Talk:Climate variability and change
Template:Community article probation
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate variability and change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 5 days ![]() |
![]() | There is a request, submitted by GVnayR (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "important topic about an environmental issue". |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about editors' personal beliefs about climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about editors' personal beliefs about climate change at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Climate variability and change was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Effects of CO2
Added information that was in this article section.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States, determined that carbon dioxide, and five other greenhouse gases, "endanger public health and welfare" of the American people. These gases, they said, contribute to climate change, which is causing more heat waves, droughts and flooding, and is threatening food and water supplies. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924
- The EPA finding is based largely on the IPCC's findings. So, become a circular reasoning. EPA didn't do any independent research to corroborate his findings. This is an important difference from the past findings. "Lisa Jackson, Obama's EPA Administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today in good measure on the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true."Inhofe: EPA 'endangerment' rule based on junk science; Is coal industry death coming soon?]Painlord2k (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- The IPCC doesn't do independent research, its an assessment report. Just as the Climate Change Science Program (now the U.S. Global Change Research Program is. Both are based on reviewing the scientific literature. The field is too large for an agency such as the EPA to assess the whole, which is why the IPCC and the USGCRP have been asked to do so. Inhofe is not a reliable source on this issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Article in Timesonline
Does this have any bearing on this Wikipedia article: [www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece] btw what is a "ece" extension - don't think I have ever seen one of those before? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- No. You've misunderstood it. But you'd get a better and longer "no" if you asked at global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Volcanism
The reference to the US Geological Survey report in the third paragraph has a misleading conclusion. The report cited uses as it's source another report that was a measure of "total carbon" not carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes. By stating in this section that the amount measured was of carbon dioxide could lead a reader to an incorrect conclusion. Total carbon release and carbon dioxide release are two entirely different things. I'll be doing some additional research on this before proposing an edit. Hammer8s (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)halderman
- This is just a different way of accounting. One ton of carbon is equivalent to 44/12=3.6(6) tons of carbon dioxide. Also, you mixed up the reports. Marland et all (2006), which now seems to be at [1], is used as a source for human emissions. We often use simply "carbon", because the major carbon-containing emissions (CO, Methane, CO2) nearly all end up as CO2 in fairly short times. I'm very sure that the USGS is well aware of this and has taken it into account. Note that they claim 30 billion tons of CO2, while Marland et al lists about 8 billion tons of Carbon, depending on the year [2]. 8 billion tons of carbon times 3.66 comes out at the 30 billion tons of CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Changes to introductory paragraphs
I cannot see how the recent changes to the introductory paragraphs improve things: The rewrite is less clear than it previously was, especially the first paragraph. Weather patterns ≠ climate. "Trend" implies future (& what was wrong with "changes"?). Why does this article need so many names for global warming? The last two paragraphs are redundant as the same ideas are better expressed later in the article. And despite being twice as long it has lost useful information, as links to Earth, temperature record and attribution of recent climate change are gone. I would just put it back how it was before the template:technical was added. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- No-one's replied and a day later and I still the version in place a couple of days ago was much clearer and more appropriate so I've restored it. The alternate would be to edit what was there, but by the time the duplication was removed, the missing links put back and the sense made clear it would look much like what I've just put back. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Human influences
"Anthropogenic factors" are not human activities that change the environment, actually, as the first sentence of the "Human influences" section states. Anthropogenic factors are, perhaps over-simply put, "human factors." There are, of course, anthropogenic factors (human factors) that can change the environment, which I believe is the more precise point of the original statement. Somewhat of a semantic observation, but this is my first edit suggestion other than a few simple IP-anonymous typographic corrections, so I'm starting out tentatively.
This seems a good alternative to the first sentence of the Human influences section:
"Human or anthropogenic influences on climate change can include human activities, effects, processes or materials."
I would include an internal link to "anthropogenic" from which I was inspired to write this alternative. I believe double-brackets are used to engage internal links. The article is semi-protected due to the high risk of vandalism, or I would happily endeavor to figure out how to make the change myself. Perhaps since I have an account I can do this myself.
Thanks, Oxylotyl (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit request to Human influences section of Climate Change article
{{editsemiprotected}}
This article is semi-protected due to the high risk of vandalism, or I would happily endeavor to figure out how to make the change myself. Perhaps since I have an account I can do this myself after 10 or so edits.
