Jump to content

Talk:Climate variability and change

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.155.155.77 (talk) at 21:37, 29 August 2010 (Talk:Climate change denial is more precise than Human activity created global Warming (the current climate change).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Former good articleClimate variability and change was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 23, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:FAOL

Effects of CO2

Added information that was in this article section.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States, determined that carbon dioxide, and five other greenhouse gases, "endanger public health and welfare" of the American people. These gases, they said, contribute to climate change, which is causing more heat waves, droughts and flooding, and is threatening food and water supplies. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924

The EPA finding is based largely on the IPCC's findings. So, become a circular reasoning. EPA didn't do any independent research to corroborate his findings. This is an important difference from the past findings. "Lisa Jackson, Obama's EPA Administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today in good measure on the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true."Inhofe: EPA 'endangerment' rule based on junk science; Is coal industry death coming soon?]Painlord2k (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IPCC doesn't do independent research, its an assessment report. Just as the Climate Change Science Program (now the U.S. Global Change Research Program is. Both are based on reviewing the scientific literature. The field is too large for an agency such as the EPA to assess the whole, which is why the IPCC and the USGCRP have been asked to do so. Inhofe is not a reliable source on this issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Timesonline

Does this have any bearing on this Wikipedia article: [www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece] btw what is a "ece" extension - don't think I have ever seen one of those before? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You've misunderstood it. But you'd get a better and longer "no" if you asked at global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanism

The reference to the US Geological Survey report in the third paragraph has a misleading conclusion. The report cited uses as it's source another report that was a measure of "total carbon" not carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes. By stating in this section that the amount measured was of carbon dioxide could lead a reader to an incorrect conclusion. Total carbon release and carbon dioxide release are two entirely different things. I'll be doing some additional research on this before proposing an edit. Hammer8s (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)halderman[reply]

This is just a different way of accounting. One ton of carbon is equivalent to 44/12=3.6(6) tons of carbon dioxide. Also, you mixed up the reports. Marland et all (2006), which now seems to be at [1], is used as a source for human emissions. We often use simply "carbon", because the major carbon-containing emissions (CO, Methane, CO2) nearly all end up as CO2 in fairly short times. I'm very sure that the USGS is well aware of this and has taken it into account. Note that they claim 30 billion tons of CO2, while Marland et al lists about 8 billion tons of Carbon, depending on the year [2]. 8 billion tons of carbon times 3.66 comes out at the 30 billion tons of CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to introductory paragraphs

I cannot see how the recent changes to the introductory paragraphs improve things: The rewrite is less clear than it previously was, especially the first paragraph. Weather patterns ≠ climate. "Trend" implies future (& what was wrong with "changes"?). Why does this article need so many names for global warming? The last two paragraphs are redundant as the same ideas are better expressed later in the article. And despite being twice as long it has lost useful information, as links to Earth, temperature record and attribution of recent climate change are gone. I would just put it back how it was before the template:technical was added. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's replied and a day later and I still the version in place a couple of days ago was much clearer and more appropriate so I've restored it. The alternate would be to edit what was there, but by the time the duplication was removed, the missing links put back and the sense made clear it would look much like what I've just put back. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human influences

"Anthropogenic factors" are not human activities that change the environment, actually, as the first sentence of the "Human influences" section states. Anthropogenic factors are, perhaps over-simply put, "human factors." There are, of course, anthropogenic factors (human factors) that can change the environment, which I believe is the more precise point of the original statement. Somewhat of a semantic observation, but this is my first edit suggestion other than a few simple IP-anonymous typographic corrections, so I'm starting out tentatively.

This seems a good alternative to the first sentence of the Human influences section:

"Human or anthropogenic influences on climate change can include human activities, effects, processes or materials."

I would include an internal link to "anthropogenic" from which I was inspired to write this alternative. I believe double-brackets are used to engage internal links. The article is semi-protected due to the high risk of vandalism, or I would happily endeavor to figure out how to make the change myself. Perhaps since I have an account I can do this myself.

Thanks, Oxylotyl (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to Human influences section of Climate Change article

{{editsemiprotected}}

This article is semi-protected due to the high risk of vandalism, or I would happily endeavor to figure out how to make the change myself. Perhaps since I have an account I can do this myself after 10 or so edits.

I suggested the change on Dec 14, '09 on the Climate Page's talk page, but now understand that might not get attention. I hope this is useful:

"Anthropogenic factors" are not just human activities that change the environment, actually, as the first sentence of the "Human influences" section states. Anthropogenic factors are, perhaps over-simply put, "human factors" more generally. There are, of course, anthropogenic factors (human factors) that can change the environment, to which the term "anthropogenic" is most currently in reference to, and which I believe is the more precise point of the original statement. Somewhat of a semantic observation, but this is my first edit suggestion other than a few simple IP-anonymous typographic corrections, so I'm starting out tentatively.

This seems a good alternative to the first sentence of the Human influences section. Please change:

Anthropogenic factors are human activities that change the environment.

to:

Human or anthropogenic influences on climate change can include human activities, effects, processes or materials.

I included an internal link to "anthropogenic" from which I was inspired to write this alternative. I believe double-brackets are used to engage internal links.

