Talk:Effects of climate change/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Negative For Most Religions?

Maybe I'm being a bit inconsiderate or something, but what has Religion got to do with Global Warming? There are much more urgent things Global Warming effects. I don't think Religions should be grouped as the group to worry about Global Warming. Most people in various Religion worry about Global Warming already - What is the Issue with classifying the Religion as the Category to worry? - Have I missed something? If so enlighten me. I don't think i'm getting my point across clearly, but to me it doesn't really make any sense - there's no significance or relation between Global Warming and Religion. Come to think of it, Religions Methods normally avert Global Warming, especially some Religious methods of burial.

And if Global Warming exceeds expectations and becomes even more harmful, Religions won't be around in 2100 to worry about Global Warming - none of us will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niwdog (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But Global Warming *is* a religion. But it won't be around either. It won't take that long for most people to discover it was a scam. rossnixon 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Niwdog, what are you talking about? Where does the article make a link between religion and global warming? Splette :) How's my driving? 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See also "Global warming?" in tropical cyclone

How about changing this link to

See also [[Tropical Cyclone#Global Warming|Tropical Cyclone]]

Smaug123 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

This whole page on Global Warming Effects must be a joke. Everything is speculative - "It might..." "Possibly.." "Person x predicts..." "Some scientists have speculated..." I can't believe it is on Wikipedia. If anyone has read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" you would realize most of these claims have been thoroughly debunked. This is just misinformation echoing around years after it was disproved. This page reeks of political ideology in the disguise of science. JettaMann (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So, it took one book to convince you. Have you read anything about the book? Reviews from trustworthy sources...? Brusegadi (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
A politically motivated book like The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming by Christopher C. Horner might indeed be not the perfect starting point to learn about global warming. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute that received fundings from companies such as the Ford Motor Company and Texaco. ExxonMobil has donated millions to CEI, part of the money was explicitly aimed at "global climate change and global climate change outreach" - to cast doubt about the scientific consensus of thousands of scientists. May I suggest this for a first reding instead. Splette :) How's my driving? 09:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

< Please stop using the term “scientific consensus” as if it still represents a majority. It’s very safe to say at this point that the “IPCC consensus” is well into the minority. And your comment below with respect to “Also, there is no evidence that the UN has any agenda” – then why won’t the UN/IPCC incorporate a statement from the Oregon Petition group in their report and why won’t Wikipedia do the same ? Is that not a agenda based on bias ? > < mkurbo@comcast.net >


But then the IPCC has been bankrolled by the UN, which has received billions of dollars to push it's agenda; so as a compromise, I suggest a "neutral" site that reports both sides of the Climate Change Debate - www.climatedebatedaily.com rossnixon 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong! Of course it is no secret that the IPCC receives money from the UN for setting up meetings and organizing the work within the working group. But unlike the oil companies and their buddies, the IPCC doesn't hire authors to write what fits its agenda. Instead the authors of the IPCC report only collect and summarize previously published independent work. And they do not receive money for it from the IPCC! There is no compensation provided for all the labour that the authors provide.. The writing of the report is a fully transparent process. I wonder how many people would still buy The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming if it had the ExxonMobil logo printed on its cover... Splette :) How's my driving? 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, there is no evidence that the UN has any agenda. If anything, the UN's agenda is to deny there is global warming because that is what several of its key member states with the most amount of influence want Nil Einne (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is biased regarding polar bears

I saw that the article had 3 different sections that mentioned that global warming would make the global population of polar bears get smaller. But the opposing point of view was not mentioned at all.

Well, we all know that global temperatures have gone up in recent decades. So I added the following to the article:

A January 30, 2008 report from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee states, "The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s." [1]

And very soon afterwards, it was erased.

But those other 3 things are still there.

It seems to me that someone doesn't want the article to be balanced.

Apparenlty, it's perfectly OK for people to say that global warming is causing the global polar bear population to shrink, 3 times, in the article.

But I'm not allowed to say the opposite, even one time, even though I cited a U.S. government website as my source.

Grundle2600 (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you posted here, too. Below is the part of my reply on my talk page that is directly relevant to this article (edited for context).
I have Effects of global warming watched, although I haven't read it in a long time. So I only notice changes that people make, including the change that you made. In other words, I didn't know that polar bears are mentioned three times in the article; maybe it needs to re-organized a bit? Usually, if something is going to be edited, it will be edited very quickly.
The website you used as a source isn't a reliable source. It's a collection of quotes, and the links from the quotes don't go to scientific papers but things like an academic website, news articles, and a press release that doesn't have the words "polar bear" in it at all. If, indeed, polar bear populations are increasing because of increased temperatures, or are just staying the same, then this would be important, but this causal relationship would need to be explained in the reliable source used in the article. If the US fish and wildlife service has published population estimates, then those should be cited, not a website that says what the USFWS says. Since I've done some more checking of these sources after your comment on my talk page, I'm going to remove your addition of the same article to polar bear as well.
These two additions of yours are not very well integrated into the text and this article is really very discombobulated. What that article really needs is someone to read the sources and organize the article. Many editors drop relevant (and sometimes irrelevant) facts out of context into articles but, this really doesn't create a very readable end product. - Enuja (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
My source is a U.S. government website. That's a reliable source. And you removed it from the polar bear article too. Wow! You really are trying to prevent people from finding out the truth about polar bears! Grundle2600 (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Senate committee statements can be (and often are) persuasive, rhetorical arguments, not reliable sources. As I said above, many of the links in your source go no-where or go to irrelevant places. The Polar Bear article already has both numbers (early estimate of polar bear population size in the 1970s at 5,000, current estimate of between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears). Hunting presumably did decrease polar bear abundance, and they are presumably recovering from that, and early estimates probably had very large confidence intervals, but this doesn't belong in an article about global warming! I have a personal 1 revert rule, and I've already reverted that change, but I ask you to step back a bit and consider if this is really relevant for this article. - Enuja (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've placed all of the polar bear related stuff in one place. Please work constructively with me to make a better article. -Enuja (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Inhofe blog "report". Its not official, and the claim that was presented is not referenced in the "report". The "report" is not a WP:RS so it doesn't belong on wikipedia (except perhaps on the Inhofe article) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It is referenced to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, specifically a recent proposal they made to the Interior Dept. to list polar bears as an endangered species. All the info is here. It seems that it depends on where you pick your data, as the population is up since the 50s but down 22% since the 80s. The issue is that it may be synthesis to include any of this without another source that ties any of this to shooting down GW. Oren0 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually no. The figures aren't supported by the USGS report from 2002 (which is Inhofe/Morano's claim of source) [1] (Amstrup Sec 8. pp.65-70)- which first of all only talks about specific populations in Alaska and parts of Canada - and secondly doesn't mention any population figures that match what is in the "report" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A cursory look found the 20,000-25,000 link in a PDF at the location above. I didn't see the 5,000 number there though. Oren0 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it's good to list a wide variety of opinions, and let the readers make up their own mind. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

DHA report on heath effects of global warming

User:Grundle2600 inserted [2] a quote from a BBC news article about an update to a report from the UK's department of health. Here [3] is the official published report page. I think a much better addition to this article would be a gained from the actual department of health report, integrated with the rest of the section, and would not include any actual quotations from the report's text. However, a quote from the UK department of health's report would be better than a quote from the BBC summarizing the UK department of health's report. - Enuja (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If we really need to include this piece of information at all, then yes, the original source is better. What I am afraid of, is that this paragraph might mislead the reader to think that the study concludes that the overall effects of global warming is positive. Instead the study only estimates the deaths of cold winters vs. heat waves in summer but ignores the other effects of global warming and their implications on loss of human lives. Because seeing global warming only as a minimum increase in temperatures (while not considering its other effects) is a common misconception, I think we have to ensure that the paragraph is not understood in this way. Does what I say make any sense? Splette :) How's my driving? 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The actual report is 124 pages, and includes sections entitled "Flooding, windstorms and climate change" "Vector-borne diseases and climate change" "Foodborne disease and climate change" "Water and disease and climate change" "Direct effects of rising temperatures on mortality in the UK" "The health impact of climate change due to changes in air pollution" and "Climate change, ground level ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and health." So, yeah, the report covers more than just the "direct effects" of temperature. However, the section of this article that Grundle2006 put the BBC quote in is in the direct effects section. Because of your concern, maybe the health effects section should be reorganized? - Enuja (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have had a look at the actual report before posting. I see now that other effects were also included in the report but are expected to have a smaller impact on the total global warming death toll in UK. I am still concerned that the bottom message might be misunderstood as "global warming will lead to fewer deaths". But what is true for the UK does not necessarily apply to let's say Bangladesh. So, I just want to make sure that the findings of the report are represented in the proper NPOV way. By the way, I agree with you to integrate the text with the rest of the section.Splette :) How's my driving? 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agreed with Splette's first comment. If we use the report, we have to balance what we get and not cherry pick the extremes. I would like to point out that adding this report may jeopardize the global perspective of the article so lets just use it for illustrative examples where needed with the weight that such regional stuff deserves. I guess it may be hard, but I think we should try to keep the effects of gw as global as possible. Brusegadi (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited the section. Honestly, I haven't read the 124 page report. I read the summary of the report, and the summary of the relevant section (direct effects), so I'm pretty sure I've got a good idea of what the source says, but if someone has a few hours on their hands, a good detailed read of that source would be good. Although, honestly, the direct health effects section of this article REALLY could use a world wide perspective, and it doesn't have one, so time might be better spent looking for global reports or at least a report from a single tropic country! - Enuja (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for the edit. Splette :) How's my driving? 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

The clause "but some effects of recent climate change may already be occurring" should be taken out and shot. You either have recent climate change or you have no effects. You can't have it both ways. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally one-sided

Like it or not, there are positive effects of global warming that have been discussed by many bodies such as the IPCC, such as increased crop yields, opening of trade routes, increased land use in Siberia and other northerly land regions, etc;. There is no mention on this page of any positive effects whatsoever in this article. That is absolutely shocking, when they have been acknowleged by scientific bodies the world over. Whether or not they outweigh the negative effects is not a debate for this page; they must be included in this encyclopaedic article on "effects of global warming", or else the article be renamed "negative effects of global warming". 79.74.59.75 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Of course we mention them in the article:
The negative effects far dominate, but that is in keeping with the scientific literature on the topic. However, if you have concrete additions, feel free to make or suggest them. Please be reasonably careful about tertiary sources and self-published think papers - they are very often very lousy at representing the scientific literature fairly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Le Chatelier's principle: More discussion please.

The section "Negative feedback effects" mentions Le Chatelier's principle. I think that we need additional discussion and sources here. Le Chatelier's principle is a very general observation which is strongly evident in some situations and very weakly (or not at all) in others. While we might expect some aspects of global warming to be mitigated by Le Chatelier's principle, I think that we should avoid implying that all aspects will be, or that mitigation effects will be "sufficent" (e.g. a temperature rise of 8 degrees C is better than one of 16 degrees C, but it's still very serious), or that the overall effects will be ("Hey, no problem - Le Chatelier's principle will save us"), unless we can provide reliable cites to support this. Thanks.
(I used the {{refimprove}} tag for this. It's apparently not quite right, but I didn't see one for sections rather than articles or sentences.) -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble reading that section as a "it will save us" argument, it reads to me as being pretty neutral. We are talking about a long-term negative feedback, which will absorb most of the CO2, if no new CO2 is emitted.
It would be helpful if you could expand on what you believe is problematic, and/or what parts you think are wrong/slanted in a particular direction. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is totally absurd to quote Le Chatelier's Principle in the context of global warming- firstly and most importantly because the climate of the earth earth is not in a state an equilibrium in a closed system.... and secondly because even if the earth was in a state of definite equilibrium in the scientific sesne, no one could possibly know what that state is (too many unaccounted variables).86.156.51.15 (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A propos of the above... I do wish people (especially on wikipedia) wouldn't attempt to appear erudite or intelligent by quoting totally irrelevent and clearly misunderstood theories or concepts that are quite obviosuly out of place in certain contexts.86.156.51.15 (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not NPOV and Dubious Factual Accuracy

This whole article is extremely one-sided. Whole parts are highly exaggerated and others plain wrong. I intend to go over this article and fix some of this, but I am sure others can help as the POV is plain to see here. alexllew 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article is, of course, always welcome. Please be sure to follow WP:V and WP:RS, though. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the totally disputed tag. Which is over the top, and not supported by either discussion here, or lack of citations. I've also removed the one {{cn}} tag, that you put into the article. Had you checked the reference - then you would have found that particular information on page 5, block 2. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I didn't add the {{cn}}.alexllew 09:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, well my edit was reverted, so I shall justify here what changes I made.

"Scenarios studied by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global warming will continue and get worse much faster than was expected even in their last report."

Absolutely not true. The 3AR had temperature predictions of 1.4 - 5.8 oC over the next century. In the 4AR, that was 1.1 - 6.4: hardly "much" faster, if at all; it is in fact merely a widening of the extremes.

"The IPCC reports attribute many specific natural phenomena to human causes."

This makes no sense at all. That should read: "The IPCC reports have attributed OR PREDICT [some haven't been observed yet] a CHANGE IN THE FREQUENCY of many specific natural phenomena to GLOBAL WARMING [let's be specific here]"

"The expected long range effects of recent climate change may already be BEING observed"

"AN INCREASE IN THE RATE OF sea level rise, glacier retreat, Arctic SEA ICE shrinkage, and altered patterns of agriculture are cited as direct consequences of GLOBAL WARMING."

"Predictions for secondary and regional effects include AN INCREASE IN extreme weather events, an expansion of tropical diseases, changes in the timing of seasonal patterns in ecosystems, and [drastic] economic impact"

I would seriously question the use of the word "drastic" here. It says in the article that for up to 3oC of warming, climate change could be beneficial for some areas, while negative in others. Seeing as that is about the degree of warming expected, drastic economic impact isn't appropriate. Either just "economic impact" or maybe "localised drastic economic impact" should be used.

"Climate changes characterized as global warming are leading to large-scale irreversible effects at continental and global scales"

Gah! What an alarmist sentence! "large-scale irreversible effects at ... global scales"? Firstly, nothing we do is going to be irreversible, at least in the long run. Secondly, to say with such certainty that this level of environmental disaster will occur is not appropriate either. Thirdly, "Climate changes characterised as" is superfluous. Maybe that could read: "Some scientists warn that global warming may lead to damaging, large-scale effects at continental and global scales."

"The likelihood, magnitude, and timing is observed to be increasing and accelerating"

Firstly, "timing" cannot "increase" or "accelerate". Secondly, you cannot "observe" "likelihood". Thirdly, global warming is not accelerating, if anything it is slowing slightly: [4] To be honest, a better sentence would be "However, the likelihood, magnitude and timing of such events are uncertain."

"Many consequences of Global warming once thought controversial are now being observed. Large reductions in the Greenland and [West Antarctic Ice Sheets] and accelerated [?] global warming due to carbon cycle feedbacks in the terrestrial biosphere HAVE OCCURRED; releases of terrestrial carbon from permafrost regions and methane from hydrates in coastal sediments are accelerating."

Firstly, Antarctic sea ice is at a record extent: [5] I don't know about the rest, though I repeat that global warming is NOT accelerating.

Last sentence: "...but synergistic affects such as warming causing the release of methane hydrates or clathrates; oceans forests and species dying off create many unforeseen impacts such as a decrease in the amount of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere."

Not sure how oceans can die off seeing as they're not alive, and I don't recall seeing anywhere that global warming kills forests either. I would say: "the release of methane hydrates or clathrates and the extinction of species, coupled with deforestation MAY create many unforeseen impacts such as a decrease in the amount of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere."

Well anyway, tell me what you think. I'll put these changes back in again if no-one objects.alexllew 17:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Warmlist

Hi. Can we include this list in the external links? It contains a "complete" list of effects of global warming, and links to many online sources. However, it may contain too many unreliable links, be too self-contradicting, not be NPOV, be too informal, not be complete enough, etc, what do you think? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the most important one ... its not a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

An image needs updated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arctic_Ice_Thickness.gif

should be replaced with

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arctic_Ice_Thickness.png

as specified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.134.2 (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --TS 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Needless quote, Section "Extreme weather"

I wanted to ask before I attempt to delete this quote:

Stephen Mwakifwamba, national co-ordinator of the Centre for Energy, Environment, Science and Technology — which prepared the Tanzanian government's climate change report to the UN — says that change is happening in Tanzania right now. "In the past, we had a drought about every 10 years", he says. "Now we just don't know when they will come. They are more frequent, but then so are floods. The climate is far less predictable. We might have floods in May or droughts every three years. Upland areas, which were never affected by mosquitoes, now are. Water levels are decreasing every day. The rains come at the wrong time for farmers and it is leading to many problems.”[2]

IMHO this is a need- and worthless quote, in the mold of Grandma says ‘We always had white christmas back in the days when everything cost a nickel.’ Just a plain unscientific comment that is bound to be subjective. There isn't even a statistic that supports (or refutes) this claim. So I propose to delete this comment. ––bender235 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should stick to the hard facts. Splette :) How's my driving? 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I was looking to find some details of the actual recorded effects of global warming, and assumed this article would cover this area.

Instead I find it is not an article about the actual effects, but merely speculation about what might happen at some vague time in the future.

Unless anyone objects, I will put in a request for deletion with the suggestion this article is renamed: "Predicted effects of global warming".Bugsy (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I object. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could suggest revisions to the article that would help meet your expectationsAndrewjlockley (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I object because there are a lot of currently observed effects listed in the article. See the section I just created below. NJGW (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The article should be split into two articles: "Observed effects of global warming" and "Predicted effects of global warming". Anything in either article should be scientific and not baseless (as much of this article is).fogus (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Geoengineering speculative fantasy and misrepresentation of sources. Do people actually read the references that they give or are the title of references just selected randomly to support POV or are people using sneaky editing to change the meaning of referenced work

The following text purports to be sourced from a NOAA study overview article.

"Research by NOAA indicate that the effects of global warming are already irreversible without geoengineering."

I read the article and it contains the following words "Geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. “Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative,” said Solomon."

You shouldnt be exploiting researchers work to push POV.--Theo Pardilla (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that it can be done with geoeng, but that it can't be done without it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The point isn't about geoeng; the point is that you've been continuing this behavior of citing sources that don't say what you say they do, forcing other editors to spend their time cross-checking their sources, for probably over a month now. It is better to have no citation than to say that scientists said what they didn't say. Awickert (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Grossly unfair. I did that insert ages ago, and the study did NOT contradict what I said. I didn't say the study supported geoeng, I said that without geoeng it couldn't be reversed. The study supports that entirely. My sentence was more limited, more restricted in its claims than was the study. I have been slated for being conservative! For pity's sake.....Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The study says that climate change is irreversible, and says that they didn't consider geoengineering. You said that the study said that geoengineering is the only way, which is different, and is an extrapolation, which is not conservative. This web site [6] mentions a national academies report, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base, perhaps there would be something there. Awickert (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to put the wording back in and support it with the right references as per discusssion and edit comments. I'm not going to do it yet though, because one individual has used improvement iterations as ammo for a (failed) attempt at a 3RR ban. I'm going to cite lenton and vaughan, crutzen or caldeira, and clarify that the study we're rowing about didn't consider geoeng.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Or you could just leave this study out and just cite one that does directly support what you're saying. Either way. Awickert (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Current observations vs. future predictions

I recently came across a news story that made me wonder about the measurable effect that climate change is having on animal behavior today. In this article, I see that there are such effects (not to mention geological and other effects), but they are far to intermingled with the predicted/possible effects. Just testing the water here, but would it be possible to separate the currently measured effects from the future predictions? NJGW (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of distinction between scenarios

The article doesn't say very much at all about how the predicted effects depend on future emissions of greenhouse gases. I would like to request that people address this shortcoming. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Declaration

Why is the Manhattan Declaration not mentioned in this article? I cannot find it even in the Talk pages. Do you think that the Manhattan Declaration challenges the consensus on climate change? Have the endorsers been discredited?

"Catastrophe" is mentioned four times, "disaster" six times, etc. This article and the consensus on Wikipedia is misguided. This article is replete with wild speculation and very little observation. It stinks of opinion and a lack of the scientific method.

The Manhattan Declaration is a consensus of more than 700 qualified men and women. It directly relates to statements in this article and it should be mentioned.

Under the section titled "Children" in the article it states: "On 29 April 2008, a UNICEF UK Report found that global warming is already reducing the quality of the world's most vulnerable children's lives and making it more difficult to meet the UN Millennium Development Goals. Global warming will reduce access to clean water and food supplies, particularly in Africa and Asia. Disasters, violence and disease are expected to be more frequent and intense, making the future of the world's poorest children more bleak. [201]"

Just because you are UNICEF doesn't mean that you can make arbitrary claims and be taken seriously. A good source must contain an argument, a very particular kind of thing. Arguments are not claims. A good argument should convince a reasonable person to hold a certain view.


From the Manhattan declaration: "Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false"

This isn't "just me".fogus (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea: instead of including promotional material where some "experts" sign a "declaration", why not just let their peer-reviewed scientific publications on climate science (and why it's pants) do the talking instead? Oh, that's right, they're talking through their hats. I remember. --PLUMBAGO 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Can't check all of the recent edits by Tomasdemul, but some appear to be copyright violations and have simply lifted material from UN sites (e.g. this one). I'll try to have a look myself later, but just wanted to flag this up in the meantime. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now removed the portions of added text that were more or less lifts from external websites. As far as I can tell, the content added was copyrighted at these sites. --PLUMBAGO 15:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Embers

Can someone get the new smith embers diagram to replace the old one please?Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the Smith embers diagram is the one on "risks and impacts" that heads up the article. I didn't know either. --PLUMBAGO 08:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup?

I've created long term effects of global warming. The effects of global warming article needs a size reduction, so you might want to cut out some topic areas that are covered in the new article. The general reader probably isn't overly concerned about what will happen in 2000 years time. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be commencing this split unless I see objections soon Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Several objections have already been filed on the lteogw talk page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The current consensus seems to be to split. I don't care either way, as I've written the new sections anyway. Please put your spoke in on the other TP so you can inform the debate there. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Which consensus? Yours? Or everyone else's? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Tagged as per suggestions at long term effects of global warming Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Tags reverted by WMC without TP discussion or usable edit summary. How very constructive.... Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can catastrophic climate change be merged here?

I put up a merge tag on this to see what people think. The linked article can't decide what it's about, the term "catastrophic climate change" and where it's used (essentially a dicdef); or the actual effects that will supposedly be "catastrophic", which I believe to be amply covered here. Therefore, I propose that any useful bits be merged here and the existing term becomes a redirect to this page. Oren0 (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

CCC is awful, so anything that gets rid of it would be good. Merging here is plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I redirected CCC to this article per my agreement with the above. I found no useful content to merge. -Atmoz (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Use an afd. If you don't like the article, improve it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Read the 4th bullet point at WP:BEFORE. You've been pointed to this before, but you have obviously failed to read and understand it. -Atmoz (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear which sentence you're referring to. In any event, an AfD is an appropriate forum for this discussion. By your own admission, you are not merging, you are removing the article and replacing it with a redirect to a related, but not equivalent article. It's like redirecting pony to horse.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It is extremely clear what sentence he is referring to. You open WP:BEFORE, you count bulletpoints - when you reach #4 - you are there (i've bolded the part that you seem to overlook (everytime)):
Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.
But of course if one doesn't want to find it - then its difficult. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sadly it was neither a merge or a useful redirect, so according to that defn it does require an AfD. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Quite apparently: people disagree with you. And that is the issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It was a merge, there just wasn't any content on that page that was relevant and not already covered here. Oren0 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
So it wasn't a merge then, it was a deletion. The point of the article was to define and explore catastrophic climate change, its origin, meaning and use. That is not the purpose of the EoGW article. The CCC article has been checked out and edited by numerous people, so why does Atmoz bowl up and delete it? Not satisfactory. USE AN AFD.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If it was Atmoz who merged/deleted/deflated/ablated/whateveryoucallit the thing then good on him, because so far everyone except you has said they agree. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The AfD is the proper place for that discussion. A clear case for deletion has not yet been made. I note, Boris, that you yourself edited this article, and chose at that time not to make it a redirect. Was this a momentary lapse of reason? Or have you since had a Road to Damascus conversion? Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tidied and stubified it. I think that it now properly explains an ambiguous term that's in wide use. Please can you WP:AfD it if you don't like it, then I can seek to address any outstanding concerns. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD'd itAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have checked Wikipedia:Redirect and it does not seem to apply in this case. There has been no merge in previous attemtps, so that doesn't appear to apply either. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Will you please stop? Consensus is clearly against your interpretation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Killed it again William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this but I could be convinced to support a topic ban on AJL's editing of all geophysics related articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The rules have been breached. An AfD is required. I am happy to accept that consensus from the proper process. I am not happy to accept people replacing valid articles with random redirects. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC) If you don't think that's correct, please quote chapter and verse the policy on WP:REDIRECT that allows you to replace an article to a random page within the same topic area. You could just have easily chosed global warming, abrupt climate change and probably several others articles too. Did you just toss a coin? Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Lets take it again (even though it will be the 3rd time): WP:BEFORE, 4th bullet point. Thats the chapter and verse. And consensus here shows quite clearly that everyone but you agree's upon the redirect. Sorry. Try not to invoke WP:IDHT again - Ok? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"The rules have been breached" is not an argument because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Consensus here is clearly against you and there's no reason to go through process when the conclusion is foregone. If you really believe the article should be resplit and you believe that for some reason the consensus here (which, for the record, is about as broad-reaching as a consensus on a global warming-related topic has ever been) then I'd suggest opening up an RfC on the issue and see if perhaps outside editors agree that the article should be resplit. Oren0 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the redirect to Runaway climate change, since the premise of the catastrophic climate change article was that some kind of negative→positive feedback threshold had been crossed, and I think that the runaway article conveys the same info much better. AJL can transfer what pieces he wants, but I think there's close to full overlap already, hence the change in redirect. Awickert (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There was no merge to 'resplit'. It was just a deletion. There's no point people saying 'check this here and that there' and then saying later 'oh the rules don't matter'. The fact is, for the record, that using a redirect when you are deleting content not replicated elsewhere is a breach of policy. Regardless of process failures, I still think the outcome is unsatisfactory, and I suggest we use a disambiguation page. Abrupt climate change is more applicable to the scientific meaning of 'catastrophic', and then we can redirect to runaway or EOGW for the 'colloquial' meaning which does not involve tipping points. If you're redirecting to EoGW then we need at least a small insert on 'catastrophic' to make the redirect relevant (tricky in a WP:TOOLONG article). Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
OK - make a disambig. My suggestion: "Catastrophic climate change is used to describe really bad things that happen with global warming. This can refer particularly to: [bullet] [bullet]." Awickert (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
And how would that be any different than all the other articles that AJL has made on the topic? -Atmoz (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Awickert. Atmoz, you show your hand there. I don't 'make up' articles, despite what you may believe. I create valid articles, using valid sources, according to WP policies. Please don't imply otherwise, or you'll start to believe that it's just fine to run around deleting them and pretending that redirects excuse you from the AfD process (despite the fact this contradicts both policy and guidelines). Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to cards, so be nice. I have an A, a K, a Q, a J, and a 10. And they all have hearts on them. Is that a good hard? Please read and understand ignore this: WP:LAWYER. -Atmoz (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be different because instead of being a new article, it would direct to others. While the article wasn't that good, the phrase "catastrophic climate change" got over 100K google hits from a variety of sources, and therefore is something. In lieu of an article that says nothing new next to AJL's other articles, he should just redirect to them as a better avenue than repetition. I have pocket A's for apathy, by the way. I see no reason to oppose a page with multiple redirect options, and Catastrophic climate change got ~10 hits/day, so I think that this discussion is a lousy waste of time isn't the best possible use of editorial resources. Awickert (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OK I will build a disamb. page. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've killed it. AW, please stop being nice to AJL, because with 10 people disagreeing with him and one offering a crumb of comfort, he'll take that one crumb and run with it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, sure, though I think it is a valid topic for an article. If you're afraid AJL will take a nautical mile for every inch and that is a huge headache, OK, and the original article was next to worthless, yep. But in this case, my motive is more to improve Wiki than to be nice to AJL. I think he should have waited for consensus before making it, but I think that my suggestion of a disambig page was good except for the fact that you guys think I'm enabling AJL by breaking a unanimous opposition. Awickert (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
WMC has yet again violated policy by deleting the disamb. page. If he didn't like the link to it, he could have pointed it elsewhere - but no, he had to destroy everyone's work instead. I'm happy to use a diambiguation page as an appropriate solution, and I'm clearly not the only one. That does not mean that it's a bad solution. Simply put, there is no consensus for WMC's deletion - which is exactly why such actions violate policy. P.S. WMC please stop picking on Awickert for refusing to pillory me. At the very least you should realise that pressganging others into joining your attacks simply exposes your harassment of me as being personal.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey - it's cool. We wait for a consensus. Right now there are 2 for (myself and Andrew) and 2 against (Atmoz and William) William's deletion returned the status quo that there was no article. Let's wait for Kim and Boris to weigh in, if they like - give them a day or two - and then move on. Awickert (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
A consensus in favour of deletion is required for a deletion. This is why we have AfDs, with associated rules and procedures. WMC ignored them. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I will recreated the disamb if no consensus against it is reached by 1800UTC 13.5.9 N.B. An AfD will be required after it's recreation, and any arbitrary blanking/deletion will be treated as vandalism. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't pistols at high noon (or maybe a ruler) be simpler? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the way Butch Cassidy would make it go down, but AJL's a civilised Brit. Awickert (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I will shoot you with my clathrate gun BOOM! BOOM! Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

any arbitrary blanking/deletion will be treated as vandalism - who by? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with allowing blank-to-redirect and arbitrary deletions. I'll revert them as vandalism if they happen again, and escalate in the case of arbitrary deletion. Totally, totally sick of people riding rough-shod over clear policy. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd strongly advise against that course of action. It will likely end in you getting blocked and/or banned. -Atmoz (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree; escalation bad, especially because the consensus is that the arbitrary redirection was OK.
On the practical side, William just locked the disambig page. I would like to recreate a disambig page, though probably at the not-locked page because (1) the term is clearly important and (2) the redirect page (I think) was useful. I will recreate it, cite properly, and take the fall if it sucks. William - is this OK with you? Awickert (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
WMC should be reprimanded for a) arbitrary deletion b) locking a page where no bad-faith editing was occurring. I'm all for politeness, but please don't fawn to people who act like WP is their own private fiefdom. Andrewjlockley (talk)
I'm polite because it's efficient and nice. Butting heads on WP is a huge waste of time and emotional energy. I also enjoy getting along with William, and know that he generally has reasons for what he does. Awickert (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Treating imperiousness with deference only inflates already bloated egos. Policy breaches should be openly condemned, regardless of the arrogance of the offender. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess you could call it deference; I was just trying to see why he doesn't want it. Awickert (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Emporer has not responded. I suggest this disamb page needs to be recreated. The current re-direct is not appropriate, as others have pointed out. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost track of the discussion, the S/N declined rather abruptly. AW: yes. I'll sort it out now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks WMC. Can you re-instate the deleted page, with any edits/amends you see as being necessary? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Meta discussion

Those who have edited this article may want to give their views on my plans to propose a topic ban on AJL's editing of all topics related to Earth science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this is based on my creating a disambiguation page catastrophic climate change (disambiguation), as discussed above. It has not bee deleted, edited or reverted. I can't quite see why that's a hanging offence. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I agree with Boris. How can you get so many different unsourced, irrelevant and misleading claims into a short disambiguation article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
On second thought the topic ban proposal was premature and there should be a second request for comment on user conduct instead. If AJL brushes aside all feedback from the second RFC/U as he has done with the first the case for a topic ban will be tighter. Or maybe a miracle will occur and AJL begins to edit cooperatively, which would make the whole mess unnecessary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Interpreting social cost of carbon estimates

I felt that the introduction to the section on the economic effects of global warming could be improved:

'Many estimates of aggregate net economic benefits and costs from climate change across the globe have been published. One metric, the social cost of carbon (SCC), expressed in terms of future net benefits and costs that are discounted to the present, has been estimated. Peer-reviewed estimates of the SCC for 2005 have an average value of US$43 per tonne of carbon (tC) (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide) but the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide.)'

My problem with the paragraph above is that it does not mention the difficulties in interpreting estimates of the social cost of carbon. The paragraph is substantially the same as one in the IPCC AR4 WGII SPM. In the WGII SPM, it is explained that the SCC figure masks many important differences in the impacts of climate change, e.g., regional differences in the SCC. I think this information is essential in understanding the limitations of SCC estimates.

My revision is below. I have quoted this from the IPCC AR4 Synthesis report SPM. My revision makes it clear that the SCC needs to be interpreted carefully:

'The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains a review of the literature on the economics of climate change:

Impacts of climate change are very likely to impose net annual costs, which will increase over time as global temperatures increase. Peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost of carbon [...] in 2005 average US$12 per tonne of CO2, but the range from 100 estimates is large (-$3 to $95/tCO2). This is due in large part to differences in assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the treatment of risk and equity, economic and non-economic impacts, the inclusion of potentially catastrophic losses and discount rates. Aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions and populations and very likely underestimate damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts.'

Enescot (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sea ice expansion

Hasn't it recently been found that sea ice is expanding; in antartica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sero12 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the article I think you'll find it mentions this! Polargeo (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reductions in size

Just a warning. I am thinking about doing some size reductions and trimming bits from this massive article. For example where things are covered in more detail and better in other places such as Current sea level rise and Retreat of glaciers since 1850. I'm not talking about removing any good info from wikipedia or removing the basic summaries and links from this article. It is too big an article to debate every small tidy up and I'm not planning on any fundamental changes. The problem with it is that it has been a dumping ground for all sorts of random bits of info, many are very badly sourced and written. I may not do this immediately but intend to start over the next month. Any suggestions welcome. Polargeo (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In principle, that sounds good. Cruft accumulates. Start slowly :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
splitsection tag, first please. I hate axe-hacking without discussion. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't be alarmed. No major axe hacking intended. I will try to flag any changes but the whole article has been flagged for some time and there are several bits that just need doing. Anything major and I will tag but I'm not even sure I will do vast edits yet. One of my thoughts was that if there is a main article with the info in it already to a better standard then having it repeated here in the same length and a lower standard is not useful, particularly when this article needs reducing and a main article link or see also link can be added to the section and a good comprehensive summary left here. I certainly don't intend to split off any section into completely new articles, I'll leave that for others more enthusiastic than me. I am really thinking of quality and retaining all useful, relevant content on wikipedia. Anyway as William says I will go very slowly, you'll notice I've only done a very minor edit or two so far and that was some time ago(I've met William in person by the way but he probably doesn't remember me, I have worked at the British Antarctic Survey for the last 3 years) Polargeo (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you move text where possible. Losing even nuggets of valuable info can be a significant problem. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind offer, Polargeo. I'll keep this around on my watchlist; perhaps your motivating will inspire me to new editorial heights. Awickert (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started to make a few edits. I will pause and see what the reaction is. Hope I haven't done anything crazy AndrewJL. I see that you have a Master of Engineering from the University of Birmingham. I did my masters and PhD in geophysics at Birmingham. After realizing that I have met William as well this is becoming more than a bit small worldish Polargeo (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove Abrupt section and place info into Positive feedback section

The section Effects_of_global_warming#Abrupt_climate_change is all about positive feedbacks. I believe this should be incorporated into the positive feedback section. User:Polargeo/Positive_feedback_effects shows how I would edit the sections. Please feel free to add edits to this. I will not do anything on this until consensus has been reached. Polargeo (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some comments:
  • Some scientists fear that runaway climate change may be imminent,[1] and may even have started.[2] is a) WP:WEASELy and b) sourced to a popular press article and an environmental protection group that does not seem to have climate researchers in its advisory council. I think this give too much weight to this proposition.
  • Peat bogs appear twice. This should be unified.
  • Many of the feedback discussed outside the section "carbon cycle feedbacks" are actually part of the carbon cycle.
  • There is little or no distinction between very well-accepted, directly observed feedbacks like the sea-ice reduction, and much more speculative feedback like the clathrate gun mechanism. The AGU Expedition report gives the impression as if "it's happening right now", while the corresponding research article is more more circumspect. "100 times above normal" means 100 times above normal atmospheric concentration, not 100 times above what is within normal variability for the given time and location.
I liked the idea at first, but that last point has me thinking. Most of the material on rapid climate change is less accepted than the other feedbacks. Keeping it in a separate section makes it easier to reflect that fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you have identified the problem. This section is largely WP:WEASELy. I could be more radical and remove more of the section without repositioning. I don't think there is a place for the Abrupt section as it currently stands. However, I do think some links/refs contained within it should be maintained. This needs courageously addressing to get this article beyond a dumping ground. Polargeo (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As to your last point (possibly last three points). They have nothing to do with my planned edits. They were there anyway and should be addressed separately. One thing at a time. Polargeo (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on sourcing (point 1 b). I think this is partly a case of very sloppy referencing. The first reference to the newspaper article is actually a summary of a book and the book itself should probably have been referenced. The environmental protection group ref is a summary of work by James Lovelock. So whilst these refernces are not great they are not as poor as they initially seem. I had checked these refs out before deciding not to delete the statement, as was my first reaction. Polargeo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Lovelock is really out there. He is at least borderline fringe, and I know many people who wouldn't grant the borderline... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and just need the okay to go ahead, as I said 'these references are not great'. I could be more radical and not even transfer the environment/Lovelock ref. This is a small part of the issue. Polargeo (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed your concern and removed the sentence of weasel words. Peat bogs was there twice anyway, that is on the To Do list. I haven't moved the clathrate gun section, and never intended to as it was already in the positive feedback section. I think the thing to do (not necessarily for me) is just to emphasise the higher level of scientific uncertainty over this mechanism. Polargeo (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane lists

Bearing in mind the fact that this article needs focusing a bit. Do we need the two tables of hurricanes? Obviously we would keep links and summaries of all this here. Polargeo (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

These tables explain two completely different things: one being the intensity of hurricane seasons, the other being the adjusted property damage of single storms. That is both definitely noteworthy. --bender235 (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but that is not what I am asking. I am simply bearing in mind the need to trim this article down. As a top level article it probably doesn't need either of these tables, which both exist as part of other more relevant articles. We can sumarize here and link to the other articles.
  1. We have a figure of just how much damage a hurricane can cause in the text.
  2. The times of major hurricane seasons in the Atlantic doesn't really show the effects of global warming clearly. Any part of this linked to global warming, like possible increased frequency of major weather events, can be and is more clearly dealt with in the text. Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Instead of "trimming the article down", we should consider splitting it up. --bender235 (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Split into what? I suggest Regional effects of global warming, Retreat of glaciers since 1850, Current sea level rise, Abrupt climate change, Arctic shrinkage, Economics of global warming, Climate change and agriculture, Extinction risk from climate change etc. etc. And then to cover the hurricanes we have many articles but these include List_of_costliest_Atlantic_hurricanes and List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records. What this page needs to be is a comprehensive coverage of all major effects of global warming in one place with links to the more detailled articles, which is what I am trying to do without losing any major points and not scaling it down too much. Polargeo (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Judith Curry

Hello! Please create a link to Judith Curry in the Effects of global warming #External links. Thank you. --Diwas (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't ;) Polargeo (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not --Diwas (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. I don't think she is an effect of global warming.
  2. I think she may not meet the notability guidelines for academics to be included in wikipedia (its a close one based on the sources in her bio article).
  3. Have you seen the list of external links for this article, it is huge. Putting in a link to Judith Curry will just make it even more difficult to find the more useful links. This is an article, not a whos who of global warming research. I could arguably put myself in as a link, I've been covered in the media NPR, BBC etc. etc., certainly my boss could go into this page if we started doing this sort of thing.
  4. If you mean link to her wikipedia page that should be in the see also section not external links.
  5. I am trying to remove all of the cruft from this page anyway. You will see the article is tagged for being too long. This ultimately makes the article less useful to people. If someone put Judith Curry into this page it will just be removed as not helpful.
I hope this explains Polargeo (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Look at my edit, revert it if you want or delete more or not ;) --Diwas (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
My apologies Diwas I didn't realise she was already there. Your link is fine. Polargeo (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I had given you not very exact informations, in my very bad english writing.--Diwas (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless she's padded her CV, Curry clearly meets #1 of WP:PROF (and probably #3 as well). I was planning on getting around to writing a descent encyclopedia article about her, but haven't yet. -Atmoz (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No argument with you there Atmoz. It was just on my initial look at the wikipedia page for her that I couldn't see sufficent to meet notability criteria. I could see it was almost there so I academic notability tagged it with the hope that someone would put the necessary refs in. Seems someone has requested the page be deleted or moved. My inital problem with Diwas's request was a misunderstanding. I would have assumed Diwas would just wikilink Judith Curry if she had already been on the page so when I noted Diwas wanted to put an external link to Judith Curry I was confused. A complete misunderstanding and I don't know why Judith Curry is now a redlink. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I requested that it be deleted until I (or someone else) got around to writing a decent bio. -Atmoz (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anthropocene extinction event

User:Andrewjlockley has added a see also to a new article of his. I have tagged this article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthropocene_extinction_event

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Polargeo (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro, agriculture, ecosystems, coasts

I've made a number of changes to the article. In particular, I've deleted a number of vague and potentially misleading statements, and attempted to re-balance some sections of the article.

Intro

this was rather scattered and unspecific in its statements, e.g., Scenarios studied by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global warming will continue and get worse much faster than was expected even in their last report. Research by NOAA indicate that the effects of global warming are already largely irreversible.[3]. The statements much worse and irreversible are not helpful without further explanation.

The IPCC reports attribute many specific natural phenomena to human causes. The expected long range effects of recent climate change may already be observed. Rising sea levels, glacier retreat, Arctic shrinkage, and altered patterns of agriculture are cited as direct consequences of human activities.

The first and second sentences are confusing. The third sentence is potentially misleading – the IPCC provides probabilities for attributions, and this sentence presents attributions with a misleading degree of certainty.

Agriculture

expanded section based on IPCC report and deleted unsourced statements. The global coverage of this section was extremely lacking. I deleted the following sentence For some time it was hoped that a positive effect of global warming would be increased agricultural yields – this is unattributed, vague, and potentially misleading. I also rewrote the section on Darfur. The previous revision gave the impression that the climate change affecting the region could be attributed to human-induced climate change.

Flood defense

renamed 'coastal and low-lying areas'. Adaptation and impacts of sea level rise are not covered in the original title. Expanded section based on IPCC report. Deleted this quote from Nicholls and Tol: Still, in 180 of 192 littoral countries worldwide, coastal protection will cost less than 0.1% of the country's gross domestic product. This is presented as a straight fact without the caveats given in the paper. This is not acceptable. Also, the selected quote is not an accurate reflection of the journal article. Deleted this sentence: Some countries will be more affected than others—low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and the Netherlands would be worst hit by any sea level rise – I didn't find this statement supported in the reference given.

Ecological productivity

Deleted some unattributed, vague and potentially misleading statements. Revised based on the IPCC report and an OECD workshop paper. Enescot (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

At first I was worried that you were expanding this already large article. I have looked through some of your edits and I think that they have improved the content. I am keeping an eye on this article but obviously it takes many editors to get an article of this size into shape so thank for your contributions and I will try to look over it more thoroughly if time allows :). Polargeo (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Extreme weather" needs a clean up

I think the "Extreme weather" section is flawed. For some reason, Kerry Emanuel's "private index" PDI was prefered over the official ACE. Also, a number of recent studies is missing, like Vecchi & Knutson (2008), or Landsea et al. (2009), which both debunked the asserted increase in hurricane activity. --bender235 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As you say, a problem with citing papers directly is that papers might be selected that give a biased representation of the literature. In my view, it's better to refer to literature assessments, e.g., reports by the IPCC and National Research Council. Enescot (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we could do that. But one the other hand this would exclude the most recent papers, like the ones I mentioned. --bender235 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we may lose sight. This article is a place to summarize the science. Now if these new papers are really critical major developments that completely debunk all that we say here then they should be included. However, if not then most detail can be added to the various other articles, like Extreme weather without further expansion of this top level article. Polargeo (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Overview, economic and social impacts, ecosystems

My revision is based mainly on the IPCC report. I've tried to get rid of statements that do not give a clear indication of the degree of certainty with which they're made, e.g., "this may happen", and tried to replace them with statements like "this will likely happen".

Overview

I felt that the intro was rather alarmist in tone and did not convey much useful information. I've tried to make confidence statements that are consistent with the IPCC report, but I haven't follow their terminology exactly.

Economics and social impacts

The old revision was rather poor, relying too much on large quotes from the IPCC report and Professor Mendelsohn. My new revision is based entirely on the IPCC report. I've also added a new paragraph on some non-economic social impacts.

Agriculture

I've attributed statements to the various sources. I've also tried to give some impression of the uncertainties surrounding climate change agriculture studies.

Coasts, health and ecosystems

Attempted give a better impression of how much confidence there is in some statements. Added in health section: 'Economic development will affect how effective adaptation to climate change will be'. Enescot (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Northeast Passage Accepts First Asia-Europe Commercial Trips

This is probably a big deal, and definitely belongs in the article: [7] Ignignot (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's in there now.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Convention definition

The Convention (UNFCCC) includes the definition of "adverse effects of climate change" (also called adverse impacts of climate change) that must be considered here.--Nopetro (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Add link to responses, such as Category:Global Campaign for Climate Action

Add link to responses, such as Category:Global Campaign for Climate Action 99.155.156.1 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not an "effect", and linking to the category is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Category:Climate change by country

Add Category:Climate change by country 99.155.156.1 (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

REALLY absurd. Perhaps Category:Climate change, but Category:Global warming seems more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem requiring resolution

In Effects_of_global_warming#Glacier_retreat_and_disappearance, the following statement occurs:

According to a UN climate report, the Himalayan glaciers that are the sources of Asia's biggest rivers—Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Yangtze, Mekong, Salween and Yellow—could disappear by 2035 as temperatures rise.

The citation [8] doesn't mention 2035. This is a minor problem. The sentence claims it is relying on a UN Climate report, but the link isn't to a UN report, nor does the cited story mention a UN report. Instead, it refers to a ICIMOD report.

I think they really did mean a UN report. In AR4 [9] page 493, we find:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

So is it as simple as changing the reference?

Not quite.

The IPCC report itself refers to a WWF report. I presume they mean this one: [10]. Unfortunately, it doesn't support the quote. No reference to 2035, and no reference to 500,000 to 100,000 km2.

However, they probably mean this article: [11]

It contains (on page 66), this quote:

The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350.

Seems likely that this is the source of the IPCC quote (or an incredible coincidence).

So we are almost done, we've tied the quote in the WP article to a quote in the IPCC report which is tied to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject.

Except that the original paper says 2350, not 2035.

We clearly have a problem, but I don't know the best solution. I'll give it some thought, but wanted to present the relevant information so others can think about it.--SPhilbrickT 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, that is WGII for you :-( No-one is watching. Thanks for spotting this. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523Eb.pdf is antique - 1996 is an age away. Also it contains signs of dodginess - ref to table 11 which I can't even find; stuff about extrapolating glacier temps out to 2350 - we shouldn't be using this stuff, or things that rely on it.
Incidentally, if you wanted to be picky (I don't, I'm just saying) then you could assert that IPCC is a RS (even WGII) and you're not entitled to pick apart its references William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you seem to be saying (is this right?) that you've found a misprint in AR4? If that's the case, it's them that should be looking into it, not us. It seems unlikely that you're the first to notice it though, what with them allegedly being out by three centuries and all. --Nigelj (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
We can and should cross-check reliable sources with other reliable sources. Per Jimmy Wales (and now a part of WP:V), zero information is preferred to misleading or false information[12]. If you think the information is wrong, you can remove it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The WWF report that you are looking for is this one WWF(2005) "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China" (it is in the ref section of AR4), the other is a summary. It states (p 29):
In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Kim, exactly right. I found the summary, not the full report. The full report does mention 2035. I've just glanced at it, so I haven't had a chance to see if they source it. I'll look further. (As an aside, this is exactly why I mentioned this on the talk page as opposed to simply making a change, it may take some digging to know exactly what to do, if anything.)SPhilbrickT 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Y'all should look into this column by Bjorn Lomborg, which says, inter alia,

"A comprehensive report in November by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, released by the Indian government, looked more broadly and found that many of these glaciers are stable or have even advanced, and that the rate of retreat for many others has slowed recently.

Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona[!], declared in the Nov. 13 issue of Science that these "extremely provocative" findings were "consistent with what I have learned independently," while in the same issue of the magazine Kenneth Hewitt, a glaciologist at Wilfrid Laurier University, agreed that "there is no evidence" to support the suggestion that the glaciers are disappearing quickly."

Easy enough to check... -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes and Jeffry S. Kargel has been storming around saying that his quotes have been seriously misrepresented. Oh and the 2035 was a mistake by IPCC and should read 2350. Polargeo (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Pete, thanks for the link to the Lonborg column. I haven’t read that although I had previously read the Raina study. It was quite interesting, although I haven’t yet got a sense of how well it has been accepted.SPhilbrickT 16:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The Lomborg stuff is uninteresting and should be ignored (or read [13]). Meanwhile, the 2350 stuff has appeared elsewhere, e.g. [14]. From reading the above, I'd assumed SP had noticed this himself. That would be a bizarre coincidence (unless causation goes the other way, of course). For completeness, it would be good for SP to declare his sources (which in no way affect the correctness or otherwise of his observations, of course) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought the Lomborg article was interesting. It was more about the politics than the science, so anyone thinking it might shed light on the science might find it uninteresting.
As for sources, I believe I've declared all the sources I used.
The source of the date 2035, is found in the WWF report, but as is obvious, this isn't research, but rather a survey of research. It appears they got the number from the WWF report, which itself is a survey rather than original research. However, the WWF report refers to "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice(ICSI)". However, I don't see that report in the references. It doesn't even include a proper title, so perhaps those familiar with the literature are supposed to recognize it under another name. Many of the claims do have a proper reference, I'm not sure why they didn't reference this claim. It sounds like it may be a survey itself, so I'd like to find it to see if it affirmatively states 2035 from their own research, or refers to another source.
I'm still looking for the WGHG report, does anyone know where it can be found?--SPhilbrickT 20:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to "Backseat Driving" I hadn't seen that. This blog [15] also looked into the issue a little further, but failed to reach a solid conclusion.--SPhilbrickT 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I mean what was the source for you noticing the 2350 error? As an (ex)-scientist I care about priority and attribution William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Unfortunately I don't recall. I do remember it was some blog discussing the issue, but the blog author didn't cite useful sources. One of the commenters included a link to the Kotlyakov article, so I read that, then read my copy of AR4, and started tracing their references. (After reading a post below linking to Charlie's Martin's blog post, it reminded me that's where I first saw it. Someone named Alex linked to the Kotlyakov paper)--SPhilbrickT 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
One thing I did find:[16] is an excerpt from Climate change and water resources in South Asia By M. Monirul Qader Mirza, Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad. That book refers to glaciers disappearing by 2035 and specifically cites Kotlyakov, so barring the bizarre possibility that the original Kotlyakov article is wrong, that cite looks like a blunder. I've yet to find an article citing 2035 where they are doing science, as opposed to summarizing others.--SPhilbrickT 21:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I pursued the 2350 vs 2035 question myself, following the Khandekar guest post on Pielke Sr's blog that I reported here at Pajamas Media. I eventually reached the document noted (but neither cited nor in the bibliography) of the WWF report: REPORT ON HIMALAYAN GLACIOLOGY, Syed I Hasnain Chairman, ICSI working group on Himalayan Glaciology dated 1999 in the file name and on the web site. The only problem is that the report doesn't actually say anything about 2035 or 2350. A commenter at PJM noted their own work here, which shows a retreat rate of about 27 m/yr, consistent with the "approximately 30 meters per year" that has been references many places. Since the glaciers in question are thousands of meters long, that's not consistent with a 2035 date, but is plausibly consistent with 2350 as well. In summary, it doesn't appear that the 2035 date can be confirmed in primary sources, in particular in the source that was noted in the WWF report and the New Scientist article. As such, I'm going to take it upon myself to edit it out. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; see my comment above of 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, assuming we want to get it right, the problem is not yet solved. The current statement (could disappear within a few hundred years) is not supported by the reference. Furthermore, it isn't sufficient to add a cite to the Kotlyakov article, as his article does not predict that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2350 (which would be consistent with a few hundred years). Some of the commentators get this, but some are missing this - the blunder isn't replacing a prediction about Himalayan glaciers in 2350 with a type saying 2035 - the Kotlyakov quote is talking about worldwide glaciers and specifically states that the Himalayan glaciers will be the survivors.
So at present, we have an unsourced claim, and no logical replacement for the reference. I have seen other references talking about 40 years, but those predictions are a crock. I have to wonder how many of these researchers have actually stood on Himalayan glaciers, if they think they could be gone in a few decades.
The easiest approach would be to remove the whole paragraph, but I suspect that won't find a solid consensus. The Kotlyakov article implies that the Himalayan glaciers will be around for well beyond 300 years, which is getting beyond the date for which it is possible to make useful predictions of this nature. ::Are there other peer-reviewed articles explaining why Kotlyakov is wrong? Or unreliable? Without that, how can we include a claim that has no backing?--SPhilbrickT 16:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think we should cite to Kotlyakov at this point. I know that 1996 is ages ago, but until this potential typo in the cites that IPCC relied on is cleared up, I'm not sure what other better choice there is. I suggest "According to a UNESCO climate report, the Himalayan glaciers that are the sources of Asia's biggest rivers—Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Yangtze, Mekong, Salween and Yellow—could mostly disappear within a few hundred years as temperatures rise" with Kotlyakov as source. I think the word "mostly" will account for the fact that Kotlyakov acknowledged 40000 km would remain. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. Now to figure out the citation format.... — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
BBC news story Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'. A group email (I receieved) on "Cryolist" from Graham Cogley dated 16 November 09 first pointed out the mistake. Polargeo (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'd like to re-iterate my opinion that the original UNESCO report the 2350 comes from ([17] I think) looks distinctly dodgy on this issue. No-one should be using that report to predict 2350 or any other date. It is obsolete, and was probably obselete when published (nb: this is assuming that at least some people care about the actual science; how wiki deals with it is quite another matter) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, some interesting discussion and a direct comment by Cogley here William M. Connolley (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Guess we need something else then. I assume there's a non-dodgy reference out there saying most Himalayan glaciers are melting, and that this could cause affect water sources. Anyway, I've taken out the "few hundred years". Brian A Schmidt (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Organized references related to above section

I thought it might be helpful to have a summary of the links relevant to the 2350/2035 issue.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific papers or surveys

Blog discussion

Newspaper discussion

Book

  1. ^ U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears U.S. Senate, January 30, 2008
  2. ^ John Vidal (2005-06-30). "In the land where life is on hold". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-12-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_climate_change/Archive_3&oldid=1144572206"