Jump to content

Talk:Effects of climate change/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Extreme weather section

"There have been other changes in climate extremes, e.g., floods and tropical cyclones, but these changes are more difficult to identify."

What is that supposed to mean? Haven't increased flooding and stronger storms of all sorts been both observed and attributed in aggregate to global warming? Can someone who knows for sure please clarify that? It just seems terribly ambiguous for what most people would probably think of as a main effect. The intro mentions an "increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events." The cited source is a google doc which doesn't open for me, but I think is probably supposed to be http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf which says, e.g., "There is medium confidence (based on physical reasoning) that projected increases in heavy rainfall would contribute to increases in local flooding in some catchments or regions." And, "Increases in exposure will result in higher direct economic losses from tropical cyclones. Losses will also depend on future changes in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity (high confidence)." I'm not sure that means anything like "difficult to identify." Perhaps the author of that phrase meant difficult to attribute?

Stephenbrush (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The cited section of the SREX SPM is titled "Climate Extremes and Impacts", pp.6-7. I've quoted the relevant text below:
"[...] There is medium confidence in a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. In many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves3 has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]
There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]
There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]
There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. [3.5.2]"
There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.4, 3.5.3, Table 3-1]"
Your question was - "Haven't increased flooding and stronger storms of all sorts been both observed and attributed in aggregate to global warming?" From my reading of the SPM, human influences appear to have contributed to some, but not all, of the observed changes in extreme events.
The "more difficult to identify" bit refers to the SPM's conclusions about tropical cyclones (low confidence) and flooding (limited to medium evidence). Several of the SPM's conclusions on observed changes in extreme events are medium to low confidence.
The introduction states:
"Projections of future climate change suggest further global warming, sea level rise, and an increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events."
Projected changes in extreme events are referred to, not observed changes.
Enescot (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Economics of climate change

I've quickly looked through this article added to the "further reading" section by Srich32977 [1]:

Moore, Thomas Gale (2008). "Global Warming: A Balance Sheet". In David R. Henderson (ed.) (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Library of Economics and Liberty. ISBN 978-0865976658. OCLC 237794267. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

I am not satisfied that the above source (Moore, 2008) offers a balanced overview of the economics of global warming. It might be an appropriate addition to the further reading section of economics of global warming. There, at least, alternative assessments are referred to, e.g., the report by UN DESA.

There are numerous criticisms that can be made of economic assessments of climate change, e.g., see Economics of global warming, [2] [3], and [4]. Unfortunately, Moore (2008) does not properly explain these issues. Nor does it explain alternative methods of climate impact assessment, e.g., a risk-based approach based on a disaggregated analysis of climate change impacts [5].

Enescot (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There is/has been discussion at Talk:Global Warming about the Moore piece, to which I have contributed. Since the first reverts were based on WP:RS, I pointed out that Moore is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and former Council of Economic Advisors member. The discussions then said "think tank", "right-wing", "Cato Institution", "Koch Brothers" related references are not acceptable, although no WP policy or guidance supports these views.
In fact, Liberty Fund is an educational foundation and the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics has all sorts of quality authors (4 Nobel Prize winners) and includes writers from left, right, and center political persuasions. With regard to this article, Moore was not added to support any text or as a reference. He was added simply as a Further reading item. In keeping with WP:BALANCE, no attempt was made to advance his views one way or the other. But I can see how the addition of Moore to the further reading section stuck out like a sore thumb.
The most pertinent observation about Global warming was made by User:Stephan Schulz who said the article was focused on the scientific aspects of global warming. I am quite happy with that observation. (And I have conceded that point.)
For this article, we do have sub-sections about different social and economic effects. Alas, this section is a compilation of here and there impacts without adequate summary. And the article itself is getting long. But I don't think I have the energy to clean it up. Still, more info about the economic aspects is needed. The economic aspects article is probably the best place for such focus. With this in mind, I'll add Moore there – with hopes that WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't motivate editors to remove it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree that the source is a good reference. It excludes a large amount of information on the economics of global warming – see the IPCC Second Assessment Working Group III report. It is not balanced, either.
Why, in my opinion, it's not a good source:
The following issues have all been discussed in the peer-reviewed literature. They are extensively discussed in the IPCC Second Assessment Working Group III report.
- It is heavily biased towards market-sector impacts rather than so-called "non-market" impacts of climate change, e.g., impacts on ecosystems [6].
- It ignores different ethical perspectives on evaluating climate change impacts [7]. For example, the view that you should not impose damages on the environment or on other human communities.
- It ignores the main international treaty on climate change, the UNFCCC. This treaty sets out the legal and ethical framework for climate change policy.
- It ignores the evaluation of decision-making frameworks for addressing climate change, e.g., decision analysis, sequential decision-making, risk management.
- The discussion of agricultural impacts is biased and not up-to-date [8]
- The discussion of the Kyoto Protocol is very biased. It completely ignores alternative views of the treaty based on equity considerations, e.g., [9].
- It ignores the deficiencies of GDP as an indicator of human welfare and environmental impacts. Even the economics profession is aware of this as an issue.
In my opinion, there are far better sources that discuss the impacts of climate change. Some of these sources are already cited in the article. Examples include Schneider et al (2007), Yohe et al (2007), Smith et al (2001), Warren et al (2006) and Watkiss et al (2005).
I don't particularly like the OECD or the IMF, but they have, in my opinion, provided far better economic assessments of climate change impacts than Moore does – see [10] [11].
Even you like "hard-nosed" economic assessments of climate change, there are better sources available than Moore, for example Pearce (2002) and Chapter 3 of this report by Resources for the Future [12].
Enescot (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Moore article is a small tertiary article and does not pretend to cover the entire subject or be up to date. By comparison, this article is about the effects of global warming and devotes little attention to the costs of mitigating the problem. Considering the focus of this article, I'm not going to push for Moore. Thanks for your observations. They have been quite helpful for me. – S. Rich (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Phenology

What does the sentence I've bolded below mean?

Phenology is the study of natural phenomena that recur periodically, and how these phenomena relate to climate and seasonal changes.[101] A significant advance in phenology has been observed for agriculture and forestry in large parts of the Northern Hemisphere.[34]

Does it mean that advances in phenology have occurred? If so, why the "observed". Does it mean that the seasons have changed? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying phenology has been "advancing" is like saying ornithology is "migrating" south for the winter or that meteorology will be partly cloudy. It would make more sense to talk about "records of phenological observations". After all, such records tell us the first date of other things (falling leaves, arrival of regional rains) has been getting later. Across much the midwest US, spring waves of mixed-species warblers are moving through earlier and earlier. Reaching the Great lakes, they get funneled along the riparian zones to their preferred (narrow) crossing-points, and they've traditionally been dependent on hatching insects at the edge of the water. Only now they're coming thru before the hatch and having a hard time of it. Last year, much of our apple crop blossomed in a very early warm spell, after which the blossoms were toasted by a hard freeze and apple prices spiked by summer. It isn't the study of this timing that is advancing, and not all things are advancing. Some are being delayed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Drought or doubt?

In this edit, we have overturned the previous statement that drought was a global warming issue, to say that science has little idea whether it is or not. This is on the basis of one research letter in Nature. Is that letter by Sheffield, Wood and Roderick generally accepted by climate science to be such a game changer? If not, I believe that the edit needs reverting until more secondary sources are available. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

New report on national security threat of global warming

The New York Times reported May 13, 2014 on a new report from the Center for Naval Analyses, Military Advisory Board on the threat to national security due to global warming. Perhaps this should be included in this article. The NYT story includes a quote from John Conger, the Pentagon's deputy under secretary of defense for installations and environment, "The department certainly agrees that climate change is having an impact on national security, whether by increasing global instability, by opening the Arctic or by increasing sea level and storm surge near our coastal installations." It also includes some lay analysis of the report, "found that climate change-induced drought in the Middle East and Africa is leading to conflicts over food and water and escalating longstanding regional and ethnic tensions into violent clashes." Of note is the use of the word is not may or will.

MrBill3 (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice contribution, MrBill the 3rd. 99.181.128.163 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

the citation with nubmer 1 links to nonexistent page. The link should be replaced with this one: http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content_files/1021climate_letter.pdf Schokomann (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks;  Done NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change impacts

In my view, this article should briefly discuss the range of scientific opinion on the impacts of climate change. Previously I suggested that this be added to scientific opinion on climate change, but I was unable to reach a consensus on that article's talk page.

In this article, my proposed addition would describe the main sources of information on climate change impacts (e.g., reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and statements by scientific bodies), as well as a general discussion of areas where there is a broad consensus and robust evidence, and other areas where there is less evidence and a lack of consensus (e.g., see [13]). Specific uncertainties can be covered in sub-articles.

