambiguation. I think this may release us from the need to be a bit pedantic in the introduction. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The preamble "In common usage" distinguishes current CC from "Climate change in a broader sense" that's in the second sentence. The distinction is important since we should (must?) quickly define the article title, focus attention on what this article is about, and link to the other article (Climate variability and change). I remember the community grappling with how to achieve these goals; the current text was the result. "In common usage" isn't jarring, though some might call it a bit formal. "Current climate change" (suggestion 2) isn't a much-used term. —21:10 The current wording tells the reader immediately that common-use "CC" is not the academically correct use. Of Suggestion 1 and 2, though, I definitely prefer Suggestion 1. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The distinction is not between "academic usage" and "common usage". Academics use the terms like everybody else in their papers. IPCC has it in their name, WMO classifies their reporting under climate change. The difference is between definitionally and non-definitionally. If you have a sentence with is, you imply a definition, so we need to make clear in some way that we're talking about "Contemporary", "Present-day", "Current" climate change. What we can do as well is 2b:

2b. Current/present-day/contemporary Climate change ...

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer 'Contemporary' to 'Current', but I like the wording in Suggestion 1 more. My suggestion would be something like:

Contemporary climate change encompasses global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its wider effects on Earth's climate.

Also, if the first sentence changes, the next two will probably need tweaking too. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder what percentage of the population knows what "contemporary" means. I'd estimate less than 80/90%, hence my suggestions for slightly less elegant wording. Two difficult words close to each other (contemporary/encompasses), makes it more difficult to guess the word meaning for those unaware. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I would propose: "Present-day climate change includes both global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its wider effects on Earth's climate." Sgubaldo (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I like that variation. Present-day may prevent some knee-jerk reactions of Wikipedians trained to remove the word MOS:Current from articles. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging all those with recent talk page activity: @Clayoquot, Amakuru, Bogazicili, Chipmunkdavis, Sunrise, and Alaexis:. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the first one because it includes the other common term, global warming. Global warming also redirects to this page, as it should. Bogazicili (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I concede Femke's point (09:00) re academics/definitions. My concern is to explicitly convey that there are two definitions of CC. This distinction parallels the fact that today's CC is different from historical/generic CC. Detail: reviewing https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/contemporary, I'm OK with "current" or "present" or "present-day" or "recent" or "ongoing" or "newfangled" (well, maybe not "newfangled :-) :-). —RCraig09 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more elegant to do it implicitly (present-day climate change), rather than explicitly. We want people to read about the topic of climate change, rather than about the intricacies of how terms are used in the first paragraph. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

By "explicitly" I didn't mean super-ultra-formally. I think the distinction of definitions is accomplished by the second sentence, "Climate change in a broader sense...". That's all I meant. I'm OK with most of the smaller-change proposal I've read in this discussion. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for Sgubaldo's proposal. All of them sound fine to me though. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, since there are multiple proposals. I'm ok with this latest one: "Present-day climate change includes both global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its wider effects on Earth's climate." Bogazicili (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll wait until tomorrow to see if there's any more replies, and then I'll make the changes. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Changes made. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI: removed 'mainly' from lead

I changed "The current rise in global average temperature is mainly driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution" to "The current rise in global average temperature is mainly driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution". The best guess is taht 100% of climate change is driven by human activities (per new source), so the old wording was misleading and the old source didn't talk about this. The word driven itself also doesn't require 100% causation (that would be is caused by), so even when the percentage of human-induced climate change deviates from observed climate change, this wording should remain correct.

I did this boldly, as the old text was not really supported and misleading. Hope that's okay. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Agree. As Earth was on a very slight cooling trend for ~10,000 years, I remember reading that humans cause "more than" 100% of global warming, though it would be confusing to say that literally. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The idea of a Holocene Thermal Maximum some 8,000 years ago is a bit contested. Regional climate proxies say there was one, but globally it's a more complex picture, and models think there's been continuous warming / stable temperatures.

  The more than 100% since pre-industrial also isn't true anymore as I understand it, as the last couple of years have seen very rapid warming. The source I cited is also the one used by the IPCC, and they say the best guess is exactly 100% caused by humans with some uncertainty. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Femke: do you still want to remove "since the Industrial Revolution" part? That can be reworded and moved to the last sentence. Proposal below. Bogazicili (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead, first paragraph

This is what the first paragraph of the lead would look like, after recent changes and suggestions in Talk:Climate_change#Suggestions for the first sentence and Talk:Climate_change#Paper about our work & suggestions and above section.

Didn't include the sources in the article, and some of the new sources are above. For the "accelerating in the past 50 years", I will use .

