Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Unexplained

This section is to address phenominon that has yet to be explained within the project

Pressure is ignored when talking about climate change. Why?

I have noticed that it hasn't been getting as hot in the region I live as in the past and thought it discredited global warming until someone explained to me that the melt from the poles would cool lower areas. I have since noticed this sort of confusion in observations regarding hurricanes.

[1] says "Warmer Gulf helps keep hurricanes from forming"

[2] says warm ocean water breeds hurricaines

Hackwrench 15:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The key point in [1] is "No moisture, no hurricanes." The reader is expected to know that warmer water leads to more hurricanes, and this is the explanation for why there are less than expected at the moment. Rd232 16:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Developing a schema/survey

I propose here an outline for a new schema for the whole topic. I don't expect all of it to be agreed, but it should be a starting point for useful change, I hope. I propose a schema under the topic heading of Climate change, merging current global warming into it. That might sound drastic, but the climate change article covers much the same ground, and explanations/summaries/links to climate change in general (eg prehuman) could I think be brought in there - there's so much overlap. Plus it would fit with the category!

Well regardless of that suggestion, the main subparts of the topic would be

[edit] Revisions etc comments

For improvements (especially decent summaries) some rationalisation is necessary, I think - there's a proliferation of material across related articles which seems excessive, and probably some of the articles could usefully be merged. For example, on temperature record alone we have

which might be improved just by working on Temperature record, but I wonder whether merge(s) might not lead to greater clarity.

Apart from Global warming period - which I think deserves to merge any usable info, with the disinfo removed - all these other pages deserve to live, separately. They are all about different things. All of them have the potential to grow. William M. Connolley 17:40:52, 2005-07-16 (UTC).

There are a number of articles that cover much the same ground of causation of climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise). Perhaps these could be wholly or partially merged into causes of global warming.

Sci opp and Attr are also different and deserve to stay so. There will be some overlap (Sci Opp depends on Attr, to some extent). Cl Forcing was Bens pet project. Sb argued for it to be deleted; I'm inclined to agree, but I'd rather someone else commented. William M. Connolley 17:40:52, 2005-07-16 (UTC).

Other merges/content moves

Other related articles which are basically fine:

Missing

There are probably others I've missed. Comments? (No rush, I'm going away for a week tomorrow.) Rd232 7 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

Maybe I'm slow, but how come none of these website explain exacty how carbon emissions are lowered? For example, if I pay some company to produce more energy at its wind turbine, they in turn sell the energy generated by the turbine to a power company (PG & E, NYSEG, etc.), right? Is that how it works? I went to numerous websites, and while I know that becoming "carbon neutral" would stop x tons of carbon from being produced, none of the websites - including Wikipedia - include the step of how these companies are actually trading wind energy for co2 energy.

I have some opinions which may turn out to be fairly strong. So I'm going to avoid commenting for a bit and let others have their say. William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 19:39:30 (UTC).
Hmmm, well, no-one else speaks. Perhaps no-one is watching this relatively uncontroversial page? I'm not keen on merging GW/ClCh. They aren't the same thing. DF has (implicitly perhaps) voted against by upgrading the Cl Ch article. I think that the proposed Politics of GW would be a good idea, at least in principle, though it might lead to fights.
I'm happy to be explicit, I don't think GW and ClCh should not be merged and rewrote climate change to draw a sharper distinction between the two. I must admit feeling the same way about no one watching. I had expected at least some reaction when I messed with the climate change article, but I guess everyone has moved on to other things. Dragons flight 21:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Did you mean I don't think GW and ClCh should not be merged or I don't think GW and ClCh should be merged (I think you meant the latter). I checked over your revision BTW; it seemed fair enough to me. William M. Connolley 21:52:22, 2005-07-17 (UTC).

Overall, a guide to what is where and what should be where is a good idea. William M. Connolley 17:40:52, 2005-07-16 (UTC).

