Talk:Global warming potential

message: Vicki, the global warming potential of carbon dioxide is disputed. It depends on the hypothetical positive-feedback advocated by the IPCC. --Ed
:*Disputed by whom? This is pretty standard science--it's why Venus is so hot, for example.
:Also, it's difficult to fix real, undisputed errors--like the fact that whoever created the page can't spell "hydrofluorocarbon"--in the midst of this argument. Could you maybe take a moment to look at spelling and grammar, if you're going to dive in and revert my edits? Vicki Rosenzweig
Don't people exhale carbon dioxide? Don't plants breath carbon dioxide? This entire article should be deleted.
-fr8train  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.28 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbon dioxide

message: Vicki, I'm trying to distinguish between the "greenhouse effect", the substantial and undisputed phenomena that keeps the earth warm enough to sustain human life -- and the "greenhouse theory" (for lack of a better term) (global warming or anthropogenic global warming -- SEWilco), the hypothesis that excessive emissions will cause a runaway greenhouse effect leading to a harmful warming.
I think the term "global warming potential" describes not (a) how much a gas contributes to the greenhouse effect but (b) how much it is estimated to contribute to the hypothesized scenario of a runaway greenhouse effect. The problem is that the terms are often not clearly defined. 
Please continue to help out, and I'm sorry if I reverted your edit unjustifiably. Feel free to re-revert. And thanks for adding the immigration thing to Unification Church. Ed Poor
Indeed, the OP has a very valid point. GWP, as I understand, is calculated with the integral of the applicable band of a compound's IR absorption spectrum ("greenhouse effect") coupled with some estimate for that compound's atmospheric half-life ("lifetime" is a false concept in chemistry). This data, combined with local information about concentrations of relevant gases, leads to some useful guesses about AGW - on a local scale - but is only one fragment of the complex puzzle that is climate dynamics. -ZI  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.72.255 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenhouse effect

message: What is the GWP of water vapor?  About 26.26? SEWilco
:*Probably very very small, because GWP is not the total effect of the gas but some function, per molecule, of effect times lifetime, and H2O lifetime is short and the effect probably small (because of saturation). But I've never seen it explicitly calculated - perhaps because its not of much interest. (William M. Connolley 19:12, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've heard it is about 0.1, which indeed is quite small. However the vast amount in our skies means that it emposes a huge increase in global temperatures, (about 20°C I think), so surely it would be in our interests to calculate an exact figure? not that it is in our powers to affect its global influence. mastodon 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This article covers the GWP of water vapor quite well. It contributes 95% of the greenhouse effect, making CO2 and other gases insignificant. The wiki article should be edited to include water vapor's true contribution, since it's the dominate greenhouse gas. Otherwise it is not NPOV, and seriously biased in favor of the political agenda of the global warming alarmists. oward (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is just a couple of problems with that article... the first is that it isn't a reliable source, and the second is that the figures it quotes are wrong. WV is not 95% of the greenhouse effect, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a reference from the DOE that gives the 95% number for water vapor in the troposphere vs. just 5% for CO2. oward (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jolly good, now read the surrounding text and following table D2 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you be more specific what you mean. Text before table D2 says as referenced: "Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor." I do not know what troposphere/stratosphere difference plays a significance here, but clearly as stated there, watter vapor is responible for 95% of warming effect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.7 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

