Talk:Effects of climate change

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fhowar1 (article contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2018

To be added as a second paragraph in the subsection "Droughts and Agriculture" in the section "Food Supply":

A recent and widely publicized study suggests that sudden decreases in barley production due to extreme drought and heat could in the future cause substantial volatility in the availability and price of beer. 70.181.115.163 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. There's no indication that this paper is widely publicized, and even if it were, there's no need to say that in the article. But also, the section is a very broad view of droughts and agriculture, while what you want to add is probably way too specific. Any study added here should probably be similarly broad in scope. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Migration and conflict, "threat multiplier"

Military planners are concerned that global warming is a "threat multiplier". "Whether it is poverty, food and water scarcity, diseases, economic instability, or threat of natural disasters, the broad range of changing climatic conditions may be far reaching. These challenges may threaten stability in much of the world".[137] For example, the onset of Arab Spring in December 2010 is partly the result of a spike in wheat prices following crop losses from the 2010 Russian heat wave.[138][139]

---

This implies that the Arab spring is a threat (to military planners, perhaps?). Quite opinionated. Dictatorships sometimes face rebellion even without Russian crop losses. Recommend you remove the example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.148.189 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Article drift

Long ago, we worked out a heirarchy where Global warming was the top article and there were a handful of second-tier sub-articles (and then the sub-sub articles and so on). This page was agreed to hold a more detailed account of the physical effects and how those effects will impact social systems. We have other second-tier sub-articles that report on Climate change mitigation and the Politics of global warming and so on. All these articles should cross-link one another to help the reader navigate, but lets try hard to not blur the lines between them. Otherwise, we just end up with lots of hard to maintain redundancy, and a much weaker package overall. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "This page was agreed to hold a more detailed account of the physical effects and how those effects will impact social systems." Since the physical effects of climate change include extreme weather, heatwaves, flooding, sea level rise, water shortages, conflict and mass migration as documented throughout this article, climate change is already having a dramatic impact on our social systems. Scientists and other commentators have begun describing the impact as a crisis. That is not the same thing as a neologism (see comments under Pruning below). It is simply one interpretation of the facts - not forgetting that over the years, the IPCC has provided multiple interpretations of the facts and how they will affect social systems. Notagainst (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography moved here

In this edit, I removed the following text

::--Scientific opinion-- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published several major assessments on the effects of global warming. Its most recent comprehensive impact assessment was published in 2014. Publications describing the effects of climate change have also been produced by the following organizations American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) A report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, and Wageningen University and Research Centre UK AVOID research programme A report by the UK Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre US National Research Council The National Climate Assessment A report by Molina et al. (no date) states: The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems ---NASA data and tools--- NASA has released public data and tools to predict how temperature and rainfall patterns worldwide may change through to the year 2100 caused by increasing carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. The dataset shows projected changes worldwide on a regional level simulated by 21 climate models. The data can be viewed on a daily timescale for individual cities and towns and may be used to conduct climate risk assessments to predict the local and global effects of weather dangers, for example droughts, floods, heat waves and declines in agriculture productivity, and help plan responses to global warming effects.

References

This section is pretty much a collection of links mixed with some WP:WIKIVOICE and a hope the reader will look at this stuff, but Wikipedia is not a linkfarm and not a bibliography. It's great to write NPOV encyclopedia text referencing these sources, of course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

pruned lead paragraph

In this edit I removed the following from the lead

The effects can pose an existential threat to human civilization by 2050. In response to this threat, in 2019 some media outlets began using the term climate crisis instead of climate change, while a few countries even declared a climate emergency.

References

Per WP:LEAD, if it isn't in the main body it shouldn't be in the lead. In addition, "...some countries have even declared..." is WP:Editorializing, which we aren't allowed to do per NPOV. Finally, the paragraph uses WP:WIKIVOICE to report the results of the Dunlop paper. Also troubling, from NPOV point of view. The editorial decision by the Guardian to change their language for the reasons they cite is their decision, but to do that here, you'd not only need consensus from climate eds but the community at large. You could propose that at the WP:PUMP, but I have my doubts how far you'd get. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy you removed the following sentence from the lead because "if it isn't in the main body it shouldn't be in the lead."

