Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2020 board of trustees election are now open!

Talk:Global warming

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Role of ships and airplanes in global warming[edit]

It is well known that a single cruiser produces the particulate matter equivalent of 1 million cars for example.

Changed Katharine Hayhoe quote attribuion[edit]

Upon request from Katharine Hayhoe, her job title was changed from climatologist to climate scientist.— Unsigned, by: BeCurieUs / talk / contribs

Hothouse Earth[edit]

Should this be mentioned here? — Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs

Sea Level Change[edit]

While the bulk of this article is well written, the section on sea level change contains several inaccurate and misleading pieces:

  • "The most conservative prediction of sea level rise presently predicted is 9–88 cm (3.5–34.6 inches)"

I'm not sure where the 9-88 cm prediction comes from as it is unsourced. Regardless, in AR5 the IPCC estimated sea level rise in high emission scenarios to be 50-98cm by 2100. This is not a conservative estimate, it is a consensus estimate for the worst case scenario the IPCC considers (RCP8.5). A sourced estimate and removal of the word conservative is appropriate.

  • "There is a possibility, however, that the whole Greenland ice sheet would melt leading to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft)"

No there is not. There are absolutely no peer reviewed papers suggesting such a thing is possible in the next 100 or even 200 years, and a quick bit of math reveals just how ridiculous this assertion is. Using facts reported by the Wikipedia page ( on the Greenland ice sheet we find the size of the sheet estimated at 2,850,000 km3 and the melt rate in 2007 estimated at 592 km3 per year. This means that at current melt rates the sheet would take more than 4814 years to melt completely. In my opinion, the original author of this assertion needs to refute the Wikipedia numbers with references to peer reviewed literature or this unattributed assertion needs to be removed.

  • "There is even a possibility that the West Antarctic ice sheet could melt raising sea levels by a further six meters (20 feet)"

This is yet another unsourced assertion that either needs to be backed up by a reference to peer review literature or removed.

  • "Although the rest of the Antarctic is considered to be stable, if the entire Antarctic were to melt, this would raise sea levels by 62 meters (203 feet)."

If "the rest of the Antarctic is considered to be stable", then why is resultant impact worth mentioning? It's a bit like saying "if all the people in Mexico illegally crossed into the US our healthcare and educational systems would collapse." While it is certainly true, the fact that nobody thinks it will happen means the sole purpose of the statement is to scare people. — Unsigned, by: Transcendence / talk / contribs

"Catastrophic" Climate Change[edit]

It should be noted somewhere that a new climate change risk classification was released in September 2017 from UC San Diego that added two classifications of climate change risk: Catastrophic and Existential. Link to Eurekalert publication: This needs to be differentiated from the "CAGW" snarl word, since the word "Catastrophic" is clear in the risk classification. — Unsigned, by: / talk

ice age fallacy[edit]

I don't understand how the paragraph about global cooling demonstrates that global cooling is a fallacy. This is the graph sent with the denial: Is it possible to improve this section please ? TYIA, keep up the great work — Unsigned, by: Agravetoncas / talk / contribs

Article rating[edit]

Is it feasible to demote this to silver? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


For example, after 9/11 global air traffic more or less shut down, and the lack of contrails led to the discovery that airplane contrails act to stabilize air temperature throughout the day[70]. The real world is complicated,[citation NOT needed] and people use science to discover how it works. As such, scientific knowledge marches ever forward, and obviously the world has been warming. But the few works published have been enough for "climate skeptics" to strip mine for quotes. ... Trotting out the global cooling trope is sometimes called the ice age fallacy.

In what world is a theory with evidence considered a fallacy? Do we simply ignore ice ages of the past and pretend as if the Earth's climate has always been stable? Science is not about cherry-picking or, at least, should not be. Ajuran (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • a theory with evidence
  • global cooling (within today's context)
Pick one. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Another story of global warming denialism[edit]

My mom says that global warming is fake and that we are just having another ice age (the ice age is melting before freezing again) This sounds so stupid and I don't believe any of it lol. - Just another possible hypothosis for global warming denialism. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Failure to properly disclose the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among current models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks[edit]

Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Not to mention it is a horribly written article and very undisciplined, not a single line on the complications of current climate modelling. Less for the graph which also controversially states "Denialists, who can't or don't want to understand graphs, probably won't understand this graph." How unprofessional can you get??

Doubling Co2 effect on future global temperatures isn't a fact, it is a simulation output. I'll write it once more to make sure you understand -- Cloud feedback remains the largest uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates. This is from the AR4 report. (

For example differences in planetary boundary layer cloud modeling schemes can lead to large differences in derived values of climate sensitivity. A model that decreases boundary layer clouds in response to global warming has a climate sensitivity twice that of a model that does not include this feedback.(

Recent work has shown that cloud feedbacks have large impacts on the forced dynamical response to warming and particularly the shift of the jets and storm tracks. Thus, the cloud response to warming appears as one of the key uncertainties for future circulation changes. Substantial research efforts are currently underway to improve our understanding of cloud–circulation interactions at various scales and their implications for climate sensitivity, a problem identified as one of the current ‘grand challenges’ of climate science. (

Yes, doubling Co2 warms the climate if we leave clouds and cloud feedback out of the equation. But there is no climate equation without clouds! Where are easily accessible clear disclosures to such complications of current climate modelling in this article?

