Talk:Climate change

Skip to table of contents

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

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

Start a new topic

Article policies

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

faq page

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated?

A5: Two reasons:

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

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

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

Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO₂?

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

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

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

Q9: Did climate change end in 1998?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A16: No,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antarctica High‑importance

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

Arctic High‑importance

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

Climate change Top‑importance

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

Disaster management High‑importance

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

Environment Top‑importance

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

Effective Altruism (inactive)

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

Geography Top‑importance

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

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

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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

Geology High‑importance

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

Globalization High‑importance

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

Sanitation Mid‑importance

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

Science Policy High‑importance

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

Weather: Climate Top‑importance

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

Spoken Wikipedia

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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

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

Other talk page banners

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

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: Global warming
Climate change

Discussions

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

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

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

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

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

Section sizes

Section size for Climate change (49 sections)
Section name	Byte count		Prose size (words)
Section name	Header	Total	Header	Total
(Top)	16,934	16,934	500	500
Terminology	4,376	4,376	196	196
Global temperature rise	70	24,117	0	984
Temperatures prior to present-day global warming	2,663	2,663	181	181
Warming since the Industrial Revolution	9,088	15,307	367	600
Differences by region	6,219	6,219	233	233
Future global temperatures	6,077	6,077	203	203
Causes of recent global temperature rise	2,585	31,127	182	1,598
Greenhouse gases	9,550	9,550	240	240
Land surface changes	3,783	3,783	297	297
Other factors	22	15,209	0	879
Aerosols and clouds	4,942	4,942	263	263
Solar and volcanic activity	4,148	4,148	232	232
Climate change feedbacks	6,097	6,097	384	384
Modelling	3,985	3,985	304	304
Impacts	1,246	30,775	37	1,641
Environmental effects	4,517	4,517	307	307
Tipping points and long-term impacts	5,883	5,883	303	303
Nature and wildlife	7,043	7,043	273	273
Humans	1,903	12,086	73	721
Health and food	3,469	3,469	263	263
Economics, livelihoods and inequality	3,748	3,748	248	248
Climate migration	2,966	2,966	137	137
Reducing and recapturing emissions	4,779	21,646	398	1,506
Clean energy	8,827	8,827	445	445
Energy conservation	1,720	1,720	168	168
Agriculture and industry	3,491	3,491	268	268
Carbon dioxide removal	2,829	2,829	227	227
Adaptation	7,542	7,542	424	424
Policies and politics	2,537	18,888	175	1,235
Policy options	2,972	4,809	190	335
Climate justice	1,837	1,837	145	145
International climate agreements	8,159	8,159	505	505
National responses	3,383	3,383	220	220
Society and culture	26	10,803	0	688
Denial and misinformation	2,528	2,528	229	229
Public awareness and opinion	5,362	8,249	276	459
Climate movement	2,887	2,887	183	183
History	61	16,170	0	703
Early discoveries	6,466	6,466	211	211
Development of a scientific consensus	5,799	5,799	329	329
Recent developments	3,844	3,844	163	163
References	35	104,948	0	4
Sources	16	104,913	0	4
IPCC reports	5,383	5,383	4	4
Other peer-reviewed sources	46,925	46,925	0	0
Books, reports and legal documents	28,720	28,720	0	0
Non-technical sources	23,869	23,869	0	0
External links	1,297	1,297	0	0
Total	292,608	292,608	9,783	9,783

Archives

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

/Terminology section /General discussion

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

I want to know

So almost everyone believes in climate change, and I have to say I don't because if it was why would I be covered in snow and battling the bitter cold, and I can't even wear my regular winter coat I need my big Frontiersmen coat, and this is snow and cold I have experienced in the 2024-25 winter, 2021-22 winter and far beyond. And even in 2022 my county reached a record low, and we almost cut it this year to and all of America experienced snow even in Mexico, anyway, please tell me why you believe in climate change and no I wouldn't roast anyone it'll be without expressing are anger. Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Current climate change is caused by global warming over decades or centuries. It is not a regional weather phenomenon over a period of weeks. There will still be cold spells in limited regions, and can be made worse because warmer temperatures allow more moisture to be in the atmosphere, which must come down as rain or snow. See Effects of climate change. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is the North American continent and more fell under a cold spell multiple times during the winters I explained and so why is climate change happening? Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly covered in this article. Are there areas it is unclear? CMD (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No it's fine I was wondering you're opinion Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is still not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

alright I'm done Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HiLo48. See below for discussion on the forum like nature of the current article, Crop Yields and Desertification. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski. Like you many people wonder why very cold winters still happen in some places. I don’t know which is your country, but many countries have articles, such as Climate change in the United States and Climate change in Canada, which should explain local effects in more detail. If something is not explained properly you could ask on the talk page of the article for your country Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to know is good! It's worthwhile learning that the United States is only 2% of Earth’s area — and west of the Rockies isn’t that cold for this time of year. Global temperature maps show two-thirds of the United States is many degrees colder than normal and same for Russia. But Australia, Africa, the Arctic, Antarctica, Asia, Canada, much of Europe and even Greenland are warmer than normal. ... There is even a theory among many scientists — but it is not yet a consensus — that the American East is getting more extreme winter outbreaks because of a warming Arctic, which is part of climate change. Borenstein, Seth (23 January 2026). "FACT FOCUS: As cold hits, Trump asks, where's global warming? Scientists say it's still here". AP News. Retrieved 1 February 2026. . See also * Borenstein, Seth (21 January 2026). "Meteorologists blame a stretched polar vortex, moisture, lack of sea ice for dangerous winter blast". AP News. Retrieved 1 February 2026. . dave souza, talk 06:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC) updated 06:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

climate change in the arts

This article is very much focused on the science. No objections to that, but it seems a shame that the Culture section doesn't even give a nod to the representation of climate change in the arts.

I've just made my contribution to 100 days, 100 edits for climate info on WP... https://www.linkedin.com/posts/decfinney_just-made-my-contribution-to-tatjana-baletas-share-7452977119699169280-MYN7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABQfbUwBvSKCGRrxgkfSDSQhVADNwo1Sw54

I would like to add a sentence or two on climate change in games to this article, and link to Daybreak wiki, as this game has received awards as a game in its own right, not just as a climate change game.

Has this kind of content addition been considered before? DecFinney (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longstanding consensus that the article is already very long, and that there is a high bar for adding "related" material. The /* Society and culture */ and /* History */ sections already add context to the CC phenomenon itself. I think mentioning a game would be a few levels below the bar. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change and Crop Production

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. dave souza, talk 04:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article: "Climate change threatens people with increased flooding, extreme heat, increased food and water scarcity, more disease, and economic loss." These antiquated assessments were based the extremely flawed and absurd assumption that all things but temperature remain static. They have been thoroughly debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroMuller50 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming has not slowed global crop production. From 2000 to 2020 production rose 52% (twice the rate of population growth) due to improved seeds, fertilizers, and irrigation. The excess fueled a meat production boom adding more animal protein to diets of developing countries.

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/the-ipcc-report-on-the-impacts-of-climate-change-is-depressing

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change

https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/06/23/to-the-mainstream-media-quit-lying-about-crop-yields-they-are-increasing-not-in-decline/

https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/06/23/to-the-mainstream-media-quit-lying-about-crop-yields-they-are-increasing-not-in-decline/ AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Depot is not a reliable source (and you didn't need to post the same link twice), the Breakthrough source is an editorial, and the UNEP source doesn't say food production will increase, in fact it says the opposite. Got any others? Oh, and responding to old discussions is pointless. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 20:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sumannuil and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your participation. Thank you for engaging in discussion here. Please remember that on Wikipedia our preferred methodology is discussion not reverts, deletions, or editing waring. This is especially true on our talk pages, which of course, are designed for discussion.

It is not clear what you suggesting. You seem to dispute the scientific fact that, "From 2000 to 2020 production rose 52% (twice the rate of population growth)". Is that your position?

The most authoritative scientific references for global crop production and yield data from 2000–2025 come from FAOSTAT (FAO), USDA’s World Agricultural Production reports, and the Our World in Data crop‑yield research series.

https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog//dataset/crop-production-yield-harvested-area-global-national-annual-faostat?utm_source=copilot.com

Secondary Scientific & Analytical Sources: Our World in Data – Global Crop Yields. A research‑driven dataset synthesizing FAO data with additional analysis and visualization tools. Includes long‑run yield trends for wheat, maize, rice, soybeans, and many other crops. Provides interactive charts and downloadable datasets covering 2000–2025.

Frequently used in peer‑reviewed literature for global yield trend analysis.

Government Scientific Reports: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service – World Agricultural Production Reports (Monthly)

The USDA FAS publishes monthly global assessments of crop acreage, yield, and production using: Satellite imagery Government statistics Field reports from global offices: These reports provide year‑by‑year yield estimates for major crops (wheat, maize, rice, soybeans, cotton, oilseeds) across all major producing countries from 2000–2025. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/world-agricultural-production-09122025

The most reliable peer‑reviewed evidence shows that global crop yields increased steadily from 2000–2025, with no detectable global slowdown in aggregate yield growth.

Baffes & Etienne (2024), PLOS ONE: The strongest single peer‑reviewed source quantifying global yield growth using a harmonized calorific‑based index across 144 crops covering 98% of global agricultural land. It finds no global slowdown in yield growth over the past six decades. Estimates an average annual yield increase equivalent to ~33 kg of wheat per hectare globally. Because the model is linear and stable across decades, this implies continued yield increases through 2000–2025 at roughly the same long‑run rate. The paper provides the clear peer‑reviewed quantification of true global yield increases and shows that 2000–2025 fits into a long‑run pattern of steady growth.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0313088

Arata, Fabrizi & Sckokai (2020), Economic Modelling: Peer‑reviewed econometric analysis using FAOSTAT data to estimate global yield trends and variability. Confirms positive and statistically significant upward yield trends for major global crops. Shows that yield growth persisted into the 2000–2018 period (the latest window in the dataset). The paper provides independent econometric confirmation that yields increased materially during the 2000–2020 period.

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (2024)

Although not peer‑reviewed, this is a rigorous research paper by the World Bank’s Development Economics group. Confirms the same finding as Baffes & Etienne (2024): no slowdown in global yield growth, with long‑run increases equivalent to ~33 kg wheat/ha/year. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099616512022421954/pdf/IDU19ee1be241950f148bf195131121977e7c964.pdf

What These Peer‑Reviewed Sources Agree On

Across all peer‑reviewed sources: Global crop yields increased significantly from 2000–2025. No global slowdown in aggregate yield growth is detectable. Major crops (wheat, maize, rice, soybeans) all show positive yield trends. Climate change increased variability, but did not reverse yield gains. The best quantitative estimate of the true global increase is the long‑run trend of ~33 kg wheat‑equivalent per hectare per year, which applies through 2025. "Early (pre‑2000) climate‑impact papers systematically underestimated future crop yields because their models contained structural, parametric, and data‑quality biases that later peer‑reviewed research exposed and corrected. "

Unquantified and unrecognized model uncertainty

Modern analyses show that early climate–crop studies lacked a framework for quantifying uncertainty in crop and climate models. Wang et al. (2024, Nature Food) demonstrate that crop‑model process uncertainty accounts for over 50% of total projection uncertainty, and that early studies did not quantify or partition these uncertainties. Because early models treated their structure as “correct,” they systematically overstated negative climate impacts. Why this matters: Early papers interpreted model outputs as deterministic rather than probabilistic, leading to overly pessimistic yield projections. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-01014-w

Biases in climate model inputs (temperature, precipitation, CO₂): Early studies used climate models with large, uncorrected biases. Galmarini et al. (2024, Agricultural Systems) show that bias adjustments in climate inputs significantly change crop‑model outcomes, meaning older studies using unadjusted GCM outputs systematically misestimated yield responses. Why this matters: Early projections often assumed hotter = lower yields, without correcting for model errors or exploring CO₂ fertilization effects. Most significantly is the erroneous and absurd assumption of using only one variable. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X23002512

Parametric uncertainty and calibration errors: Early crop models were calibrated on historical conditions and assumed stationarity. Karimi et al. (2022, Water Resources Research) show that dominant parameters controlling yield projections shift under climate change, and that historical calibration hides these shifts. Why this matters: Early models used fixed parameters that became invalid under warming scenarios, producing misleading yield declines. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2021WR031249

Outdated crop‑model sensitivities and missing CO₂ fertilization effects: Newer multi‑model ensembles show that early crop models had incorrect temperature and CO₂ response functions. Jägermeyr et al. (2021, Nature Food) demonstrate that updated crop models show earlier emergence of climate impacts and different yield responses, including stronger wheat gains and less severe maize losses than older models predicted. Why this matters: Early models underestimated CO₂ fertilization and overestimated heat‑stress penalties. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I read the first few paragraphs of this WP:WALLOFTEXT. They do not make any sense, in the context of improving the article or otherwise. For example, Hi Sumannuil and welcome to Wikipedia does not make sense because Sumanuil has been here for nine years and you are a rookie. It is not clear what you suggesting only makes sense as a response to someone who wants to make a change, and Is that your position? is an irrelevant question since this is not a forum.

