Talk:Climate change mitigation

Mitigation/adaption

There is a fairly clear distinction between mitigation (ie, reducing CO2) and adaption (ie, how to live with warming). Probably the two concepts should be split into two articles. After all, the IPCC produed two separate reports (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/004.htm and http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/006.htm). William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 18:53:03 (UTC).

I had intended to wait until adaptation was more developed, but splitting the article sooner may encourage that, and also help the structure here. Rd232 7 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

G8 statement on global warming

WMC, where would this link be best put on Wikipedia? G8 statement on climate change, July 9, 2005 in Current Events, perhaps? I only know enough to know that the location of the link in / on Wikipedia carries connotations which raise defensive postures in some editors. Ancheta Wis 22:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think its just about worthless (the statement, not the link!) http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/07/reading-runes-part-iii-g8-statement.html. It would probably belong in the proposed new politics of global warming, but that doesn't exist yet. Perhaps under Kyoto protocol? William M. Connolley 22:28:26, 2005-07-09 (UTC).

Isn't the 400ppm goal flawed and obsolete?

Given the age of the Kyoto negotiations, hasn't the 400ppm assumption been invalidated by the climate commitment studies published since the TAR, including that study published the year of the TAR? If the 400pm was without including climate commitment, then 400ppm will result in the 2C goal being significantly exceeded. Was the 2C from the low end or the high end of the predictions, i.e., how conservative is it, what are the error bars?--Silverback 11:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

What is the 400ppm assumption to which you refer? Who is assuming what? (SEWilco 15:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

preventing CO2 concentrations from exceeding 400ppm is assumed to keep the warming to 2C or less. Search on 400ppm in the article.--Silverback 15:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Since the commitment was known at the time of the TAR, this is an odd question. William M. Connolley 20:33:06, 2005-09-05 (UTC).

The size of the commitment wasn't known and the models didn't account for it, since papers were able to get published on that value later.--Silverback 20:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Effectively inevitable"?

That doesn't make any sense. Something is either inevitable or it isn't. If it is only "effectively inevitable", that's saying that it is isn't inevitable at all but just "probable" or "likely". It is one of those phrases like "virtually certain" that actually means the opposite of what it purports to mean. --SpinyNorman 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I changed it to "inevitable". It was just weaselling, trying to counter the inevitable profossil argument that you can't say it's inevitable because we might invent some superduper coal that actually removes carbon from the atmosphere. But what it means to say is that 2C is going to happen no matter what, not that it might happen in some unlikely future. "Virtually certain" is an idiom, Spiny, clearly understood by English speakers. One says that a cricket team nine wickets down in their second innings, requiring 600 to win, on the morning of the fourth day is virtually certain to lose because unless something truly extraordinary happens, they will lose. But there's always the tiny possibility that God hates Hampshire enough to send a tornado. -- Grace Note.

Cost of extreme storms graph

The cost of extreme weather is rising rapidly and could reach 350 billion 2001 U.S. dollars **per year** by 2025. source data: IPCC, 2001. Some of the cost increase is due to added exposure such as building on the coast.

William M. Connolley removed this graph from the "Encouraging technology and use changes" section because he believes that it implies incorrect information about the cause of the trend. 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 to the graph's primary comment thread. I intend to replace the graph here after their review, unless any significant issues are raised. --James P. S. 02:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking third party climate bloggers to independently comment on it and will report the comments back to Talk:Global_warming#Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif. I intend to replace the graph here after their review, unless any significant issues are raised. James P. S. 22:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One expert nominated by Connolley has already called the extrapolation reasonable, not implying the cause of the variation, NPOV, and only technically borderline OR. Therefore, I'm replacing it here and on effects pending outcome at Climate Change Action and Talk:Global_warming#Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif. --James S. 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am replacing the graph because the person who pulled the graph from its original location at Global warming has been engaging in selective x-axis reversal. Please see User_talk:Dragons_flight/Images. --James S. 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was no reason to add a questioned graph. Whatever you are implying by ...selective x-axis reversal. Also note I suffered a strange blanking error with the last edit, don't really know what happened there. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest any reviewers. I said that if the graph had been published by a reputable blog, that would affect its status. Please be more careful how you report my words. William M. Connolley 22:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

You did indeed specifically suggest RealClimate, and you seconded the statement that the extrapolation is reasonable, doesn't imply anything about the cause, is NPOV, and only technically borderline OR. Exactly how are you insinuating that I misrepresented your position?

Replacing. —James S. 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wind power direct mitigation

I am reverting the edits of the person who suggested that solar energy might remove energy directly from the atmosphere; only to the extent that it reduces albedo. Clarified.

I have also removed the example about mining; electric mining equipment exists and is commonly used in mines where gas fire hazard presents a risk. Therefore, there is no reason that mining must create greenhouse gases. --James S. 20:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pending further discussion in talk, I have removed:

Wind power is the only direct form of greenhouse gas mitigation, because it removes energy from the atmosphere. and Wind power is the only renewable form of energy which is a direct mitigation, drawing energy directly from the atmosphere. .

First of all, it only needs to be said once. --Kmf164 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is appropriate for both locations. —James S. 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the word "only" sounds POV to me and I suggest something else less strong. It sounds like you're marketing wind power; I'd rather the article not sound like a commercial advertisement. --Kmf164 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Only" is factually true, unless you know of any other form of energy which extracts power directly from the atmosphere. That would be news to me. —James S. 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third, please backup the statement with further explanation and sources. --Kmf164 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The wind turbine article, or it's talk page, has a discussion of the net power to build and install compared to the lifetime output. If you need sources because you are unable to confirm something, please just ask here first before reverting other people's work. Restoring. —James S. 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the statement "Wind power is the only direct form of greenhouse gas mitigation,..." sounds narrow (and tangentally related to the article). If readers want more detail on the various renewable energy sources, the pros and cons, they can go to that article. Despite all this, if the statement is still included here, it only needs to be said once. And, it does need sources here, if the statement is included. It doesn't matter if I can go out and search for sources to confirm something. I do see that wind power has many advantages. But in Wikipedia, you need to directly cite sources; You can't expect readers to know to find the discussion of "net power to build and install..." on the wind turbine article, when that article isn't linked with the statement and sources are not provided here. Thanks. --Kmf164 04:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentally? The article is about global warming mitigation. My POV is that the statement is pertinent to both sections. Perhaps we can make a deal: if you will remove all of the redundant qualifications in the climate change-related articles such as that global warming is a scientific theory, "not a proven fact," and that "there is still some controversy over whether scientists believe human activities cause climate change," and the dozens of similar statements, then I'll clip one of the two comments about wind power being the only direct form of global warming mitigation. —James S. 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement "For example, a wind turbine typically produces about 50 times as much energy over its lifetime as is consumed by its construction and installation." suffices and readers can go to renewable energy or wind turbine for more details. --Kmf164 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and will change it to that. —James S. 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be pointed out that wind power does no in any way mitigate greenhouse gases, rather it mitigates the greenhouse effect. it does not remove the gasses from the atmosphere, merely the energy. also, the amount of energy removed would probably be minute enough to be fairly insignificant. on the otherhand, I'm all for wind power propaganda, so I'll leave it up to others to edit this piece.