Talk:Global warming/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 February 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Global Warming time frame identification[edit]

While the evidence for global warming since the industrial revolution 200 years ago is strong (also correlated with massive greenhouse gas increases; eg CO2: 260->370ppm, methane: 700->1700ppb, and nitrous oxide: 260->320ppb), the concept of 'global warming' is only meaningful when discussed within the current interglacial ("anthropocene"). Interglacials being relatively warm periods (~+6 deg C) occurring at regular intervals (every ~100,000 years) since the beginning of the current major ice age (~5 million years ago), and correlated with Milankovitch cycles (orbital anomalies due to gravitational effects of the major planets). Modeling suggests that the current interglacial (~11,000 years old) may last for up to ~60,000 years (Berger and Loutre, 2002 - Science), which is much longer than the previous two interglacials (~11,000 years).

Any social response to climate change must obviously be a risk assessment of not only that of warming (2+ deg C), but that of prospective cooling (glacial periods ~-6 deg C). Furthermore, the contextualisation of global warming reveals climate science as an objective discipline that seeks to successfully model climate change over all time scales, as opposed to appearing blindingly specialised. Finally, irrespective of climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise), there is only a limited amount of fossil fuels available on earth, and such we need to resort to economically viable alternatives. Assuming developing nations place the health of their citizens above the idealistic adoption of secondary (solar) and 1000 year old tertiary (wind/sea/geothermal) energy sources, this would implicate the need for nuclear fusion research (eg ITER/NIF), and a possible interim use of fission technologies.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

50+ years ago[edit]

ClimateChange 1958.jpg Scream!! (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to protect the planet from Global warming because God didn't make the earth to last forever.[edit]

I know an evangelical Christian who just told me that over the telephone, she drives a very large caravan type car that eats petrol (gas in the USA). I believe she belongs to one of the Campbellite groups but am not sure as she denies it. I suggested she should look at the Wikipedia article, List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. I didn't suggest List of predictions of the end of the world because she would have an excuse to disregard what's in an atheist website. I fear she won't look at any such list since she thinks it virtuous to study exclusively or mainly what her group teaches. I would like to add to the Global warming article that some Christians think they needn't do anything because the world won't last long. Can anyone give me a reference so I can add it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In point of fact we don't need to protect the planet from global warming. The planet has survived ice ages, meteor impacts and extreme volcanic events which have had a much greater effect on the planet than humanity could ever hope to have.
The thing that is at risk from global warming is the human race and human civilisation. A few thousand years (at most) after we are gone the planet will get back to business as usual. --Coffee (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC) There you go. I'd prefer someone who is acquainted with political science to look over it first, before using this, though. Nullahnung (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Also this, for anyone who has access. That said, we shouldn't reference pay-walled stuff and I don't think it would be legal for me to upload the pdf for public access, so I'm not sure how we'd cite this. Nullahnung (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think she might be referring to 2 Peter 3:10,12 & 13. Also I Thess. 4:15,16,17. And a few places it tells of a third heaven & earth which they think will be in heaven. But some say it will be here on earth. There are also verses that say God will destroy those who destroy the earth (Rev.11:18) & the earth shall abide/last forever (Eccl. 1:4). Klop789 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Climate change redirect?[edit]

Just wondering, but you think climate change should get its own article rather than being a redirect to here? Global warming does fall under "climate change", but climate change is more broad, encompassing, well, climate change. Or, is there not enough hoopla surrounding climate change compared to global warming, so climate change can be safely redirected to here? LEFTYGREENMARIO 20:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that climate change is just a rebranding of global warming, because laypeople tend to not grasp the concept of global warming that well. As in, they're different terms for the same thing, hence the redirect. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Err no. Climate change describes a changing climate. In our current situation that change would be global warming as opposed to global cooling, which is why those terms are used so interchangeably. The nature of this interchangeability makes it reasonable to just have a redirect, though if there be some other pseudoscience related to climate change but not related to global warming, then it would be better to have a separate article, yes. Nullahnung (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we can at least do something to differentiate climate change and global warming? I don't want people to confuse (or be further confused because of the redirect) "climate change" and "global warming" as the same thing. Oh, yeah, so, referring to my second part, about the "hoopla surrounding climate change", the only (possible) crank-talk about climate change that I know is that "scientists are using the term 'climate change' to downplay 'global warming'." LEFTYGREENMARIO 21:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Make sure to find a reference for that crank-talk first if you want to write something about that! Nullahnung (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, it was shown as an argument (kind of) against global warming in Skeptical Science, so the argument probably has been made or it's anticipated to be made. But, I don't explore the depths of global warming contrarian websites, so back me up here if you can. According to Skeptical Science, Frank Luntz has been "credited" by saying the following:
"It’s time for us to start talking about 'climate change' instead of global warming and 'conservation' instead of preservation. 'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming'. As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."
And the article on him already says a bit of how he does that.
LEFTYGREENMARIO 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, while the average global temperature is to increase, the temperature changes are not uniform and some places will decrease in temperature on average. Further, climate is more than just temperature. (And a re-branding issue, too.) Sterilesig.svgtalk 22:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
"Average global temperature" is a key term. I agree with you, however, so I think global warming might be a tad misleading, especially with climate change being a redirect. LEFTYGREENMARIO 23:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, global warming is global warming, I don't see it as misleading. Obviously, warming implies all manner of things happening in local climates, like more erratic and stronger hurricanes in tropical waters, and that is part of climate change. Still, the terms are used pretty much interchangeably. Nullahnung (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I think either will do. "Climate change" originated as a euphemism for "global warming", but I think it's actually a better term in many ways. I explained it to my aged parents as "they say 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because it doesn't just heat up a bit, everything also goes nuts" when we were talking about the weird weather in the UK at that time - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

