Talk:Climate change

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the [show] for references at the bottom of the FAQ.

Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change?

A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by over 99% of publishing climate scientists.^[1]

Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place?

A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)."^[2]

Q3: Can't the increase of CO₂ be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans?

A3: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics,^[3]^[4] including academically trained ones,^[5]^[6] they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives:

Current human emissions of CO₂ are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO₂ levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions.^[7] This is easily seen in a graph of CO₂ concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend.
Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels.^[8]
Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.^[9]
If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or in other words, less basic).^[10]

Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?

A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum.

Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated?

A5: Two reasons:

There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like the Global Warming Map, are static, meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly.
However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get", meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations.^[11] Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import.

Q6: Isn't climate change "just a theory"?

A6: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess, but a scientific theory, roughly speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO₂ and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven, but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense), but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess.

Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO₂?

A7: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO₂ (hundreds to thousands of years), so when methane emissions are reduced the concentration in the atmosphere soon falls, whereas CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles.

Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled?

A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change.^[1] This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change.

Q9: Did climate change end in 1998?

A9: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998.^[12] More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out;^[2] thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend.

Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement?

A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name."^[13] Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD.

While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice sheet, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference:

A map of the Eastern Settlement
A satellite image of that area today
A map of the Western Settlement
A satellite image of that area today
A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located

Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists?

A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and it has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties.

Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years?

A12: Measurements show that it has not.^[14] Claims that global sea ice amounts have stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice amounts.

Arctic sea ice cover is declining strongly; Antarctic sea ice cover has had some much smaller increases, though it may or may not be thinning, and the Southern Ocean is warming. The net global ice-cover trend is clearly downwards.

Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming?

A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming.^[15] The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, such as a short nine-paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975.^[16] (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.)^[17] The author of that article has repudiated the idea that it should be used to deny global warming.^[18]

Q14: Doesn't water vapour cause 98% of the greenhouse effect?

A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO₂ or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms, any excess water vapour is removed by rainfall, and any deficit of water vapour is replenished by evaporation from the Earth's surface, which literally has oceans of water. Thus water vapour cannot act as a driver of climate change.

Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will however allow the atmosphere to hold more vapour. This will lead to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, whereas water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends.

Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)?

A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming.

A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars.^[19] Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "'His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,' said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. [...] Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that 'the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.'"^[20]
There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change.^[21]^[22] This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices.^[23]^[24]
Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates.^[25] Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit – it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Wikipedia's own article.

Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money?

A16: No,

Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses.
Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming.
- Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data.^[26]^[27] Scientists could get paid to study climate even if global warming did not exist.

Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity?

A17: It does, but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction.

Q18: Should we include the view that climate change will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe?

A18: This page is about the science of climate change. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying.

Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) important?

A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world, which include most large cities.

Earth's climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e. the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the higher absolute temperature but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate and the related effects on human societies. The IPCC AR6 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change.

Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is/was Scibaby?

A20: Scibaby is/was a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,027 confirmed sock puppets, another 167 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them.

Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer-reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...?

A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:IINFO) of the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Q22: Why does the article define "climate change" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before?

A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "climate change" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. The article Climate variability and change deals with the more general concept.

Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that climate change is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays?

A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment:^[28]

Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:

Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation,
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN),
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining.

Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it [the experiment] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."^[29]

Q24: I read that something can't fix climate change. Is this true?

A24: Yes, this is true for all plausible single things including: "electric cars", "planting trees", "low-carbon technology", "renewable energy", "Australia", "capitalism", "the doom & gloom approach", "a Ph.D. in thermodynamics". Note that it is problematic to use the word "fix" regarding climate change, as returning the climate to its pre-industrial state currently appears to be feasible only over a timeframe of thousands of years. Current efforts are instead aimed at mitigating (meaning limiting) climate change. Mitigation is strived for through the combination of many different things. See Climate change mitigation for details.

