Talk:Climate change in Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Global warming in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 July 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Both the pages have been moved as per consensus; which required a lengthy, and thorough discussion over 46 days. At the end; there were 3 oppose, and 6 support (excluding nominator).. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– For consistency with other article titles on climate change by country (Climate change in Australia, Climate change in Canada, Climate change in China, Climate change in Japan, Climate change in New Zealand, Climate change in Sweden, Climate change in the United Kingdom, Climate change in the United States. bd2412 T 14:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Winged Blades Godric 12:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Climate change is a term, considerably getting more attention, because of the scientific community, and how they use it, and because it describes the situation better. Thus, I hereby support the move. prokaryotes (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and nominator's efforts to achieve consistency. If there were separate Wikipedia articles for each country or region entitled Global warming in X and Climate change in X, there would be no need for this discussion. However, since there does not appear to be a single country or region which currently has such separately-titled, separate-purpose articles, we have a mix of inconsistent titles redirecting to each other (Global warming in Australia redirects to Climate change in Australia, while the opposite is true in the example of Climate change in Norway redirecting to Global warming in Norway). It should be either all one or all the other. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​I agree that the articles should be consistent but shouldn't the sub-articles match the parent article, i.e. global warming. Moving it would at best be potentially confusing and at worst change the scope to include non-human influenced climate change at any point in Earth's history and for millions of years as is the case with Wikipedia's climate change article. —  AjaxSmack  22:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Support Previously I only commented. Having thought more about it, I applaud the proposer for seeking consistency, but I think we should go the other way, so long as we are using "climate change" in the article titled "Climate change" for the general concept (either cooling or warming and anytime in geologic history), and we are using "global warming" in the article titled "Global warming" for the current climate change being driven mostly by anthropogenic warming. Consistency is good, we agree on that, but I'd like to see us be..... well....... consistent NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this and other moves for two reasons. (1) Russia, etc. aren't the globe, so "global warming in [someplace]" doesn't seem logically consistent. (2) Regional climate can change due to causes other than the present greenhouse-gas induced "global warming"; for example, due to the effects of land use change on climate (deforestation, urbanization, etc.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, the articles in question are all about the effects of global warming at a particular location; as noted, local effects of this are far from uniform, and should each have separate articles; "Global warming in..." is best for these. If there are any articles on some other cause of climate change (I haven't read them all), then they should be split and have a specifically named article ("Deforestation effects on climate of Atlantis" or whatever). If the causes are largely unknown or confused, then the more vague "climate change in..." might be better, but not otherwise. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (my !vote consistent with my comments above). There's no actual problem to fix here; trying to enforce consistency for something this diverse, inconsistent, and controversial isn't helpful, and may just spawn edit wars. I would be far more likely to support moves to "Global warming" than the vague "Climate change" anyway. If "Climate Change" ever becomes a proper noun, so has some useful precise meaning, we can revisit this at that time. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Google Trends for instance https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=climate%20change,global%20warming prokaryotes (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, so? Even if this somehow proves "climate change" is more popular than "global warming", that doesn't mean everyone thinks they are the same thing, much less that anyone thinks "global warming" is "incorrect". WP maintains Climate change and Global warming as different subjects; comparing their relative "popularity" is meaningless. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (1) per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, "Global warming in Russia" is clearly a contradiction. Maybe "effects of global warming in Russia" would be closer to the mark, but "climate change" is a better title anyway and clearly can apply on a single-country level. And (2) "global warming" as a general term for this phenomenon is falling out of fashion scientifically, it sounds quite dated now. It misses the fact that the effect is not uniform. Some areas have experienced cooling, others have experienced interruption of seasons, increased rainfall, and a host of other phenomena. I would support a move of the parent article, and in the mean time making these country ones logical and consistent with each other is a great step.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Is 2009 flu pandemic in Hong Kong "clearly" a contradiction? Is Globalization in China? World War II in Yugoslavia? We have many "Big common thing in location" articles. No one sees these and complains "but the big thing can't be just in that location!" Readers know this means "the big thing viewed from this location" precisely because it can mean nothing else. Instead, "Climate change" is the name likely to cause confusion to our readers. "Climate change in x" can imply a different topic from "Global warming in x", one about any climate change, specifically ones not related to global warming. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It isn't necessarily right. How can you have a flu pandemic in one tiny territory like Hong Kong? You know that makes no sense. And on your other point, it is only on Wikipedia that we stroke our chins and try to claim that "climate change" means changing climates in general, while "global warming" means the phenomenon going on right now. To the vast majority of the world, the two terms mean pretty much the same thing, and as can be seen on an ngram: [1] climate change has overtaken global warming by quite some margin in the past 15 years, because it is the more scientifically accurate term.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect -- I know that makes sense. It's part of the English language. If one says "the earthquake struck my house", no one objects and replies "an earthquake can't be localized to a house!" Why attempt to "fix" the naming of articles with no evidence that even a single reader has a problem with it? Don't we have actual problems to work on instead?
It's true that here in WP we make a distinction between Global warming and Climate change; that's why we have separate articles for them. Perhaps one might argue that we shouldn't. But if that's to change, it needs hammered out in an RFC on those articles, not here. We can't enforce a consistency in some scattered sub-articles that doesn't exist in their parent articles. That's inconsistent.
--A D Monroe III (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – This particular article was mostly written in 2011 and mixes up global warming and climate change, reflecting the vocabulary that was en vogue in its sources. I do not see any benefit to forcing a new title for consistency with other articles written in a different context (the WP:OTHERCRAP principle). By the way, this article relies on outdated sources and reads like a bad high-school essay; I would advocate a healthy dose of WP:TNT. Regarding other articles, we shouldn't impose blind consistency in titles: look at the contents first, and fondle our collective chins until we decide whether they cover global warming, climate change or Russian interference in weather systems.[FBDB] — JFG talk 00:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and per RomanSpinner – no reason why we shouldn't have WP:CONSISTENCY at least among the country articles. Well, we can't have the main Global warming article at Climate change because the latter is a broader term for any climate change in history, while "Global warming" is commonly understood to refer only to the modern one. However, "Climate change in Russia" is practically unambiguous, as "Climate change in Russia" is not a broad concept in the same manner as "Climate change" is. And I agree with Amakuru that "Global warming in X" is sort of oxymoron and lends to contradictions. No such user (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

(A) thanks for good faith effort here
(B) FYI your net missed a few, i.e. Global warming in Norway, Global warming in Belgium, Global warming in Turkey... probably others
(C) But wait... In recent years other editors were far less conscientious than BD2412 and just made the move without discussion. A non exclusive list of examples is
(D) There are a bunch of pages that use either "global warming" or "climate change" to mean pretty much the same thing
(E) I agree standardization is desirable and will go further to say doing a good thorough job will be a big messy thankless task
(F) If the world made sense, we would implement whatever taxonomy is currently the consensus at the top articles (Climate change and Global warming); we'd change that taxonomy if it made sense to do so (I think it does); if that ever happens (it won't) those changes should filter down through all the sub articles.
(G) Since the world does not make sense, these are relatively low traffic articles, and the titles of the top articles are pretty much set in stone, go for it. There's bigger fish to fry.
(H) Thanks again for starting a thread to discuss the move first.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A prefix search shows the following:
Yes, I would move all of them. I count 33 pages situated at "Climate change in" titles. Of course, that doesn't mean that the pages should all move towards the more popular usage. My main concern here is achieving consistency. bd2412 T 16:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is good. But why not go the other way, redirecting Climate change in X to Global warming in X? This isn't an objection to your proposal, just saying its sort of arbitrary unless we start at the top articles and work down. If no one else comments, do as you please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking initially was that there are places where the climate is changing in ways other than "warming" - like experiencing more severe storms, or becoming underwater. bd2412 T 16:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. While current use isn't consistent, a case can be made that "warming" is better name for areas where the great majority of the weather effect is warming/desertification, but that "change" is better in areas where the results global warming are mixed. (Adding energy in a chaos system produces complex results; some small areas will actually be cooler, due to increase in cloud-cover and changes to weather patterns.) So, I don't see a WP-wide problem needing a WP-wide fix. But if I had to choose one, I'd favor "Global warming in...", as the cause is global even where the effects are local, and "climate change" is vague. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with A D Monroe III, above. Nihil novi (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, roughly. In the outside world, GW and CC are roughly interchangeable, but uncertainty can cause confusion. Within wiki we have GW to mean "recent anthropogenic warming and climate change", and CC for the general concept of cliamte change, including e.g. ice ages. All the pages we're discussing are, I assume, regional aspects of GW. On another note, I've often found them to be rather poor quality. Global warming in Turkey is clearly useless. for example William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikidata temp change?[edit]

There is no climate change in the article. It is main theme, no?46.188.23.100 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


bias[edit]

This article only focuses on the drawbacks of climate change concerning Russia. But obviously, raising temperatures would have primarily benefits to the single largest country with the coldest winters closest to the north pole. More land for agriculture, less cold deaths for animals and humans alike, and so forth. Greenland was once a thriving forest with lots of wildlife and very temperate climate. Now its just a barren ice block. One can only imagine what great future might Russia behold due to global warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.204.94.76 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The Northern Sea Route is already benefiting. Mining and forestry will follow, and eventually agriculture. Yes, first come a few decades of adjustment, as structures built on permafrost are overturned and swept away, Black Sea ports go underwater, polar bears go extinct, and so forth. However, people tend to care more about next week than next month, and more about the coming decades of pain than the coming centuries of prosperity and power. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that Russia could be the most powerful nation on Earth if its coastlines were open to year-round shipping is a foundational theory in classical geopolitics. This article is indeed deficient for not at least mentioning the possibility that the advantages of global warming for Russia might well outweigh the costs. 2603:8081:7803:E900:7853:A367:B4C4:15B5 (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add content along those lines provided you have reliable sources that you can cite. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes to headings and structure[edit]

I suggest to change the headings and structure of this article to be in line with the template that has been proposed here for all articles of the nature "Climate change in Country X": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide (see also discussion on that page's talk page). Anyone has any objections? If not, who's got time to give it a go? I am slowly working away at this for all the countries but would love some collaborators. EMsmile (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Needs more content. Some content should be moved from Greenhouse gas emissions by Russia EMsmile (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paris agreement[edit]

Hello! We are three students from the Ecological Effects of Climate Changes course at Uppsala University. We're working on updating the paris agreement in some of the climate change articles as part of our coursework. We're learning and welcome any feedback --Jojo2952 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_in_Russia&oldid=1206722670"