Talk:Effects of global warming on Australia

Effects of global warming on Australia page started
The Effects of global warming on Australia page was started on 20 February 2007. All contributions most welcome. dinghy 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the information is out of date as the main reference was based upon the 2001 IPCC report. Now that the 2007 IPCC report has been released in full this article should be updated.

Effects of global warming on Australia is not about the Australian Climate, but the impacts of changes to climate
A redirect to Climate of Australia was done without discussion on this page. This has been reverted. Effects of global warming on Australia is not about the climate, it is about the impact the changes in climate will have on Australia and her people, industries, environment, ecology, international standing etc. dinghy 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Highest per capita in the world?
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita says that, as of 2003, Qatar had over 3 times the CO2 emission of Australia. Maybe Australia's pulled ahead since then, or maybe other gases make up the difference, but a citation would be nice. Also, isn't Australia a net energy exporter? Andjam 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

?
Australia??? Uber555 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copy-vio
I haven't done a comprehensive investigation, but it would appear that much of this article has been lifted directly from Climate Change Impacts on Australia and the Benefits of Early Action to Reduce Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions published by the CSIRO. Take, for example, the section entitled “Projected large-scale singularities from climate change”. Shown below is a comparison of parts of this section of the article with Section 5.7 “Large-Scale Singularities” of the CSIRO report (p.30).

WP article: Large-scale singularities, complex non-linear responses where systems switch from one state to another, could cause a broad range of direct and indirect consequences to many regions of the world, including Australia. Historical and paleological data provide ample evidence that singularities and abrupt changes in the climate system have occurred repeatedly in the past.

CSIRO report: Large-scale singularities, complex non-linear responses where systems switch from one state to another, could cause a broad range of direct and indirect consequences to many regions of the world, including Australia. Historical and paleological data provide ample evidence that singularities and abrupt changes in the climate system have occurred repeatedly in the past.

WP article: Perhaps the singularity of most immediate relevance to Australia is the collapse (regional or even global) of coral reef ecosystems, which appear to switch quite rapidly (i.e., over a narrow temperature range) from being healthy to being stressed, bleached, or eliminated.[12]

CSIRO report: Perhaps the singularity of most immediate relevance to Australia is the collapse (regional or even global) of coral reef ecosystems, which appear to switch quite rapidly (i.e., over a narrow temperature range) from being healthy to being stressed, bleached, or eliminated.45

WP article: Ecosystem changes further afield may also ultimately have effects on climate change in Australia. For example, carbon cycle modelling has suggested that forest dieback in tropical regions could ultimately transform the terrestrial biosphere from a sink for carbon to a source – increasing the net concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.[13]

CSIRO report: Ecosystem changes further a field may also ultimately have affects on climate change in Australia. For example, carbon cycle modelling as suggested that forest dieback in tropical regions could ultimately transform the terrestrial biosphere from a sink for carbon to a source – increasing the net concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.106

WP article: Recent work in the UK indicates that climate change is causing carbon to be released from soils at a rate equivalent to almost 10% of UK annual industrial CO2 emissions – potentially offsetting reductions in anthropogenic emissions.[14]

CSIRO report: Recent work in the UK indicates that climate change is causing carbon to be released from soils at a rate equivalent to almost 10% of UK annual industrial CO2 emissions – potentially offsetting reductions in anthropogenic emissions.107

WP article: For a number of years, scientists have expressed concern about the potential for climate change to destabilize the Greenland ice sheet and West Antarctic Ice Sheet.[15] Global warming as well as the melting of glaciers and ice sheets (which increases the flux of freshwater to the oceans), could destabilize the global ocean thermohaline circulation (THC). Such destabilisation could slow its circulation, potentially to the point of complete collapse, causing regional climate shifts with significant environmental and economic consequences.[16][17]

CSIRO report: For a number of years, scientists have expressed concern about the potential for climate change to destabilize the large ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica.108 Global warming as well as the melting of glaciers and ice sheets (which increases the flux of freshwater to the oceans), could destabilize the global ocean thermohaline circulation (THC). Such destabilisation could slow its circulation, potentially to the point of complete collapse, causing regional climate shifts with significant environmental and economic consequences.109,110

WP article: Melting of glaciers and ice sheets also contributes to sea-level rise. Vast quantities of ice are locked away in the ice sheets of West Antarctica and Greenland, collectively equivalent to approximately 12 meters of sea-level rise. Destabilisation or collapse of these ice sheets would lead to centuries of irreversible sea-level rise and coastal inundation around the world.

CSIRO report: Melting of glaciers and ice sheets also contributes to sea-level rise. Vast quantities of ice are locked away in the ice sheets of West Antarctica and Greenland, collectively equivalent to approximately 12 meters of sea-level rise. Destabilisation or collapse of these ice sheets would lead to centuries of irreversible sea-level rise and coastal inundation around the world.

