Jump to content

Talk:Climate change and agriculture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 15 June 2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 15 June 2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 15 June 2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CMU Class project- future sources on the relationship between climate change, insect populations, and agriculture

[edit]

1. http://www.livescience.com/4296-global-warming-trigger-insect-population-boom.html 2. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/Global-warming-insects.html#.WOwzzDvytPY 3. http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0022555.html 4. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/insect-disturbance-and-climate-change 5. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjohnsonhall (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change / Global warming?

[edit]

Is there any reason why this article is not called Global warming and agriculture, more in line with global warming or effects of global warming? This article should otherwise be moved, or, more precise, the redirection (that I just explored) should be reversed.. Hardern 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance AND distribution?

[edit]

"The overall effect of climate change on agriculture will depend on the balance of these effects"

Isn't the distribution (geographical, etc.) of the effects of climate change/global warming on agriculture also a critical aspect of the discussion? We keep hearing about climate refugees, it's quite clear that some areas will be hit harder than others - shouldn't that be reflected in the header of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.104.166.92 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too ambiguous

[edit]

"Global warming would be able to modify the global distribution of water, possibly leading to several effects, both detrimental and beneficial."

What does that mean? We should not be including such meaningless statements in Wikipedia. {unsigned}

I agree, there are parts of this article that sound like POV for "don't worry about rising CO2 emissions; plants will be happy", and the section on climate modeling is far too negative about the uncertainties. It takes a pretty defeatist POV that we can't foresee or forecast anything at all about the potential impacts of climate change on plants or agriculture.Birdbrainscan 05:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of agriculture on climate

[edit]

I find the one way view this article presents very strange - when I first came here I was expecting something on the effects of agriculture on global warming, instead it only covers the effects of climate change on agriculture. Richard001 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two different issues, really. Land use changes (deforestation in particular) are significant factors in altering climate, but the question for this page is the impact of rising CO2 plus climatic change on plants and agriculture. There is a large body of literature on this subject which this article only hints at. I'll try to pull in some relevant links and cites.Birdbrainscan 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar point was raised by Hardern above. If this article is focused on response of agriculture to 20th/21st century climate change, then should it not be named Effects of global warming on agriculture in line with some other Wikipedia articles? Notably Effects of global warming which "main article" links to this page. I think it should. Deditos 13:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with Deditos and Richard001--"climate change and agriculture" implies treatment of their relationship; any good encyclopedia article with that title should address causes and effects regarding both terms. Cyrusc 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that "climate change and agriculture" is a better article than "effects of climate change on agriculture," at least until it become large enough to necessitate a split. Cyrusc 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about the section about the contribution of livestock on greenhouse gas production. This article states that livestock agriculture contributes 18% of greenhouse gases. This seems to come from the article "Livestock's Long Shadow"[1]. However, the EPA states that the production of greenhouse gases by agriculture as a whole is 14%.[2] The wikipedia article on "Livestock's Long Shadow" also notes problem's in the the methodology behind the 18% number[3] .

References

  1. ^ "Livestock's Long Shadow".
  2. ^ EPA. "Global Emissions". Retrieved 5 August 2012.
  3. ^ Wikipedia. "Livestock's Long Shadow". Retrieved 5 August 2012.

Potential effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide on yield

[edit]

This section is too wordy and takes too long to get to the point. I've made a start at tightening it up, while also stating some basic background. But it still needs more work. I've got course readings that include several journal articles on this subject. I can try to fill in some refs from those in a future edit.Birdbrainscan 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image that should help --Appanouki 05:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC) If the image doesn't look right, please help format it instead of just callously deleting it. Appanouki 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

factually incorrect

[edit]

The claim that the warmest 3 years on record have been in the last 5 years (ie since 2002), is simply not true. This is an encyclopedia, if you present a fact, it must be true.

No Real Definition of Agriculture

[edit]

Is it to be presumed that only people who know what Agriculture is will read this Article? Despite all the Latin Roots of the word, there isn't a real understanding of the term. If the meaning is not familiar to you, you end up finding yourself in a verbal loop where the definition includes the word "Agriculture" so u wouldn't be able 2 understand the definition if you didn't understand the word.

