Talk:Regional effects of climate change/Archive 1

Please don't delete
being built, pls dont' deletAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Things are likely to go much more smoothly if you research first and then write. Take your time; the deadline is far away. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there an 'under construction' banner anywhere? I'd like people to realise it's not done yet.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many of them. Each one has a different application.  But, you were looking for Underconstruction? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Stubification needed
This article needs to be stubified and then written properly, which includes citing sources. -Atmoz (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Um. At the moment, it doesn't really seem to be of any value: there doesn't seem to be any real purpose to its existence. And is indeed ref free. The IPCC report would be an obvious starting point William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggested already. Right now the article is a random grab-bag, only some of which is related to regional climate. I've suggested that it might be helpful to read the sources first and then write, instead of writing off the top of one's head and then searching for sources that justify what one has written. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's covered in warning labels because it's being built. It's going to be fine, just let me get on with it pls.  I have had a busy week.  If there are any blatant factual errors pls TP them or amend.  I really don't need people ripping out massive chunks whilst I'm trying to write it.  If anyone can grab some citations that would be great.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is going to be a work in progress for a while, it is probably better off in your own space not main space William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * i was thinking that, but i need help so eyes are good in mainspace. it should be done soon anywayAndrewjlockley (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This remains a random list of things that happen in various regions. As Boris said William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Boris asked for the article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with having it in mainspace. The only article that links here is from Effects of global warming and it receives fewer than 50 hits which are mostly from us editing it. Furthermore there's less collaboration if it were written in Andrew's userspace. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeclock equals hole in head
This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I've held off messing with it to give AJL time to pull it together but it isn't improving. On 31 March the article will be a week old. If it's not in presentable condition by then -- not perfect, not even good, just presentable -- I will start chopping out all the irrelevancies and nonsequiturs and other garbagio so that it's at least coherent and factual. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could help me without axing big chuncks that would be cool.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't looking good at the moment. Bring out the axe William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC) So much so that I decided to jump the gun and express my opinion more forcefully William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Query
Edit summaries like this and this requesting that others "check" your citations are puzzling. Surely you are not adding citations without actually having them at hand, so what do you mean when you ask that others "check" your citations? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I don't have the expertise to fully assess the implications of a jargon filled or esoteric paper. Best to flag it up than get a beasting.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this response explains -- perhaps more than you intended. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a continued issue which takes a lot of time from other editors. If you have specific questions about jargon, etc., that you can point out a in section of an article and ask a question, I'm sure myself and other editors would be happy to reply. If you don't know if the citation says what you say it does, it's better to not cite; it forces others to spend tons of time poring over the papers. I personally have much less interest in what you write than is reflected in the time spent on these articles, but have been patrolling for factual accuracy because of this. Awickert (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Before people use this as an opportunity to abuse me further, I'd like to point out that I'm trying to pre-empt any accusations of cargo cult referencing by noting any that I am not totally sure I have interpreted correctly. I was hoping for less sniping as a result of this, not more.Andrewjlockley (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good to say that you're unsure. However, while you acknowledge this, it still makes other editors take their time to tend to your work. Best case scenario would be to post adddition and ref on talk page, with specific part of ref that is in question (so other folks don't have to read the whole thing to see what you're saying), and not actually cite until you're clear on what the ref says, whenever you're in doubt. Awickert (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would on a hi-traffic article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - well, I think it's a good practice in general, because even on a low-traffic article, things should either be uncited or 100% correctly cited. Awickert (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting better
This article is now less rubbish than it used to be. Hopefully with a bit of tidying we can now link it in to GW as requested.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks good, it took you what? Five days? That's pretty good. I cleaned up the parse so that it's easier on the eyes when you're going through the code, and likewise added the global warming footer box. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks dude, you really are a very reliable WP:GNOME.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only for Climate change, when I'm working on topics I have more experience with, like Epidemiology, then I like being a WP:DRAGON.
