Talk:Climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance within WikiProject Meteorology. |
 |
Climate change is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
Climate change has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
This climate change-related article is part of WikiProject Climate Change, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wikipedia related to climate change and global warming. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. We are focusing on Climate change. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Climate change as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia. |
[edit] Archives
[edit] Recent Rewrite
I took it upon myself to rewrite this article to fulfill the promise of its introduction. In other words, to make this article about climate change of all kinds and on all time scales, rather than a crude microcosm of the global warming debate. I hope it can keep that focus.
It is not the best article, and still has problems, particularly with documentation. Some of it could probably do to be expanded, other parts could still be shrunk. I haven't covered all of the topics covered in the original article, but I believe that most, if not all, of the topics are either here or covered in other articles, particularly global warming articles.
In most of what I have written, I have tried to be brief. There are too many issues to include them all in this article, so I have tried to provide most sections with a decent summary and wikilink all of the major topics. Hopefully people will see this as a good thing.
For the immediate future, I don't think I'll edit this any more. I'd rather other people look at it and have a go. Hopefully, you won't think it is so horrible it needs to go away. :-)
Dragons flight 07:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Developing a schema
Anybody interested in this subject, please see my comment on Talk:global warming. I realise my thought on a possible merger with GW isn't likely to fly (though the amount of overlap should give pause for thought), but how about the rest of what I said, in terms of developing the topic structure? Anybody out there? Rd232 18:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] plate tectonics and climate change
Could we add an external source for this comment in the article:
"More recently, plate motions have been implicated in the intensification of the present ice age when approximately ~3 million years ago, the North and South American plates collided to form the Isthmus of Panama and shut off direct mixing between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans."
Mccready 19:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
In other news, see Molnar and England (1990), Late cenezoic uplift of mountain-ranges and global climate change - chicken or egg, Nature 346 (6279): 29-34 JUL 5 1990. An excellent, oft-cited piece of work. Daniel Collins 16:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WAS's list
User:WAS 4.250 added the following list to the introduction of the article. It isn't really appropriate there as it duplicates much of the table of contents and takes up a lot of space. However it may be appropriate to expand on some of these within the article, so I am moving the list here for discussion. Dragons flight 17:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
These changes come from:
- internal processes:
- external processes:
- surface processes:
[edit] Wikibooks links
I removed the wikibook link, because the wikibooks pages are currently rubbish. And I don't mean they are overly sketpical, they are just a confused mishmash. There is no point in referring a general reader to them. If editors want to see the link, it here:
William M. Connolley 11:06:47, 2005-09-06 (UTC).
[edit] next century?
Under 'Human influences > fossil fuels' it says the CO2 levels are "projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the next century." Of course what this means depends on when it was written. 'The next century' is not a very good wording. Which century is meant here? I suppose that a projection to the year 2200 would go too far and this is copied from a text written in the 20th century. DirkvdM 20:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] See-also
I removed some see-also's, on the grounds that they are already linked in the article. Nrcprm2026 re-added them, on the grounds that "Hey, I wanted to read those". Well you can't, but this isn't your presonal bookmark space. Global warming and UNFCC are in the text: there is no point in repeating them. Links to IPCC belong on the IPCC page. Links to Palaeo belongs on the palaeo page. http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com is I think just advertising itself: its not important enough to be here. William M. Connolley 15:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC).
- I doubt that see also lists should be trimmed just for the sake of brevity. I do agree that irrelevant items should be removed, but please consider the first-time reader who gets to the end of an article and then must decide what to read next. I think it is very appropriate that global warming be on the see also list for climate change, and I don't think a reasonable person could deny that. The wiki is not your personal research draft; there are plenty of people who have less expertise than you and could use some direction after taking in a long article.
- Plus, the things I wanted to read were the external links that you clipped as I was going through them. I hope you didn't take those out again as well. There's plenty of room to have hyperlinks and annotated footnotes both, don't you agree? James P. S. 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Extreme weather cost graph
Rd232 removed a version of this graph. I believe the graph has substantial merit, has a NPOV, is not original research, and does not imply anything about the relative proportion of the causes of the variation. I am asking third party climate bloggers to independently comment on it and will report the results back here and to Talk:Global_warming. I intend to replace the graph here after their review, unless any significant issues are raised. James P. S. 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Replaced with requested caption change per various discussions.... --James S. 20:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal turned attempted contributor
After some heavy vandalism, 72.1.206.14 tried to be constructive. Obvious boundary-testing, but for the time being let him or her have their fairly accurate sentence, perhaps, even though it's kind of out of time-scale context there. --James S. 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vezier, again
63.218.212.211 has re-inserted [1] (and I've re-removed):
- It has been argued (Veizer et al. 1999) that variations in greenhouse gas concentrations over tens of millions of years have not been well correlated to climate change, with perhaps plate tectonics playing a more dominant role. Others have argued that the climate record shows actually shows that carbon dioxide changes lag centuries behind temperature changes (Petit et al., 1999; Fischer et al., 1999; Mudelsee, 2001; Monnin et al., 2001; Caillon et al., 2003; Clarke, 2003). Therefore, they argue that temperature increases drive carbron dioxide increases. The carbon dioxide increases may amplify the warming, but these scientists argue that carbon dioxide increases do not cause the warming.