It's a minor thing, but I'm just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niwdog (talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lose the IM-speak if u want ne body 2 tk u seriously, dude. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

Should we rename this to 'global warming and agriculture' since it is not about general 'climate change' but about an effect of global warming? Brusegadi (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural surfaces and climate changes

[edit]

Could someone competent look at the section Agricultural surfaces and climate changes? I noticed it reading through, because of the spelling mistakes; but the some of the sources cited are at least badly presented. N p holmes (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's removed most of the spelling mistakes, but the citations still look more than a bit off. I won't change it myself, because I'm not at home in the subject; if anyone else can do something, the unlinked New Scientist reference seems to be this[1] and doesn't seem to support the claims it's attached too. N p holmes (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

[edit]

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. If you have any followup questions, please post them to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation - replies to this message will not be read. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are coffee and chocolate not considered agriculture here?

[edit]

108.195.138.200 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per consenus (2 editors have removed it, and 2-3 IPs who are clealy all the same person have added it). Also, there is a strong consensus that your random additions to talk pages should be ignored, if not removed entirely.
As for content, those articles don't add to the article; they don't fall under WP:ELNO or WP:ELYES, so consensus is what matters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What "consensus"? I only see Special:Contributions/108.195.138.200 and Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin ... 99.181.142.87 (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
108.195.138.124 and 108.195.138.200 are you, and Special:Contributions/JamesBWatson also removed them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And why did User:JamesBWatson revert? 108.195.136.38 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive citations

[edit]

I'm thinking of changing the IPCC citations in this article. I would change the citations so that they use Template:Harvard citation no brackets as is done in effects of global warming (see User talk:J._Johnson#Canonical_IPCC_citations). The change would remove repetitive information contained in the existing IPCC citations. The change could also be applied to any other citations which contain repetitive information. I'd probably make the changes gradually, perhaps revising a few citations in each edit. Enescot (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North America

[edit]

I put a {{outdated}} tag on the North America sub-section, because it's full of disproven predictions from 2007 which said that increased CO2 would increase agricultural production without any regard to the repeatedly observed drought and wildfires. Neo Poz (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the IPCC's and USGCRP assessments have been "disproved". Perhaps you can provide me with a source which backs up this assertion? In regards to CO2 effects on crops, the assessments were peer-reviewed for their accuracy. As the USGCRP report states, the impacts of extreme weather are only one of several factors which affect agriculture. 06:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there a particular crop which you think has had an increased production? Neo Poz (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an example (from checking) - the two first crops with statistics on the National Agricultural Statistics Service[2]: Barley, Dry Edible Beans. Both of these have increased in yield (both in total yield and yield per planted acreage). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree IPCC projections have been "disproved" either. Its a relatively short interval on which to base such a strong conclusion. But I have no problem describing what they projected and talking about what has happened in comparison. Kim, re your examples, its no surprise that drier-land crops went up when moister-soil crops went down. Dry beans and barley will give way to some sort of grazing roughage, I suppose, before the tumbleweed become king. There's a system here where some things benefit when its a bit , but not too much, drier and hotter. If we try to point to one thing and say good or bad, we won't hit the target, but if we can instead report on the interconnections of the systems involved, that's pure NPOV gold.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You very quickly run into WP:SYN if you do this - unless you find refs that specifically examine this (projection and comparison to what happened)... Not to mention that such a comparison is problematic if the timescales of change aren't matching [and they won't be since the USGCRP projections are longterm]- this is one of the things that sceptics often run afoul with. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. If you say they projected X and look this here drought proves that X is happening that is SYNTHESIS. If you say they projected X, that's true. And then you can also say _________has been happening, because that's also true. The only time SYN becomes an issue is in whether (and how) you talk about the connection between the two.... and of course, we don't do any of this talking. If RSs are looking at _________ in context of IPCC projections, and we report their views, then its is not SYN. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis is whenever you lead the reader to make a conclusion/inference between/from two independently verifiably informations in reliable sources, when that conclusion/inference isn't described (or already reached) by another(or either of the) reliable source.
This for instance is SYN "According to A X will happen more often because of B. According to C, in 2011 X happened in an anormaly high number of instances.". Despite both sentences being true, the inference created is SYN. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a vast subject area where both projections have been made and events have occurred, it is possible to organize all of that material in a non-synth way, and we'll just have to disagree about that until there's a sample to take thru DR. I'd just like to encourage Neo Poz to read WP:SYN to be aware of the balance beam that must be walked, and and hope (s)he goes for it. You can try to shoot it down once it exists. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What this is leading up to, is telling a specific narrative that might be implied by reliable sources, but is not already made in these. And that kind of narrative is clear WP:SYN. Projections have been made, Events have happened - but the connection or inference of a connection, unless already established by a reliable source is not something that Wikipedia can make, since it would be editors making the connection - not secondary sources.... hence synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since no draft text presently exists, and the question before the bar is whether the info can be presented without even implying the inference (my position), or not (your position) how about we cease repeating our different opinions, eh? I mean repetition of an argument over nonexistent evidence is sort of pointless and battlegroundish, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the rationale for presenting real measured figures for, or descriptions of, crop yield changes in this article, if it is not going to relate to climate change? Draft or not, this is what is being proposed. It doesn't have anything to do with battleground attitude, but rather an attempt to stave off what might end up as being wasted work because the premise is flawed :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go back to go, do not collect $200. If RS supported draft text shows up, about IPCC crop projections, or about recent drought impacts on harvests, or (gasp) about both, you can opine tangibly. If we can't stop handwaving over text that doesn't exist, someone might start to think there might be a POVish effort to control the story by pre-filtering proposals, instead of dealing with them once they are made. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Price of corn in North America