 * Cleaning up articles can be a tedious job, that's why there's a number of automated and semi-automated scripts that speed along the process. You can find a list at WP:TOOLS. IMO a good script to start with is WikiEd, however I currently use Notepad++ since I know what I'm looking for.
 * Don't link every interesting item you see, Global warming should probably be linked only once. Essentially, when you link an item you're expecting the reader to not know what it is (WP:OVERLINK). In the past there have been proposals to link every single word in the article, and if that's something you're looking for, I'm sure there's a script that would do just that.
 * Don't specify the size or the location of images unless you are absolutely certain you want it to display like that, this makes scalability difficult, just "thumb" is enough since you can specify the default image size and location you "preferences".
 * Take a look at clear if you get he chance, you messed up the References section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I try to link once per section - as people don't read the whole article.  I do try and link everything people might not understand, even general terms like 'significant' and 'pH' as not everyone will know what these are.  WHy can't pics hang into the refs section?  I don't like thumb sized images as they are just too hard to see.  I use 250-350 normally.  Is there anything wrong with that?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:ACCESSIBILITY compounded with WP:CSB. We're writing this for not just for ourselves but for the poor or downtrodden who can't keep up with larger displays. Historically "thumb" has been designed for 800x, but 1024x is on its way. See 350px takes up almost half the screen at 800x, and a over a third at 1024. Most people today are divided between 1024x and 1280x; you're probably using 1280x and the images probably look small. You can change the default size in your preferences, which can help ease the differences. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, Andrew, if they don't understand what pH or significant means, they probably won't understand what the article is about anyway. Nevertheless, it's your decision. If you're using Firefox the references are broken into columns, when you hang a pic into it, the columns are disrupted. I hope this answers your questions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I will stick to thumbs then I guess.  I don't think that we should assume any technical understanding.  My mum is fairly intelligent, but I but she'd need to look up pH.  I always err on the side of overlinking, as it causes little harm to the informed, and helps the bewildered. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Move
should we move to regional global warming or regional effects of global warming?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Regional global warming" doesn't make sense, but regional effects of global warming would be appropriate since the article in its present form mainly discusses effects rather than regional climate change per se. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK shall I move it?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm.... sounds good but let's think a second. There's already an Effects of Global Warming article, which focuses on global effects, with some regional. Should this article be merged into that, or should Effects of Global Wawrming be split, or should Effects of Global Warming have a "main" redirect to the regional article, after the regional article is moved?
 * I like the suggested name better, but I think that some prep before the move would be good to integrate. Awickert (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The effects of global warming doesn't have much on regional impacts. I've already planted a link to this article in that one.  I did the move (which can be reversed if anyone feels strongly), as the current title was definitely wrong due to the climate change/global warming nomenclature convention on WP.  I'm not entirely sure what Awickert was going on about, but I'd be happy to effect any changes he may see as necessary.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - the link you placed was exactly what I was thinking about. Well, one of three things. I just think more than I act. Awickert (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Atmoz moved the normal redirect to climate change. I don't have a problem with this, but I thought I'd mention it.  I've fixed the inbound links as relevant. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They were changed to climate change to be consistent with the current WP standard of differentiation between GW and CC. -Atmoz (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WMC edit
WMC can you pls explain this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_climate_change&diff=280488745&oldid=280412160 Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I made that edit, I would have made the first one because it seemed like a plug for geoeng instead of an addition to an article on regional climate change. I would have made the second because the first sentence is a drastic overstatement (life still thrived during the ice ages, perhaps not as much, but "terminating" is wrong) and the third sentence is wrong: veg doesn't just start at the edge of an ice sheet: sediment, glacial outburst floods, etc. don't allow it. I wouldn't have made the third change because I would just have removed the extraneous info, as I did. Your work on the article is impressive; I think that WMC was just removing material that was tangential and that you didn't know enough about. Awickert (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK cool. Let me step through issues in turn:

Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Geoeng - worth a mention, yes or no?
 * 2) How to properly describe the essentially barren nature of an ice sheet?
 * 3) I need help also with the transition both spatially and temporally. Clearly this aspect of the article is beyond my current knowledge.
 * 4) Probably not the right place to debate IPCC minutiae, but worth any kind of mention, yes or no?
 * So I compartmentalize and wikilink as a general philosophy. Regional climate change isn't about geoeng, though geoeng is a response. I'm not sure if it merits inclusion, though, because (as far as I understand) geoeng is more global, right? used a seealso Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "This serves essentially to terminate the vast majority of life for the duration of the ice sheet's existence." is waaaay over the top. Within the area, glaciers move soil, erode bedrock, and destroy all vegetation. However, new animals fill the ecological niches - every kid's favorite fuzzy pleistocene megafauna. You could say what I said about how it changes the local climate, but especially with the new article name, I don't see how it's too important. will flip to vegetation Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean glacial-interglacial transition? No I mean are the edges always cliff-like, and does it only need a tiny change in local temp. to maintain an ice sheetAndrewjlockley (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would just ignore the IPCC vs. others argument and find a good paper of few about global warming's effects on Antarctica and its ice sheets and shelves.
 * Awickert (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - so you mean the temperatures between glacials and interglacials and the ice sheets? Well, it's a giant region that's ice-covered, but I guess it's still a region. But I think that in the new "effects of global warming" framework, naming one effect of advancing ice probably isn't a good thing to do. Awickert (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was really thinking about the margins. Do ice sheets suddenly 'tip' at a particular temp, or do they go thin and patchy? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By suddenly "tip" do you mean suddenly disappear? If so, no, it's more that the become patchy, but this takes a much longer time (thousands of years), at least with natural forcings. See the history of the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet as it's been mapped, for example, in this paper. Awickert (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know ice sheets decline slowly, but at the margins can local/regional change occur quickly and in response to small temp changes? 18:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to define "quickly" and "small." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I take "small" to mean recent global warming, "quickly" to mean at least several meters/year, and "change" to mean position of the front of the ice sheet, then a number of small glaciers certainly fit the criteria. I'm not so sure about the big ice sheets, as they have a giant source of ice that can fill in for the melted material because of the pressure gradient that ablation induces. Reading up on Greenland could help with that. Awickert (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Stubification
Atmoz has been stubifying this article. I would just like to confirm that I personally see no benefit to this. Other respected editors have been editing at this an only Atmoz has been stubifying. Please can anyone who thinks it should be stubified say so below.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you've proven over and again, your citations do not reflect the material in the text. I do not want to go through them all and verify them, and I doubt anyone else does either. So I think it is better to stubify the article and let someone with a track record of writing honestly to write the article. -Atmoz (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel that strongly, you should ask for me to be blocked, rather than deleting stuff I've written. As I said, other people have been through this article and checked it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Best-case solution: more caution, slower editing, drop talk page notes on specific things that you're unsure of (text or references) instead of writing off the top of your head. Awickert (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree Atmoz, your change was unwarrented, and your logic is substanceless. I don't want to defend Andrewjlockley, but to cut all relevant content and recommend some else to write it sounds downright arrogant. If WMC or Boris wants to write it they can certainly do so themselves. This article receives fewer than fifty hits a day—mostly from us editing it; if you're concerned, wait until Andrew's done with it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I left it tagged up with 3 banner tags and numerous inline citations until it was tidy. No-one reading it could have failed to notice it was provisional whilst I was building it.  I think it's quite tidy now but am happy to do more work on bits as needed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Citing issues
Enough for tonight. -Atmoz (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lenton is cited 5 times . Way too much weight. WP article reads like a summary of the paper.
 * Attributed to Lenton, but not.
 * Citing a 1981 paper that has been cited 8 times. Issue complicated by the use of the cite doi template.
 * Original research/synthesis.
