Talk:Effects of climate change

Template:WP1.0

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

wikilink Environmental migrant

Wikilink Environmental migrant please. 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)