I suggested the change on Dec 14, '09 on the Climate Page's talk page, but now understand that might not get attention. I hope this is useful:
"Anthropogenic factors" are not just human activities that change the environment, actually, as the first sentence of the "Human influences" section states. Anthropogenic factors are, perhaps over-simply put, "human factors" more generally. There are, of course, anthropogenic factors (human factors) that can change the environment, to which the term "anthropogenic" is most currently in reference to, and which I believe is the more precise point of the original statement. Somewhat of a semantic observation, but this is my first edit suggestion other than a few simple IP-anonymous typographic corrections, so I'm starting out tentatively.
This seems a good alternative to the first sentence of the Human influences section. Please change:
Anthropogenic factors are human activities that change the environment.
to:
Human or anthropogenic influences on climate change can include human activities, effects, processes or materials.
I included an internal link to "anthropogenic" from which I was inspired to write this alternative. I believe double-brackets are used to engage internal links.
Thanks, Oxylotyl (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Not done for now: The anthropogenic article you linked specifically says "The term anthropogenic [effect] designates an effect or object resulting from human activity." To me, this would logically mean anthropogenic factors are human activities causing an effect on something. When you become autoconfirmed, feel free to change it, but it's not critical at the moment. In the meantime, use this talk page or a related wikiproject's talk page to determine a consensus for the change. I'm glad to see you have an interest in editing wikipedia! Happy editing! Ks0stm (T•C•G) 13:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Saying "Human or anthropogenic" is not necessary. It is poor grammar and one of the words would be redundant. The whole sentence is not needed for the same reason. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- how about combining the two thusly, into a more complete definition of "anthropogenic": Kevin Baastalk 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Anthropogenic factors of climate change are changes to the ecological environment that come directly or indirectly from humans. These include human activities, effects, processes and materials.
- Thanks Kevin, that is a more precise revision of the original first sentence. If in agreement, can you make the change? I believe I still have too few edits to make changes to a semi-protected page. And perhaps anthropogenic could link to the internal article of the same name, if appropriate. Thanks. Oxylotyl (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I am curious as to why there is a "global warming" and a "climate change" page. Should these not be one and the same? It seems confusing and redundant to have these as two distinct pages. Frendinius (talk) 05:05, 5 March 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Grammar correction
{{editsemiprotected}} Just to change 'continue' to 'continues' in the Ice Cores section (singular subject - 'study').
Done Thanks! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Other evidence
A quick read of the present contents suggests to me that no mention is made of evidence of the type relating to changes in "start of seasons", as in spring seeming to start earlier, or birds migrating earlier or later. Melcombe (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm unfamiliar with this kind of evidence; could you give some examples? Awickert (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was hoping there would be someone around familiar with these fields. A quick Google gives:
- For birds....
- http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6255181.html quoting Audubon Society
- http://www.life-of-science.net/environment-and-ecology/news/climate-change-has-severe-consequences-for-egg-laying-and-migration-in-birds.html with link to article in Climate Research
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691393/ links to Proc Roy Soc article
- Wiki blocks direct link to this ... wildlife-conservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/global_warming_and_its_impact_on_bird_migration
- For seasons....
- http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/effects/seasons.html summary and links to next
- http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardening/Sustainable-gardening/Gardening-in-a-changing-climate
- http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JG000407.shtml JGR paper on a sattelite-based vegegation index
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/aug/25/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment links to a science report
- There must be better sources than these ....? Melcombe (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- And a recent publication is describe at http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/2010_news_item_04.html . Melcombe (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sceptical opinion rising
[3] Climate scepticism 'on the rise', BBC poll shows .. It showed that 25% of those questioned did not think global warming was happening. The survey shows 26% think climate change is happening and 25$ think it is not happening. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- This article seems to be more about the science/facts of climate change, the politics/popular view is covered in other articles, so a poll like this might be more suitable to be referenced in one of those. --81.153.144.130 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Spoken Wikipedia requests
- Delisted good articles
- B-Class Weather articles
- Top-importance Weather articles
- Unsorted weather articles
- WikiProject Weather articles
- B-Class Geology articles
- Mid-importance Geology articles
- Mid-importance B-Class Geology articles
- WikiProject Geology articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- Unknown-importance Environment articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles