Talk:Regional effects of climate change

Include Upfront (magazine) endangered oceanic island nations ranking

Per Robert Nicholls and Sally Brown of the University of Southampton UK ranked the most endangered nations due to flooding from global warming and climate change, reflecting the percent of population at risk.< ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_5-6_144/ai_n58473630 published in November 14 & 28, 2011 The New York Times Upfront< /ref>

1. Marshall islands,
2. Bahrain,
3. Maldives,
4. Kiribati,
5. The Bahamas
6. Tuvalu
7. Nauru
8. Cape Verde
9. Seychelles
10. Trinidad and Tobago

99.181.136.157 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Misquote. Robert Nicholls and Sally Brown are not mentioned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Read more carefully please. See * in article. 99.181.137.33 (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't know if that's President Marcus Stephen of Nauru saying that, an editorial writing verifying the article the President was referring to, or an actual editorial review. The latter seems unlikely, as the list is still part of the President's speech. If you can find a copy of the actual report, and reference it, and (due to your previous history of misrepresenting sources) find a vetted online copy, or send the paper copy to a trusted editor, then it might be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to state Mr. Stephen said anything.

From within the article ...

Island nations at highest risk for flooding due to climate change *

then the list of 10, then ...

* RANKING REFLECTS PERCENT OF POPULATION AT RISK; SOURCE: ROBERT NICHOLLS AND SALLY BROWN, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON, U.K.

clear standard english.

141.218.35.38 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

From a quick google search Dr Sally Brown and Prof. Robert J Nicholls (School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, UK) from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/impacts/high-end/sea-level (Met Office)

Example papers:

• Brown, S. et al. (2009). Sea level response and impacts of a 1°C to 7°C prescribed temperature rise by 2100. 4 degrees and beyond. International climate conference, Oxford, UK. September 2009.
• Nicholls, R.J., N. Marinova, J.A. Lowe, S. Brown, P. Vellinga, D. de Gusmao, J. Hinkel, and R.S.J. Tol, 2011: Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a 'beyond 4 ºC world' in the twenty-first century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc A, 369, 161-181.

141.218.35.38 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've looks to see if they has been a report done by both Prof. Robert Nicholls and Dr. Sally Brown however I have not come across the "populations at risk", this makes the Upfront poorly sourced since it doesn't state the report, only the authors and the article itself seems more like an opinion piece as a oppose to reporting of both sides of the possibilities in the future. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly be helpful if Upfront listed a book or periodical. 141.218.35.38 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Add listing of cities at risk?

• Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes; Exposure Estimates 19 Nov 2008 OECD

by R. J. Nicholls1, S. Hanson1, C. Herweijer2, N. Patmore2, S. Hallegatte3, J. Corfee-Morlot4, Jean Chateau4, Robert Muir-Wood2

Author Affiliations; 1: University of Southampton, United Kingdom 2: Risk Managment Solutions Limited, United Kingdom 3: Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement, France 4: OECD, France

excerpt

For present-day conditions (2005), the top ten cities in terms of exposed population are estimated to be Mumbai, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Miami, Ho Chi Minh City, Kolkata, Greater New York, Osaka-Kobe, Alexandria and New Orleans ...

141.218.35.38 (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, if credited to OECD. They are not climate experts, and there is little indication that all of the authors are climate experts, so it may not meet WP:RS unless placed with a disclaimer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Say what? You will have to explain that one Arthur.... Without getting into whether the report is relevant here, the first 3 authors are most certainly experts on the topic they are writing on (i stopped checking after #3): R Nicholls,S. Hanson, Celine Herweijer) - So do explain how these aren't experts, and why there is "little indication that all of the authors are ...." [where do you get those indications from?] And OECD is most certainly a notable and reliable publisher. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

