Talk:Long-term effects of climate change

Why is this being recreated? ...

 * .... despite AJL not having addressed several of the issues in his user-space article? (see here: User talk:Andrewjlockley_/Long_term_effects_of_global_warming)
 * .... has it not been moved? despite there being rather a lot of talk page commentary that is still relevant?

The article is still a cherry-pick of papers suggesting catastrophy, with no attempt at determining what the consensus amongst scientists on the issues are. Its another AJL abrupt climate change article. I suggest that it be moved again). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, I couldn't stop myself from rewriting the bit from the "tipping points" article that included West Antarctica. AJL had put this down as "However, more recent research shows that a collapse ..." in fact the article is not a research article at all and had been extremely selectively quoted. If this is the state of an article after months of work then I despair. It does look like a bit of a dumping ground for AJLs favourite bits of science. Anyway I'm off on holiday so I look forward to seeing the state of this when I get back. Polargeo (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All the original tags were dealt with - usually by deleting major chunks. Please make clear what the supposed new problems are, instead of just using banners to shout 'rubbish' at me.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - but you didn't address the tags. You can look back at the talk to find all issues addressed. (not only that but i have been so friendly and added a comment on each tag). Now, please do not attempt to just "paste over" with some slight change that you think addresses things - they haven't in the past. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the article could be longer, but I don't see why the fact that I haven't got round to including IPCC etc. makes it POV. If you think it needs expanding, please do so - but please don't berate me for not including your favourite sources. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes it POV is that you've cherry-picked single sources/papers, without a single glace at what the general scientific opinion is on the subject. That you've ignored the IPCC is a symptom of this - you've also ignored the CCSP and every other similar assessment. Thus POV by ignoring due weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on tags ....
Can be found here: User talk:Andrewjlockley_/Long_term_effects_of_global_warming --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Geological cycles
Just stumbled in here, looks like it's controversial. Still, this article might be a good place to discuss how very long-term geological cycles will eventually bring CO2 into balance.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Brian, take a shot at it, it can only improve things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just added it along with deep ocean absorption. Could use some beefing up, though.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ocean anoxia
Kim, pls expand your points.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whats to expand? You have one - i repeat - one reference for this. That is extreme undue weight.
 * My specifics - as noted where: "Why is this here? When is this going to be felt? What is the likelihood? Is there other research that states the same? Or is it undue weight to a single paper? Do other models corraborate this?"
 * As a final comment "predicted" is an incorrect word, and that you still haven't figured this out is very problematic (since its been pointed out repeatedly). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What refs should be in - in your view? Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea - but if this is the only reference ... then it should be cut. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with it? Why do you need more than one reference, if it's representative of current science?  Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it representative of current science? And how do you know? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's current, and it's science. Have you got anything to suggest it's wrong?  I haven't, and I don't see why I can't include it in the absence of any evidence that it's not representative. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is long dead, and I don't edit wikipedia enough to babysit the topic. I'm just going to say the available reference materials appear to have improved since 2009, and I added one.  I'm going to remove the template, and just leave this note here as to why.  i kan reed (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Shutdown of thermohaline circulation
Kim, pls expand your points.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the comment i attached: "if this is speculation/suggestion, then what is it doing here? What is the likelihood of the scenarios given? What does the IPCC or the CCSP say? What is the consequences? Whats the timescale? Is there research to indicate that this will not happen? ...." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, if you want to include the IPCC's out-of-date science, please feel free to do so. I do not wish to. Please feel free to expand the section if you wish.  Is there anything actually incorrect about what I've written, including its style/POV? Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but i'm not the one who wants this. Its the policy of Wikipedia - perhaps its time to learn abit about the difference between an encyclopedia and other writings? Encyclopedia's aren't about the latest research - but about the solid agreed research. WP is not news (nor cutting-edge uptodate), nor will it ever be.
 * The trouble with your dismissal of the IPCC, is that it reveals POV. We as WP editors cannot and must not take such value-judgements as "out-of-date science" (especially not on a report that is only 2-3 years behind cutting-edge). The CCSP is even newer.
 * If you cannot describe what the scientific consensus/opinion on this particular issue - how will you ever be able to judge the relative merit of a paper? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Clathrate decomposition
Kim, pls expand your points.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the comment i attached: "Combination of sources that are in themselves incompatible and contradictive (what is the consensus on how much clathrate there is? is it 3000 (from one source) or 11,000 (from another source) - the range is simply a synthesis by the author. The Buffett source is about a 3°C ocean floor warming... something not in *any* scenario. The Archer source is again a synthesis attached)." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How do u suggest to write so as not a 'syn'?Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider this section as something to cut. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Several papers, both theoretical and practical, have detailed this effect. Can you explain why you deem the entire lot unworthy of inclusion? Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have they? Well - then you should try to describe these. Without the SYN. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Synthesis is A and B therefore C. There's none of that here. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

THC
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf page 775 looks like what we want.


 * Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and other ocean circulation changes: The best-documented type of abrupt climate change in the palaeoclimatic archives is that associated with changes in the ocean circulation (Stocker, 2000). Since the TAR, many new results from climate models of diff erent complexity have provided a more detailed view on the anticipated changes in the Atlantic MOC in response to global warming. Most models agree that the MOC weakens over the next 100 years and that this reduction ranges from indistinguishable from natural variability to over 50% by 2100 (Figure 10.15). None of the AOGCM simulations shows an abrupt change when forced with the SRES emissions scenarios until 2100, but some long-term model simulations suggest that a complete cessation can result for large forcings (Stouff er and Manabe, 2003). Models of intermediate complexity indicate that thresholds in the MOC may be present but that they depend on the amount and rate of warming for a given model (Stocker and Schmittner, 1997). The few long-term simulations from AOGCMs indicate that even complete shutdowns of the MOC may be reversible (Stouff er and Manabe, 2003; Yoshida et al., 2005; Stouff er et al., 2006b). However, until millennial simulations with AOGCMs are available, the important question of potential irreversibility of an MOC shutdown remains unanswered. Both simplifi ed models and AOGCMs agree, however, that a potentially complete shut-down of the MOC, induced by global warming, would take many decades to more than a century. There is no direct model evidence that the MOC could collapse within a few decades in response to global warming.

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Long-term return to equilibrium
Isn't it that over time oceans will evaporate so there will be no weathering and all carbon in the ocean will be released? Also the warmer climate the more water vapor in the atmosphere which increases greenhouse effect.--MathFacts (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WAIS
etc. Can't say I like Lenton being the source for so much of this para William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How is "Long-term" defined here ... an example single human life-span? Do we want to simplified the title to 100 years and over Effects of global warming, starting when?
The current wp title is problematic: 99.56.122.207 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How is "Long-term" defined here ... an example single human life-span?
 * Do we want to simplified this title to 100 years and over Effects of global warming, and if so counting the one hundred years starting from when, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?
 * To help decrease the confusion described above, I suggest adding the wikilink Effects of global warming to this article. Any reason clarification isn't needed?  99.112.214.29 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be best merged into effects of global warming, as there is no definition of "long-term" proposed. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a proposed One Hundred Years in the title of this discussion, isn't there? 99.181.128.145 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable proposal. Still no reason to link effects of global warming where you've been doing it, as an easter egg, but it seems a reasonable proposal for the article.  I don't think there's been enough discussion to implement it, though.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Change article title to Effects of global warming after 2100, currently less then 89 years from now.
Change article title to Effects of global warming after 2100. 99.119.129.142 (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How does one potentially change a wp article title? 99.119.128.35 (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you refuse to create an account, you can still add the following at the end of this talk page:

== Requested move == Effects of global warming after 2100 Rationale for move ~ )
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Long-term effects of global warming → Effects of global warming after 2100 — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Appropriate per content, progression of time and vagueness of words "Long-term". 99.19.44.88 (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose: I actually think it's preferable to have a vague timeline. What if something is predicted to occur in 2099? It absolutely can't go in this article? –CWenger (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly support: Since it is based on data from a specific time period for a report published on a specific past date, this article will only become less and less accurate; a continual outdated issue. Also, hopefully, eventually it will be 2100 and it will not be "Long-term" future, it will be now (not even short-term future).  What does Long-term mean in everyday speech, nothing ... at best a meaningless title.  ...  More likely current title leads to more Climate change controversy thus Climate change denial (Merchants of Doubt/Requiem for a Species/The Age of Stupid) and delay on Climate change mitigation.  99.181.143.101 (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is what people refer to and the article is about what climate change will cause in the future, over a long time, not in some particular frame of time, which is something we should be able to cover. &mdash;innotata 16:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Long-term effects of global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327043445/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/adcc/BookCh4Jan2006.pdf to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/adcc/BookCh4Jan2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Text block from article on global warming - useful for this one?
I have moved to this article a text block from the article on global warming in the sub-heading of "long-term effects of global warming". Would it be useful to insert the text block here into this article? I'll put it in for now but feel free to cull it out again or to discuss here. EMsmile (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to Rename Article
from "global warming" to "climate change" - see https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.77.200.113 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that suggestion; it would require a major "tidy up" operation because all the sub-articles are currently a mixture of "climate change" and "global warming". I would prefer if we move to "climate change" for all, to mean the human-induced part and have the currenty article on climate change be renamed to climate change (not human induced) or something like that. EMsmile (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree, as 'climate change' is a lot less specific and broader in scope.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that the main article has been changed to climate change, the name of this article should also be changed to "long-term effects of climate change". EMsmile (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you, User:Jack Frost.EMsmile (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! It was done following a request at WP:RM/TR. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about re-integrating this article into "effects of climate change"?
I am wondering if this article is really needed as a stand-alone article and if it wouldn't be better to re-integrate it into effects of climate change. The definition of "long term" is anyway a bit strange and arbitrary. I feel there are too many sub-articles around those issues of effects which all languish at very low page views and mostly poor article quality. There is also effects of climate change on humans, effects of climate change on human health, physical effects of climate change, regional effects of climate change and many more. Are we really doing ourselves a favor by having so many closely related sub-articles as stand-along articles? Pinging as we were talking about readability improvements which is related. EMsmile (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of editing climate change related topics on WP, I would definitely find it easier to have fewer choices to focus on. So from that perspective integrating this page into effects of climate change makes sense to me.Dtetta (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I have added the merger tags now, in order to gather more opinions about this. I don't think a separate article for long-term effects is needed/useful, as its content can never be huge since it's crystal gazing into the future, and many of the effects are medium-term anyhow, so the borders are fluid. I suspect that 20 years ago when we knew less about climate change, setting up an article about "long-term" effects might have seemed sensible but possibly less so now. Looking forward to an interesting discussion. EMsmile (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as there are so many sub articles the merged article can always be condensed later if it gets too long Chidgk1 (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support if done right. Most of this article is heavily outdated or based on not-really reliable sources (The Guardian for climate science is meh). So there should probably be very little added to the higher-quality effects of climate change. Femke (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a good point. I would have copied pretty much everything across and then started the culling & condensing. Is that the right approach, or should we cut & delete first here and then move the rest across? I am not so deeply into the topic that I can judge very easily what's good or not. EMsmile (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If I were to do it, I'd go the other way around. See if there are any sentences worth saving, and move those across. Ignore everything published before 2015 or from newspapers. When you've saved those 5(??) sentences worth saving, convert this into a redirect. Femke (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Did a quick read, don't think there is anything source worth saving. The long-term impact on the AMOC is not yet discussed in the effects of climate change article, but these old sources are inappropriate. AR6 has some content on it we could cite. Femke (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * support per the first discussions on this page, this article was a product of the Global Warming Wars - from the "enthusiast" side - and should not have been re-created. It is long overdue for removal William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes it easy. :-) Delete content and replace with redirect then? Pinging three people involved in this article in the past in case they object:, , EMsmile (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Overall, I am wondering: does it work in our favour to have separate sub-sub-articles or not really? Another thing we could consider is to use excerpts more. For example, the issue of sea level rise pops up in many of these articles; rather than writing/updating that content each time, perhaps better so simply use an excerpt from the lead of sea level rise. Same with ocean acidification etc. EMsmile (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. In generaly, many CC articles have stale content already. Reduce the workload. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Way forward : So I think we'll wait another 2-3 days and if there is no objections we'll go ahead with the delete & redirect. While we are on the topic of stale content for climate change articles that deal with effects, I have long wondered if it's really so helpful to have so many closely related sub-articles. If effects of climate change is the main article, do we really need all these sub-articles (and doesn't it create a lot of extra work for us to keep them all up to date and with reliable sources?):
 * Physical impacts of climate change
 * Regional effects of climate change
 * Effects of climate change on oceans compared with Effects of climate change on marine mammals (perhaps merge the two?)
 * Effects of climate change on humans compared with Effects of climate change on human health (I guess the second one is a sub-article of the first one but there is so much overlap and repetition)
 * Effects of climate change on island nations (I guess this one makes sense to have as stand-alone)
 * Climate change and ecosystems (overlaps with others a lot)
 * Effects of climate change on terrestrial animals (overlaps with others a lot)


 * I've been tempted to suggest a merge of the 'regional' article into the main article as well. The marine mammals can probably also be merged. Don't have a strong opinion on others as of yet. Femke (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the article now and replaced it with a redirect. I'll copy the other discussion to the talk page of effects of climate change, makes more sense to continue the conversation there, I think. EMsmile (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)