Talk:Climate change/Archive 34

message: In the FAQ for the discussion of this article, the entry concerning causality of CO2 in temperature change is inaccurate; empirical measurements have not causally linked CO2 increases with temperature increases.  The FAQ entry firmly establishes that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere presently is very likely from man-made sources; i.e., that it is not the case that the presently high CO2 concentration is the result of increased temperature.  This incorrect connection, however, does not make the converse false as well (that, in the past, changes in temperature have caused changes in CO2).  To my knowledge, the following theory has not been empirically falsified (correct me, with references, if I am wrong):
* CO2 may cause a small temperature increase, but its effect on temperature is now and has always been dominated by other effects
* In pre-industrial history, global temperature change has resulted in an increase of CO2
* Industrial society has caused a large increase in CO2 which is unprecedented in human history
This theory allows the contents (but not the title) of the FAQ entry to be accurate while rejecting the implication the title of the entry gives the information.  If the author of this entry believes that it is well-established that CO2 has driven temperature in the past, please include citations.  A sufficient citation should include an explanation of why CO2 lags temperature.  In the absence of these citations, I suggest a small change in the actual article to reflect the lack of consensus on past CO2-temperature causality: in the "Pre-human climate variations" section, I suggest changing "A rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused warming in the early Jurassic period..." to "A rapid buildup of greenhouse gases coincided with warming in the early Jurassic period..." (emphasis to be removed in actual article).  I also suggest that the title of the entry in the FAQ be changed from "How do we know that the rise in global temperatures isn't causing the increase in CO2 and not vice versa? That means the CO2 increase comes from something besides fossil fuels." to "Can't the presently high levels of CO2 just be the result of temperature changes rather than fossil fuels, as they may have been in the past?"  The two existing bullets do answer this question, whereas they do not answer the current question.
Because of the nature of the subject, I wanted to run this change by everyone before changing the article.  In the absence of objection, I'll make the change in a couple of days. Bjp716 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is another example of rapid CO2 build up leading to higher temperatures Count Iblis (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the abstract of the actual paper[]: "We show that the onsets of environmental change ... preceded the light carbon injection by several thousand years."  "The lag of approx3,000 years between the onset of warming in New Jersey shelf waters and the carbon isotope excursion is consistent with the hypothesis that bottom water warming caused the injection of 13C-depleted carbon by triggering the dissociation of submarine methane hydrates, but the cause of the early warming remains uncertain."  I do not see how this article contradicts any of the above 3 bullets; if anything, it lends credibility to #2. Bjp716 (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I support the change from "caused" to "coincided with".  In the past, carbon dioxide served as a positive feedback, in the present, it is serving as a driver. johnpseudo 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're spot-on with the last sentence, but I'm not sure "coincided with" reflects that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one disputes that CO2 was not the cause of this warming and was instead just a positive feedback mechanism, how about "A rapid buildup of greenhouse gases amplified warming in the early Jurassic period..."?  Also, the sentence in the next paragraph about methane release being "a cause for other warming events in the distant past" tends to imply that this was not the mechanism for the early Jurassic warming.  Is this accurate?  If not, should we remove the word "other"? Bjp716 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's fine.  Johnpseudo already changed "amplified" (thanks, John)  Let me know if you object to this change on the FAQ page: [FAQ entry 11 title] "Can't the presently high levels of CO2 just be the result of temperature changes rather than fossil fuels, as they may have been in the past?"  If no response, I'll change it in the next couple of days.  Bjp716 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why does the anonymous IP believe the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office to be 'very biased'? This research center is a well respected throughout the climatology community. Please present solid evidence to the contrary. --Skyemoor (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causality link between CO2 and temperature status unclear 

message: The effects of water vapour on global warming go largely un-mentioned in the global community. Scientists note that water vapour accounts for approximately 36%(1) of greenhouse gases. As this figure is un-noted by Environmental Activists, a new argument (2) springs up; since CO2 emissions make-up a miniscule percentage of global greenhouse gases, the effects of pollution are negligible. I am writing to refute this argument, because water vapour is a key component of future warming.
The warming trend of the last fifty years is unlikely to spontaneously reverse itself, as greenhouse gas emissions on the rise. With global temperatures increasing, our atmosphere experiences a resultant increase in the moisture-capacity of air.
A higher moisture-capacity results in a higher volume of water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere. As water vapour accounts for 36% of greenhouse gases, even a small percentage-increase will increase temperatures. The problem lies here: As increasing temperatures result in an increase in water vapour, and an increased amount of water vapour results in increasing temperatures, this cycle will soon becomes unstoppable.
The Earth is currently in equilibrium, yet humans such as ourselves are rapidly pushing Earth past the brink, to a future where recuperation is not possible.
--Diego Bank (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to read greenhouse effect(or GHG) for some better numbers, and for some perspective William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The original source for the percentages on water vapour was not reliable, and I've changed the GHG statistic to 36%. I'm glad to see an article on the runaway greenhouse effect. Water vapour and temperature is currently a "positive feedback effect", yet this is likely to become unstable as global temperatures increase. Diego Bank (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: How much more effective of a green house gas is water vapor than CO2?  You know you see these ratios for nitrous oxides (a couple hundred or so) and methane (40 or 50 i think).  If this ratio is large for water vapor, I think that would support the notion that CO2 isn't that important.  But if its very small, then perhaps the opposite.  SoilMan2007 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is this feedback loop that I am worried about. Thank you for the great link --Diego Bank (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of Water Vapour 

