Talk:Climate change/Archive 90

Archive 85

←

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

Archive 95

Sentence addition to the lede for Americans and Fahrenheit

Over time all mention of Fahrenheit has been cut from the article text. As you'd expect, this has been discussed and including conversions in the text has gone back and forth a few times if you look at talk page history (and article history).

I'm thinking that we should add a sentence to drive home the conversion issue and the land / polar amplification issues for Americans. Currently, we introduce temperatures in the third paragraph, so I would like to insert the highlighted text, which includes the justification and source:

Many of these impacts are already felt at the current level of warming (1.2 °C). Additional warming will increase these impacts and may trigger tipping points, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations collectively agreed to keep warming "well under 2 °C". However, with pledges made under the Agreement, global warming would still reach about 2.7 °C by the end of the century. North America will heat up by 8.5 °F (4.7 °C) if global warming reaches 3 °C. Limiting warming to 1.5 °C will require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

While I understand there may be concerns about being USA centric, I think that without the included sentence a lot of the temperature info will strike Americans as "2 or 3 degrees? whatever, that's no big deal.".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Efbrazil (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The proposal seems extremely USA-centric to include a forecast of one region, especially in the lead. I think we should either: (1) put in Fahrenheit-equivalent degrees within parentheses at one or two choice locations in the existing text, or (2) cite a range of expected increases in Fahrenheit across all regions of the world if such a source exists. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a secondary issue, which is how land heating and polar amplification impact north america more than any other continent, which is what raises the 3.0 to 4.6 in first place. When you wrap it all together like this it cuts through the noise and can reach people. We could also go back to dual numbers again if that's the consensus, although obviously I prefer the solution above. Efbrazil (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The USA is NOT North America. Many other countries are there as well. ALL the other countries use Celsius. Scientists in the USA use Celsius. The proposal is worse than US-centric. It's aimed at less well educated Americans, maybe less than 3% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The worst of all proposals- one that educates americans that aren't already scientists. Got it. Enjoy burning in your ivory tower. Efbrazil (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

An American told me once that all Americans are taught the metric system at school. It's hardly our job to teach them again. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that a solution is to use the {{abbr}} template. It makes a dotted line at the bottom so that an user can hover on it and see the converted Fahrenheit temperature. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09: @HiLo48: @CactiStaccingCrane: It would be one thing if this was an article for science students, but this is a major article that people uneducated in any sort of science are going to come across. No americans think in Celcius, and restricting the content to that format is alienating to them. Unfortunately, I think the 1.5 °C format is awkward in practical use, and as a tooltip-only solution it's not recommended for anything other than acronyms. Would probably be better to go back to the {{convert}} template we were using before, which produces this output: 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).

How about we change the suggested sentence to make it clear why North America is called out and to put Celcius first. Here's a revised proposal:

The North American continent will heat up most quickly, with 3 °C of global warming causing temperatures there to rise 4.7 °C (8.5 °F).

Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you really mean North America, meaning all of it, from Panama to Alaska, or just the bit with the USA in it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I slightly prefer using only the convert template in one or two chosen locations in the text. However, I could also go along with your latest suggestion but hoping the subject of the sentence is changed along these lines: In the land region of the world that would heat most quickly (North America), 3 °C of global warming would cause a regional average temperature rise of 4.7 °C (8.5 °F). This sentence structure de-emphasizes North America per se and focuses on the maximum regional temperature rise as scientifically significant. (P.S. I'm not understanding the color coding in the IPCC interactive, so I'm relying on your interpretation and conclusion being substantively accurate.) —RCraig09 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09: To be precise, it is not land region, but continent. I'm also concerned by the length of the sentence, so maybe this works for you?

The continent that heats up most quickly is North America, where an average of 4.7 °C (8.5 °F) of heating will occur for 3 °C of global warming.

