Talk:Effects of climate change/Archive 5

wikilink Environmental migrant
Wikilink Environmental migrant please. 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Ocean acidification isn't from warming, but diffusion of greenhouses gas (i.e. carbon dioxide), isn't a clarification needed?
Since Ocean acidification isn't from warming, but diffusion of greenhouses gas (i.e. carbon dioxide), isn't a clarification needed? 99.190.85.220 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Grammatical errors render this unintelligble, at least to me. Please see WP:SPEAKENGLISH and Basic_copyeditingNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS.... oh. I think you're trying to say that CO2 is what causes ocean acidification, and warming plays no role.  Is that what you were trying to say?    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Civility, Special:Contributions/NewsAndEventsGuy. 99.112.212.108 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying that your comments are unintelligble doesn't (necessarily) reflect on you, only on your knowledge of English. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Civility, Art. 99.181.142.6 (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting you. (If I were insulting you, there would be no doubt.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm the guy that said it, and it wasn't intended to reflect on anything other than my comprehension of the text in this thread.  Please don't read anything more into it because I didn't say anything more.  If you'd like to have a civil discussion about improving the article, please supplement and clarify your commment to help me understand.  Otherwise, please invite us to archive the thread. ThanksNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you have to understand the language to understand the insult ... there is doubt. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe make the connection (simplification) with Planetary boundaries? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What does "[14]:24" mean in this quotation?
Also more resources seen in Talk:Hurricane_Irene_(2011). 99.190.85.220 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is answered [here]NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Template:SG/RP? 99.112.212.108 (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is Template:Rp too ... 99.190.84.66 (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Coffee resource regarding Planetary boundaries and Holocene extinction
Climate change pushing coffee to extinction? October 17, 2011 9:23 AM CBS News 99.56.122.147 (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Climate change and agriculture and Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Chocolate resource
99.56.122.147 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Climate Change Could Melt Chocolate Production; A new study shows that cocoa will suffer under climate change by Tiffany Stecker and ClimateWire Scientific American October 3, 2011
 * Climate change: Will chocolate become a costly luxury? If temperatures continue to rise, a new report suggests, West Africa, source of half the world's chocolate, will be unfit to grow the coveted beans posted on The Week September 30, 2011

resource

 * Climate Change Is Shrinking Species, Research Suggests October 16, 2011, 2:02 pm by Rachel Nuwer in The New York Times. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this be appropriate for Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity &/or Climate change and agriculture? 99.109.126.95 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe Effects of climate change on terrestrial animals and/or Effects of climate change on marine mammals? 99.109.125.146 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

more potential links to add
99.19.43.8 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Global warming and agriculture
 * Global warming and wine
 * Hello. A link to climate change and agriculture is already included in the article - see the section on effects of global warming. A link to global warming and wine is included in climate change and agriculture. In my view, it is not sufficiently important to be included as part of this article. Enescot (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

IPCC citation change
I'm thinking of gradually changing the in-text IPCC citations so that the chapter authors are no longer specified. For example, "Smith et al (2001)" would become "IPCC (2001)." I also feel that where the section title is cited, e.g., "2.1 changes in ice sheets", the chapter title can be dispensed with, e.g., "Chapter 2: Changes in physical systems". I would, however, retain the chapter titles for the "Summary for Policymakers" and "Technical Summary" sections of the report. These changes would shorten the references section down, but I feel that the loss of information would be unimportant. The benefit would be to simplify the writing of new IPCC citations. Enescot (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha. At first I thought I was reading something I had written, which shows how much our views have converged. Regarding chapter authors, I am coming around to your inital view (of including them); how about if we discuss that back at Talk:Global_warming? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all of the details are nailed down, but pretty close. How about you taking a run at this article while I take on Current sea level rise, then we compare notes? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Before making the changes, I was thinking of allowing some more time to allow other editors to comment. A week or so should probably be al right, I think.


 * I agree that retaining author information in this article may be of some benefit. They can always be removed later on if necessary.


 * Another change I forgot to mention earlier would be renaming the section titles. The "Further reading" section would be renamed the "References" section, and the existing "References" section would be renamed the "Notes" section. This would be consistent with your edit on Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Enescot (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Though I think "Notes" could merge with "Footnotes", even should to avoid ambiguity.


 * Check out the list of authors/chapters for AR4 WG1 on my talk page; I think that will be useful. I haven't decided if the other reports are cited enough to make similar lists for them.


 * There may be more comments when there are some definite results. I am inclined towards doing these two articles (sort of like sea trials), then comparing notes.  We may find some details to iron out before presenting the results. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the link to those citations. I have some other Wikipedia edits I intend to do, and there are quite a lot of citations to change in this article. Therefore my time-scale of a week is probably too ambitious. What I might do is to break down the citation edits into small bits (e.g., all the relevant citations in a particular section) and then do the edits off-line. I could then combine these small off-line edits into one big on-line edit. Enescot (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, good luck with that!! Seriously, sorting out the named refs is the major chore.  (I think I have mentioned that before, ja?)  You might think to retain them, but if you find two or more refs not citing exactly the same section you will be tempted to leave that off.  (Which is very bad, even though most editors cop out.)  If mulitple named refs are not contained with the same section of text then you can't edit just one section at a time; you have to separate them first, or edit mulitiple sections simultaneously.  But you'll see.  I reckon three or four weeks of that will be enough to have you hating named refs as much as I do.  Give me shout if you need any moral support. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ouch!!! Just saw some of your changes, and have urgent suggestion: do not incorporate Harv templates inside of cite/citation templates! And certainly not as "author". The IPCC report is the "work" containingthe  particular source (chapter) you are citing; it should follow the citation.  In way you are doing things it should be (e.g.):  .  Strictly speaking, yes, the report is a "contribution", but attempting to use that within a cite template is just too complicated, and (as far as I could figure it out) doesn't handle the complexity of an IPCC citation.  And what you have been plugging into "series" is not truly a series (which only complicates things), but a title.  Ask if you want help.  But for sure the Harv link to the work should follow the citation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I'll revert my edit. We could ditch the cite book template in this article and move to the citation style that you've outlined on your talk page, e.g.,


 * Solomon et al., Technical Summary, TS.1: Introduction, in.


 * The only problem I have with the above citation is that I find it more difficult to read than cite book when editing the source material. Cite book allows for line breaks between each part of the citation, and, for this reason, I find it more readable when editing. But if you think that your citation style is more suitable, I'm happy to make the switch. Enescot (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know that you had to dump the whole thing, but perhaps that is easiest?
 * A couple of clarifications. First, I think the whole  family of citations is inferior to, but agree that one advantage of citation templates is being able to format them with line breaks.  (And I wish more editors would. At the very least to put the closing braces at the start of a line.)  Second, I prefer to pull all citation templates out of the text, but am not adverse to your using them.  (Perhaps until something better is found?) And (third) here is the important part: the problem I pointed to was putting the Harv templates inside the citation (cite) templates.  There is no reason (that I can think of) why they can't go outside the template.  Like I showed above:
 * I do agree that having all that text, and especially with the urls, is less readable for not having some structure to it. I don't know what might be done about that.  I will look into how a template might be used to advantage here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that having all that text, and especially with the urls, is less readable for not having some structure to it. I don't know what might be done about that.  I will look into how a template might be used to advantage here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Templated form
Trying for a way to do the citation with a template. Two examples, the first uses "|title" and "|url", the second uses "|at" with link.