 * It's clear this article is based almost exclusively upon the Lenton paper. Almost every area address in the WP article is address in Lenton. Also, it seems that all of the citations misrepresent it. The paper is about climate tipping elements&mdash;not about the regional effects of global warming. It does discuss previous papers on the regions discussed in the WP article (which coincidentally are exactly the same as those in Lenton), but only with respect to accessing potential tipping elements. In addition, the text of the WP article seems to only report on the more drastic elements of those presented in Lenton. For example, when discussing the Amazon Rainforest, Lenton says Different vegetation models driven with similar climate projections also show Amazon dieback (82), but other global climate models (83) project smaller reductions (or increases) of precipitation and, therefore, do not produce dieback (84). The information presented in the WP article only discusses Cook and Vizy which predicts Amazon dieback due to widespread reductions in precipitation and lengthening of the dry season. Even if we accept that Lenton is The Truth&#0153;, this is clearly not even presenting it in a neutral point of view, but only the most drastic version. -Atmoz (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Big thanks for that Atmoz, that's exactly the kind of nitpicking that really helps me work up an article. Very thorough job.  I don't agree with everything you've written, but I will go through soon and try an incorporate your points. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've numbered the above list for convenience:

Thanks Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lenton is a literature review so it's weightier than a single paper would normally be. Are there any particular instances you think should be replaced with the original sources?
 * 2) Fixed. Oops.
 * 3) I think you've removed that, it's not in the reflist
 * 4) Replaced with different text I hope you like.
 * First, don't edit other people's talk page comments. That's not nice. Second, Lenton is not about the regional effects of global warming. It is about tipping points. Tipping point (climatology) is the article you're looking for. Third, there is no consensus what the response of ENSO will be to global warming. From Latif and Keenlyside (among others):
 * The global climate models support the above conclusion derived from observations that the coupled system will not undergo a major bifurcation in the next few decades, because they simulate strong changes only under rather high greenhouse gas concentrations, that is, by the end of this century or thereafter. Moreover, the mean state and ENSO responses differ strongly from model to model, and a consensus does not exist.
 * Just because your current favorite paper says there is does not make it so. Please re-remove, or substantially change to reflect the current literature, the sub-section on ENSO. Fourth, I do not think Lenton does a good job of accurately summarizing the current literature on some of these topics, as evidenced by the ENSO section. Fifth, it shouldn't take someone else to point these major problems out to you. The same problems with sourcing have come up time and time again. Sixth, why do you use a different, more alarmist source than even Lenton when discussing Arctic sea ice? If Lenton is a good lit review, use it. But always using the papers which are the most alarmist is not writing from a neutral point of view. The same goes for the Cook and Vizy ref in the Amazon section. -Atmoz (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the detailed critique. WMC found the arctic source.  I like it cos it is a study of studies and fits data well.  I fixed ENSO, hope you like it, but I could remove Lenton if you prefer.  I will try and use more caveat language when citing doom-mongering studies in future. There's another study that supports cook/vizy but i can't find it now.  I saw the lady present thi at the climate congress. (damn my sieve brain for names) Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The ENSO paper just doesn't say what you claim it does. They examine the skill of the models - not the projected impacts. That it "fits data well" is original research based on your own POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The current text of the ENSO section quotes Guilyardi as "increased El Nino amplitude in a warmer climate, though there is considerable spread of El Nino behaviour among the models". ...without the use of ellipsis and failing to include the first part of that sentence: "Results from this large subset of models suggest the likelihood of...". As KDP notes, the paper is not about the potential effects of increased CO2 on ENSO, it's about comparing the IPCC AR4 models to observations. The quote that's used is cherry picked out of the text. It's from the abstract and is really the only part of the entire paper that mentions the future (funny how that is). -Atmoz (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to heavily modify or delete this. Only a minority of climate models do a reasonable job with ENSO.  The best-performing models indicate little change in ENSO with global warming.  See e.g., van Oldenborgh et al. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've softened it considerably (boris have u got a link?) Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
WMC did a redirect. This needs to go through the WP:AfD process. I hope he will revert his edit. There is no consensus for a redirect to global warming at this time. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I undid it, as no reason for blanking the page was given. I may later agree to blanking it if there is some good reasoning for moving to a sandbox or whatever to make it presentable before it is brought out. As it is, there are so few page views (most probably us) that the creation of the redirect on a work in progress doesn't seem very useful. Awickert (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone doesn't like it, pls AFD as it can still be edited. I can't do a thing with a redirect, other than revert it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion. For the rest, I'll be ignoring it until it gets linked to William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WMC could you clarify this, I don't understand what you mean. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, William - I didn't notice the comments on the section above when I undid your edit. I would favor sandboxing much of this if, come tomorrow, it doesn't seem ready. Awickert (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats all right. I've cut the link from the GW main page for now, as this article doesn't seem to be in any sense "ready" William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts
A few comments Awickert (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ocean & Atmospheric circulation and Sea-level changes are global. The ocean-atmosphere section doesn't mention regional scales at all, so I suggest it is removed and saved, perhaps, for something else. I suggest a re-name of sea-level changes to "Inundation of coastal areas" or something like that, and focus more (as you do a decent job of) on the effects on coastal cities, etc., because the coast can be considered a region IMO. The sections on ice-cover and vegetation are, I think, much more in line with the scope of an article with this title.
 * Permafrost regions: methane release is global, melting and thermokarst are regional. Beef up the first half, turn the second into a linked sentence.
 * Sahara: dubious - single-source problem. I've seen desert expansion and contraction predicted; AFAI've read, neither has been observed. Awickert (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources: my personal preference is to not list sources as per an academic paper; currently it seems necessary because this relies heavily on a single review paper, but I'd advise a better overall examination of the literature when time-limits are lifted, in order to write in a way that summarizes current knowledge instead of needing to say "X says Y".
 * Regarding the Sahara, AJL has added a citation to Claussen. But Claussen is a sensitivity study of the early- and mid- Holocene. They even state that this is not a prediction of future climate. Finally, we would like to emphasize that owing to several limitations of our model (coarse resolution, lack of realistic interannual climate variability), our study is not a forecast of future climate change. I've just skimmed the abstract, intro, figures, and conclusions, but it doesn't seem that this citation supports the text. -Atmoz (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the one that was cited by Lenton. I thought it would be best to go back to the source, hence the edit summary. If you can find a better source we can use that. We could kill it, but I think it's worth a mention as it's a big region/effect. I've also tried to take into account awickert's comments, which I think were generally sensible. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've quoted Claussen to show your argument that Lenton draws too bold a conclusion. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sahara and Sahel
The article currently says that the Sahel will become drier and the Sahara will become vegetated. This seems awfully weird to me; I'm guessing it's from picking sources that model what we can't constrain well enough. I'm tagging it; I'll give it a day and wipe it or re-write it with a number of sources I've read in the past. Awickert (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * APparently the rain systems move north into the sahara Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sahel definition is the boundary of the Sahara. Awickert (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume he's meaning the current sahel region then. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just read it and find out? -Atmoz (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, Atmoz, and I also went to Denmark to see the issue/paper discussed at the climate congress. What's your interpretation of the research?  He doesn't mention re-drawing the boundaries, so I assume they're stable. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR. Read it, love it. Quit assuming. -Atmoz (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the paper is pretty clear in not 'moving the boundaries' of the Sahel. If you differ you should explain why. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Too skinny
IMO far too much has been ripped out of the article. It's little more than a framework of titles and introductory sentences, whereas it used to be a proper article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quit whining. If you'd written a halfway decent article to begin with, other people wouldn't have to cleanup after your mess. -Atmoz (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A much kinder way of saying this is that while there aren't as many words as before, the information density has vastly incresaed. Awickert (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of perfectly good stuff has been ripped out. The point of an article is to explain points, not list them.  Atmoz, please remember to observe WP:CIVILITY and also note that my opinions about an article are not dictated by what I happened to have written.  There are many changes others have made which I've been grateful for, to this article and others. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)  The oceans section needs to go back in for definite, it's hugely important on a regional level. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be up for a "coastal" region being back in the article, so long as others agree that it can be defined as a "region". Awickert (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I put it back in with a new title. Hope that's OK.  I'd still like to see the ocean currents stuff back in - the gulf stream stuff is clearly strongly regional.  Does anyone object? Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (waves hand) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Boris, could you explain further, so we can seek common ground on this? Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lowe et al
Does anyone know if their ice sheet model included base-layer lubrication as a result of moulin draining? If not, the conclusion may be a gross underestimation, us until the point of inland retreat when calving and draining are no longer factors. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just read it and find out? -Atmoz (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Atmoz - If YOU read it you will find the necessary info is not there. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm not sure which paper you're talking about. I'm sure there's more than 1 paper by Lowe et al. Secondly, if it doesn't say, it doesn't say. It's not a license for original research. -Atmoz (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The one cited in the article to b/up the 3k yr claim. The ice-sheet model is not named, so I can't research it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. The article gives references to Ridley et al. (2005) and Huybrechts et al. (1991). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this page rubbish?