I'll repropose to everyone when we come together on wording. The goals here are to 1. Present Fahrenheit with maximum relevancy 2. Drive home the high impact on land surfaces when we introduce temperatures. 3. Present the reality of 3C, which is looking very likely given our current trajectory. Efbrazil (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Concur! ✔ —RCraig09 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

... though consider writing ~future tense "projected to heat up" rather than present tense "that heats up". —RCraig09 (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it reads weird, but it is already the continent that is heating up most quickly, so future tense wasn't necessary there, so I went with fewest letters. Maybe it reads better to future tense it though.... Efbrazil (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the Atlas is a good source for this. We are extracting information ourselves to highlight, which is problematic as it doesn't help us determine what is DUE, and verges on OR. I don't think the statement that NA is warming fastest is completely true either. Asia is warming similarly fast, especially given uncertainty. 'will occur' is too strong a statement, given uncertainty. Femke (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Femke, I appreciate you chiming in here. The atlas is just a way to look up CMIP6 results, and asia is warming at a distinctly slower rate according to those measures. It's no more OR than what we are doing in our lead image, saying the last 50 years and then doing a lookup of NASA numbers. At 3C, asia is 4.2 median warming while NA is 4.7 median warming, so I don't see the basis for saying there is uncertainty. Polar amplification hits NA particularly hard. Is there a tweaking to the wording that would get you on board with this? Efbrazil (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not getting the same numbers here. When I click NA I get a median of 4.8 (4.3-5.4 90% confidence interval), and 4.5 for Asia (4.2-5.0 90% confidence interval). Given NA high resilience to climate change, these small differences in warming will not the main determinant of impact. Asia, with slightly less warming, is set to be impacted more. I feel it's would strenghten WP:systemic bias if we include this. Femke (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's the settings, please see where you are different: Page is IPCC WGI Interactive Atlas: Regional information (Advanced). Dataset: CMIP 6. Variable: Atmosphere Mean Temperature. Scenario: warming 3C, SSP3-7.0. Season: Annual. Region set: WG II Continental. Uncertainty: Simple. Select only one continent and look at "table summary". NA is 4.7 with a 90% confidence interval of 4.3 to 5.2. Asia is 4.2 with a 90% confidence interval of 3.9 to 4.5. The confidence intervals will correlate, meaning NA will certainly warm more than Asia on median measures. Can you see what you are doing differently? Efbrazil (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. I was using the SSP5-8.5 scenario (more models). In any case, Europe has the second-highest median, and its 90% confidence interval (i.e. 5-95%), overlaps strongly with the confidence interval of NA: 4.2 | 5.2 vs 3.8 | 5.3 for SSP3-7.0. Too close to make this call ourselves. Femke (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

North America is projected to heat up by 0.3C more than Europe. The confidence intervals between these estimates are going to be correlated, so it seems very unlikely that Europe will hit 90% while NA hits 10%. We can also be explicit and say "is projected" instead of saying "will", to deal with the confidence issue you are raising. So that leaves us with:

The continent that is projected to heat up most quickly is North America, where an average of 4.7 °C (8.5 °F) of heating will occur for 3 °C of global warming.

We can add any caveats to the footnote, such as the specific details of the SSP. Does that work for you? If not, can you suggest an alternative? Efbrazil (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I still find it a undue, too US-focused, but these are more subjective counterarguments. (my alernative is status quo). The paragraph starting with "The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report projects that global warming" is the most logical place right? That paragraph is rather short, so it would fit. Would not want this in the lede, where its severely undue/biased imo. Femke (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The key point I think you miss is that putting everything Celcius is extremely offputting to Americans. People in America simply have no idea that 3C will be 8.5F in their reality (partly C to F, partly land heating, partly arctic amplification). By stripping Fahrenheit from the lede we really screwed over that part of our audience. Would you at least be open to reversing the strip of Fahrenheit conversions? Efbrazil (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

My preference is Fahrenheit conversion for the first mention in lede and body. Also okay with full lede, or with a [a]-type note. Femke (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with reciting C/F conversions, either in a few spots in the lead or throughout the lead. I think specifying North America in the lead is too ~USA-centric. I'd be OK with mentioning the maximum regional change without mentioning the region by name--just to convey unevenness of heating. Related: check out the new graphic, File:1880- Global warming by latitude zone - NASA - GISS data.webm, as this graphic might suggest an idea for which "region" has extreme heating. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this latest edit looks good. Dtetta (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Click at right to show/hide refs
References

Should the sentence about shifting subsidies to the transition to clean energy be removed?

After the bit about abolishing fossil fuel subsidies there is the sentence "Subsidies could be used to support the transition to clean energy instead."