The effects can pose an existential threat to human civilization by 2050.[1][2] In response to this threat, in 2019 some media outlets began using the term climate crisis instead of climate change,[3][4] while a few countries even declared a climate emergency.[5]

In response to your deletion, I added the info into the main body. You removed that as well and placed the following message on my Talk page:

I welcome your interest in "Climate crisis" framing, and there sure are abundant RSs to support an article about that framing. See WP:NEOLOGISM for an example guideline that describes articles about phrases. If you want write about "climate crisis" that would be a good approach. At Effects of global warming, the aggregate section needs updating to AR5. A lot of the text is based on AR3. As you may know AR5 is from 2013/2014, and is a review of even older papers which themselves are based on even older data. In contrast, AR3 (that much of our text is based upon) is 14 years older! So it needs updating. Sure, its not a head on club 'em over the head "climate crisis" writing, but the labor of doing the update would drive at the same point without looking like 2019 spin/framing tacked on top of 2001 outdated text.

It appears you have been concerned about out of date material on this page for some time. If you are concerned, it is unclear why you have not updated this material yourself. It is equally unclear why you would expect me to update it - although I may have a crack at it.

It is also entirely unclear what your point is about Neologism. You seem to be implying that the term climate change is a neologism. I believe you are mistaken. Wikipedia says that "Neologisms are often created by combining existing words (into one word) or by giving words new and unique suffixes or prefixes... Neologisms are usually introduced when an individual or individuals find that a specific notion is lacking a term in a language, or when the existing vocabulary is insufficiently detailed." WP gives examples such as:"coke" for Coca-Cola, "grok", "cyberspace", "Orwellian". The term climate crisis is not two words combined into one. It is two separate words which are both well understood and do not fit the WP definition of neologism. I look forward to seeing you update AR3 to AR5. In the meantime, please leave my contribution in place (and see my comments under Article drift above). :Notagainst (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Tip as you're new.... please read WP:WALLOFTEXT; Most of the time, responding to every little point doesn't help. Try to cut to the core of things. Other eds will appreciate it, and dispute resolution will be a lot easier on you.

From our experience here and at another user's talk page, I expect we'll be talking a lot about wthe current effort to reframe "global warming" and "climate change" as "the climate crisis". We can certainly report on that effort, but its a whole different question whether Wikipedia should climb aboard. wiki-lawyers will formulate arguments whether or not the technical definition of WP:NEOLOGISM applies. I'm more interested in the spirit rather than the form of our WP:P&G. The heart of the matter is WP:NPOV and WP:ARBCC#Neutrality and conflicts of interest. I would say more about that, but....

... although it's great that you've joined the discussion you've also blazed ahead editing without waiting for the discussion to bear fruit. I haven't had a chance to review your extensive changes, so for now I guess this threads done. However, this is a social team effort we're doing. Please be wary of jamming the throttle to the wall and if you haven't already done so, please read WP:BRD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

consensus problems

In this two edit series an editor has changed the text as follows (new text in red)

There is a broad (97%) scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that human activities are the primary driver.

References

I reverted "broad" and this has been edit warred back in without discussion. Here are the problems with the current version above.

• "Broad" is extraneous WP:Editorializing. It is what it is, we don't need to characterize it.
• The text is not supported by the source. The source does not say 97% of all scientists. It says, as the original Cook study explained, that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists say this.
• There is a sentence that makes two points and each point gets a ref but only one ref talks about 97%. Now it's not so clear which source is offered to support which point, and which point has a 97% consensus of actively publishing climate scientists and which doesn't. So the new addition inject ambiguity.

Those are the policy-based problems. But just stepping back the other editor hasn't explained why or how the original text was deficient. It said there was a consensus that its warming and its us and it provided a wikilink to follow to get more details. So it was fine the way it was. I'm going to remove it (a second time). Before putting it back in please try engaging with me here in some discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• They are not policy based problems. They are problems relating to accuracy. Mirriam-Webster says the word extraneous means 'irrelevant' or 'not forming an essential part'. Scientists have been telling us for years that climate change is induced by humans. To say there is a consensus among scientists does not convey the depth and breadth of that consensus. Perhaps describing the consensus as 'almost unanimous' would be more accurate.

• If you want to add the point that it is 97% actively published climate scientists who agree - no problem. That's also more accurate.