text: See IPCC 2014 WG1 Chap 8 page 666;  water vapor is variable depending on temperature, and GWP is not calculated over a molecule's lifetime, but over any given period relative to a molecule of CO2 during the same period.   There's no fixed number, since accounting methods differ, but the GWP of a molecule of water vapor "can be considered to be approximately two to three times greater" than one of CO2, over a given period of time.  The real question for climate change is how will atmospheric water vapor change.   IPCC AR5 WG1 says what we add (via irrigation, power plant cooling stacks, etc) is negligble; the real factor is that warmer air holds more water vapor (i.e., more evaporation).   Scientists therefore consider changes in water vapor as a feedback, rather than an issue of emissions.  Or so says the RS.  If you wish to pontificate.... please don't.  Instead summarize an RS.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is accurate in the troposphere, where water vapor has a short lifetime and is dependent on temperature, HOWEVER for aircraft, water vapor is an important greenhouse gas emission (even more important than CO2) because it's emitted into the stratosphere, where water vapor residence times are orders of magnitude longer. Therefore, water vapor has very high GWP in the stratosphere. I think it'd help this article to mention GWP of water vapor as a function of altitude and/or lifetime as that would make it much easier to compare with CO2. This is, admittedly, a special case for aviation, but it'd be very helpful. Many scientific sources (including the IPCC) mention this important effect, but it's hard for the lay person to understand since it's often not portrayed in something simple and easy to understand like a multiplication factor. If anyone can find a good GWP equivalent for anthropogenic water vapor as a function of lifetime (and/or altitude) with good citations, that'd be really nice. Robotbeat (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Water

message: The article currently says that the IPCC are the authors of the definition of GWP. I'm not sure that is true, though it might be. Previously the article said that the defintion of GWP could be found in the IPCC report. (William M. Connolley 09:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: TAR gives a reference to the First Assesment report which is not online. I'll try and dig it out of the UL sometime but it will have to wait...--NHSavage 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who defines GWP?

message: Rd232 suggested that Global warming potential looks like a possible subsection of greenhouse gas. I'm not so sure. GWP is a thing in itself. There is scope for more in the article - like how it gets calc and stuff. OTOH it could be a redirect into the GWP discussion of GHG... I'm not sure. William M. Connolley 23:04:33, 2005-07-17 (UTC).
:Thanks for putting this note. I see Greenhouse effect, greenhouse gas and global warming potential as overlapping somewhat, in a way that I'm not sure is helpful for the average reader. I'm not disputing that GWP is a thing in itself, but why not merge GWP into one of the other two articles for now - it can always be recreated if/when the material justifies it. (I think in general it's better to keep related material together, to avoid duplication, encourage clear structure, maintain context, and ultimately encourage better quality editing.) Rd232 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Global warming potential]] looks like a possible subsection of [[greenhouse gas]]?

message: Just a detail - the 20 year GWP methane figure differs in article para 1, section under Values and under Importance of Time Horizon Elfie10 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about timescale is already made on the page, and the source (IPCC) is given. The point about no-exact-number is fair enough. William M. Connolley 09:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just think it needs to be a bit clearer. I'll try and work on this. It has caused much confusion over at methane.--NHSavage 09:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Feel free to clarify. I may have a go too. We don't want confusion... William M. Connolley 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a go. Feel free to edit my edits though! Next stop is to clear up the misunderstanding over at methane.--NHSavage 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Valueless GWP?

message: Someone with a stuck CAPS key wrote:
: COMMENT: IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT HERE THAT UNDER THE KYOTO POLITICAL PROCESS AND MOST OTHER PROCESSES (CCX, RGGI, ETC.), THE SAR GWP VALUES ARE STILL USED.
I don't know if this is true or not. It probably belongs in KP rather than here? What is CCX (contraction and convergence?), RGGI (regional greenhouse gas inventory?) William M. Connolley 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it is true or not but it is already in the article: For converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents under the Kyoto protocol, the Conference of the Parties decided decision 2/CP.3 that the older GWP values from the IPCC Second Assessment Report are to be used to compute overall emissions by sources or removals by sinks. I'll stick a citation needed on it.--NHSavage 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAR values? 

