Talk:Effects of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Effects of global warming:

Benefits section missing[edit]

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 [1]

"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[edit]

Housekeeping note, This thread is about Effects of global warming#BenefitsNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@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 [2] 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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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