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] See also: Scientific consensus on climate change Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place? A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)."[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. See also: Clathrate gun hypothesis and Arctic methane release Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled? A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change.[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. See also: Arctic sea ice decline See also: Antarctic sea ice § Recent trends and climate change Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming? A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming.[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. See also: Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)? A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming. A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars.[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. See also: Climate of Mars and Extraterrestrial atmosphere Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money? A16: No, Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses. Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work. There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming. Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data.[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 ^ a b 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. ^ a b "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 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 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 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on 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.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Geography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on 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 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 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 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 articles that are spoken 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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to climate change, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Other talk page banners

This page has agreed on a consistent citation style. Please follow those standards when adding sources. Ask on the talk page if you need help or have questions. This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Global warming Climate change Discussions: RM, Global warming → Climate change, Not moved, 11 June 2018, discussion RM, Global warming → Climate change, Moved, 21 August 2020, discussion This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007 and 2008. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened: October 27 to November 2, 2013 November 3 to 9, 2013 November 10 to 16, 2013 November 17 to 23, 2013 April 16 to 22, 2023 This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. Comments: "a great primer on the subject", "Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen", pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy.", wishes 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) Header Total Header Total (Top) 15,821 15,821 504 504 Terminology 3,650 3,650 175 175 Global temperature rise 70 26,072 0 983 Temperatures prior to present-day global warming 2,663 2,663 181 181 Warming since the Industrial Revolution 10,933 17,211 366 599 Differences by region 6,278 6,278 233 233 Future global temperatures 6,128 6,128 203 203 Causes of recent global temperature rise 2,597 30,368 182 1,586 Greenhouse gases 8,352 8,352 242 242 Land surface changes 3,677 3,677 288 288 Other factors 22 15,742 0 874 Aerosols and clouds 4,570 4,570 258 258 Solar and volcanic activity 5,028 5,028 232 232 Climate change feedbacks 6,122 6,122 384 384 Modelling 4,009 4,009 304 304 Impacts 1,246 29,848 37 1,592 Environmental effects 4,586 4,586 307 307 Tipping points and long-term impacts 6,094 6,094 303 303 Nature and wildlife 7,178 7,178 273 273 Humans 1,903 10,744 73 672 Health and food 2,900 2,900 242 242 Livelihoods and inequality 2,975 2,975 220 220 Climate migration 2,966 2,966 137 137 Reducing and recapturing emissions 4,784 20,994 398 1,506 Clean energy 8,136 8,136 445 445 Energy conservation 1,719 1,719 168 168 Agriculture and industry 3,483 3,483 268 268 Carbon dioxide removal 2,872 2,872 227 227 Adaptation 7,800 7,800 424 424 Policies and politics 2,422 17,077 200 1,226 Policy options 2,447 4,490 158 303 Climate justice 2,043 2,043 145 145 International climate agreements 6,795 6,795 505 505 National responses 3,370 3,370 218 218 Society and culture 26 11,025 0 688 Denial and misinformation 2,528 2,528 229 229 Public awareness and opinion 5,585 8,471 276 459 Climate movement 2,886 2,886 183 183 History 61 16,839 0 703 Early discoveries 6,679 6,679 211 211 Development of a scientific consensus 6,211 6,211 329 329 Recent developments 3,888 3,888 163 163 References 35 109,521 0 4 Sources 366 109,486 0 4 IPCC reports 5,383 5,383 4 4 Other peer-reviewed sources 49,410 49,410 0 0 Books, reports and legal documents 30,447 30,447 0 0 Non-technical sources 23,880 23,880 0 0 External links 1,297 1,297 0 0 Total 294,321 294,321 9,695 9,695

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 Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 8.

I have not yet been able to come up with a good sentence about how to keep well below 2 degrees of warming - perhaps you have an idea?

In order to put the link to net zero back in the lead how about adding:

Most countries aim to stop emitting carbon dioxide.^[1]

As you know there are almost exactly 200 countries in the world and routine calculations are not original research. Although the USA may have dropped out that still leaves "most countries" and we can change the cite to the 2025 gap report when it comes out. And/or cite the more recent https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx238yyr40qo which says about 140 or https://zerotracker.net which says 142 nations. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogazicili Are you saying that halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would limit warming to well under 2 degrees or if not what are you suggesting? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting anything concrete.