Then the first link goes to some AI slop, which is not usable on Wikipedia. The immediate suspicion is that the whole wall of text is AI slop. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like AI slop to me. One common flaw in AI-created content is the inability to tell the difference between good sources and steaming piles of bullshit. For those unfamiliar with Climate Depot: A CFACT Project], see Marc Morano. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, obvious bullshit-bot output. Note the patronising "welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your participation" start. The LLMs do this routinely, since their inability to understand context (or do anything else except find statistical patterns in tokens) more or less ensures such stupidities as a contributor with 20 or so edits 'welcoming' one with over 100,000. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy. Thank you for participating on Wikipedia. Do you have references indicating that crops yields have declined?

I can understand your skepticism, but the references provide are indeed real secondary and peer reviewed published articles, not AI slop as you characterize them. If you do not have the time to investigate them, I recommend using AI to summarize them for you. Skepticism is indeed a good thing and the chastity of the intellect.

https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog//dataset/crop-production-yield-harvested-area-global-national-annual-faostat?utm_source=copilot.com

https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/world-agricultural-production-09122025

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0313088

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099616512022421954/pdf/IDU19ee1be241950f148bf195131121977e7c964.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-01014-w

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X23002512

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2021WR031249

AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Clanker! Alas, your mechanical brain missed the fact that [1] I did not express an opinion one way or the other about whether crop yields have declined, [2] There are many other factors besides climate change that affect crop yields, and [3] I did not ask whether the references were AI slop. I asked "AlejandroMuller50, could you please confirm that you wrote the above without assistance?" Evasion noted. I will now assume that the answer is "I used a LLM AI to wwite that". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"There are many other factors besides climate change that affect crop yields" Bingo! That is exactly what I claimed, so we agree, common ground found, success! Remember to assume good faith. Content is mine, but your false assumptions are noted. As it is now you have indicated you have nothing constructive to contribute to the actual discussion. Noted. Your surprise to the scientific facts only serves to further justify the content inclusion to the article and help people like yourself overcome your climate denial. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hob Gadling. Thank you for sharing your concerns. Remember on Wikipedia to assume good faith. Start it. What you characterize as a wall of text was provided at the request of Sumanuil, who now appears satisfied with what I provided. Thank you for reminding Sumanuil and all of us that Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM, which is indeed the main topic of this thread and therefore makes sense.

If I understand you correctly, you agree that from 2000-2025 crops yields increased 52% and this is validated by the numerous secondary peer reviewed references I provided and the per-2000 Climate Alarmism studies were indeed based on fantastically absurd assumption (aka religion) that hundred of variables except one would remain static. This indeed an update suggestion to the article, therefore does indeed make sense.

I can understand your skepticism, but the references provide are indeed real secondary and peer reviewed published articles, not AI slop as you characterize them. If you do not have the time to investigate them, I recommend using AI to summarize them for you. Skepticism is indeed a good thing and the chastity of the intellect.

https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog//dataset/crop-production-yield-harvested-area-global-national-annual-faostat?utm_source=copilot.com

https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/world-agricultural-production-09122025

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0313088

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099616512022421954/pdf/IDU19ee1be241950f148bf195131121977e7c964.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-01014-w

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X23002512

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2021WR031249

AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about cutting out the patronising crap? We don't need lectures on 'good faith', or on WP:NOTFORUM, and nor do we need idiotic advice about using bullshit-bots to summarise sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In breath, "We don't need lectures" and then the next breath proving you do. Hilarious. Typical ~2026-33166-42 (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you agree that from 2000-2025 crops yields increased 52% You are a hallucinating piece of rusting metal, and you should be scrapped. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see, your bit bucket engages in climate denial and climate alarmism. Do you have any constructive comment to this thread's actual discussion, which is the scientific fact that Crop Yields and Greening have not stopped their continuous growth year over year, including during the last several decades of Global Warming? AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not "satisfied" with your Gish gallop. I wanted to hear from you. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 19:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you confess that you insincerely asked "Got any others?" and you have nothing substantive to add to the actual discussion. Noted.

The scientific fact remains. Crop Yield growth and constant year over year Greening, not desertification, are extremely real and that reality apparently strikes a nerve in some people.AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is interested in the random rantings and ravings of a bot that has already shown thoroughly that it does not understand what it is talking about. There is no point in following any of the links. Move your not-so-shiny metal ass out of here, get hold of a human and send them instead, but tell them to read the rules first.

I don't think anything constructive will be coming from that bit bucket any time soon. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder for all that conduct concerns should usually not be on article talk pages (WP:Focus on content), and that emotive language makes it harder for disputes to be resolved. Bring concerns up at user talk and ask uninvolved admins for help if the issues persist. It's permissible to simply hat LLM-generated content per (WP:HATGPT). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you self describe your type of behavior as that of a hallucinating bot that should be ignored. I take that to mean you declare your bit bucket does not have any constructive comment to this thread's actual discussion, which is the scientific fact that Crop Yields and Greening have not stopped their continuous year over year growth, including during the last several decades of Global Warming? Your surprise to the scientific facts only serves to further justify the content inclusion to the article and help people like yourself overcome their climate denial. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Desertification vs. Net Greening

The article states: "Deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common."

The phenomenon of "global greening," characterized by a net increase in the Earth's Leaf Area Index (LAI), is well-documented in recent peer-reviewed literature as a concurrent trend with global warming.