1>

2>

I prefer using "|at", as that is intention of that parameter, and it would confuse editors less than using "|title", which is really something else. Also, I don't section headers should be italicised.

Here is the last example done with 'cite book' instead of 'citation', identical except for the periods:

3>

But! here's the problem: adding "|page" kills "|at":

4>

Doesn't happen using |title, but I don't like the italicisation. Could just add the page after the template, but editors might be confused that they can't use the page parameter.

I'll hack on this some more, but for now I'm baffled how to handle it. Any ideas? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed reply, and thanks for writing those examples. My preference would be to use the citation template as per examples 1 or 2.


 * I've decided to revert my revert and restore my previous citation changes. Despite the problems with my revision, I still think it is an improvement on the earlier revision. This is mainly because I added improved citations to a few statements. Since the Harvnb citations are already used in the revision, I shouldn't find it too difficult revising the citations over time, e.g., perhaps to the style you've just outlined. Enescot (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I didn't think your efforts were entirely beyond redemption. And sometimes it is easier to proceed in stages. The main thing is not use the Harv templates inside of the other templates.


 * In regards of output the difference between examples 1 and 2 is the italicisation, which I think is not right. So of the two I definitely lean towards 2.  I can fix a couple up for you if you want.


 * As to the problem exemplified by #4 (use of page suppressing use of at): I am told that is a "feature". So if you use the second form, just remember that any page numbers have to be added following the citation template.
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Burning embers image used in lead assailed as non free and slated for deletion
FYI, the "burning embers" diagram used in the article (taken from IPCC TAR) has been assailed as non-free and is slated for deletion on Dec 8. Discuss here, if you wish NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Observed impacts on biological systems.
In this section on Observed impacts on biological systems, it is stated that " For example, in the Northern Hemisphere, species are almost uniformly moving their ranges northward and up in elevation in search of cooler temperatures." This is poorly stated. It should be obvious that a plant cannot "search" for cooler temperatures. This idea would be better expressed as "For example, in the Northern Hemisphere, species are almost uniformly moving or extending their ranges northward and up in elevation as formerly cooler regions become warmer and therefore more accessible to warm-dwelling species." 72.250.255.28 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Lewis Greenwald, Ph.D. / Assoc. Prof. (ret.) Dept. of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University (greenwald.1@osu.edu)

Add current slow global warming (with explanation as to why slower currently), but mid-term acceleration in warming resources?
Per Talk:Effects of climate change on humans ...

99.190.85.146 (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If it should be there, it shouldn't be here.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like an Effect of but effects on global warming. 99.119.128.87 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I read the articles correctly, it appears approximately ten years of relatively slowly increasing global warming; then in about 15 years from now, accelerated warming. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * doi:10.1126/science.1206027. = ?
 * 99.35.15.199 (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * doi:10.1073/pnas.1102467108 = too. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From skimming the articles, it appears slower warming in the coming ten years, with accelerated warming in fifteen years approximately; corrrect? 99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, before the so-called Long-term effects of global warming previous predictions. 99.181.134.37 (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

IPCC potential resource, new report
From Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate_Change and previously Talk:Extreme weather ...

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session34/doc01_p34_prov_agenda.pdf


 * U.N. Panel Finds Climate Change Behind Some Extreme Weather Events by Justin Gillis published November 18, 2011 New York Times (page A5 in print), excerpt ...
 * U.N. Sees Links to Extreme Weather by Nicholas Bariyo and John M. Biers November, 2011 Wall Street Journal (page A11 in print), excerpt ...

99.181.136.135 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you were recently advised that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that we don't update articles everytime some story comes out on a subject. Also, you really should post stuff to only a single location, and hopefuly to the most appropriate one.  Talk:Extreme weather is certainly better in this case, Talk:IPCC was not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Malaria
I've removed this addition:

Nevertheless, a paper by researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Florida published in Nature in May 2010 concluded that claims that a warming climate has led to more widespread disease and death due to malaria are largely at odds with the evidence, and that "predictions of an intensification of malaria in a warmer world, based on extrapolated empirical relationships or biological mechanisms, must be set against a context of a century of warming that has seen marked global declines in the disease and a substantial weakening of the global correlation between malaria endemicity and climate."[25][26]

The addition of information was biased in several ways:
 * It concentrated on mixed impacts instead of negative impacts. Negative impacts are expected to be larger than positive impacts (Confalonieri et al., 2007).
 * It only presented information on one health impact when there are other important health impacts.
 * It is biased to cite one particular study when there are lots of studies in this area. By citing only one study, it increases the chances of not giving a balanced overview of the literature.

Secondly, the synthesis of the IPCC report findings and the Nature study was inaccurate and misleading. The word "nevertheless" suggested that the Nature paper is in some way contradictory with the IPCC report. This is not correct. The IPCC report makes it clear that the effects of climate change on malaria will be mixed. Enescot (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree to delete "nevertheless", but your interpretation is WP:OR, is there a peer-reviewed paper supporting your claim? If not, it should be restored, this is peer-review from reputable scientists on expected impacts of malaria, updating the results presented IPPC report. Or is this article exclusive about the IPPC report? Since I provided RS (Science journal and The Economist), I am restoring the edit with the one caveat noted above. You do need to come up with RS.-Mariordo (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mariordo. Existing material appears well-sourced. Would need other reliable refs to remove. Bob98133 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not need peer reviewed evidence to remove isolated material. It's inclusion is always an issue of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEIGHT. --Nigelj (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Enescot reply
''I agree to delete "nevertheless", but your interpretation is WP:OR, is there a peer-reviewed paper supporting your claim? If not, it should be restored, this is peer-review from reputable scientists on expected impacts of malaria, updating the results presented IPPC report. Or is this article exclusive about the IPPC report? Since I provided RS (Science journal and The Economist), I am restoring the edit with the one caveat noted above. You do need to come up with RS.-Mariordo (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)''

I made four assertions. Three asserted that your edit is biased:


 * 1) It concentrates on mixed impacts instead of negative impacts. Negative impacts are expected to be larger than positive impacts
 * 2) It only presents information on one health impact when there are other important health impacts.
 * 3) It is biased to cite one particular study when there are lots of studies in this area. By citing only one study, it increases the chances of not giving a balanced overview of the literature.

I think that all of these points are valid. My source is the IPCC report, which is peer-reviewed. On the first point, Confalonieri et al. (2007) point out that most health impacts are negative. It therefore is necessary when describing health impacts to give adequate coverage to all impacts. The fact that there are impacts other than due to malaria means that it is biased to have a disproportionate amount of information on malaria.

The second point is basically the same as the first. If you want to have information on malaria in this article, other health impacts should receive the same relative amount of space.

The third point relates to citing one study when there are lots of studies in this area. The is quite clear from looking at the IPCC report. I see no reason why your study deserves greater attention than the studies presented in the IPCC report.

''Or is this article exclusive about the IPPC report? Since I provided RS (Science journal and The Economist), I am restoring the edit with the one caveat noted above. You do need to come up with RS.-Mariordo (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)''

I have no problem with having other sources cited alongside the IPCC report. What I don't accept is that your study deserves special preference over other studies. As for coming up with a reliable source, the source I am referring to is the IPCC report. The Synthesis report (observations and projections) and the other IPCC summaries (observations and projections) do not give malaria preferential treatment over other health impacts. All health impacts should receive a proportionate amount of attention. My measure of proportionality is the IPCC report.

Addition of tags

I've put in a neutrality, length and undue weight tags because I do not think citing the paper is appropriate:
 * If you are to cite one study, other studies should be cited for balance. There are lots of papers on health impacts, which by your criterion (reliability), deserve coverage in this article. It is unbalanced to give so much coverage to this particular study.
 * All health impacts should receive a proportionate amount of coverage. Malaria does not deserve preferential treatment.
 * I think the use of the source is misleading. To say that malaria impacts have not increased suggests that future impacts may be overstated. I think this is misleading. Projections and observations are different. Also, the implicit use of the source to criticize projections, or to create an air of uncertainty, is not consistent with the conclusions of the cited literature assessment.

To draw an analogy, the effect of extreme weather events on economic losses cannot be reliably attributed to human-induced climate change. However, to cite this information preferentially over other work (e.g., other atttribution studies or vulnerability to climate-related losses) can potentially be misleading. It gives the reader of the article a distorted view of scientific opinion, and I think a similar thing is going on here. Another analogy would be with creationists misusing and distorting (cherry-picking) scientific studies on evolution.

I'd have no problem if the Nature study was used as part of a comprehensive overview of the literature. Other health issues would need to be mentioned, e.g.,

''For much of the world’s population, the ability to lead a healthy life is limited by the direct and indirect effects of poverty (World Bank et al., 2004). Although the percentage of people living on less than US$1/day has decreased in Asia and Latin America since 1990, in the sub-Saharan region 46% of the population is now living on less than US$1/day and little improvement is expected in the short and medium term. Poverty levels in Europe and Central Asia show few signs of improvement (World Bank, 2004; World Bank et al., 2004). Economic growth in the richest regions has outstripped advances in other parts of the world, meaning that global disparities in income have increased in the last 20 years (UNEP and WCMC, 2002).'' – Confalonieri et al, 2007

That would require an amount of space equivalent to the IPCC report chapter on health impacts. That is too much for this article. The mention of this paper is therefore biased because of the fact that other information is not mentioned, like the bit from the IPCC report I have just quoted. Its addition represents what I believe to be an attempt to provide false balance in this article, i.e.,

''The IPCC report says this... However, another paper says this...''

Compared to the IPCC, the Economist is in absolutely no position to set the findings of the cited paper in the context of the entire literature. They have neither the expertise nor have they made the effort to study the literature. Even if they studied the literature they wouldn't be in any position to assess it. Consequently, I can see no way in how the Economist story can be used to support this study's inclusion in this article.

Of course, Nature is a reliable source, but an individual paper will not necessarily represent the findings of the literature. In particular, I dispute how this paper has been used. I think that it has been used for misleading purposes. This is due to the omission of other important information, e.g., impacts due to extreme weather, and so forth. Enescot (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are requesting a balance that is impossible to achieve, since this is a recent publication on this subject and as such is a new finding (whether we like it or not), in order to achieve truly NPOV you need a RS rebuttal from another peer-reviewed paper or a critic letter to Science or other RS journal related to this paper in particular, not a paper from 2007 (based on what criteria you decide which one is more reliable? do they used the same methodology?). The fact that you do not like is your OR as I have stated above. Regarding the length of the edit, this is due to the contentious nature of global warming related articles, that in my experience in Wiki I learned that you need to explain enough and also I do prefer quotation to avoid bias in the edit content. Nevertheless, if you want to keep a brief summary it is fine with me. To me it would be enough to say along the following lines (feel free to summarize it I only disagree with deletion, as you did):


 * "Peter Gething, the main author of a paper published in May 2010 by researcher of the University of Oxford and the University of Florida, commented that their research concluded that "the things acting to reduce malaria spread, like improved healthcare and disease control, are much more powerful than the weak effect of warming," based on their historical analysis of the range of malaria from 2007 to 1900, which represents a period where the world warmed by 0.7 °C."


 * Regarding available criticism to this paper, unfortunately all I have read is from blogs, so this unreliable sources are not enough to present another point of view. If something is published from a RS non-opinion piece, then we should include it alone this edit. But according to your logic, the findings of new research can be added only if there is a rebuttal if the results do not confirm 2007 IPCC findings or the authors of your preference? I do not share such point of view. Here we have always accepted peer-review material as a RS.-Mariordo (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Confalonieri et al. source (part of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) went through extensive review and has been accepted by most of the world's governments (Parties of the UNFCCC) as providing a "comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the subject matter" (IPCC, 2008, p2). Some information used in the relevant section is also consistent with the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers document, and has been subject to an even greater level of scrutiny than the underlying IPCC chapter.


 * I do not think I need to provide a critique of this paper. I object to its inclusion in this article on the grounds of notability and importance relative to the IPCC report. I think that the findings of the IPCC report are more significant than the findings of one individual paper. The World Health Organization and a number of National Science Academies  have endorsed the IPCC's work. The latest WHO (2010) summary appears to be pretty consistent with the summary of health impacts provided in this article. Enescot (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Restored thread
I've restored this thread because I'm thinking of moving the "specific health impacts" sub-section of the health section to the article on climate change, industry and society. The specific health impacts sub-section contains reference to the Nature paper by Gething et al that is discussed in this thread.