About the third sub-heading[edit]

Surely it would be better to look at the "carbon dioxide equivalent", seeing as, for instance, nitrous oxide is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 despite the fact that it has no carbon in it at all? TheSocktor (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Climate Change and Ozone[edit]

I sometimes hear people talking about the ozone hole crisis and global warming as if they were one and the same thing, especially by deniers and people who don't really care. For example, look at the google results for something like "global warming ozone". Should it be clarified that, although ozone is a (rather weak, compared to CO2) greenhouse gas (e.g., the two phenomena are separate problems? -- (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Though the ozone-eating CFCs are a greenhouse gas too, which may be where the confusion comes from. Hit "edit" and go for it! - David Gerard (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I tried to^^ -- (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and it might be beneficial to refer to this help guide when editing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I should have... removed the wiki links (except for one, which serves as a summary for the more exhaustive original source). The personal experience part was removed before. I think that were the flaws you weren't content with, right? -- (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Data fraud[edit]

An investigation of the raw data recording temperature, has revealed that once again these academics are manipulating the data to keep billions of dollars flowing into their hands. No matter how many times they are caught, government will not change course because they want to believe in global warming to justify higher taxes. Al Gore even went the Davos to pitch once again for higher taxes to stop global warming he declares is the number one crisis in the world. He too, never heard of cycles. This crowd claims this is “climate change” as if there are no cycles whatsoever. How did the earth warm up after Ice Ages? This is really too much. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 22:54, 8 February 2015‎ (UTC)

How did the Earth warm up after ice ages? Very slowly. Over thousands of years, not 200 years. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
First news of an ice age 200 year ago. Is geological history being rewritten too? — Unsigned, by: / talk 19:02, 9 February 2015
Eh, you do realise that the 200 years is contrasting the slow warming after ice ages with the current climate change, right? Hence, the 200-year warming trend in the comment does not refer to the time elapsed since the last ice age - that's kinda the entire point of the post. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The temperature records say something different (see image). The Earth temperature oscillates. Except for the medievel warm period, all intermediate rises in temperature happened faster than it's happening today. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
This nails it. (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Make that two people who can't read a graph. The scale is wide, and the resolution poor, but even then you can see that the slope at the extreme right is higher than the others. Also, note that the MWP was a strictly European phenomenon, and was unobserved elsewhere in the world. Tracking temperature at a single location is not illustrative; what has got climatologists worked up is the sustained overall increase in temperature for the globe as a whole. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Geological history is not being rewritten. See the Maunder Minimum,Wikipedia sometimes called the "little ice age." (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Follow the fish[edit]