The Consensus Review: Piao et al. (2020): This is arguably the most comprehensive secondary source available for Wikipedia purposes. It synthesizes decades of satellite data and modeling to explain the "greening Earth" phenomenon. Key Findings: The study confirms a significant global increase in vegetation greenness since the 1980s. It attributes roughly 70% of this greening to the CO₂ fertilization effect, where increased atmospheric carbon dioxide enhances photosynthesis (Piao et al., 2020). Secondary Drivers: Climate change (warming and altered precipitation) accounts for about 28% of the trend, while nitrogen deposition and land-use management contribute the remainder (Piao et al., 2020). Reference: Piao, S., Wang, X., Park, T., Chen, C., Lian, X., He, Y., ... & Myneni, R. B. (2020). Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(1), 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x

Land-Use Management Focus: Chen et al. (2019) While often cited as a primary study, this paper functions as a major synthesis of satellite data (MODIS) that re-evaluated the "human" factor in global greening. Key Findings: This research highlighted that China and India alone accounted for one-third of the global greening between 2000 and 2017, largely through ambitious reforestation programs and intensive agriculture (Chen et al., 2019). This source is vital for Wikipedia sections discussing the anthropogenic vs. natural causes of greening. Reference: Chen, C., Park, T., Wang, X., Piao, S., Xu, B., Chaturvedi, R. K., ... & Myneni, R. B. (2019). China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nature Sustainability, 2(2), 122-129. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7

Theoretical and Foundational Review: Zhu et al. (2016) Although older, this meta-analysis remains the foundational reference for quantifying the dominance of CO₂ fertilization. Key Findings: By using 10 global ecosystem models, the study showed that greening is observable over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, while "browning" (vegetation loss) is observed in less than 4% (Zhu et al., 2016). Reference: Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R. B., Huang, M., Zeng, Z., Canadell, J. G., ... & Zuo, Z. (2016). Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 791-795. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004

Contemporary Trends and Record Greenness: Sun et al. (2024/2025) Recent research indicates that despite ongoing warming, the greening trend hit new peaks in the current decade. Key Findings: 2020 was identified as the "greenest year" in modern satellite records (2001–2020), primarily due to growth in boreal and temperate regions (Sun et al., 2025). This was attributed to rising CO₂ and warmer winters in the Northern Hemisphere extending the growing season. Reference: Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., et al. (2025). Earth’s record-high greenness and its attributions in 2020. Remote Sensing of Environment.

AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above really looks like the output of AI to me. AlejandroMuller50, could you please confirm that you wrote the above without assistance? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last October the same new editor made four lengthy comments of a similar nature (and possibly AI-generated) related to climate change at Talk:List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics. NightHeron (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are at least real but phrasing source available for Wikipedia purposes are very much flagging concern. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just seen that they've started more threads above. Thank you for engaging in discussion here. Please remember that on Wikipedia our preferred methodology is discussion not reverts also has the smell of LLM generation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you for engaging in discussion here. Please remember that on Wikipedia our preferred methodology is discussion not reverts" 100% me. You do know that AI does not just pass the Turing test, it actually successfully makes the other person look like the other AI 85% of the time? AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what you "smell". The sources are either rs or not, they are either relevant or not.

They are rs, and they are relevant, desertification is one of the main concern with human caused climate change. The paper literally says that manmade c02 is playing a large part in the greening.

How/who decides what is ai?

(Excuse my grammar, english is my 3rd language) ~2026-36292-96 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about his comment should leave you to believe that it's ai. You are accusing another user.

Now when i go onto wikipedia talk pages, every comment gets dismissed as ai. ~2026-36292-96 (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Cdjp1, talk 09:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Cdjp1. Thank you so much for having the sincerity and taking the time to look into this. I can understand other editors skepticism, but as you noted, the scientific facts challenge many people's misconception, leading to the desire to dismiss reality as slop. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of scientific facts, so claiming I noted such is nonsense. It would be appreciated if you corrected your comment to strike the falshood. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources are at least real" -Cdjp1

Cdjp1, do you intend to correct your following comment?: " Thank you for engaging in discussion here. Please remember that on Wikipedia our preferred methodology is discussion not reverts also has the smell of LLM generation."

Cdjp1, do you have any constructive comment to this thread's actual discussion, which is the scientific fact that Crop Yields and Greening have not stopped their continuous growth year over year, including during the last several decades of Global Warming?

AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you seem to be unable to distinguish between The sources are at least real and a statement on scientific facts (the merits and validity of the sources and their research) is concerning. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your evasion to my question is noted. The fact you seem to confuse my statements is concerning. Do you have anything constructive to add to the actual discussion of this thread or not? Regardless if agree or not, the sources are real, as you stated, and it is indeed a scientific fact that Net Greening and Crop Yield growth has been constant during the latest decades of warming. Facts do care about feelings, insinuations that the facts are wrong is concerning. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have not insinuated that the papers are wrong. Attempting to tu quoque is simply a waste of time. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word insinuated the way you used it. Sorry if that confuses you. Do you have anything constructive to add to the actual discussion of this thread or not? AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Except no, despite you claiming that you stated clearly that the sentence is 100% wrong at no point in your original comment did you actually state that the sentence was wrong. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You sorry you are confused. To completely clear, the Global is Greening, some deserts are growing, as always. The "Deserts are expanding" is 100% wrong. Do you have anything constructive to add to the actual discussion of this thread or not? AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

deserts are growing = deserts are expanding. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning: "deserts are shrinking" = "deserts are contracting".

I thinking you stating you have nothing constructive to add to the subject area. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, yes. Synonyms are synonyms. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, pretty much, which is why your reasoning really does not add anything constructive the subject area, which is the articles current forum like nature and climate denial of the fact that year over year the Crop Yields and Net Greening, not desertification, have continue their non-stop march of progress, even during the last decades of Global Warming. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who has agreed that deserts are growing, while declaring it is incorrect to say they are expanding. And you have just agreed that growing and expanding are synonymous terms. So, why do you agree that they are expanding while claiming that "deserts are expanding" is 100% wrong? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice AM50 has been blocked, so no need to discuss further. Let's see if we can find a good sentence + sourcing on deserts below. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how not one single person below had any substantive retort to the fact that is an extremely valid update suggestion to the article. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is under any obligation whatsoever to respond to AI-generated posts. If you are incapable of writing coherently in your own words, please find somewhere other than Wikipedia to dump your next-word-guesser slop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how AndyTheGrump capitulated the he was incapable of any substantive retort self-describes his type of style as that of an inability to write coherently on his own without a next-word-guesser slop. Just shows he has never been interested in contributing to an the English language encyclopedia. ~2026-33166-42 (talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While the above seems to confuse desertification and global greening, there is a point in double checking whether this is still accurately representing the literature. The sources are from 2009 and 2019 and these kinds of patterns are messy. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the massive denial they are in. https://www.creaf.cat/en/articles/world-has-become-greener-over-past-33-years#:~:text=Earth%20is%20now%20greener%20than,scale%20which%20the%20study%20bolsters Notice how the PhD's cannot even produce one single reliable source to contradict the fact that net greening, NOT desertification, continues year after year. Notice also how they dismiss Wikipedia:Reliable sources without reason and display their ignorance of it. Navigating the world based on pure gut feeling must be so much less stressful than having to read all those pesky peer-reviewed journals. They must have a secret lab in their basement that's already debunked thirty years of CSIC data. I'd love to see the spreadsheets. Or may be its the classic 'I don't recognize the acronym, therefore it’s fake' defense. It’s a very efficient way to keep ones worldview uncluttered by facts. I hope 'trust me, bro' isn't our new standard of evidence. But it’s certainly is a time-saver compared to actually checking institutional pedigree. The person making the an accusation of unreliable source without grounding is almost always the one who has not read Wikipedia:Reliable sourcesAlejandroMuller50 (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice how the ones who falsely imply others do not "meaningfully contribute" and falsely imply others are "posting vacuous evidence free personal attacks" are the very ones guilty of that actual behavior. They are of no serious concern and non-responders not adhering to our standards and are incapable of sticking to the actual content. They achieve absolutely nothing and only are disruptors of our Wikipedia. The best course is to ignore such destroyers of the project.

The only valid response here are to those addressing the scientific fact that Crop Yields and Greening have never stopped their continuous growth and year over year including during the last several decades of Global Warming. All those commenters who do not address this actual discussion are not adhering to our guidelines here on Wikipedia and are of no concern and too be ignored. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you haven't read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines either. Do not edit you posts after they have been responded to. And if you wish to meaningfully contribute here, I suggest you stop posting vacuous evidence free personal attacks on other contributors. It achieves absolutely nothing beyond making you arguments look weaker. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Current sourcing not ideal desertification

The current sentence on deserts in the lead is stronger than the statement we have in the body (expanding general, vs contributed to expansion in the subtropics). The body is cited to two sources:

This 2009 article about modelling (can't really be used for a statement about current trends)
The IPCC 2019 report, which says "In some dryland areas, increased land surface air temperature and evapotranspiration and decreased precipitation amount, in interaction with climate variability and human activities, have contributed to desertification. These areas include Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of East and Central Asia, and Australia." as well as "Climate change, including increases in frequency and intensity of extremes, (..) contributed to desertification and land degradation in many regions"

I believe we might need to tweak the lead, perhaps by replacing this statement with a more general statement that dry areas are expanding (which is uncontroversial). Furthermore, we should delete the 2019 paper.

I'm struggling to find high-quality review papers on the topic (we're nearing IPCC report season, so many researchers are writing their reviews as report authors), but there are some lower-quality papers. For instance, Chen et al states desert have been expanding slowly this century, but were contracting in the last 2 decades of the 20th century. In contrast Wu et al finds a stable trend, and notes that only 13%.

The 2023 Synthesis report says it more clearly: "Climate change has contributed to desertification and exacerbated land degradation, particularly in low lying coastal areas, river deltas, drylands and in permafrost areas (high confidence)."

In conclusion, I think we need to replace the lead statement and improve the sourcing for the body statement. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Exactly right. And of course, it should be balanced with the WHOLE truth, that is desertification has not just increase in SOME areas, but shrunking in others, with the net total greening -- a scientific fact. SOME deserts are expanding, NOT deserts are expanding! Unless, of course, we are deliberately editing the article to promote a particular alarmist agenda. If that is the case, let's not include the whole truth and deliberately mislead the readers. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact a sentence can be improved is not an agreement with your insinuations that the information in the sentence is wrong. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insinuate, I stated clearly that the sentence is 100% wrong and it is indeed a falsehood that should be correct, unless of course, if we are deliberately promoting an alarmist agenda, then let's not fix it. Facts do not care about feelings, 'some' deserts are expanding, but deserts expanding is a lie. Deserts are shrinking as a whole. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources for review include:

Daniela Rivera-Marin, Jadunandan Dash, Booker Ogutu, (2022) "The use of remote sensing for desertification studies: A review", Journal of Arid Environments, Volume 206, 104829, doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2022.104829
Roy, P., Pal, S.C., Chakrabortty, R. et al. (2024) "Climate change and geo-environmental factors influencing desertification: a critical review". Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi: 10.1007/s11356-024-32432-9
AbdelRahman, M.A.E. (2023) "An overview of land degradation, desertification and sustainable land management using GIS and remote sensing applications". Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei, Volume 34, pp. 767–808. doi: 10.1007/s12210-023-01155-3
Guoshuai Li, Bao Yang, Guangjian Wu, Guangcai Feng, Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist, Tao Che, Ying Zhang, Hong Yang, Xiaodan Guan, Chunlin Huang, Jianhua Xiao, Yunfa Miao, (2025), "Increased desertification exposure in dryland areas", Ecological Indicators, Volume 179, 114264, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.114264

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognize any of these journals. Are they high-quality reliable sources? The second one definitely isn't, as it's not that coherent, but seems to have glaring errors in the lead around the trend in rainfall (it claims no variability) and possibly outright climate denial? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They were just the top few results on topic, published since 2022, from Elsevier and Springer journals, so they weren't obvious trash tier. If they are nonsense they should obviously be disregarded. Scimago places Ecological Indicators in Q1, Journal of Arid Environments Q1/Q2, Environ Sci Pollut Res Q2, and Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei Q2. I tend not to edit on these big science pages, so I was probably too gun ho with such a simple scrape for potential source, my apologies. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you've found higher-quality papers than me. For the two Q1(ish) papers:

Daniela et al does not seem to cover the question of whether desertification is increasing from a cursory read
Guoshuai et al does, but I'm not entirely sure I understand what they are measuring. I think it's the area that is desertifying each year (which they say has gone up many times since 2000). I'm not sure if they measure the converse too (areas that are being restored), and therefore to what extent they answer the question of desert expansion. What do you think, User:Cdjp1? It's a primary source, so not ideal, but the paper does not have any red flags to me. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela et al seems to have been a false positive, not literature review of our current understanidng, but a review of the methodologies used to study desertification. Guoshuai et al, from an initial read does not discuss, as you say, the converse. So, if we are looking for ones that compare the two processes it is lacking. On the note of primary papers, while not ideal, such being used in conjunction with secondary and tertiary sources that don't directly pull from the primary, should be fine to show the continued/repeated support for the sentence statement.

I can't say I will get to it soon, but I will dig around in the academic libraries I have access to, to look for very recent (ideally) graduate level textbooks covering the topic. This should be strong secondary/tertiary sources we can pull from. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source, Wu et al, 2026, which is in a high-quality journal, very recent and shows a declining trend in desert area. Based on the fact that these sources are contradictory, I don't think there is a consensus on the direction of desert expansion/contraction and have removed the statement from the lead. Open question is what we should say in the body. The Wu paper indicates that climate is the main driver behind most regional changes in desert area. Is our summary of the IPCC correct that subtropical deserts are seeing expansion? It seems to partially contrast with the Wu paper.

* Contraction: Australia, East Asia, Central Asia, and Southern Africa.

* Expansion: North Africa, North America, South America, and Southwest Asia (Wu et al), Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of East and Central Asia, and Australia (IPCC, specifically expansion is attributed to CC). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to hear southern Africa, I'll need to dig into the paper to see the factors potentially driving that. East and central Asia are potentially due to concerted efforts at re-greening in the PRC (depending whether the authors group western areas of the PRC as central or east Asia). I wonder if the recent attempts at further increasing cash crops would have also added to the greening in the central Asian republics? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing about crops etc

More sources for review include:

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

^[5]

^[6]

^[7] AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources seem to be on the topic of desertification? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Those are regarding the other falsehood in the article regarding food security. This here is the other list:

^[8]

^[9]

^[10]

^[11]

AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC) AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so numbers 7, 8 and 11 may be hallucinated, considering the wrong DOIs have been provided in the citations. 7 links to "Diagnostic Framework for Evaluating How Parametric Uncertainty Influences Agro-Hydrologic Model Projections of Crop Yields Under Climate Change" by Karimi at al., 8 links to "Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening" by Piao et al. and 11 links to "Monitoring spatially heterogeneous riparian vegetation around permanent waterholes: A method to integrate LiDAR and Landsat data for enhanced ecological interpretation of Landsat fPAR time-series" by Neriques et al. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"may be"? Either they have or they have not.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425724004085?via%3Dihub

^[11]

AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You said that citation 7 was Dolan et al. (2021). "Evaluating the Robustness of the Global Energy-Water-Land System to Future Shocks" but it links to Karimi et al. (2022) "Diagnostic Framework for Evaluating How Parametric Uncertainty Influences Agro-Hydrologic Model Projections of Crop Yields Under Climate Change".

This error may be due to LLM hallucination, but as I don't know if you are using an LLM, I have stated it may be hallucinated. If you want to provide an explanation why you are giving the wrong links for the citations you are writing, it would be greatly appreciated. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Cdjp1, talk 09:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As others have pointed out, after you have been replied to please don't edit your comment without provide the clear note necessary to show that a change has been made where appropriate, such as striking a statement. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. We posted at the same time. As other have pointed out, please assume good faith as required by our guidelines. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected in this case, yes, you went to add citation 11 to you comment at the same time I replied.

Next, do you want to explain why you have linked to the wrong papers across multiple comments, multiple times, while citing a different paper? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cdjp1. Thank for your desire to contribute to Wikipedia! One the best ways to do so is to assist with the tedious effort of formatting references. Better than pointing them out is fixing them. =)

If you something constructive to add to the discussion topic, fix the reference. If you only intend to be a disruptive editor, don't. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cdjp1. Thank for your desire to contribute to Wikipedia! One the best ways to do so is to assist with the tedious effort of formatting references. Better than pointing them out is fixing them. =)

^[12]

More to come as they are made ....

AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC) AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, instead of explaining how you made the mistake, you are saying I should edit your comments to correct the mistakes you make in your comments? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And again, your citation 12 says that it is Yuan et al. (2025) "Widespread greening of the Earth is warming-induced", but you link it to Zhang et al. (2025) "Earth's record-high greenness and its attributions in 2020". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best way you can be a constructive editor, Cdjp1, is to fix reference. There is zero need to edit other comments to do so. If do you not wish to be a constructive editor, I understand. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best way you can be a constructive editor, Cdjp1, is to fix reference. There is zero need to edit other comments to do so. If do you not wish to be a constructive editor, I understand. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how things work on the Talk Page. The references I'm talking about are the ones you are writing in your comments. And as explained you a repeatedly making a mistake that is indicative of LLM hallucinations, so if you don't explain how/why you are making the mistake it could cause people to think you are generating your comments via LLM. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how things work. Wikifying a reference is not a comment. You really are straining at gnats. You have made it clear you not interesting in constructive contribution to reference generation. Repeating making this clear is indicative of NOTHERE and could cause people to think you are assuming bad faith. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifying a reference is not a comment, so are you saying that you are not writing comments here? Is this not a comment? Or this? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you are stating you have nothing constructive to add to the subject area? AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are refusing to answer questions about what you're writing and commenting, and about the sources you are providing. Why? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are confused, the only question is why you are confused. If you notice, I ignored disruptive editors such as AndyTheGrump, as our guidelines here are Wikipedia recommend. I have in fact answered all relevant, rational, and none-rhetorical questions. You, on the other hand, have not. Why are you refusing to answer questions and why are you evading? Is it because you have nothing constructive to add to the subject area, which is the articles current forum like nature and climate denial of the fact that year over year Crop Yields and Net Greening, not desertification, have continue their non-stop march of progress, even during the last decades of Global Warming. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a clear explanation as to what you mean by 'the articles current forum like nature'? I can see nothing remotely justifying such a description, and I am having difficulty envisioning how an article could even achieve that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neriques et al. should read Henriques et al., my apologies for the mistype. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Femke for having the sincerity to look into this. I am working on the Wikification of these references, please have patience ....

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x

Piao, Shilong; Wang, Xuhui; Park, Taejin; Chen, Chi; Lian, Xu; He, Yue; Bjerke, Jarle W.; Chen, Anping; Ciais, Philippe; Tømmervik, Hans; Nemani, Ramakrishna R.; Myneni, Ranga B. (January 2020). "Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening". Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 1: 14–27.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7

Chen, Chi; Park, Taejin; Wang, Xuhui; Piao, Shilong; Xu, Baodong; Chaturvedi, Rajiv K.; Fuchs, Richard; Brovkin, Victor; Ciais, Philippe; Fensholt, Rasmus; Tømmervik, Hans; Bala, Govindasamy; Zhu, Zaichun; Nemani, Ramakrishna R.; Myneni, Ranga B. (February 2019). "China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management". Nature Sustainability. 2: 122–129.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

Zhu, Zaichun; Piao, Shilong; Myneni, Ranga B.; Huang, Mengtian; Zeng, Zhenzhong; Canadell, Josep G.; Ciais, Philippe; Sitch, Stephen; Friedlingstein, Pierre; Arneth, Almut; Cao, Chunxiang; Cheng, Lei; Kato, Etsushi; Koven, Charles; Li, Yue; Lian, Xu; Liu, Yongwen; Liu, Ronggao; Mao, Jiafu; Pan, Yaozhong; Peng, Shushi; Peñuelas, Josep; Poulter, Benjamin; Pugh, Thomas A. M.; Stocker, Benjamin D.; Viovy, Nicolas; Wang, Xuhui; Wang, Yingping; Xiao, Zhiqiang; Yang, Hui; Zaehle, Sönke; Zeng, Ning (August 2016). "Greening of the Earth and its drivers". Nature Climate Change. 6: 791–795.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0034425724005200

Zhang, Yulong; Mao, Jiafu; Sun, Ge; Guo, Qinfeng; Atkins, Jeffrey; Li, Wenhong; Jin, Mingzhou; Song, Conghe; Xiao, Jingfeng; Hwang, Taehee; Qiu, Tong; Meng, Lin; Ricciuto, Daniel M.; Shi, Xiaoying; Li, Xing; Thornton, Peter; Hoffman, Forrest (April 2024). "Earth's record-high greenness and its attributions in 2020". Remote Sensing of Environment. 304. {{cite journal}}: |article= ignored (help)

AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greening is happening, and it isn't "versus" desertification

It isn't desertification versus greening. Both are happening. Just as warming climate produces more global precipitation and also more droughts.

Right now I think greening is represented by a single sentence in the Nature and wildlife subsection.

However greening is well-documented and probably should get a few paragraphs, maybe a subsection of its own. This NASA Earth Observatory summary "Global Green Up Slows Warming" explains it very briefly.^[13]

And apparently some drylands are getting both dryer and greener. Which I find weird to think about. Here is a summary "With CO₂ Levels Rising, World’s Drylands Are Turning Green" from Yale Environment 360.^[14]

I think the story of greening due to climate change is mostly missing from this article and should be included. Probably it would be good to track down the more authoritative references behind the two citations I provided. -- M.boli (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty long. To argue effectively for expanding one element, it's usually a good idea to show overview sources spend proportionally more text on it than we do. I don't think that's the case for global greening. We also cover global greening in the feedback section, even though we don't mention that term. In addition, it can be effective to suggest what should be removed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Greening" is a somewhat general concept. Things that could be called "greening" can occur in a few ways, such as a side-effect of other changes (eg. thawing permafrost, retreating glaciers, and increased rainfall). The single sentence in Nature and wildlife deals with the more direct causation, CO2 to plant growth, but we don't have space to cover the many sub-impacts of different changes in one article. CMD (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M. Boli -- Editor warriors keep wrongfully deleting my response to this discussion in contradiction to our policies. This thread is discussion greening of the globe and its connection to global warming. I rightfully pointed out that Global Warming's contribution to greening is minimal, the literature states the cause of most greening is good management practices. The same goes for wildfires. Private Forests do not have the same wildfire difficulties as government owned forests. ~2026-26771-54 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greening is very much a product of climate change. The temperate zones are shifting, growing seasons are longer in some places, the 50% higher concentration of CO₂ drives more photosynthesis. It is also true that some of the greening areas are due to land use changes, particularly in China and India as I understand it.

My point is that greening should be better represented in this article, which summarizes the effects of climate change.

The greening effect doesn't make global warming OK. It doesn't cancel the bad effects and only a little bit mitigates the problem. But things such as the CO₂ Coalition and the Heartland Institute's Climate at a glance have incorporated a greening-is-good narrative as part of their climate denial message. Which makes it a little tricky for finding reliable sources and writing it up. -- M.boli (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not global warming is a good, bad, or indifferent is a Forum item and entirely a personal value/opinion question for each individual reader of Wikipedia. I have very much stated that Global Warming is indeed a factor involved in greening, however, it is not the dominate factor according to the literature. There is a whole other article dedicated to the Effects Climate Change, which of course has major areas for improvement. I would suggest desert, wildfires, etc all be placed in that article, not here. ~2026-26771-54 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For both of you, if you want to suggest changes in reorganisation, use high-quality overview sources to make the case. Everyone has an opinion on what is and what isn't important, but we rely on external overview sources to make that assessment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is to be encouraged, not discouraged, Femke. ~~ ~2026-33166-42 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

M. Boli - What bad effects? 20:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)~ ~2026-33166-42 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Crop Production, Yield and Harvested Area (Global, National, Annual)". FAOSTAT Data Catalog. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Retrieved April 25, 2024.
^ World Agricultural Production (Report). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). September 12, 2025. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
^ Baffes, John; Etienne, Xiaoli (November 27, 2024). "Yield growth patterns of food commodities: Insights and challenges". PLOS ONE. 19 (11): e0313088. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313088. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
^ Baffes, John; Etienne, Xiaoli (December 2024). Yield Growth Patterns of Food Commodities: Insights and Challenges (PDF) (Policy Research Working Paper). World Bank. 10990. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
^ Blackstone, Nicole Tichenor; Battaglia, Kyra; Rodríguez-Huerta, Edgar; Bell, Brooke M.; et al. (October 11, 2024). "Diets cannot be sustainable without ensuring the well-being of communities, workers and animals in food value chains". Nature Food. 5 (10): 818–824. doi:10.1038/s43016-024-01048-0. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
^ Galmarini, S.; Solazzo, E.; Ferrise, R.; Srivastava, A. Kumar; et al. (2024). "Assessing the impact on crop modelling of multi- and uni-variate climate model bias adjustments". Agricultural Systems. 215. Elsevier: 103846. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103846. Retrieved April 25, 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
^ Dolan, Flannery; Lamontagne, Jonathan; Link, Robert; Hejazi, Mohamad; Reed, Patrick; Edmonds, James (2021). "Evaluating the Robustness of the Global Energy-Water-Land System to Future Shocks". Water Resources Research. 57 (10). doi:10.1029/2021WR031249. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
^ Zhu, Z.; Piao, S.; Myneni, R. B.; Huang, M.; et al. (January 2020). "Greening of the Earth and its drivers". Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 1 (1): 37–51. doi:10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^ Chen, C.; Park, T.; Wang, X.; Piao, S.; et al. (February 11, 2019). "China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management". Nature Sustainability. 2 (2): 122–129. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^ Zhu, Z.; Piao, S.; Myneni, R. B.; Huang, M.; et al. (August 2016). "Greening of the Earth and its drivers". Nature Climate Change. 6 (8): 791–795. doi:10.1038/nclimate3004. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^ ^a ^b Sun, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Piao, S.; Guan, K.; et al. (2025). "Earth's record-high greenness and its attributions in 2020". Remote Sensing of Environment. 314: 114382. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2024.114382. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) Cite error: The named reference "Sun_2025" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ Yuan, W.; Zheng, Y.; Piao, S.; Wang, K.; et al. (February 2025). "Widespread greening of the Earth is warming-induced". Remote Sensing of Environment. 318: 114520. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
^ Hansen, Kathyrn (February 18, 2020). "Global Green Up Slows Warming". NASA Science - Earth Observatory. Retrieved 2026-04-29.
^ Pearce, Fred (July 16, 2024). "With CO₂ Levels Rising, World's Drylands Are Turning Green". Yale E360. Retrieved 2026-04-29.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2026

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ciao fellow Wikipedia Editors: Below is a suggested text to be included in the section GLOBAL TEMEPRATURE RISE at the end of the Future Global Temperatures subsection as a brief additional paragraph.

Current research also suggests that an acceleration in global warming may contribute to an oscillation of the nominal average global temperature anomaly beyond the IPCC target of 1.5 degrees C prior to the start of the 2030s decade."^[1] In addition, by scrubbing the "noise" which is associated with natural events such as solar radiation fluctuations, volcanic eruptions and El Nino events from five major temperature databases (NASA GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobalTemp V 6.0, HadCRUT5, Berkeley Earth and ERA5), other researchers suggest that the long-term acceleration trend observed during the years 1970-2015 has risen from 0.19 - 0.20 degrees C to 0.35 degrees C during the years 2015-2025. Taking this acceleration into account, they conclude with a confidence level of 98% that such an acceleration trend would result in a breach of the Paris Climate Agreement warming limit of 1.5 degrees C by the year 2030."^[2]

^ Hansen, James E. (2025). "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?". Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 76 (1): 6–44. doi:10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494.
^ Foster, G. (2026). "Global Warming Has Accelerated Significantly". Geophysical Research Letters. 53 (1). doi:10.1029/2025GL118804.

I hope that this paragraph proves to be useful and thanks again in advance for your thoughtful consideration. Respectfully ~2026-33212-84 (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)GCL ~2026-33212-84 (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to read well researched and well organized suggestions. However, given the longstanding consensus that this article is already longer than desirable, I think the suggested paragraph is too detailed and wordy. We should also try to rely on consensus publications rather than individual studies, especially when forecasting (see also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Other editors may wish to pick the most worthy content to add to this highest-level article. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this content in this version (Trends and predictions) of the GST article. I still think it emphasizes two studies too much for this high-level CC article, but the community can decide. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editing that would strengthen the link base for this article

I'm looking to do some editing to strengthen the underlying links from this article.

I've referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change and can see a page on Earth System Model is proposed. I could make this. Do you think that would be helpful?

I just wonder if you feel like the suggestions on the WikiProject capture what would support this article, or if you have other suggestions about key linked articles that need improving because they are particularly important or particularly poor quality?

I am most able to contribute to physical climate science articles. DecFinney (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RCP 8.5 etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FAOSTAT_Crop-30] "Crop Production, Yield and Harvested Area (Global, National, Annual)". FAOSTAT Data Catalog. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Retrieved April 25, 2024.

[USDA_WAP_2025-31] World Agricultural Production (Report). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). September 12, 2025. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

[Baffes_Etienne_2024-32] Baffes, John; Etienne, Xiaoli (November 27, 2024). "Yield growth patterns of food commodities: Insights and challenges". PLOS ONE. 19 (11): e0313088. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313088. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[WB_Yield_2024-33] Baffes, John; Etienne, Xiaoli (December 2024). Yield Growth Patterns of Food Commodities: Insights and Challenges (PDF) (Policy Research Working Paper). World Bank. 10990. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

[NatFood_2024-34] Blackstone, Nicole Tichenor; Battaglia, Kyra; Rodríguez-Huerta, Edgar; Bell, Brooke M.; et al. (October 11, 2024). "Diets cannot be sustainable without ensuring the well-being of communities, workers and animals in food value chains". Nature Food. 5 (10): 818–824. doi:10.1038/s43016-024-01048-0. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

[Galmarini_2024-35] Galmarini, S.; Solazzo, E.; Ferrise, R.; Srivastava, A. Kumar; et al. (2024). "Assessing the impact on crop modelling of multi- and uni-variate climate model bias adjustments". Agricultural Systems. 215. Elsevier: 103846. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103846. Retrieved April 25, 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

[WRR_2021-36] Dolan, Flannery; Lamontagne, Jonathan; Link, Robert; Hejazi, Mohamad; Reed, Patrick; Edmonds, James (2021). "Evaluating the Robustness of the Global Energy-Water-Land System to Future Shocks". Water Resources Research. 57 (10). doi:10.1029/2021WR031249. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

[Zhu_2020-37] Zhu, Z.; Piao, S.; Myneni, R. B.; Huang, M.; et al. (January 2020). "Greening of the Earth and its drivers". Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 1 (1): 37–51. doi:10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[Chen_2019-38] Chen, C.; Park, T.; Wang, X.; Piao, S.; et al. (February 11, 2019). "China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management". Nature Sustainability. 2 (2): 122–129. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[Zhu_2016-39] Zhu, Z.; Piao, S.; Myneni, R. B.; Huang, M.; et al. (August 2016). "Greening of the Earth and its drivers". Nature Climate Change. 6 (8): 791–795. doi:10.1038/nclimate3004. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[Sun_2025-40] Sun, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Piao, S.; Guan, K.; et al. (2025). "Earth's record-high greenness and its attributions in 2020". Remote Sensing of Environment. 314: 114382. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2024.114382. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) Cite error: The named reference "Sun_2025" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[Yuan_2025-41] Yuan, W.; Zheng, Y.; Piao, S.; Wang, K.; et al. (February 2025). "Widespread greening of the Earth is warming-induced". Remote Sensing of Environment. 318: 114520. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

[42] Hansen, Kathyrn (February 18, 2020). "Global Green Up Slows Warming". NASA Science - Earth Observatory. Retrieved 2026-04-29.

[43] Pearce, Fred (July 16, 2024). "With CO₂ Levels Rising, World's Drylands Are Turning Green". Yale E360. Retrieved 2026-04-29.

[Hansen-44] Hansen, James E. (2025). "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?". Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 76 (1): 6–44. doi:10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494.

[Foster-45] Foster, G. (2026). "Global Warming Has Accelerated Significantly". Geophysical Research Letters. 53 (1). doi:10.1029/2025GL118804.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[1]

[2]