I think there are so many different things that saved fossil fuel subsidy money could be spent on that it would be best to delete that sentence. Different countries will have different priorities. Some (EU?) might indeed want to subsidize thousands of miles of new power lines to send wind and solar power across continents. Others think different. For example in Iran - having messed up cutting their enormous subsidies in the past the priority would presumably be avoiding riots. Whereas in UK moving some VAT from electricity to fossil gas might need smooth political talking and dobs of money to poorer people in marginal constituencies to insulate their houses. Somebody else probably knows Venezuela better than me.

So rather than suggesting what the savings could be spent on I think it would be best just to delete that sentence. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, go ahead and cut it. Efbrazil (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there are lots of other things those subsidies could be spent on. But the topic is policy options, and that is one policy option. I don’t like the current wording - makes it almost seem like advocacy. Maybe it would be good to look at the WGIII report and see how this issue is currently being discussed? And while we are considering editing this paragraph, we could also look at the references to air pollution in the previous sentence, which seem out of place to me. Dtetta (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at page 60 of the SPM, it looks like they are saying that subsidy like instruments would help encourage mitigation technologies. But they don’t seem to go so far as to explicitly advocate transferring subsidies. Dtetta (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Housekeeping question

@Dtetta: I just removed a set of unused sources, including sources you had removed from the body, but failed to remove from the sources section. I was a bit confused about the difficult-to-cite Teske sources. The "Energy Scenario results" should be cited with the first 4 authors in the harvnb template. Have we stopped citing the "Trajectories for .." chapter altogether? If so, that one can be deleted too. Femke (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Femke - Thanks for removing those sources that are now unused based on my recent edit. Neglected to follow through on that last step - apologies. Re: the Energy Scenario Results Chapter in Teske 2019, do you mean display-authors should be =4? I will make that change. RE: the Trajectories for. .” chapter, it looks like that second paragraph in the Policy options subsection has been edited extensively since I worked on it and used that reference for the just transition concept. So I believe that can be deleted. Dtetta (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

display-authors = 4 would be nice&consistent too, but I meant the {{harvnb|Teske|Pregger|Naegler|Simon|2019}} short-cite (rather than Ch-8) :). Femke (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, didn’t know about that technique - sure, I can make that change:) Dtetta (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence: The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.

A minor point about the sentence in the lead that says "The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century." using a publication from 2015. While I was working on the sub-article effects of climate change on human health with content expert Nick Watts he pointed out to me that the same statement was already made in The Lancet 6 years earlier in 2009, and the WHO only repeated it in 2015. So I am wondering if it makes sense to go back to the "first" significant publication on this topic, which would be this one: But perhaps the thinking is that the statement by WHO carries more weight than that in the Lancet, I don't know. Maybe a solution would be to mention both, or neither of them. I have included it in the lead of effects of climate change on human health. EMsmile (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Don’t think I was aware of the Lancet statement when I originally proposed that edit. But to me WHO seems like more of an authoritative source. Dtetta (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think The Lancet is equally authoritative for anything to do with health, perhaps even more than WHO since WHO is regarded as "political" by some? I think it might be useful to change it to the 2009 statement to show how LONG we have already known about this major issue. Or to mention both statements. EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t feel strongly about this, I can see the value of your approach as well:) Dtetta (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Adding content on plant-based diet

Femke deleted the following content I added as the second paragraph of "Agriculture and industry":

On the demand side, people need to shift to more plant based diets. Rearing of livestock for meat and dairy causes 14% of all carbon emissions, similar to the amount generated by all transport put together. Farmed animals consume 1/3rd of freshwater on Earth and use 83% of farmed land, driving deforestation. Adopting a plant based diet is the single most important thing most people can do to limit their climate impact.

The source is the UNFCC. Here is femke's complaint: remove paragraph based on blog. It was prescriptive, there was WP:close paraphrasing, and opinion of one person presented as near-fact

The content is from the UNFCC with links to sources, so I think "based on blog" is unfair. To come to consensus with femke, I am fine deleting the last sentence above. That is presumably what femke is referring to in terms of "the opinion of one person" and "prescriptive". To address the close paraphrasing complain I tweaked some wording. That leaves me with this:

On the demand side, people need to shift to more plant based diets. Rearing of livestock for meat and dairy causes 14% of all carbon emissions, an amount similar to the entire transportation sector. Farmed animals also consume a third of the freshwater on Earth and use over 80% of farmed land, driving deforestation.