I expanded the health section some time ago to counteract what I view as bias towards the Gething et al paper. In my opinion, however, the specific health impacts sub-section is far too long for this article. Enescot (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
"Yellowstone grizzly bears: New cause célèbre for effects of global warming? For the first time, a US appellate court has ruled that the federal government must continue to protect an animal – in this case, Yellowstone grizzly bears – in part because of consequences of global warming." by Todd Wilkinson, The Christian Science Monitor December 6, 2011

99.190.86.5 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Yellowstone grizzly bear a subspecies? 99.181.143.133 (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

translation needed?
99.35.14.75 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are there any particular points or sources in those versions that you wish to recommend? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Geology"
NewsAndEventsGuy restored the new "Geology" section (which I had removed) with the comment: "... I am undecided if it adds to article, but it ((is)) about effects -> if AGW melts ice sheets, the depressed earth crust under them will change shape (isostatic rebound), causing at least local geo responses". The sources provided are entirely about the ice sheet in Iceland, and I question whether there has any showing these particular effects will be of any notable significance beyond Iceland. As a particular criterion, did this effect warrant mention in AR4 WG2?

Similarly for the subsection "Earthquakes". Even if that single sentence is to be retained, it does not warrant a whole subsection; it would best be merged with the "geophysical effects". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh, JJ, are you certain that all of the references added in this section are specifically about Iceland? It's easy to automatically dismiss drive-by changes from editors we don't know who have not posted on these articles before recently.    I have not read the references in detail, and am not prepared to opine on this section.  However, for additional background, see this theme issue from the Royale Society, in particular the preface article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, not all of the references. But first three (titles below), yes, and the fourth – well, I don't recall that California has any ice sheet to worry about. A following reference (on the "tectonic threat to life") smacks of the tabloid "Earth is going to slip off it's axis!". If that is going to be included then I, for one, really want to see some peer-reviewed discussion. And unless this notion of climate change impacting geology is discussed in AR4 WG2 I would say it is very much a minority concern, and, per WP:WEIGHT, probably shouldn't have more than a line or two. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Popular Science resource
Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown? " Last May, a massive tornado leveled Joplin, Missouri. Was it chance, or a warning of things to come?" by Seth Fletcher, posted 01.19.2012 at 11:39 am; excerpt ... See Climate change in the United States, 2011 Joplin tornado, The Weather Channel, Jeff Masters, Public opinion on climate change, Planetary boundaries, Bill McKibben, Climate change denial, Storm Prediction Center, National Hurricane Center, NOAA, climate model & Global climate model, Andrew Watson (scientist), Scientific skepticism, Climatic Research Unit email controversy, culture war, Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, extreme weather, Joseph Romm,
 * http://www.popsci.com/files/warmingtrends.jpg (included graphic)
 * http://e360.yale.edu/feature/forum_is_extreme_weather_linked_to_global_warming/2411/

99.190.86.184 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Resource
from Extinction risk from global warming ... Climate change models flawed, extinction rate likely higher than predicted. "Current predictions overlook two important factors: the differences in how quickly species relocate and competition among species." by Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer Csmonitor.com January 6, 2012

99.190.86.184 (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Increased occasional snow fall in Northern Hemisphere resource, add?

 * Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice by Jiping Liu and Judith A. Curry; School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech., edited by Mark H. Thiemens, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, and approved July 13, 2010 (received for review March 15, 2010).  Covered in the USA Today recently.  99.109.125.168 (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

add Effect on energy production ... example
99.181.138.56 (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Climate change causes nuclear, coal plant shutdowns Jun 04, 2012 by Wendy Koch in USA Today; exceprt ...

Add wildfire references
99.109.125.124 (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Global warming could lead to more wildfire in California: study June 12, 2012 LA Times
 * Analysis of global fire risk shows big, fast changes ahead June 12, 2012 UC Berkeley
 * Study: Climate change will cause more wildfires Jun 12, 2012 USA Today
 * Climate change will boost number of West's wildfires Jun 12, 2012 Reuters
 * West can expect more fires due to warming, researchers say; 'Speed and extent to which some of these changes may happen is surprising,' says study author via MSNBC
 * Climate change to raise global fire risk June 12, 2012 UPI.com
 * Study: Climate change leaves American West especially vulnerable to wildfires; Colorado snowpack only 2 percent of normal June 12, 2012 The Colorado Independent
 * Climate Change May Spark More Wildfires In Future June 13, 2012 NPR
 * See Effects of global warming and more specifically Effects of global warming. 99.181.132.75 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An addition to the reference list US wildfires are what global warming really looks like, scientists warn; The Colorado fires are being driven by extreme temperatures, which are consistent with IPCC projections 29 June 2012
 * 99.181.139.218 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Wildfire. 99.112.212.204 (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

add Global worming as consequence
With hotter weather and the salinity of ocean currents and the climate being all fudged up, won't there be a deadly increase in the number of hatched larvae of various, potentially pesty, insects ? :( Global warming is the first phase - after it comes Global worming, with the worms devouring all the plantlife and the Earth turning into a withered desert. Not to be an alarmist, but we should add this. ;) --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Usage in Current Event articles?
please have a look at my statements here and discuss: Talk:Summer_2012_North_American_heat_wave Hasoan (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? 99.181.132.75 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, it looks like my question was answered. Hasoan (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Food security mapping




Enescott, I'm always happy to see your high caliber suggestions, even if I don't always agree. I'm glad to see you addressing food security. Not long ago, NCAR published maps of likely drought conditions. That map shows a v-e-r-y different (ie vastly more restricted) agricultural situation in 80 years. For reference, the worst of the 1930s Dust Bowl registered around -6 on this scale, and that was relatively limited in time and scope. Compare the DustBowl-or-worse regions of the 2090 map from NCAR with the areas marked increased productivity on the map you posted. There is a whopping mismatch, at least to my eye. What do you think? Can we report on differing projections of major change ahead? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS BTW, I have not reviewed the underlying report for your map and only just noticed its fineprint about it showing possible benefits of carbon fertilization.  Do you know if they factored in water, changes in avg temps and extremes, and timing of all those as applied to crops and ag infrastructure?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. A description of the study is available here: Cline (2008). In my view, it is broadly consistent with the IPCC's findings - adverse impacts at low-latitudes and possible benefits at high-latitudes. I think it would be an improvement if the drought map is added to the article as well.


 * I should note that the text presents the IPCC consensus view, and explains why food projections are uncertain. The map's caption also mentions that it only reflects the findings of one study. Enescot (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Add "Main" Food security to Effects of global warming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.143.62 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

James Hansen's excellent chart


Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Temperature anomalies in the period 1951-1980 match closely the normal distribution ("bell curve", shown in green), which is used to define cold (blue), typical (white) and hot (red) seasons, each with probability 33.3%. The distribution of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of the global warming of the past three decades such that cool summers now cover only half of one side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one side..

Source

I'm sure you can find a place for this.  Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 18:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I'll have a look to see where it can go. It may also be worth adding to other articles, e.g., extreme weather. Enescot (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, very nice. I like the explanation, too.  But perhaps there needs to be little more explanation that this represents how nominally "random" weather events are being driven as if by a loaded die? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the caption's explanation could be better. At the moment its rather technical. The analogy with the loaded die is certainty referred to in Hansen et al's paper.