Just to make an observation that can't be denied. Various species of fish and others for instance birds, have been moving northwards because the ocean is getting warmer in the case of fish and the land climate in the case of birds. A rather spectacular example is that Greenland and Iceland now fish mackerel - enough to make it a significant amount of total catch, at least in the latter case. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine but the issue is whether the warming is man-made or natural. The prestigious Société de Calcul Mathématique (Society for Mathematical Calculation), recently issued a detailed 195-page White Paper that presents a blistering point-by-point critique of the key dogmas of the global warming. Here's their own synthesis of the contents(1): The crusade is absurd, (2) The crusade is costly, (3) The crusade is pointless. (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The very first paragraph of that summary contains two provable falsehoods:
  1. "All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming." - absolute horseshit. I'm pretty sure that vast majority of acts passed in just the last year have zero to with climate.
  2. "The initial credo is simple: temperatures at the surface of the planet have been rising constantly for the past thirty years," - a complete misrepresentation of orthodox climate science. If that's their complaint, then they're clearly arguing against a strawman.
The SCMSA is not prestigious. It seems to be a rinky-dink outfit that can't even manage to put together a decent website. Seriously, did you look at that site before throwing it out there as a reputable source? It looks like it was last updated in 1995. It has a hit counter, for the love of god. With less than 100,000 hits. Yeah, 'prestigious'. It seems to have a few legit peer-reviewed papers in minor journals, but none of them seem to relate to climate. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
[EC] Did you actually read this paper? I hope it's an example of silly people. It states the absurd notional that no scientific research is being approved without a direct correlation to global medical, materials, and computer research completely shutdown. Sorry IBM, Intel and Gilead you are out of business...or not.
  1. When they state it's absurd they state it is not happening, then it is happening slower then stated, and that rising sea levels are due to up thrust buoyancy. Which happens to floating objects and land masses don't float. This is something kids learn in elementary school and baffling they got this so absurdly wrong.
  2. Then states no country can grow without wasting energy...what? That unemployment is a direct result of climate policies because, as they say, "The answer is laughable." No data, no correlation, and that unemployment somehow never existed or was never caused by anything else.
  3. It says it is pointless because man cannot affect the environment even if we eradicated all animal life. Yet in "the consequences" it states all this CO2 that man is pumping in the air warming the planet is great for plants. You can't say man can't do it, then state man is doing it and it's a net benefit...that's psychotic.
It's also a journal on mathematical calculation with zero math, 1 reference to the French budget, and postulations a wide spread global warming conspiracy that makes no sense with zero peer review. This kind of nonsense is why people make fun of global warming denialists and would be a great addition to the main page. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
You are misquoting intentionally. The authors say: "Plants, in particular, would enjoy an increase in CO2 concentrations". The use of "would" clearly indicats they are not talking about a real situation, but a hypothetical one. This lack of basic comprehension skills is why people make fun of global warming talibanism. (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
That was one of the points, which I don't agree with because it seems directly at odds stating "if it did exist" after spending quite a bit saying the data is completely fabricated because...well, they said so. Instead of debunking any of the data that shows it is, showing conspiracies they claim exist, or even putting a little effort into some data that other denailists at least do badly. Which is a cherry picked problem with the rebuttal out of the other really basic screw ups in the paper you also painfully implying continents float on the ocean. Good job with tunnel vision :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that plants would not 'enjoy' higher CO2 content, because CO2 is only one of the things they need to live. Unless it was accompanied by increased sunlight, increased water and increased nutrients in the soil (as if the case when 'forcing' rhubarb) they're not going to get much out of that extra CO2 at all. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, they might get some extra water if they are near the coast as sea levels rise...but it will be salt water so most land plants will die. If the continents were subject to "upthrust buoyancy" like a boat, as the paper states they are, they would ride over that! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Since most of the argumentarium against the paper by the Society for Mathematical Calculation is addressed at denying its competence and prestige, here's a list of the Society's achievments. Those still in denial, please put your own achievements forward for the readers to compare or shut the fk up. (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming that we haven't already read it. I have. If you look closely, it's rather unimpressive. And if you want to see argument as to the paper contents, there's plenty that both of us have already mentioned that you have completely ignored. Saying that we've mostly been arguing against its prestige is flat-out dishonest. Stop that. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
You read only the summary paper, dork. The full paper is 195 pages and is linked at the site. You lack the skills even to tell the difference! Now you can BEGIN with you reading assignment. You're a shame even for a global warming crusader. (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I read the 'list of achievements', doofus, not the full paper, as you might have been able to tell if you'd read my response properly. In any case, if their summary can't even avoid telling outright falsehoods in the first paragraph, why would anyone waste their time with the full polemic? The fact that the 'paper' is 195 pages long is another huge red flag. Time for a time out, I think. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

SCM SA[edit]

In case anyone is still interested, I tried to look into this SCM SA: it is a French private commercial entity (6-9 employees) that provides mathematical modeling services in various fields (environment, health, nuclear safety, transportation), specializing in probabilistic models. I didn't find any criticism against their mathematical abilities, but they seem to be one of the main references used by French "les climatosceptiques". They list about half a dozen climate-related works, but none of them has been published in peer-reviewed journals as far as I can tell. Their CEO, a French mathematician, has been publicly and actively advocating against AGW at least since 2011 when he released a document titled "Le Bilan Carbone: erreurs méthodologiques fondamentales et incertitudes", or "Carbon accounting: fundamental methodological errors and uncertainties". In this document, he starts by saying that Paris waste water goes into the Seine river and then into the sea, and it would be illogical to conclude that this contributes to sea level rise. Somehow, this is supposed to match some kind of carbon cycle (photosynthesis, cellular respiration, fermentation) leading to the conclusion that CO2 cannot accumulate into the atmosphere. France doesn't use a lot of coal, so maybe he just ignored it, but he does count car emissions, without talking about the origin of the gasoline.

This is actually a common point with the 2015 white paper discussed above: in almost 200 pages, the word coal appears 4 times and the word oil only 2 times. Figure 14 in this document is this picture from NOAA but I wasn't able to find any indication that the authors actually understand how the carbon cycle works (they seem to think that it is a fast cycle where atmospheric CO2 goes into water, then into plants, and then somehow into oil/coal?). They try to show that every single aspect of climate science (hypothesis, measurement, analysis, conclusion) is incorrect: if you go with them, the conclusion is that the whole field of climate science is 100% irredeemable nonsense. Also annoying is their use of familiar language: in the 2011 document, "intellectual terrorism", "dictatorship", "rotten summers", "dogma"; in the white paper, "crusade", "dictatorship", "stupid", some lame attempt at sarcasm by having people "shave their heads and paint their scalps white, or varnish them". Also, they love exclamation marks and saying "error of logic". They subsequently published reaction letters from readers, and their answers were generally defensive and unkind. This is all propaganda, not science.

In 2016 they released a "study" regarding the scientific consensus. Forget about the odd "COP21: God doesn't care!", there is some interesting information about "le climatosceptiscime". The website Popular claims to be "Internationally recognized by over 300 independent sources including Forbes, the International Journal of Modern Physics and the United States Senate"; they may deserve an article on RW if their claims are true (then again, they also claim to be impartial...). There is also a table counting denier organisations by country (US: 76, UK: 5, Australia: 4, Canada: 3, etc.; full list at the end), but France isn't mentioned, suggesting that SCM SA could be one of its main sources of climate denialism (if those numbers are even reliable).

Worryingly, they claim to be providing their services regarding air, soil and water quality to French and European authorities (not to mention the nuclear stuff). WTF? --Cmonk (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That's some fine investigative reporting, Cmonk! Th hug.gif Sounds like an organization we ought to have an article on? What do you think — is there material enough? If nothing else, it sounds like they ought to be mentioned in the global warming article as one of those crap sources denialists tend to rely on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
They appear to be an actual entity, and given how active their CEO (Bernard Beauzamy) seems to be (radio talks, lobbying, "white papers", newsletter with such gems as "We never managed to publish [some work on AI] in a neuroscience journal: the mathematical level of the study was too high for those experts."), I would say that they deserve their own page. Unfortunately I don't have the full picture (how influential are they IRL? how do they get government contracts to work on environmental issues with such a line of thinking? is their sad website also fake?), but at the very least the French should think twice before using them as a reference on climate issues, since it looks like they are trying to import American denialism. --Cmonk (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Forget Global Warming, Earth is DOOMED.[edit]

You can forget "Global Warming" as the harbinger of Earthly doom. I have been meticulously measuring the hours of daylight since June and the data is irrefutable. Daylight hours are steadily waning and I calculate within 30 months the planet will be cast into TOTAL darkness. The consequences are obvious. Vegetation will die, the planet will freeze and all life will be extinguished shortly thereafter.

You laugh, but this is the same kind of "irrefutable data" argument being espoused by those little 'Green' people who want government to take total control of the means of manufacturing, transportation and distribution...sound familiar? Others are in it for the cold cash in the form of carbon credits.

If the climate never changed, we'd still be suffering from the last ice age. Geologically, it was not that long ago that carbon dioxide (what plants breathe) was four times what it is now. Oxygen (what animals breathe) levels were double. LIFE FLOURISHED. Global warming? Bring it on! — Unsigned, by: Libshoppe / talk / contribs 17:01, 3 October 2015‎

If we went from summer-levels of daylight to winter-levels of daylight in a matter of days instead of months, would the waning daylight concern you then? Because that's the type of change we're seeing in the climate: rapid, unprecedented changes in temperature directly correlated with greenhouse gas production. Previous changes in temperature, such as the Ice Age, were on geological timescales, over thousands of years. Human industrial activity has compressed thousands of years worth of climate change into decades. This is not a natural change in temperature. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 01:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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 05:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


We should add a section about reversing it, and what it would take to reverse it rather than simply stopping it from getting any worse.

Stopping emissions would reverse it. Period. Now that was easy! (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it may not be that simple because of climate commitmentWikipedia: the CO2 that is already there will stay there for a long time, and the planet could keep warming for a while. --Cmonk (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They can't make up their minds[edit]

It's rather amusing considering some of the same scientists were claiming Global Cooling only a mere few decades ago. At the end of the day, it's the prevailing winds of grant money that dictate the temperature. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Except they didn't, but don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. Also, hypothetically, if most climatologists used to think the Earth was getting cooler, and then based on more research they came to believe that it was actually getting warmer, wouldn't that be exactly what they're supposed to be doing? --Ymir (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, a number did. This flip-flopping is quite present, but hey, as you said, don't let your beliefs get in the way of facts. (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
To quote the article that you yourself linked, "This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions." A "number" and a majority are two different things. --Ymir (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump will put an end to this charade. Then there will be a new scientific consensus that's the opposite of what it is today... and YOU will cheer and flap with your ears. (talk)
Your own wikipedia article acknowledges that even when the global cooling theory was proposed and popularized in the media, the warming by CO2 was still the dominant theory in academia. I'm not sure what your point is other than that you don't read the sources you cite. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I had thought this was going to be a science was wrong before argument. But as the article itself says the exact opposite of what the poster claims I guess its just extreme confirmation bias. It's also amusing that he seems to think that scientific consensus can be changed by presidential diktat.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Well if we don't like global warming we can just vote to deport it, right? Hmmph (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Another xkcd comic worth mentioning[edit]

