Talk:Catastrophic climate change

Well... here we go again. Is this science? Is this media hype? Is it RAC come again? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * William, are you seriously trying to suggest that your recent edits have made this article acceptable content for WP?Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, here we go indeed. AJL says I've made it clear that the term is rarely used in CLIMATE science, but is it demonstrably widely used in SCIENCE


 * Ocean anoxic event http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/6/1093 - doesn't appear to mention CCC
 * Failure of the thermohaline circulation http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Shutdown-of-thermohaline-circulation - obviously not a journal; in fact, its a rip-off of the wiki article Shutdown of thermohaline circulation which was the one you meant to link to
 * Runaway climate change http://www.russfound.org/Launch/krause.htm - BR was a great chap. But that article isn't
 * A Clathrate gun event - an uncontrolled release of methane http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0906-gas_hydrates.html - not a journal. It *refers* to a journal article, but thats not the same thing. Incidentally, it says "Research already exists to suggest that the release of hydrates increased global temperature 18,000 years ago" which is interesting
 * Dramatic sea level rise http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/02/139334.php - "A report by Friends of the Earth Australia warns that catastrophic climate change may be inevitable unless dramatic steps are taken to reduce emissions" - seems to demonstrate what I said: media/env groups.

I got bored at that point. If you've found a ref that shows the term used in science, I've missed it. Which one did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you had actually read the article before criticising it, you'd see the term was used in 'Science' and the BMJ. All the refs I used on the effects were accessible, secondary sources - as was my style at the time (now changed due to voluminous personal abuse).  The references you mentioned described the effects, rather than use of the term.  The uses comes later in the article - in the aptly-named 'uses' section (as you would have noticed if you had read it).   I can link to journal articles in the earlier section if you feel that's the best way to communicate with the likely audience for this article.  Personally, I don't see much point as each effect links to a WP article that's properly referenced, should people wish to research in detail.  I've cleaned up your lead a bit, so it's not as inaccurate as it was.  I tried to stick to your theme of being utterly dismissive of  'catastrophic climate change' as a topic, whilst making sure that the lead was no longer completely misleading.  I hope you agree that, apart from the correct grammar, factual accuracy and readability, it's very like your version.  Thanks for your contribution - it encouraged me to make a more robust article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started adding journal articles for the 0.0001% of readers who a) can't use internal links and b)only believe stuff they read in peer reviewed journals. I'll finish it later.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, although a better one for anoxia could be foundAndrewjlockley (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still not getting it. You said I've made it clear that the term is rarely used in CLIMATE science, but is it demonstrably widely used in SCIENCE and I couldn't find it, and said If you've found a ref that shows the term used in science, I've missed it. Which one did you mean?. Cold you place, here, a link to the one you mean, please? If there are many, just link to the first William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This link is to a magazine called 'Science'. It's about science.  You may have heard of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_climate_change#cite_note-18  In future, I'd be really grateful if you could actually read my work before abusing me and my edits.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's a ref to Nature, not Science . Probably you've shuffled the refs around. How about just putting th URL in here to avoid ambiguity. Note, BTW, that one ref won't demonstrate wide use; but it will at least be something William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just read the article mate. I'm busy enough implementing your constant demands without adding to my workload y describing them to you.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is rubbish. I ask for a ref, you tell me you've provided one to Science, and lo! It's to Nature. Naturally, I complain. Your correct response is to apologise, and provide the ref you intended to (or, perhaps, that was the one you meant, and you confused Nature and Science. If so, say so). I don't see the Nature ref supporting what you want, though William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Archer
Archer says We will refer to a fast release as a “catastrophic” methane release, release, as opposed to a long-term ongoing or “chronic” release. Thus, Archer is *not* using catastrophic to describe the climate impact, but as a technical term to describe the rate or release of methane. Archer does refer to the climate impact, thus: The potential climate impact in the coming century from hydrate methane release is speculative but could be comparable to climate feedbacks from the terrestrial biosphere and from peat, significant but not catastrophic. (my emphasis). There is a later section called Capacity for doomsday which describes worse, but says Fortunately, most of the hydrate reservoir seems insolated from the climate of the Earth’s surface, so that any melting response will take place on time scales of millennia or longer... No mechanism has been proposed whereby a significant fraction of the Siberian permafrost hydrates could release their methane catastrophically. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting point WMC, but I think in the ABSTRACT he's using it casually. I'm going to remove your 'latter' point, as I don't think your evidence justifies your conclusion.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the abstract quote 'The potential climate impact in the coming century from

hydrate methane release is speculative but could be comparable to climate feedbacks from the terrestrial biosphere and from peat, significant but not catastrophic.'Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Defn
Catastrophic climate change is used to describe the threshold at which catastrophic effects occur as a result of climate change; according to the respected climate scientist Schneider - this is no good. This is wikipedia, not Schneider's pet encyclopedia. Unless we really are asserting that he owns and manages the defn? Possible, but unlikely William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's A definition, not THE definition. You could lead with the guardian one, but I think it's less credible.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)