Enescot (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Either please provide a link to the earlier thread, or alternatively please elaborate how your proposal differs from what we have. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
My addition would be similar to Attribution of recent climate change#Scientific literature and opinion, where opinions are explicitly attributed to a particular source. I've already provided some examples of sources:
- The IPCC
- Other authoritative assessments [14] [15]
- Science academy statements, e.g., [16] [17]
- Regional [18] and national assessments [19].
Enescot (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed this, but apologies for not responding sooner. Article addition looks good to me, thanks for doing that. From the science side of the literature, can you think of any heavy hitters talking about cost & risk of acting today, versus cost & risk of delaying and acting tomorrow? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. As I'm sure you know, the recent IPCC Working Group II report [20] offers an assessment of policy responses to reduce climate change damages (Chapter 19, p46 onwards). The earlier IPCC assessments also provide summaries (AR4 WG3 Sections 3.5-3.6 [21]; TAR WG3 Section 10.4 [22]). PBL (2009) [23] is another useful summary. Enescot (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of the cost of delaying mitigation. Something analogous the IEA report discussed in this Reuter's story "Cost of extra year's climate inaction $500 billion: IEA" Assuming we want to hold the line at any given amount of warming, one of the GW's effects is on the range of our options and speed with which they must be deployed.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
As I'm sure you know, this is discussed in the most recent IPCC Working Group 3 report. In my opinion, this issue needs to be considered in the context of other relevant articles, such as global warming, climate change mitigation, Avoiding dangerous climate change, and economics of global warming#Risk. In my opinion, the issue should only be mentioned briefly here, with reference made to other relevant articles, e.g.,:
"Many of the risks of climate change can be reduced by cutting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (see: climate change mitigation). The negative impacts of climate change may also be reduced by adaptation measures, e.g., promoting socioeconomic development (main article: adaptation to global warming."
Enescot (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Increasing food prices are one effect. Increasing cost to mitigate enough to hold the line at 2C is another. Your example sentences don't capture changes to the cost of mitigation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I've started a new thread to continue this discussion - Talk:Effects of global warming#Costs of delayed action. Enescot (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Costs of delayed action aka GW effect on a species' ability to do a thing

Continued from previous thread - Talk:Effects of global warming#Scientific opinion on climate change impacts. Enescot (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this article should provide detailed information on the benefits and costs of reducing GHG emissions. The costs and benefits of climate change mitigation are already discussed here: climate change mitigation#Costs and benefits. Enescot (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that should not happen in detail, but that's what Template:Main is for. If we Venn Diagram these articles' topics there is bit of overlap in at least one (maybe more than one) respect. Do you agree that the following is true?

One effect of global warming is (for any number of examples) that it is changing the ability of the ____________ species to do _____________________

If that statement is true, then insert "human" and "intentionally control net forcing". That's a change happening to a component of the climate system. We should report that bit of earth/biological science just like we would any other.

We start to hint in this direction a little bit at Effects_of_global_warming#Abrupt_or_irreversible_changes but unless I missed it we don't explicitly discuss our own species potential for climate management as a matter of earth/biological science. Note this is a narrowing of my earlier position, where I think I was advocating this subject using the language of monetary finances. But money really isn't the point here. Earth/Biological science is. Our species potential ability to do a thing is being changed by global warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs), but I'm not entirely clear on what you have in mind. In my view, the best division of content between this article and climate change mitigation is as follows:
Effects of global warming:
- Explains how climate change impacts vary with different magnitudes of global warming.
- Summarizes global warming projections, including both emissions reductions (mitigation) scenarios and non-mitigation scenarios. I should note that effects of global warming#Temperature changes is out-of-date. The low emissions SRES projections are generally lower than that of more recent non-mitigation scenarios.
- Refers the reader on to other articles that deal with policy responses to global warming (as I suggested previously).
Climate change mitigation:
- Explains the costs, benefits and risks of mitigation policies (monetized and non-monetized).
- Explains how there are different views over what policies are appropriate, e.g., in relation to acceptable risks from climate change impacts.
Enescot (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Revise lead

I've been thinking of revising the lead section of the article. In my opinion, several changes should be made:
1. Revise information on observed and projected impacts. I don't think that enough information is given on how impacts vary with temperature. Any changes should avoid duplicating information that is already contained in the diagram which is used in the lead.
2. Revise diagram in lead. This should be updated based on the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
3. Add information on global warming projections. Many impacts increase with higher magnitudes of global warming. The lead should briefly mention how temperatures might change in the future, according to different scenarios.

Enescot (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've prepared a draft of the lead for discussion with other editors:
Refer to caption and image description
Summary of climate change impacts (SVG version).
Refer to caption and image description
Projected global warming in 2100 for a range of emission scenarios.
The effects of global warming are the environmental and social changes caused (directly or indirectly) by human emissions of greenhouse gases. There is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, and that human activities are the primary driver. Many impacts of climate change have already been observed, including glacier retreat, changes in the timing of seasonal events (e.g., earlier flowering of plants), and changes in agricultural productivity.
Future effects of climate change will vary depending on policy measures and social development. The two main policies to address climate change are reducing human greenhouse gas emissions (climate change mitigation) and adapting to the eventual impacts of climate change. Geoengineering is another policy option.
Near-term mitigation policies could significantly affect long-term climate change impacts. Aggressive mitigation policies might be able to limit global warming (in 2100) to around 2 °C or below, relative to pre-industrial levels. Without mitigation, increased energy demand and extensive use of fossil fuels might lead to global warming of around 4 °C. Higher magnitudes of global warming would be more difficult to adapt to, and would increase the risk of severe impacts.
References
Working Group II and III's contributions (WG2 and WG3) to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5th Assessment Report. WG2: [24] (archive url): Summary for Policymakers; Technical Summary; Chapter 19. WG3: Summary for Policymakers.
Enescot (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Radiative forcing

Hey Enescot (talk · contribs), a few years back you added a subsection on [radiative forcing. I deleted it today. As you know, tere are two aspects to RF, (A) the intitial forcing, and (B) additional forcings resulting from feedback mechanisms. The stuff I deleted seemed to be about the initial forcing. That really isn't the topic for this article, is it? I've got an open mind on that but right now the article seems to need pruning and in any case the "physical impacts" is not the place to talk about the initial cause. This said, I also think we should have a "CLIMATE FEEDBACK" section unto itself. We do mention feedbacks under biogeochemical cycles, but to my surprise the word "albedo" (a big forcing mechanism) does not appear anywhere.

