This is an archive of past discussions about Greenhouse gas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I picked up this greenhouse gas potency term from the Ozone article, because it well illustrates my problem with the various articles that deal with GH effect, radiative forcing etc. "Greenhouse gas potency" is an undefined term. That article states "Quantifying the greenhouse gas potency of ozone is difficult because it is not present in uniform concentrations across the globe." illustrating the usual confusion between the radiative forcing power of the gas and its global contribution to forcing but then goes on to produce a rare burst of apparent partial clarity:
Then it blows it all by saying:
"This means that over a 20 year horizon, the global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is much less, roughly 62 to 69 tons carbon dioxide equivalent / tons tropospheric ozone.[1]"
Clearly GWP 1 and GWP 2 are different things.
This stuff is all over the place, employing undefined units which don't have the same dimensions or names, (sometimes the same names but different dimensions) and are used to compute percentages without stating which units were employed. These things contravene the most fundamental principles of scientific communication.
endrant (for now)Plantsurfer (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Indirect radiative effect
The article states "For example methane and carbon monoxide (CO) are oxidised to give carbon dioxide." That would imply to the unwary reader that the greenhouse impact is increased by this increased CO2, whereas in fact the precise opposite is true, since methane is some 70-fold more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Well, it depends on how you look at it. Methane has a double whammy effect - it is a powerful greenhouse gas while in the atmosphere, and then even after it is oxidised (perturbation lifetime of 12 years) the CO2 is still around. If you want to account correctly for the impact of methane you need to include both effects. --NHSavage (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The point I am making is that it is not a double whammy. Oxidation of a molecule of methane converts it to a molecule of CO2 with 1/72nd the greenhouse potential. The greenhouse effect is thereby weakened. That doesn't seem too complex a point to get across.Plantsurfer (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The second paragraph needs a lot of work - it is full of difficult and probably inaccurate logic, and unexplained phenomena.
"Methane has three indirect effects in addition to forming CO2. The main chemical which destroys methane in the atmosphere is the hydroxyl radical (OH). Methane reacts with OH and so more methane means that the concentration of OH goes down. In turn this slows down the removal of methane from the atmosphere and so each methane molecule stays longer in the air." Leading to what exactly??
Well the longer a molecule remains in the atmosphere the greater its effect. I thought this was obvious but I could add a note to this effect.--NHSavage (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I think what you are trying to convey in the paragraph above is that increased amounts of methane can saturate the capacity of the available hydroxyls to oxidise it. Is that right??Plantsurfer (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say saturate (that would imply that the methane oxidation stopped completely) but reduce the capacity of hydroxyl to remove CH4, yes.--NHSavage (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
"The second effect is that the oxidation of methane can produce ozone." 'kay, so on a molar basis what is the greenhouse power of ozone compared with methane, and how many moles of methane does it take to make a mole of ozone??
Neither of these questions is simple. I assume that by "greenhouse power" you mean the Global-warming potential. This is not defined for ozone because it is not a well mixed gas and the simple GWP is not meaningful. The number of moles of ozone made by the oxidation of a mole of methane depends on some complex chemistry. If there is an optimal concentration of nitrogen oxides present when it is oxidised, then it can make four molecules of ozone. If there are no molecules of nitrogen oxides present then no ozone will be made at all. --NHSavage (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
If we cannot be even remotely certain what the relative GWP of ozone is compared with methane then it is hardly worthwhile to refer to its production as an indirect effect in an article dealing with the Greenhouse gases. It is, of course, of interest to the question of ozone depletion, ozone holes, and the UV-protective effect of ozone, but those are not topics that can be discussed here.Plantsurfer (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"Thirdly, as well as making CO2 the oxidation of methane produces water. The oxidation of methane is a major source of water vapour in the stratosphere." Fine.
.... but paradoxically, this water vapour is also a source of hydroxyl radicals, the abundance of which, as we saw above was rate-limiting for methane oxidation. This is becoming a bit of a circular argument, since OH- oxidation of CH4 produces water which is a potential source of OH- . This undermines the OH saturation argument above and either needs to be dismissed or explained.Plantsurfer (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"CO and NMVOC also produce CO2 and increase methane" this seems unlikely, but if true the mechanism needs to be outlined. Presumably the increase in methane is due to decrease in the rate of oxidation ?? and not by synthesis ??
"because they remove OH from the atmosphere and their removal can produce ozone." eh? please explain this
Okay this is obviously unclear. How about "CO and NMVOC also produce CO2 when then are oxidised. They remove OH from the atmosphere and this leads to higher concentrations of methane. The same process that converts them to carbon dioxide can also lead to the formation of tropospheric ozone."--NHSavage (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I concede my chemistry fails me here, but if this last sentence is true it demands a brief explanation of how this is possible, or, at the very least, a link to an explanation.Plantsurfer (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
As I said the chemistry is complex but well understood. The problem is how much we can explain here. Tropospheric ozone should really be where this is explained properly but is also pretty hopeless to be honest. It's on my long wikipedia to do list, but I haven't got around to it. (There is a global shortage of round tuits of course). :-) This seems to be a reasonable explanation we could use as a reference http://www.fraqmd.org/OzoneChemistry.htm. We could add this as a link.--NHSavage (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That is a very odd question. (a) we know O3 is a GHG (b) we have unquentionably RS's that say it is. Those RS's will provide a GWP for O3, or an estimate of it; but even if we didn't know it, we'd still know it was a GHG William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
My apologies if it was odd, it was a response to NHSavage's comment above which I repeat here: Neither of these questions is simple. I assume that by "greenhouse power" you mean the Global-warming potential. This is not defined for ozone because it is not a well mixed gas and the simple GWP is not meaningful. The number of moles of ozone made by the oxidation of a mole of methane depends on some complex chemistry. If there is an optimal concentration of nitrogen oxides present when it is oxidised, then it can make four molecules of ozone. If there are no molecules of nitrogen oxides present then no ozone will be made at all. --NHSavage (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC) . :::::All I am asking for is an indication of its GWP relative to that of methane and CO2. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find a GWP for ozone in the IPCC report and I made the assumption that it was not meaningful to calculate a GWP. There is also the issue that it is not emitted directly and GWPs are more for comparing things which have human emissions as I understand it. You can see from the table in this article that ozone accounts for 3-7% of the greenhouse effect. William - can you find a GWP somewhere?--NHSavage (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen that figure in the table, and those figures are (I assume?) completely valid, but unfortunately they do not answer my question, which is "what is the relative Radiative Forcing Power of these gases when compared on the same (i.e. molar) basis". The total lifetime effect doesn't enter into it - agreed that is important in calculating some aspects/consequences of anthropogenic contributions, but that is beyond the topic of this article and does not contribute to answering my question. The answer to my question requires something like a statement of the rate of interception of outgoing radiation by these greenhouse gases on a comparable (i.e. molar) basis. The %ages in the table are derived from something like that multiplied by the relative abundances of the GHGs. I hope the table does not go further and compute the %ages based on the forcing effect of each gas over its lifetime in the atmosphere. If it does, then I think that is stepping beyond the topic of this article. 21:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The confusion is that tropospheric and stratospheric ozone have different production mechanisms and play very different roles and you have to be careful in distinguishing which you are talking about. It might be a good idea to go through the entire article replacing ozone with the appropriate adjective + ozone Eli Rabett (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
