Talk:Global warming hiatus
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Global warming hiatus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Some background re current thinking edit
Confusing sentence in lead edit
The following sentence in the third paragraph of the lead is confusing.
"The slowdown had now ended, and there had been record temperatures in 2014 and 2015.[18] "
While the warming trend might have been updated a bit, the year 2015 was warmer than previous years. This is shown in one of the figures in the lead. More generally, I find sentences in this section, using "had been" rather than "has been" confusing (though I know that other editors might disagree with this). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- The content is mostly OK but the writing style is a mess -- in other words, this is a typical Wikipedia article. Whatever you can do to clarify is fine. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I took this sentence out, moved citation to SciAm up within paragraph. Note that 2015 is discussed in last paragraph of lead, so we don't this sentence anyway. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that the article shouldn't even exist, because there never actually was a hiatus. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The claims of "hiatus" have been proven to be in error. edit
This has been the case for a few years now. And yet the bulk of this article still reads as if the hiatus were a real event, rather than a misconception. 207.98.196.125 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
No mention of 1941-1975 edit
The first paragraph defines a hiatus generically, but the rest of the article focuses on the 1998-2013 misconception while leaving out the very real 1941-1975 period when temperatures were stable. HotdogPi 01:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The 1998-2012 period is what is commonly referenced as the global warming hiatus that is the subject of this Wikipedia article. To call the 1941-1975 period a "hiatus" is equally deceptive, and doesn't warrant separate mention. It's neither notable (in references) nor valid (scientifically). Temperatures were not "stable"; only cherry-picking an early high point versus a later low point form such an alleged "hiatus". —RCraig09 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)