--Efbrazil (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a blog without even a byline. While I would say it ticks the box of reliable, it's not a "high-quality" reliable source" expected of FAs. The sources it cites are quite old (the 14% is from a 2013 report which cites the 2007 IPCC reports which probably cited something pre-2007). I'm also not fan of the wording "need to". We should not prescribe what people need to do.

That said, I'm okay with including a paragraph about diets with a better source. Preferably an overview source that let's us determine WP:DUE weight. Femke (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine removing "need to".

To update the 14% number, the IPCC special report on Climate Change and Land from 2019 goes with a stronger number. See here: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/5-5-mitigation-options-challenges-and-opportunities/5-5-2-demand-side-mitigation-options/5-5-2-1-mitigation-potential-of-different-diets/figure-5-12/

According to the IPCC, everyone adopting a vegan diet results in a savings of about 7.9 GT/Yr. To put it in some context we could compare it to the global carbon project estimate of 36.4 gigatons emitted last year, so eliminating meat and dairy equates to 7.9/36.4 = a 22% reduction in current GHG emissions. I don't want to be over-precise and use that exact number, but I think saying "nearly a quarter" is fair. Make sense to you?

Also, are you comfortable with the other numbers: 1/3rd of fresh water and over 80% of farmed land? If so, we could go with this:

On the demand side, a key component of reducing emissions is shifting people towards plant based diets. Eliminating the production of livestock for meat and dairy would cut nearly 9 gigatons of carbon emissions per year by 2050, or nearly a quarter of our current annual emissions. Farmed animals also consume a third of the freshwater on Earth and use over 80% of farmed land, driving deforestation.

Efbrazil (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but I'm sceptical about this being a global view. Large areas of my country, Australia, that are used for raising cattle and sheep, are the more dry and arid lands that would not be suitable for growing crops. To grow more plant drops would require more deforestation. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, over 80% of all agricultural land is used for livestock, so occupied terrain varies by location. Here in the NW USA all the cattle land is prime cropland and was deforested to make room for cattle. Similarly, in Brazil a prime driver behind Amazon deforestation is grazing land for cattle.

Let's move everything to the IPCC report to clarify this. The key "finding" from the IPCC report is B.6.2, which says this: Balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health (high confidence). By 2050, dietary changes could free several million km2 (medium confidence) of land and provide a technical mitigation potential of 0.7 to 8.0 GtCO2eq yr-1, relative to business as usual projections (high confidence). Transitions towards low-GHG emission diets may be influenced by local production practices, technical and financial barriers and associated livelihoods and cultural habits (high confidence). {5.3, 5.5.2, 5.5, 5.6}

To update the 14% number, the IPCC has this graphic: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/5-5-mitigation-options-challenges-and-opportunities/5-5-2-demand-side-mitigation-options/5-5-2-1-mitigation-potential-of-different-diets/figure-5-12/

The graphic shows that everyone adopting a vegan diet results in a savings of about 7.9 GT/Yr. To put it in some context we could compare it to the global carbon project estimate of 36.4 gigatons emitted last year, so eliminating meat and dairy equates to 7.9/36.4 = a 22% reduction in current GHG emissions. I don't want to be over-precise and use that exact number, but I think saying "nearly a quarter" is fair.

For land use, the IPCC includes this graphic: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-1/introduction-and-scope-of-the-report/1-1-1-objectives-and-scope-of-the-assessment/spm1-approval-v7-usletter-2/

Which shows that 37% of ice-free land area is occupied by livestock, and 12% by crop land, with a portion of crop land used for livestock feed.

Sound good? If so, we could go with this:

On the demand side, a key component of reducing emissions is shifting people towards plant based diets. Eliminating the production of livestock for meat and dairy would cut nearly 9 gigatons of CO₂ emissions per year by 2050, or nearly a quarter of current annual emissions. Livestock also occupy 37% of ice-free land area on Earth and consume feed from the 12% of land area used for crops, driving deforestation and land degradation.