"Finally hydrogen can lead to ozone production and CH4 increases as well as producing water vapour in the stratosphere.[10]"
how does hydrogen promote O3 and CH4 increases, and if it is oxidised in the stratosphere state how. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The statement "Finally hydrogen can lead to ozone production ...." definitely needs an explanation, since hydrogen (what species, by the way?) lacks the necessary three oxygens. Where does it get these from, and what drives the reaction?? Plantsurfer (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
This is about molecular hydrogen H2. The mechanism is basically the same as the for methane and other hydrocarbons. In the case of hydrogen it reacts either with the O1D radical or a hydroxyl radical to give a hydrogen atom. This reacts with molecular oxygen to give an HO2 radical. HO2 reacts with NO to give NO2 and OH. NO2 is photolysed to give an oxygen atom and NO. The oxygen atom then reacts with an oxygen molecule to give ozone. These photochemical cycles involving peroxy radicals like HO2 and NO producing ozone are well established. --NHSavage (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
good, that already conveys much more than the article does. Can you optimise the way that is expressed and add it to the article? Plantsurfer (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
There are some fair points here - I have clearly tried to truncate this too much (I still feel it is better than before I started) the question I have is whether this is the place to include a description of tropospheric chemistry or not. This would be needed to explain the production of ozone by methane and NMVOC, It might be better to trim this instead? Perhaps just something like: Some gases have indirect radiative effects - their presence in the atmosphere can increase the concentration of radiatively active gases. Some examples are methane, carbon monoxide, non methane volatile organic compounds, halocarbons and hydrogen.--NHSavage (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, perhaps I should persist a little longer. Can you be a little more specific on what point sounded iffy and what sounded wrong? I tried to simplify and condense the relevant parts of IPPC AR4.--NHSavage (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I had another go at point 1. I think it is intrinsically confusing, and not desperately well explained in IPCC, so we may perhaps have to leave it a touch vague William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be a PIA with these questions, but I feel that if we can between us clarify these points the article will be immeasurably stronger. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Clouds
Since the topic of clouds is included in this article, is it possible to specify with a good citation whether clouds produce a stronger or weaker greenhouse effect than the same quantity of water vapour? Also, has the contribution of clouds to radiative forcing oncreased since pre-industrial levels? Plantsurfer (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't add up
Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33°C (59°F) colder than the present average of 14 °C (57 °F). - There is evidently something wrong with this. --85.71.27.102 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
(ec)The second example is talking about a temperature, while the first is talking about a difference in temperature. The sentence is saying that without greenhouse gases the average temperature would be -19°C (-2°F). Mikenorton (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The "difference in temperature" should be stated as "33 Celcius degrees" (usually noted as 33 C°) rather than "33°C". Maybe followed by a hidden explanatory comment as there is obviously some confusion. Vsmith (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Somewhere we had or have a detailed footnote explaining these figures, but I can't find it at the moment. In the meantime, I think WMC's solution of just taking out the figure that some people can't cope with is the best bet - it was only there as a courtesy. --Nigelj (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I could buy a new MacBook with $35m. And retire to the nice warm Aleutians. This is pretty recent; suggest waiting to see if it gets much more coverage from RSes or is just a minor hiccup in the news. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Haven't read her. I just figured the Aleutians might be the new Caribbean in a few years. How about the Orkneys? ;) Rivertorch (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Carbon emission
Carbon emission redirects here, but the article doesn't clearly explain the term. It doesn't seem to refer to emission of elemental carbon, but does it encompass emissions of all compounds of carbon, only gaseous compounds of carbon or some other still? — Kpalion(talk)23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
It depends who is talking. When I say carbon, I mean carbon. When the IPCC says something, they define it in hundreds of pages of reports; and in fact, the meaning of the term "carbon" depends on context. Sometimes "carbon" refers to elemental carbon, or to carbon dioxide specifically. Sometimes, "carbon emission" refers to an "equivalent quantity" of some other gas that has no carbon in it at all. Sometimes, "ton of carbon" includes the mass of the carbon only; and sometimes it refers to the mass of the attached oxygen. Sometimes, "ton of carbon" corresponds to a dollar value, and floats relative to the market price of crude oil. So, the term needs to be interpreted with a lot of context and a lot of caution, to ensure that you're comparing like quantities. Nimur (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Questionable content due to omitted information
First, I find no mention of Earth's thermal radiation. The Earth and Jupiter are both planets that emit more energy than provided by extraterrestrial sources e.g. the Sun. Wikipedia mentions that the Earth's core remains molten due to heat that continues to be generated by decay of primordial radioactive elements. This radiation flux generates greatly more energy than human activity, and is not shown in any of your diagrams or mentioned in text. This indicates that the references that you quote are suspect or ignorant (scientists often concentrate of their field of interest to the exclusion reality). I had also expected some acknowledgement for soot generated by Communist China. Certainly a significant factor in polar ice melting; soot has high opacity absorbing much more radiation than gas molecules. Soot and mineral dust also have significant residence time in the atmosphere. Carbon Monoxide Wiki:"Worldwide, the largest source of carbon monoxide is natural in origin, due to photochemical reactions in the troposphere that generate about 5 x 10^12 kilograms per year.[3] Other natural sources of CO include volcanoes, forest fires, and other forms of combustion"; 0.1ppmv; "Carbon monoxide has an indirect radiative forcing effect by elevating concentrations of methane and tropospheric ozone"; highest concentrations over China. Soot Wiki:"Soot is theorized to be the second largest cause of global warming.[1][2]". Wiki Particulates: soot size .01-.1 micrometer. Nitrous Oxide Wiki: "Nitrous oxide is emitted by bacteria in soils and oceans, and thus has been a part of Earth's atmosphere for aeons. Agriculture is the main source of human-produced nitrous oxide: cultivating soil, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, and animal waste handling can all stimulate naturally occurring bacteria to produce more nitrous oxide. The livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide.[3] Industrial sources make up only about 20% of all anthropogenic sources, and include the production of nylon, and the burning of fossil fuel in internal combustion engines. Human activity is thought to account for 30%; tropical soils and oceanic release account for 70%.[4]
Nitrous oxide reacts with ozone in the stratosphere. Nitrous oxide is the main naturally occurring regulator of stratospheric ozone. Nitrous oxide is a major greenhouse gas. Considered over a 100-year period, it has 298 times more impact per unit weight than carbon dioxide. Thus, despite its low concentration, nitrous oxide is the fourth largest contributor to these greenhouse gases. It ranks behind water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. Control of nitrous oxide is part of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[5]"
Shjacks45 (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Earth and Jupiter are both planets that emit more energy than provided by extraterrestrial sources e.g. the Sun - sounds wrong. Ref (for Earth)? Geothermal is negligible William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases and recent slow down of warming
There's a paper from Nature which probably should be referenced in the section about greenhouse gases and seems particularly relevant to the recent slowdown of global warming.