message: This article mentions that global warming is expected to lead to an increase of the intensity of extreme weather events. Presumably this would lead to larger temperature fluctuations. Do temperature records show such a trend?  Count Iblis (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increase of intensity of extreme weather events 

message: Hello. Unless I'm mistaken, there's a blatant error in this article. "Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998." This is untrue. The warmest year on record is 1934, as shown by data released by NASA, linked below. I've never edited an article before, so assuming I'm correct, would someone please edit the article to post the correct figures?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Dibadiba (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is correct. You are not Raul654 (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Isn't this NASA data about USA only? I know some Americans struggle to remember that there is anywhere else but... --BozMo talk 06:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even the whole United States, just the 48 contiguous states. Dibadiba, you might be interested in perusing the 5-year mean listed in that NASA data and charting a graph of that. --bainer (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I think the assumption that you are correct is not correct and someone please correct me if I am not correct.  The NASA data refers to US temperatures.  World temperature rankings were not significantly affected by this change to the US temperature record. Brusegadi (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, Dibadiba. (I'm afraid the other users would rather pounce on you than welcome you to the project.) As the others have already stated, I'm afraid the data you're referring to does not reflect global temperature, which is what we discuss in the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hottest year on record error 

message: University of Chicago professor and discoverer of the solar wind Eugene Parker has addressed the connection between science and politics, saying "Global warming has become a political issue both in government and in the scientific community. The scientific lines have been drawn by 'eminent' scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. It upsets the established orthodoxy."http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark/?searchterm=henrik svensmark
::Why can't this be added to the article, it's both relevant and sourced.--—(Kepin)RING THE <B>LIBERTY</b> BELL 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this article focuses on the science. Political commentary should be in Global warming controversy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, the article expresses opinion, and therefore is not a peer-reviewed, reliable source.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "University of Chicago professor and discoverer of the solar wind [[Eugene Parker]] has addressed the connection between science and politics" 

message: Could the terms such as radiative Forcing be linked to their respective pages just to make it easier to read through the article and understand terms  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.247.216 (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I wikified it. --Splette :) How's my driving? 02:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Links" 

message: Recent New York Times article seems to imply that there is a significant scientific debate about the impact of global warming to the frequency of extreme weather events:
"Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature. 
Guess which paper jibed with the theory — and image of Katrina — presented by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”?
It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December — by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize."
Does this need to be reflected in the Global warming article? --Doopdoop (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There really hasn't been a comprehensive study of "extreme weather" by timeline and type, as far as I know, and I had looked high and low for something like that recently. And by extreme, I was looking for data on high variations, especially timewise, in temperature, precipitation, and so on above and beyond the number of hurricanes per season and such. At best, I only found stuff like this. With that said, there is this Wikipedia article that seems to cover most of the info that's currently available and you may want to give that a looksee first. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What were the articles? Who wrote them? And how on earth is Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society -- the official organ of the UK's national academy of science, and the world's longest-standing scientific journal in the English language -- an "obscure journal"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doopdoop has an excellent point here. This really needs to be addressed in the article. Frenstad (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but only after Doopdoop (or another editor) answers Raymond Arritt's very reasonable questions.--HughGRex (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously the New York Times article is biased. But if we take away the POVs, we can see that there are two papers in two top class scientific journals, reaching opposite conclusions about the impact on extreme weather events. So I think the degree of scientific debate about this should somehow be indicated in the global warming article. --Doopdoop (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how this affects the article. The article is quite clear that an increase in extreme weather events is one effect of global warming that is possible, but does not claim that this is inevitable. Nor does the article make any claim at all about Katrina. So the article reflects the scientific "doubts", as Doopdoop suggests it should. The article is already quite cautionary in its tone. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might also be a more efficient use of time to first know a little bit more about the person who wrote the column and his politics. And the column itself was only an opinion piece and not a news item. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Column and politics of the author is irrelevant. Papers in Nature and UK journal are important and they indicate existence of a scientific debate about extreme weather events. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurricanes aren't the only kind of severe weather -- there are tornadoes, heat waves, flash floods, lightning, hail, derechos, etc. etc. It's quite possible that severe weather in general will increase, while hurricanes will show no trend. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I think the politics of the author is quite relevant since you're taking him at his word that there is some sort of conflict or debate when nobody, as far as I can see, in the scientific community is really claiming that. Would you have a more authoritative cite? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extreme weather events" 

message: Regarding a recent change 'Increasing global temperature may cause sea level to rise; - changed to 'Increasing global temperature will cause sea level to rise'
That really depends on if your talking about average global temperature vs (all/every) global temperature. The former is 'may' the latter is 'will'. It is possible for the earth to get warmer overall and for the poles to stay frozen or even get colder. See Antarctica cooling controversy. The only verifible statment here is 'may'.--mitrebox (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're talking about polar temperatures, which aren't the same thing as sea level rise. Though it seems like they'd go hand in hand, observed evidence is that they don't. Almost half of observed sea level rise is due to thermosteric expansion (i.e., sea water becomes less dense as it warms). Melting of Greenland and Antarctica produce less than 20% of observed sea level rise. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, I was talking about ice melting. Since you can't film expansion it never makes CNN, but since you actually know stuff I'll make this argument. Water is most dense 3.984 °C. One of those unique properties of water. Therefore thermosteric expansion only occurs once water is heated above 3.984 °C, before that the water is actually condensing. Therefore to figure out if the oceans are expanding due to thermal expansion you need to ensure that more area is being expanded due to heating above 3.984 °C than area contracted by heating of water to less than 3.984 °C.--mitrebox (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Two important points. First, it's an interesting curiosity of geometry that half the surface area of the earth lies within 30 degrees N or S of the equator, i.e., in or near the tropics. So, the great majority of the ocean is well above freezing. But more importantly, sea water has a different behavior in terms of the relation of density to temperature. Fresh water is densest around 4C as you note, but sea water keeps getting denser all the way down to its freezing point. In other words, sea water is densest right at freezing, so that any temperature rise causes sea water to expand. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Exact, and another curiosity is that sea (=salty) water temperature can be less than 0 deg C. That is why water salinity is such an important parameter of water circulation, particularly in the polar regions. --Galahaad (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  May vs Will 

message: Thought I would bring this up here as this page is probably one of the more watched: to where, if anywhere, should carbon emissions redirect? We have one going to greenhouse gas, and the other two (CO2 emissions and carbon dioxide emissions) to list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. I would have thought carbon dioxide a better target than greenhouse gas. It could also be deleted entirely or given its own article, but if it is to be a redirect it needs to be consistent. Richard001 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Carbon dioxide mostly discusses the physical and chemical properties of the substance, and only touches on its role as a greenhouse gas. Anyone interested in carbon emissions is likely more interested in the greenhouse properties. Of the options you give, list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions is the most appropriate. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon emissions 

message: Barbara Lee wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2001/06/18/ED193612.DTL
"The National Academy of Sciences recently revisited the issue of global warming at Bush's request. The report concluded that "greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities . . . Temperatures are, in fact, rising."
The report further stated that "national policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century." 
Hmm. Anyone want to either add the refrence, ( there is NOTHING in the article regarding NAS )
or a link to the op-ed?
-ostrich society  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.118.64 (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The NAS is mentioned in the intro, though not directly. There's no reason to focus on just one particular academy of science. Besides, op-eds are not the best of sources. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Op-Ed, Barbara Lee, D-Oakland 

message: For 5 decades this has continued unabated and is being accelerated. Wikipedia states that between 1991 and 2000 an area twice the size of Portugal was lost. This is a major contributor to the rise of co2 surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.139.87 (talk • contribs) 
:I have heard that deforestation accounts for about 25% of emissions  worldwide.  Also, this is already mentioned in the article.  Look for the word deforestation.  Brusegadi (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.139.87 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard bananas are delicious, look for the word bananas--mitrebox (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to be like that, its on "Economic Development" Ninth Edition by Todaro and Smith on page 791.  In that book they use the explicitly say 25%.  The source used in this article has a value of about 25% which is fair enough. Brusegadi (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the summary for policymakers of the IPCC's fourth assessment report: The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions increased from an average of 6.4 GtC per year in the 1990s to 7.2 GtC per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 GtC per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty. Splette :) How's my driving? 04:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not disagreeing with you and thank you for providing the source. Just making fun of your sentence 'I heard'. Sounds like gossiping women in a beauty parlor (look for the word gossiping). --mitrebox (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of the link to deforestation of the Amazon rain forest? 

message: I read that 2007 was the coldest year since 2001, but strangely it doesn't seem to mention anywhere on the article. Could it be that the article I was reading was wrong?
Bugsy (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, maybe not -- I haven't checked. The temperature flops up and down from year to year; a strong La Nina developed in mid-late 2007 that might have pulled the year's temperature below the general upward trend.  Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if so, 2007 being the coldest year in the last 6 doesn't really seem all that noteworthy. Climate data is noisy; you see small peaks and troughs often. Raul654 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, a single year doesn't say much. But where did you read that 2007 was the coldest year? BBC and National Geographic suggest otherwise. --Splette :) How's my driving? 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was on the UK met office site! Just for information I've discovered that the Met office forecast for 2007 from last January predicted that 2007 would be the warmest year on record. It was not. | Here is the link to their forecast for 2007. Bugsy (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the article you read about 2007 being the coldest year was not about the global temperature average but maybe for a certain country or region?! --Splette :) How's my driving? 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK Met office now predicts 2008 to be relatively cool, and acknowledge that 2007 was not warmer than 1998. Both are due to the strong La-Nina, and do not conflict with the long term trend. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 2007 certainly is cooler than 2002-2005, the question is whether it is also cooler than 2006 making it the coolest year since 2001 (as I said). Unfortunately, the difference seems to to around the 0.01C mark which makes it difficult to compare any two sites as one may round up and another down. (anyone know where to look for accurate data?) On the plus? side, the solar cycle does seem to have eventually restarted - but one sunspot does not make a summer! And anyone wanting to read an interesting article (albeit full of opinion and no fact) might be interested to read this  Bugsy (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, the figures are already out. So why hasn't the graph of global temperature been amended to show 2007? If it were higher I've no doubt it would have been amended as soon as the figures were out! 212.139.94.152 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The CRU has published its 2007 figures - last year was only 8th warmest in the series from 1850 and slightly behind the other years of the decade globally - almost entirely due to the cooling effects of an La Nina event in the July to December part of the year. (It is nevertheless warmer (even much warmer) than every year from 1850 to 1997, though.) This should go somewhere in the article but in belongs in an explanation of variations within the upward trend in temperatures that should still be obvious from the graph (can't find how to update the graph though - can anyone else?. The very good CRU one is under copyright.) Current expectations are that the upward trend in global temperatures is stalled while excess heat in the atmosphere is conducted to the oceans and absorbed there. Once this is more in balance, perhaps by late next year, global temperatures will be able to rise, possibly even faster than they did in 1992-2002.--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Global figures 

message: Please don't respond to off-the-wall chatroom stuff. Just delete it per WP:TPG and the notice at the top of this page. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizzare claims 

message: It should be noted that BOINC is conducting increased research to come up with a more accurate model than the 1,5-6 degrees temperature variation now recorded by most models. It should be noted that private people can cooperate in this by Grid computing trough BOINC.
In addition, please include information about the gulf-stream collapse theory (caused by global warming). A documentary ("Gulf Stream and the Next Ice Age") and more info is available at following link: Gulf Stream and the Next Ice Age Documentary 
Cheers.
KVDP (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't mean gulf stream; see Shutdown of thermohaline circulation. BOINC... I'm sure their PR is saying such things, but which science do you mean? Is this cp.net stuff? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The findings were made by Peter Schwartz en Doug Randall, respected professors in their field (climate). The report they made appearantly also made a deep impact in the White House, because of its implecations for the USA. KVDP (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is BOINC studying only surface-temperature, or a fully-3D model of the Gulf Stream? Which information did you want included? --Diego Bank (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As William implies, this is really the climateprediction.net work. BOINC itself doesn't "conduct research" as such; it merely helps with the distributed computing aspects. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RA is dead-on. BOINC is a distributed computing framework. Its results are only as useful as the actual program (and input data) it is being used to run. Raul654 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: BOINC only generates a complete (and much more preciese) 3D-model of the expected climate change. However, it is the least the readers this article can do after they are informed of the climate change-problems. It has also been proposed by the BBC (Meldown-documentary) as something people might to to act on climate change. The BBC also made a especially created software see this site KVDP (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOINC and Gulf Stream Slow-down 

message: The introduction to this article states: Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[1] The referenced website says 5,8°C instead of 6,4°C. Woodwalker (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its in table SPM.3 - lowest likely temp 1.1°C (B1 scenario) and highest likely 6.4°C (A1FI scenario). The 5.8°C is from the TAR.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The TAR cited 1.4–5.8°C, while the source we cite references 1.1–6.4°C as the likely range. Hope that helps. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  6,4 degrees?