• But you are splitting hairs in regard to the sentence making two points with only one reference. The one source makes the two points 1) that global warming is happening 2) that is caused by humans. The source supports both points so there is no ambiguity. Notagainst (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Also the fact that climate change is caused by humans is one of the key points of the article - it is mentioned in the very first sentence. The Cambridge dictionary defines "consensus" as "a generally accepted opinion or decision". Generally accepted by whom? That's kind of vague. Lets be more accurate - which means it is important to clarify how widespread the scientific consensus is on this point. Notagainst (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, but when you pound the table with your views and edit again anyway you're not really discussing. Please read WP:GAMING. We'd get along a lot better if you'd float suggested changes here and then wait for discussion. This is a collaborative social project and the ARBS have explicitly prohibited the battleground approach to editing. Ordinarily we don't comment on behavior but try to WP:FOC but since you're new I'm trying really hard to help you not violate WP:3RR. I often come across as a jerk. I've been here a long time. I'm trying to help you be effective. Please apply WP:Assume good faith and re-read this paragraph.

The notion that accuracy issues aren't policy issues is.... I guess a polite word is "wrong". All content must pass WP:Verification (see also the very very important essay that emphasizes we need verifiability, not truth. The most recent change isn't any better than "broad (97%)" but... I don't want to edit war myself.

I'm going to ask for others to peek in and see what they think. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that editing on WP requires verifiability. The link I provided which says that 97% of published climate scientists agree IS verification. That means the term "broad" consensus is applicable as is "almost unanimous" consensus. You say the recent change (to 'almost unanimous') isn't better but you don't say why. Clearly it has nothing to do with verifiability. Notagainst (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy. Cuntfinger (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here tbf. I think, referring back to Cook's article, that explicit mention is consensus or cause is usually not really done when there is clear consensus. (Hence him finding a consensus of only 97%, leaving out all articles with implicit agreement). I therefore think the entire sentence should be removed from the lede. This is not an article about the consensus, nor the top article, nor about attribution. For those three articles explicit mention of level of consensus is appropriate. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

For some background, focus on the article's scope of describing the physical and social impacts of AGW. Before 2012 the article lead first sentence warmed up to that topic, using WP:WIKIVOICE to say The effects of global warming are the ecological and social changes caused by the rise in global temperatures. It was assumed the reader knew what rise in global temperatures was being discussed. Then in 2012 the word "consensus" was added in 2012 by a regrettably-retired outstanding climate editor named Enescot, in this edit. That added a sentence saying there is a consensus that its warming and its us. That was during the time of AR3. Enescots original was based on the 2009 joint statement cited above. The text and the ref remained unchanged until NotAgainst's good faith bold edit. I reverted for discussion, and I'm glad to see some discussion happening.

Possible RSs have marched ahead since then. After the text was added, AR4 came out with the infamous SPM saying it's "unequivocal" that we're warming and most of its probably us (paraphrased). That expression made it into the lead (mea culpa) at global warming and was oft-debated (see that page's talk archives). Then along came the Cook study, that we parsed endlessly at Scientific opinion on climate change. But still the text here was unchanged.

That was background... as for what I think.... can we remove the sentence as Femke suggests? We could change it, but I think removing it would be unwise. An article about the effects of X implies X is happening. In such cases better to be explicit by just saying "X is happening" as concise as possible. In my view, the seven-years stable text does that job just fine. (The part about it being us is admittedly extraneous, but the RSs on this subject all seem to say in one breath it's warming and it's us, so I don't see the harm in keeping the "it's us" part, but I could live without it. But the part about "it's warming" I think we should definitely keep (and maybe change), to introduce the main topic about the effects of that warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say we should just delete that sentence entirely. In this article, in the lede, it feels like an defensive justification. This article is discussing the facts of the effects of the present warming. I just tried taking it out, and the paragraph reads better, I think. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for joining us! So the question now might be should we say anything about "it's warming" before launching into the effects. There's a principle expressed at [{WP:SELFREF]] that applies, even if that guideline doesn't - articles should make sense when read off-wiki, so we shouldn't expect people to necessarily have read our article global warming before getting here. The other thing is that this article blurs the line between "article" and "list". In one sense this is a list of effects. So it isn't controlling by any means but the list guidelines say we should put list criteria in the lead. So for those reasons, I think we need at least a simple statement that the climate system is warming, with a cited RS, before launching into the effects of the warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)