User talk:Andrewjlockley/Long term effects of global warming

Article creation
This article got created as lots of the long term stuff got stripped out of the main global warming article, and it needed a home. It's being built, so please feel free to WP:BEBOLD Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Please do not just copy and paste material from other articles. -Atmoz (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to customise this text, but we need to agree the basic structure first before I waste my time like i did on REGW. It's got an u/c tag on, so the duplicate text shouldn't cause too much offence in the meantime.  I'd really appreciate your further help and comments on this article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

POV fork
This article is a simple POV fork. While the nominal subject of the article is interesting, its just a new holding place for things that have been reverted out elsewhere.


 * Clathrate Gun. Not a likely effect - methane release is though. The description here has no concept of timescales (how long will it take), no explanation of likelihood, no consequence description. All things that have been pointed out before!.
 * Ocean anoxia. WP:OR combination of new research, combined with a paper on catastrophic paleo anoxia.
 * Species extinction. The text doesn't fit the timescale focus of the article. 2050 is not beyond 2100.
 * Thermohaline shutdown. Completely unlikely, afaik no one is seriously proposing this as a long term effect. Some disruption may happen - but *not* a shutdown. Once more a focus on catastrophy - not on likelihood.
 * Ice sheet loss. The focus here is current, not future. For once not a focus on catastrophy....

