Talk:Physical impacts of climate change/Archive 1

Archive 1

Seismic activity

It is unclear to me how much scientific support the topic actually has. The level of consensus behind expressed views should be stated, along with the level of confidence that these views have. Enescot (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the conclusions related to seismic activity are relatively recent, and there are currently only a few research papers published on the subject. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the section; I will add some of the info that it tried to cover, but hopefully in a better and better-referenced way. Awickert (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Most affected by climate change

I've moved the new section on "general effects" to the section on "regional climate change". To be honest, the main assertion made appears to be rather dubious. The Scientific American is a popular science magazine, and the article's content appears to be more interesting than scientifically robust. How, for example, do you define "most" affected? Is this based solely on natural indicators, or socioeconomic indicators? The article blends the two. I just don't think it's right to use the word "most" affected. A proper scientific assessment of most affected regions would probably be a very long assessment, as the IPCC report is. Enescot (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I also question why Washingon D.C. is there at all. It sounds like this is more referring to political impacts then physical impacts. Looking at [1] doesn't exactly clear things up. In fact it appears to be referring to the US in general rather then even stuff specific to the political scene in Washington DC Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Could the objective truth of the statements contained in the article be in question? Sure, but the article does, in fact, say what it is quoted to say in the text of this Wiki-page. Don't like it? Then come up with some better citations. A lot of stuff when it comes to climate change is open to interpretation, and I'm a meteorologist by trade. Guy1890 (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Extreme Events / Fire

The section currently says this.

• An increase in global mean temperature of about 0 to 2 °C by 2100 relative to the 1990-2000 period would result in increased fire frequency and intensity in many areas.

• An increase in the region of 2 °C or above would lead to increased frequency and intensity of fires.

Isn't that the same thing? To me it seems to be saying "If there's a temperature rise of 0 to 2 'c, there will be more fires, and if it's more than 2 'c there will be more fires" I'm not sure what it's trying to say -OOPSIE- (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the first point is referring to global increases in temperature, while the second point indicates any simultaneous increases in regional warming by more than two degrees. However, they are quite similar. I would also like to see information mentioned on the modelling studies surrounding fire risk in the Amazon rainforest and over tropical as well as subarctic permafrost peat bogs. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note. There is also the anthropogenic cause of increased fire to due to legislated policies of extinguishing all fires in nature. If a fire is started (naturally or by the human hand) in a wildlife area around an expensive suburb in Southern California, all attempts are made to extinguish it. As such, there is a build up of natural combustible material in those areas (surrounding expensive suburbs in Southern California). When a fire in such a region (no matter what started it) is so large that fire departments can't extinguish it, and it destroys expensive properties, it is quite often blamed on "global warming" when in fact it should be blamed on the policy to extinguish fires when they arise. An anthropogenic cure (to protect the expensive homes) besides building them out of concrete, would be to clean up the surrounding areas by having scheduled controlled "burns" or by removing the combustibles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.244.89 (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Two things - this thread is very old; and this page is not a forum for discussing the topic, but for the content of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ENSO

Hi. Why is there no section on the effects of climate change on ENSO and other oscillations related to ocean currents and atmospheric weather patterns? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Added, as this is an Effects of global warming (Effects of global warming).

Added, as this is an Effects of global warming (Effects of global warming). 99.181.136.178 (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Only if you conflate "Climate change" with "Global warming", is there a significant relationship. Hence, unless you are going to rename this article to "Physical impacts of global warming", there's nothing there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That article links to this one, and according to WP usage (A)GW is a subset of CC. It's not 'conflating' them, it's just a matter of recognising that there is some similarity or overlap between the two. Someone interested in this article might well want to read Effects of global warming, so it should be included in 'see also'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Avram Primack (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Orbital changes, original research?

A subsection was just added noting that shifts in the water distribution on the planet would alter the orbital plane of the earth, increasing its risk of near-earth object collision. I only have access to the third source, which is on near earth objects, but I could find nothing relating it to warming or climate change. Perhaps this section is crossing the border into original research? Thoughts on removing it? --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not original research. I used the wrong reference for the second sentence. I've pulled it for now and will fix the reference tomorrow morning. Nice catch; thanks. --Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your new citation does not support the claim either; I have a copy of Souchay and Dvorak in front of me and can't find anything to support that. Further your first two citations are to be published in the future, not presently in press. While perhaps you have advanced copies, not many others can verify the content. I'd ask that you refrain from adding the section back until you can demonstrate those claims are made by reliable sources which can be verified. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like nonsense to me William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Iris hypothesis

I've added a "fringe theories" template to Physical impacts of climate change#Atmosphere. From what I understand, the iris hypothesis is a fringe view of Richard Lindzen, who argues that the climate sensitivity is lower than mainstream estimates (e.g., see the IPCC report). It is therefore biased to mention the iris hypothesis in this article without giving adequate weight to mainstream scientific opinion. Enescot (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where this goes

Recent changes in clockwise wind patterns in the North Pacific. US Western State used to recieve Pollution and Radioactive fallout from China and Jetsream was East-West. Of late the warmer heavily soot laden air from China has been observed moving up the Bering Strait and observed above freezing temperatures at the North Pole in midwinter. (Note the need to truck snow into Western Canada for the 2010 Olympics.) The jetstrean has been North-South over the Rocky Mtns (and bringing with it cold Arctic air) leading leading many climate change deniers "proof" that Global Warming is not true. Should note that one consequence of Arctic Icecap melt off is free circulation of warmer ocean currents, causing further meltoff including Greenland. Shjacks45 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New section: the Economic Effects of Climate Change

• Its too easy to blow off or deny "Global Warming". That should be minimized. Definite is changes in weather as the Earth adapts to changes in energy flux. The average 1%er won't care unless you can tie Climate Change to them losing their shirt on Banana Futures. Or change in the jetstream will increase airline fuel costs passed on to the person flying that airline.
• Governments of Denmark, Norway, and Russia are looking forward to Arctic Icecap meltoff so they can more readily drill for oil in the Arctic.
• Weather seems to be more like Colder Drier Winters (less ice deposited) and Hotter, more Humid Summers (more hurricanes and cyclones)(more droughts; precipitation depends on nucleation not temp.). Anyway, the ski resort has no snow, loses money. Beach resort customers have less cold weather at home, resort lose money. More crop failure, Agribusiness loses money. No snow pack, no irrigation water.

Shjacks45 (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)