More than "climate experts" are need to produce a ranking of cities with high Exposure and vulnerability to climate extremes. It's that obvious? 99.181.128.237 (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, OECD is not a "reliable source" for climate change, although it might be for economics. The paper might be allowable if all of the authors were expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing the publisher (OECD) with authors. What would make you "think" any of the authors would not be experts? 108.195.138.38 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that each of the authors is an expert, it's not reliable, except as OECD's editorial opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is this necessary? Is this a requirement that is applied on other papers? Afaik only the 1st (and possibly 2nd author) are relevant unless exceptional. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) It is not an editorial. 99.109.124.44 (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. OECD is not an expert, so their review is not for accuracy, but for their perception of accuracy (or possibly consistency with their goals, rather than accuracy). The individual authors would need to be experts for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OECD = publisher. The 3 principle authors of the paper are experts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Is OECD reliable as a publisher in regard this paper? Here, I'm not sure. I don't think so, but I could be convinced otherwise. If not, I would say that all of the authors would have to be experts in a relevant field in order for the source to meet WP:SPS, especially since some of the authors are affiliated with OECD and might have influenced the decision to publish. At the very least, all the authors affiliated with OECD must be experts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Which authors are affiliated with the OECD? And exactly how does something printed by a publishing company (and the OECD environm. series is such) suddenly become SPS? (hint: anything printed by a university press, where the authors are researchers at that university would suddenly become SPS's by your measure then.... is this really correct?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the footnotes on the attributions, you can see that J. Corfee-Morlot and Jean Chateau are associated with OECD. I think footnote 3 is a research institution, rather than a quasi-political institution. We don't recognize the Cato Institute as a reliable publisher, either, although the we do recognize some of their articles as reliable because of the expertise (and bias) of the authors. And a university press is generally more reliable than that of an NGO. Thinking about it, and noting the Michican Kid's tendancy toward hyperbole and misquotes (see the most endangered country list, for which we still don't have a reliable source), I think this should be in an article with the attribution "according to OECD", and let the reader decide its credibility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Erh? Neither the Cato Institute in general, or their publications are considered reliable, except as opinions.. So your comparison fails. Here it is different, the OECD is generally considered reliable, and afaik their publications are generally considered reliable as well - so they are significantly more like a university press, rather than as an advocacy organizations vanity press. The OECD is also not an NGO (not even remotely) - so i'm rather confused as to what your point is? (Who on Earth is the Michigan Kid btw?) And despite your insistance on attributing this to the OECD, it is not by the OECD at all - but a publication in a series published by the OECD. Whether it reflects what the OECD thinks is an unknown, so your proposed attribution is simply wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the OECD is generally considered reliable, even by the member countries. But, I digress.

1. The anon who made the initial request is a floating IP, known as the "Michigan kid". See about 3 ANI threads. One of his methods is to post a URL and quote to an article talk page, saying it should be considered for inclusion in the article. In the rare event that it's a reliable source and relevant to the article, there is no proposed text to be included in the article. Some have reverted those additions as being irrelevant to improving the article. (I haven't done so, lately).
2. I'm not sure it belongs in the article, even if it were a reliable source, and belongs somewhere. "Cities" might be effects on humans, rather than regional effects
3. The list makes little sense unless we can define the context; such as what they consider a "city", and whether it's pure numbers of people affected (multiplied by type of effect), or percentage.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally an attempt at a rational argument for not including the reference. Why didn't you start with these? Instead of trying to make the reference out to be unreliable... I know of the anon, and i don't particularly like the style either (imho he should've been banned a while ago - but wasn't), but even blind hens do find corn - so the argument that the Kid proposed it doesn't fly. Next up is the "city" argument, which is rather far-fetched, and i'm sorry to say, also displays that you may not have even read the abstract of the paper - or attempted to read the paper, since it is clearly defined in both. [port-cities with >1mio. inhabitants]. Left is whether or not this is considered a "regional effect" - but here the context delivers it: Coastal areas are regions already in the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's list it, but attribute it to the study (not specifically to OECD, necessarily). It makes no sense as a bald statement that those cities are the most endangered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) What is the status of this item Special:Contributions/KimDabelsteinPetersen? 99.181.132.75 (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Add?

• East Coast faces faster sea level rise; Cities from North Carolina to Massachusetts see waters rising more rapidly July 28th, 2012; Vol.182 #2 (p. 17) Science News

99.181.142.117 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)