But I think the article should say what needs to happen to stay "well below 2 degrees". To stay "well below 2 degrees", what needs to happen by what date?

But I haven't checked tertiary sources if it is due in the lead. I haven't also checked what the recent sources say.

So my suggestion is only a rough preliminary suggestion Bogazicili (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to say, looking at the previous wording, Limiting warming to 1.5 °C would require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, this doesn't do a good enough job explaining uncertainities.

As far as I understand, these were based on modelling and the results were in something like 70% probability range?

Future versions of this need to do a better job at paraphrasing the source. Bogazicili (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogazicili The body of the article seems to say that global net-zero by 2070 could limit to under 2 °C,^[2] but that is based on a 2018 source. As far as I know global net zero by 2070 is still feasible as that is India’s target but I have not yet found a recent (ideally 2025 to take into account US withdrawal from Paris Agreement) source explaining how we keep under 2 - perhaps it would depend on how much was emitted before 2070 and when. I understand UNFCCC will publish an NDC Synthesis report before COP30 so perhaps there will be something in that we will be able to use. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just learnt that there is SSP2-com scenario but I don’t understand it yet https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62983-5 Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put the link to net zero back in the lead by adding that most countries are aiming for it.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find that misleiding in the sense that most of these countries are very far off formulating any realistic net zero policies —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are of course right that most of those countries have a target year without the necessary UK style carbon budget checking independent institution. And here in Turkey we have a target year of 2053, but our current NDC allows us to increase emissions a lot to 2030!

How about if we move the sentence

“There is widespread support for climate action worldwide, and most countries aim to stop emitting carbon dioxide. “

to immediately before the sentence

“However, with pledges made under the Agreement, global warming would still reach about 2.8 °C (5.0 °F) by the end of the century.” ?

Or does anyone have a better suggestion? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was tempting to boldly link the word “pledges” but with the discussion above about overlinking I decided to ask first. As that sentence has no links I think this would be useful as NDCs are very important. Your thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is significant enough for the lead.

As far as I know climate change hardly ever causes war - see for example https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2024/06/climate-change-and-conflict-a-perfect-storm-in-sudans-countryside? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give us some time to reply and reassess the weight of the literature, rather than basic this on a single guardian study —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection if anyone wants to put “conflict” back in the lead for the moment if they have time to look for overview studies. I deliberately put that link here to make the argument more difficult for myself. Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know the only ongoing wars which anyone is claiming are anything to do with climate change are those in the Horn of Africa. Having said that I suppose someone could argue that “conflict” is not only war and that people are more likely to shoot or knife each other in hot weather. Or they could look at the herder pasturalist conflict to see how much that is due to climate change. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, the overview studies are already cited in the lead. Are you reading the cited sources before you are removing information?

Conflict doesn't necessarily mean war between two states. Bogazicili (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that “conflict” also includes civıl war but am a bit confused about AR6 saying “conflict through food price spikes, food and water insecurity”. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC AR6 WG2 Technical Summary 2022, p. 53:

TS.B.7.4 Climate variability and extremes are associated with more prolonged conflict through food price spikes, food and water insecurity, loss of income and loss of livelihoods (high confidence), with more consistent evidence for low intensity organised violence within countries than for major or international armed conflict (medium confidence).

Looking at this after a long time though, it seems just saying "conflict" in the lead seems to be confusing readers Bogazicili (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right - I put it back because I had misunderstood “conflict” to just mean war. As you say I think it is probably confusing other readers too but at the moment I cannot think of a better way to put it in few words in the lead Chidgk1 (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can say something like "internal violence" but I need to look at newer sources and wp:tertiary sources Bogazicili (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The body of the article already says “An expert elicitation concluded that the role of climate change in armed conflict has been small compared to factors such as socio-economic inequality and state capabilities.” Chidgk1 (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently "fossil fuel" is mentioned several times in the lead. I asked Le Chat "What proportion of adult native English speakers know what “fossil fuel” means?" and it said there was no recent survey but implied that most do. I kind of doubt that - does anyone know better?

As coal emits such a large share of GHG and is easier to phase out than other fossil fuels I would like to specifically mention it in the lead.

Firstly do you agree in principle?

Secondly do you have any idea how to mention it? I find it rather hard to add. How about one of the following:

Add "A fifth of greenhouse gas is from burning coal."

or

"Coal, which emits a fifth of greenhouse gas, is the easiest fossil fuel to phase out."