 * On another point, I have changed my mind about adding the Hansen et al image to the article. There appears to be some skepticism about the paper, but I don't know how valid it is. In my opinion, the article should be highly conservative in what it says. I was therefore thinking of moving the Hansen et al image to physical impacts of climate change, with it being explicitly attributed to Hansen et al. This probably also applies to the map of climate change impacts on agriculture by Cline, which NewsAndEventsGuy has criticized. Enescot (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Burning embers diagram
I moved this image up in the thread for readability of the whole page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I think that the burning embers diagram used in the lede is dated and should be replaced/deleted. As I see it, the diagram could be: 1. replaced with the updated diagram from Smith et al 2009; 2. replaced with a similar diagram presented in IPCC (2007); 3. replaced with a new, free-use diagram; 4. deleted and not replaced. My own preference is for option 3. Enescot (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See also its own subsection in another article. Awhile back I looked into replacing per your option 1 but bogged down trying to figure out if license/copyright issues were a problem.  Do you know; and what alternative in option 3 were you thinking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For option 1, I did check and the image is probably available under "fair use". If we agree to go for option 1, then I'd probably contact PNAS to confirm this. For option 3, my idea is to base the diagram on the one used by IPCC (2007), i.e., a scale of warming like the burning embers diagram, but with key impacts described as text rather than graphically. Enescot (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am thrilled you are willing to put effort into this; Dunce that I am I do not understand how your idea for #3 differs from either #1 or #2..... hmmmmm...... how hard would it be to post a crude hand drawn pic to illustrate?  I would like to have a better understanding but fear abusing your time or at least leaving you with that feeling.  And of course I am just one voice... where are the other page watchers.  Anybody? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a diagram that I've put together relatively quickly. Obviously it needs to be tidied up a bit. References are given in the image description. Enescot (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that; however your draft completely omits the very point Burning Embers was trying to communicate....degree of risk as temp goes up. So far it is not an improvement over Burning Embers in my opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Based on your comments, I've revised the diagram. Enescot (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Negative effects overemphasized?
Our article currently features predictions of (almost exclusively) negative effects of continued warming. Their will be, of course, positive effects as well: for instance, far more people freeze to death than die of heat exhaustion. IB Lomborg & others have documented positive predictions. I'll look for same as time permits.

Of course, as noted philosopher Yogi Berra (among others) has observed, "The trouble with predicting the future is that it is very hard." And Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Be sure to bring your RSs.  We can cherry pick the manner of deaths to say warming is good if you like; however dead is dead.  Maybe we should look at the total picture, in the past normal rains created the worlds farmlands and we built all of our infrastructure accordingly.  People still died from normal storms, normal mudslides, normal fire seasons;  as things warm up we increasingly get feast/famine rains like the 2011 Mississippi River floods (Cost $3Billion) and the 2011/2012 N American Drought (Cost >$32Billion); increasing seveerity of storms (25 disasters costing at least $1Billion in US in 2011-2012); add all the deaths from climate stress induced civil strife (like Arab spring; and there has been widespread infrastructure failure even where it was not flooded (buckling highways; permafrost foundation collapse; Oklahoma clay settling also breaking foundations).  I do not dispute that some people in some respects at least for a while will benefit from global warming.  I paid a really low heating bill last winter.  But lets keep our eye on the tree and not the cherries that happen to look best to you.  Ooops guess I got caught a whiff of forummitis   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The more people who die, the more of other limited resources there will be to go round the rest of us. This will be better if most of them are foreigners, so that they are not people we actually know personally. As people's low-lying islands are inundated, and as spreading desertification means that more people have to leave their homes and farms, they will flood into more northern places like where I live. This will help push up property prices and mean that there are lots of new customers for large businesses to sell things to. Both of these will help boost the wealth of property owners and business financiers, and some of that may trickle down to people like me, and even to the immigrants one day. --Nigelj (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is contagious : ) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nigel is presenting (IB) the Black Death hypothesis -- which is widely accepted by historians for the European plague. Let's hope we don't get another test anytime soon. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Folks may find this interesting (if that is the word for it); CDC (US) article titled Global Climate Change and Infectious Diseases NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that fewer polar bears will be freezing to death! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And fewer people dying when exposed in cold weather -- we regularly lose a few folks every winter, even here in NM. In Russia, the toll is substantial.
 * I'm busy with other work, but will return when time permits, RSs i hand.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But more people will be dying of heat exhaustion? Or — much more likely — dying of hunger because a good hunk of the world's arable land is flooded, and the rest is subjected to more extreme weather events? Will agriculture on the mountains of New Mexico expand to sustain all those Bangla Deshi's who, facing a prospect of eternally treading water, would rather take their chances in the mountains? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

North American drought and corn prices

 * Please add this to the "Food supply" section:

By 2012, a persistent U.S. drought had increased corn prices to a record $8.34 per bushel in August, leaving 20 of the 211 U.S. ethanol fuel plants idle.


 * Thank you. Neo Poz (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did it myself. :/ Neo Poz (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Undid. The USA Today article makes no connection to climate change and seems ethanol is not food. So it fails due to WP:SYN and WP:wrong place or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How about combining it with (or using that as the basic source)? Ethanol is a kind of food which is also used in fuel, and it's made from food. I just wanted to quantify the shortage. Ideally maybe we can have a corn price chart such as  to go along with it? Neo Poz (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ethanol is a kind of food ... seems ethanol production from corn is a diversion of a food for other uses. The Global Change Biology ref would be a good source, but don't know that it specifically supports the text you added - I've only read the abstract. Need to be mindful of WP:SYN. Maybe propose some text here and we'll see. Vsmith (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With seven calories per gram, ethanol is widely consumed in North America, but I agree while it is produced from food, it is usually considered to be distinct from food. How about this:

Droughts are becoming more frequent and intense in arid and semiarid western North America as temperatures have been rising, advancing the timing and magnitude of spring snow melt ﬂoods and reducing river flow volume in summer. Direct effects of climate change include increased heat and water stress, altered crop phenology, and disrupted symbiotic interactions. These effects may be exacerbated by climate changes in river ﬂow, and the combined effects are likely to reduce the abundance of native trees in favor of non-native herbaceous and drought-tolerant competitors, reduce the habitat quality for many native animals, and slow litter decomposition and nutrient cycling. Climate change effects on human water demand and irrigation may intensify these effects. By 2012, North American corn prices had risen to a record $8.34 per bushel in August, leaving 20 of the 211 U.S. ethanol fuel plants idle.

I hope that's close enough to be indisputably supported, but not close enough to be a "close paraphrase" whatever that means. I see that this links climate change to the drought, but doesn't really link the drought to corn prices. Is that WP:CK or does it need a source? Neo Poz (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it help to change the "food supply" subheading to "Agriculture"?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I see that VSmith has been editing over the past day so I'll go ahead with this. Neo Poz (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted that good faith attempt because it is not what I meant. First you did not change any headings, you just added another one, producing a silly cascade of subheadings.  Second, the overall result is not a blended cohesive discussion of global agricultural impacts; rather (like many articles) the related but disparate ideas are just strung on like a string of Christmas tree lights.   Third, this is an article about global effects, so whatever you want to say about the US should emphasize the global impact or alternatively as an illustration of a global mechanism.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I added "Agriculture" as a parallel section instead of replacing "Food supply" is precisely because I didn't want to replace the global information which was already there. There is no global food price market, as far as I know, but many grains including corn are generally fungible because they are often exported when there is a surplus. What precisely do you want me to add? Neo Poz (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When you say reason I added "Agriculture" as a parallel section instead of replacing "Food supply" is precisely because I didn't want to replace the global information which was already there, methinks a good proposal would include changing "food supply" to "agriculture" and showing how you propose to integrate something about US corn prices with what is already there, not replace what is already there. I still haven't decided whether to embrace the resulting proposal because I still don't know how these details - (out of all crops, CORN;  out of all export countries, USA) illustrates the themes in this high level global article.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems Neo Poz is rather in a hurry and has been adding the same content to multiple pages (,, , ...). I'd say restrict it to the most relevant, maybe Climate change in the United States rather than such spamming. I've removed it from Global warming. Vsmith (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like spam either. That said, US corn prices probably do have some global geopolitical import, though I don't know what it is; and the large scale effects of global warming do include AG of which US corn prices are a possible (but certainly not the only) possible example.  I'm not opposed to including something about current US corn, but I don't like spam.  NeoPoz, please approach your editing from the point of view "How can I make this article better, instead of "how can I (in good faith) shoehorn in my soundbite?"  We're looking for good articles, not just strung together related but disparate soundbites.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Corn is the largest crop in the U.S., and the U.S. is the world's largest economy. The price of corn in the U.S. certainly does affect food prices everywhere. The literature review source on the drought is peer reviewed, well cited after less than a year of publication, and far more reliable than the IPCC sources I have been replacing from 2003 and 2007 which incorrectly predicted that increasing CO2 would have resulted in "slightly increased" food crop output. In what way do these updates of old sources which have turned out to be inaccurate constitute spam or a soundbite? Neo Poz (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it is spam in the sense of WP:SPAM, but articles are supposedly in something of a hierarchical tree. Global warming is the top article and the other various articles about AGW are more or less branches of increasing level of detail under that tree.  Whether "spam" is a technicially correct label or not, copying the identical paragraph to multiple branches of that tree defeats the branching-tree design.  Its a soundbite, as I use the term, when a new paragraph and stand alone subheading are added, sort of like taping on a new sheet of paper to the bottom of some sign already posted on the wall.  I'm asking you to blend and integrate the ideas into the article, giving special heed to the role the article is playing on that branching tree.  And minimize the repetition across the branches. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems contrary to WP:SUMMARY. Where do you see that facts shouldn't be repeated across related articles of overlapping but different scope?
 * And what do you mean by "blend and integrate"? And if that is something you want, shouldn't you be doing it instead of deleting summaries of literature reviews after longstanding contrary predictions from old sources? Neo Poz (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So getting back to constructive ways forward.....  If you'd like to propose a way to improve this article with this info, one way forward might be to try to get some agreement on where by doing some basic outlining, using current vs proposed section headings for the section where you want to add it?  The version I reverted here had very poorly conceived section headings
 * 5. Social systems
 * 5.1 Food supply
 * 5.1.1 Projections
 * 5.1.1.1 Food security
 * 5.1.1.2 Agriculture
 * I mean, how in the world is "Agriculture" a sub-sub-heading under "food supply"? And why is "food security" a subheading under "food supply".  Is there a difference between those things? Seems to me they are synonyms, so why the different headings?   And how does something about ethanol and US corn fit into all this?  Part of the problem might be that the section needed cleaning up and reorganizing before you arrived, and will only then be amendable to the addition of still more aspects of GW's effect on crops.  My thought is the only way to really add new material in a way that improves the article is re-organize the material that is already under "food supply", and I suggest starting by proposing the section headings you would like to use, just as I've depicted the ones from the reverted diff.   If we can agree on a sensible outline for this large topic area (GW effect on agriculture) the rest of the way forward might suddenly be obvious.  And it isn't clear why the subject is under "social systems" in the first place.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. I didn't delete the "Food security" section because it was international in scope and generally has reflected reality (although the 2007 predictions for food scarcity are somewhat weaker than what has since been observed, like most IPCC projections have turned out.) But the "Agriculture" section I added was retrospective and certainly not a projection. While I understand your concern about how it is specific to North America, and I will endeavor to include similar material from other parts of the world as time permits, the situation in North America does affect world-wide food prices as food exports are replaced by imports during shortages which the literature review says are expected to persist and worsen. So, for the time being would replacing "Agriculture" at level 5.1.2 with a globalize/North America section tag be satisfactory? Neo Poz (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in wikietiquette it says something like "don't leave problems/additions half fixed or half done", so I don't think much about "fixing" the objections via a tag on new material. Meanwhile, why is this main-branch article the best place instead of Climate change and agriculture? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to, but it seems the opposite of WP:WORKINPROGRESS. Why isn't the price spike of the largest economy's largest crop, because of drought conclusively caused by temperature increases and their effect on snowpack, central to global warming in general? Neo Poz (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did someone float that argument? If you re-read my prior remarks in this thread, you will not hear me saying "no" to inclusion of this material here.  What you will instead hear me saying, or at least trying to say, are ideas to help you integrate and blend this material into this main-branch article in a way that (this is the key thing) improves this article's ability to perform that main-branch function, as opposed to just being a way that shoves this stuff in here somewhere while you move on.  I'm eager for your help, if you can figure out how to use this material to improve this article's ability to perform its main branch function.  So please remember to assume good faith and try not to let your frustration with editors like me blossom into arguments based on things we did not say.
 * How about
 * Ways GW can effect agriculture include X, Y, and Z.(cites, maybe IPCC AR4 WG1).  In its most recent assessment report, dated 2007, IPCC projected 1, 2, and 3.(cites)  In terms of agriculture some experts argue its happening faster, for example So-and-so points to THIS and THAT. (cites).
 * Others may object, of course, but I can see the drought and US corn possibly working in this article in that sort of way. But its certainly not the only contender.  If you happen to live in Aleppo you might not give a rats behind about the big US corn crop, because your current plight would be much more tied to the drought's impact on the 2010-2011 Russian wheat harvest and its roll in touching off Arab spring.  If you simply want to log the facts about this country, year, crop, and price, Climate change and agriculture seems like a more detailed-oriented lower branch on the tree.
 * Anyway, I've made my various points.... none of it is intended to bar US corn in this article, and all of it intended to express my ideas about how you might make a better proposal for us to consider. I'm going to depart from the conversation for a few days.  I'm glad you're interested, if I had the capacity to dive deep into new-to-me RSs I'd be focused on the drought and food security also.  Sidebar: with food security being clumped under AG, how do we cross-link to seafood collapse due to ocean acidification?  Or is the answer to that also in reworking the section headings? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've made my various points.... none of it is intended to bar US corn in this article, and all of it intended to express my ideas about how you might make a better proposal for us to consider. I'm going to depart from the conversation for a few days.  I'm glad you're interested, if I had the capacity to dive deep into new-to-me RSs I'd be focused on the drought and food security also.  Sidebar: with food security being clumped under AG, how do we cross-link to seafood collapse due to ocean acidification?  Or is the answer to that also in reworking the section headings? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am reluctant to include projections which have been shown to be plainly false (i.e. the 2003 IPCC projections about "slightly increased" crop production due to increasing CO2.) But I will need some time to think about how to contrast the retrospective observations in the Global Change Biology literature review with the weaker 2007 IPCC drought projections. Thank you for explaining what you meant by integrate and blend with an example. I absolutely believe you have good faith, and I don't see how you saw my question about the central scope of these issues as accusatory; it was merely in response to your question about whether the agricultural effects were part of the effects in general, which seemed to me to preclude their central scope. Neo Poz (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I tried again with what I believe addresses all of the concerns above. I hope, going forward, if it is seen to be flawed it can be improved instead of deleted. Neo Poz (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 98 in the main article is broken, so I'm not sure what exactly the source intended, but I would avoid hanging too much on North America 2012 in particular. The contiguous United States had a severe year, warmest ever, with a temperature anomaly 0.4 C above the global anomaly.  At the same time, the global average was significantly elevated compared to the long-term, but not exceptional among recent years (specifically the ninth warmest year in the particular index I'm looking at).  In essence, the US suffered the combination of long-term global warming and a short-term localized heat wave, i.e. weather.  Only three years in the last 150 have seen the US annual average exceed the global average by as much as it did in 2012.  Obviously, if global warming continues there were be more hot years, and in many places (including much of the US) there will be more droughts.  However, in the near-term US 2012 was still a rather exceptional weather event that may not be repeated for decades.  That's the problem with focusing too much attention on exceptional regional events, e.g. droughts in the US, heat waves in Europe, flooding in Asia, etc.  There will always be exceptional events, but they are a mixture of the long-term trend and the short-term weather, and one needs to be careful not suggest that every year is going to be the same or worse than the worst year ever.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well someone reverted without discussion, even though the concerns in their edit summary were addressed above and in the tag on the section they reverted. The reference was this literature review summarized above next to the chart. It says droughts are expected to worsen. Sure one needs to be careful not suggest that every year is going to be the worst, but the track record of the IPCC projections and this article has been consistent error in the opposite direction, has it not? Neo Poz (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not. Your statement that the track record of the IPCC "has been consistent error in the opposite direction" is a POV quite at odds with what most us take to be reality. If you are going to persist in that view you need to show us some credible basis for it.  And as you do not have consensus in this regard it would be inadvisable to make alterations on that basis. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Per IPCC projections have underestimated emissions, temperature, Arctic sea ice loss, Greenland and Antarctica glacier loss, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and thawing tundra. Do you think those figures are accurate? In any case, I'm not depending on any of those measurements or sources when citing the literature reviews saying that droughts are expected to worsen, because I'm primarily interested in global warming impact on food prices and scarcity. Those underlying IPCC projection underestimates don't directly affect droughts, because precipitation is increasing, which naively would suggest there would be fewer droughts, but that hasn't been the case because sufficiently more of the precipitation seems to be concentrated in coastal regions from early cloudbursts to leave less for arid inland regions. There's a more detailed discussion of crop production trends at Talk:Climate change and agriculture. Neo Poz (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree that the science (as promulgated by the IPCC) has been conservative to a point of underestimation. But Daily Climate is hardly an adequate source for this.  And deriving this from the closure of 20 ethanol plants is way over extended.  You need to slow down and develop a better understanding of what is needed in the way of citation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Another reason the North American drought is exceptional
"Over southwest North America, models project a steady drop in precipitation minus evapotranspiration ... leading to, for example, a decline in Colorado River flow. This would cause widespread and important social and ecological consequences.... Hence, anthropogenic climate change is projected to lead to a potential reduction of Colorado River flow comparable to the most severe, but temporary, long-term decreases in flow recorded" [from 1,200 year tree ring data.] -- "Projections of declining surface-water availability for the southwestern United States" Nature Climate Change (2012) That is based on their early access to IPCC AR5 climate model projections per the authors' press release.