Thanks, Oxylotyl (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The anthropogenic article you linked specifically says "The term anthropogenic [effect] designates an effect or object resulting from human activity." To me, this would logically mean anthropogenic factors are human activities causing an effect on something. When you become autoconfirmed, feel free to change it, but it's not critical at the moment. In the meantime, use this talk page or a related wikiproject's talk page to determine a consensus for the change. I'm glad to see you have an interest in editing wikipedia! Happy editing! Ks0stm (T•C•G) 13:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "Human or anthropogenic" is not necessary. It is poor grammar and one of the words would be redundant. The whole sentence is not needed for the same reason. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how about combining the two thusly, into a more complete definition of "anthropogenic": Kevin Baastalk 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropogenic factors of climate change are changes to the ecological environment that come directly or indirectly from humans. These include human activities, effects, processes and materials.

Thanks Kevin, that is a more precise revision of the original first sentence. If in agreement, can you make the change? I believe I still have too few edits to make changes to a semi-protected page. And perhaps anthropogenic could link to the internal article of the same name, if appropriate. Thanks. Oxylotyl (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar correction

{{editsemiprotected}} Just to change 'continue' to 'continues' in the Ice Cores section (singular subject - 'study').

 Done Thanks! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other evidence

A quick read of the present contents suggests to me that no mention is made of evidence of the type relating to changes in "start of seasons", as in spring seeming to start earlier, or birds migrating earlier or later. Melcombe (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with this kind of evidence; could you give some examples? Awickert (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping there would be someone around familiar with these fields. A quick Google gives:
For birds....
For seasons....
There must be better sources than these ....? Melcombe (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And a recent publication is describe at http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/2010_news_item_04.html . Melcombe (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - sorry I left you hanging here - I lost track of this discussion. What you probably want is an article closer to effects of global warming, unless you want to try to discuss longer-term variability in bird migration patterns. Thanks for all the links and I'm really sorry again for not responding! Awickert (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add? A Complete List Of Bad Things Attributed To Global Warming from nvestor's Business Daily.

Add A Complete List Of Bad Things Attributed To Global Warming http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=529363 Posted 04/05/2010 05:05 PM ET (from nvestor's Business Daily: "Hardly a day goes by that the media don't blame something on global warming. Or so it seems. The British-based science watchdog, Number Watch, wondered just how many and went to the trouble of documenting them. It has kept on its Web site a near-comprehensive set of links to a long list of things attributed by either scientific research or the media to global warming. As you read it, some items will strike you as contradictory. Others, perhaps, as merely absurd. And still others as factually impossible. However they strike you, in perusing the list one thing will become clear: just how much the fear of global warming has come to taint both science and news reporting on the issue. Following is the list of phenomena (756 entries in all) linked at one time or another to warming. They range from acne, bubonic plague and a drop in circumcisions to Yellow fever, whale beachings, walrus stampedes, witchcraft executions and the threat of zebra mussels. Actual links to stories that make the claims listed below can be found at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm. (Below the list are some claims that no longer have working Internet links.)

The list: ..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.185.100 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list which includes the death of the Loch Ness Monster is not taking itself seriously to be considered a reliable source. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Backdoor Energy Tax This from Investor's Business Daily, seems a bigger investors.com Editorial concern. 99.24.248.94 (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a legitimate source... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from being a bit silly, this is all on the wrong page. You want Global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Climate change denial is more precise than Human-activity created global Warming (the current climate change). 99.155.155.77 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glaciers paragraph problem - no citations, grossly incorrect information

The "Glaciers" paragraph has hardly any citations on any of the information it contains. Also, it says that, paraphrasing, "Organic matter left from glacial retreats can be accurately dated". Accurate is sometimes used as a broad term in the scope of the entire history of the Earth, but realistically the article should refrain from using words such as "accurate" or "precisely ascertained" as the dating methods used to find the age of such organic matter, soil, etc are hardly precise and have many, many limitations. Keep in mind, the dating methods used to find the ages are not provable by any means. The fact that nearly none of the dating methods used can properly date something where the age is definite, is a problem. Therefore, the science of dating organic or other matter is anything but accurate, and is closer to just being an educated guess.

I would make the edits myself, but as I am a new member and the article is under probation, I cannot make the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricW03 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I noticed that no one has addressed this. How can I add more references? FullRoomingIn (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't been around recently, but have contributed to this article in the past. Removed "accurate" and "precisely": flowery terms that aren't needed here. The original poster is wrong about "proving" dating methods and about their accuracy and precision: Quaternary dating techniques are cross-correlated and tied into ground truth. This doesn't seem to be important for the article though, so just a note.
You can add more references by making 10 edits anywhere here and then editing this page. Awickert (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Places Already Affected by Climate Change

I prepared this information, but I can not find a suitable place in which to add it, either in this article or in any of the articles in Category:Climate change.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of global warming? Awickert (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but I am not certain that the climate change is limited to global warming. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to Physical impacts of climate change. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When they say "climate change" in that context, they mean "global warming", but it sounds like you figured out what to do. Awickert (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming is But one effect of climate change. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest: Alliance of Small Island States/Small Island Developing States for detail on "Island nations"? 99.37.85.58 (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to actual title: "Top 10 Places Already Affected by Climate Change: Catastrophic effects of global warming are being felt from the deserts of Darfur to the island nation of Kiribati". 99.54.137.73 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_variability_and_change&oldid=381767090"