message: I removed the "non-linearity" section as follows:
: The above equation is a rather simplistic model since it implicitly assumes that the effects are linear over the range of concentrations concerned, whereas in reality this is not the case.
: Beers-Lambert Law tells us that this is essentially a logrithmic relationship and therefore the absorption varies with the concentration of the gas present. As the concentration of the gas rises, less and less of the light remains to be absorbed. Simply put, doubling the gas concentration will no longer double the energy absorbed.
: In the case the greenhouse gases, methane is still at very low concentrations where such a linear approximation is fairly accurate, however carbon dioxide is now (2007) at a level which places it well into the non-linear region, at levels at which it will absorb nearly all of the energy of the wavelengths where it is active. Increasing concentrations will have  less and less effect.
: This means that the above equation is only valid for small variations of concentration around the static values on which the calculations are initially based. Over longer periods where the concentrations are expected to change significantly, or for large short-term changes in the levels of gas present, the variation of absorption with concentration must be reagarded as variable and any calculation based on the simple model must be regarded as inaccurate.
: This approximation has the effect of playing down the importance of changes in the other greenhouse gases and 
underlines the danger of focusing on carbon dioxide as is frequently the case in the media and public perceptions where the greenhouse effect is CO2.''
This was based on reading the IPCC as saying it was for the release of 1 kg of gas, which is small. But OTOH given the time horizons involved, in the real world the GHG concs will change... in fact the TAR linked form the page says The radiative efficiencies ar and ax are not necessarily constant over time. While the absorption of infrared radiation by many greenhouse gases varies linearly with their abundance, a few important ones display non-linear behaviour for current and likely future abundances (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O). For those gases, the relative radiative forcing will depend upon abundance and hence upon the future scenario adopted. These issues were discussed in detail and some sensitivities to chosen scenarios were presented in IPCC (l994).
So: my initial reason for removing the text was wrong. But given the text about a_x being time-variable, I don't see how This means that the above equation is only valid for small variations of concentration around the static values on which the calculations are initially based can be correct. But we should point out that the GWPs are scenario-dependent. William M. Connolley 09:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should read up on my userpage William M. Connolley 18:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please remember that you can't say that as your personal opinion - it counts as Original Research and is forbidden. OTOH if you can find a reputable source to say the same then its fine. If you *can't* find such a source you should wonder why not William M. Connolley 18:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't put it back in. You have missed the point that I quoted - that the values are scenario dependent. The calculations don't assume static values for the other GHGs. At least, thats how I read the IPCC text. How do you read it? William M. Connolley 18:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/247.htm. As I said, its linked form the page. Its where the defn comes from William M. Connolley 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are a_x and a_r constant? the IPCC text says The radiative efficiencies ar and ax are not necessarily constant over time.   William M. Connolley 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you think that the values a_x and a_r are constant in the formula? Nowhere does it say they *are* constant; in fact it explicitly says they aren't; yet you insist they are. This seems weird. I am indeed going from the IPCC text which defines the GWP. It seems that you are not familiar with the text either. Knowing a lot about radiative physics doesn't help if you don't know what the values in the equation are William M. Connolley 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It says, perfectly clearly, that the a_x may not be constant. The text you've added seems to be entirely your own personal opinion, and doesn't agree with the IPCC page that the defn is sourced from. Please find a proper source for what you want to add, if you want to add it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 10:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is just plain silly. Just because a variable doesn't have a (t) after it doesn't mean it doesn't vary with time, especially when the text explicitly say it does William M. Connolley 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If all you want to do is quote from that IPCC page, then fine: I have no problem with that. If it contains what you need, then great. Just don't add your own unwarratned extrapolations William M. Connolley 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then you're being rather pathetic. Permit me to spoon feed you: see http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm. Or, you could have found it via the references section for that chapter: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/259.htm. You assert expertise but are incapable of a basic reference lookup? This is very odd William M. Connolley 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My initial impression was that it didn't matter because it was a small perturbation. But I explicitly retracted that when I realised I was wrong. You know that. Do pay attention. William M. Connolley 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, the problem is you refusing to admit that a_x can vary with time William M. Connolley 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK then, As far as I can tell, the problem is you refusing to admit that a_x can vary with time in the formula given, jsut because the dependence on t isn't shown explicitly. I do indeed maintain that the absence of a (t) after a_x does not imply that a_x is constant especially (all together now...) since the text says it can vary. If you want to be sure, you'd have to look up the more detailed calcs in IPCC 1994, whose exact ref I've helpfully provided you after you failed to find it yourself, but of course you didn't thank me for that William M. Connolley 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-linearity 