Who thinks this will be limited to merely agriculture? Is there any reason that any other effects will have a larger economic impact? Neo Poz (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"The drought already ranks as the worst, in terms of severity and geographic extent, since the 1950s.... It 'will probably end up being a top-five disaster event' on the government’s ranking of the costliest weather events of the past three decades" "Time Is Running Out to Avert a Third Summer of Drought" Climate Central, February 21, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo Poz (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC on corn price chart
Should the chart describing corn prices in North America be included? Neo Poz (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion because the effects of global warming on drought and food insecurity are perhaps the most economically substantial of all effects. Corn is the largest crop in the largest economy, and its price and shortages in North America affects food prices throughout the world because of diminished exports. Neo Poz (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My understanding is that the growing emphasis on biofuels (and government support thereof) is the greatest factor in these price rises. At the very least, there are multiple explanations, not simply global warming. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The growing support for biofuels is also due to global warming. Neo Poz (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pure synthesis.. the editor is aggregating that: (A) GW will increase drought (B) there is already drought ==> (C) The drought is caused by GW + Crops are failing because of GW. Now C might be correct, but unless a WP:RS is directly stating this causation then it is synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both and  are literature reviews which state that inference precisely. Neo Poz (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they do not. They are adressing (A), they do not address (B) nor do they address your synthesis of "the current crop failure is caused by CO2". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that "Temperatures in the region are rising and droughts are becoming more frequent and intense." and "In recent years droughts have been occurring frequently, and their impacts are being aggravated by the rise in water demand and the variability in hydro-meteorological variables due to climate change." do not support "there is already drought"? Neo Poz (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Temperatures are rising and droughts are increasing within the last few years. Now demonstrate that this is definitively caused by AGW, and only AGW.... there is a nobel price waiting for you if you can. [Here is a hint: regional changes are complex and have multiple causes, short term fluctuations the same... It is only on the longer timescales that we definitely say anything] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, they do address (B) and the relation to crop failure, after all. "Warmer temperatures in turn are altering river hydrology: advancing the timing of spring snow melt ﬂoods, altering ﬂood magnitudes, and reducing summer and base ﬂows. Direct effects of increased CO2 and climate change [include] increased heat and water stress, altered phenology and species geographic distributions, and disrupted trophic and symbiotic interactions. Indirect effects due to climate-driven changes in streamﬂow, however, may exacerbate the direct effects of warming.... Climate-driven changes in human water demand and associated water management may intensify these effects." Neo Poz (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem that you have every time: The timescale of the attribution that you quote does not match "the last few years/current drought". The paper addresses what will happen as AGW has an impact - it does not address the attribution of current droughts. So No.... It does not address (B).
 * If you follow the debate that happens when there is a massive storm, then you will notice the same thing that is the problem with your proposal: It is possible to predict that storms will happen because of AGW but it is impossible to attribute a specific storm to AGW. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, that depends on the definition of "cause" we're talking about. For direct causation, it is also impossible to say Drought X and Storm Y were not caused by global warming.  There's just no empirical way to tell.  But if we're talking about systemic causation, global warming has already altered ocean and air currents and the distribution of BTUs around so much, that every event, even a nice spring day, is systemically caused by global warming, at least in part. See Chaos theory.  Anyway, maybe we should all stop offering our own expert opinions and let the RSs speak.  Neo, you've found some quotes that talk abstractly about "droughts" being more frequent due to climate change..... what about this drought?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are the several government and academic journal article sources cited in suitably reliable for this drought? Neo Poz (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can get past your frustration, a better approach would be to read them yourself and for those that you believe pass WP:RS ask as us to review the one or two specific ones that you think best support your proposed article changes. Can you get access to articles behind paywalls? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I reject the assertion that the plain present-tense language of "droughts are becoming more frequent and intense" from the literature reviews doesn't apply to the present drought. Neo Poz (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the authors meant that, but you will hopefully agree that your interpretation relies on an implied meaning. After all, that short quote doesn't explicitly make that link in the B&W words does it?  So the meaning you give the words is implied.  You might be right, but on the basis of the quoted text I'm not sufficiently persuaded to see it your way.  I hope you keep digging.... I'm very interested to know what else you find NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's well known that nobody can make the statement "climate change caused weather event X," but this paper quantifies the prior probability: "U.S. Temperature and Drought: Recent Anomalies and Trends" Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union Volume 93, Issue 47, 20 November 2012: "In the absence of trends, the standardized temperature anomaly for spring and summer of 2012 was about a one in 1600-year event for [maximum temperature] and 450-year for [minimum temperature].... With increasing temperatures expected in the long term ... continued increases in the extreme upper tails of temperature distribution are likely. During times of drought, the feedbacks of higher temperature extremes and dry conditions are likely to amplify both temperature extremes and drought severity in the United States." (Emphasis added.) Neo Poz (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's well known that nobody can make the statement "climate change caused weather event X," but this paper quantifies the prior probability: "U.S. Temperature and Drought: Recent Anomalies and Trends" Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union Volume 93, Issue 47, 20 November 2012: "In the absence of trends, the standardized temperature anomaly for spring and summer of 2012 was about a one in 1600-year event for [maximum temperature] and 450-year for [minimum temperature].... With increasing temperatures expected in the long term ... continued increases in the extreme upper tails of temperature distribution are likely. During times of drought, the feedbacks of higher temperature extremes and dry conditions are likely to amplify both temperature extremes and drought severity in the United States." (Emphasis added.) Neo Poz (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose in the current form Insufficient RSs to demonstrate price is an effect of global warming. Let the RSs do the talking.  It might seem obvious to you that GW > drought > bad crops > high prices.  It certainly seems obvious to me.  But here we do our talking through what the RSs say.  You gotta find bell ringer sources that make these linkages instead of substituting what you (and I) believe is obvious.  And I also think DASonnenfeld above makers a good point that there are other factors.  I lack expertise to moderate my "it's obvious" opinions in appropriate ways for these other factors.... which just drives home the rationale behind our policy of relying on RSs, not our opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless a RS directly mentions that illustration - If there is a strong, reliable source that explicitly includes that image, and talks about GW causing the corn price rise, then, yes, the image could perhaps be used.  But if there are only sources that say "GW causes food shortages, which increase prices" in a general way, then, no, the image should not be included.  Images are very powerful, and to include it when no source mentions that specific image it is SYNTH/OR.   The article is limited to repeating what the sources say.    Query:  Is there a non-copyrighted image that the sources do explicitly include?  If so, that hypothetical image could perhaps be in the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Literature reviews on recent worldwide drought projections
By popular demand, sources and excerpts which can be used to globalize the agriculture section:
 * "Drought modeling – A review" Journal of Hydrology, 6 June 2011: "In recent years droughts have been occurring frequently, and their impacts are being aggravated by the rise in water demand and the variability in hydro-meteorological variables due to climate change."
 * "Drought under global warming: a review" Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, October 19, 2010: "Climate models project increased aridity in the 21st century over most of Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East, most of the Americas, Australia, and Southeast Asia."
 * "Measuring economic impacts of drought: a review and discussion" Disaster Prevention and Management, 2011: "climate change is likely to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme climate events such as drought (IPCC 2007). In addition to the risk to future water supplies brought on by climate change, population growth, urban expansion and requirements for environmental protection have been stressing local water supplies in many places, exacerbating competition for already scarce water resources.... Crop failures and pasture losses are the primary direct economic impact of drought within the agricultural sector...."