Here are my thoughts on how to proceed with this:

  • Create: WikiProject climate change to organize the overall effort
  • Create: Lists of the climate change / global warming articles and their interdependancies. Rd232 has made a good start on this, but I would guess he missed some. This has gotten so complex it is nice to have a road map for our benefit and perhaps for readers as well. Maybe a navigation template for global warming topics?
  • Section up global warming topics much as Rd232 suggests. An article on the politics would certainly be a welcome addition in my mind. I think however that "Causes of global warming" is probably more appropriately handled with attribution of recent climate change (though that article could use considerable improvement).
  • Merge/delete surface air temperature (unless someone sees a way to expand it) and global warming period
  • Merge/delete material from climate forcing into climate change and attribution of recent climate change as appropriate.
  • Cut verbose material discussing consensus and scientific politics from attribution of recent climate change into either scientific opinion on global warming and/or politics of global warming.
  • Cleanup geologic temperature record and paleoclimatology. This is actually partly my fault as I wrote the former after forgetting about the latter. I think it is possible to draw a clean distinction between the two, but the redundancies could be reduced and paleoclimatology still needs considerable work.
  • Fix the solar variation/solar variation theory fork
  • Cleanup various other articles.

Anyway that is my two cents right now. Dragons flight 21:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree creating the wikiproject was a good idea. Thanks! William M. Connolley 21:52:22, 2005-07-17 (UTC).

[edit] Sociological considerations about greenhouse gases

Opinions on this? William M. Connolley 17:58:54, 2005-07-16 (UTC).

Change the name. No one would look it up under that title. "Limiting Greenhouse Gases" or some other commonly used phrase. Stirling Newberry 17:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither of these articles address "sociology" in any meaningful way. They do not present, for example, NPOV sociological studies of the effects of predicted global warming models, nor the sociological effects of alterations to the economic system to reduce carbon emissions. They also have personal asides like "annoying for some" which are not encyclopediac.

The best solution would be change the name and deal more extensively with the cost/benefit trade offs of various strategies to cope with global warming and carbon reduction over the next century based on the available literature. Stirling Newberry 19:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest merging with mitigation of global warming and/or politics of global warming - but I don't see much material worth merging. Rd232 23:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Now edited and renamed Individual action against global warming. Rd232 19:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roadmap

Proposed structures:

[edit] Global warming

[edit] Causes of global warming

Subarticles or related articles, or articles to be merged or partially merged into causes of global warming:

[edit] Climate change

Problem: how to minimise overlap between climate change and its subarticles and global warming and its subarticles? Merger seems unpopular, despite the common (lay) usage of the two terms as equivalent, and the amount of overlap in the underlying scientific issues and discussions (imagine the overlap between a Category:global warming and the current Category:climate change). (A merged article could encompass both historical climate change and recent (anthropogenic) "global warming".) Rd232 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Global warming" is what has been going on for the last 150 years or so, with some information about the last few thousand years for perspective. "Climate change" is a process that has been occuring for over 4 billion years. That's basically how I would draw the distinction. Allow global warming to encompass recent events and subjects that provide immediate perspective on those events. Let climate change focus on the longer term, from ice ages on back, with only modest mention to recent events. BTW, if you haven't noticed, I rewrote climate change about a week ago to make it far less of a global warming microcosm. Dragons flight 21:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mmmhmm, not really paid attention to climate change page before so, no, I'm afraid I didn't notice. My intuition - my logic, looking at the topic structure - still says that "global warming" is a subheading of climate change. All the same issues are there, on the causation side, except, that some of the long-term stuff doesn't apply on our global-warming time-scale. But discussion about temperature records and hockey sticks and what-have-you just seems awfully overlappy; and these long-term changes do provide a context for modern warming and how climatology works. I could well imagine a topic structure

  • climate change
    • overview (long-term climate changes and recent anthropogenic global warming)
    • causes
      • distant past / very long-term
      • recent global warming
    • effects
    • mitigation/adaptation
    • politics

which could neatly integrate everything. Much of this is already there (eg first two para of Causes in global warming), and I don't thnk merging cc into gw (and renaming latter cc) would actually add that much material to gw.

