This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The article is still a cherry-pick of papers suggesting catastrophy, with no attempt at determining what the consensus amongst scientists on the issues are. Its another AJL abrupt climate change article. I suggest that it be moved again). -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Can be found here: User talk:Andrewjlockley_/Long_term_effects_of_global_warming -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Just stumbled in here, looks like it's controversial. Still, this article might be a good place to discuss how very long-term geological cycles will eventually bring CO2 into balance. Brian A Schmidt ( talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Kim, pls expand your points. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Kim, pls expand your points. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Kim, pls expand your points. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf page 775 looks like what we want.
William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it that over time oceans will evaporate so there will be no weathering and all carbon in the ocean will be released? Also the warmer climate the more water vapor in the atmosphere which increases greenhouse effect.-- MathFacts ( talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
[1] etc. Can't say I like Lenton being the source for so much of this para William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The current wp title is problematic:
99.56.122.207 ( talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Change article title to Effects of global warming after 2100. 99.119.129.142 ( talk) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
== Requested move == {{subst:move|Effects of global warming after 2100}} Rationale for move ~~~~)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Long-term effects of global warming → Effects of global warming after 2100 — Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Appropriate per content, progression of time and vagueness of words "Long-term". 99.19.44.88 ( talk) 05:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Long-term effects of global warming. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have moved to this article a text block from the article on global warming in the sub-heading of "long-term effects of global warming". Would it be useful to insert the text block here into this article? I'll put it in for now but feel free to cull it out again or to discuss here. EMsmile ( talk) 06:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
from "global warming" to "climate change" - see https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.77.200.113 ( talk) 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I am wondering if this article is really needed as a stand-alone article and if it wouldn't be better to re-integrate it into effects of climate change. The definition of "long term" is anyway a bit strange and arbitrary. I feel there are too many sub-articles around those issues of effects which all languish at very low page views and mostly poor article quality. There is also effects of climate change on humans, effects of climate change on human health, physical effects of climate change, regional effects of climate change and many more. Are we really doing ourselves a favor by having so many closely related sub-articles as stand-along articles? Pinging Dtetta as we were talking about readability improvements which is related. EMsmile ( talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Overall, I am wondering: does it work in our favour to have separate sub-sub-articles or not really? Another thing we could consider is to use excerpts more. For example, the issue of sea level rise pops up in many of these articles; rather than writing/updating that content each time, perhaps better so simply use an excerpt from the lead of sea level rise. Same with ocean acidification etc. EMsmile ( talk) 07:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The article is still a cherry-pick of papers suggesting catastrophy, with no attempt at determining what the consensus amongst scientists on the issues are. Its another AJL abrupt climate change article. I suggest that it be moved again). -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Can be found here: User talk:Andrewjlockley_/Long_term_effects_of_global_warming -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Just stumbled in here, looks like it's controversial. Still, this article might be a good place to discuss how very long-term geological cycles will eventually bring CO2 into balance. Brian A Schmidt ( talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Kim, pls expand your points. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Kim, pls expand your points. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Kim, pls expand your points. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf page 775 looks like what we want.
William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it that over time oceans will evaporate so there will be no weathering and all carbon in the ocean will be released? Also the warmer climate the more water vapor in the atmosphere which increases greenhouse effect.-- MathFacts ( talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
[1] etc. Can't say I like Lenton being the source for so much of this para William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The current wp title is problematic:
99.56.122.207 ( talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Change article title to Effects of global warming after 2100. 99.119.129.142 ( talk) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
== Requested move == {{subst:move|Effects of global warming after 2100}} Rationale for move ~~~~)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Long-term effects of global warming → Effects of global warming after 2100 — Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Appropriate per content, progression of time and vagueness of words "Long-term". 99.19.44.88 ( talk) 05:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Long-term effects of global warming. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have moved to this article a text block from the article on global warming in the sub-heading of "long-term effects of global warming". Would it be useful to insert the text block here into this article? I'll put it in for now but feel free to cull it out again or to discuss here. EMsmile ( talk) 06:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
from "global warming" to "climate change" - see https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.77.200.113 ( talk) 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I am wondering if this article is really needed as a stand-alone article and if it wouldn't be better to re-integrate it into effects of climate change. The definition of "long term" is anyway a bit strange and arbitrary. I feel there are too many sub-articles around those issues of effects which all languish at very low page views and mostly poor article quality. There is also effects of climate change on humans, effects of climate change on human health, physical effects of climate change, regional effects of climate change and many more. Are we really doing ourselves a favor by having so many closely related sub-articles as stand-along articles? Pinging Dtetta as we were talking about readability improvements which is related. EMsmile ( talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Overall, I am wondering: does it work in our favour to have separate sub-sub-articles or not really? Another thing we could consider is to use excerpts more. For example, the issue of sea level rise pops up in many of these articles; rather than writing/updating that content each time, perhaps better so simply use an excerpt from the lead of sea level rise. Same with ocean acidification etc. EMsmile ( talk) 07:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)