Efbrazil (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I still want to know if the vegans really want Australia to clear more land? Global averages can be dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Clearly not all land is equal, and if we had numbers differentiating scrub lands from repurposed rain forests that could be helpful, but we need to go with a global perspective and reliable consensus opinion here. Especially since the topic is contentious.

@Femkemilene: Are you good with that last wording above, that's based only on the ipcc report? Efbrazil (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Carbon Project estimate seems to include only CO2 emissions (per this description), whereas the IPCC numbers are GtCO2-eq? I'm seeing higher numbers, for instance 46 GtCO2-eq from the world bank for CO2eq. Does the IPCC have an estimate of GtCO2-eq emissions. That would bring us in the realm of WP:routine calculations, rather than WP:SYNTH. As you may know I prefer percentages only to having a percentage the actual number, as the latter is quite difficult to grasp for people. We're converging. Femke (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks femke! That's a very good catch. The IPCC numbers in AR6 are in reference to the average of the years 2007-2016. AR6_WGI_Chapter_01 says this: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 37 (AFOLU) activities accounted for around 13% of CO2, 44% of methane, and 82% of nitrous oxide emissions 38 from human activities during 2007–2016, representing 23% (12.0±3.0 GtCO2 equivalent yr-1) of the total net 39 anthropogenic emissions of GHGs.

So using that we can hopefully put this in a number people will understand, instead of talking about gigatons of CO2 equivalents. How about this sentence:

Eliminating the production of livestock for meat and dairy would eliminate about 3/4ths of all emissions from agriculture.

I'll then spell out the raw numbers in a footnote. Make sense? Efbrazil (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There would be two minor inaccuracies here: can we simplify AFOLU to agriculture, and are those numbers from different periods still comparable. I think I lean no on the fist question, and yes on the second.. Maybe we can capture the word forestry under land use (so agriculture and other land use) as a compromise? Femke (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(alternatively, we can wait a few weeks and use the IPCC AR6 WG3 statement, which will undoubtedly be more accurate). Femke (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with "agriculture and other land use" for now, then looking for better numbers from AR6 WG3 when the time comes. Efbrazil (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead :). Femke (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I appreciate and support the idea of including more info on lifestyle choices in the article, I find this edit, and the related discussion, both confusing and very frustrating. While there’s a lot of discussion here about reliable source/representativeness aspects of these statements and references, they seem to ignore the fact that this same type of information is already included in the WRI reference for the last sentence in the previous paragraph (and presented much better by WRI, in my opinion).

There are several aspects of this edit that seem strange to me. From a perspective of even doing this in the first place, it would have seemed much easier to just include relevant findings from the WRI report (which has been an accepted soure since it was added in April ‘21), and expand on the list of items in the last sentence of that paragraph to include a more specific mention of plant based diets. The IPCC references could have been added for additional source support if needed (although I don’t really think they really are - and have now been updated by AR6). It seems like if a reader was actually looking at the WRI reference, and then going on to read this paragraph after that, they would wonder what is going on - it’s like different paragraphs by different authors were just clumped together arbitrarily.

Plant based diets are not currently in that first paragraph because, when I originally proposed to add the current Energy Efficiency section in March/April ‘21, I had included an entire paragraph on lifestyle choices, including plant based diets,in that proposal (which I originally titled Demand Reduction). I was trying to avoid redundancy, and so did not include plant based diets in this particular subsection. Otherwise, I would have certainly mentioned both plant based diets and food waste, as they are major elements of the WRI report. However, that paragraph on lifestyle choices in the edit ended up being reverted. Below is that paragraph:

“As world GDP and global living standards rise, increases in energy demand may follow Hopkins 2020. Individual efforts focused on less energy-intensive lifestyle choices can support demand reduction goals. These include driving an electric or energy-efficient car, switching to public transport or cycling, adopting a plant-based diet, reducing energy use in the home, limiting consumption of goods and services, and foregoing air travel. BBC 2019, Sixth Carbon Budget p50, Table 1.2 These kinds of changes often work in concert with other mitigation strategies.SR15 SPM p21 SR15 Ch2 p 161, and, at the national level, can have a significant impact in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Sixth Carbon Budget, p70, Box2”

This revert was done after several attempts at reworking this text, and extensive discussion amongst Femke, EFbrazil, Bogazicili, and myself (admittedly, the text does have that “written by a committee” feel) - and I was not interested in going to an RFC to resolve Bogazicili’s issues, which I disagreed with. So I left the ideas in that paragraph out of the edit, and neglected to think about the ag paragraph. Don’t want to rehash old history, just some background for my comments.

Going back to this newly added paragraph, it was unclear to me what “demand-side” really meant when I first saw those words - I think it’s jargon in this context. I might interpret this phrase in terms of of agricultural production demand concepts, like fertilizer use or ag vehicle emissions. And what is the other “side” - is their a production side we aren’t mentioning? Furthermore, if we’re going talk about reducing the emissions from food consumption, then food waste should be included right up there with moving to a plant-based diet - another issue that is well covered in the WRI report. Also, we go from very general descriptions in the other paragraphs of this subsection to very specific statistics in this paragraph- why? It seemsd jarring and somewhat confusing. We don’t go into that kind of detail in the rest of the subsection, or anywhere else in the mitigation section, for that matter (except maybe the air pollution paragraph, which to me is also overly statistical to the point of being confusing). We are beating the reader over the head with numbers. The statistic in the second sentence makes sense, but I had a hard time getting a clear picture of what all these figures actually mean taken together - the last two just seem like factoids. I think this kind of detail is better dealt with something like a reference to the Sustainability portion of the plant based diets article.

So, Efbrazil, for all these reasons, I’d ask you to revert this edit, and, if you feel that an emphasis on plant-based diet is needed (and I think it’s a good idea, but should also include food waste), along with those IPCC references (consider using some of the WRI report as well the new info from AR6), please look at ways of briefly expanding on the the previous paragraph instead (preferably with fewer statistics - let those be quoted in the citations, or in a link to something like the Plant based diets article).

Or, better yet, let’s get a good paragraph on lifestyle choices (including plant based diets) reinstated back into the article, particularly given the increased emphasis governments (and agencies like IEA) are now placing on individual conservation efforts [1] The Chapter 5 Executive Summary in AR6WGIII now has more detail on this as well (page 5-3, for example), as does other portions of that chapter. Dtetta (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In terms of importance, diet is comparable in importance to electrification of transportation, which we go on endlessly about. People were rightfully complaining about our not mentioning plant based diets in the article, that's what prompted the edit. Food waste is a relatively minor issue, but I have no objection to adding it as an afterthought somewhere. Also note that diet is the most significant thing that most people can change to limit their carbon footprint, more important than what people do regarding their transportation choices.

The numbers regarding deforestation are also very important aspects of the impact meat eating has. Meat consumption is principally responsible for loss of the Amazon rainforest and damaging changes to the carbon cycle.

Obviously the wording was carefully arrived at. If you find the wording confusing or numbers questionable, propose an alternative that we can discuss. Efbrazil (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Efbrazil I find myself either mystified or in disagreement with just about every point you’re making here. So I don’t think it will be helpful to engage in a discussion about most of these issues. In terms of what I would propose, it’s this. I would just add “plant based diets” and “reduced food waste” to the list of items in the last sentence of the first paragraph of this subsection, immediately above the one you added. Then I would add WGIII SPM p.43 to the WRI report citation as the complete citation for that sentence (and BTW WGIII page 5-39 shows food waste as being roughly comparable to diet in terms of GHG reductions, but I would still go with SPM p.43). This might later need to be deleted because of redundancy if there is a paragraph on lifestyle choices added to the article. Dtetta (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also add Plant based diet to the See also: list at the top of this subsection (that article does need some updating). Dtetta (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Dtetta To educate yourself on plant based diets, I recommend reading this article from the UNFCC: https://unfccc.int/blog/we-need-to-talk-about-meat Discussion is really the only path to consensus. The numbers I used were from more recent IPCC sources. If you want to make a change please start a new section and we can take it up there. The content that is there now was reviewed and approved and should not be removed without a new consensus. Efbrazil (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dtetta that food waste should be included in this paragraph too. The previous attempt of having 'lifestyle choices' in there was too much focussed on rich countries without mentioning it explicitly, and completely ignored the governments role in providing the infrastructure for behavioural change (which according to IEA would account for ~60% of emission reduction from behavioural change).