Note that the above is serious problems, and it isn't enough just to rewrite it a bit. A completely different take is needed if this article is to becomes something. So do not just assume that it can be reverted back and just correct a bit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the state I saw it, it was yet more AJL rubbish. I've redirected it to GW William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've recently done what I consider to be a decent build of it, and needless to say it got destroyed immediately without any useful comments. This is not helpful.  I do not see this as a POV fork at all, it's an article about long-timescale stuff which is scientifically credible but doesn't fit into the other GW article suite cos it's slow-acting stuff.  I think it needs its own article.  As usual, I'm sure others can guide me as I improve it, but repeatedly redirecting it is a) rude b) destructive c) completely unhelpful. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at that build - and frankly i agree with WMC. You addressed none of the problems that i stated above - except nominally, which i specifically noted wouldn't be enough. And i'm sorry to say that you yourself have stated that it is a POV fork (albeit unwittingly in the AfD 'keep' description). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through your comments again and improved the article. I then self reverted to avoid 3rr ambush, so you'll need to look in the history to see my new version.  Hope you like it.  For clarity, regardless of what you think I might have implied previously, it is NOT a POV fork.  It's a subject fork - just like cat is part of mammal but still gets it's own article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Existence
Should this article exist? Issues I see: Therefore, I see no reason that this article shouldn't exist in theory. In practice, it was just a copy of several other articles pieced together in a way that violated the policy on creating POV forks. I have no interest in actually writing a proper article on this subject, but if anyone else does and can do so in a way that is in line with policy, I would welcome reading it. -Atmoz (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) When I first saw the article it was mostly copied from other articles, which is not helpful at all to readers. There is no point in having two articles on the same topic that say exactly the same thing.
 * 2) When the article was created it was a POV fork, as evidenced by AJLs statement in the AfD. However, that doesn't mean it has to be that way. The effects of global warming article is pretty long, and it may be useful to split out some of the long term effects to a new article. (Note: split, not reproduce.)
 * 3) This article could exist as a standalone article, but it needs to have a timescale defined for long term, and it needs to be distinct from the effects of global warming article and the regional effects of global warming article.
 * 4) The specific effects need to have a timescale associated with them. (From memory,) One of the effects in the AJL draft had a timescale of 100,000 years, and it was adjacent to an effect with a timescale of ~200 years. Neither one mentioned a timescale, and the text made it sound like they both acted on the same timescale and were both equally likely to occur. The description of each effect needs to be precise in how when it is postulated to occur, and the probability it will occur.
 * 5) After discussion on the regional effects of global warming article, I recommended that Andrew rewrite it entirely in his userspace. When it was done, it could then be moved 'live'. AJL said he would do this for his next article, but hasn't. I reiterate my suggestion to use your userspace (or an offline word processor) to write new articles instead of piecing them together bit by bit.
 * I gave it a once-over and completely agree with Atmoz. I think it has potential as an useful article. My only content advice to add would be (according to my pet peeve) to not cite articles inline, and to instead do one's best to review the literature and just state the facts as best they are known, with proper citations. Clarity and style are needed, too. A sandbox re-write would be a good idea, so long as the above issues are addressed. Awickert (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will start work on this now. In summary:
 * It stays
 * It needs timescales on an effect-by-effect basis
 * It needs stuff splitting off from EoGW. I've shouted that on the ATP.
 * I disagree on citations. Yes, it's not ideal from a style point of view, but it means people can't constantly accuse me of poor use of sources.
 * I don't much like sandboxes, as some editors refuse to cooperate with them and then go and delete the article as soon as it hits mainspace.
 * Timescale is effects which have not properly 'hit' by 2100
 * Hope this is all OK Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently you are suffering from yet another WP:IDHT attack *sigh*. Everyone but you disagrees on "It stays" and everyone disagrees with you on working in mainspace. Now please try to read the comments again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Awickert and Atmoz argue that it's a valid article, see above. They suggest improvements, which I summarised or countered. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See #5 in Atmoz' response. Notice the comment by Awickert about sandbox. Now take care to read Atmoz' comment about "in theory". Your "summary" is a frankly mockery of their comments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As much fun as it is to repeatedly hit people with large trouts, this wasn't one of those times. Perhaps it's that good feeling you get when something actually gets accomplished at work, or are nearly the end of a project that has taken entirely too long. Whatever it is, the above was meant to be constructive, and I'm glad AJL attempted to understand it. I would like to see the long term effects split from effects of global warming into a new article. And I would like it to be a decent stand alone article. AJL, nobody can force you to use your userspace or write an article offline, but it would be beneficial to everyone, yourself included. This is not a suggestion to attempt to collaboratively edit in a sandbox. Write the article as best that you can&mdash;by yourself. Then when it's done, invite comments from other editors to comment. If your best efforts still aren't good enough to satisfy everyone else then we have a major problem. But I think the main problem right now is that you're too focused on quantity instead of focusing on quality. -Atmoz (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on the merits of having such an article, but i also have to say that AJL's last version of such an article was unacceptable (several cases of SYN, mixup of timescales, etc (see my comments above - which agrees pretty much with yours)). And i would also suggest that AJL does this in userspace - but as i can see, he isn't going to take that advice.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that there is enough consensus here that a sandbox re-write would work, so long as it addresses the above issues in a fundamental way. Until it is reasonably ready, I am not going to start editing it. Best advice: write clearly and concisely, and assume that you have no prior knowledge. Even if you don't use my suggestion, part of the spirit of it is to make sure that you use enough references to be representative of current scientific knowledge, so doing more background reading, especially of papers that may not agree with you, would be good. Awickert (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've added timescales and re-instated. points to note (comemnts appreciated): Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the lead OK, or is more detail on the timescales under consideration required?
 * 2) Are there any sections that need a second re-write?
 * 3) I'm not proposing a split off EoGW until this article has taken root

Long term temperature projections & atmospheric composition
Can anyone suggest the best study for looking at long-term temp changes, and/or changes in atmospheric composition. This article needs a section on this aspect. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're defining "long term" as "after 2100." Is there a precedent for defining "long term" in this way based on the professional literature?  Again: based on the professional literature, not your personal argument for what constitutes "long term". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's based on the 2100 text in GW, which apparently most studies focus on. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still need some long-term studies. Anyone got any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjlockley (talk • contribs)
 * That explains a lot. -Atmoz (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, has anyone got a particular 'favourite' prediction of long-term temperature changes? There are many model runs, which do people think are the most notable.  PS I am trying to be collaborative & constructive.  Please keep your trouts in the pond. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I love trout, especially baked and fried. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lede
The lede currently says "Anthropogenic global warming will have a wide variety of effects which do not manifest themselves within a human lifetime. This article focusses on the effects which will not be fully or largely developed until after 2100."