I have not attempted to draft anything pending your thoughts, and ideas from anyone else too, of course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs). In regards to a new section on climate feedbacks, I am concerned about replicating what is already in global warming#Feedback. There is also the climate change feedback article.
Looking at the AR5 WG2 SPM, there doesn't appear to be a dedicated section on feedbacks. I think the best of way of dealing with feedbacks is to consider them as fitting in with the IPCC's "large-scale singular events" Reasons for Concern. This is covered in effects of global warming#Abrupt or irreversible changes, which needs to be updated.
Enescot (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's how I see the tree
TOP Global warming (main article)
First level sub article Effects of global warming
Second level sub article Climate change feedback
IMO, we need a climate system feedback summary at the first two, because they are indeed a major sub-part of the physical science and the warming of any moment has numberous effects, including feedbacks. We could certainly use the same summary text at both articles. I see Reasons for concern as a sub article on a different branch under Global warming (where we get into policy making). From editing point of view and structuring our articles its another issue, and an important one, with obvious cross-over.
Thoughts?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Generally I would like to avoid overlap across different articles. In my view, any discussion of feedbacks needs to be clearly linked to impacts, e.g., [25].
Earlier you mentioned the albedo feedback as a significant issue, but in my view this can be discussed in a sub-article. A major issue is how feedbacks affect projections of global warming. The article does mention uncertainty in these projections. Admittedly "fat-tails" are not mentioned, and they probably should be.
Enescot (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for linking "Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises ( 2013 )" I had not run across that before. I might not be expressing myself well, since a cold reading of the words suggests we agree, yet as I interpret the presentation it sounds like you think we disagree about something. Please clarify or elaborate? Do you think we're pointing the same direction, viz-a-viz, a general article tree/outline ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It would probably be easiest for me to clarify how I think feedbacks should be discussed in this article:
(1) Effects of global warming#Temperature changes: Feedbacks are relevant here, and this section should provide a better summary of uncertainties and risks in projections, e.g., fat tails (p.8 of supplementary data). The section could refer to global warming for a more detailed explanation.
(2) Effects of global warming#Abrupt or irreversible changes: This section should provide an updated summary of potential large-scale abrupt changes, e.g., see [26] and AR5 (Section 5.3.1).
If you agree, perhaps we can discuss possible drafts of these sections?
Enescot (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sudden?

In reply to this edit

The text is drawn from IPCC's report on Regional Impact of Climate in section 10.2.5.1

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to add it, although I'm not going to add nonsense, just because it is written somewhere.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: what do you consider nonsensical about the claim? EllenCT (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
It is entirely plausible that millions will be displaced by sea level change, but those effects will occur over decades or centuries. The use of the word "sudden" is nonsense in this context. I do realize that when discussing geologic issues, scientist can use the word "sudden" for event spanning centuries or longer, and perhaps that usage spurred this word choice, but makes no sense to use the term in the context of climate change driven water events.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I think sudden is implausible, even though it is "well" sourced. But SRES was 1997, nearly 20 years ago (my how time flies). So I removed sudden. Incidentally, The text is drawn from would be more accurate as "the text is copied from"; its probably a copyvio, if the text is copyright William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Coastal flood suggests that most sea level encroachment events take place during storms with days to hours of warning. Is that not correct, supported, or within the meaning of sudden? EllenCT (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely. The flood itself due to a storm is a 'sudden' event. The increase in potential and actual flooding events due to rise in sea levels is not. If the sea level rises, low lying coastal areas will flood more in high water events. Akin to knowing a volcano is going to erupt in the next 100 years, but not when. Not a sudden event for the scientists, but more sudden for the people running from the lava. The article is talking about long term patterns, not short-term disaster evasion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Which meaning is appropriate for the reader? EllenCT (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
If the text appears here at all, the only acceptable meaning is the one used in the supporting RS, which is dated. I don't have time, but the article seems ripe for someone to print and highlight all the references which predate IPCC AR4 (2007) and consider updating the refs if not the text. As AR5 WG2 (chap 12) took note, a great deal of research has been done on climate change and migration since publication of the ref in question here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
An individual storm may not have much warning, and thus could be considered sudden. However, the term wasn't used to modify weather events, it was used to modify migration, in a discussion abut the possible need for millions to move. No one reasonably thinks millions of people will have to move as a result of a single, sudden storm.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
-- http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:3172/What_IPCC_WG2_AR5_WP21.pdf
Is that a reliable 2015 source for the claim? EllenCT (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Its still talking about localised events rather than wide-area effects. Example: Coastal erosion is a fairly predictable event - it can be measured how much erodes over time and you can predict reasonably well how much would expect to be eroded in the next 50 years along the coastline (leaving aside drift/deposit for the moment) and when people who live on the coast will have to move inland. A particularly bad coastal storm in one area may cause the erosion to happen in that local area a lot faster, someone in a house that would have to be moved in 50 years might find they have to move next week, but its not a migration of people, its a local event. 'Sudden' just isnt a word used in the context the article is talking about. Short of the sea rising so fast due to climate change Venice becomes the new Atlantis. Even then you would have some warning. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