That said, I'm not really fundamentally bothered about the separate existence of cc and gw; I'm happy to focus on gw structures and let others worry how cc fits in/should be developed. And since that (separation) seems to be the consensus, let's just leave it at that and get on with the work. Rd232 22:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New section on pages for comment

I've created a new section, under tasks, for pages that people think need comment, and listed two. William M. Connolley 22:01:59, 2005-07-17 (UTC).

jolly good, I've added a couple more. (By the way, thanks for your new signature placement. Much easier to scan the page that way.) Rd232 22:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I had to knuckle under in the end... :-) William M. Connolley 23:02:44, 2005-07-17 (UTC).

[edit] Wikiproject

[edit] Abstaining on Wikiproject

I would like to note for the record that I strongly disagree with the organization and naming conventions of the climate change articles, and additionally disagree with the much of the topic structure as it is now, and with some as it is presented on this page so far. I believe the names and structure sow confusion and make it difficult for the layman to understand, and in doing so makes it easier for skeptics to dismiss or to simply wreak havoc with fighting on the pages due to the rhetorical rather than scientific style in which the articles need to be written. However, I have voiced my opinions about the structure and naming conventions before and was rebuffed in no uncertain terms by William M. Connolley with little consideration and in some cases no consideration for my opinions and ideas [3] [4] (including presentation of ideas for topic and article structure [5] [6]). I have no desire to engage in a fruitless "debate" with him again, I simply want it on record that at least one person interested enough in a WikiProject about climate change to go to the trouble of creating topic and article structures does not want to contribute because of WMC. --Ben 03:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
See also discussion on User talk:Benapgar. Rd232 19:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Climatology WikiProject?

Although I am in full agreement for a WikiProject on Climate Change, I'm slightly disappointed not to have found a project on Climatology as a whole. Having spent several days studying the current climatology articles, my opinion is that they provide a good enough introduction for the general reader, but are somewhat lacking in detail for people who would like a bit more than that. Would anyone be able to provide me a bit of guidance on whether it would indeed be a good idea to start a Climatology WikiProject and if so how to go about it. Of course, any comments would be much appreciated. TCrossland 2005-08-18.

Starting a WikiProject is relatively easy; getting enough support from users to make it work is harder. I'd suggest Climate Change and Climatology cover much the same ground, so a separate project is not necessarily a good idea, coordination-wise. For now, the easiest is to treat Climate Change as the umbrella project for climatology articles. You could propose a name change, but I think that at this stage a focus on getting the key Climate Change articles to featured quality is a good, focussed, achievable aim, and renaming at this point might distract from that. Rd232 15:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

As part of Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics we're focusing on having [the U's done]. The project is to have an article for everything Britannica covers. One of them, Urban Climate, is partially covered in Urban heat island, but not in as general a way, as the latter only covers temperature. I though the people here would be the best to help. Can you guys put together at least a decent stub for Urban Climate? Thanks - Taxman Talk 19:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] list of global warming opponents

On the theory that one needs to know your opposition in order to understand him, and in light of the arguments over at global warming over whether the opposition is "a minority", "a small minority", "a very small minority", etc., I have created list of scientists opposing global warming consensus. (The name is awkward I know, but "list of" is required per WP:MOS and I don't know how else to name the rest of it.) The goal is to create a list of global warming opponents subject to a tight set of criteria outlined in the header of the article. In my mind I am thinking there may well be fewer than 15 prominent individuals that belong on this list and I would like to name them all, thus enumerating the size of the opposition directly. Maybe this is a bad idea, but I want to give it a go and see what develops. Dragons flight 21:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Action on Climate Change

Action on Climate Change was created recently and needs cleanup. (So do several related articles, like business action on climate change and politics of global warming.) Rd232 talk 22:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where does it fit?