It is a purely statistical survey of the warming over the last hundred years and points to various events which probably helped temporarily slow the rise at various points like the world wars, depressions, and the Montreal Protocol. They also point to a pronounced rise in the rate around 1960. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The paper isn't self-evidently right; indeed it looks suspiciously like a long line of "correlation not physics" based papers that turn out to be wrong. So we should certainly not add it now; give it 3 months at the least William M. Connolley (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following you. Not all science is about physical justifications and finding correlations is a very important part of the whole business. One doesn't ignore correlations because one hasn't determined every physical step. I guess you mean let there be a bit of time for people to digest it and argue over it first. Dmcq (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I am having a similar problem interpreting this sentence. Normally, I would read "33 C° (59 F°)" as meaning 33 degrees celcius (which is equal to 59 degrees farhenheit), but this this is not a correct conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.85.233 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 February 2014
This has been answered several times. The sentence says, "Earth's surface would average about 33 C° (59 F°) colder..." It is about a difference in temperatures. --Nigelj (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Then, can you please explain what the sentence means? Would the earth's surface average about 33 celsius colder or would it average 59 farhenheit colder? Or is it supposed to mean something else. As the sentence stands, it is confusing because 33 celsius and 59 farhenheit are not the same temperature, but the sentence reads as if they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.85.233 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Imagine something is at 21 °C (70 °F), and it gets 1 °C (2 °F) colder. The temperature is now 20 °C (68 °F). Notice that I mentioned "2 °F" there. Did you think, "2 °F! But that's 30 degrees below freezing! What is he talking about?!" No? That's because I was talking about a difference in temperatures of 1 °C (2 °F). Now go and read the original paragraph in Greenhouse gas again, and see if you can see that it is talking about a difference in temperatures of 33 °C (59 °F). I don't know how better to explain this at the moment, but I am interested in your feedback, as, as you can see from the section below, I am wondering how to improve this section of the article so that every new reader understands it first time. --Nigelj (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Boy, it took me awhile, but I get it now. It is so ingrained to see 33 C (59 F) as being the same temperature, what you see on a thermometer. As soon as I see this notation, my brain tries to see equivalent real temperature. So, I now read it as "Earth's surface would average about 33 degrees C less (colder) which is about 59 degrees F less. Thank you for taking the time to explain this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.128.128 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the C° and F° notation that we currently use was introduced by Vsmith (talk·contribs) in this edit. The Celsius article says, "This is sometimes solved by using the symbol °C (pronounced "degrees Celsius") for a temperature, and C° (pronounced "Celsius degrees") for a temperature interval, although this usage is non-standard." I have never seen this notation before, and I see that it has not stopped the steady flow of people either commenting here, or altering the article, because that sentence is still quite widely misunderstood. I wonder if we should put a little more effort into explaining what we're actually saying, rather than hoping that a non-standard (and to my experience, obscure) notation and hidden markup comment will do the trick? --Nigelj (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. Well, I think pursuing it with the IP editor above may have done the trick. I changed the article based on what they said. Let's see how that goes with other new readers. Hopefully we'll hear no more about it. --Nigelj (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully... I thought the Celcius degrees and C°, although perhaps non-standard, would cause readers to stop and think (along with the editor note) but maybe not. I expect to see well meaning editors still "correcting" the numbers w/out reading the note. And I did think "Celcius degrees and C°" was fairly standard way of noting the concept - my chem students learned (or at least were exposed to) the notation. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Removed a speculative sentence
I have removed this sentence :- "Under ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, available Earth System Models project that the Earth's surface temperature could exceed historical analogs as early as 2047 affecting most ecosystems on Earth and the livelihoods of over 3 billion people worldwide"
This is a projection from a computer model and computer models can predict anything, almost invariably what the modeller wants to predict. This speculation does not belong here or indeed anywhere on Wikipedia IMHO. Doubtless some Warmist will revert this. SmokeyTheCat07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Lacking prescience (no pun intended), scientists use computer models all the time. The sentence cites a highly reliable source; unless you're questioning whether that source doesn't support the text, it seems all right to me and I've restored it. Rivertorch (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
And I've re-reverted. It says "could". A speculation by a highly reliable source remains a speculation. A million things 'could' happen in the future. Is Wiki supposed to report them all? SmokeyTheCat20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Depressing that this should be treated as warmists vs coldists. As it happens I am a warmist, but nevertheless this sentence fails to meet the requirements under WP:PS There is no way Wikipedia should be attempting to reflect every twist and turn of primary scientific discussion. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope, since a peer-reviewed source is secondary by wikipedia standards. You can argue for a WP:WEIGHT isuee, but not a WP:PS one. Even considering a stricter definition of WP:PS, this would be a secondary source, since it is a review of results from several model sources. When considering WP:WEIGHT, you'd have to hold it up against the literature in general, where this paper doesn't stick out as being special considering the general weight of the literature. --Kim D. Petersen11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the cited Nature article is mainly concerned with 'when' - certainly not 'if' - I wonder if the sentence in question could be reworded to emphasise that. For example:
Under ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, models project that the Earth's surface temperature could exceed historical analogs, affecting most ecosystems and the livelihoods of over 3 billion people worldwide, as early as 2047.[2]
== Misleading CO2/Energy ratio for ignite (and possibly also for other coal forms)
The list of CO2 emmisions per energy unit suggest that ignite isn't much worse than other types of coal but the wikipedia page about ignite contradicts this. Presumably, the energy densities used for the table in this page have not been discounted for the energy lost to evaporation of moisture, and is therefore misleading. Helenuh (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The main source of greenhouse gas emissions.
51% of all greenhouse gas emission comes from animal agriculture making same the main source of greenhouse gas emission in the world. Therefore if animal agriculture is not adressed and replaced by other sustainable means of plant based food production there is no hope for this planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.52.237 (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Annual increase is billions of tons, not millions
"Today, the stock of carbon in the atmosphere increases by more than 3 million tonnes per annum (0.04%) compared with the existing stock."
I think the source cited for the above is in error, the IPCC says billions:
"Atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase since the TAR (Figure 7.4), and the rate of increase appears to be higher, with the average annual increment rising from 3.2 ± 0.1 GtC yr–1 in the 1990s to 4.1 ± 0.1 GtC yr–1 in the period 2000 to 2005."
I suggest that bitumen / oil sands be removed from the table of fuel carbon intensities. It is not a fuel and under no conceivable circumstance is it useful the way any of the other fuels in that table are. Though the life cycle emission intensities of fuels derived from bitumen / heavy crudes may be higher than conventional fuels, the vehicle or combustion emissions of gasolines/diesels derived from bitumen feedstocks are similar to those produced from fuels derived from conventional feedstocks since at that point it is all effectively just gasoline/diesel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.110.103 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sources of Greenhouse gases and physical-chemical cycles in atmosphere and biosphere
validity: the composition of the atmosphere as depicted can be found under: Atmosphere_of_Earth, Greenhouse gas, and the single Wikipedia sites of the gases.
phytoplankton and all green plants on the land fix carbon dioxide by photosynthesis with light-energy. The end products of photosynthesis are sugar and other organic products, and oxygen.
Early in the article there is the following quote:
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17]
Compound Formula Contribution (%)
Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72%
Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26%
Methane CH4 4–9%
Ozone O3 3–7%
Although H2O is by far the major greenhouse gas, it is barely mentioned in the rest of the article and is not included in any of the charts and tables. The effects of CO2 and CH4 are small compared to the effects of H2O, so the exclusion of H2O is a flaw that skews this article to the point of mis-information, and thus counters the Wikipedia charter. Please block it until it is corrected.
216.232.145.52 (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC) S.Bowker Jan 18, 2014
True, and there is also a problem with the notion that water vapor serves to amplify the relatively small effect of CO2 by way of positive feedback. The issue here is that the supposed input which changes water vapour levels is atmospheric temperature itself. The output effect of water vapor is also a change in atmospheric temperature. Thus, if the water vapor feedback gain is greater than unity then the climatic system will be catastrophically unstable, even with zero greenhouse gas presence. I seem to recall that the IPCC models do suggest a loop gain of somewhat more than unity.
The general acceptance of this claim probably hinges on a subsconscious assumption that the input quantity to the feedback mechanism is greenhouse gas levels. It isn't. Temperature is the input, and temperature the output. So, the output is connected directly back to the water vapor 'amplifier' input. An analogy would be holding a PA mike in front of speaker, which won't amplify your voice more than it is amplified already, all it will give you is a screeching howl-round. You don't need to speak to start the howl either, it will start to build-up of its own accord as soon as any tiny sound occurs in the room. Likewise in a water vapor positive feedback situation, any tiny temperature change would gradually build into an increasing series of hot/cold temperature excursions until a limiting condition was reached, which would probably be water vapor saturation.
Let us not forget that seasonal and daily temperature changes are at least ten times larger than those due to anthropogenic CO2. Thus, if the positive feedback loop existed, the climate would be subject to extreme temperature excursions simply due to the effect of the seasons repeatedly triggering this feedback mechanism. Since this does not happen in the real climate, it suggests that water vapor feedbacks are negative or neutral. --Anteaus (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Do anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions include those due to agriculture?
perhaps the following quote from the article isn't complete: " Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (i.e., emissions produced by human activities) come from combustion of carbon-based fuels, principally wood, coal, oil, and natural gas"
Briancady413 (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What emissions from agriculture are you thinking about that do not come from those sources? Plantsurfer 10:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Animals make no net emission of carbon dioxide. Perhaps the poster means CO2 increase due to deforestation? Even if that's not what he/she meant, deforestation really should be in there, so I'll add it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Liquid Petroleum Gases (LPGs) as propellent in Aerolsol spray cans contributes to greenhouse gases
LPGs Propane and butane are used as propellent in aerosol spray cans . They are members of the family of gases called alkanes which includes Methane and they are far worse than Caarbon dioxide as greenhouse gases contributinh to global warming. Their use in this context should be banned by law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPGpropellent (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 25 January 2016
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Closing early per WP:SNOW. I suggest the nominator review WP:COMMONNAME - we WP editors do not decide what is more scientifically accurate. We rely on editors of reliable sources to do that, and follow their usage. (non-admin closure) В²C☎01:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose While it is fine to mention this explaining term in the lede, it isnt enough to warrant a page move. Greenhouse gas is still the main term. prokaryotes (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Calculation of temperature difference in °C and °F in the absence of greenhouse gas
Just stop converting to obscure, non scientific units, and stick to SI units everywhere. Then create some kind of auto-conversion, where a common component for the whole Wikipedia do whatever conversions is necessary/wanted for each individual end user. Temperature should be in Kelvin, and nothing else.
Frequent errors are made about this, so here's how the calculation works:
The article states that "without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about 15 °C (27 °F) colder than the present average of 14 °C (57 °F)."
Thus, present temperature with GHG = 14 °C (57.2 °F).
Temperature in the absence of GHG = -1 °C (30.2 °F).
Thus temperature difference of 15 °C is equivalent to 57.2-30.2 = 27 °F.
Greenhouse gases should be listed in "weighted order".
For example "hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are now thought to contribute to anthropogenic global warming. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, these compounds are up to 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide", so HCFCs should be multiplied by 10000, while CO2 is multiplied by 1. Sorting should be done by the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.110.220 (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe the second halt of first paragraph in the "2.2 Atmospheric lifetime" section is wrong. first part says Jacob (1999) defines it as an average on time, while the rest of the paragraph treats it as a median value, which is clearly not the same since the distribution is not symetrical. -- Camion (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
gives a list of greenhouse effect contributions from various gaseous components:
Component
Effect
Contribution
H2O
20.6 K
62.0%
CO2
7.2 K
21.7%
O3
2.4 K
7.2%
N2O
1.4 K
4.2%
CH4
0.8 K
2.4%
Other
0.8 K
2.5%
Total
33.2 K
100%
This list differs from the data in the "Impacts on the overall greenhouse effect" section, so I am unclear what is being presented in the latter. Would anybody mind if I update the table accordingly? Praemonitus (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Whatever revisions are made, it's essential to give a range because the absorption bands of the different gases overlap. This is why we give a range now; it corresponds to the range between the "single factor removal" versus the "single factor addition" values in Schmidt et al. (2010), available here. Furthermore there's a substantial difference between clear and cloudy skies. So a single value for each gas would be somewhat misleading.
Thanks. Is that the original source for the table? A number of values appear to be different from the Schmidt et al (2010) values. Was some derivation involved? Perhaps an explanatory footnote is needed? Praemonitus (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. If I read it correctly then, the values in Table 1 of Schmidt et al (2010) are not the actual contribution because there's an adjustment term for pair-wise effects in Table 2. Perhaps then the column label should be "Single-factor Contribution" and I should break out water vapor and clouds into separate rows? Praemonitus (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The percentages vary for water. Nevertheless, the statistics should be earlier in the article. The implication is that CO2 is the primary contributor. This is false. By the time the statistics are presented, a reader has drifted off to something else. There is no reason not to present these figures along with a mere listing, earlier in the article. When I tried to do this for water vapor recently, it was reverted. Limiting CO2 may be a worthy goal, but pretending that it is the only factor is clearly misleading and PC. Student7 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand a lot here. First, not everything that contains percentages is "statistics". Second, CO2 is the primary contributor to the current increase of temperatures, while H2O varies strongly within very short times but stays constant on average from year to year. This is a pretty simple concept but there is a lot of misinformation and lies floating around in the media, especially about this H2O/CO2 thing, coming from the denial industry. You should get your information from more reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Hello
The Greenhouse gas section contains data from numerous sources showing the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial era and rising mean global temperatures and presents data showing for instance the heat absorption rates of various GHG's and the length of time they might persist in the atmosphere. There is definitely a correlation between increasing GHG concentrations and increasing global temperatures.