We have an Abrupt climate change article, and the National Academies Press has a book on the subject, which says in part,

I'm disappointed that this is considered nonsense. EllenCT (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Suddenly triggered doesn't necessarily imply sudden impact. In case of West Antarctic Ice Sheet being destabilised the effects would take hundreds of years. Wars can cause sudden population migrations and there are some suggestions(?) that food prices rising tends to cause populations to be more likely to rise up and maybe that starts a civil war. It is getting to be a bit of a long series of events - climate change causing food price rises, causing population uprising, causing civil war, causing sudden population migration. So would need to be very clear that there are lots of other relevant factors besides climate change and have excellent references to justify each step. Or needs some different route to sudden population migration. crandles (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Which do you think explains the situation better for an ordinary encyclopedia reader, [27] or [28]? EllenCT (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Two other issues (A) "sudden" is ambiguous without a reference as to the timeframe. (B) something we have not discussed in the original edit is the other redflag word "gravest". Sudden mass migration is not a silly topic and the potential is certainly a grave one. But we need to write articles based on RSs that report current understanding and this text is from an old sourcee. I'm thinking the place to look on this topic might be military planning documents. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
How long had Syria been drought-ridden before the population fled to cities? EllenCT (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Loss events graph

Does anyone know how to get the data on [29] for fatalities instead of number of events? (The difference is shown in the first column at [30].) EllenCT (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

google the source listed at the bottom of the figure, and you end up here I think. I made no effort to dig deeper. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
If you go one more step to this page you will see links to several reports, one of which (deadliest) has fatalities). I don't think it is the level of detail you want, though.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, I downloaded some of these reports a few weeks ago, and one of the challenges is that I couldn't even find a good definition of "event". One general area of concern is that the insurance industry often reports catastrophes, which are well-defined, but the lower bound changes in jumps over time, which means one must be very careful about drawing conclusions from multi-year analyses.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Are the tables on page 17 of [31] (from [32]) considered reliable for this article? If not, where are the IPCC or similarly approved source(s) for that data? How about these specific statements: "Climate change caused economic losses estimated close to 1% of global GDP for the year 2010, or 700 billion dollars.... global GDP in 2030 is estimated to be well over 3% lower than it would have been in the absence of climate change and harmful carbon-intensive energy practices. Continuing today’s patterns of carbon-intensive energy use is estimated, together with climate change, to cause 6 million deaths per year by 2030, close to 700,000 of which would be due to climate change." EllenCT (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Old Graphic

For sea level rise, there's a graphic in the article from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png This is relying on outdated 2009 CSIRO data, a more current graphic (using 2015 CSIRO data) is found in the "Sea Level Rise" article, and is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png I think that the one in this article should be replaced by the newer one to avoid confusion, since there is an unexplained anomaly in the older version (1930s rapid rise) that isn't present in the revised data. I'm not good with Wiki edits, so I didn't want to trample anyone's hard work by changing it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.204 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Bigger marmots

The page seems protected, but anyways, since "Bigger marmots" is listed as a benefit, can someone please also add that it applies to other types of squirrels?

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/squirrels-are-getting-tubby-warm-winter-weather/

Here's the source. Probably a better source would work, but whatever. --99.231.17.237 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@C-randles: Also, it is surprising that this is included in the list of benefits of global warming that you added to the article. Why would these effects of global warming be considered beneficial instead of detrimental? Jarble (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The reference, Ozgul 2010, says it "led to a decline in adult mortality" so bigger here means more able to survive (ie benefit of fat reserves for survival outweigh any negative obesity effects that are occurring). [33] was used as a referenced list of benefits and it is on the positives side there. If someone has a suitable reference for marmots being more a pest than good or that marmots are bad for biodiversity maybe that could be challenged. In the absence of that, I think it should be left in rather than culling items I don't fully understand. However with other squirrels if we are not sure if obesity is good or bad for these other squirrels or if unsure whether squirrels are seen as more of a pest than marmots, then I am reluctant to add this. Other commentators may have more info or different opinions so other views are welcome. crandles (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Effects of global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Effects of global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Effects of global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

Give mote examples of season change. 108.84.137.58 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you really expect anyone to satisfy this vague request, when you can't even bother to spell "more" correctly? -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Bad spelling is not a good reason for rejecting a request. Vagueness is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Benefits

Benefits section missing

I am missing discussion of the likely benefits of global warming. See e.g. here for a (admittedly, biased) common-sense list.Zezen (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

busted link NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You mean? The papers that they refer to may be "busted" (I read the rebuttals in depth, for 2 hours, in short the temperature window of economic benefits will be shorter than previously claimed), but the other non-economic arguments are sound: more vegetation, etc. These are not mentioned here, so Undue. Pls elaborate Zezen (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
First time I clicked on it, the page would not load and I got an error message. Isn't that what "busted link" usually means? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
So now the link works. I quit reading when it became apparent the column was plugging a book edited by Bjorn Lomborg. You'll need a better RS to inspire much serious consideration, at least on my part. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, which is probably my fault.

I do not claim the article is a RS. I have read the Bjorn Lomborg and Tals' debates in some depth. I meant that the arguments therein themselves are sound. The claims that there are benefits to some regions/actors from global warming should be taken on board and discussed (maybe refuted en masse). The whole section is missing so due weight was not given. Zezen (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Lomborg a virus? Is that what @NewsAndEventsGuy: thinks? I see an article which is primarily discussing a paper by Richard Tol. For those who haven't memorized the name, Tol was the " coordinating lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability."; the IPCC study is generally considered the gold standard in climate circles. He is writing about his acknowledged area of expertise, yet because his paper is one of several chapters in a book which is edited by Lonborg, NAEG can't even finish the article. Why? What would happen if you read the whole article?
@Zezen:, yes the subject of the benefits of global warming is a legitimate subject but unlikely to get serious coverage in Wikipedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Despite Sphilbrick's spin on my comments, I have neither supported nor opposed discussion of a "benefits" section. I've only said that this is a top-level sub article (falling one notch below the pinnacle "main article" Global warming). Things included here should be covered by multiple reputable RSs. If the only RS you have is a book edited by oft-debunked Lomborg, then it probably doesn't merit inclusion in one of our main sub articles. Up to proponents of this proposal to show that such RSs exist. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
If "Things included here should be covered by multiple reputable RSs" were the case, we could strip the article back to a couple sentences. I don't think that's your intention.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I am thinking it is appropriate to include section on benefits provided that it has appropriate recognition that the adverse effects are much wider ranging and much more severe for large amounts of GW. [www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm] has some material gathered. Tol has had to correct some of his work so even if IPCC is generally gold standard, that may no longer apply after having to correct work. crandles (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
One concern I have is structural. Is it better to have a single section on benefits (as you have just added) or should each of the sections include commentary of both negative and positive impacts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I am happy that my modest proposal of including such a benefits section is gaining traction, if only to arrive at the overall negative balance. I will leave it in your hands then, and am signing off from contributing to this topic for now. Zezen (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zezen, NewsAndEventsGuy, and Sphilbrick: A section about the benefits of global warming was added to this article by User:C-randles. It still contains some confusing statements that need to be better explained, such as there is some published material indicating that a small amount of warming would be good. [sic]. Jarble (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I'm staying away for awhile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Very well. Thank you, User:C-randles for starting this section. Zezen (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@C-randles: This section has been paraphrased again, making it even more subjective: "Not all effects of global warming will be negative: a small amount of warming would be good". Is it possible to precisely distinguish a "good" amount of climate change from a "bad" amount of climate change? Jarble (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Reverted first 2 sentences. If the warming was insufficient to destabilise ice sheets and at small levels you get CO2 fertilisation effects then at this low level of warming the fertilisation benefit is likely greater than stresses caused. Whether it is possible to "precisely distinguish" the level or quantify the effects doesn't matter; the question is whether the assertion is supported by the literature. Here is a section from Tol [34]

"The initial benefits arise partly because more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces “water stress” in plants and may make them grow faster (Long, Ainsworth, Leakey, Noesberger, and Ort, 2006). In addition, the output of the global economy is concentrated in the temperate zone, where warming reduces heating costs and cold-related health problems. Although the world population is concentrated in the tropics, where the initial effects of climate change are probably negative, the relatively smaller size of the economy in these areas means that—at least over the interval of small increases in global temperatures—gains for the high-income areas of the world exceed losses in the low-income areas. However, this pattern should be interpreted with care....." Figure had to be corrected twice and no longer shows trend lines rising from zero then at higher temperature changes declining but I think text such as above still stands. crandles (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@C-randles, Epipelagic, and Viriditas: Still, there is some apparent bias in this section: since this section specifically argues that these effects of global warming "would be good", it is advancing a non-neutral point of view. Jarble (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Why ping Viriditas and me? Viriditas hasn't contributed to the article in 10 years and is no longer here. I have never contributed to the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Epipelagic: This talk page seems to be mostly inactive nowadays, so I was hoping to find some experts on the article's subject. Jarble (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the subject. The section seems largely irrelevant and uninteresting to me. Whatever regional benefits there may be they are speculative and will be temporary. Perhaps those keen to minimize or bypass the central issue by focussing on side issues find it interesting. I guess it comes down to the quality of available sources. The section can be justified if there are sufficient reliable sources addressing the issue in a coherent way. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
"it is advancing a non-neutral POV." Is it? It is a scientific topic and so the page should describe what is in the scientific literature. I think the literature does say things like a CO2 fertilisation effect is good (see quote above I provided) with little or no disagreement and therefore it is entirely uncontroversial to put such things in the article. Whether the overall effects are good for small temperature rises is more controversial but there is mention of this in the literature so I see no reason not to include this in the article. (It is of course largely irrelevant to what is happening as unless temperature rises stop and soon we are not heading for 'small temperature rises', but appears to me to be useful to put things in context.) crandles (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Just bumping section to stop it being archived as appears discussion relevant to recent changes. crandles (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Some incomplete citations in the "Benefits of global warming" section

@C-randles: Some of the inline citations in this article include the author's last name and a year of publication, but not the author's full name or the specific title of the work that is being cited. Can you provide more specific information about the citations you added?

  • HPA 2007
  • Zhou 2001
  • Corno 2006

Jarble (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated to add more details and links. Hope that is a little better, even if more cite formatting would improve things further. crandles (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to find some individual peer reviewed papers that disagree with IPCC conclusions, for example that global warming will be good for the economy. We have to remember that this is an extraordinary claim, and so requires extraordinary evidence. An Editorial Note Correction does not really meet that requirement. Hence my recent revert. --Nigelj (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That editorial note is correcting Tol 2009 [35] which includes as quoted nearer top of this talk page "The initial benefits arise partly because more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces “water stress” in plants and may make them grow faster (Long, Ainsworth, Leakey, Noesberger, and Ort, 2006). In addition, the output of the global economy is concentrated in the temperate zone, where warming reduces heating costs and cold-related health problems. Although the world population is concentrated in the tropics, where the initial effects of climate change are probably negative, the relatively smaller size of the economy in these areas means that—at least over the interval of small increases in global temperatures—gains for the high-income areas of the world exceed losses in the low-income areas. However, this pattern should be interpreted with care. Even if, initially, economic impacts may well be positive..." This paper has been corrected twice with respect to the controversial graph it included but I believe this text has not been challenged.
I am not convinced this is an extraordinary claim in that I think 0.1C (or even 0.5C) of warming from preindustrial would be fairly widely accepted as good. Clearly we are not heading for such a limited small amount of warming having reached 0.8C above pre-industrial and looking pretty difficult to prevent 2C of warming.
I think having a section on benefits is sensible but it need to be placed in context. I think it sensible to say that:
1. With a large range of effects they are not all effect are going to be good or bad.
2. Then move on to overall effect or whether the majority are good or bad as best as we can tell, and this should if the literature says so, include possibility that small amount of warming might be good. (I would like to add we are not heading for a limited small amount of warming that might be good but such a statement would require referencing rather than just inserting this.)
Further clarification of my version to provide better context seems a more sensible route to go rather than cutting bits out. Do other commentators want to share their views? crandles (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the only section heading that uses good/bad language, and is suspect at best. Take any given effect of global warming - is it good or bad? Depends on one's point of view. Better, in my view, is to describe expected changes and leave the good/bad assessment to the reader, and in the case of good/bad statements made in RSs with great weight, maybe we include those good/bad assessments with inline attribution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy and Nigelj: This section is still likely to be somewhat misleading, but there have been no significant changes to it during the last 8 months. Can we do anything to improve it? Jarble (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a benefits section at all

I deleted the entire section (in this diff) because it is non-neutral. This article is about the effects of global warming. There can be both good and bad aspects to any given change. If any of this stuff is included, it needs to be included in sections that discuss effects. Its ok to judiciously provide inline attribution when someone of significant import characterizes one change or another as good or bad, but we shouldn't do that in Wikivoice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

About climate change and heat waves

As I understood, this is a summary page. So I propose put in the section extreme weather about heatwave this text: @Jim1138:

Global warming boosts the probability of extreme weather events, like heat waves, far more than it boosts more moderate events.[1][2][3]

In recent 3-4 decades, heat waves became more frequent and severe. testThe rise in temperature and humidity are the main causes. Extremely hot nights became twice more frequent. The area in which extremely hot summers are observed, is 50-100 times larger. The changes can not be explained by natural variability, and attributed by climate scientists to the influence of anthropogenic climate change. Heat waves with high humidity pose a big risk to human health while heat waves with low humidity lead to dry conditions what increase wildfires. The mortality from extreme heat is bigger than the mortality from hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes together[4].

And the news about heat waves and climate change put in the section Climate change and Heatwaves: Observed Impacts that I created. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave#Observed_Impacts What do you think? אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we are fucked. Oh, you wanted my opinion on your text, didn't you... How is this?
Global warming increases the probability of extreme weather events including heat waves. (Is there a need for "than it boosts more moderate events?)

In the last 30-40 years, heat waves with high humidity have became more frequent and severe. Extremely hot nights have doubled in frequency. The area in which extremely hot summers are observed, has increased 50-100 fold. These changes are not explained by natural variability, and attributed by climate scientists to the influence of anthropogenic climate change.  Heat waves with high humidity pose a big risk to human health while heat waves with low humidity lead to dry conditions what increase  wildfires. The mortality from extreme heat is larger than the mortality from hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes together

Makes sure that Global warming and extreme weather, etc., are not already linked per wp:OVERLINK. I included a link to wikt:anthropogenic.
Other possibly useful recent sources:
Thanks for your work and putting up with my slow reponses, etc. Cheers Jim1138 (talk)

References

  1. ^ "Has global warming brought an early summer to the US?". New Scientist.
  2. ^ Global Warming Makes Heat Waves More Likely, Study Finds 10 July 2012 NYT
  3. ^ Hansen, J; Sato, M; Ruedy, R (2012). "Perception of climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (37): E2415–23. doi:10.1073/pnas.1205276109. PMC 3443154. PMID 22869707.
  4. ^ "Heat Waves: The Details". Climate Communication. Retrieved 16 August 2018.

Whatever the result of this thread, please see the existing text at [[Effects_of_global_warming#Extreme weather and explain how these ideas should supplement or replace the existing text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I explain my reasons to the edit... The text before the edits talked mostly about future effects and about the present it say that "the number of hot day and nights increase". The word Heat wave even wasn't mentioned. The present sever efects on health was not mentioned. People who visited the page did not understand, I suppose, what this impacts do, to our health now. The text now is talking about the latest news. I admitt that when I put him here 2-3 days ago I made an error. As NewsAndEventsGuy say, this is a summary page. So I think that we should put the text that Jim1138 proposed in this page and the news in the article I created. I will wait several hours and if there is no more objections I do it.. I understand that it is preferred to translate my name to English in the signature, so I try to do it.

אלכסנדר סעודה Alexander Sauda —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

We already have several regional articles covering the "newsie" side to the 2018 heat wave. Most (all?) of these are listed at the navigation page 2018 heat wave. Those are where newsie stuff should go. For a discussion of the science behind climate change's connection to heat waves in general, that should go in heat wave. I don't know what "article" you may have created. When you say things like that please avoid ambiguity by providing a link. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I talk about the section "Climate change and Heatwaves" that I mentioned here before, and that you deleted from the page Heat Wave. You move it to the talk page and writed that you do not like the grammar in the first paragraph and in the second, about the news, you said that it is not sure that global warming cause it and the heat wave is not ended. But I think every reasonable persone will understand exellent what is writed in the first paragraph, if you do not sure that is global warming you can write "probably" and the fact that it is not ended still, is not an obstacle to write about it. The second and the third reasons are confirmed by the page that you have mentioned - it is writed there about the link to global warming and it existe despite the heat wave is not over. Also I think that in the page "Heatwave" there is enough place for this news at least in few lines. In the page Climate change and agriculture for example there is section "Observed Impacts", so it can be there also. Or if you want I can create specific page Climate Change and Heatwaves". What you prefer?

אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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.[1] 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

  1. ^ "Xie, Wei et al (2018). Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat, Nature Plants, doi:10.1038/s41477-018-0263-1". Retrieved on 20 October 2018.

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)

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.[1] Its most recent comprehensive impact assessment was published in 2014.[2] Publications describing the effects of climate change have also been produced by the following organizations
A report by Molina et al. (no date)[11] 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.[12]

References

  1. ^ IPCC 2010, pp. 4–7
  2. ^ IPCC press release 2014
  3. ^ Molina & others n.d.
  4. ^ PBL & others 2009
  5. ^ For example: Good & others (2010). Refer to UKMO (2013) for other AVOID publications.
  6. ^ UK Royal Society & US National Academy of Sciences 2014
  7. ^ Allison & others 2009
  8. ^ US NRC 2010
  9. ^ US NRC 2011
  10. ^ "Fourth National Climate Assessment | GlobalChange.gov". GlobalChange.gov. Retrieved 2018-11-16.
  11. ^ Molina & others n.d., p. 3
  12. ^ "NASA Releases Detailed Global Climate Change Projections". Retrieved 2015-06-09.

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.[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]

References

  1. ^ Spratt, David; Dunlop, Ian. "Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach" (PDF). Breakthrough - National Centre for Climate Restoration. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
  2. ^ PASCUS, BRIAN (June 4, 2019). "Human civilization faces "existential risk" by 2050 according to new Australian climate change report". CBC News. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
  3. ^ Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment, The Guardian, 17 May 2019
  4. ^ WHY DO WE CALL IT THE CLIMATE CRISIS? 1 May, 2019.
  5. ^ Four countries have declared climate emergencies, yet give billions to fossil fuels, Climate Home News, 24 June 2019

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_climate_change/Archive_6&oldid=976256423"