This is POVvy rabble rousing rubbish. The long term effects would be identical whether global warming is anthropogenic or not. It also implies that no children born this year will survive until 2100, ie all will die before they are 92 years old. More silly rabble rousing. I haven't read the rest of the article, doubtless it gets worse. The use of the word "will" fails crystal ball - nobody can say for sure that global warming will even occur, never mind predict its effects with certainity. This is what it should say "Global warming may have a wide variety of effects which do not manifest themselves within a human lifetime. This article focusses on those effects." Greglocock (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Edted to take on board your comments. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

scattering of tags
I'm sorry to have to scatter the article with tags and comments - but it seems that the above itemized lists by several editors aren't being addressed. There is still too much OR/SYN and many of the references simply do not state what the text says. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC) [if i'm being completely irrational here - then please point it out ;-) ] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SOmetimes it's quicker to improve than tag. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would imply that its salvegable, which is something i doubt, but which you can prove wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've killed most of the tags already. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you've exchanged them with something that you think addresses the problems. As far as i can tell from a quick glance it hasn't been improved much. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please replace any tags as you see fit Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to use the scissors instead. Which eventually ends up with a redirect again - it is the responsibility of the person inserting/editing to provide reliable and adequate sourcing per WP:V. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Species extinction
Let me explain why i challenge the sentence "Species extinction is by nature a process at a specific point in time". The reason is that a species can be below Minimum viable population, in which case it is condemned to a slow extinction. Your "by nature" is a human definition - not a natural definition. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * cite added to back up my claim. the phrase 'destined to extinction' is used (correctly) elsewhere in the section. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please de-banner- I've done it once and don't want people accusing me of edit-warring. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole section needs to be removed. It's not long term as AJL has defined for this article. -Atmoz (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Largest effects are post2100, which meets the lead definition. Other citations to quote would be appreciated, it's a bit smith heavy atm. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But you still haven't explained why the "lead definition" is valid to begin with. Is there a precedent for defining "long term" in this way based on the professional literature? Again: based on the professional literature, not your personal argument for what constitutes "long term". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just convention on other WP articles, Boris. If you don't like it, please suggest an alternative. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Main banner
Please strip the top banner. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. You still haven't addressed all issues. All you've done so far is to plaster a bit of thin paint over the problems in the article. And you haven't even started on the major issue - which is why you are *only* compiling a list of potentially catastrophic issue, with little to no regard as to the timescale it will happen over, or the likelihood of them happening. This seems to be another abrupt climate change article - instead of an article about long term effects of global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's mainly slow stuff. Only ice sheet collapse is abrupt, that I can think of.  I'd love to add more effects.  What do you suggest?  I'm just waiting for a temp. source atm. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And then you go contradicting yourself, by insisting on a see-also to Clathrate gun hypothesis. Hmmm --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As discussed previously with you elsewhere, clathrate gun isn't called gun due to it's speed but because of it's inevitability once fired. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats is apparently your definition. The definition of the clathrate gun is an abrupt climate change happening within a short timespan (century scale) (Kenneth et al(2003)). None of the references come even remotely close to this in timescale. And B&A explicitely rule out a CR scenario. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't check that without a full cite, but I'll take your word for it. I agree that we definitely should not have a main to CG, but a seealso sounds legit. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Working up, references
I'm really very grateful to those who've taken time to give such very fine-grained, detailed criticism of my work. However, I would like a little more support if possible. Can anyone suggest studies they'd like adding? I particularly need to find further references on: Of course, any significant studies that should be incorporated would be most welcome, regardless of category. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Good long term temperature projections
 * 2) Longer-term and temperature-dependent extinction projections