I saw one xkcd comic in the article and I think this one is also worth mentioning somehow somehow. (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


You talk a lot about Exxon covering up global warming, but (in 2016 at least) they state clearly that it's true:

Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect.
—Exxon Mobil: Our position on climate change

and if they say it's true, that's a pretty good argument that it's true. Hmmph (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that Exxon and other oil companies only tell half the truth. They will concede that climate change is real and happening now, but they will deny the fact hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes, and floods are increasing at an alarming rate due in large part because of AGW. There approach is more dangerous than outright denial because they lull people asleep, and then bait and switch by claiming their emissions aren't responsible for hurricane increases in the Atlantic. (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The geography of American climate confusion: a visual guide[edit] Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, the US... is doing better than I expected on these issues, I thought more people would be ignorant of the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW (forgive my looking down on the American public, I live among Europeans who constantly do this, especially recently). Hopefully US education can hold it together long enough over the next 4 years to see these numbers improve even more. (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Good post! Hopefully stuff like this will piss off inspire undecided Americans to learn more about the actual science behind climate change. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that even actual (non-climate) scientists have trouble with it, I worry that climate science may not pass smoothly with people who have difficulty with the fact that the planet goes around the sun. The truth is, there is nothing simple about it: the temperature fluctuates all the time due to complex interactions between everything (sun, atmosphere, ocean, forests), and evidence that it is man-made requires understanding of greenhouse effect and carbon isotopes. It is very disconcerting that there is such a "controversy", especially from scientists who should know better, and not just in the US. Many "denier" arguments actually make sense (or feel like they do) until they are "debunked", and the answers are not always simple. It is depressing to try to read any technical discussion and become lost after the first few sentences. When that happens, a normal person has no choice but to rely on meta-arguments, like how trustworthy the source is. And at this stage, things become "argument from authority" or "climate science is pseudoscience". In my view, this is hopeless. People should trust scientists, and non-climate scientists should stop trying to erode public trust.
Now for the good news: the Yale opinion maps show that "Most Americans ... understand the world is warming" and "Vast majorities ... support renewable energy research and development spending", that last part being particularly important. Still, now may be a good time to predict and invest in future arctic beachfront properties... --Cmonk (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This is fast becoming a hot media topic again[edit]

And as such, we ought to pull together and try to bring this article to Gold quality sooner rather than later. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is an important topic. I like the idea of having different levels of difficulty (like they do at skeptical science): beginner, intermediate, expert. Expert may be pushing it a bit, but I think a beginner section would benefit people less comfortable with the scientific jargon. I wrote an essay to illustrate my opinion. I would like to shift the debate toward the solutions and away from the science, but I can't tell how this will turn out because the solutions are going to be both technological and political. --Cmonk (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Definitely, the importance of this cannot be understated, especially we live with an administration that's hostile to this stuff all under the guise of "clean coal" and "our poor coal workers". Anyhow, we still need to find sources that provide good arguments for the working class, why they should be part of this effort and why they should care. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Good post! Also, regarding the need to rally the working class (rather than alienate them), don't miss this. It makes a number of fair points which we need to consider, also (in my humble opinion). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
What I get from that article is that if we are going to have a political content, it should be as inclusive as possible. Based on that idea, I suggest option B below. --Cmonk (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Being opposed to climate change laws because of "our poor coal workers" is a not a good argument.
  • Let's be honest, it doesn't take brains to be a coal worker. Are there seriously coal workers that have nowhere else to work because coal mining is all they're good at? Even an idiot can coal mine, you just need to have the grit for it. If coal mining is not in demand, find a different profession.
  • There are plenty of jobs in America, despite what many Americans may think. The issue is much more complicated according to Bloomberg.
  • Loosening climate laws to help coal miners is a simple red herring. Numerous other options exist to help boost the job market, however, given Trump's previous claims about climate change, it's not to far out to claim he produced the executive order out of his own personal interest. Trump is a business owner after all, he will benefit from the order.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Option A[edit]

Infinite growth of the current article. --Cmonk (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Option B[edit]

Global warming
     Main arguments explaining clearly but succinctly why AGW is scientific fact,
     why it is a problem, why there is controversy, what can be done
      Greenhouse effect
      Carbon cycle
       Predictions presented objectively + viewed with different biases
       Details (current content) moved to separate article Global warming controversy
       Summary of scientific debate: legitimate vs illegitimate
       Summary of conflicts of interest
       Summary of political issues
   Solutions presented with pros and cons from various ideological points of view
    Reducing CO2 emissions
    Stopping CO2 emissions
    Scrubbing atmospheric CO2
    Extreme solutions

The 2 main points of this plan are: (a) separation of global warming reality and controversy, (b) presentation of predictions and solutions objectively but also with various explicit biases.

