Talk:Climate variability and change

Agriculture effects

IMF, ADBI, CGDEV, IEE, every credible authority really, predicts (as of studies current in 2007 and later) a serious decline in agriculture outputs as a result of climate effects, one that will *NOT* be offset but in many cases aggregated by increased CO2.

The assumed fertilization effect, in other words, is nonsense or pseudoscience, or review of just the most authoritative sources shows a consensus that must be reflected in this article or a new one linked from it, say agriculture effects of higher CO2 levels. A similar article on ocean food yields with high atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification could parallel it.

None of the Wikipedia material on these subjects seems to be very current or properly referenced at present.

Authoritative sources recommended, in addition to the search above, include the University of Manitoba summary studies which concluded that many effects, e.g. pests, faster maturity of the crop, rot, etc., would be much worse in a warmer environment and that the soils in the more northerly areas were not suitable for most food crops - meaning that the only areas that had any reason to think they'd gain in yields from warming, won't. This did not even consider social effects like conflict and the fact that no infrastructure exists in those areas for those crops.

History of Climate Changes

Do you think it would be beneficial to add in some details about past climate changes? Although we can see these periods of climate changes in other articles I think it would be beneficial to give more details about instances such as the Little Ice Age. It would only give more detail and examples to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleLeeHoffmann (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing not discussed: the planet does not really give a shit about the climate. Most organisms don't care about the climate, as the species readily adapt, in most cases and, with evolution, constantly change over time. In some cases, lifeforms may do better with climate change, not worse. The only ones who care about climate change are humans, and they care mostly for selfish reasons, as they only care about how climate change affects them, and mostly the planet will adapt to pretty much anything you throw at it. That has been the constant history of this planet and will continue to be.

Most scientists, when polled, as well as most people in general, agreed that climate change is one of the least important problems facing humans, not the most, contrary to what some say. Only humans care, the rest of the planet will find it mostly uninteresting or irrelevant, since the climates are always changing, sometimes radically so.

I want to edit the page and add in History of Climate Changes, but the article has been locked because too many people at my University have been editing Wikipedia articles. I was wondering if anyone could help me out either by giving me their feedback on what I want to contribute and submitting these contributions or by giving me a way to edit the article on my own. The article says it has been semi-protected and won't let me gain any access to the edit page. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleLeeHoffmann (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Such a leap would be imprudent. See comments on your Talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:FAOfishandclimate.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:FAOfishandclimate.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:FAOfishandclimate.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Human Influence on local not global warming over CO2 limited to additional max. +100ppm +0.5° by sources

Gibberish

After IPPC scientific agreement was just for some human influence on climate exists not sure most and not that it would be irreversible. Of course nature can reduce CO2 after human CO2 sources gone out with all exploration maxima long before 2050 oil reached about(ASPO) 2020 -16% 2030 -33% 2050 -60% maxima coal reached about 2020-2035 gas 2015-2035 means max. 100ppm CO2 +0.5° possible and warming was most local at arctis areas not global and sea level rise >100 years normal most by river+coast erosion and sea bed change by continental drift. One possible main source for CO2 and methane was also wolld desertification up to 30 industry years & sahara dry time since 1970. After actual human CO2 rise staying in air it would need about 250 years for doubling with +2° but it doesn`t need reduction to 0 by oil+gas+coal for going down because +100ppm before means also about 1/4 more nature consumption with 550Gt nature exchange 3000Gt at all in atmosphere and 32Gt/J by humans added but just 12Gt left annually and rest is taken by land+sea plants. xxxxxxxxx@yahoo.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.73.219 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

terminology usage question: climate change &/or global warming?

If you believe this is not the best location for this question, please suggest that also.

An example "discussion" on Talk:Planet Earth: The Future.

It appears that in the United States the phrase "global warming" is used where in Europe the phrase "climate change" is preferred.

For all the uses of the phrases, they do not appear to be synonymous.

Is there standard for usage on wikipedia, or some kind of rule-of-thumb?

Climate change would appear to a broader term, including all climate, and thus forms of weather, such as storms and precipitation.

Global warming would appear to be much more limited to the average rising temperature of the Earth.

Neither phrase seems inclusive enough, and both are used by the media in overlapping ways.

Potential clarity may be to combine the two in a sentence, so the reader has an easier seeing the current relation, such as climate change (global warming) assuming global warming was applicable in that situation.

Comment requested, climate change &/or global warming and under what circumstances?

99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If what you say were correct, the usage would fall under WP:ENGVAR, and only one should be used in an article, regardless of what the sources use. I don't think it is correct, but your argument doesn't lead to your desired result. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear the question is not directed toward you. Perhaps you'd answer questions you are asked instead, such as Portal_talk:Current_events/2012_June_6 and User talk:Viriditas? 99.181.141.238 (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clear the question makes no sense in English. I was just pointing that out.

For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the use of both terms in the same sentence, except in rare occurrences where both meanings are being used for separate unrelated concepts in the same sentence. Both "global warming (the current climate change)" and "global warming, and resultant climate change" should never occur in Wikipedia unless they occur commonly in reliable sources. "Climate change (global warming)" is just unnecessary, but not wrong. It wouldn't violate Wikipedia guidelines unless linked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) See Talk:Global warming#terminology usage question: climate change &/or global warming? 99.181.142.87 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)