Anoxia
I think the anoxia suggestion should be restored. A single study in a reputable journal merits discussion. I can add to the section with Paelo stuff about past ocean anoxia. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Its undue weight since we are talking a single study, per your own comments. As for paleo stuff ... it doesn't belong here (this is about future), unless you have direct linking in a reliable source, otherwise its WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite this - you went ahead and did it anyway. I've tagged it with OR now, for a classic synthesis. Read this carefully: Do not mix Timescales between each other. Things happening now equivalent to things happening in the early jurrassic does not extrapolate into being relevant for things happening over the next 100,000 years. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I specifically cited a source which drew comparisons between paleoclimatic events and current climate events. If you don't like the comparison, I suggest you find a WP:RS which supports your argument. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. Now read what i wrote...carefully. This article isn't about current climate change. Btw. you are once more trying to reverse the burden of evidence --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But anoxia doesn't happen quickly. The ocean turns over way too slowly for that to be the case. It has to be long term Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only comparative anoxic events in paleo have happened at significantly higher temperatures (>20°C at 1000 meter depth). You are now not only mixing up timescales and timeperiods but also regional/local with global. You aren't sticking to referring what the literature says - but instead combining various references to tell a story of how you think things are. Thats original research (synthesis) of the very worst kind. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the literature, not me, which draws comparison between paleo and AGW. The OR is yours - as you are seeking to refute this without a WP:RS. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The literature does not draw that comparison. There is a difference between saying that we can learn from the past, and to imply that the future will be like the past. And you are once more trying to reverse WP:BURDEN, sorry: No can do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pearce et al[20] suggested that ocean anoxic events "...have an important contemporary relevance because the magnitude and high rates of environmental change then were broadly similar to those occurring at the present day."[improper synthesis?] Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "We can learn from similarities in the past" != "the future is going to be like the past" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

clathrates
I fail to see how a section which consists almost entirely of direct quotes can be in any way described as OR. Further, I object to the removal of the link to clathrate gun. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would clathrate gun be relevant now? You've removed all references to it, since none of your references support such a scenario, the text doesn't mention it - and finally: Clathrate gun is paleo not future. (why would it be included? As POV? subtle hint that you think a clathrate gun could happen? or what?) As for the OR - i have included commentary in every single tagging. Relate to that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The OR banner should only be used when there's OR. If you just disagree with a section's approach, please use TP.  I feel that the banner-strewn article suggests it's abject nonsense, when in fact (by WP standards) it's quite robust IMO. As regards the clathrate gun, it's the WP:RS that suggests it may happen - not me.  Further, the link was a seealso, not a main, so a direct link doesn't require proving for its use. I'll replace shortly in the absence of contrary comments. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * original research includes synthesis, but unfortunately there isn't a, so OR will have to do. I am using the talk page. And most of the problems that i'm tagging in the article can be found in the section above call POV fork, as well as the next section (by others) called Existence, the trouble is that you didn't listen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -Atmoz (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I emphatically reject the repeated suggestion that this is OR. The section consists of almost nothing but quotes.  There's just nothing original about it.  It's a nonsensical accusation.  Its closer to plagiarism than to OR. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quotes that are used to illustrate or allude to a point that isn't given by the citation is WP:SYN, which is an integral part of WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain rmvl of valid research by Kump, Gamo, etc. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the edit remarks - i gave a reason for each removal. But as it seems that you are lazy:
 * Dickens : cut - completely original research. Anoxia is not mentioned - and the reference doesn't even *hint* at your claim. This one is really *bad*
 * Meyer&Kump : cut Meyer & Kump - warming in the sense of Jurrasic and warming in the sense of post-2100 are not comparable - unless you have a reference linking them.
 * Gump: cut Gamo. Local/regional. Undue weight.
 * Friedrich: cut If its not supposed to be analogous to now - what is it doing here? SYN of the worst kind.
 * Lenton: cut Lenton - completely wrong timescale. Seems to be here to scare (POV) combined with the above its also SYN:
 * Perhaps you shuld start reading the history? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The basic problem is that AJL doesn't understand Wikipedia's policy on original research. Andrew, you need to read that policy and make sure you understand what it means. In particular, reflect on the following:
 * Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
 * Burn the last sentence into your synapses. If you don't understand how that policy applies to your edits on this article please re-read it. If you still don't understand, read it again. If you still don't understand after the third reading, perhaps consider whether there is a more appropriate outlet for your talents than Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will bear in mind as I look to make improvements. Keen to see if any can be re-incorporated. Appreciate the ear-bending. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) can i just ask, why is it a problem to say "x,y & z said clathrate gun happened in the past. You can't assume that means the same preconditions exist." I think that's fair game, because I read it as "there's a risk worthy of further study/consideration here, but no direct proof". I think that's fair comment. Shall I commit hari-kiri? Andrewjlockley (talk)
 * Its not fair game - because you are giving your opinion, by implying that it may be so. You are an editor here, not an author. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * but other authors have made the point already. not syn! Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is stating that a CR event could happen (again)? And why aren't you using them as a reference? Or is it dodgy sources? (hint: x, y & z in that above do not)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Buffett and Archer - it's in the text. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It is not in the text. B&A specifically rule out a "burst" event (no matter the timescale). Its not even remotely close to CGT. Methane release from clathrates, as a feedback, is not in and by itself anything other than a feedback. CGT demands a fast release - B&A say its a slow release. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the inevitability not the speed, that makes it a 'gun'. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you found one - or actually read the CGH article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I note Kennet cited in another section. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This section doesn't menton CG so your banners are now inappropriate and I hope youc an take them down. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Who needs consistency?
Extremely large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth (estimated at 3000 Gton C)[1]... MacDonald suggests clathrate volumes are "about 11,000 Gt of carbon for ocean sediments, and about 400 Gt for sediments under permafrost regions"[2]. So is it 3000 or 11,000? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno, that's why I put up the 2 figures. The full ref for B&A was there before but it got cut in someone's hacking.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And which of the 2 figures is consensus? Or is it mere original research? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I put both in the first sentence, to show a range. Is that OK? Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough - you didn't answer my question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User space
I believe that there was a strong consensus for this to be worked on in AJL's user space before going in to the main space. AJL didn't take the hint, so I've made it a bit stronger William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a wholly unacceptable attempt to circumvent the AfD process Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CG (again).
This is because WMC removed it. It was in at the time, can't you even remember what you did yourself? Start reading page-history. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out it should go now. Can you de-banner the article please? I think extinction is the only banner that should remain. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the one tag that wasn't correct anymore. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk moved from deleted: Talk:Long term effects of global warming
Missing your favourite page? It's over here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is blatant attempt to circumvent the AfD process. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. It is chance for you to work on the article and get it into some sort of respectable condition. I suggest you reread all the suggestions that have been made and take them to heart. Since you preempted the csd process yourself you are not exactly arguing from a strong position. If you'd rather take it to AfD in its current form then I am sure Mr Connolley will oblige. Greglocock (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least it should have been formally proposed on the TP. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was proposed, I'm not sure there is any requirement for a formal proposition. There's not much point in people writing stuff on talk pages if you can't even be bothered to read them. What is your objection to working on this article in your sandbox? Greglocock (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * a) it's leargely ready, and b) fewer people contribute to sandbox edits. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not is isn't ready, it is a POVvy alarmist unencyclopedic disgrace largely consisting of muddled quotes and WP:SYN. While I am no great believer in democracy it has to be said the weight of opinion is rather stacked against the validity of this article. I really recommend AfD if you sincerely believe (a). Greglocock (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the tags are out of date with the current revision, see TP Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if that is what you believe then if other editors agree let's bring it back into mainspace and put it up for AfD, properly. So, are you sure that you can't improve it in userspace? To be honest you haven't changed much since it moved, despite the long outstanding list of tags and other problems. Greglocock (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked Kim to de-tag it. I need 1 more cite for species, then I'll move it.  Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then i predict that it will be AfD'd - and i can also predict the outcome for you..... (predict used here in the same weasel way as in the article). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I to be deleted? I think it would only be appropriate if I were shot with a clathrate gun.... Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what this sentence is doing....
I want you to explain this particular sentence:
 * In separate research, Buffett & Archer state a "...global estimate of 3×1018 g of carbon (3000 Gton C) in clathrate and 2×1018 g (2000 Gton C) in methane bubbles. The predicted methane inventory decreases by 85% in response to 3 °C of warming.".