Unfortunately the section has no data on how and why GHG's actually absorb infrared heat radiation and why they do this better than they absorb other types of thermal radiation, how a GHG's atomic structure interacts with thermal electromagnetic radiation in a way other gasses don't. Without definitive evidence the view that say Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas remains a belief supported by anecdotal evidence of the correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and rising mean global temperatures.
If this were the whole case the thesis that rising CO2 concentrations are the cause of rising mean global temperatures is no more valid than the thesis that rising globes mean temperatures are the cause of rising CO2 concentrations. The fact that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere also isn't direct evidence to prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The US government recently declared Carbon Dioxide to not be a greenhouse gas. If that claim is to be effectively refuted direct evidence to prove CO2's thermal properties is urgently needed.
Take three glass tanks and one infrared heat source like the sun.
One tank contains a vacuum.
One tank contains air.
One tank contains Carbon Dioxide.
For a given period of time the heat source is shone into each tank and its internal temperature monitored.
When the heat source is removed it can be demonstrated that the tank containing the vacuum cools fastest and the tank containing the CO2 cools slowest.
A simple laboratory experiment of this type would give clear evidence of CO2's thermal properties.
Thank you for your time.
Best wishes.
Michael B Heath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.211.14 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
To put it another way: Just look for work on the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide. It absorbs a lot in the infrared area, which makes it a greenhouse gas.
"The US government recently declared Carbon Dioxide to not be a greenhouse gas" - President Zapp Brannigan and his minions are the opposite of authorities on science. When they say something about science, you can assume the default position that the opposite is probably true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that really how people think science works? No laws, no equations, no theoretical basis, just a bunch of people comparing graphs at random looking for statistical correlations? Maybe this is because of too much emphasis on the social sciences in modern education. No wonder it's hard to persuade people that there's a problem. 'Anecdotal evidence'? Sheesh. --Nigelj (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
ommission?
The section ;
2.3 "radiative forcing"
excludes, omits, or FAILS to include in this statement , as WOULD any document only claiming a similar conclusion of logic from this statement ;
START QUOTE
"Earth absorbs some of the radiant energy received from the sun, reflects some of it as light and reflects or radiates the rest back to space as heat.[38]
Earth's surface temperature depends on this balance between incoming and outgoing energy.[38] "
END QUOTE
that ; MOST of the near-stable temperatures at the surface, result from the Earth's own thermo- & radiant heat effects upon matter at the surface, being cooled by SPACE thermodynamically, via the SLOWING of air's compounds/normal matter (normal matter that cools thermodynamically) , and indirect thermodynamic cooling, via CONTINUAL thermodynamic CONTACT, with then cooler matter from higher-up - this is a fundamental part of what gross temperatures we are at... ALL the time - like how on a planet or moon in space, gross temperatures can be wildly different, from basic observational REASON - whether expressed as a single average, or a fluctuating-temperature-range ...
EITHER way ... the sun's impact is actually very small, gross-temperature differences -wise.
in terms of its OVER-TIME impact, in things like the production of more complex gases from proto-organisms , and plants-impact , it has a much higher impact, when all kinds of produce FROM, plants, or removal of things BY, them, like consuming CO2 and producing O ... are taken into consideration ...
but in INITIAL terms, compared to some volcanic planet spinning wildly around a gas-giant ... our base ranges of temperature, are from, how hot our CORE is, and the COOLING , by SPACE (temperature-normalization-without-agitation).
Failing to INCLUDE THAT, in statements like the one above , falsely portray the cause of a huge number of interactions, some not even of both, normal-matter ... in an absurdly simplified , single-cause , single-blameable-source-of-confusion , 'confirming' , current-industry-bribes/funding-from way, and fails, to correctly leave-open, OTHER causes, by use of the grammer ;
"...depends on this... "
PUT SIMPLY / IN A SUMMARY-SENTENCE ...
"this" from that quote/external-paper ... is singular, when ;
the causes of "...Earth's surface temperature..." are NOT, singular.
I have just modified one external link on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The section on sectors doesn't correspond with the other data (the pie chart). This seems to be because they focus is on the UK, whereas the the pie chart looks at global emissions. The problem is aggrevated by the fact that there is no emission data listed (for the UK then) for the other sectors.
Perhaps this can be fixed ?
I also listed some details on the CO2 emissions of humans. Appearantly, even the pie chart (which lists the global emissions per sector) doesn't mention this. So these emissions are not accounted for, despite being present in real life. According to micpohling, it is considerable though, about 8% of global emissions. So it should be taken up.
Another thought I'm having is that these CO2 emissions are just for humans. So I doubt the CO2 emissions of animals are taken up either ?
KVDP (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Natural and anthropogenic sources of GHG
Will anyone object if I add the following to Natural and anthropogenic sources of GHG :
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural[3] and 28 GtCO2 are anthropogenic[4]. This is equivalent to 3.5% anthropogenic and 96.5% natural. This ratio is higher 4.5% to 95.5% if deforestation equivalent and rotting biomass are included (8.7 GtCO2 equivalent.)
Thank you for your comments - and for posting your concerns - FWIW - should note that your calculation(s), perhaps correct, may be considered "Original Research" - and may not be acceptable in Wikipedia articles - best to refer to an actual "Reliable Reference Source" for your calculated values (and related text) instead - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
How about without the calculation?
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural[3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic including deforestation equivalent, biomass decomposition, and the burning of non-fossil fuels (8.7 GtCO2), and the burning of fossil fuels (28 GtCO2.)[4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural[3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic including deforestation equivalent, biomass decomposition, the burning of non-fossil fuels, the burning of fossil fuels and all other human sources.[4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural[3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic including deforestation equivalent, the burning of fossil fuels and all other human sources.[4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural[3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic (including deforestation equivalent).[4].
or
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural[3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic[4].
or
As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 emitted are natural[3] and 36.7 GtCO2 are anthropogenic[4]
Thank you for your suggested edits - some of these possible edits may be ok - Comments by other editors Welcome - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Natural refers here to the carbon cycle, which changes slowly over the course of many thousand years, until anthropogenic sources perturbed this cycle in more recent times, with changes of feedback triggers on the underlying natural sinks (release from carbon sinks). The cited 2007 figure of 3.5% is considered significant, unmatched in the geological record (as far we know). The only equivalent may be a super impact event boiling oceans and releasing large quantities of methane clathrates. prokaryotes (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
How about:
While human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. The fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. As of 2004 : 770 GtCO2 are natural[3] and 36.7 are anthropogenic[4]. Please read anthropogenic greenhouse gases for further details.
I added just the brief "because the large natural sources and sinks roughly balance". There doesn't seem to be any point adding more, because this very point gets discussed in a section just lower down William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
References
^Life Cycle Assessment Methodology Sufficient to Support Public Declarations and Claims, Committee Draft Standard, Version 2.1. Scientific Certification Systems, February 2011. Annex B, Section 4.