References

1 2 Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
1 2 "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
↑ Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help)
↑ Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
↑ Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.
↑ Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
↑ Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
↑ "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007.
↑ Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.
↑ The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.
↑ "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
↑ Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
↑ The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.
↑ "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.^{[dead link]}
↑ Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.
↑ Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.
↑ Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.
↑ Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org.
↑ Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
↑ Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
↑ Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
↑ Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
↑ Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
↑ Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
↑ Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
↑ Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes.
↑ Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN.
↑ "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011.
↑ Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

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

Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006, and on October 31, 2021.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 28, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
May 17, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 4, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
March 26, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2021	Featured article review	Kept
News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 5, 2004, and October 11, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

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

Antarctica High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arctic High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Top‑importance

	Climate change portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Top‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Effective Altruism (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism

Geography Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Globalization High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sanitation Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science High‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Climate Top‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spoken articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service.
Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Wikipedia". The Denver Post.
"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013.
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (August 15, 2015). "On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage". Science Daily.
"The guardians of Wikipedia's climate page: An intensely devoted core keeps a bastion of climate science honest". Mashable. November 11, 2020.
"Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Wikipedia". BBC. November 18, 2021.
Marco Silva (December 24, 2021). "Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia". BBC.
Olivia Steiert (September 9, 2024). "Declaring crisis? Temporal constructions of climate change on Wikipedia". Public Understanding of Science. {{cite news}}: Wikipedia Library link in |url= (help)
Margaret Talbot (March 4, 2025). "Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 4, 2025.
Josh Dzieza (4 September 2025). "Wikipedia is resilient because it is boring". The Verge. Retrieved 5 September 2025.
Jay Peters (28 October 2025). "Elon Musk's Grokipedia contains copied Wikipedia pages". The Verge. Retrieved 28 October 2025.

Other talk page banners

This page has agreed on a consistent citation style. Please follow those standards when adding sources. Ask on the talk page if you need help or have questions.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.

Move logs: Global warming
Climate change

Discussions

RM, Global warming → Climate change, Not moved, 11 June 2018, discussion
RM, Global warming → Climate change, Moved, 21 August 2020, discussion

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007 and 2008.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "a great primer on the subject", "Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen", pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy.", wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. Please examine the findings.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

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

Section sizes

Section size for Climate change (49 sections)
Section name	Byte count		Prose size (words)
Section name	Header	Total	Header	Total
(Top)	16,929	16,929	500	500
Terminology	4,376	4,376	196	196
Global temperature rise	70	24,134	0	984
Temperatures prior to present-day global warming	2,663	2,663	181	181
Warming since the Industrial Revolution	9,105	15,324	367	600
Differences by region	6,219	6,219	233	233
Future global temperatures	6,077	6,077	203	203
Causes of recent global temperature rise	2,585	31,497	182	1,599
Greenhouse gases	9,617	9,617	241	241
Land surface changes	3,783	3,783	297	297
Other factors	22	15,512	0	879
Aerosols and clouds	4,974	4,974	263	263
Solar and volcanic activity	4,148	4,148	232	232
Climate change feedbacks	6,368	6,368	384	384
Modelling	3,985	3,985	304	304
Impacts	1,246	30,810	37	1,642
Environmental effects	4,517	4,517	307	307
Tipping points and long-term impacts	5,918	5,918	304	304
Nature and wildlife	7,043	7,043	273	273
Humans	1,903	12,086	73	721
Health and food	3,469	3,469	263	263
Economics, livelihoods and inequality	3,748	3,748	248	248
Climate migration	2,966	2,966	137	137
Reducing and recapturing emissions	4,779	21,646	398	1,506
Clean energy	8,827	8,827	445	445
Energy conservation	1,720	1,720	168	168
Agriculture and industry	3,491	3,491	268	268
Carbon dioxide removal	2,829	2,829	227	227
Adaptation	7,542	7,542	424	424
Policies and politics	2,537	19,081	175	1,241
Policy options	2,972	4,809	190	335
Climate justice	1,837	1,837	145	145
International climate agreements	8,160	8,160	505	505
National responses	3,575	3,575	226	226
Society and culture	26	10,819	0	686
Denial and misinformation	2,528	2,528	229	229
Public awareness and opinion	5,386	8,265	276	457
Climate movement	2,879	2,879	181	181
History	61	15,690	0	703
Early discoveries	6,466	6,466	211	211
Development of a scientific consensus	5,319	5,319	329	329
Recent developments	3,844	3,844	163	163
References	35	105,416	0	4
Sources	16	105,381	0	4
IPCC reports	5,383	5,383	4	4
Other peer-reviewed sources	47,394	47,394	0	0
Books, reports and legal documents	28,719	28,719	0	0
Non-technical sources	23,869	23,869	0	0
External links	1,297	1,297	0	0
Total	293,222	293,222	9,789	9,789

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

/Terminology section /General discussion

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 2.

RCP 8.5 etc

Latest comment: 1 month ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Much of the futurology in this article relies on studies that use the offiicially no longer credible (not that it ever was) RCP 8.5. Therefore the statements should be modified to pick another scenario. Greglocock (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article mentions neither "futurology" nor "8.5", and it didn't when you wrote that comment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The futurology section refers to 3.3-5.7, which is in table SPM 1 and is driven by SSP-8.5. Greglocock (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

We should not omit mention of a high-emission scenario. The text now is not neutral as with only optimistic and middle-of-the-road scenarios. The RCP8.5 scenario is still useful as a worst-case scenario (e.g. strong carbon feedbacks), even if the underlying emissions scenario is now considered implausible. If we want to be up-to-date, we can cite https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/2627/2026/, and show these new temperature predictions, which combine lower emissions with more modern estimates of climate sensitivity. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 14:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hang on, if they have decided that 8.5 is not plausible then on what grounds do you include it, you might as well have 18.5 or -5, which are implausible as well. What degree of implausibility do you want this article to encompass? How do you establish that limit? Or do we put a note in by each 8.5 scenario that it is an implausible extreme case? What is the real point of including an implausible extreme case? It doesn't half smell of POV pushing. Greglocock (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

First of all, we include scenarios because overview sources include it. They include the two implausible scenarios (very optimistic, very pessimistic). Why do we include the optimistic scenario but not the pessimistic? I imagine overview sources do this because you want to know what your risks are. It's certainly a possibility to carbon feedbacks are large, and that countries decide on very uneconomic pathways of coal dependence for ideological reasons. Just like with your house insurance against fire, on a global scale people plan for these kinds of scenarios. I don't see any route towards -5 or 18.5. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Greglocock can you point to a specific statement that you think needs updating? I could do with an example to think through. DecFinney (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is the debated diff: In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 15:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The sixth assessment report included the RCP 8.5 scenario. Removing that from the Wikipedia description of the report is malpractice. Also note: in the current text the high emissions scenario is referred to in the very next sentence. But that scenario has been deleted.

If future reports have different high emissions scenarios, they will be correctly described in Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

No it isn't malpractice 8.5 has been labelled as implausible . https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/11/climate-crisis-science-emissions-good-news-corp-misrepresentation a source that I assume is acceptable to the hive mind. Nowhere is it assumed that IPCC reports are the only source of climate information, hence if the science changes between IPCC reports then keeping the article up to date is the right thing to do. Greglocock (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Femke were you going to add a link to an edit? im not sure what this comment means otherwise. DecFinney (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's the part of the article Greg objects to and the removal. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nuclear is not a sustainable, safe, or viable, energy source

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Ref. last paragraph (with citation number 28). It should be edited out. ~2026-43989-85 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The last paragraph doesn't contain citation #28. Where did you get the idea of Nuclear being unsafe / unsustainable from? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe they're referring to These energy sources include wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power, which does indeed cite ref 28. Removing the mention would of course be an inappropriate NPOV violation. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The sentence doesn't state that nuclear is sustainable. It simply states nuclear produces low levels of CO2, which is true. Its safety and economic viability are different discussions. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 11:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

New Holocene Temperature Chart -- Feedback wanted

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I have started a thread on WikiProject Climate Change, which I am linking too here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change#Rebuilt Holocene Temperature Variations figure, feedback wanted This is a modern update of the Holocene temperature proxy chart that you see in the article, for example, of Holocene climatic optimum (among several others). Scroll to the bottom for the most recent versions. Feedback wanted, appreciated if you can keep it to the other (linked) thread. Dawei20 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Causes of Climate Change

Latest comment: 30 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I wish to raise several points that, to my knowledge, have not been refuted with physics-based arguments. These relate to radiative processes, atmospheric temperature gradients, and the interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in climate modelling.

1. Prof. Claes Johnson (KTH, Sweden), recently recognised as a leading scientist in his field, demonstrated that radiation below a material’s cut‑off frequency is not thermalised. His analysis (see p. 24 of Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation) is consistent with simple empirical demonstrations, such as the differing microwave response of two identical ceramic mugs, one containing water and one empty.

2. Josef Loschmidt correctly described in the 1870's how a temperature gradient forms in a gravitational field at the molecular level. This is observable in vortex cooling tubes and in natural environments such as the Grand Canyon, where the base is consistently warmer than the rim and the gradient tracks rim temperature. The same principle appears in all planetary tropospheres and even below solid surfaces. The gradient follows directly from maximum entropy production under the Second Law.