This text at the very best mixes up piles of timescales - Petit et al is presumably ice cores. Also the pile of refs, which aren't given, is suspicious, and appears to be from this. And I suspect the refs don't support the text, anyway.
She has also re-inserted the tell-tale skeptic Though rising carbon dioxide levels do not explain why temperatures increased until the 1940s and then fell though the 1970s, only to start increase again at the end of the 1970s.. To which the well-known answer is aerosols and natural variation. If that isn't in here somewhere, I suppose it should be.
William M. Connolley 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've added some text to the page to try to address the tell-tale skeptic bit. To address an email question if questioning the unknowns of climate change makes that user a "tell-tale skeptic,"...: no, this is a misunderstanding. The point is, this isn't an unknown. Its something that fits well into the existing GHG theory. Pointing it out *as though* it was unknown; attempting to pretend that it doesn't fit into the theory; *that* is tell-tale. William M. Connolley 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Non-climate factors driving climate
In the section on Greenhouse gases it states:
- Radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary force causing global warming
Isn't this the main controversy regarding global warming? Few doubt that global warming is taking place or that greenhouse gases cause global warming. What is not universally accepted is that the increase in greenhouse gases is and has been the primary cause. Since this is the case, shouldn't this sentence be slightly less absolute and say something like "it is widely believed" or "most people believe"? –Shoaler (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Arguably its a fair shortest-possible summary, but yes you're right, it could be qualified a bit. global warming or attribution of recent climate change should have some suitable text. William M. Connolley 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC).
- You are trying to keep this section concise. I put in two images and minimal text on glacier changes. However, I did not say anything about response times of glaciers to a climate change. Or look at historically the variations of a specific glacier to many climate changes. Thus, I am curious do you want to focus on climate change responses in general or the current one in specific.Peltoms 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Err, sorry, I'm confused now. Is that in respect of what Shoaler said, or something else? William M. Connolley 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Green Facts
Hi, I notice that under the external links, the GreenFacts summary is given. Could we remove it, as it is rather under discussion, regarindg it's Sound science claims? Also, The IPCC, aswell as this article, already summarizes the reports, no need to list the 3rd organisation.
Thanx -- 145.99.202.92 13:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I recall looking at it, and I had another look just now. It seems Fair Enough, on a brief scan through. William M. Connolley 14:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I just read there Chernobyl 'study', and it was rather advocative. --12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Newest articles on EPA site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/newsandeventsScienceandPolicyNews.html --Ssilvers 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First Paragraph
Climate change refers to the variations in the Earth's global climate or regional climates over time. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the climate over time-scales ranging from a few years to millions of years. These changes may come from either internal (natural) processes or be driven by external (artificial) forces.
What exactly does "Climate Change" describe? If the climate changes drastically in a year, is that not climate change also? Why is the average state of the atmosphere the same as average weather? What is the definition of "recently"? Are human or animal or plant activities internal or external? What is the definition of "internal processes"? What is the definition of "external forces"? --Sln3412 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Time scales of less than a few years are more appropriately termed "weather" than "climate". I think things like "el niño" that affect regional weather or climate in cycles of a few years are sort of the borderline, but others may draw it differently. Similarly, people can differ on exactly where to draw the line between internal and external, depending on what system they are considering. It's a good question, though, and we should look in some books and see if there's something like a consensus definition. Dicklyon 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
why specify "Earth's global climate" - I've heard the words "Martian climate change" and "Martian global warming" with increasing frequency recently.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.245.36.3 (talk • contribs).
- What planet are you from? Seriously, though, if you think that kind of generalization is appropriate, point out a verifiable source for that usage and I'm sure it will be considered. Dicklyon 17:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That looks good. Probably makes sense to add a section on planetary climate change, and maybe allow a little room for that concept in the lead. But go cautiously, as you don't want to divert the main meaning of the term too much. Dicklyon 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Volcanic eruptions
I added a few sentences on the residence time of dust in the atmosphere, and an external link with more details. KonaScout 18:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- ANd how does the irregular pattern pf ice melt affect the disrtibutition of earthquakes?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.231.189.229 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Merge with Global warming
User: 64.201.7.190 has added a merge tag to suggest merging climate change with global warming without any discussion. The merge suggestion also does not seem to be listed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I don't think this suggestion has any merrit - one article deals with climate change in general, the other one with the ongoing episode of (mostly) GHG driven global warming. Unless there is significant support, I'm going to remove the tags. --Stephan Schulz 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the tags. There are many anons that make good contributions (I used to be anon) but when I see things like this, I become very skeptic. I call it sophisticated vandalism. Brusegadi 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Climate Change is effectively a synonym of "global warming", and the articles cover the same ground (with several identical headings) - why would a merge NOT be approprate? Artw 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- They are not synonyms, although they are used as such in some contexts. But climate change is a much more general term, while global warming typically only refers to the current episode. While there is some overlap, the articles also cover different ground. --Stephan Schulz 06:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