^Mora, C (2013). "The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability". Nature. 502: 183–187. doi:10.1038/nature12540.
I have just modified 2 external links on Greenhouse gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
That's a new one to me. Ethylene is of concern in greenhouses (the ones where plants are raised) but I've been able to find zilch on it being a greenhouse gas. I guess it's possible, since it contains atoms of differing electronegativity. But I suspect that a reporter or university PR officer got things mixed up. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Two different definitions of Atmospheric lifetime
We have two different definitions of Atmospheric lifetime. The first is how long on average an individual molecule remains in the atmosphere. The second is how long the excess CO2 concentration takes to decrease.
Yale Climate Connections says:
"A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.
Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed."
Atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide: two given statements seem to be inconsistent with each other
Atmospheric lifetime
To me, the two statements "The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years." and
"... some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years." seem inconsistent with each other:
Even if 80% of the emitted CO2 had a lifetime of only zero years, the fraction of 20% with a lifetime of many thousands of years would push up the average lifetime to at least many hundred years. That's much more than 30-95 years.
The citation for the comparison of CO2 ppm from 1750 to present is faulty. Citation 6 only gives present day measurements, without including 1750 ppm measurements. This gives us a false trend line from the start. We need a more accurate citation from that time period if we are going to draw conclusions from the data presented in that link.
———— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B02A:41BA:1CB8:BCDA:84AA:B280 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is there a map showing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations? Isn't nitrous oxide (N2O) the relevant substance for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.177.11 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The whole article is very misleading, abject nonsense. - GenSQuantum
Are some sections duplicating info from other articles?
Especially sections in 2nd half are maybe duplicating other articles? Should some sections be removed especially some oudated ones?Chidgk1 (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
WikiProjectWales members Authority to edit
Who/what gives this user "Cracked Mirror" authority over the green house gas article and what is defined as a neutral point of view?
More than one editor, not only The Mirror Cracked, reverted your changes, and it doesn't appear that your edits are consistent with the relevant citations. You should explain here on the talk page 1) What you think the article should say and 2) what reliable sources you can cite that verify your changes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand there is more than a single independent editor. Global warming conspiracy theorists', such as WikiProject Wales members I suspect, believe they alone own the rights to greenhouse gas information. Genuine scientists' are neutral. This article is not neutral, it is heavily biased towards a view which is politically endorsed by the UN, and it is a non-scientific position indeed.
When you state - "and it doesn't appear that your edits are consistent with the relevant citations" May I ask, how can you see my edits? And what are the relevant citations?
For the record, the modification that I attempted to make was as such, to inform the public of the facts. i.e. That the assertion made that - of the carbon dioxide which is present in earths atmosphere, only the human induced "industrialization" component of it is associated with a slight raise in average temperature levels, and that is the only component being the "driving factor" behind the volatility of climatic planetary changes, this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum (talk • contribs) 02:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
All your edits are recorded in the article history (as are every other editor's). You can see, for example, that here you made a set of assertions that are completely unsupported by the sources. You then made this edit which tried to use tech-know-goup as a source, a site which proudly proclaims they use serious scientific papers "including climate science and which are not yet published in the established journals." - a site without any credible science to back it up. Gerlich and Tscheuschner's work has been thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere. I suggest you read WP:RS which explains what a reliable source is. You will see that fringe groups like tech-know-how hold not validity on Wikipedia. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
No empirical evidence exists, with regard of the assertion being made here. The edits I attempted to make outlined the actual scientific consensus. Which is 100% conjecture. Anthropogenic "global warming" is not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Cite Evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum (talk • contribs) 02:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The most important edit I've attempted make was very simple and not controversial at all-
Adding the words "It is believed that" before the word - Human, in the second paragraph. The reason being? Because there is no empirical evidence to accompany the claim/assertion.
The user TheMirrorCracked removed my edits, and has threatened me if I improve the article again. The fact is that the assertion being made is ONLY a belief. A belief, that lacks empirical scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum (talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The Mirror Cracked reverted your edits here. A different editor, Schazjmd, removed your edits here. A third editor, WQUlrich, reverted your edits here. Three different editors. Zero editors support your changes.
You haven't made any headway with this line of argument, and I don't think you're going to. I'd suggest focusing on facts you can directly attribute to reliable sources. You've cited one source, but it reads as if the author isn't a high school graduate, and the claims in the citation have been refuted in several places. Since nobody was convinced by that, you might try citing other sources, along with short, specific statements about what facts from those sources you are citing.
You've repeated several times that "everybody's biased", "do it my way or else Wikipedia will have no credibility!" blah blah. Nobody cares. It's not convincing to me, nor to anyone else here so far. I'd drop it and try making plain bullet statements:
You said that already, but you haven't cited reliable sources or provided a convincing argument. That's what everyone is here waiting for you to do. I would expect if you continue, a fourth, fifth, or sixth editor will keep reverting your changes. Now is your chance to make a convincing argument. So far all you've done is criticize Wikipedia but those criticisms aren't getting you anywhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not based on the opinions of others, and it strives extremely hard to maintain a neutral point of view. Turning around and generalizing that everyone is biased, is not neutral. You claim to be stating empirical evidence, however it is based on a single source which has been proved, as I am understanding it, as unreliable. Mistakes happen, that is okay. Some of the things you're missing are: there needs to be a consensus among the editors on the edits being done to articles (what you think and feel is not acceptable as a fact, no original research), it needs to have an an unbiased and neutral point of view and wording as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an op-ed or a platform to rewrite what is proven in scientific journals. That also means, the sources you provide must be that: reliable sources such as peer-reviewed scientific journals. I am not stating any of this as an attack, to make you seem discredited, to attack you, or too come out of left field as defending those you are having disagreements with, as I have only skimmed over whats been going on. I am attempting to explain why you are getting the backlash you, and why you may feel as though you're getting dog-piled. It would be extremely unfortunate if you left feeling as though this sum of all human knowledge had no credibility, as that is exactly what it STRIVES for. Just because something that you edit, gets reverted, doesnt mean you are being attacked. While editing Wikipedia, you will have disagreements with fellow editors. Its just going to happen, and thats why there is the policy of consensus. I would highly recommend going over the basic three pillars of what Wikipedia is based upon. From my understanding, your only and biggest mistake here was rushing in head first without fully knowing what the said polices were, basically what the dos and donts are, to help make Wikipedia a credible online encyclopedia for all. I hope to the other editors involved in this, I havent over stepped my own bounds by putting in my two cents. I myself havent been an editor that long at all, and have mostly kept back, observed and studied how this all works. If what I've stated here is unhelpful, I'll refrain further comment. It is however my hope that this is helpful to you @GenSQuantum. Just want to help resolve what seems to be an easily explainable misunderstanding on the policy and how this all works. Apologies if that is not the case, to GenS or anyone else. Best wishes.
"Should greenhouse gas emissions continue at their rate in 2019, global warming could cause Earth's surface temperature to exceed historical values as early as 2047, with potentially harmful effects on ecosystems, biodiversity and human livelihoods.[12] At current emission rates, temperatures could increase by 2 °C, which the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) designated as the upper limit to avoid "dangerous" levels, by 2036."