Bogazicili (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the the new text is not great for flow. Most of the sentences are roughly the same lenght, with makes for slightly uncomfortable reading. I don't feel strongly about removing "industrial revolution", but I don't think moving it to later is that much of a change? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggested the changes with this criticism in mind. Why is it so hard to arrive at a clear understanding of when climate change is happening and why do temporal constructions of this event vary so broadly

Now we have two clear dates (since 1750 and accelerating in the past 50 years). Bogazicili (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili "accelerating in the last 50 years" suggests to me the rate of warming is increasing across that time period. i think you mean that the last 50 years has exhibited a higher rate of warming that the precedding period.

you may also like to add to that, during this 50 year period, attribution studies are able to clearly discern human driven change from natural forcing -- this relates to the time series figure on the page. DecFinney (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Our World in Data, 18 September 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFOur_World_in_Data,_18_September2020 (help)

Proposed replacement of graphic in "Impacts" section

I've long questioned the value of the "soil moisture" graphic in the short, crowded, under-emphasized "Impacts" section.

The existing graphic's content is not discussed in article text. Also, soil moisture's broader implication on the impacts affecting humans is speculative and indirect, perhaps even suggesting that things'll get better and better for sub-Saharan Africa. (Aside: I speak out against captions that merely repeat what's in the graphic's own legends/text.)

Meanwhile, the impacts on humans of progressively more intense hurricanes is immediately and intuitively evident (see also ). I realize Graphic B is not global and is only one year's hurricanes, but I think the graphic speaks to a more striking and immediate impact of climate change.

Please comment below, on your preference. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

While I'm open to replacing that graph, I'm not a fan of adding another US-focused one in its place. Is it possible to do something similar for tropical cyclones in general? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It's Atlantic focused, not "US" focused per se. I've searched for CC-intensified (Pacific) typhoons but references applying extreme event attribution to specific hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons are nearly non-existent. This chart was a rare discovery in how it makes CC's effects be concretely evident. If anyone finds similar references for the Pacific, let me know.. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The soil moisture graph was added by User:Efbrazil three years ago. I think we could probably remove it (or move it?) but I am a bit concerned that we don't mention "soil moisture" content anywhere in the text (or is it mentioned under a different term?). I was going to suggest to move it to effects of climate change but I see it's already there. - I think my suggestion would be to remove it but to not replace it with another fairly complicated, wordy schematic (such as graph B.). Either remove it without replacement or replace it with something very visual (a photo?). In general, we do have a lot of graphs, schematics and images already in this article. Perhaps one less is actually a good thing. EMsmile (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Droughts are mentioned. Bogazicili (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather have this image chosen for the replacement than the other file. I do not believe using an image for one season restricted in one basin would reflect climate change's general impact on tropical cyclones. I'm a bit cautious on replacing the existing image, but I want to see more people discussing before I issue my final verdict. _ZZ'S 18:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Temperature, soil, precipitation are the 3 graphs in B. Future Climate Change, Risks, and Long-Term Responses in AR6 SYR SPM (page 14). We already have temperature in the article. Bogazicili (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  RCraig09, I'd recommend here for image B: Effects_of_climate_change#Extreme_storms Bogazicili (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

IPCC's AR6 Fig. TS-22 etc.

@RCraig09 have you considered these figures?

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary/figure-ts-22 DecFinney (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@DecFinney: I think that Fig. TS-22 is far too complex and detailed for a layperson encyclopedia, especially in a high-level article such as this. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasnt imagining the whole thing. e.g. perhaps just the top right quarter. That seems like a really neat summary in lay terms of the kind of impacts different regions of the world could expect. It doesnt rely on the rest of the figure for understanding so I would assume its fine to crop it to make a new figure (but I am new-ish to wiki so am not sure of cropping policy).

Such a figure seems much more relevant to any person in the world. Meanwhile figures based on the atlantic seem more like a token representation of impact (i.e. just one example) as well as introducing a regional bias and thereby limiting the interest for the wider global population. I appreciate you will not being trying to illustrate all impacts. Nevertheless, the figure I propose does do a pretty job of covering bases in the a concise manner. DecFinney (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@DecFinney: I appreciate that Fig. TS-22(b) has a lot of information, a huge amount in fact: five values for each of 35 categories. Especially for a high-level article such as this, this micro-categorization would be overwhelming for lay readers. FYI: Generally there is no general prohibition on cropping as such (every edit involves selection of material from a larger-content publication), but I seem to recall that some organization, not sure if it's the IPCC, licensed things only if presented in their entirety. I wish I had a hurricane-intensification reference for both Atlantic and Pacific, but since the main point of Graphic "B" is climate change's intensification of hurricanes rather than hurricanes themselves, I think "B" is more than adequate for purpose. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09 ok. the only multi-basin figure i can find that seems relevant to your aim is fig5 in https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/101/3/bams-d-18-0194.1.xml