So, here is a proposal for those:

Droughts have been occurring more frequently because of global warming and they are expected to become more frequent and intense in Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East, most of the Americas, Australia, and Southeast Asia. Their impacts are aggravated because of increased water demand, population growth, urban expansion, and environmental protection efforts in many areas. Droughts result in crop failures and the loss of pasture grazing land for livestock.

I'll try again with that in place of the globalize tag and see what happens. Neo Poz (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you have yet to grasp the basics of impermissible editor synthesis. I've seen RSs that link recent droughts to global warming projections, but don't have 'em in front of me.  But the quotes you quoted do not explicitly - repeat - say on their face-  that there is link.   You provided the link.  That's impermissible editor synthesis (even if I happen to agree with it).  I hope you try again!  But let the RSs do the talking.  Think I read too fast when I left that.  Disregard, I'lll try again later.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Section on geology
I was thinking of moving this section to the sub-article physical impacts of climate change. The most recent and authoritative literature assessment I'm aware of is "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" by the US National Research Council, and published in 2010. Another assessment by the US NRC (2011) is "Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia." The effects of climate change on volcanoes and earthquakes do not appear in these assessments. I therefore doubt that the issue is significant enough to include in this article. I've also checked UNEP's Global Environmental Outlook 5, and a literature review by Good et al 2010. These other sources do not mention the effects of climate change on volcanoes and earthquakes. Enescot (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Section on "specific health impacts"
I'm currently restructuring articles on the Effects of climate change on humans and Climate change, industry and society – see Talk:Climate change, industry and society. As part of this restructuring, I would like to move the section of effects of global warming on "specific health impacts" to "climate change, industry and society". Enescot (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)