The goal of the explicit biases is to make sure that when somebody reads the item, they can quickly find how it relates to their ideology and where "the other side" stands. For instance, this could be a table where each column changes the point of view from left to right (or just a simple list if it is not readable). --Cmonk (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In the spirit of including more of the political aspect, I think it is important to mention the difficulty of trying to bring countries together to carry out any of these solutions on a large enough scale. The countries all have their own interests and stages of development. For example, one of the main hurdles talked about in Copenhagen, namely first world countries wanting everyone to contribute equally to reducing carbon emissions while developing countries want to argue that they haven't had a chance to develop as much as aforementioned first world countries and should not bear any or as much responsibility to reduce carbon emissions. This largely meant that the countries had great difficulty agreeing on any actions and much was proposed but only little has come out of that. (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method[edit]

(action starts around 0:14:30)

I am sure there will be plenty of bashing and "debunking" in the days to come, and the BS needs to be countered, but I feel like we should try to focus on what we can learn from this.

For me this "hearing" by the US House Committee on Science(?), Space and TechnologyWikipedia is another example of what is wrong with the public discussion about climate science: normal people simply can't judge or argue for or against cutting-edge science. When we say that science is self-correcting (through peer review and replication), we easily miss the fact that self-correction is the only scientifically valid correction. If this mechanism fails, it's game over: public opinion and political oversight will never fix it.

The video above is version 2. Missing from version 1 (damaged file) is the reason why Republican Congressman Clay Higgins asked a confused Michael Mann about his affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute. Maybe Mann didn't know he was listed as an advisor there, but now specialized websites have more material for their conspiracy theories. Just more work for the rest of us I guess. And Mann only made it worse later by playing the personal attack game. Slap.gif

There was a good point about the word "denier", but I don't know if this is relevant here, given RW's style. I use the word myself out of habit, but it is pejorative, like being called "warmist" or "alarmist", and I can see how this would make people defensive and uncooperative. But "skeptic" feels wrong somehow; is "contrarian" ok?

At least there was agreement among the scientists about the planet warming, and controversial expert Roger Pielke Jr.Wikipedia provided a helpful comment: "Scientific uncertainty is not going to be eliminated on this topic before we have to act".

Overall though, Democratic Congressman Bill Foster was right: "a very strange mixture of science and... not". --Cmonk (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Contrarian sounds better than "skeptic" because "skeptic" isn't quite correct. In case "contrarian" devolves into a snarl word, I guess we'll find others like "AGW uncomfortablist" or "AGW Doubtfuls". Of course, for an honest argument, just don't pigeonhole and make assumptions from the get-go. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your last point, I am assuming you are referring to Mann's affiliation with CAI. Honestly, I don't know the truth here. Maybe he was indeed trying to hide his affiliation. He did admit that he knew the people involved, and I don't really see the point in trying to hide publicly available information. I am still waiting for some kind of official explanation, and feel a bit frustrated by other websites that ignore the issue (Gizmodo link above, arstechnica (including comments)), perhaps because version 1 of the video didn't include the "evidence" part (it looks like Mann is being treated unfairly unless one sees him on CAI's website, which his detractors didn't miss). --Cmonk (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A meeting of the dulled minds[edit]

Of all the people in the world, Stefan Molyneux and Christopher Monckton join forces to prop up climate change denialism. What more could you ask for? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I ask for a decent, rational, well-researched response with just the right amount of subtle snark:
--Cmonk (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hah! It was actually via the above Potholer54 video that I found the initial crank vid! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Cherlin's edits[edit]

This section refers to this edit.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Have been undone. But they actually read nicely to my scientific-minded brain (details, observed/not observed). The problem is that I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to crosscheck them, especially the more extreme ones (+200 mm in the last century, wut? Maldives would already be underwater at this rate, if I'm not mistaken), so I understand the precautionnary undo in case of parodist. Can anyone more knowledgeable help (or User:Cherlin himself give us refs) ?--dx (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The loudest alarm bell was the Bell bit. :) See wp:Svante Arrhenius. In all cases, a lot of the rest was clumsy.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Most of it checks out. Bell did "predict" it in one sense, but not in a way that's really suitable for a lede. Thermal expansion definitely is the primary cause of sea level increases. Ocean acidification is also a bigger factor than most expect, not least because it kills off corals but because it actually affects the salinity gradients that drive thermal currents in the oceans. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 10:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
So I'd recommend keeping that edit with the usual bit of cleaning. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 10:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with Cherlin's contribution, but it's very clear this article is of exceedingly low quality, it contains repeated and selective use of pejoritives, contains strawman arguments, and dismisses serious topics as continuing "snarl terms" or similar. How is it possible that a discussion of "Global warming" is primarily about bashing skeptics, often with fallacious counter-arguments ? This low quality reflects very badly on the site. There good evidence for the GHG increases as documented, and good correlation with human activity, and excellent evidence that these cause warming as a first order effect. THe extent of that warming and the precise relation to GHG levels however is an estimate based on precisely ONE dataset. Anyone who fails to understand why, therefore, projections of temperature, sea level, etc are unreliable is delusional or invested in a belief system other than science. (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Astronomical cycles[edit]

Trying to keep up with the climate change controversy is quite frustrating. The contrarian website Principia Scientific's recently posted a link to NoTricksZone. A while ago, NoTricksZone already posted a compilation of 285 papers allegedly showing an "imminent global cooling" consensus in the 1970s, with a mixture of non-peer-reviewed journals, obvious quote-mining, and even papers that actually contradict the claim, so I didn't spend too much time on it. The new list of "skeptic papers" is more difficult to deal with. Some papers from Chinese researchers study sun-related local variations, but don't actually reject global warming. Some are from dubious journals (like EAE). A recent meta-analysis showed the absence of publication bias in climate science, which implies that reasonable articles challenging the consensus are regularly published. If there are flaws in these papers, they are likely beyond my ability to detect.

But there is a category of papers that really puzzle me, because I can't tell whether they are about astrology or science. Recently, I came across the Cycles of History website and thought this was just an oddity. It turns out some people take the idea of astronomical cycles very seriously. For instance, someone named Nicola Scafetta wrote a paper titled The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system. The idea is that "the bodies of the solar system interact with each other gravitationally and electromagnetically, and their orbits and rotations are periodic oscillators" and "The general conclusion is that the solar system works as a resonator characterized by a specific harmonic planetary structure that synchronizes also the Sun’s activity and the Earth’s climate". With the same reasoning, another study by Harald Yndestad concludes "the major TSI variability and sunspot variability are controlled by the 12-year Jupiter period and the 84-year Uranus period." Scafetta published in some open access journal (those are notorious for their "pay to publish" economic model) but Yndestad published in New Astronomy, which looks decent to me. I tried to read the paper itself, but wasn't sure what to think about their "autocorrelation transformation of the wavelet spectrum".

How reliable are these studies? Are those astronomical cycles scientifically valid? --Cmonk (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


I defy anyone to mention on the main page that climate-related deaths peaked in the 1920's, have been decreasing ever since, and are currently about 93-98% lower than they were at their peak. Then count the seconds until such information is removed due to unpopularity and cognitive dissonance. So I'll attempt to reference it here, as there seems to be more of a stigma of silencing talk on the talk page compared to silencing dissent on the main page. Does climate safety (as actually measured--not speculated by people with track records decades of uniformly wrong predictions) matter? If it doesn't, why not?

"Proponents of drastic greenhouse gas controls claim that human greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, which then exacerbates the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including extreme heat, droughts, floods, and storms such as hurricanes and cyclones. In fact, even though reporting of such events is more complete than in the past, morbidity and mortality attributed to them has declined globally by 93%–98% since the 1920s. Depending on the category of extreme weather event, average annual mortality is 59%–81% lower than at its peak, while mortality rates declined 72%–94%, despite large increases in the population at risk. These improvements reflect a remarkable improvement in society’s adaptive capacity, likely due to greater wealth and better technology enabled in part by use of hydrocarbon fuels." — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Oi, Galileo! On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill Nye CNN Debate[edit]

Seeing this article just reminded me about the time that Bill Nye got angry over the time CNN put him against a climate change denialist. (Keeping in mind that Nye is no scientist technically) --Řïmũŗû ŢèmpéŝţRimuru Slime.png 18:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You're not a climate change denialist are you? Christopher (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
They unironically call CNN fake news and read Glenn Beck's The Blaze. Prognosis, poor. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I could care less about either side, I just remember this being big news a while back. Was looking at the recent changes and when I saw Global Warming I remembered this. I just let both side fight till they tire. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Ultimate SlimeRimuru Slime.png 00:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
As for the reason I mention why Nye is no real scientist it's because I met so many people who had no idea he wasn't one. I guess too many people mistook the fact he is called "The Science Guy" for scientist. Don't ask me why, cause I don't know.--リムルテンペストRimuru Slime.png 00:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
"Couldn't care less about either side" + "I just let both side fight till they tire" = "there is legitimate controversy over whether climate change is real and it isn't that important anyway". Prognosis considerably worsened. Christopher (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Handy Q&A on climate change[edit]

Most recently updated in July 2017! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Climate Getting Worse[edit]

No matter how you look at it the weather is getting worse, even if you look at it from a biblical point of view you would see that it says the weather would get worse. I don't think the issue is solidly us using gas consuming vehicles but also because all the oil they burn at the rigs just to increase the price of gas. Also, if you look at it from an evolutionary aspect it is just returning to how the earth would have been. --Anonymous4thelolz (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