message: I just created the article linked above, unaware that this article already existed as Global warming potential.  Please import any relevant information that's not already covered in the article.  Then (and only then) make a redirect.  Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merge from [[Greenhouse warming potential]] 

message: Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions  —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Earth 

message: Used as an etchant in microelectronics,
 is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential (GWP) 17,200 times greater than that of  when compared over a 100 year period.  Its GWP would place it second only to  in the group of Kyoto-recognised greenhouse gases, although  is not currently included in that grouping.  It has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 740 years, although recent work suggests a slightly shorter lifetime of 550 years (and a GWP of 16,800).
Industrial applications routinely break down NF3, whereas the regulated compounds SF6 and PFCs are released.  Although the impact of NF3 is difficult to project, based on 2008 production levels of 4000 tons,  could prove to be more significant than PFCs or , and greater than that of the largest coal-fired power stations. 
In 2008, about three-quarters of the chemical is now used to manufacture computer microchips; the rest is used to make LCD panels.
World production of NF3 is expected to reach 8,000 tons a year by 2010.  Currently at least 2% is ultimately released into the atmosphere; perhaps substantially more, but there is not good independent data about releases, nor measurements of atmospheric concentration.
-69.87.203.92 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, why does it belong in the article? See-also  William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nitrogen trifluoride]] 

message: The table shows nitrous oxide as 310 for 20 years. The IPCC source shows 289. This seems to need correction unless I'm missing something? Other numbers seem OK (though I didn't check the ones in parentheses).
Why only these few items? Table would benefit at least from a note that CFCs and dozens of other compounds are available in the source table.Numbersinstitute (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The AR5 values shown include climate-carbon feedbacks, which are not part of the recommended values in Table 8.A.1. If the article is going to show these values they should be in addition to the values without climate-carbon feedbacks and should also include reference the the higher uncertainty in results with cc feedbacks (Schivlg (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been an issue for a while, I think the current state of the article is misleading. There is a short table we could add, at page 87 of the synthesis report. Chtfn (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  GWPs in Table 

message: I don't have time right now - but I think this article needs one paragraph on where GWP's came from. How long they have been around for, who was the first to write down the calculations. Chur.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.184.138 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of GWP's 

message: The section on the importance of the time horizon says: 
The GWP value depends on how the gas concentration decays over time in the atmosphere. 
Sulfur Hexafluoride has a long half-life and its GWP increases with longer time horizons, unlike the other chemicals. The reason for this is not clearly stated in the article though. If the reason is that the Sulfur Hexafluoride has a longer half-life than Carbon Dioxide, then we could say:
The GWP value depends on how the gas concentration decays over time in the atmosphere compared with the decay in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide.
This would explain the odd behaviour a bit more clearly. But is something else going on like the transformation of Sulfur Hexafluoride into an even more potent GW chemical? Recent Runes (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GWP of Sulfur Hexafluoride over time 

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the probation indefinite?  99.181.147.10 (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: Add Global warming potential (GWP)is often used in conjunction with a compound's Ozone depletion potential?  209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Source?   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Refrigerants discusses these together.  General search on google backed up the OP assertion.Pjwst6 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

text: There currently is an issue with that Talk, see Ozone depletion potential maybe?  99.181.133.155 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Something is strange with Talk:Ozone depletion potential?  99.181.143.101 (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Global warming potential (GWP) is often used in conjunction with a compound's [[Ozone depletion potential]]?  

