This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Scientific opinion on climate change impacts
In my view, this article should briefly discuss the range of scientific opinion on the impacts of climate change. Previously I suggested that this be added to scientific opinion on climate change, but I was unable to reach a consensus on that article's talk page.
In this article, my proposed addition would describe the main sources of information on climate change impacts (e.g., reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and statements by scientific bodies), as well as a general discussion of areas where there is a broad consensus and robust evidence, and other areas where there is less evidence and a lack of consensus (e.g., see ). Specific uncertainties can be covered in sub-articles.
Not sure how I missed this, but apologies for not responding sooner. Article addition looks good to me, thanks for doing that. From the science side of the literature, can you think of any heavy hitters talking about cost & risk of acting today, versus cost & risk of delaying and acting tomorrow? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. As I'm sure you know, the recent IPCC Working Group II report  offers an assessment of policy responses to reduce climate change damages (Chapter 19, p46 onwards). The earlier IPCC assessments also provide summaries (AR4 WG3 Sections 3.5-3.6 ; TAR WG3 Section 10.4 ). PBL (2009)  is another useful summary. Enescot (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of the cost of delaying mitigation. Something analogous the IEA report discussed in this Reuter's story "Cost of extra year's climate inaction $500 billion: IEA" Assuming we want to hold the line at any given amount of warming, one of the GW's effects is on the range of our options and speed with which they must be deployed.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
"Many of the risks of climate change can be reduced by cutting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (see: climate change mitigation). The negative impacts of climate change may also be reduced by adaptation measures, e.g., promoting socioeconomic development (main article: adaptation to global warming."
Increasing food prices are one effect. Increasing cost to mitigate enough to hold the line at 2C is another. Your example sentences don't capture of mitigation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
New report on national security threat of global warming
The New York Times reported May 13, 2014 on a new report from the Center for Naval Analyses, Military Advisory Board on the threat to national security due to global warming. Perhaps this should be included in this article. The NYT story includes a quote from John Conger, the Pentagon's deputy under secretary of defense for installations and environment, "The department certainly agrees that climate change is having an impact on national security, whether by increasing global instability, by opening the Arctic or by increasing sea level and storm surge near our coastal installations." It also includes some lay analysis of the report, "found that climate change-induced drought in the Middle East and Africa is leading to conflicts over food and water and escalating longstanding regional and ethnic tensions into violent clashes." Of note is the use of the word is not may or will.
I don't think that this article should provide detailed information on the benefits and costs of reducing GHG emissions. The costs and benefits of climate change mitigation are already discussed here: climate change mitigation#Costs and benefits. Enescot (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that should not happen in detail, but that's what Template:Main is for. If we Venn Diagram these articles' topics there is bit of overlap in at least one (maybe more than one) respect. Do you agree that the following is true?
One effect of global warming is (for any number of examples) that it is changing the ability of the ____________ species to do _____________________
If that statement is true, then insert "human" and "intentionally control net forcing". That's a change happening to a component of the climate system. We should report that bit of earth/biological science just like we would any other.
We start to hint in this direction a little bit at Effects_of_global_warming#Abrupt_or_irreversible_changes but unless I missed it we don't explicitly discuss our own species potential for climate management as a matter of earth/biological science. Note this is a narrowing of my earlier position, where I think I was advocating this subject using the language of monetary finances. But money really isn't the point here. Earth/Biological science is. Our species potential ability to do a thing is being changed by global warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Explains how climate change impacts vary with different magnitudes of global warming.
- Summarizes global warming projections, including both emissions reductions (mitigation) scenarios and non-mitigation scenarios. I should note that effects of global warming#Temperature changes is out-of-date. The low emissions SRES projections are generally lower than that of more recent non-mitigation scenarios.
- Refers the reader on to other articles that deal with policy responses to global warming (as I suggested previously).
Climate change mitigation:
- Explains the costs, benefits and risks of mitigation policies (monetized and non-monetized).
- Explains how there are different views over what policies are appropriate, e.g., in relation to acceptable risks from climate change impacts.
I've been thinking of revising the lead section of the article. In my opinion, several changes should be made:
1. Revise information on observed and projected impacts. I don't think that enough information is given on how impacts vary with temperature. Any changes should avoid duplicating information that is already contained in the diagram which is used in the lead.
2. Revise diagram in lead. This should be updated based on the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
3. Add information on global warming projections. Many impacts increase with higher magnitudes of global warming. The lead should briefly mention how temperatures might change in the future, according to different scenarios.
Projected global warming in 2100 for a range of emission scenarios.
The effects of global warming are the environmental and social changes caused (directly or indirectly) by human emissions of greenhouse gases. There is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, and that human activities are the primary driver. Many impacts of climate change have already been observed, including glacier retreat, changes in the timing of seasonal events (e.g., earlier flowering of plants), and changes in agricultural productivity.
Future effects of climate change will vary depending on policy measures and social development. The two main policies to address climate change are reducing human greenhouse gas emissions (climate change mitigation) and adapting to the eventual impacts of climate change. Geoengineering is another policy option.
Near-term mitigation policies could significantly affect long-term climate change impacts. Aggressive mitigation policies might be able to limit global warming (in 2100) to around 2 °C or below, relative to pre-industrial levels. Without mitigation, increased energy demand and extensive use of fossil fuels might lead to global warming of around 4 °C. Higher magnitudes of global warming would be more difficult to adapt to, and would increase the risk of severe impacts.
Working Group II and III's contributions (WG2 and WG3) to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5th Assessment Report. WG2:  (archive url): Summary for Policymakers; Technical Summary; Chapter 19. WG3: Summary for Policymakers.
Hey Enescot (talk·contribs), a few years back you added a subsection on [radiative forcing. I deleted it today. As you know, tere are two aspects to RF, (A) the intitial forcing, and (B) additional forcings resulting from feedback mechanisms. The stuff I deleted seemed to be about the initial forcing. That really isn't the topic for this article, is it? I've got an open mind on that but right now the article seems to need pruning and in any case the "physical impacts" is not the place to talk about the initial cause. This said, I also think we should have a "CLIMATE FEEDBACK" section unto itself. We do mention feedbacks under biogeochemical cycles, but to my surprise the word "albedo" (a big forcing mechanism) does not appear anywhere.
I have not attempted to draft anything pending your thoughts, and ideas from anyone else too, of course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)