Talk:Long-term effects of climate change

Why is this being recreated? ...

• .... despite AJL not having addressed several of the issues in his user-space article? (see here: User talk:Andrewjlockley_/Long_term_effects_of_global_warming)
• .... has it not been moved? despite there being rather a lot of talk page commentary that is still relevant?

The article is still a cherry-pick of papers suggesting catastrophy, with no attempt at determining what the consensus amongst scientists on the issues are. Its another AJL abrupt climate change article. I suggest that it be moved again). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I couldn't stop myself from rewriting the bit from the "tipping points" article that included West Antarctica. AJL had put this down as "However, more recent research shows that a collapse ..." in fact the article is not a research article at all and had been extremely selectively quoted. If this is the state of an article after months of work then I despair. It does look like a bit of a dumping ground for AJLs favourite bits of science. Anyway I'm off on holiday so I look forward to seeing the state of this when I get back. Polargeo (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All the original tags were dealt with - usually by deleting major chunks. Please make clear what the supposed new problems are, instead of just using banners to shout 'rubbish' at me.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but you didn't address the tags. You can look back at the talk to find all issues addressed. (not only that but i have been so friendly and added a comment on each tag). Now, please do not attempt to just "paste over" with some slight change that you think addresses things - they haven't in the past. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the article could be longer, but I don't see why the fact that I haven't got round to including IPCC etc. makes it POV. If you think it needs expanding, please do so - but please don't berate me for not including your favourite sources. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes it POV is that you've cherry-picked single sources/papers, without a single glace at what the general scientific opinion is on the subject. That you've ignored the IPCC is a symptom of this - you've also ignored the CCSP and every other similar assessment. Thus POV by ignoring due weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on tags ....

Can be found here: User talk:Andrewjlockley_/Long_term_effects_of_global_warming --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Geological cycles

Just stumbled in here, looks like it's controversial. Still, this article might be a good place to discuss how very long-term geological cycles will eventually bring CO2 into balance.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian, take a shot at it, it can only improve things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just added it along with deep ocean absorption. Could use some beefing up, though.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ocean anoxia

Kim, pls expand your points.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats to expand? You have one - i repeat - one reference for this. That is extreme undue weight.

My specifics - as noted where: "Why is this here? When is this going to be felt? What is the likelihood? Is there other research that states the same? Or is it undue weight to a single paper? Do other models corraborate this?"

As a final comment "predicted" is an incorrect word, and that you still haven't figured this out is very problematic (since its been pointed out repeatedly). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What refs should be in - in your view? Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea - but if this is the only reference ... then it should be cut. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Why do you need more than one reference, if it's representative of current science? Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it representative of current science? And how do you know? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's current, and it's science. Have you got anything to suggest it's wrong? I haven't, and I don't see why I can't include it in the absence of any evidence that it's not representative. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Shutdown of thermohaline circulation

Kim, pls expand your points.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the comment i attached: "if this is speculation/suggestion, then what is it doing here? What is the likelihood of the scenarios given? What does the IPCC or the CCSP say? What is the consequences? Whats the timescale? Is there research to indicate that this will not happen? ...." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, if you want to include the IPCC's out-of-date science, please feel free to do so. I do not wish to. Please feel free to expand the section if you wish. Is there anything actually incorrect about what I've written, including its style/POV? Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but i'm not the one who wants this. Its the policy of Wikipedia - perhaps its time to learn abit about the difference between an encyclopedia and other writings? Encyclopedia's aren't about the latest research - but about the solid agreed research. WP is not news (nor cutting-edge uptodate), nor will it ever be.

The trouble with your dismissal of the IPCC, is that it reveals POV. We as WP editors cannot and must not take such value-judgements as "out-of-date science" (especially not on a report that is only 2-3 years behind cutting-edge). The CCSP is even newer.

If you cannot describe what the scientific consensus/opinion on this particular issue - how will you ever be able to judge the relative merit of a paper? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Clathrate decomposition

Kim, pls expand your points.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the comment i attached: "Combination of sources that are in themselves incompatible and contradictive (what is the consensus on how much clathrate there is? is it 3000 (from one source) or 11,000 (from another source) - the range is simply a synthesis by the author. The Buffett source is about a 3°C ocean floor warming... something not in *any* scenario. The Archer source is again a synthesis attached)." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How do u suggest to write so as not a 'syn'?Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider this section as something to cut. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Several papers, both theoretical and practical, have detailed this effect. Can you explain why you deem the entire lot unworthy of inclusion? Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Have they? Well - then you should try to describe these. Without the SYN. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis is A and B therefore C. There's none of that here. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

THC

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf page 775 looks like what we want.

Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and other ocean circulation changes: The best-documented type of abrupt climate change in the palaeoclimatic archives is that associated with changes in the ocean circulation (Stocker, 2000). Since the TAR, many new results from climate models of diff erent complexity have provided a more detailed view on the anticipated changes in the Atlantic MOC in response to global warming. Most models agree that the MOC weakens over the next 100 years and that this reduction ranges from indistinguishable from natural variability to over 50% by 2100 (Figure 10.15). None of the AOGCM simulations shows an abrupt change when forced with the SRES emissions scenarios until 2100, but some long-term model simulations suggest that a complete cessation can result for large forcings (Stouff er and Manabe, 2003). Models of intermediate complexity indicate that thresholds in the MOC may be present but that they depend on the amount and rate of warming for a given model (Stocker and Schmittner, 1997). The few long-term simulations from AOGCMs indicate that even complete shutdowns of the MOC may be reversible (Stouff er and Manabe, 2003; Yoshida et al., 2005; Stouff er et al., 2006b). However, until millennial simulations with AOGCMs are available, the important question of potential irreversibility of an MOC shutdown remains unanswered. Both simplifi ed models and AOGCMs agree, however, that a potentially complete shut-down of the MOC, induced by global warming, would take many decades to more than a century. There is no direct model evidence that the MOC could collapse within a few decades in response to global warming.

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Long-term return to equilibrium

Isn't it that over time oceans will evaporate so there will be no weathering and all carbon in the ocean will be released? Also the warmer climate the more water vapor in the atmosphere which increases greenhouse effect.--MathFacts (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WAIS

[1] etc. Can't say I like Lenton being the source for so much of this para William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How is "Long-term" defined here ... an example single human life-span? Do we want to simplified the title to 100 years and over Effects of global warming, starting when?

The current wp title is problematic:

• How is "Long-term" defined here ... an example single human life-span?
• Do we want to simplified this title to 100 years and over Effects of global warming, and if so counting the one hundred years starting from when, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

99.56.122.207 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To help decrease the confusion described above, I suggest adding the wikilink Effects of global warming to this article. Any reason clarification isn't needed? 99.112.214.29 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be best merged into effects of global warming, as there is no definition of "long-term" proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a proposed One Hundred Years in the title of this discussion, isn't there? 99.181.128.145 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable proposal. Still no reason to link effects of global warming where you've been doing it, as an easter egg, but it seems a reasonable proposal for the article. I don't think there's been enough discussion to implement it, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Change article title to Effects of global warming after 2100, currently less then 89 years from now.

Change article title to Effects of global warming after 2100. 99.119.129.142 (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How does one potentially change a wp article title? 99.119.128.35 (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)