[edit]

I've removed the following image from the article:

refer to caption and adjacent text
Price of corn in North America, in U.S. dollars per bushel, 2004-2012.

I've also removed this text: "By 2012, North American corn prices had risen to a record $8.34 per bushel in August, leaving 20 of the 211 U.S. ethanol fuel plants idle [3]." The cited source does not make any reference to climate change. Droughts can occur even in the absence of climate change. Any link between ethanol prices and climate change must be based on a reliable source. Enescot (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

I'm thinking of revising the lead section. In my opinion, there should be more specific information on the impacts of climate change on agriculture. The literature broadly shows that there may be initial benefits in high-latitude regions, but adverse effects in low-latitude regions. Higher levels of global warming would likely see reduced yields in most regions.

A second issue is that the greenhouse gas emissions data are rather old. There are more recent data available from the EDGAR database [4] and the Food and Agriculture Organization [5].

References

Enescot (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but there's something to be said for waiting until March, when the final version of AR5 WG2's full report is published.
eg, NYT's "Climate Change Seen Posing Risk to Food Supplies"
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've prepared a draft of the lead section for discussion:
"Climate change and agriculture are interrelated processes, both of which take place on a global scale. Climate change affects agriculture in a number of ways, including through changes in average temperatures, rainfall, and climate extremes (e.g., heat waves); changes in pests and diseases; changes in ozone and carbon dioxide concentrations; changes in the nutritional quality of some foods; and changes in sea level (UNCTAD 2013 Chapter 1 Section B).
Climate change is already affecting agriculture, with effects unevenly distributed across the world (IPCC AR5 WG2 2014 Chapter 7, Executive summary). Future climate change will likely negatively affect crop yields in low latitude countries, while yields in northern latitudes could increase or decrease (IPCC AR5 WG2 2014 Chapter 7, Executive summary). Climate change will probably increase the risk of food insecurity for some vulnerable groups, such as the poor (HLPE 2012, Summary).
Agriculture contributes to climate change by (1) anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and (2) by the conversion of non-agricultural land (e.g., forests) into agricultural land (HLPE 2012 Section 4.2). Agriculture, forestry and land-use change contributed around 20 to 25% to global annual emissions in 2010 (IPCC AR5 WG3 Chapter 5 Section 5.3.5.4).
There are range of policies that can reduce the risk of negative climate change impacts on agriculture (IPCC AR5 WG2 2014 Chapter 7, FAQ 7.3; --- Chapter 19, Section 19.7; HLPE 2012 Summary; Annex I NC; Non-Annex I NC), and to reduce GHG emissions from the agriculture sector (IPCC AR5 WG 3 Chapter 11; Annex I NC; Non-Annex I NC)."
References
-Annex I NC [6]. National reports of developed countries including discussion of climate change policies.
-HLPE (2012) - High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, Food security and climate change final report (2012) [7]
-IPCC AR5 WG 2 (2014) Fifth Assessment Report - Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Chapter 7: Food security and food production systems; Chapter 19: Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities [8]
-IPCC AR5 WG 3 (2014) Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change: Chapter 5: Drivers, Trends and Mitigation; Chapter 11: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) [9]
-Non-Annex I NC [10]. National reports of developing countries including discussion of climate change policies.
-UNCTAD (2013) Trade and Environment Review 2013 [11]
Enescot (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously outdated

[edit]

The data used for the lead image itself is 14 years old. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks - I've updated the graph. Enescot (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Climate change and agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the most current information? A lot of the sources seem to be a little outdated. MaskOff11 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Climate change and agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climate change and agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Climate change and agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes

[edit]

This fighting over image sizes is nuts. If you are one of the users who has been setting this image or that to an abnormally large or small size, I want to ask you to take a step back and ask yourself if you are really for or against this or that fact.

The images and figures all appear to be factual, and are all in one way or another relevant to the subject of the article. I am going to set them all to the same size. I will pick a size that your typical user will be able to see and read with no problems.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third section

[edit]

How about adding a third section: Ways to reduce the impact of agriculture on climate change ? Here's some of the information that can be added (covers only genetically modified food crops)

The use of genetically modified crops would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a number of ways. First of all, it reduces the energy use in soil cultivation (particularly due to reduced tillage and also through the less frequent herbicide/insecticide application)[1][2][3] In addition to this, when cultivating GM biofuel crops, certain genetic modifications can also reduce the energy use in the processing of these crops.[4][5]

Genetics4good (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [https://thesustainabilityalliance.us/biotech-crops-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ Biotechnology Crops Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions]
  2. ^ Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2014: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions
  3. ^ Model predicts elimination of GMO crops would cause hike in greenhouse gas emissions
  4. ^ Redesigned crops could produce far more fuel
  5. ^ Genetically Modified Trees Could Clean Up Paper Industry

Article Evaluation and possible improvements

[edit]

Climate change and agriculture: Evaluation Nc634914 (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Nc634914[reply]

               This article has headings and subheadings; however, the information does not always reflect the headings.  I think this article could be improved by reevaluating included information in each of the headings and subheadings. However, the provided index is useful for finding specific information regarding the topic. Word choice and sentence structure could be improved within the headings/subheadings to make the text clearer. Many grammar mistakes, and unclear sentences exist within the body of the text, including whole lines which lack any sense what so ever. This article aims to comprehensively cover climate change and its effect on agriculture, but a lot of the focus seems to be on the economic effects, and food security rather than on how global warming effects crop plant species. I believe more content that focuses on aspects of climate change on crop plant development is needed. I.E a paragraph dedicated solely to crop response to water stress which is talked about throughout the article but non-comprehensively and in no order, an article on how changing temperatures can effect plant development, or how temperature effects development and can change the patterns of growth/ reproduction cycles, editions to the preexisting header on how elevated CO2 effects crop plants, which is poorly worded and contains non-cited claims.

               Much of the information cited in this article is outdated and written when less was known about global climate change, and its influence on the world. Improper citations occur throughout the text where information is attributed to a source which does not include that information. Information is included that lacks citation of any kind, many non-scientific sources are referenced such as articles of newspapers, and online journals, such as the guardian and the Ny times.  A lot of the information includes future projections of agricultural response to climate change, this information is not factual, and many include phrases such as there is a 2/10 chance of this occurring, which lacks statistical significance. Examples of original research/ conclusions exist throughout the text, where people will take cited information and make non-supported conclusions from the information. I did not check every single citation, but I noticed some links to sources were broken, or missing. This article can improve by getting rid of original research or assumptions drawn from the literature, replacing poor/ outdated citations with information from better more recent studies. Finding sources for uncited information or removing unbacked claims and fixing broken links to sources.

               This article could further improve by editing the introductory paragraph. It does not flow well or do a good job at summarizing the articles key points. It includes assumptions such as climate change will probably increase the risk of food security, and a range of policies can reduce risks associated to climate change, has policy been implemented that is proven to help with these effects? If so include more specific information, or perhaps a subheading on current or proposed policies being implemented to help mediate the effects of global climate change.

               Figures seem to be supplemental and put in the proper places, however I am afraid that many of the figures in the text may be copyrighted or violate Wikipedias terms regarding cited photos. However, some of the figures are original works and done well.

               This article strays from the neutral tone in a few instances despite being mainly neutral. It includes proposed solutions to climate change, includes certain opinionated statements throughout I.E the effect of climate change on poor regional farmers is unjust.

               Facts are not fully emphasized, and the article includes many what ifs. Many examples of scientists believe this may occur, and if it occurs this may happen. Rather than provable scientific facts. There is an emphasis on facts in many paragraphs within the body however certain text lacks factual evidence. Nc634914 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

                

Examples Section Cleanup

[edit]

The 2nd last paragraph of the "Examples" section is either in need of a serious cleanup or should be removed entirely - Improper capitalization, no citations for the 2nd half, poor grammar, words without spaces "likethis" and written in the present tense --Forbioso (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of Drought Stress on Crops

[edit]

I added a section that covers how plants typically respond to water stress. I included the changes that occur and the reasons behind many of these changes. I inserted this under the subheading that refers to how plants respond to elevated carbon dioxide. I also provided a brief description of how climate change can potentially effect precipitation patterns.Nc634914 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of elevated Co2 on crops

[edit]

I rewrote the section on the Effect of elevated Co2 on crops. The previous sections was in my opinion poorly worded, and not completely on topic. I also looked at some of the sited sources and found some plagiarism. I wrote a brief description of how elevated CO2 effects plants. Nc634914 (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of hail and extreme wind

[edit]

For the hail section: could we mention that lining greenhouses with plastic could improve protection against hail (large diameter hail, around 1.6 inch) ? I find no good sources for this.

Extreme wind (including whirlwind, dust devils, tornado, ...) also inflicts more damages to crops now. Can this also be mentioned in the article ?

Genetics4good

[edit]

Hi User:Diannaa, I see you have reverted a bunch of changes to this article by going back to an earlier version. One or several of the edits were problematic due to copyright violations but I think you have also deleted some along the way that had nothing to do with the copyright violations, such as the one by User:Sadads. Also there might be something salvageable from the other edits if they are paraphrased and done better. Therefore, can you please send them to me with the internal message function so that I can review them and speak to the editors involved? They are part of a Wiki4Climate edit-a-thon. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was remove two paragraphs about locusts that had been added by 555Grace at 10:54, November 27, 2020‎‎. In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. But they were not removed. you can have a look at this diff to see the material added/edited by the other people was left untouched. — Diannaa (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your reply, Diannaa. I am still confused though because how can I tell what is hidden and what is removed? When I look at the user page of User:555Grace it looks like all of her edits on the article on the same day were also deleted, see here. How can I distinguish what's hidden from what's deleted? I am confused. Were her edits OK or were they problematic? As I can't see them I cannot check them and give her feedback? EMsmile (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The copyright content that I had to remove was added by 555Grace at 10:54, November 27, 2020. Two paragraphs about locusts. — Diannaa (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please send the deleted content to me so that I discuss it with these novices so that they can learn? Also it seems that the edits by MELA-CC2050 and by Sadads were also deleted? EMsmile (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can view the diffs. As I said before, the only content I removed was two paragraphs about locusts. Check for yourself.— Diannaa (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The problem with those revision deletions is that they show up also for the other editor's profiles. For example, when I reviewed the profile of Magreenblue, then it looked like his/her edits had also been reverted which you are saying they haven't. This to me is a major disadvantage of revision deletions when they affect more than one editor. I am looking at all the edits of the participants from the edit-a-thon on climate change topics. That's why it's important for me to know whose edits were good and whose weren't. Those "group revision deletions" are problematic when they affect several editors. With regards to the locusts, I have now salvaged some content from the website and put it back in. - Are there any other issues with the recent revisions to this article that need attention or is everything good again now? EMsmile (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked for other issues already when I first visited the article and the other edits were okay.— Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

In the section on Europe, some dates have been mentioned. I'm not sure however how these dates are calculated (haven't read the report in detail). If it is calculated using the assumption that the Paris agreement is followed (meaning global warming will be reduced to no more then 1,5 or 2°C), then those dates will be off (as we are currently not on track for reaching that agreement). Perhaps a far better option is to just tie the projected events not to a fixed date, but rather a temperature increase (i.e. event A will happen at +1,5°C warming). That then allows a dynamic date to be calculated out by some wiki magic (template, a bit like in the "comparison of ..." wiki articles), as some trackers exist like the Climate Clock (and perhaps others) which bind certain temperature increases (like 1,5°C, 2°C) to a date. This hence allows for a fully dynamic date to be generated rather then a fixed one, which depends on actual real-life annual emissions. --Genetics4good (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

short term climate change doesn't depend much on the emission scenario, so dates 30 years in the future are fine. Further in the future date + temperature may be appropriate. For slow changing aspects (ice sheets), both are needed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split this article into effects and emissions?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose splitting this article into Effects of climate change on agriculture and Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. This will allow the content to be linked-to systematically from other articles and categories on the effects of climate change and on the sources of emissions. Thoughts? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have a comment from someone who knows more about agriculture than I do (almost everyone). On the face of it this sounds a good idea as the article is quite large and presumably lots more info will come from researchers this decade. Which article would feedback go in i.e. if there are climate changes which increase ghg emissions via soil? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to keep this together for now but to make the section on "greenhouse gas emissions" more prominent. For this reason, I have moved it to the start of the article. Then it's also more similar to the "climate change in country X" articles which always start with "greenhouse gas emissions". More of that content also needs to be summarised in the lead. The whole article needs to have a bit of an overhaul and review. I see for example two sections on "pests". Also, it's always tricky to know how to deal with that section "by region" where we might repeat too much what's already in the CCC articles (CCC = climate change in country X). EMsmile (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about this with a colleague and he suggested: " I suggest we split the article into two. One would deal with the impact of climate change on agriculture and the other the impacts of agriculture on climate change. Two rather different topics. Turns out that agriculture is a larger emitter of GHGs than the transport sector.". So the same suggestion that Clayoquot made in 2019. I am undecided because I feel like we get so many tiny climate change articles on sub-sub-topics that linger with low view rates for years. My suggestion is to keep it together for now, but build up the content and then if the GHG emission content gets larger, split it off into a separate article at that point in time. More thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a big enough subject that it should now be split. Also some small articles like wine and potatoes should be merged in to the impacts article. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards supporting the split. I find the article title "Climate change and agriculture" vague, although we have many similar ones, like climate change and cities, climate change and fisheries. Compared to those, the agriculture topic might be unique as it's about emissions as well as impacts (well, the same could be said for climate change and cities although its emission section is currently just a paragraph long and likely won't grow as emissions are not normally discussed at a city level). - Where would the previous "climate change and agriculture" title redirect to? Or would it become a disambiguation page? EMsmile (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
disambig I guess Chidgk1 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove "further reading" list?

[edit]

I suggest to remove the further reading list as it seems a bit outdated and arbitrary. Some of them (like the Hoffmann publication) are already included as in-line citations anyhow:

EMsmile (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. EMsmile (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_and_agriculture&oldid=1211876799"