message: "the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 72" from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Methane_as_a_greenhouse_gas vs "For example, the 20 year GWP of methane is 56" on this page. 101.98.150.115 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 72 according to the 2007 IPCC report. I have updated the reference. However, this number may still be disputed, as more recent research (Shindell, 2009) indicates that the GWP of methane may have been underestimated, and the 100-year GWP of methane is likely closer to 33 than 25 as stated in IPCC AR4, and the 20-year GWP is correspondingly higher at 105 rather than the 72 reported in IPCC AR4. I don't have time to make this change right now but intend to in the future as it is crucially important to understand that GWPs of various shorter-lived gases are somewhat contested even today.
--129.67.199.19 (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the 20 year GWP of methane 56 or 72? 

message: Methane has a half life of roughly 7 years in the atmosphere, why does this say it has a lifetime of 12? Roughly 30% of the methane would still be in the atmosphere at that point in time.174.101.99.191 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Atmospheric methane states 29 on 100 yrs, did not checked sources. 7 GWP might refer to 10 yrs period or something. prokaryotes (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lifetime" of Methane 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Global warming potential. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041112075806/http://www.epa.gov:80/nonco2/econ-inv/table.html to http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/table.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Global warming potential. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501031449/http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu:80/wg1/wg1-report.html to http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Global warming potential. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329000822/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131050350/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/247.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/247.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131050350/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/247.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/247.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329000822/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose to merge Carbon dioxide equivalent into Global warming potential. 
Carbon dioxide equivalent is an extremely confusing article. For example it defines CO2eq as CO2e is defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and defined by The Guardian newspaper and it defines CO2e as something else. 
If I google "difference between CO2eq and CO2e" I cannot find anything that I can understand which explains it.
After the merger we can delete the section about CO2e as it only has one citation which (without registering) does not actually mention CO2e.
We can also then add "Carbon dioxide equivalent" to Glossary of climate change with the CO2eq definition.
Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree CO2e article is quite small. We need to have good definitions and arrange this article to be understandable to non-specialists. I've made an attempt at that. Some people distinguish between "radiative forcing" and "atmospheric warming", which the article does not distinguish. It also needs to explain climate feedback effects. Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Agree - me too. There's not much at CO2e it would be good to consolidate William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Lede now refers to "gases subject to restrictions under the Paris Agreement are either rapidly increasing their concentrations in Earth's atmosphere or have a large GWP.", where it previously said "under the Kyoto Protocol". I'm not sure the Paris Agreement has "restrictions." There must be a list of gases covered by the Paris Agreement, since it came into force when the producers of enough of these gases ratified it. I haven't found that list to see if they all are "rapidly increasing their concentrations in Earth's atmosphere or have a large GWP." I agree the sentence should no longer refer to Kyoto Protocol. We need to check if it's true, or maybe it can be deleted, and the Paris Agreement article can address it if needed. Numbersinstitute (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest it would be best to put the 2001 GWP numbers back in, and even the 1997 numbers. The value is to see how stable or unstable they are over time., which lets readers judge the reliability, and even understand writings from that time. I haven't put them back yet, since I wanted to ask if there's any reason to keep the 2 tables separate? If together, they can be sorted by gas or by year. Sorting by year makes it easy to see an overview of all the most recent values for all gases (which should be the default). Sorting by gas makes it easy to see the history of any particular gas. The table can be collapsed to save space. Another idea is to have the most recent numbers in one table, not collapsed, and all numbers, from oldest to newest in another collapsed table. Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an opinion - go ahead and do as you think best Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede wording and past GWP

message: I've just added an image to the lead as there was none so far. Pinging User:RCraig09: what do you think of this image or do you have a better one at your fingertips for this article? Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't made any more appropriate graphics than :File:1979-_Radiative_forcing_-_climate_change_-_global_warming_-_EPA_NOAA.svg, but a Google image search of "GWP site:commons.wikimedia.org" turned up some possibilities. Checking corrsponding non-English-language Wikipedia articles might have other relevant images.  —RCraig09 (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now found one image at the Swedish Wikipedia and one more from OWID that was already in Wikimedia Commons. I have added those two bar charts. I guess the charts for GWP are inherently quite boring because it's just bars with differing heights but nothing that would change over time. EMsmile (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for the lead? 

message: Global warming essay 41.144.64.15 (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography