Talk:Effects of climate change/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Hurricane Intensity Shift

Sometime in the past (I don't know when or why) someone removed File:Hurricane Intensity Shift.png from this page, so now I'm getting an unused non-free warning. I'm mentioning it here in case someone wants to put it back, but I don't have time to worry about it. Dragons flight (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed?

There's a "citation needed" after the statement near the beginning that "Over the last hundred years or so, the instrumental temperature record has shown a trend in climate of increased global mean temperature, i.e., global warming."

I recommend removing the "citation needed" since citation 5 for the very next sentence supports this sentence also. It would be possible to shift citation 5 to the end of the sentence before it (the one quoted above) and add "Ibid" to the space where it was, but it's not necessary. Citation 5 can cover the two sentences before it. It's not necessary to cite the same reference for more than one sentence in sequence. I also found the fact that someone added "citation needed" to that statement quite surprising. Do we need a citation for the statement that "the month of December comes after November"?

Anyway, I did not remove the "citation needed" since this is the first time I visited the article and I haven't read the archives. Since it is a controversial article, I thought it best to bring it up on the talk page first.Airborne84 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - no one weighed in, so I removed the "citation needed." Again, citation 5 covers this sentence also. If there is a consensus that this specific sentence needs a reference also, then I recommend moving citation 5 up one sentence and adding "Ibid" to the following one.Airborne84 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazonian drought

I've taken out J's [1]. Specifically, the bit sourced the the Indy is unusable:

Reporting on this in 2006, two years into a drought, it was stated that the forest in its present form could only survive three successive years of drought before potentially turning into desert.[2]

But read the Indy article:

Dr Dan Nepstead started the experiment in 2002 ­ by covering a chunk of rainforest the size of a football pitch with plastic panels to see how it would cope without rain ­ he surrounded it with sophisticated sensors, expecting to record only minor changes. The trees managed the first year of drought without difficulty. In the second year, they sunk their roots deeper to find moisture, but survived. But in year three, they started dying. Beginning with the tallest the trees started to come crashing down, exposing the forest floor to the drying sun.

This isn't a *real* drought they are talking about - it is an artifically induced one. You can't compare a real drought - lower rainfall, not totally zero rainfall - with this.

(note also: the Indy says they expected only minor effects, but our article said concerns about forest fires' potential for possibly accelerating global warming due to this feedback loop provoked an experimental study... - how is this compatible?)

The Idny is not a usable source for science, and you've misrepresented it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. --TS 12:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

because I'm a new user I am not allowed to post onto the global warming related articles because they are on probation, but can someone add to the Further Reading section "Heatstroke: Nature in an Age of Global Warming" by Anthony Barnosky Published: 03/13/2009 Publisher: Shearwater 288 p. ISBN: 9781597261975. Barnosky is a Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, USA; the book describes the ecological and species specific impacts already being documented by researchers, could be a useful source of information for editors and readers. Nnoell (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrickT 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this WP:OR?

I've noticed that graphs in Wikipedia are not considered WP:OR if the data comes from published papers. This is true even if you show two series from two different papers in the same graph, right? Is it WP:OR if you smooth the original raw data? Anyway, I was thinking the article could use a graph like this one. It's nothing more than 15-year central moving averages of NH sea surface temperature data (HadSST2), along with Atlantic basin data from NOAA. I believe it clearly demonstrates the relationship between sea surface temperatures and the number of named storms. Joseph449008 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's normally considered WP:SYN to include graphs from two different papers in the same image. Putting data series from two different papers in the same graph would be worse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a little more to WP:SYN than that. It goes on, "...to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". If paper A says 'there's global warming', and paper B says 'there's global warming' and we combine their data to say, 'there's global warming', I don't see a problem with that. --Nigelj (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Paper A says 'there's global warming (reflected in the increase in sea surface temperature)' and Paper B says 'there are increasing storms'. Not the same conclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nigelj to a point it is only strictly synthesis if we use the two different papers together to draw a different conclusion from that stated in either paper. In the case shown I agree it could be construed as synthesis, unless one of the papers specifically states within the paper that these things (sea surface temp and storms) are directly related. I personally don't like combining graphs from different papers especially for wikipedia as it sails a bit close to OR for my liking but then I suppose we combine text and so why not images/data as long as we are careful not to imply different or broader reaching conclusions from those stated in the papers which we are combining. Polargeo (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First, that graph is extremely interesting. However, I see problems in using here. One of the reasons we like to use information from Reliable Sources is the assumption that the writers have an obligation to get things right. While there are oft-times editors here with more scientific skills than many reporters or even authors of peer-reviewed journals, we have no formal mechanism for vetting expertise, so our default assumption is that "research" consisting of anything more sophisticated than simple addition ventures dangerously into OR and SYN. We expect the experts to address and consider issues such as:

• The SST data is Northern Hemisphere, while the counts are Atlantic only. Is it acceptable to make a comparison between one data set based on the Atlantic, and other including both the Atlantic and Pacific?
• Atlantic counts pre-WWII are believed to be missing some non-landfall storms. How significant is this and what is the proper way to adjust for this concern (It can be observed by looking at the ratio of landfall to non-landfall counts, but that's definitely OR)
• Some experts expect a relationship between SST and ACE, but not as obviously between SST and total counts of storms. This is complicated by the fact that named storms are a subset of all storms; counting storms above a threshold is roughly a severity measure rather than a frequency measure, so a relationship is expected.)--SPhilbrickT 16:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the correlation with ACE is not so good. Without knowing how ACE is estimated exactly, I can't really comment on why that might be. But you'll notice that AGW 'skeptics' have used this fact as an argument in their favor. Joseph449008 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sphilbrick here. While the graph is interesting, i would have several objections to it (basically the same ones).But the most important one is that it is WP:OR by synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept the reasoning provided. I think the article could still use something like the figure from this post at RealClimate.org. That's taken straight out of Emanuel (2005). It's not so slam-dunk, if you will, but probably helpful. Joseph449008 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WMO paper on hurricanes

A new paper has been published in Nature Geoscience [3] investigating hurricanes and climate change. I can't read the body of the paper, but I can see some quoted excerpts. Specifically, "In terms of global tropical cyclone frequency, it was concluded that there was no significant change in global tropical storm or hurricane numbers from 1970 to 2004" and "we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data." Should we update the present WMO refs in the current article and mention some of these specific conclusions? It's hard for me to judge since I can't read the text of the paper and I can only see Pielke's quoted excerpts. Oren0 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Scary...

Coffee hit by global warming say growers. How will we even try to develop new technologies to combat global warming without adequate supplies of coffee for scientists and engineers? This is a real tipping point... More seriously, if some other sources pick this up, it might go into the agro section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What will happen to my Kopi Luwak coffee? I can't operate without it. I can't post on wikipedia unless I am full of it. Sometimes I have so much of it that my back teeth are stained by it. Ignignot (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

W w w der der ww ... shudder heyy! "Sip, ahhhh." That's better, I agree some more sources and this could make a good extra but probably on sub articles rather than at the top level article here. Polargeo (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

New physical impacts article and summary of the section

I've extensively slimmed down this section and moved the entire thing to a new article on the physical impacts of climate change. To be honest, I wasn't at all impressed with the quality of this section: it was fragmented and all over the place, and was in need of a great deal of attention. Seeing as the article is so long, I've done a quick job trying to slim down the section as best I can. I've borrowed from a few other articles, and did a bit of new work based on IPCC (2007). I'll explain my changes in more detail below:

Overview

I've moved some bits from the overview to replace the bits that I deleted in the physical impacts section.

Extreme weather

I've deleted all the text in this section. In my view, the IPCC summary is adequate. Anyone interested in more details can refer to the new article.

Increased evaporation

I've deleted this section. "Increased evaporation" might be an important topic, but I think it can be dropped from this article.

Cost of more extreme weather

I thought this was quite a poor section, with no attempt to summarize the literature. I've deleted it entirely. I did this because the literature assessment by Rosenzweig et al (2007) did not include costs in the executive summary. I believe that the reason for this is the lack of data on attribution of costs of extreme weather to observed climate change. As for projected costs, estimates are given in the economics of global warming article.

Local climate change

Again, this seemed to be based on an arbitrary selection of topics from the literature. I've replaced this with some generalized comments on regional climate change borrowed from the main article on the topic.

Glaciers

Deleted all this. I've replaced it with something I've put together based on IPCC (2007).

Sea level rise

I deleted the entire section and replaced it with new text that I wrote based on IPCC (2007).

Acidification

Deleted and replaced with text taken from the main article on ocean acidification.

Shutdown of thermohaline circulation

I've shortened this down and added something based on IPCC (2007). Enescot (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of positive feedbacks and restructuring

I've removed the sections on positive and negative feedbacks and moved them to the article on climate change feedbacks. A summary of the points covered in the positive feedbacks section is now part of a new section on biogeochemical cycles. I've also written an extended summary of the issues covered in the positive feedback section in the article physical impacts of climate change.

The main reasons I've removed the feedback sections are because the article is too long, and the quality and importance of the two sections did not, in my view, justify their inclusion in the article. In particular, I thought that the positive feedback section was rather alarmist.

As for the negative feedback section, I don't think this is something that needs to be covered in this article. While negative feedbacks are no doubt important, this article is about the effects of global warming, rather than the science of global warming. As such, I think these negative feedback effects are best described in the climate change feedback article. Enescot (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - the negative feedbacks are an effect of global warming, that work against global warming, just like the positive feedbacks are effects of global warming that create more global warming. Nothing wrong with a sub-article of course, but I don't think they should be removed in their entirety because that is one of the keys to climate change science. Ignignot (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you can put that stuff back in if you want, but I don't agree with you. Personally I would much prefer it if this article had nothing on the purely physical impacts of climate change and was all to do with the impacts of climate change on humans and the environment. The article would therefore be like the IPCC Working Group II assessment. I think that by attempting to cover all areas, the article is like a duplicate of the article on global warming. Enescot (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The feedbacks are a physical process though...? The first order effects are interesting of course, but second order feedback is one of the primary reasons that people are concerned about climate change - that increases can cause more increases. As an aside: on anything other than grammar I don't edit climate change articles for personal reasons. Ignignot (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going on the IPCC WGII report's treatment. It mentions the carbon cycle positive feedback (see Schneider et al) but not negative feedbacks. I think this is because the positive feedback effects are judged to be more important than negative feedback effects. The negative feedback effect is of course important, but not directly so for impacts. I mean this in the sense of there being a risk of positive feedbacks amplifying warming, thus increasing impacts. I believe that the concern over the carbon cycle positive feedback are adequately summarized in the section biogeochemical cycles. The last sentence is rather poorly written:

On the other hand, with medium confidence, Schneider et al. (2007) commented that additional releases of GHGs were possible from permafrost, peat lands, wetlands, and large stores of marine hydrates at high latitudes.

It's closely based on Schneider et al, but I should have made it clear that release of these gases would lead to more warming. Schneider et al do mention this, but I was rather sloppy in my edit. Enescot (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Add link: Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity

Add link: Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity 99.54.140.159 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to the 'see also' in section Effects of global warming#Ecosystems. --Nigelj (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Add link: Effects of climate change on marine mammals

Add link: Effects of climate change on marine mammals 99.54.140.159 (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also added this to the 'see also' in section Effects of global warming#Ecosystems. This article is not at the standard of the one you suggested above yet, but hopefully, with the extra exposure that linking it here will give it, it will get worked on and improve. --Nigelj (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite and restructure of several sections

I've moved the sub-sections contained in the main section "Other consequences" to other articles. I've created new sections on social systems, regions, and biological systems. The reason I've made these changes are to improve the quality of the article and to slim it down. Below I'll explain the reasons for my changes:

Economic and social

My general impression of this section is that it was scattered in its treatment of topics and lacking in quality.

Sections on insurance, transport, coasts and low-lying areas, northwest passage, and development

I did not think that these sections were important enough to be included in this article. In particular, I think that the sections on - insurance, transport, and northwest passage – cover topics that are lacking importance. By "important", I mean this in terms of

• economic significance
• number of people affected
• judgement of the IPCC

On the latter point, I've based this on how much coverage these topics are given in the various summaries of the IPCC report. The sections have been moved to a new article on climate change, industry and society.

In my view – coasts and low-lying areas and development – are important, but not sufficiently important to be included in this article. They've been moved to the article on climate change, industry and society. By "important", I mean this in the sense of the length of the article, and the topics that can reasonably be covered. So, it does not make sense, in my opinion, to mention coasts and development, but not have more information on other important topics – other regions and sectors, and a longer piece on social development.

Agriculure

I've shortened this section down and replaced it with a new summary. I revised the old revision and moved it to the article on climate change and agriculture.

Migration

I've moved the old revision to the article climate change, industry and society. The section has been rewritten and renamed "Migration and conflict."

Ecosystems

I think this section was far too long. I've moved it into a new article on climate change and ecosystems. The replacement for this section is called "Biological systems".

Water scarcity

Again, I think this section was too long. I've moved it into the article climate change, industry and society. I've replaced the section with one called "Water resources".

Health

I think this section was too long. I've moved it into the article climate change, industry and society. I've replaced it with a shorter summary.

Security

I think this section was too long and lacking in significance. I've moved it into the article climate change, industry and society. By "significance", I mean the rather speculative nature of the topic. Similar topics are covered in the new section "Migration and conflict". Enescot (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Color me puzzled

I find it odd that when modest changes to articles engender major debates, and there has been both implicit and explicit requests to propose changes on talk page before implementing, an editor can totally rewite an article, wiping out major sections, without anyone even questioning it. What is going on? Why is this acceptable? Did the process rules change and I missed the announcment?--SPhilbrickT 19:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I feel that these changes need to be discussed. Nnoell (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised by the extent of the undiscussed changes but I find myself agreeing that what was done has improved the article and needed doing. Seeing as this article has been tagged for so long and waiting for someone to come along and implement it I find it BOLD but not reckless. Polargeo (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Count me in Polargeo's court here. I had a few objections over the course of the changes - but since the overall feel of the changes seemed to move in the right direction, and having seen the changes wrought on some of the economics articles, i decided to let Enescot get free hands and not to interfere. It was time for an overall change, which wouldn't be possible with small incremental changes. The time is more for barnstars than for outrage :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The BRT rules still hold for CC articles, but a 1RR is in place I think. The bold part has been accomplished - there is not nothing egregious from what I see, so maybe we skip straight to the talking part? Ignignot (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

External links edit

I've revised the external links, with some links deleted, some moved to other articles, and some added.

Moved

• Ecological Impacts of Climate Change - National Academy of Sciences
• "The Climate of Man", The New Yorker (2005): Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
• Royal Society, June 30, 2005, "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide"
• American Meteorological Society's Environmental Science Seminar Series (Oct 2005): "Hurricanes: Are They Changing and Are We Adequately Prepared for the Future?"
  • "How are hurricanes changing with global warming?" (Kevin E. Trenberth)
  • "Changes in hurricane intensity in a warming environment" (Judith Curry)
  • "Hurricanes and Climate" (Kerry Emanuel)

These links have been moved to the article on physical impacts of climate change. Note that the link to the NAS is incorrectly titled.

• EPA: Health and Environmental Effects of Global Warming
• See the impacts of climate change happening now on three Australian ecosystems: 'Tipping Point', Catalyst, ABC-TV
• Climate Change: Coral Reefs on the Edge An online video presentation by Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Auckland
• Barnosky, Anthony D. (March 13, 2009). Heatstroke: Nature in an Age of Global Warming (1st Edition ed.). Shearwater. ISBN 978-1597261975. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

Moved to climate change and ecosystems.

• Effects of global warming on skiing
• EPA: Health and Environmental Effects of Global Warming

Moved to climate change, industry and society.

Deleted

• Oliver James, The Guardian, June 30, 2005 Face the facts: For many people climate change is too depressing to think about, and some prefer to simply pretend it doesn't exist
• Mark Lynas, The Guardian, March 31, 2004, "Vanishing worlds" Story about a vanishing Peruvian glacier
• Time Magazine's "Global Warming: The Culprit?" (Time Magazine, October 3, 2005, pages 42–46)

Enescot (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Belairs, 21 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "Effects of global warming" - "3 Physical impacts", I want to add the following: 3.5 Earthquakes As a consequence of '3.3 Glacier retreat and disappearance', and '3.4.3 Sea level rise' mentioned above, the huge amount of melted icy water caused a redistribution of the loading on the earth's crust. The rotation of the earth exaggerated this effect along the equatorial and the temperate zones, especially around the joints of the earth's crust. The consequence if more frequent earthquakes. This is supported by the more frequent numbers of magnitude 7 (or above) earthquakes around the world in recent years. However, it looks like that scientist had not noticed this effect and no one has published any scientific reports relating the effect of polar ice melting to the earthquakes.

Belairs (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.

 Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Effects per 1°C temperature rise

Nowhere is a list given of the real-life effects whe can expect at a temperature increase per 1°Celsius.

Eg with +1°C, the almost complete collapse of the Great Barrier Reef, and ?% decrease of coral reefs worldwide, and a number of island nations submerged by rising sea levels. A 2°C rise would be accompanied with heatwaves, and increased drought around the world. The 3°C threshold would bring about the complete collapse of the Amazon ecosystem, and the threat of conflict over water supplies around the world. Heatwaves would be even deadlier.

See also: http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2005/Limits_to_warming.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.58.244 (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Seismic activity

I've moved the section on seismic activity to the physical impacts of climate change#Seismic activity sub-article. I don't think that the subject has the (1) well-established scientific support to be included in this article. (2) I'm also not convinced that it presents a balanced treatment of the subject.

(1) The subject has not been included in IPCC reports (in their top-level summaries), and I don't think it's been prominently included in any other authorative assessments, e.g., US National Research Council reports. Therefore I do not think it deserves mention in this fairly important article. It only seems to have generated interest in newspapers, and that is hardly any indication of the merit of the story.

Newspapers are hardly reliable sources, in my opinion. They are often factually inaccurate, reductive, and alarmist. However, they are legitimate sources, but I think clear attribution is needed, which is what I've attempted to do in the sub-article. (2) It is unclear to me how much scientific support the topic actually has. The level of consensus behind the views on this subject should be stated, along with the level of confidence that these views have. Enescot (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is actually quite a bit written (as in scientific publications, NRC reports, etc.) about geologic and geomorphic effects of global warming. (Also, while AR4 does a good job with modern climatology, it is IMO... markedly less good... at the portions that touch on solid Earth geology and geophysics - probably because it's very much secondary to their main goals and expertise.) The paragraph move sounds good; it was just written and has a few factual issues. I have it on my to-do list, which means that I should get to it in about a month. Then I'll make sure to add lots of scientific sources and bring it up-to-date. Awickert (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Malaria

I've removed this addition:

Nevertheless, a paper by researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Florida published in Nature in May 2010 concluded that claims that a warming climate has led to more widespread disease and death due to malaria are largely at odds with the evidence, and that "predictions of an intensification of malaria in a warmer world, based on extrapolated empirical relationships or biological mechanisms, must be set against a context of a century of warming that has seen marked global declines in the disease and a substantial weakening of the global correlation between malaria endemicity and climate."[25][26]

The addition of information was biased in several ways:

• It concentrated on mixed impacts instead of negative impacts. Negative impacts are expected to be larger than positive impacts (Confalonieri et al., 2007).
• It only presented information on one health impact when there are other important health impacts.
• It is biased to cite one particular study when there are lots of studies in this area. By citing only one study, it increases the chances of not giving a balanced overview of the literature.

Secondly, the synthesis of the IPCC report findings and the Nature study was inaccurate and misleading. The word "nevertheless" suggested that the Nature paper is in some way contradictory with the IPCC report. This is not correct. The IPCC report makes it clear that the effects of climate change on malaria will be mixed. Enescot (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree to delete "nevertheless", but your interpretation is WP:OR, is there a peer-reviewed paper supporting your claim? If not, it should be restored, this is peer-review from reputable scientists on expected impacts of malaria, updating the results presented IPPC report. Or is this article exclusive about the IPPC report? Since I provided RS (Science journal and The Economist), I am restoring the edit with the one caveat noted above. You do need to come up with RS.-Mariordo (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mariordo. Existing material appears well-sourced. Would need other reliable refs to remove. Bob98133 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You do not need peer reviewed evidence to remove isolated material. It's inclusion is always an issue of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEIGHT. --Nigelj (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Enescot reply

I agree to delete "nevertheless", but your interpretation is WP:OR, is there a peer-reviewed paper supporting your claim? If not, it should be restored, this is peer-review from reputable scientists on expected impacts of malaria, updating the results presented IPPC report. Or is this article exclusive about the IPPC report? Since I provided RS (Science journal and The Economist), I am restoring the edit with the one caveat noted above. You do need to come up with RS.-Mariordo (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I made four assertions. Three asserted that your edit is biased:

1. It concentrates on mixed impacts instead of negative impacts. Negative impacts are expected to be larger than positive impacts
2. It only presents information on one health impact when there are other important health impacts.
3. It is biased to cite one particular study when there are lots of studies in this area. By citing only one study, it increases the chances of not giving a balanced overview of the literature.

I think that all of these points are valid. My source is the IPCC report, which is peer-reviewed. On the first point, Confalonieri et al. (2007) point out that most health impacts are negative. It therefore is necessary when describing health impacts to give adequate coverage to all impacts. The fact that there are impacts other than due to malaria means that it is biased to have a disproportionate amount of information on malaria.

The second point is basically the same as the first. If you want to have information on malaria in this article, other health impacts should receive the same relative amount of space.

The third point relates to citing one study when there are lots of studies in this area. The is quite clear from looking at the IPCC report. I see no reason why your study deserves greater attention than the studies presented in the IPCC report.

Or is this article exclusive about the IPPC report? Since I provided RS (Science journal and The Economist), I am restoring the edit with the one caveat noted above. You do need to come up with RS.-Mariordo (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with having other sources cited alongside the IPCC report. What I don't accept is that your study deserves special preference over other studies. As for coming up with a reliable source, the source I am referring to is the IPCC report. The Synthesis report (observations and projections) and the other IPCC summaries (observations and projections) do not give malaria preferential treatment over other health impacts. All health impacts should receive a proportionate amount of attention. My measure of proportionality is the IPCC report.

Addition of tags

I've put in a neutrality, length and undue weight tags because I do not think citing the paper is appropriate:

• If you are to cite one study, other studies should be cited for balance. There are lots of papers on health impacts, which by your criterion (reliability), deserve coverage in this article. It is unbalanced to give so much coverage to this particular study.
• All health impacts should receive a proportionate amount of coverage. Malaria does not deserve preferential treatment.
• I think the use of the source is misleading. To say that malaria impacts have not increased suggests that future impacts may be overstated. I think this is misleading. Projections and observations are different. Also, the implicit use of the source to criticize projections, or to create an air of uncertainty, is not consistent with the conclusions of the cited literature assessment.

To draw an analogy, the effect of extreme weather events on economic losses cannot be reliably attributed to human-induced climate change. However, to cite this information preferentially over other work (e.g., other atttribution studies or vulnerability to climate-related losses) can potentially be misleading. It gives the reader of the article a distorted view of scientific opinion, and I think a similar thing is going on here. Another analogy would be with creationists misusing and distorting (cherry-picking) scientific studies on evolution.

I'd have no problem if the Nature study was used as part of a comprehensive overview of the literature. Other health issues would need to be mentioned, e.g.,

For much of the world’s population, the ability to lead a healthy life is limited by the direct and indirect effects of poverty (World Bank et al., 2004). Although the percentage of people living on less than US$1/day has decreased in Asia and Latin America since 1990, in the sub-Saharan region 46% of the population is now living on less than US$1/day and little improvement is expected in the short and medium term. Poverty levels in Europe and Central Asia show few signs of improvement (World Bank, 2004; World Bank et al., 2004). Economic growth in the richest regions has outstripped advances in other parts of the world, meaning that global disparities in income have increased in the last 20 years (UNEP and WCMC, 2002). – Confalonieri et al, 2007

That would require an amount of space equivalent to the IPCC report chapter on health impacts. That is too much for this article. The mention of this paper is therefore biased because of the fact that other information is not mentioned, like the bit from the IPCC report I have just quoted. Its addition represents what I believe to be an attempt to provide false balance in this article, i.e.,

The IPCC report says this... However, another paper says this...

Compared to the IPCC, the Economist is in absolutely no position to set the findings of the cited paper in the context of the entire literature. They have neither the expertise nor have they made the effort to study the literature. Even if they studied the literature they wouldn't be in any position to assess it. Consequently, I can see no way in how the Economist story can be used to support this study's inclusion in this article.

Of course, Nature is a reliable source, but an individual paper will not necessarily represent the findings of the literature. In particular, I dispute how this paper has been used. I think that it has been used for misleading purposes. This is due to the omission of other important information, e.g., impacts due to extreme weather, and so forth. Enescot (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• You are requesting a balance that is impossible to achieve, since this is a recent publication on this subject and as such is a new finding (whether we like it or not), in order to achieve truly NPOV you need a RS rebuttal from another peer-reviewed paper or a critic letter to Science or other RS journal related to this paper in particular, not a paper from 2007 (based on what criteria you decide which one is more reliable? do they used the same methodology?). The fact that you do not like is your OR as I have stated above. Regarding the length of the edit, this is due to the contentious nature of global warming related articles, that in my experience in Wiki I learned that you need to explain enough and also I do prefer quotation to avoid bias in the edit content. Nevertheless, if you want to keep a brief summary it is fine with me. To me it would be enough to say along the following lines (feel free to summarize it I only disagree with deletion, as you did):

"Peter Gething, the main author of a paper published in May 2010 by researcher of the University of Oxford and the University of Florida, commented that their research concluded that "the things acting to reduce malaria spread, like improved healthcare and disease control, are much more powerful than the weak effect of warming," based on their historical analysis of the range of malaria from 2007 to 1900, which represents a period where the world warmed by 0.7 °C.<two existing refs + source of the quote: New Scientist>"

Regarding available criticism to this paper, unfortunately all I have read is from blogs, so this unreliable sources are not enough to present another point of view. If something is published from a RS non-opinion piece, then we should include it alone this edit. But according to your logic, the findings of new research can be added only if there is a rebuttal if the results do not confirm 2007 IPCC findings or the authors of your preference? I do not share such point of view. Here we have always accepted peer-review material as a RS.-Mariordo (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening of the Northwest Passage

I scanned through the article and the only major issue I saw (plenty of minor ones) was the lack of mention of sea passages opening up from Arctic shrinkage. I see a thread above that states it is included, but it must have been removed since the link is broken and I didn't see it in the article after another look.

Although I fully agree the negative effects of global warming outweigh the positive effects, this seems like a topic that should be in this article. Another interesting second-order effect from the Arctic melting is the militarization of the Arctic because the Arctic nations are scrambling to establish and preserve their claims in the Arctic. Although all this shouldn't receive undue weight, this topic merits inclusion, perhaps with a few internal links to the articles that discuss United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and this topic (e.g. Territorial claims in the Arctic). --Airborne84 (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed mention of the Northwest Passage. It is now in the climate change, industry and society#Northwest Passage sub-article. I would be opposed to its reinstatement in this article. This article is already over 30KB long, and I don't think that further expansion is justified, particularly not concerning the Northwest Passage.

To re-instate it would require an expansion of other impacts for adequate balance. You would need to expand regional impacts – Africa, Asia, etc., and of course, ensure that Arctic impacts are appropriately balanced. The Arctic region faces impacts other than opening of the Northwest Passage, e.g., the likely eradication of their traditional way of life. Not to do this, in my view, would be quite distasteful. It would imply that oil tanker navigation is more important than, for example, risks to agriculture in Africa, or threats to particular regions, like Bangladesh.

From a sectoral perspective, balance would require other impacts be expanded as well. For example, other generalized impacts on society, impacts on water resources, etc. Mention could be made of particularly vulnerable settlements and populations, such as the poor and those living in coastal areas. Some of these issues are already dealt with in the sub-article.

As for military impacts, these do not receive coverage in the IPCC summaries, and I don't think they are important enough to include in this top-level article. Personally I think the IPCC report is right to focus on other impacts, e.g., impacts in Africa. The fact that some people might starve to death due to climate change is, in my opinion, far more important than some oil companies hoping to drill for more oil. Presumably this is what these greedy countries are squabbling about. Enescot (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You make some fair points, however, the opening of the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route are increasingly important effects of climate change. I understand your points that risks and threats to other regions such as Africa or Bangladesh are also important from a normative point of view, but the Arctic issue is increasing in importance for a variety of reasons: normative, humanitarian, economic, political, effects on international law, etc. Nations are changing how they conduct research, exploration, etc., increasing military presence, posturing with political and legal mechanisms, etc. due to those other issues right now. Russia planted its flag on the seabed of the North Pole in 2007, and Canada and Russia's 10-year mark to lay claim to their "portion" of the Arctic expires this year and next... The Arctic is heating up in more than one way. This topic could be covered here with a single sentence at least—maybe two. Its omission stuck out like a sore thumb to me. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"With high confidence"

What are these edits all about? Certainly, if this material belongs in the article, we can figure out other phrasing... (insert confused look here). Further, at least one of the sentences (Economic growth on its own, however, was not judged to be sufficient to insulate the world's population from disease...) comes verbatim from here and here... jhe_iv (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that bit based on the cited source – Confalonieri et al. (2007, p.393):

Economic development is an important component of adaptation, but on its own will not insulate the world’s population from disease and injury due to climate change (very high confidence). [4]

I also wrote the bit in the climate change, industry and society#Health sub-article where the same sentence is included. I copied my revision from this article to the sub-article. This was because I wasn't convinced that the extra information on health included in that sub-article was balanced.

I'd have no problem with using different wording, but that wording needs to accurately reflect the certainty or uncertainty of various statements. In the main global warming article, for example, I used the phrase "It is expected that". I restricted this phrase to high confidence IPCC findings. For lower confidence statements, you could add some something to give an air of uncertainty. For example, a medium confidence finding could go:

It is expected that ..., but there is some level of uncertainty attached with this projection.

Alternatively, you could words like "might" or "could," although I think that these words are rather vague.

The confidence statements do have quantitative meanings in the IPCC report, and that's why I've chosen to keep them. But I take your point that they do make the article rather cumbersome to read. If they are to be removed, I think that care will be needed to choose something suitable to replace them with. My own opinion is that there's no benefit in replacing confidence statements with statements that are less informative. Enescot (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Add Forest migration

Add Forest migration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.159.204 (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Increased runoff etc

There is some overlap here with Physical impacts of climate change which is nominally the main article. Things will get messy if stuff is added here but not there. Also, while the new paper is nice, Research based on satellite observations, published in October, 2010, shows an increase in the flow of freshwater into the world's oceans, partly from melting ice and partly from increased precipitation is a bit odd, as it rather implies this is the first evidence of melting ice William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This falls in the category of obvious, but until now undocumented, facts. It is a no-brainer that increased temperature will melt ice and increase ocean evaporation which results in increased precipitation, especially in the tropics. This study measures it, in a sense. If you read the article one of the reason such models are necessary is due to lack of stream gauging on a global basis. Fred Talk 18:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Global metabolic impacts of recent climate change

• Dillon, M. E.; Wang, G.; Huey, R. B. (2010). "Global metabolic impacts of recent climate warming". Nature. 467 (7316): 704–706. Bibcode:2010Natur.467..704D. doi:10.1038/nature09407. PMID 20930843.

  The biological systems section seems a bit sparse compared to the rest of the sections. I was surprised. Anyway, new letter in Nature just came out about this issue. Perhaps it's worth mentioning? NW (Talk) 19:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Holocene extinction wikilink.

Add Holocene extinction wikilink. 99.24.251.59 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit vague. The extinction in its wider definition goes far back before the period of global warming. It's definitely anthropogenic in nature but it also definitely isn't caused by global warming. --TS 22:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why "definitely isn't", what is your source? Contributing factor per this article. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Add potential "effect" from Wikinews? ... Arctic Sun rises over Ilulissat, Greenland two days earlier than expected. A possible explanation is alterations in atmospheric ...

• The Arctic Sun rises over Ilulissat, Greenland two days earlier than expected. A possible explanation is alterations in atmospheric refraction from ice crystals that may be the result of global warming. (Daily Mail) (First Post) 99.190.88.188 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

6 national effects and 6 global effects of global warming please...

I need 6 national effects and 6 global effects of global warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 09hmahroof (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that a homework assignment? Try reading the article for global effects - it's full of them. Depending which nation you live in, you may have to read the notes your teacher gave you for national effects, or the newspapers, or we might have an article on 'Global warming in XXX' or 'Climate change in XXX' somewhere here. If you get a chance, have a look at WP:TPG - discussions on this page are meant to focus on improving this article, not on reading it. --Nigelj (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed overview

Overview sections are discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines, so I thought that I'd remove the section. I've moved some of the content from the Overview section into the Physical impacts section. The brief info that was contained in the overview on social impacts is already largely covered in the main social impacts section (sub-section on aggregate impacts). Enescot (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Positive effects

Are there really no positive effects at all? I've seen several scientists state that among the many negative effects there are some positive effects but yet this article seems to be POV to only discuss those that are negative? Why is that? 207.81.141.208 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there are positive effects. For example, where I live, the San Luis Valley, the climate has become markedly warmer and more pleasant. If somehow all the water which flooded Pakistan this year could have been captured and used for irrigation and power generation that would be wonderful, but that's the rub, constant, undependable, major change that is very hard to anticipate or accommodate. Fred Talk 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi 207.81.141.208. The article does note some positive impacts, such as market-sector economic benefits in some regions for small levels of warming. In terms of the POV of the article, I would argue that its content is largely consistent with the IPCC reports. These reports are accepted as being authoritative sources by national science academies, as well as by a large number of governments that have conflicting political agendas on climate change, e.g., small island states and Saudi Arabia. Enescot (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is of note that historically, life on Earth has benefited from increased warmth and that intense weather correlates negatively with warmth (which is to say, the warmer the climate the less intense the weather). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.177.161 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted section on "Increased freshwater flow"

I've deleted this section:

Increased freshwater flow

Research based on satellite observations, published in October, 2010, shows an increase in the flow of freshwater into the world's oceans, partly from melting ice and partly from increased precipitation driven by an increase in global ocean evaporation. The increase in global freshwater flow, based on data from 1994 to 2006, was about 18%. Much of the increase is in areas which already experience high rainfall. One effect, as perhaps experienced in the 2010 Pakistan floods, is to overwhelm flood control infrastructure.[13]

The article is already fairly long (>60KB) and I don't think this information is sufficiently important to be included in it. It's still mentioned in the physical impacts of climate change#Increased freshwater flow sub-article, though. Enescot (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Add A Shifting Band of Rain.

Add A Shifting Band of Rain from Scientific American regarding the Intertropical Convergence Zone moving north due to global warming. 108.73.113.97 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Has this been add? See Talk:Intertropical Convergence Zone. 99.181.142.47 (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was an April Fool's joke. No, it hasn't been added, and shouldn't be. We have a scientific consensus that the Zone is moving, but not that it relates to global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the articles? Or are you too busy playing "tag"? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag team 99.181.133.112 (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The article which finally became available didn't speculate on the cause of the ITCZ move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So you did not read all of the article, for example:

At current warming rates, the band could shift north by five degrees by 2100, drying out farmland for millions of people in Ecuador, Colombia and elsewhere.

To be redundantly clear, the warming is Global warming, the current average climate change which is anthropogenic in nature. 99.181.146.194 (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well. That article is difficult to get to the next page, but I'll take care of putting it in, if you haven't already. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, it should be in Regional effects of global warming, one of the many subarticles of this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Regional effects of global warming is not about Latitude. 99.112.213.121 (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the examples in the section of this article is coastal regions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So it fits in both articles. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you want to claim it's on a par with sea level rise, in terms of effect and/or acceptance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What are both of you talking about? It doesn't just rain on the coasts. The ITCZ is a latitude of heavy rain, and it is moving north with the global warming. ITCZ is global not regional. 99.19.42.239 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Permafrost is another "region". I don't see why the ITCZ shouldn't be considered a "region". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Only you have ever suggested the ITCZ is a region. It is a global latitude band. 99.181.141.126 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Permafrost is a region, why not ITCZ? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Zone is in the "Regional" article, it must be written that it is moving, as this "region" is the atmosphere, not land. The "Zone" is physically above the "region". 99.181.137.254 (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink Stephen Schneider for S.H. Schneider

Wikilink Stephen Schneider for S.H. Schneider. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Science News source "Warming dents corn and wheat yields Rising temperatures have decreased global production, an analysis concludes"

Warming dents corn and wheat yields: Rising temperatures have decreased global production, an analysis concludes By Daniel Strain June 4th, 2011; Vol.179 #12 (p. 15) ... example excerpt:

Farms across the planet produced 3.8 percent less corn and 5.5 percent less wheat than they could have between 1980 and 2008 thanks to rising temperatures, a new analysis estimates. These wilting yields may have contributed to the current sky-high price of food, a team of U.S. researchers reports online May 5 in Science (journal). Climate-induced losses could have driven up prices of corn by 6.4 percent and wheat by 18.9 percent since 1980.

99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Add wikilink to Ross Gelbspan.

Add wikilink to Ross Gelbspan. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Add wikilink to United States National Research Council (US National Research Council)

Add wikilink to United States National Research Council (US National Research Council) 99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Explosion in jellyfish numbers may lead to ecological disaster, warn scientists ?

Add Explosion in jellyfish numbers may lead to ecological disaster, warn scientists "A dramatic global increase in jellyfish swarms could damage the marine food chain" by Tracy McVeigh from the Observer.guardian.co.uk 12.June.2011 99.19.47.35 (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr Carol Turley, a scientist at Plymouth University's Marine Laboratory, said the research highlighted the growing problem of ocean acidification, the so-called "evil twin" of global warming. "Oceans have been taking up 25% of the carbon dioxide that man has produced over the last 200 years, so it's been acting as a buffer for climate change. When you add more carbon dioxide to sea water it becomes more acidic. And already that is happening at a rate that hasn't occurred in 600 million years." The acidification of the oceans is already predicted to have such a corrosive effect that unprotected shellfish will dissolve by the middle of the century."

... and related Waste Slime Turns Jellyfish Into Ecological Vampires by Brandon Keim June 6, 2011 on Wired.com

Their waste is generally inedible, food mostly for a few odd species of bacteria that live just long enough to emit a whiff of CO2, then sink. All that nutrition and energy vanishes with barely a trace. “Jellyfish are consuming more or less everything that’s present in the food web,” said Robert Condon, a Virginia Institute of Marine Science and co-author of a jellyfish-impact study published June 7 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “They’re eating a lot of the food web, and turning it into gelatinous biomass. They’re essentially stealing a lot of the energy, then putting it away.”

In the 1990s, however, jellyfish populations exploded in the Bering Sea, rising by a factor of 40 in less than a decade. By the time those blooms subsided, fishermen in the Sea of Japan were accustomed to 500-million-strong swarms of refrigerator-sized, ship-sinking Nomura jellyfish, their numbers unprecedented in recent memory. In the Mediterranean, once-seasonal jellies became a year-round fact of life, again wreaking fisheries havoc.

In what may be the most comprehensive jellyfish study to date, Condon’s group spent nearly four years gathering data from Chesapeake Bay on Mnemiopsis leidyi and Chrysaora quinquecirrha, two species that have caused trouble elsewhere and are considered representative of jellyfish habits worldwide.

" ... excretions nourish gammaproteobacteria ..." 99.19.47.35 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the paper's abstract: Jellyfish blooms result in a major microbial respiratory sink of carbon in marine systems by Robert H. Condon, Deborah K. Steinberg, Paul A. del Giorgio, Thierry C. Bouvier, Deborah A. Bronk, William M. Graham, and Hugh W. Ducklow. From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 108 No. 23, June 7, 2011; affiliations: College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science; Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory]] AL; Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal; Laboratoire Écosystèmes Lagunaires, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France; and The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole ; Edited by David M. Karl, University of Hawaii. Approved May 11, 2011 (received for review October 20, 2010) 99.19.47.35 (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed "energy sector" section

I've removed the section that was recently added on the energy sector. It is part of the climate change, industry and society sub-article, but I don't think the section is important enough to be included in this top-level article. My opinion is based on my reading of the "key vulnerabilities" and "Summary for Policymakers" sections of the IPCC Working Group II and synthesis assessments. I recognize that impacts on the energy sector are important to some degree. I've therefore added a short intro to the social systems section that mentions sectors which are sensitive to the effects of climate change. Enescot (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Specific Cities subsection example Chicago; with New York Times starter info "A City Prepares for a Warm Long-Term Forecast"

Add Specific Cities subsection example Chicago, from New York Times A City Prepares for a Warm Long-Term Forecast

The Windy City is preparing for a heat wave — a permanent one. Climate scientists have told city planners that based on current trends, Chicago will feel more like Baton Rouge than a Northern metropolis before the end of this century.

by Leslie Kaufman Published: May 22, 2011.

Another possibility is Regional effects of global warming. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A different choice would be the Economic effects of climate change (or global warming) with information such as;

The reinsurance giant Swiss Re, for example, has said that if the shore communities of four Gulf Coast states choose not to implement adaptation strategies, they could see annual climate-change related damages jump 65 percent a year to $23 billion by 2030. “Society needs to reduce its vulnerability to climate risks, and as long as they remain manageable, they remain insurable, which is our interest as well,” said Mark D. Way, head of Swiss Re’s sustainable development for the Americas.

The city could see heat-related deaths reaching 1,200 a year. The increasing occurrences of freezes and thaws (the root of potholes) would cause billions of dollars’ worth of deterioration to building facades, bridges and roads. Termites, never previously able to withstand Chicago’s winters, would start gorging on wooden frames.

Older information regarding Economic effects of climate change would include the Stern Review presumably also. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Only in "Regional effects", or a new "Local effects", perhaps.... I seem to have had an edit conflict with myself. In any case, I'm not saying it should be in "Regional effects", only that it shouldn't be in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Local effects of global warming or Local effects of climate change or ... ? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Either. Still do not create the article unless you have more than one example. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Effects of global warming around Chicago or Effects of climate change around Chicago? 99.112.213.34 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No chance. Possibly a paragraph in a subarticle of Chicago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Swiss Re article US Gulf Coast could face average annual losses of up to USD 23 billion by 2030 and cumulative economic damages of USD 350 billion from climate risks, says Swiss Re research; 20 October 2010 99.109.124.21 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly appropriate in Regional, but you'll need to describe what it says; just quoting it does not establish relevance or credibility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What is with the bold and italics? Tone-down the extremist wording, please. (That included ALL CAPS also.) 99.35.12.107 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use it as "an example" city, a kind of "case study" ? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Climate Change Increases Cattle Breed's Newborn Mortality

Add Climate Change Increases Cattle Breed's Newborn Mortality: Thanks to Darwin, records on Chillingham cattle go back 150 years, and show a breeding response to climate change resulting in more winter calf deaths by Cynthia Graber in Scientific American June 15, 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

How about in Effects of climate change on terrestrial animals? 99.190.81.244 (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

potential resource:

The Perfect Firestorm: Welcome to the new era of “megafires,” which rage with such intensity that no human force can put them out. Their main causes, climate change and fire suppression, are fueling a heated debate about how to stop them by Daniel Glick/Photograph by Larry Schwarm, from July/August 2011 Audubon magazine. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Example excerpts:

Global warming has kindled the debate further because it has created both hotter and drier conditions in many places. In addition, a legacy of all-too-successful suppression means that many forests now contain huge “fuel stores” of woody debris that periodic fires used to eliminate. Add the fact that droves of people have moved into fire-prone areas, and you have an increasingly combustible mix of policy and ecology. “Megafires are signaling a new era in fire and land-use management,” says Jerr Williams (retired U.S. Forest Service’s top fire manager in 2005 and is now a Missoula-based fire adviser). ... The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization reports that from 2003 to 2007, the 11 western states warmed an average of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 70 percent more than the global average. Many forecasters believe that in coming decades, the West will continue to experience later winters, less snowfall, earlier spring runoff, and generally drier conditions. As a result, conditions are solidly in place for a political and pyrotechnical firestorm in many forested areas. The western fire season is now 205 days, 78 days longer than in 1986. What’s more, there have been four times as many fires that wiped out more than 1,000 acres than there were in the 1970–1986 period, and six times as much acreage has burned, according to an influential article in Science (journal) in 2006 by Anthony Westerling, a researcher at the University of California, Merced. Westerling demonstrated a strong link between climate change and increased wildfires. ... One of the most visible effects of warming is the bark beetle infestation that has killed billions of conifers across millions of acres. Deep-freeze winters that once killed off the beetles are mostly a thing of the past. Just how much fire danger these dead forests pose is the subject of scientific debate—and some intriguing hypotheses. On the face of it, scattering the forests with kindling would appear to raise the fire risk. But in an analysis of multiple studies, University of Wisconsin zoologist Martin Simard found that it’s not so simple. In the first year or two after beetles destroy a forest, fire probability does, indeed, increase. But as the needles fall from the trees, the likelihood of crown fires (those that jump from tree to tree, like the ones in the Fire Lab) actually decreases. Years or even decades later, the analysis says, “when beetle-killed snags fall on the ground and understory tree growth creates ladder fuels, the risk of crown fire may again be increased.” ... There’s nothing abstract about a fire burning for weeks or months, choking the sky with smoke and subjecting wildlife, plants, and people to one of nature’s most awesome forces. In the end, “the phenomenon of megafires can be attributed to one common cause—us,” says Steven Pyne (fire historian at Arizona State University). “Even global warming is apparently an outcome of our combustion habits.” Fires, and big ones, are thus part of our flammable planet’s very nature.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

conifers too. 99.112.214.230 (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

See crown fire in Wildfires. 99.181.146.221 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Missoula, Montana. 99.181.146.41 (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate Change in the Media

This page should include a link to http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm - a well maintained collection of links to articles about Climate Change in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eworrall (talk • contribs) 19:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not that well maintained - I tried two links, 'whale beachings' and 'whales wiped out'. The first took me to a truncated version but needed a logon to read the rest. The second was dead. There's nothing else but links, so if they're not much use it's not up to our usual 'see also' standards, I don't think. --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Add wikilink to Climate Progress website.

Add wikilink to Joseph J. Romm's Climate Progress website. 99.181.156.173 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not, Art? 99.181.145.99 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, why not. It helps the wikipedia reader. See

"How we know humans are changing the climate and Why climate change is a clear and present danger". Interviews with Christopher Field and Michael MacCracken. Christopher Field is the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, professor of biology and environmental earth system science at Stanford University, and the Working Group II Co-Chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Michael MacCracken is the chief scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute and a co-author and contributing author for various chapters in the IPCC assessment reports. Climate Progress website, February 5, 2010.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That almost makes sense. If you specified where you wanted the Wikilink in the first place, there would be no problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It really is obvious, since the request is in only ONE place, and above is the excerpt. 99.112.214.106 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Long-term effects of global warming wikilink

Add Long-term effects of global warming wikilink, please. 99.119.131.65 (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, add. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Added hatnote. If you can think of a better place to add it, please report here, and I'll consider it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Resource: book Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity (American Museum of Natural History) by Dr. Richard Pearson

Resource: book Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity, ISBN 978-1402772238 by Dr. Richard Pearson scientist at the American Museum of Natural History with a PhD from Oxford University on the Effects of global warming on biodiversity, funded by grants from NASA and the National Science Foundation, published in Nature (journal) amoung others. Also, see related Planetary boundaries.

http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Extinction-Climate-Biodiversity-American/dp/1402772238/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310072015&sr=1-1 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision of health impacts

I've removed the neutrality template in the specific health impacts section. I think I added it a while ago. I'm happy enough with just using the undue weight template.

I deleted:

It is expected that climate change will bring some health benefits (Confalonieri et al., 2007).[59] It is expected that these benefits will be outweighed by negative climate change effects.

since it is an unnecessary repetition of this:

With high confidence, IPCC (2007d:48) projected that climate change would bring some benefits in temperate areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential of malaria in Africa.[3] Benefits were projected to be outweighed by negative health effects of rising temperatures, especially in developing countries.

Enescot (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology - global warming / climate change

There's a problem with the text in the current lead. What's the problem? Well, suppose we change the article on fruit to begin "This article is about apples and fruit"

The article is about the effects of climate change. Global warming is simply an example of climate change. Here are the changes I propose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_global_warming&action=historysubmit&diff=442579699&oldid=442520761

Like NASA and IPCC, I suggest we emphasize the scientific meaning of the terms. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For convenience here are the cited refs in that proposed text Glossary in AR4 WGIII and short NASA essay on terms Global Warming vs. Climate Change. From the NASA cite: "Temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming."NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I take your point that global warming is a type of climate change. However, wikipedia refers to recent climate change as "global warming" (see the introduction of the climate change article). This is consistent with how most people (non-specialists) use the two phrases. I'd prefer it if we kept the introduction as it is for the moment. I've put in new definitions of gw and cc, which I copied from the economics of global warming#Definitions article.

Perhaps the additional NASA info could go in either the global warming or climate change articles? Enescot (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I already did put this in the climate change article (see terminology section). Two points: (A) To the extent you suggest wiki has a uniform policy (or tradition) I disagree for the reason that Wiki's use of the terms is inconsistent and (B) In talk pages, people keep saying something like "we should stick to what is most representative of the scientific literature". Are you saying there was a past discussion and consensus, topic-wide, to use the NON scientific terms? IMO it makes little sense and lacks credibility to keep citing the major view in the scientific literature to discuss neologisms with blurry definitions, so if that past discussion really did happen (as opposed to a tradition haphazardly evolving) then the issue should be re-opened. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Go through the archives of Talk:Global warming, and you will find numerous such discussions. Global warming is the commonly used term for the current climate change - even in the scientific literature. Effects of climate change would be a broader article than Effects of global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Kim, two things. First, I did not notice the "terminology" section of the archives before and will take a look. Beyond that, the archives are l-o-n-g and most discussions just peter out before an issue has had thorough debate. Can you point me to any salient achive sections? Second, on what do you base your opinion that "Global warming is the commonly used term for the current climate change - even in the scientific literature"? There is a 2:1 ratio in hits on google scholar for "climate change" compared to "global warming".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No one, has, afaik, collected the salient points - so you will need to read through some of the discussions. As for the 2:1 google scholar result, that really shouldn't be strange to you ... it merely states that there are more articles about climate change in general, than there are on the current climate change (global warming). Climate change is correctly the more accurate description in general, but when we're talking about the current one, then global warming is the most descriptive. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Climate change article "For current and future climatological effects of human influences, see global warming." (sort of redirect) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So? It's a house of mirror. Suppose we say the term at "A" is used non-scientifically and we justify that because the term at "B" is used non-scientifically. That may indeed be true, but when we beat a constant drum of staying faithful to the literature why should we depart from the literature in the title to the articles? Two scientifically "incorrects" don't make a right.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're overemphasising your idea of 'non-scientific' uses of these terms. These two terms are perfectly straightforward English - they are not redefined terms of art (i.e. of science). Everything you have cited says that climate change is a change in a climate, and that global warming is the warming of a globe (i.e. planet). Sometimes within a certain report, different bodies have stated that they will use terms in one way or another. That is their prerogative, and does not make other uses 'non-scientific'. It's like asking whether this table is made of wood, timber or oak, then, when someone says 'wood', arguing that the other guy said 'oak' and they can't both be right. --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

N, can you show me one of the major science academy or review articles from the last three years that uses "global warming" instead of "climate change" for changed precip patterns and sea level rise?

Among the public, sure common use is either way but it DOES make a difference which one you adopt, at least according to This U Mich study (subs req'd which is described in this news story.

By bashing non scientific meanings, N, I was speaking loosely. In accord with the IPCC AR4 WGiii and NASA quotes near the start of this thread, saying "climate change" when you mean surf temp increase (aka global warming) is scientifically correct, but saying "global warming" when you mean changing precip patterns is a non-scientific neologism popularized after Jim Hansen's spoken congressional testimony. IPCC, NASA, and at least from what I see the bulk of contemporary scientific literature all use a very restricted meaning of global warming: surf temp increase, and treat everything that follows from that is "climate change". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, we're 100% disinterested in what effect the wording has on various demographics in the US. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, in fact it would be against all of our policies to even consider the impact as pertinent. (see NPOV amongst others). Global warming is not a neologism, it is part of the language by now. You might have gotten somewhere with that in the 1980's (even then though it would've been incorrect - see amongst others Broecker(1975)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See also FAQ Q22. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhhhhh, did that alleged defense of NPOV use the demagogue's "We 100%" or the consensus seeker's "speaking for myself"?

LETS BE CLEAR - I'm not challenging the existence of the phenomena or the impacts of increasing global surface temps such as sea level rise and precip changes or that humans are largely the cause. I'm just saying the dominant way of describing the spin off effects of "global warming" in the literature is climate change. We should use the right terms and the debate is due to global warming having a limited scientific meaning but a broader common one. So what's a wiki schmuck to do?

As Kim points out, not long ago, use of "global warming" to describe all interrelated climate changes (such as precip changes and sea level rise) was a neologism. The NASA essay I cited says it was popularized in the public sphere in the 80s, and if we were having this conversation back then Kim's words here would be highly relevant...

"Even if it is used wrongly in the media, then we still use the technically precise language here. Wikipedia does not use neologisms and other incorrect language, just because it is used in other places. Nothing hinders us in presenting a lay-readable presentation of a topic and still use correct terminology. If a wording can create a wrong impression, then either describe the term in-line, give a footnote, or wikilink to a correct description."

That is still relevant even though, as Kim says, the expanded neologistic meaning of "global warming" (the one that includes sea level rise and precip changes) has evolved to become part of the common lexicon. In more recent posts at Talk:Global Warming, Kim also says here that

"If the weight of the scientific literature doesn't give prominence to a particular scenario (or subset of scenarios), then we do not do so either" and "A single scientific paper isn't good enough. You will need to consider the total literature - and this is what the assessment reports are doing."

I have already provided an IPCC and a NASA citation which clearly state GW has a restricted meaning and it, plus all of the spin off effects, are all subsets of "climate change". I've asked for citations to major review papers or science academy statements which speak of sea level and precip changes as aspects of GW instead of CC but no one has produced (but its only been one day). Note also that the burning embers diagram in the lead of this article came from IPCC TAR and their text said the image was about effects of climate change, not global warming. Some editor changed the text thus departing from the primary source.

Kim's citation to wiki Global Warming FAQ 22 is supported with a link to Google Scholar casting a wide net on "Global warming". That doesn't trump my specific IPCC and NASA cites, sorry, and a similar search for climate change at Google Scholar returns twice as many hits.

Again the point of the U of Mich study is not "how to craft a POV message". Instead, the point of that study is that 100% of _NEUTRAL_ editors should care enough to get this really really right. Is Kim being consistent and am I on a POV mission? Or am I just advocating the very ideals Kim so eloquently stated elsewhere? Sadly - and I do mean that - Kim and I are unlikely to agree. Hopefully others will chime in because a decision for the status quo or a decision to comport with the literature does matter, if we seek to be neutral. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, we are quote-mining now? Do please add the relevant diff's so that people can see the context in which those comments we're put. [i expect you to do so - otherwise i expect you to redact your comment, you can redact this as well]

Lots of talk - but no argument is really hidden in there, except that climate change is generic, and global warming is specific - which is the point of the name.

The point of the U.Mich social science study was that "climate change" works better than "global warming" on a specific demographics of the U.S. population. And that particular issue is (as i pointed out) 100% irrelevant to the question at hand - unless we're out to advocate instead of inform. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for your eloquent defense of the scientific literature inserted in my comment, per your request. Meanwhile, you can say I made no argument, but the fact is otherwise..... literature from IPCC and NASA use "global warming" to mean global temp rise, period, and "climate change" to mean all the spin off effects. Mainstream lit on the topic the last three years seems to follow suit.... but if you can rebut that without mere handwaving, I'd very much like to know the details. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have wondered why this keeps coming up, when it is so uninteresting. Now, thanks to the U. Mich. link I see that it is related to some obscure US ignorance thing, and their party politics. Due to changes in greenhouse gasses, the climate of a planet can only change in one of two directions: warmer or cooler. We Earthlings are increasing our greenhouse gasses, so our climate (globally) is getting warmer. All the other stuff about droughts, storms, etc follows from the global warming, i.e. the increase in global thermal energy. That is completely scientific and quite unrelated to whether you are a Republican or not. --Nigelj (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There is just the trouble that you haven't demonstrated that the literature makes this distinction in the way that you do. The IPCC uses climate change in the sense of current climate change (primarily), which isn't useful here. The literature (as you can search with Google scholar) - does generally make the distinction, just as Nigelj says above. All you get with your google search with a 2:1 weight towards climate change, is to determine that not all articles are about the current climate change (or doesn't need to make the distinction) [See also WP:GOOGLE]. There is no neology here, as can be seen from the FAQ.

(reply to NewsAndEventGuy's earlier reply to me) I think that provided an article is consistent in its use of the two terms, then I'm satisfied. If I remember correctly, I think it was me who put in the introduction's grouping of "global warming and climate change." Personally I think that this is the most straightforward way of addressing this issue.

The effects of global warming article ranks highly if you run a Google search for either "effects of global warming" or "effects of climate change". Additionally, if you run a search for "effects of climate change" on the internal wikipedia search, it links to a disambiguation page. This disambiguation page uses Wikipedia's convention of referring to recent climate change as "global warming."

In my opinion, I can't see any great advantage in changing the way wikipedia uses the two terms. Changing the names of existing Wikipedia "global warming" articles would probably be a real pain to do, especially on the main global warming article. On the other hand, it might be a good way of improving articles, e.g., adding an article on "human-induced climate change" might allow the global warming article to be reduced in size and made more specific. Enescot (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead Image Title and Caption unsupported by cited source

This is part of the terminology discussion above. The lead image is supposedly taken from IPCC TAR, but someone else supplied the heading and caption. The cited source clearly identifies the image as depicting effects of climate change. The image and caption need to be edited to comport with the cited source.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is resolved now.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done a revision of the caption, which is based on the TAR synthesis report. The TAR does say that the burning-embers diagram uses increases in global warming as a "proxy" for the magnitude of climate change. This way of describing climate change impacts is also mentioned in the "temperature changes" section of the article. Enescot (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Potential resource from Mother Earth News

Signs of Climate Change; The evidence of climate change is all around us. Here’s a rundown of the dramatic problems we now face, and why we need solutions, not more debate. by Richard Hilderman (previous Clemson University biochemist, now blogger) in August/September 2011 Mother Earth News (page 60 to 64 "in print"). 99.181.138.215 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)