Article mostly based on one source
This article looks as if it has a great many citations. But they mostly come from a reference list in a single CSIRO report (http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p6fy.pdf). It is improper to copy citations in this way without making clear that the editor involved saw only the report and not the original sources. See Citing sources.

I have added a "One source" tag with the hope that other sources which have actually been sighted will be added. Please also make sure to include the specific page number from where the cite actually came. Johnfos (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing affected text
Unless there is an objection, I plan to remove text from this article which has been affected by plagiarism, copy-vio, and overuse of a single source. Johnfos (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Johnfos (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional content
In terms of now adding more content to the article, I would think that useful material could become available as part of the Garnaut Climate Change Review. Johnfos (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

fixed copy vios and referencing, and reinstated detailed material
I have fixed the copyright violations and made clear that the article previously put as references were cited in the CSIRO article. On this basis I have put the detailed effects of global warming back in. I have reinstated the one source warning for clarity and hope that other authors may be able to contribute further references or view the article cited by the CSIRO article and reinstate them as references if appropriate. Amberclaire 2041 (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction: First or Ninth Highest Emitter?
The article Climate Change in Australia states that Australia is the world's ninth highest emitter of greenhouse gasses, while the article Effects of global warming on Australia states that Australia is the highest emitter. Which of these is correct? Sstr (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Australia is the highest per capita emitter of the Annexe 1 countries to the Kyoto Protocol (the developed countries) and ninth overalldinghy (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

SLR
What does Poleargo disagree with in the following statement, "The IPCC is predicting a sea level rise of between 7 to 23 inches (18 - 59cm) over the next 100 years.[1]. Normal see level rise in the absence of anthropogenic warming is between 10 and 25 cm per century.[2]"? Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. The IPCC recognizes that fact, and distinguishes between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic rise. If you doubt this, I suggest you actually read the report some time. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 14:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You could spell "sea" properly. But as for the substance: this is a commonplace error or, perhaps better, failure to understand the nuances. Sea_level rise does better. See if you can spot the difference William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also object (in addition to the others already pointed out) that the IPCC doesn't do predictions - projections are are different kind of fish. It also appears that the one who hasn't read the report here.... is you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Call a spade a spade. A range of projections which you express confidence in is a prediction, plain and simple.  Does the IPCC believe sea level rise will most likely be between 7 and 23 inches?  A simple yes or no will do.


 * Singling out a specific projection is objectionable, yes. But listing the lower and upper bounds is accurate, as well as apropos.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 15:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does it say normal see level rise in the absence of anthropogenic global warming is between 10 and 25 cm per century? Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope - a range of projections is still projections (i wouldn't call a shovel a spade - real handymen tend to laugh at one :-)) . This is in the report - didn't you claim to have read it? And No. The IPCC doesn't - again if you had read the report [or even just the SPM] - then you would have noticed some very important caveats regarding the sea-level rise figure. Do take some time and follow WMC's advice about checking out the difference between this and the other article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Poleargo, read the source. Kim, read the dictionary.  Why do you not want the reader to know what the IPCC is actually predicting?   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 15:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FG i did read the dictionary - but as with all technical literature, a regular dictionary is rather useless. Perhaps you should try the one in the IPCC reports? (it is on pg. 950 WGI). And you still haven't noticed the caveat have you? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read the source but in case I missed something please could you highlight the exact quote for this. Polargeo (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here is running from the question. I'll ask it again, " Does the IPCC believe sea level rise will most likely be between 7 and 23 inches?" A simple yes or no will do.
 * What WMC and KDP are saying is that it should be phrased better. However, you appear to have run from the question. I assume you realise that at least half of your addition was incorrect then. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? It was not incorrect, and it is in the source give. If you have a problem with phrasing, suggest a better one, rather than drive-by deletions which are not helpful and appear to be disruptive.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I will spell it out. The source says "the rate experienced over the past 100 years (1.0-2.5 mm/yr)" your addition said "Normal see level rise in the absence of anthropogenic warming is between 10 and 25 cm per century." I don't see how these statements are in any way the same. Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact they are only the same thing if we have A) had no AGW over the last century and B) the last century was somehow a "normal" standard. You have utterly mangled the science in the source. Polargeo (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be happier if the text read, "no additional anthropogenic warming"? The fact remains that the rise over the 20th century was very similar to that of the 19th.  If you prefer, I'll change sources to one which specifically alludes to preindustrial SLR>   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 19:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would need to see that your edits were not claiming something as "normal" because that is scientifically inaccurate. I think the main caveat KDP is referring to is that the IPCC said that they are unable to account for the glacial contribution due to insufficient models and data, recent data since the last IPCC have shown this contribution to be very significant and increasing. Polargeo (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is very clearly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The IPCC report is a reputable source. If the figure isn't "scary" enough for some people, tough. The values are on the report, and people need to be aware of what it says. If you don't like my phrasing, I suggest you come up with something that answers your objections, rather than trying to whitewash the fact out of existence. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about replying to the very correct statement by polargeo that you were in fact misrepresenting the reference? [nb: and also conflating two different reports (TAR's SRES and AR4) - but that is a whole other issue]. And your attempt at "saving" by saying "no additional warming" is WP:OR (hint: what about committed warming?) You could of course have used the one that the SRES reference themselves did: "current best estimates represent a rate of sea-level rise that is about two to five times the rate experienced over the past 100 years". But that wouldn't have had the Alfred E. Neuman style of your version ;-D --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of stonewalling, why not answer the question? How do you feel this fact should be phrased? It's clearly the most relevant portion of the discussion, and readers should be aware of current predictions are. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding these ludicrous obfuscatory attempts to claim the IPCC isn't making predictions, I offer this study for your reading pleasure:

"A survey among climate scientists is used to examine the terminology concerning two key concepts in climate science, namely, predictions and projections, as used among climate scientists. The survey data suggest that the terminology used  by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not adopted, or only loosely adopted, by a significant minority of scientists."


 * http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/30/4/534
 * (edit conflict)Reply to FG. I am not trying to whitewash. If you were a newbie or even just more polite and less confrontational I would nursemaid your edits into shape but you are way past that now. You have been warned about misrepresenting sources. I suggest that you simply stop trying to add any science to any articles because you consistently seem incapable of getting it right. Polargeo (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh! The Bray&von Storch paper, is about misuse of prediction vs. projection amongst scientists, who relate/refer to what the IPCC says. This is what you are doing. The IPCC definition is clear-cut and the gold standard. [nb: if you had just a little background knowledge of von Storch, then you'd know that this is one of his hobbyhorses(sense 3)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So would you all agree that the statement should be: "The IPCC is projecting a sea level rise of between 7 to 23 inches (18 - 59cm) over the next 100 years."? I'll find a reference for sea level rise for the 19th century rather than the 20th, which should answer your other concern. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 23:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, for the reasons given above. The sea level rise article will set you straight. Could you confirm that you have read that article, and understood the difference between what is written there and what you have written? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What the heck does "q100" mean?!
I've done a search for this but I can't work it out. It may mean something to specialists but aren't encyclopaedias intended for the general reader? Can someone please render this section (entitled "Brisbane") intelligible: ''A sea level rise of 10m would completely inundate the Gold Coast. New developments are required by law to have a minimum floor height 27 cm above the Q100 storm height...''  Thanks, Melba1 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a wild guess, but might it mean the height that would be reached by the sea level innundation caused by the storm surge from a 100-year flooding event? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Section has been rendered intelligible. Thanks for the tip.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Original Research
I think some or all of this article may qualify as original research under WP:CRYSTAL, as it is simple laying predictions for a future event. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.--Qizix (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I removed a new section cut and pasted from  --Greenmaven (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Bushfires, royal commission findings & recommendations
The article said "Australian Greens leader Bob Brown,[9] argued that increased fire days due to climate change, was likely to blame for the fires but the Black Saturday Royal Commission found that the amount of fire fuel reduction burning should have been double of what had done.[7]",

which I then re-phrased as

"Australian Greens leader Bob Brown argued that increased number and intensity of fire days due to climate change were likely to blame for the fires[9], however, the Black Saturday Royal Commission concluded that the amount of fire fuel reduction burning should have been double of what had been done.[7]". (purely grammatical fix for clarity)

However, on going to check the source for [9], I find that Bob Brown's actual quote is "[The fires] are a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority the need to tackle climate change". . So first of all I have updated the entry to include his actual quote. Secondly, as the quote doesn't even mention fuel loads or fuel reduction burns, and considering that "The Greens have a strong and proud record of supporting fuel reduction burning (cool burns), conducted by the proper authorities, as a vital tool for protecting lives and property", I have removed the word "but/however" linking the two clauses, as I think it is irrelevant and misleading.

I updated the Royal Commission's "findings" (about the recommendation to double prescribed burns) to cite the the Age article, because I couldn't find it in the primary source, http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Commission-Reports/Final-Report/Summary/Interactive-Version. Fuel reduction burns aren't mentioned in the section on "Reducing the number of fires", but they are mentioned in the section "Reducing the damaged caused by fire > Land and fuel management". The only Recommendation that includes the word "prescribed" or "reduction" is Recommendation #56: "The State fund and commit to implementing a long-term program of prescribed burning based on an annual rolling target of 5 per cent minimum of public land." Presumably it was ~2.5% prior to Black Saturday and that's where The Age are getting their "double" figure from.

Charbono (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)