Also as noted below by Ajuran, climate and environment has always changed. Look at the sea levels over the past 20 000 years ( We are blaming ourselves over tiny movements in seal levels and call it an existential threat, while over the past 20 000 years the sea levels have risen 120 meters regardless of humans. Majority of the times it has been several times the rate of current "anthropogenic seal level rise".

Data seems to confirm that global temperatures are rising. However the anthropogenic global climate warming remains yet to be proven. Current fear-mongering and using climate warming as means of a political weapon is unnecessary. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Every climate scientist worth their salt disagrees with you btw, I don't feel the need to refute a huge wall of bullshit and mindless pratts to point this out to you. Oxyaena Harass 10:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your ignorant opinion, however please do mind the facts. And please, do try to refute them. Any climate scientist worth their salt will confirm the above facts regarding climate modelling and sea level rise. As a matter of fact we don't know have a high degree of confidence over how Co2 affects cloud cover and how cloud cover affects climate in the future. Last paragraph is my humble subjective conclusion. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Forgive me if this sounds rude. Your misrepresentation of Hartmann et al as alleging that cloud forcing is not well understood, rather than him addressing a particular kind of refinement in cloud models vis a vis tropical anvil cloud formation, and that IPCC models lack an effective model of cloud coverage makes me tend to think you're lying your ass off.
I mean there's that, and then there's you trying to equate changes over 20,000 years to those over a decade. We got a 7 mm rise this year due to the greenland shit, you lying piece of shit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sea levels currently rise 3mm p.a., that’s 3.3 meters during millennia. Over the last 18 000 years sea levels have risen 120m, that’s 6.6m over millennia on average, without humans.
Cloud forcing is understood but we don’t have the means to predict it with increasing levels of CO2 to a high degree of confidence. Why are you being so offensive and calling me a liar? It’s not like there is no basis to question the accuracy of current climate models, the sensitivity is 1.5C...4.5C. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
You understand that those sea level changes ~10kya were due to completely different reasons than the current sea level rise? They're irrelevant, and yes, you are a liar. Oxyaena Harass 15:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I don’t understand how historic sea levels can be irrelevant in any context what concerns possible conditions on earth. Neither do I understand how sea level rise 1 000, 500 or 100 years ago differs from today. Are you suggesting that earth and climate reached an ever-stable state in early 1900s and from there on sea level rise and increase in global temperature has been solely human caused? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
The earth's climate was cooling prior to 1850 or so, the Little Ice AgeWikipedia, the reason it reversed is because of human activity. Also sign your fucking name next time, I`m tired of having to repeatedly copy and paste the unsigned template. Oxyaena Harass 17:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This has been recently put under serious fucking doubt
Here we present sub-annually resolved concentration records of refractory black carbon (rBC; using soot photometry) as well as distinctive tracers for mineral dust, biomass burning and industrial pollution from the Colle Gnifetti ice core in the Alps from AD 1741 to 2015. These records allow precise assessment of a potential relation between the timing of observed acceleration of glacier melt in the mid-19th century with an increase of rBC deposition on the glacier caused by the industrialization of Western Europe. Our study reveals that in AD 1875, the time when rBC ice-core concentrations started to significantly increase, the majority of Alpine glaciers had already experienced more than 80 % of their total 19th century length reduction, casting doubt on a leading role for soot in terminating of the Little Ice Age.
— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
If humans aren't causing the warming then where's the extra CO2 or are you gonna deny that too maybe say the measurements are wrong or maybe "it's volcanoes". This whole "Earth has changed before" argument has been done to death and even if it was natural and Earth just started randomly farted out CO2 and started melting its own permafrost or suddenly cut down thousands of trees, that'll still lead to the same problem as what it is confirmed what we are doing? We'd still need to enact changes to prevent more damage. You really think climate scientists around the world are so inept and stupid, their theory that humans caused climate changed falls apart just from "they don't understand clouds" and "climate has changed before" cards? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that scientists rely on cloud formation as indicators of climate change. They appear to just want more precise models but those papers already assume humans are causing climate change and are working on understanding the effects from there. S'yeah, denier lies or misrepresents via strawman. Like usual. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's because they're full of shit? Just a thought. Oxyaena Harass 19:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I fail to comment all of the gibberish above. It's a lot of words without much meaning or anything tangible. To top it off we start throwing slurs like concern troll, denier lie or if all else fails, accusations of misinterpretation.
How am I going to misinterpret this by NASA ISCCP?
When contemporary models are given information about Earth's present condition — the size, shape and topography of the continents; the composition of the atmosphere; the amount of sunlight striking the globe — they create artificial climates that mathematically resemble the real one: their temperatures and winds are accurate to within about 5%, but their clouds and rainfall are only accurate to within about 25-35%. ...
Unfortunately, such a margin of error is much too large for making a reliable forecast about climate changes, such as the global warming will result from increasing abundances of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent. Yet according to current climate models, such a small change could raise global mean surface temperatures by between 2-5°C (4-9°F), with potentially dramatic consequences. If a 2 percent change is that important, then a climate model to be useful must be accurate to something like 0.25%. Thus today's models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy[to prove such claims], a very challenging task. To develop a much better understanding of clouds, radiation and precipitation, as well as many other climate processes, we need much better observations.
To answer your question
how you arrived at the conclusion that scientists rely on cloud formation as indicators of climate change.
The Earth's temperature is heavily reliant on the balance between clouds emitting radiation back to space and trapping warmth underneath. As said in quote above, a mere 2% change in this balance results a 2-5C temperature variance on surface. A 6% change in this balance results in 6-15C temperature change on surface.
BTW I'm flattered by the concern troll tag, you do know how to have your internet battles. However it does not dispute the facts. Regarding undersign then I was on my phone earlier and didn't know if this gets added automatically by admins or do I need to do it manually.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
You understand that carbon's coming from somewhere, right? Odd how CO2 levels started spiking only after the Industrial Revolution, am I right? Oxyaena Harass 20:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
You don't understand - I'm not saying levels of CO2 are not increasing in the air. I'm saying we don't yet have the means to truly estimate it's effect on global climate. A rational human being takes current modelling and alarmism, ironically, with a grain of salt.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Actually, it is you that doesn't understand. The science is in on this, there's no debate. Human CO2 emissions are altering the climate at a rate that will eventually make the planet uninhabitable to most if not all current forms of life, including humans. You're demand for rationality and civility for a debate that's over is stupid, plain and simple. You might as well debate creationism (magic bible god did it) vs evolution (long complex theory that basically everything supports.) Get with the program, debate for debate's sake is stupid. It's over, you're wrong, get over it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That quote and source aren't saying anything at all what you're arguing. You're extrapolating this paragraph to mean that humans didn't cause climate change, that scientists don't understand and are neglecting cloud formation, which is a massive leap from "we need to better understand cloud formation [which we understand a lot already unlike what this drive-by denier is saying] so we can increase our accuracy by hundredfolds". The quote you're referring to involves prediction of cloud behavior, and that climate is extremely sensitive to even small changes of radiation balance, which makes calls for more accurate models even more needed. Overall, this doesn't discount human-caused climate change at all, just that scientists are struggling to predict very accurately about particular behavior that results from climate change and also contributes to climate change. For the last one, the "2% change" isn't referring to "clouds emitting radiation" as you're arguing, it's referring to how doubling CO2 emissions will change this balance by about 2%, which is enough for dramatic consequences. You know what we call your argument? Quote mining. Stop being so careless about sources and quotes you trot out as well as the nonsense you then conclude from. A rational human listens to experts around the world that have been studying the field for their lives, most saying the same thing, all models generally pointing the right way, and actually read the damn links they hand out, AND are rightfully "alarmed" by human-caused climate change and its implications as well as being horrified by deniers like you who keep cherrypicking and lying because your favorite politicians said so. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Life on earth isn't in danger of going extinct by global warming, at worst what will happen is another Great Dying level mass extinction event. Oxyaena Harass 04:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"Unrelated" point[edit]

You do realize if your bullshit framing were at all based in reality, and not a willful misreading of a small subset of research, we wouldn't be dead fucking on IPCC estimates for temperature changes at current CO2 levels and timespan, right? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Point of no return?[edit]

"there's broad agreement that anything above 2°C will mean we are beyond recovery. The International Energy Agency suggests that the window to prevent this from occurring will close by 2020, a view shared by the OECD."

Does this mean we're already FUBAR? Or has this prediction been revised since? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Climate change beneficial[edit]

Robert Zubrin, for instance, claims that climate change is beneficial, that it will improve crop yields. At the page top, should D) be split into two items "isn't important" and E) "is beneficial"? The current contents of D) seem to be conflated and, I would think, should be separate bullet points. Also, since A), B), & C) use "is not", change D) to "is not" from "isn't"? JimW (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

methane increase[edit]

"CO2 emissions have been stabilizing but methane emissions have risen dramatically during the past ten years for unknown reasons."

One maior reason has likely been identified, there's still disagreement though. — Unsigned, by: 2605:E000:1221:8121:AC42:8A22:4E1B:5C34 / talk