The MindClick Consumer Global Warming Monitor is a new survey measuring consumer attitudes to climate change issues. As its the first in a quarterly survey, it might be worth following: http://mindclickgroup.com/mgwmonitor.com/press/WeatherSummary02.20.07.pdf

Does someone know where Image:Carbon History and Flux.png would be useful? Dragons flight 22:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Luntz, political talking points, the invention of "Climate Change" to replace "Global Warming"

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but I think it deserves inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, since it's so relevant to the use of the phrases "climate change" and "global warming." The phrase "climate change" was pushed into popular use by Frank Luntz, a republican strategist. He used "climate change" to replace "global warming" in the media, since it sounded more positive according to the focus groups he conducted, just as he invented "death tax" to replace "estate tax" to get more people to vote for repealing it. There's a PBS interview with him about it. "Climate Change" would not be in widespread use if Frank Luntz hadn't instructed Republican speech writers to use it instead of "global warming." (That's why you won't hear Republicans use "global warming" and instead only use "climate change." Frank Luntz did the same thing with "Estate Tax" and "Death Tax" which both meant the same thing, but with different effects on the focus groups.) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html

[edit] Sources master directory

Currently there is decent sourcing for many articles and even some subarticles, but unless I missed it there isn't an article of references and external links (and for further reading) for the entire climate change project. I think such a master directory of sources would be useful. Evolauxia 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to write and try to maintain the directory myself.

[edit] there is a need for some balance

claims are being presented as facts, for example, the claims of some self-proclaimed scientists is presented as 'scientific'. How do we bring this to the attention of an umpire?--CorvetteZ51 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this, but on the "Carbon Offset" page someone has listed as reference an article that is critical of offseting, but which has not even been published yet. Perhaps this can go in the Information section, once it has been published.

[edit] Alert: Effects_of_global_warming

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Effects_of_global_warming#recent_reverts and James S's changes to that article, which I believe to be unjustified. he seems to be just making stuff up. This [7] at GW seems to indicate his POV clearly enough... William M. Connolley 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Simple English

I just checked Greenhouse effect in the "simple" english version and its hopelessly wrong. I haven't corrected it yet... a thought: we should go through at least the Simple, and maybe some of the foreign languages, and check them for sanity? William M. Connolley 12:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request review of Adaptation to global warming article

Well, I was "bold" and extracted the "adaptation" text of the Mitigation of global warming article into a new article as suggested by others in the Talk:Mitigation of global warming page. Within minutes, the new article was put up as a candidate for deletion on the grounds that it was a "how-to" article which violated WP:NOT or that it was original research which vilated WP:NOR. Other people said that it was not encyclopedic.

I have addressed these issues by expanding the article significantly and provided references to sources. Hopefully, this will convince those who voted for deletion to change their minds.

Just in case it doesn't, would you take a look at the Adaptation to global warming article and then vote to keep or delete the article?

If the vote is to delete the article then I will bring much of that text back into the Mitigation of global warming article which will make it longer and harder to read (which is why I created the new article in the first place).

Thanks.

Richard 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Science WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPScience. Others are invited to comment too! William M. Connolley 09:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I have put the suggested articles into the WP Climate change assessment table. I took a guess at "importance" for them, this is a new variable in our tables, feel free to edit. I also only listed greenhouse effect as A, and put the others as B, because all of them need the references organizing. As I understand the system: All refs used to write the article, even online ones, are listed in a "references" section at the end. Helpful websites not used in the writing should be put as external links. There is a fair bit of flexibility, but for A-Class or GA-Class there should at least be a "References" section with the main citations. If the refs can be cleaned up, I suspect all the articles on your list could be A. It would be great if folks from this project could edit the table themselves, and also add more articles - you know this subject much better than I do! Thanks Walkerma 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Climate Change Programme Page on Wiki Out of date

Hi, as it says in the title, it's out of date. Here are a few things that need ammending:

The Kyoto target relates to the UKs basket of greenhouse gases, but the 20% target relates only to Carbon emissions so the statement: The United Kingdom's Climate Change Programme was launched by the British government in response to its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. It aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions not only by the agreed 12.5% from 1990 levels, but by 20% by 2010. needs to be reworded in order to be accurate.