this shows the consistent projection of increased TC intensity (and rain rate) in every basin. DecFinney (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@DecFinney: Thanks for the research. I like the global extent of the AMS datasets but the error ranges are, like, totally_outtasight_dude! I'll have to consider the various drawings in the AMS reference... I lean toward something like Figs. 3b and 4b more than the global map. A major advantage of is that it's not a long-term prediction (it's about climate change attribution), and concrete values are provided in the context of peak winds and hurricane categories. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09 i agree 3b and 4b are better multi-basin figs to consider.

there is a part 1 to that paper which is about attribution. when i glanced at it, i didnt spot any suitable figures. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/100/10/bams-d-18-0189.1.xml

attribution with TCs is still pretty statistically limited. i have to admit that fig1f probably justifies a focus on NAtlantic if you want to stick to an attribution based figure.

thats my last input. thanks for the discussion. im happy with whatever you decide. DecFinney (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. I haven't been able to conjure a graphical approach to represent multi-basin attribution/changes that's more elegant than separate bar charts with distracting and divergent error bars scattered around a world map. I think that already captures predicted impacts quite well, and that an example of Extreme event attribution (Graphic "B", above) deserves space in this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Underemphasis on extreme event attribution

The preceding discussion brings out the point that Extreme event attribution is not even mentioned in this article. I think it's very important because, more and more, the intensification of specific current events are being presented to the public as being caused by global warming. This attribution is distinct from projections of future intensification such as that shown in . Though attribution science is not yet fully developed, and is statistical in nature, I think that something should be added to the "Impacts" section. Agreement? Suggestions? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09 sounds reasonable to me.

i think most good science comms would say that the chance of event is made more likely by climate change. it may go as far as to say it was basically impossible before, i.e. 1 in a million year event or something but the message can get a bit lost in that. of course one can odten say there's no precident in the records.

im not sure about the plot. its not obvious to me exactly what the x axis means or what information helps determine it. what is the source of the figure? DecFinney (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@DecFinney: Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Sources can usually be found on the Wikimedia Commons file description page (click through image itself), or in captions of charts placed in Misplaced Pages articles. Here the source is Lindsey, Rebecca (15 December 2016). "Extreme event attribution: the climate versus weather blame game". Climate.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Archived from the original on 9 June 2024. Graphic adapted from Figure 4.7 in NAS 2016.. The x-axis means the degree to which models can accurately represent or predict real-world events. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09 cheers, sorry. phone app doesnt let me follow an image link.

image is ok. I'd change caption "more generally" to "in addition" as this is listing the other two bullets from the article that gives the necessary conditions for confidence in attribution. they are not more general than the point the graph is illustrating. id actually suggest they are more specific.

i think youve edited the image a bit? it now looks like the colours have some meaning red/green/blue. but i dont think they did in the article, where each impact had a different colours? what do the colours mean here?

the image also has removed the word "extreme" from quite a few impacts compared to the article. i would consider this to be substantive change. "extreme rainfall" (if meaning e.g. 99th percentile, short timescales) is affected by climate change differently to longer timescale averaged rainfall, which is how i would interpret the term "rainfall" on its own. i would say that scientific understanding for extreme rainfall is possibly better than mean rainfall change, and therefore i think it might not be appropriate to change that terminology in the plot. DecFinney (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@DecFinney: Thanks for the feedback. The colors merely categorize the events (blue for cold, green for water-related, red for heat-related) to make the graphic more intuitively meaningful for a lay reader. The graphic's title includes "...extreme events..." so that the graphic can avoid needless repetition in the various individual elements. I'm not quite following your suggestion re the caption, but editors can change textual captions through ordinary editing. Here is a link to the image description page. Separately: I'm hoping for more participation from others about adding new content to the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09 I see you're points regarding the image edits. regarding caption, i will make edits when the image is in the article then, if it still seems appropriate. DecFinney (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09 I see you're points regarding the image edits. regarding caption, i will make edits when the image is in the article then, if it still seems appropriate. DecFinney (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning SRM under "Reducing and recapturing emissions"

Hello! I am new to this talk page. I have been working on the SRM article and noticed that SRM is mentioned in the Climate Change article. I have some questions about how SRM is mentioned in this article.

Should SRM really be mentioned under the heading "Reducing and recapturing emissions"?