Specifically i want you to describe what the decrease of 85% is: Thank you. You can answer under each bullet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it what we can expect from a 3°C rise in temperatures? (which temperatures? Atmosphere? Ocean floor?) I ASSUME GLOBAL
 * Let me try to be more specific: Is it a 3°C rise in atmospheric temperatures, or a 3°C rise in Ocean floor temperatures? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does such a release simply result from a pure delta-T change - or does the initial T have influence? ASSUME FROM CURRENT
 * What T does B&A use to estimate this release? MILLENIAL SCALE
 * Is it a change in estimation of the amount of clathrates depending on temperature? NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN, BUT TEMP. DRIVEN
 * If it is a future release of methane - then:
 * What amount ends up in the atmosphere THEY DON'T DISCUSS THAT I DON'T THINK. IT'S EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND LOTS OF OTHER RESEARCH HAS BEEN DNE.
 * Over what amount of time? MILLENIAL SCAELE, AS ABOVE
 * What does B&A say in the paper itself as opposed to the abstract?
 * What context does the quote come from? ABSTRACT
 * Do you think that I should answer all of this in such detail in the para? My assumption is that interested readers will simply check the source for themeselves.  The quote is accurate, and doesn't as far as I can see misrepresent the paper, so what's the beef? Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me suggest:
 * The Ocean contains methane clathrates on the order of 4000 Gton (B&A(2004)). These methane clathrates will be destabilized by higher temperatures, and parts would slowly over the millenial scale end up in the atmosphere. For an athropogenic release of 2000 Gton of carbon (7300 Gton ) an amount of 2000 Gton of methane could be released from the Oceans over a period of 1,000 to 100,000 years (B&A(2005)).

Without quotes and sticking quite stricktly to the content in the papers, without embellishing it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Faults with IMO: Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't include Kvenvolden estimate
 * Since you haven't given an estimate by Kvenvolden and i can't read your mind - thats the reason. (I'm guessing you are referring to, since that is the only relevant paper after 2004 by Kvenvolden - but that isn't about clathrates, and on a completely different timescale) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * doesn't explain that 15% will remain
 * The 15% you are referring to is irrelevant to atmosphere. Its constrained to clathrates => ocean, if Ocean floor temperature reaches 3°C higher than now. Some of that would reach the atmosphere and is included in the estimation by B&A. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely they find that 85pc will degrade and therefore 15pc can be assumed to remain.
 * Only if the sea floor heats up 3°C. Will it do that? Do you have a reference? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i'm not sure the 3 orders of magnitude uncertainy on timescale is entirely fair
 * Its what the paper says. How can it be unfair? They do not give a more precise answer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * what's wrong with quotes?
 * Cherry picking (the 85% is a good example) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was MacDonald, not Kvenvolden. It's already cited in the text.  I think the best way to represent the 85pc/3C thing is with a quote. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are still ignoring that its talking about sea floor warming - not atmosphere. Quotes are generally discouraged since they all to often miss context (just as the 85% one does) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we can ass something about sea floor warming if you're seeking to clarify that clathrates are not found on the moon, or in clouds :-) Could I ask you to make the edit, and to suggest similarly for other sections? Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's interesting you mention the moon because seafloor warming of 3 C would be astronomical, far beyond even the most wildly extreme projections of warming. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you got a WP:RS for that? Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are *some* of the current problems
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "predicted" is used incorrectly in the whole article. HOW SO?
 * Verify once more that the references really state what you claim. (here's a hint: Lenton+WAIS)
 * Still a catastrophy article. No attempt is made at covering non-drastric changes. WHAT INCLUSIONS WOULD YOU SUGGEST
 * Moving sections around, does not invalidate the previous tags. (you still haven't adressed timescales, except for the vague millenia "handwave"). I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO DO THE B&A TEXT
 * No attempt at meeting or describing scientific consensus is done, the article instead directly cherry-picks worst case results, and ignores likelihood.
 * Still doesn't address the problems raised above in the methane section.
 * Still uses cherry-picked quotes, instead of accurate description/summary of articles. CAN YOU SUGGEST WORDING YOU'RE HAPPY WITH?
 * Really appreciate your input on this, but am of course keep to see it in mainspace. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really basic suggestion for non-catastrophic changes: how about simple stuff like increased hydrologic cycle and perhaps associated magnitude/frequency distributions in rainfall? Awickert (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is specific to 2100+, got any refs for those effects? I'm particularly looking to cover stuff which will change radically after 2100, not just 'more of the same' stuff. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try; will be gone for tomorrow and next day, so will have to wait. Awickert (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim I think you were looking at the biogeochemistry paper by archer. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.03.011    lol!  no wonder we disagreed on the content hahhahahahah 13:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)