From a scientific perspective, it's much harder to define. It's getting warmer, but "worse" is an ill defined term. It depends where you live and how you define "worse." (talk)

Oil companies: it's real and it's us[edit]

Irony meter overload. (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

sorry humanity, it's my fault that i bought into the oil-funded myth that artificial global warming is fake БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hothouse Earth[edit]

Should this be mentioned here? — Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs 23:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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 14:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"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 17:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wind turbines and "landscape-change denial" ought to be mentioned here[edit]

Another form of denial is when quasi-environmentalists pretend that giant industrial wind turbines A) aren't noisy and ruinous to scenery, B) aren't killing large numbers of birds and especially bats, C) have no intrinsic dependence on fossil fuels for their existence, and D) actually deliver their rated power output (when you see so many of them not spinning it's a clue; typical output is lucky to reach 40%).

Wind industry defenders use the tired canard that one must love coal or be a global warming denier if they hate to see vast stretches of scenery becoming industrial parks. This is what wind turbines are doing to the world's landscapes: (not quaint, tiny machines with happy cows grazing underneath)

The wind industry is a major subsidy scheme, often hiring the same logging, trucking and rigging crews that would work on fracking sites. Business-as-usual gets mistaken for green progress out of naivety and desperation. Few people will admit that the scale of fossil fuels cannot simply be replaced, and we must downsize the economy to be sustainable. — Unsigned, by: / talk 06:46, 30 January 2018

No. Stop spreading that shit blog around. See Talk:Anti-environmentalism. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Serious argument?[edit]

"Anyone who, even after the occurrence of extreme weather events that seem to intensify yearly ... is a lost cause. " Extreme weather events that SEEM to intesify yearly? Good job on the anecdotal proof. Rational. Very rational. (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
Also, that's not how "proof" is used, and you completely miss the point by being pedantic with the "seem" word choice. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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 07:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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. — Unsigned, by: / talk 14:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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 02:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

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 12:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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 00:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

History and the Industrial Revolution[edit]

That the earth is currently warming is undeniable. However, rebutting the opposite idea needs to be done completely correctly, and talk of this being down to the industrial revolution puts a hole in the argument. Unfortunately, what we know isn't as much as we think we do and as soon as you argue from speculation the opposition will say "Aha - but you don't know that", and they will be correct.

What we do know is that in places where records have been made, temperatures have been slowly rising. However, there were no thermometers until 300 years ago, and accurate records outside Europe weren't made until considerably later. We also have historical records pointing to much colder winters, evidenced by rivers freezing over. Mostly in Europe. For example, the Thames in London froze fairly regularly up until the end of the 18th Century and that takes some doing. We assume that what happened in Europe happened across the globe as there's nothing to suggest it didn't. We also have ancient maps, particularity Roman ones, showing detailed coastline. The Romans were pretty good surveyors and if they say the sea level was a lot higher as little as 2000 years ago they're probably right. The planet has cooled down and is now warming up again.

However, the idea that the industrial revolution caused this to start simply doesn't fit with the dates. Saying the rise in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is responsible, and that adding to them is just plain stupid in the circumstances, fits the facts. Other factors are more debatable, and used by the pro-fossil lobby to continue the debate. Neither does the "everyone agrees" gambit. Everyone agreed the sun orbited the earth. — Unsigned, by: Fjl london / talk / contribs

The article does, in fact address, some of these issues already. We have proxies for thermometers in things like tree rings and ice cores. I couldn't find anything authoritative on Roman sea levels being higher, but this New Scientist article has Roman level 1.3 meters below today's levels. If you can point out where exactly you think the article in wrong and where that would be good.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


I endorse an upgrade. Thoughts? Corns (pester) 19:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Bongolian (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Ditto. Christopher (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, I asked earlier. Such a hot-button issue like this, it was surprising to me to see a relatively good article as just bronze. It's very, very short of gold, however, as there's a lot of things that needs to be touched on for climate change denialism. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
2 years ago, just noticed. Heh, sorry I didn't ping you in, but 4 votes in 2-ish years, no one objected so :P. You can have the honors. Corns (pester) 20:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I'd form a list about the major things this article is missing. I did recall there's a lot to uncover regarding denialism. But I also think the article should get an update to relevant events and should touch upon the eco-fascists that don't deny the issues but their solutions involve killing out the poor or otherwise "undesirable races". Remember, some of the terrorist attacks a few years ago were fueled by this. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, as more evidence that it's happening come out, denialists have to change their tactics. Plutocow (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we should take the Youtube videos out and just link them as a regular reference but beyond that I think silver is a good idea. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


DeforestationWikipedia is not mentioned once in our article. This seems odd given it is a major contributor to global warming. Also odd that we mention how we could harness the benefits of reforestation while neglecting that it's currently trending significantly in the opposite direction. Something to do. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)