Given that SRM would only ‘mask’ climate change instead of addressing the cause, greenhouse gas emissions. "SRM contrasts with climate change mitigation activities, such as emission reductions and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), as it introduces a ‘mask’ to the climate change problem by altering the Earth’s radiation budget, rather than attempting to address the root cause of the problem, which is the increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere" (IPCC_AR6_WGII_CCB-CWGB, p. 77).

I suggest either deleting the two sentences on SRM altogether or clearly explaining to the readers that SRM is somewhat related but is not a mitigation option in the pure sense. 1HumbleB (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with 1HumbleB's concerns (disclosure: we have worked together on the solar radiation modification article; that's how I got interested in this). For comparison, in the article climate change mitigation we have quite a good description of what SRM has to do with mitigation (or doesn't have to do with it). I have just moved that section further down in the article; it was under "definition" there until now which I don't think was ideal. It reads like this at the climate change mitigation article:

== Related approaches ==

=== Relationship with solar radiation modification (SRM) ===

While solar radiation modification (SRM) could reduce surface temperatures, it temporarily masks climate change rather than addressing the root cause, which is greenhouse gases. SRM would work by altering how much solar radiation the Earth absorbs. Examples include reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, reducing the optical thickness and lifetime of clouds, and changing the ability of the surface to reflect radiation. The IPCC describes SRM as a climate risk reduction strategy or supplementary option rather than a climate mitigation option.

The terminology in this area is still evolving. Experts sometimes use the term geoengineering or climate engineering in the scientific literature for both CDR or SRM, if the techniques are used at a global scale. IPCC reports no longer use the terms geoengineering or climate engineering. EMsmile (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To simplify things: I'd like to propose to delete these two sentences (for the reasons given above): Solar radiation modification (SRM) is also a possible supplement to deep reductions in emissions. However, SRM raises significant ethical and legal concerns, and the risks are imperfectly understood.. Especially the first out of these two sentences is problematic in my opinion. The phrasing reads as if there is a relationship between SRM and deep emission reductions; and it lacks nuance. Also, the topic of SRM opens a can of worms and would require more space than what can be given in this high level article. Therefore, I think it's better not to mention it here at all. Readers can easily find it in the climate change mitigation article instead. EMsmile (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

So I went ahead and deleted the two sentences in question (as there was no disagreement voiced on the talk page). Subsequently, User:RCraig09 re-instated the two sentences with the edit summary comment: "The content was in the section, →Reducing and recapturing emissions: and there was no implication that SRM is mitigation. You can distinguish mitigation from SRM if you think it's important."

My response: this section is all about climate change mitigation. Directly under the section heading it says "Main: Climate change mitigation". Therefore, why do we talk about SRM in this section, which is not about climate change mitigation? It is also not about "reducing and recapturing emissions". Rather, it's about masking the warming effects, i.e. actively attempting to achieve global cooling.

So I still think that those two sentences have no place here. If others say SRM must be mentioned in this section (why?), then the two sentences ought to be changed (as per my earlier comments) and it should be made clear that SRM is neither about mitigation nor about "reducing and recapturing emissions". Otherwise we'll just create confusion. EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @EMsmile's points. The fact that the content was previously included under this heading and that there is NO implication that SRM is mitigation, IMO does not justify keeping it here. SRM is unrelated to climate change mitigation. It should not be listed under this heading because its inclusion implies a connection to reducing or recapturing emissions, which is not accurate. Even if we revise the sentences to clarify that SRM is neither mitigation nor about "reducing and recapturing emissions," it would still be misplaced under this heading.

I suggest we delete the sentences all together. 1HumbleB (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Through its reduction of permafrost melt and other positive-feedback global warming processes, SRM has the indirect effect of "Reducing ...emissions" that is a section title. SRM thus helps impede the climate change that is the subject of this article. SRM therefore has a place in this article, and I'm certainly not opposed to editors pointing out the distinction between SRM and more direct mitigation techniques. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

SRM does not "reduce emissions", so I don't know what you mean with "indirect effect of reducing emissions". For comparison, in the climate change mitigation article, SRM is mentioned at the end under "related approaches". I don't know if SRM is all that important that it needs to be included in this high level article (?). People can easily find it through the sub-articles. But if several editors think it ought to be mentioned then I would either mention it elsewhere in the article, or change the section heading or make it very explicit that SRM is not climate change mitigation and does not reduce emissions. - Does anyone else have an opinion about this? EMsmile (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