WMC keeps breaking links to this page. Regardless of whether this is acceptable behaviour or not, may I ask editors to list below any areas they're not happy with? I'm specifically looking for anything that makes the article 'dangerous', such as gross misrepresentations of the subject matter, factual errors, etc. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this page is rubbish. Apart from anything else, the Antarctica section is cr*p William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The page remains a grab bag of truisms and disconnected facts (or semi-facts). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WMC What don't you like about Antarctica? Boris - what alternative approach do you prefer? What do you think is only a semi-fact? Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It mostly reads as a "what possible catastrophies may be caused by global warming". There is no distinction between likely effects, and unlikely ones. Ie. no weighting is done at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, the risk of catastrophic switching in the climate system is exactly what it's about. How would you suggest the weights are added?  Are there other changes you'd like to see?  Are there any actual inaccuracies? Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erh? No. This is not about catastrophy - its about regional effects of global warming, this is not your other article. You would find the weighting in the assessment reports from for instance the IPCC, CCSP or from special reports like the ACIA. Something may also be in the Garneaut report etc etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(separating thread) So what you mean is that you'd like to see more on region-by-region effects, even if they're not related to irreversible changes or bistable states? Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes? That is after all what the topic of the article is. *Not* irreversible changes or bistable states (which may be a subtopic, according to its weight and relative likelihood). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't tell a story. What is regional climate change? Who does is affect? Where are its effects felt? When are the effects going to be felt? Why do I care? -Atmoz (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant to say in my "grab bag" comment above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks y'all. I think I can really work with that last one.  I'll beef up the lead with some more stuff about chaos, bifurcation, etc and hopefully we'll have something we can all like. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of bits. I don't want to waste time adding stuff that gets reverted without good reason, so I'm leaving it for a bit. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is rubbish
AJL persists in trying to get the answer he wants, in this case by interpreting apathy in his favour. So in addition to the previous question, is there anyone who thinks this page *is* of sufficient quality to deserve links from elsewhere? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to improve the page. Anyone else is free to make improvements, but I'm happy to work on it.  And you don't need the 'WMC seal of approval' before you're allowed to use internal links. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Constructive criticism
Consider copying the entire article to your userspace so that you can work on it without interruptions. Nobody will delete the current live draft. Then completely rewrite it like you were going to publish it in Scientific American. My suggestion would be to focus on what is regional effects of global warming instead of what are examples of regional effects of global warming. Here's a sample article, so you'll have reference to what I'm talking about: Solving the Mystery of the Vanishing Bees. (Hopefully that's not behind a paywall. If it is, you don't have access, and you want the article, let me know.)

Start with a thesis statement; it should address what this topic is, and how it is different than effects of global warming, climate change, global warming, and all the other global warming related articles on Wikipedia. The rest of the text needs to be in support of this statement. In the honeybee example, the short two sentence introduction (probably better described as a narrative hook) tells us everything we need to know about the article: bees are dying, the cause is known and complex, and there are solutions.