Change …. especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution.

to

…. especially burning fossil fuels such as coal since the Industrial Revolution.

Change Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices release greenhouse gases.

to

Extracting and burning fossil fuels such as coal, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices release greenhouse gases. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the first mention, we can add coal, oil and gas. I do wonder if emphasizing coal only is neutral, given that rich countries emissions mostly come from oil and gas. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I guess mentioning only coal might be unfair to China and India. Although I generally dislike brackets one way to do it would be to change:

The current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution.

to

The current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) burning since the Industrial Revolution.

which would save the skim reader from having to click the link. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid brackets change:

The current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices release greenhouse gases.

to

The current rise in global temperatures is driven by humans; especially burning coal, oil and gas since the Industrial Revolution. These fossil fuels, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices release greenhouse gases. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) is the best way to concisely introduce new readers to the generic term and three examples. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sociologists emphasize that climate change is not only an environmental and scientific issue but also a deeply social one; it is shaped by patterns of inequality, political economy, and institutional structures. Dietz, Shwom, and Whitley (2020) argue that greenhouse gas emissions, climate vulnerability, and responses to climate risks are all influenced by intersecting factors such as class, race, gender, and Indigenous identity.^[1] 2600:8802:270e:d00:a0b8:b62b:310d:9458 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title and moved this to the bottom of the page per convention. It would be helpful if you could propose any changes to this article on this talk page, keeping in mind that it is a high level article. Mikenorton (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this article should mention more environmental activist like Greta thunberg, Olivia Bouler and others Demosthenes and Locke's (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Demosthenes and Locke's Interesting - I had not heard of Olivia Bouler. Greta Thunberg is already mentioned here. While it would be nice to mention more names here that would be too much detail for this high level article I think. “Climate activist” redirects to Climate movement which is linked from here. If you have good cites perhaps you would like to add Olivia Bouler to that article. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, I am afraid that at this moment this page is incorrectly linked to wikidata item (Q125928) "change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns for an extended period" - it should be linked to (Q7942) - "current rise in Earth's average temperature and related large-scale shifts in weather patterns due to man-made gasocrine processes". It makes problem in interwiki links now - Chlimate change is linked to historical climate variaties in other languages. Jirka Dl (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only English Wikipedia, the entire set was reclassified a year ago. User:Wikimi-dhiann, who introduced these errors, is active daily on wikidata, but unwilling to fix this. Anybody here willing to fix this? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody is against, I will fix it for enwiki. Jirka Dl (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jirka Dl Thanks if you fix it for enwiki please let me know and I will fix trwiki (but not other languages as too much hassle for me) to keep them in step. As far as I know Simple English was never screwed up and I did not look into whether any other languages were unaffected. So your correction of enwiki will bring the links between English and Simple English back to the correct state. For info there are earlier discussions at Talk:Climate change/Archive 97#Please add the appropriate inter-language link for the Spanish language article and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q125928#Confusing_definition_and_inconsistent_Wikipedia_articles and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikimi-dhiann#Reworking_of_climate_change_categorization Chidgk1 (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke@Chidgk1- so I fixed the problem for this page in enwiki. If it there are some other languages to fix, let me know, I can do it too. Jirka Dl (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jirka Dl I have not made any changes to enwiki or trwiki as both @Lionel Cristiano: and @Anon0004: have made trwiki changes, so I think the enwiki-trwiki links are correct. However Simple English was not quite right in that the link from https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change was going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change whereas it should go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_variability_and_change, so I have fixed that. Sorry I won't be checking any other languages as it would be very fiddly and time consuming for me. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I know a little French I checked and that is correct - thank you Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be attentive to MOS:RELTIME policy prohibiting use of terms that assume time and/or circumstances do not change. Instead use acceptable template "asof date" Blainster (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is something for things changing within a couple of years. Not for things that will likely stay current for the entire existence of Wikipedia. Your changing have made the text more concise, which is great :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we add "current" to differentiate from the previous sentence? Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities Bogazicili (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We did yes, but I don't think it was necessary in the short description. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not in short description, but "current" or "ongoing" is needed in the first paragraph in the lead I think, in the second sentence quoted above.

Blainster, MOS:REALTIME sounds like a recommendation only Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date

Those MOS guidelines certainly do not supersede Wikipedia:Core content policies. Bogazicili (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]