For now, I've changed the wording of the two sentences to this (the bolding is used to show the changes): Solar radiation modification (SRM) is under discussion as a possible supplement to reductions in emissions. However, SRM raises significant ethical and global governance concerns, and its risks are not well understood. The old version was Solar radiation modification (SRM) is also a possible supplement to deep reductions in emissions. However, SRM raises significant ethical and legal concerns, and the risks are imperfectly understood.. (I am not sure if the wording "supplement" is sufficiently clear, and not overly optimistic.) EMsmile (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

At 17:07 I explained how SRM would inhibit permafrost melt—it would thus inhibit release of methane that was previously embedded in the permafrost. That is the indirect effect of SRM. Yes, it is a widely reported "related approach" that should be mentioned here. Re wording: closely follow source descriptions. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. ^ IPCC (2022) Chapter 14: International cooperation in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, United States]
2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (25 March 2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. S2CID 234327299.
3. IPCC (2022) Chapter 1: Introduction and Framing in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, United States
4. IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary . In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
5. IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 347–352 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch42018 (help)

Copernicus: 2024 above +1.5°C

https://climate.copernicus.eu/2024-track-be-first-year-exceed-15oc-above-pre-industrial-average

Yes, I know

• WP:NOTCRYSTAL.
• We'll have to wait another 10 years for the 20 year average.

Still Climate_change#Warming_since_the_Industrial_Revolution could mention 2024 as the first year above +1.5 C. Uwappa (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Uwappa Can you clarify - isn’t the 20 year average a rolling average? So depending partly on the frequency of El Ninos we might go over in less than 10 years? Or does the 20 year averaging start from 2024? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen a specific authoritative explanation, but I would think it is a moving average (trailing average). Exceeding the threshold depends on the data itself; we do not have to wait a specific number of years. A few extraordinarily high annual readings could cause the threshold to be crossed in less than ten years. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@UwappaI agree - I think 2024 should be mentioned very briefly Chidgk1 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed change

Depending on the result of discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Climate change#Keeping under 1.5 degrees is now politically impossible I propose to change

“According to UNEP, global warming can be kept below 1.5 °C with a 50% chance if emissions after 2023 do not exceed 200 gigatonnes of CO2. This corresponds to around 4 years of current emissions. To stay under 2.0 °C, the carbon budget is 900 gigatonnes of CO2, or 16 years of current emissions.”

to something like

“UNEP estimated in 2024 that emitting 900 billion tonnes of CO2eq (less than 15 years at 2023 rates) after 2023 would give an even chance of keeping global warming under 2.0 °C.”

But if anyone objects I don’t mind waiting a few weeks to see whether China pledges an amazing Nationally determined contribution in February. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the existing content for now because it conveys higher urgency. Humanity should still be aiming for it because ending up at 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.9 degrees is a lot better than 2 degrees. I'm curious to see how other publications are changing the way they talk about 1.5 degrees, and if they are starting to talk about it less. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is the Climate article not linked in this article?

Climate is a level 2 article according to the wikipedia importance levels. higher than the level 3 categorisation of climate change. The cmimate article discusses the definiton of climate in some detail that feels useful to point people towards.

it seems to me, it should be linked very early on in this article's introduction. The climate system article is but that has a different purpose.

I can propose a change, but i thought id first check if this had been discussed before and theres some reason the article is not linked to.

also, i perhaps have missed where it is linked but i did a search for climate DecFinney (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

No reason, I dont think, other than to avoid a seaofblue. Feel free to be bold if you find a good spot —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Cheers. I have made the simplest edit I could see. Both are now referenced in the intro. DecFinney (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• FA-Class level-3 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in Physical sciences
• FA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
• FA-Class Antarctica articles
• High-importance Antarctica articles
• WikiProject Antarctica articles
• FA-Class Arctic articles
• High-importance Arctic articles
• WikiProject Arctic articles
• FA-Class Climate change articles
• Top-importance Climate change articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• FA-Class Environment articles
• Top-importance Environment articles
• FA-Class Effective Altruism articles
• High-importance Effective Altruism articles
• FA-Class geography articles
• Top-importance geography articles
• WikiProject Geography articles
• FA-Class Geology articles
• High-importance Geology articles
• High-importance FA-Class Geology articles
• WikiProject Geology articles
• FA-Class Globalization articles
• High-importance Globalization articles
• FA-Class sanitation articles
• Mid-importance sanitation articles
• WikiProject Sanitation articles
• FA-Class Science Policy articles
• High-importance Science Policy articles
• FA-Class Weather articles
• Top-importance Weather articles
• FA-Class Climate articles
• Top-importance Climate articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Externally peer reviewed articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles by The Denver Post