Next is a three bullet point list of key concepts. A similar structure at Wikipedia is the infobox. The infobox on the global warming article is at the bottom, and uses the template global warming. It provides an easy to navigate set of links that discuss global warming in more depth. But the key point is that in both cases, they support the thesis statement, especially in the bee article. I'm not sure this is needed in this article, but it wouldn't hurt to try writing up some bullet points like this to focus the thesis statement.

The next step is an introduction. The honeybee article starts with a story about a honeybee keeper. That works fine for SciAm, but wouldn't be as good for an encyclopedia. But what it does do is start at the beginning. This is important&mdash;assume your reader knows nothing prior to coming to this page from some random search engine. The introduction needs some sort of hook. Why should a reader use their time to read this article? Start with a summary of the global warming article. It's probably necessary to briefly mention the greenhouse effect. Then transition into how it's not expected that global warming will not produce the same effects globally.

The body. Look back at the thesis statement, how many points are there? In the bee article there are three, so we should expect to see all three points fleshed out in the main text of the article. It is important to use headings to alert the reader that a different aspect of the thesis is being discussed. The SciAm article uses cutsy heading like "Silent Bloom", "All-Out Effort", and "Case Closed?". Unfortunately, an encyclopedia should probably not use such headings. Each section in the body needs to address the specific point that was first brought up in the thesis statement. It should not be a hodgepodge of ideas thrown into a section because they're all true.

Aim to write 10 pages single spaced, not including images, references, headers, etc. Remember that everything in the article needs to clarify the thesis statement! There will need to be some editing done to convert your SciAm article into an encyclopedia article, but it will be much easier doing that that trying to piece together tiny bits in the hopes that it will miraculously become a good article. Regards, -Atmoz (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll follow that method in future.  I'm surprised that this article has attracted such a beasting when most of the other ones I've written are at least structurally sound (lets leave out referencing etc for now, it's a different point.)  IMO the main problem was this article got cut down to a mere skeleton in a savage edit process, and there seemed little point building it back up again in such an aggressive atmosphere - little or nothing anyone wrote was sticking. It does need to be fatter, but I don't want to sandbox it because I'm sure my work will simply be reverted as soon as it's posted (regardless of whether there's anything actually wrong with it).  I will try your method to fatten it up slowly.  I hope there's not too much knee-jerk reverting whilst I do it.  Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The response above shows that you Just Don't Get ItTM. I don't know the reason and frankly I no longer care, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fattened it up a bit, mainly focussing on inserting explanatory and introductory text for the general reader. Can whoever reverts my edits please give a reason?  Thanks  Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Regional 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 13:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

EPA Source

 * I noticed that source number 2 comes from the EPA, and is used quite a bit in this article--unfortunately information pertaining to climate change has been removed by the Trump administration, and clicking on the link brings you to a blank page. Any ideas on how to deal with this? Pete9707 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wayback machine? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Regional effects of global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230140749/http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2001/14.html to http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2001/14.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating page about climate change in Middle east and North Africa
It is strange that there was not such article untill now. After all one of the most climate sensible region on the planet. Invited to expand the new page Climate Change in Middle East and North Africa.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Name change
I suggest to change the name of this article to "Regional effects of climate change" (@User:Sadads). - Does anyone disagree? EMsmile (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the current consensus is that it should be renamed to climate change correct? That seems to be the case with the core article Climate change, Sadads (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. There has not been much explicit discussion of renaming all subarticles, but many of them have already been changed and no objections were voiced. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, let's change it then. I can't see a reason why not. I'll wait another couple of days though. EMsmile (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made the name change now but I hope I have done it correctly. Can someone please check? The page existed already but had a redirect so I just reverted the redirect direction and then moved the talk page. I might have to "clean up after myself" but am not sure what requires doing (@Femke Nijsse). EMsmile (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)