The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Effects of global warming on Australia redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on February 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
The Effects of global warming on Australia page was started on 20 February 2007. All contributions most welcome. dinghy 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of the information is out of date as the main reference was based upon the 2001 IPCC report. Now that the 2007 IPCC report has been released in full this article should be updated.
A redirect to Climate of Australia was done without discussion on this page. This has been reverted. Effects of global warming on Australia is not about the climate, it is about the impact the changes in climate will have on Australia and her people, industries, environment, ecology, international standing etc. dinghy 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita says that, as of 2003, Qatar had over 3 times the CO2 emission of Australia. Maybe Australia's pulled ahead since then, or maybe other gases make up the difference, but a citation would be nice. Also, isn't Australia a net energy exporter? Andjam 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Australia??? Uber555 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't done a comprehensive investigation, but it would appear that much of this article has been lifted directly from Climate Change Impacts on Australia and the Benefits of Early Action to Reduce Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions published by the CSIRO. Take, for example, the section entitled “Projected large-scale singularities from climate change”. Shown below is a comparison of parts of this section of the article with Section 5.7 “Large-Scale Singularities” of the CSIRO report (p.30).
WP article: Large-scale singularities, complex non-linear responses where systems switch from one state to another, could cause a broad range of direct and indirect consequences to many regions of the world, including Australia. Historical and paleological data provide ample evidence that singularities and abrupt changes in the climate system have occurred repeatedly in the past.
CSIRO report: Large-scale singularities, complex non-linear responses where systems switch from one state to another, could cause a broad range of direct and indirect consequences to many regions of the world, including Australia. Historical and paleological data provide ample evidence that singularities and abrupt changes in the climate system have occurred repeatedly in the past.
WP article:
Perhaps the singularity of most immediate relevance to Australia is the collapse (regional or even global) of coral reef ecosystems, which appear to switch quite rapidly (i.e., over a narrow temperature range) from being healthy to being stressed, bleached, or eliminated.[12]
CSIRO report: Perhaps the singularity of most immediate relevance to Australia is the collapse (regional or even global) of coral reef ecosystems, which appear to switch quite rapidly (i.e., over a narrow temperature range) from being healthy to being stressed, bleached, or eliminated.45
WP article:
Ecosystem changes further afield may also ultimately have effects on climate change in Australia. For example, carbon cycle modelling has suggested that forest dieback in tropical regions could ultimately transform the terrestrial biosphere from a sink for carbon to a source – increasing the net concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.[13]
CSIRO report: Ecosystem changes further a field may also ultimately have affects on climate change in Australia. For example, carbon cycle modelling as suggested that forest dieback in tropical regions could ultimately transform the terrestrial biosphere from a sink for carbon to a source – increasing the net concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.106
WP article:
Recent work in the UK indicates that climate change is causing carbon to be released from soils at a rate equivalent to almost 10% of UK annual industrial CO2 emissions – potentially offsetting reductions in anthropogenic emissions.[14]
CSIRO report: Recent work in the UK indicates that climate change is causing carbon to be released from soils at a rate equivalent to almost 10% of UK annual industrial CO2 emissions – potentially offsetting reductions in anthropogenic emissions.107
WP article:
For a number of years, scientists have expressed concern about the potential for climate change to destabilize the Greenland ice sheet and West Antarctic Ice Sheet.[15] Global warming as well as the melting of glaciers and ice sheets (which increases the flux of freshwater to the oceans), could destabilize the global ocean thermohaline circulation (THC). Such destabilisation could slow its circulation, potentially to the point of complete collapse, causing regional climate shifts with significant environmental and economic consequences.[16][17]
CSIRO report: For a number of years, scientists have expressed concern about the potential for climate change to destabilize the large ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica.108 Global warming as well as the melting of glaciers and ice sheets (which increases the flux of freshwater to the oceans), could destabilize the global ocean thermohaline circulation (THC). Such destabilisation could slow its circulation, potentially to the point of complete collapse, causing regional climate shifts with significant environmental and economic consequences.109,110
WP article:
Melting of glaciers and ice sheets also contributes to sea-level rise. Vast quantities of ice are locked away in the ice sheets of West Antarctica and Greenland, collectively equivalent to approximately 12 meters of sea-level rise. Destabilisation or collapse of these ice sheets would lead to centuries of irreversible sea-level rise and coastal inundation around the world.
CSIRO report: Melting of glaciers and ice sheets also contributes to sea-level rise. Vast quantities of ice are locked away in the ice sheets of West Antarctica and Greenland, collectively equivalent to approximately 12 meters of sea-level rise. Destabilisation or collapse of these ice sheets would lead to centuries of irreversible sea-level rise and coastal inundation around the world.
This article looks as if it has a great many citations. But they mostly come from a reference list in a single CSIRO report (http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p6fy.pdf). It is improper to copy citations in this way without making clear that the editor involved saw only the report and not the original sources. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you found the material.
I have added a "One source" tag with the hope that other sources which have actually been sighted will be added. Please also make sure to include the specific page number from where the cite actually came. Johnfos (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is an objection, I plan to remove text from this article which has been affected by plagiarism, copy-vio, and overuse of a single source. Johnfos (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of now adding more content to the article, I would think that useful material could become available as part of the Garnaut Climate Change Review. Johnfos (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed the copyright violations and made clear that the article previously put as references were cited in the CSIRO article. On this basis I have put the detailed effects of global warming back in. I have reinstated the one source warning for clarity and hope that other authors may be able to contribute further references or view the article cited by the CSIRO article and reinstate them as references if appropriate. Amberclaire 2041 (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The article Climate Change in Australia states that Australia is the world's ninth highest emitter of greenhouse gasses, while the article Effects of global warming on Australia states that Australia is the highest emitter. Which of these is correct? Sstr (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What does Poleargo disagree with in the following statement, "The IPCC is predicting a sea level rise of between 7 to 23 inches (18 - 59cm) over the next 100 years.[1]. Normal see level rise in the absence of anthropogenic warming is between 10 and 25 cm per century.[2]"? Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. The IPCC recognizes that fact, and distinguishes between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic rise. If you doubt this, I suggest you actually read the report some time. Fell Gleaming(talk) 14:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Everyone here is running from the question. I'll ask it again, " Does the IPCC believe sea level rise will most likely be between 7 and 23 inches?" A simple yes or no will do.
I think this is very clearly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The IPCC report is a reputable source. If the figure isn't "scary" enough for some people, tough. The values are on the report, and people need to be aware of what it says. If you don't like my phrasing, I suggest you come up with something that answers your objections, rather than trying to whitewash the fact out of existence. Fell Gleaming(talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Instead of stonewalling, why not answer the question? How do you feel this fact should be phrased? It's clearly the most relevant portion of the discussion, and readers should be aware of current predictions are. Fell Gleaming(talk) 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding these ludicrous obfuscatory attempts to claim the IPCC isn't making predictions, I offer this study for your reading pleasure:
"A survey among climate scientists is used to examine the terminology concerning two key concepts in climate science, namely, predictions and projections, as used among climate scientists. The survey data suggest that the terminology used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not adopted, or only loosely adopted, by a significant minority of scientists."
So would you all agree that the statement should be: "The IPCC is projecting a sea level rise of between 7 to 23 inches (18 - 59cm) over the next 100 years."? I'll find a reference for sea level rise for the 19th century rather than the 20th, which should answer your other concern. Fell Gleaming(talk) 23:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've done a search for this but I can't work it out. It may mean something to specialists but aren't encyclopaedias intended for the general reader? Can someone please render this section (entitled "Brisbane") intelligible: A sea level rise of 10m would completely inundate the Gold Coast. New developments are required by law to have a minimum floor height 27 cm above the Q100 storm height... Thanks, Melba1 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I think some or all of this article may qualify as original research under WP:CRYSTAL, as it is simple laying predictions for a future event. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.--Qizix (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed a new section cut and pasted from [2] --Greenmaven (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The article said "Australian Greens leader Bob Brown,[9] argued that increased fire days due to climate change, was likely to blame for the fires but the Black Saturday Royal Commission found that the amount of fire fuel reduction burning should have been double of what had done.[7]",
which I then re-phrased as
"Australian Greens leader Bob Brown argued that increased number and intensity of fire days due to climate change were likely to blame for the fires[9], however, the Black Saturday Royal Commission concluded that the amount of fire fuel reduction burning should have been double of what had been done.[7]". (purely grammatical fix for clarity)
However, on going to check the source for [9], I find that Bob Brown's actual quote is "[The fires] are a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority the need to tackle climate change".[1]. So first of all I have updated the entry to include his actual quote. Secondly, as the quote doesn't even mention fuel loads or fuel reduction burns, and considering that "The Greens have a strong and proud record of supporting fuel reduction burning (cool burns), conducted by the proper authorities, as a vital tool for protecting lives and property"[2], I have removed the word "but/however" linking the two clauses, as I think it is irrelevant and misleading.
I updated the Royal Commission's "findings" (about the recommendation to double prescribed burns) to cite the the Age article, because I couldn't find it in the primary source, http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Commission-Reports/Final-Report/Summary/Interactive-Version. Fuel reduction burns aren't mentioned in the section on "Reducing the number of fires", but they are mentioned in the section "Reducing the damaged caused by fire > Land and fuel management". The only Recommendation that includes the word "prescribed" or "reduction" is Recommendation #56: "The State fund and commit to implementing a long-term program of prescribed burning based on an annual rolling target of 5 per cent minimum of public land." Presumably it was ~2.5% prior to Black Saturday and that's where The Age are getting their "double" figure from.
Charbono (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
References
This article was nominated for merging with Climate change in Australia on April 2019. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was merge. |