3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (as summarised in the Wikipedia article Laws of Thermodynamics) applies to individual natural processes or sets of interacting processes. Each one‑way radiative transfer must be treated independently. It is therefore not valid to assume that “back radiation” from a colder atmosphere increases the kinetic energy of a warmer surface simply because the surface may be losing energy elsewhere (evaporation, convection, radiation). Those processes are not interacting with the incoming low‑frequency photons. When such photons strike a warmer surface, they do not thermalise; they raise electrons to higher quantum states and the electrons then return to the ground state, emitting similar photons. This pseudo‑scattering process is energy‑neutral with respect to thermalisation, analogous to reflection.

4. Jeong & Park (2022), Scientific Reports (Nature), performed a direct experimental test of the temperature gradient predicted by Loschmidt’s gravito‑thermal effect. Their peer‑reviewed results support the conclusion that gravity redistributes molecular kinetic energy to form the observed tropospheric gradient. This does not require solar heating of a surface nor the conventional “warm surface → rising air → lapse rate” mechanism. A relevant example is Uranus: the base of its troposphere is ~320 K, hotter than Earth’s surface, despite the absence of a solid surface, the absence of solar radiation at that depth (≈350 km below the cloud tops), and no evidence of internal cooling at a rate sufficient to maintain such temperatures. Yet the gradient matches the same physical relationship used for Earth, Venus, and other planets: gravitational acceleration divided by the weighted mean specific heat of the atmospheric gases.

5. Several authors have reported correlations between variations in cosmic‑ray intensity and low cloud cover, including: Svensmark & Friis‑Christensen (1997) Palle Bago & Butler (2000) Erlykin, Gyalai, Kudela, Sloan & Wolfendale (2009) Sloan & Wolfendale (2008)

These studies examined satellite cloud data (ISCCP) and neutron‑monitor cosmic‑ray records. While interpretations differ, the correlations themselves were reported in multiple peer‑reviewed papers. The key point relevant here is simply that variations in cosmic‑ray intensity — for whatever reason — have been observed to correlate with changes in low cloud cover in several published analyses. ~2026-44211-15 (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

English, please. Don't write with LLMs and Wikipedia articles don't publish original researches. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 08:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please explain what changes to this article you propose based on https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360213911_Temperature_gradient_of_vertical_air_column_in_gravitational_field . All the other sources you mention are before the cutoff date of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report so if significant would have been considered when preparing that report Chidgk1 (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Add CMIP7 emissions scenarios to modelling section?

Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perhaps somewhat related to the RCP 8.5 discussion above, how about we add a couple of sentences about CMIP7 emissions scenarios cited for example to https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-cmip7-emissions-scenarios-and-how-they-explore-future-climate-change with a wiki link to a more detailed article?

Chidgk1 (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Could we still be missing feedback processes?

Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To make room for new info suggested above I am thinking of shortening:

The 2017 United States-published National Climate Assessment notes that "climate models may still be underestimating or missing relevant feedback processes".^[1]

to

Climate modelling of some feedback processes is poor.^[2]

But that would cut out the "unknown unknowns". I suppose by now any "unknown unknowns" are likely to be small so not worth mentioning?

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

References

↑ USGCRP Chapter 15 2017.
↑ USGCRP Chapter 15 2017.

UK response

Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know creating a committee is less exciting than declaring an emergency, but in the long term it might be more effective - if next UK govt does not repeal 2008 Climate Change Act (which seems very difficult according to text at end of Carbon Brief cite below).

How about changing:

In 2019, the United Kingdom parliament became the first national government to declare a climate emergency. Other countries and jurisdictions followed suit. That same year .....

to something like

The United Kingdom created a powerful independent advisory committee to try to prevent short-term political change affecting long-term decarbonisation progress. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-the-climate-change-act-does-and-does-not-mean-for-the-uk In 2019 .....

Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

[Powell2019-1] 1 2 Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.

[WMO-FAQS-2] 1 2 "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.

[3] Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help)

[4] Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[5] Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[6] Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[7] Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[8] "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007.

[9] Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.

[10] The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.

[11] "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.

[12] Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017.

[13] The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.

[14] "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.^{[dead link]}

[15] Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.

[16] Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.

[17] Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.

[18] Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org.

[19] Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.

[20] Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.

[21] Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[22] Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[23] Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[24] Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[25] Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[26] Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes.

[27] Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN.

[28] "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011.

[29] Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

[30] USGCRP Chapter 15 2017.

[31] USGCRP Chapter 15 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[1]

[2]

This page was redesigned at the edge.

A page that knows where it met you.

Talk:Climate change

RCP 8.5 etc

Nuclear is not a sustainable, safe, or viable, energy source

New Holocene Temperature Chart -- Feedback wanted

Causes of Climate Change

Add CMIP7 emissions scenarios to modelling section?

Could we still be missing feedback processes?

UK response