Also the article refers to the November 2004 Projections. These were updated in February 2006: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/uep_feb2006.pdf. They say that given existing measures (ie. no proposed future measures) and excluding the effects of the EU Emissions trading scheme, carbon emissions are projected to be about 10.6% below 1990 levels.

Also, the climate change programme review was published in March 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_03_06climatereviewfull.pdf, which proposed additional measures etc, and as a result projected carbon emissions to be about 15-18% below 1990 levels in 2010.

More information about the review of the ccp can be found in that article.

Sorry, I didn't know how to go about editing the page myself so I followed the links to this page in order to find someone (more experienced!) to update the page. Hope that's ok. Thanks.

[edit] Climate change and agriculture - problem that seems obvious

This is my own idea, so I'm not going to put it into the article... but surely someone notable has written something similar? Or am I off track?

Regarding Climate change and agriculture - I've heard it argued that although climate change will have a negative impact on agriculture in some places, in others it will improve productivity, and areas not currently under agriculture will be brought into production.

However, this ignores two things:

1. The importance of stability, being able to know what works because it's been practised and honed for years. It takes time to convert unproductive land to productive land, and work out what grows best in that soil and climate, and deal with unforeseen problems. To convert such large areas would surely take many years (that's my guess), and add a lot of uncertainty to food production, as well as uncertainty for the farmers.

2. It also ignores the fact that the land which is to be brought into productivity is presumably wilderness at present - thus implying that we're going to destroy vast areas of wilderness around the world. Better than starving, perhaps, but it's a major cost.

Any thoughts? --Singkong2005 13:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Mention of Milankovitch Cycles

I haven't found any mention of Milankovitch Cycles in any of these webpages. Wikipedia does have a a page explaining these cycles, although it could use some expansion and new information, particularly in the areas of evidence (ie:isostatic and eustatic sea level changes recorded in the rock record). I think that the cycles should at least be mentioned, possibly within the "Climate Models" section, although it isn't really a model. Anyway, just thought i would bring this up.Kclamken 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Milankovitch cycles is linked from the main GW page, and from Climate change. What are you after? William M. Connolley 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary for policymakers

Dunno if this is still active... can people look at the recent Ed/me argument at Summary for policymakers? William M. Connolley 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to revive this argument - provided it's on our usual friendly basis. ;-) --Uncle Ed 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon Offset

I've moved this into its own section:

I don't know where to put this, but on the "Carbon offset" page someone has listed as reference an article that is critical of offseting, but which has not even been published yet. Perhaps this can go in the Information section, once it has been published. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.79.88 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Terminology

The main topic could be "Climate Change" with warming, cooling or equilibrium as sub-topics. A problem with a phrase like "Global Warming" (or for that matter, "Global Cooling") is that the terminology itself becomes a point of contention between the participants in a discussion, obfuscating the discussion to the point where participants are not even discussing the same thing any longer. "Climate change refers to the variation in the Earth's global climate or regional climates over time." The fact that there's an observed warming trend (or not) and an observed increase (or not) in the levels of carbon dioxide or sulphur (or other substances, or not any) are issues for the sub-topics to cover. There are many historical exhibits both recent and far in the past that are examples of climate change, with averages warming and/or cooling, but those averages haven't always been a problem in and of themselves. With the high-confidence measurements only going back a few hundred years, this can't help but be a matter of discussion. If we really want to cover the issue with a balance, if that's even possible, the definitions of the terms should be set, if that's even possible. --Sln3412 06:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My suggestion

From what I have read, there seems to only be information concerning the theory that humans are the reason global warming is taking place. I think there should be more information on the argument that we didn't cause global warming. This way, the readers will be educated about both sides of the issue and not just on one theory.