What does 'exceed historical values' mean? The gist of this sentence, as a lay person, feels like, 'If we're not careful, global warming will start as early as 2047!' But that is at odds with the data showing that the process is well underway? The two sentences quoted don't feel consistent with each other. They probably are, but I think we need to clarify somehow.
I agree that the sentence was a bit vague and not completely on-topic, so I removed it. It meant that global warming will be so 'bad' in 2047 that it exceeds not only the mean temperature in many regions, but that regions will be warmer on average than in their warmest years before global warming if I understand correctly. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it desirable to have greenhouse gas and greenhouse gas emissions point to same page?
Does the "Top-5 historic CO 2 contributors by region over the years 1800 to 1988 (in %)" table add anything to this page?
I am wondering if the "Top-5 historic CO2 contributors by region over the years 1800 to 1988 (in %)" table in the Cumulative and Historical Emissions section is useful or is relevant still. The data from this table ends in 1988. This was over two decades ago. This data is not nearly as useful as data up to this point in history would be. I don't understand what specific purpose this data is adding to the page. Would it be better to have more updated data or to remove the table completely?
Apologies for previous unwanted edits: I'm new here and still finding my way round.
I previously deleted the food types chart, as it was sitting next to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector which I was refining a bit, and didn't appear to have any related text nearby. I've realised it's probably meant to go with the bullet points further up, but another chart and a table were pushing it down. I've made a couple of changes to pull it up the page a bit. This include turning the table on sources of CO2 from fuel combustion into bullet points. Incidentally the figures in that table are dated, and aren't all relevant, as (according to the IEA) for example gas flaring, and cement production emissions are not classified as emissions from fuel consumption. I can look at updating when I get a moment.
Attempted to upload a replacement for the out-of-date pie charts about GHG Emissions by Sector, but this was automatically blocked. I'm not sure how I get round this.
That is a beautiful graph! It would be lovely if we could use it on Wikipedia. I noticed on the Earth Facts page that they publish their data under a non-commercial and no-derivatives licence. Is this specific figure licenced differently? If not, we cannot use it on Wikipedia. We're only allowed to use completely free images (commercial use & derivatives). Of course, you could request Earth Facts to release this image under a more free licence. If you'd like to do that, I can help with that. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
EarthFacts.info is my own project, attempting to make basic environmental data more accessible. I'm happy for the image to be used, so I've altered the copyright terms on the website so that certain content is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, including a revised version of the image (at the same URL). PolicyScientist (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Your edits have now been undone twice. I know that can be a bit frustrating. If you explain your edits a bit further over here, it is more likely other editors will accept your changes and build on them even further. Also, try to start small. This page is a complete mess and there are probably too many figures. A small explanation here on why you believe the food graph is a start. I quite like the graph, it's one of the more clear graphs in the article and to me self-explanatory. To create space, maybe other graphs can be deleted?
Some feedback on your new graph, which already looks quite pretty: there is quite a bit of white space. As figures on Wikipedia are usually shown relatively small, it may be better to cut off the left half of the graph, so that the right half can be shown more prominently. There is a bit of overlap of information, which is not necessary. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed some white space from the graph and changed the aspect ratio. Will replace file on Wikimedia Commons and use to replace the out of date pie charts.
PolicyScientist (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Comparison of average residence time for a water molecule and CO2
A water molecule has an average residence time of only nine days, CH4 and CO2 have years or centuries. The next sentence says that this is the reason why water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. This is not correct. The word "Thus" in this sentence must be deleted. --Vertigoswirl (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
That is correct, the edits will need to be approved by Wiki Project Wales members or like minded energy asset demolition advisers. They guard the article like vultures over a corpse. -GenS — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum (talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Atmospheric lifetime of CO2
The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is stated to be 30 - 95 years, however the source given states clearly that 'No single lifetime can be given' ([1] page 731). I would suggest to use the same formulation in the table Hannes Keck (SLU) (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I am wondering if it would makes sense to split off the article "Greenhouse gas emissions" into a separate article (currently it redirects to here). Perhaps this has already been discussed before. I just find this article has become very long and when other articles wikilink to "greenhouse gas emissions" they would probably prefer if it goes directly to an article about emissions. EMsmile (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Support I'm normally more in favor of merging or cutting articles to reduce maintenance, but this seems like a good idea in this case. Thanks for getting this going. Efbrazil (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
So if we split it off, let me just clarify which sections we would move. All of these?: 2 Impacts on the overall greenhouse effect, 3 Natural and anthropogenic sources, 4 Role of water vapor, 5 Anthropogenic greenhouse gases, 6 Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources, 7 Removal from the atmosphere, 8 History of scientific research. I am unsure about Section 2, 7 and 8. They could be in either. But I assume that the article on "greenhouse gas emissions" will become the more important one over time. So I would be leaning towards making it the more comprehensive one, and making "greenhouse gas" fairly short. Opinions? EMsmile (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion but I think 5 and 6 would be enough. Anyway it is not a big problem if split wrong as sections can always be moved across or back later. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and create the new article? Or wait a bit longer. Maybe give it another week? I've posted about it also on the WikiProject Climate Change talk page. Anyone else we should be pinging for feedback before going ahead? EMsmile (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I see some overlap with greenhouse effect, or content which should perhaps be moved to greenhouse effect. For example the section "Impacts on the overall greenhouse effect". However, perhaps some kind of overlap between the two articles is unavoidable. Can we decide which type of content should be in which of the two articles? Is one the parent and one the sub-article or are they both on the same level? EMsmile (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Natural Processes copied from source?
It looks like the entire section on natural processes is copied verbatim from this source.[1]
Micheal Ebule [2] from Nigeria, wrote this in 2012 as an young Economics student in Ukraine. Supervisor Nadiya Kostyuchenko, a teacher at the time at Sumy State University, Sumy, Ukraine [3]. None of whom appear to have a background in climate sciences. If you bother to download the document, which consist of 1 -- one -- page, you will be able to read the PDF-timestamp and source. It says 19th of June 2012, and gives the location: Студент библиотеки СумГУ 3-й этаж -- translated to SSU, Student Library, 3rd floor. Danorse (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Some tables and links could do with a disclaimer that they have been outlawed by the Montreal Protocol. They look like they are being commonly used as a by-product of waste gas when they don't seem to be. Jordf32123 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Graphic: CO2 vs GHG
CO2 onlyComprehensive GHG, not only CO2
@Efbrazil: Each graphic serves a purpose. I thought that, especially in this GHG article itself, the new GHG graphic (cumulative ~160 years of measurements) is both more inclusive and more on point than the CO2-only graphic (171 years—not that much of a difference in context). Re content: the GHG graphic shows forecast trends such as China's continued growth in comparison to other countries; the CO2 breakdown into land use etc is also ~informative but the graphic itself shows it to play second fiddle to fossil fuel+cement (bit of an odd breakdown if you ask me). I do favor the GHG graphic here, and leaving the CO2 graphic populating misc other articles that readers encounter, so they see both. —RCraig09 (talk)05:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@RCraig09: Yeah, in my view the new graphic was clearly worse, for a few reasons.
The graphic appears to be based on data that is over a decade old, whereas the other graphic is current
The "future" the graphic shows is already more than half over
Not only is it dated, but it's really not conveying anything that we don't convey better with other graphics, so I think it should really be cut entirely from wikipedia
A focus on CO2 is appropriate, as that's the long-acting GHG and the bulk of the problem
— It would be ideal to find an up-to-date Cumulative GHG source, but I had been looking for such for at least an hour or two and this is the only result I found. If you can find more recent Cumulative GHG data, point it out and I'll be delighted to chart it.
— It's speculative how inaccurate a 10-year staleness in data is in predicting through 2030, when the empirically-based data already covers 160 years. In any event, the fact that 2010-2030 figures are projected is not hidden from the viewer.
— Limiting to a CO2-only graphic in a GHG article introduces its own inaccuracies concerning the GH Effect, not the least of which is that methane has a heat trapping effect dozens of times stronger even if it is shorter-lived. And those inaccuracies are hidden from the viewer.
— The GHG chart doesn't only convey the China situation; that was one example I gave. I don't know of a graphic that conveys cumulative GHG emissions—the broadest cause of global warming—better. If you run across a more recent source, please point it out.
— Another idea: I could modify the GHG graphic to portray only the (empirical) data through 2010, leaving the projection out, and still convey the important point of such charts. —RCraig09 (talk)19:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Cumulative carbon can be seen here beginning slide 83: https://robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2021/ I don't know of a current source showing methane cumulatively- I think it's considered to not be interesting as it's short lived in the atmosphere, so what was emitted 25 years ago is not part of the current radiative imbalance. Efbrazil (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that entire Robbie Andrew publication is for CO2 only (see his "hatnote" links which point to CO2 data). Also, that style of "stacked" graphic makes it hard to compare country to country, and that particular chart (maybe you meant Slide 73) shows fewer countries. The search goes on.
At this stage I definitely plan to change the 2010-2030 rectangles to a much less dominant color, maybe semi-transparent. This change will distinguish and de-emphasize projections. —RCraig09 (talk)20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Femkemilene: I know you are busy and fighting a virus, but: can you tell us based on your knowledge whether or not it is reasonable to exclude the effects of non-CO2 GHGs (methane etc) when considering cumulative GHG emissions since 1850? Almost all "cumulative" sources chart CO2 only, but I have been pursuing a more comprehensive GHG analysis, not CO2 alone. —RCraig09 (talk)20:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd follow the major sources, who, as you indicate, typically plot cumulative CO2. N20 and some of the smaller GHGs could theoretically be included. Methane and short-lived GHGs not really for it to be clear. Femke (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Improve images in the lead
A simple diagram showing how the greenhouse effect heats the surface of the planet
We all know that the images in the lead are super important. I just wonder if we can do better on the image(s) used in this article. Firstly, I think we should only have one image, or a nice collage of several images, but not two. Secondly, the first image is the same as the one for Greenhouse effect which I find sub-optimal. The second image might be better but I find the caption doesn't make it clear how this image says anything about "greenhouse gases" (remembering we are writing for lay persons). EMsmile (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I think 2 images in an intro is a good number actually, as the first can be very visual for search thumbnails and the like, and the second can be more of an informative overview.
I see your point about greenhouse gas / effect being the same lead image. I think the images for this page are good, but ideally we'd change out the lead greenhouse effect image. I tried that before and gave up, but I'll take another crack at it. Regarding the caption on this page, why not go ahead and just change it? Efbrazil (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I took another crack at it but I'm again not happy with the results (see thumbnail). So I'm going to abandon the effort again unless someone else has an idea here. Efbrazil (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Chidgk1 You mean my picture on the right here? You like it? That's good! I spent some time struggling with it. I don't think it belongs on this page ("Greenhouse gas") since the existing images are better at showing how gases work. It could be the new lead image of the "Greenhouse effect" page, replacing the gas image that's there now, but I was afraid it wasn't quite good enough (too many words, maybe too cartoonish). You think it's good enough as is to be the lead image there, or do you see room for improvement? Efbrazil (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Efbrazil Nothing wrong with "cartoonish" - looks fine to me. Yes I think it should be lead image for Greenhouse effect. Re the words if you decide to leave them in the image it needs to be clear to non-technical (well slightly technical) people how to translate them. At the moment on Turkish Vikipedi we use a Turkish version of Greenhouse Effect the one on the right with numbers by arrows, but I think that should be in the body of the article as it has more detail than yours. Would it be correct to also add to yours like the other one "This SVG diagram uses embedded text that can be easily translated using a text editor"? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I am the artist who created the image that is the current lead image in this article. I am biased, of course, but I do think it is rather good, esp. in that it conveys the change in wavelength that light energy experiences when it hits the Earth's surface by showing a change in amplitude of the waves as well as a change in the color of the arrows. I've even included the shadows that such enormous arrows would cast over the Earth's surface, which I think looks pretty neat! It shows the re-reflection of the same energy by various greenhouse gasses, and labels them as such. It shows waves on the shores of the oceans, it shows shadows from the clouds... Really-- I am not sure what the complaint exactly is. The image directly above makes almost no sense to me, with its rectangular arrows and numbers that don't seem to correspond to anything. It also has no visual "appeal" which doesn't help. I am open to suggestions you might have to the current lead image, or to replacing it with an improved image that conveys the same information, just ask. Also I am not at all sure what the problem is with having this image as the lead one here as well as at the article on Greenhouse effect, inasmuch as they are covering very much the same concept and there are (as far as I know) no better alternate images available (if I am wrong, then bring them on!) A loose necktie (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@A loose necktie: The current lead image is good stuff! The reason I did a swap for lead image in "greenhouse effect" was for variety, as the lead images should vary, plus different images help convey the issue at different levels of complexity.
In terms of your image, I remember one person grousing that the molecules look too much like visible clouds, but I can't imagine how to fix that. It would also be good to somehow show that the molecules are invisible to visual wavelengths but opaque in infrared. I tried a few times to have a graphic showing the upper atmosphere is cooling while the low atmosphere warms, but I haven't had success conveying that visually either. The fact that infrared and greenhouse gases are both invisible makes it tricky to convey visually. Efbrazil (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Efbrazil: There comes a point of complexity at which one must surrender and simply lie to the children. And it's okay. This is only Wikipedia. If we try to say everything important in a graphic, we end up saying nothing at all. No one is getting their Ph.D. here-- this is only meant to be basically informative, not comprehensive. That's how it is That's how it should be. Here. A loose necktie (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jujohnson2020.
Done. Well, I think pursuing it with the IP editor above may have done the trick. I changed the article based on what they said. Let's see how that goes with other new readers. Hopefully we'll hear no more about it. --Nigelj (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MrClog (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
.svg)
.png){kind=link}
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Carbon gas and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8#Carbon gas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jujohnson2020.