[edit] Aviation and climate change

I have just introduced a new page on Aviation and climate change. I would be grateful for comment and input on this article. tks. Normalmouth 08:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senators and Liberalism

I am writing to discuss how much I disagree with global warming and also how much I disagree with our political leaders. First, I want to propose that all of our elected officals get drug tested, just like everyone else. They must be on some drugs to be making the decisions they are making. Also, the global warming issue is absurd! We all know the Earth has been warming since the last ice age! FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO DO!!! Global warming does not exist, get off the drugs!!!


[edit] Energy portal

As it relates in part to the subject matter of this WikiProject, note that an energy portal now exists. Gralo 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emissions Trading

What are the exchanges or organisations that deal in emissions trading? I'm sorry if this question offends or violates the rules of Wikipedia, but this information is not available, even after extensive googling. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), and the European Climate Exchange are the only ones I know of. Have any other bodies also started trading emissions?

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested external link for Global Warming and Climate Change pages

The suggested external link is: http://climatechange.110mb.com A group of us work for the Environmental Protection Agency in Queensland, Australia. In our own time, we have been creating an objective site concentrating on causes, effects and possible mitigation strategies. It uses a lot of info from Wikipedia but we are now concentrating on developing the mitigation strategies further. It's intended to get people heading to Wikipedia for more information as well. Verthomme 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Events story

The current events story at Portal:Current events/2007 January 10 says "The EU announces plans for a unilateral 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2020. A 30% cut is offered if countries such as the US promise to do the same". It would benefit from having some links into the relevant wikipedia articles if someone could spare the time. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just come across your comment and I thought I may as well add the link you suggest - though it is rather late. You can find details of the proposals at Energy policy of the European Union if you want to read more. Incidentally, any help from WikiProject members in updating future climate change news stories on the Energy portal would be very welcome! I've had the luxury of being able to do this myself recently, but that won't always be the case... Gralo 02:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy collaboration navigation box

I trust that you will excuse the sudden appearance of the "Wikipedians collaborating on energy related topics" navigation box on your project page. There are three organised wikiprojects and one disorganised freestanding energy portal which is developing well, and which I hope will be of interest to all three wikiprojects. I hope you will find that the navigation box helps to navigate between all these and, from my portal perspective, that that you might enjoy using the "post a news item" link from time-to-time! If you'd like to add the navigation box to your user page too, cut and paste the text {{EnergyCollaboration}} . Gralo 02:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate change effect on states and countries

Every article on a US state or on a country has a section on the climate, and I think every one of these should explain the likely effect of global warming on that state or country.... I added these to Florida (which will be underwater) and Kansas and Nebraska, and maybe a few other a while back, but some of them were deleted or severely reduced afterwards.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPCC4, further work

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report appears to have come along nicely but just wanted to remind people that the work has only begun. This has obviously affected a lot of articles which are now in need of resonably major work. For example, Effects of global warming still primary (or completely?) refers to IPCC3. Nil Einne 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal & future selected articles

Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.

The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions (or from here) - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information.

Please make any comments on this Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 16:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] FAR request for Global warming

Global warming has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

- Nick Mks 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] global warming - straw poll

There is a straw poll on Talk:Global_warming#Okay.2C_Straw_Poll_is_open concerning NPOV, the intro, and which version is best William M. Connolley 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedians collaborating on energy related topics
 WikiProject Energy Project page • Talk page • Categories
 WikiProject Energy development Project page • Talk page • Categories
 Wikiproject Climate change Project page • Talk page • Categories
 Energy portal Energy portal •  Post a news item  • Portal talk • Draft selected articles • Supporters • Maintainers • Categories
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Climate_change_f5af.html"