On a side note: please note that people are more likely to respond promptly if you write more concisely. Femke (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Talking food waste there is like talking about hybrid cars at the same time as we talk about vehicle electrification. It's fine, but it's a marginal efficiency issue. So long as that's the framing and we review the text I'm fine with it. Efbrazil (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Food waste has 1/3 of the mitigation potential compared to sustainable diets (which I believe is slightly broader than plant-based), according to SPM.7, so I agree it should have less weight in the text. I thought it was larger. Femke (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In the main body of the report (p.5-39), food waste GHG reduction estimates appear comparable to plant based diets, as I mentioned earlier. Not sure why the discrepancy with Fig SPM.7. The report also treats food waste with just as much coverage, and often gives it higher prominence in a given paragraph. But that’s not the real issue, IMO - for the sake of discussion a 1/3 ratio is fine.

The real issue is this. From a Balancing aspects perspective, three sentences devoted to plant-based diet just doesn’t make sense in this section(or the article). You could easily argue that at least an additional sentence, maybe two, should be devoted to food waste based on the IPCC report. More importantly, that Figure SPM 7 also shows significantly larger potential reductions for forest preservation, carbon sequestration in agriculture, and ecosystem restoration. One could argue that those topics should each get something like six sentences each, to create a balanced presentation. Doing that would obviously make this part of the article way too large. But it illustrates how three sentences for plant-based diet is simply way too much, at least in the context of this article. It almost borders on advocacy, like the fourth sentence (Going forward…) in the Mitigation>Clean energy subsection. Still believe the better place for a short reference to plant based diets is as part of a broader paragraph on Demand Reduction/Lifestyle choices (or some less jargony term) in the previous subsection. With the IPCC report out, I think the last sentence of the first paragraph of ag/industry could also be redone, as the WRI report is not the best reference for the techniques in the IPCC report that I mentioned above. Dtetta (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The numbers themselves make a clear case regarding importance and why the information should be presented. They can also help people reading the article understand how to lower their carbon footprint, which is more useful than talking about issues that only policy makers have any control over. Our audience is different than the SPM audience. You seem to go back and forth between arguing with the facts themselves and then arguing that we shouldn't include them at all. If you want to question the facts then go ahead and we can have that discussion. If you want to suggest the presented facts aren't important enough for inclusion then I think you need to rethink how you're assessing importance. And finally, if you want to propose a controversial edit there's a process for that. Efbrazil (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you want to tweak text, like add a sentence on food waste or qualify a number, please just make a proposal we can review. It's just the wholesale deletion of content that should go through process. Keep in mind this is just 65 words towards the end of a 9600 word article. If anything, it seems to me that a mention of the issue should be added to the lede. Efbrazil (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think the numbers you presented make any such case at all - as I mentioned earlier I don’t think that, together, they saying anything coherent. You’re asking for something I already did on April 9. My proposal then was that, rather than devote three sentences to idea, we instead include brief references to plant based diets and food waste in the last sentence of the previous paragraph (and I also provided appropriate references from the WGIII report). Why are you asking me to repeat my proposal, particularly since you never responded to that earlier April 9 proposal on its merits? You just seemed to be suggesting I start a new section in your April 9 response, which I don’t think is necessary. I have no problem with including a short mention of lifestyle choices in the lead, BTW - but I certain don’t think that mention should be focused solely on plant based diets, and SPM Fig.7 seems to make it clear there are a number of other actions worth mentioning as well. Once again, we seem to be talking past each other. Dtetta (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

And if a paragraph on lifestyle choices is added to the previous subsection, that discussion could include plant based diets and food waste. At that point those sentences should just be deleted. That’s the better option, IMO, as I’ve already stated.. Dtetta (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

So you are agreeing the facts are valid. I'm fine with moving the content as you say and putting it in the context of lifestyle choices. I'm opposed to deletion of any of the facts in the content or putting the issue on par with food waste. As femke affirmed, food waste is a relatively unimportant issue in comparison. If you think you can work in that structure as a compromise then let's see what you propose. Otherwise you can open a request for comment section. Obviously I'm dead set against cutting everything and just mentioning the issue at the end of a paragraph. Efbrazil (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Cause of spike in views around 22nd April?

Presumably something technical - not important but I am curious as it also affected at least one other language Chidgk1 (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I was going to say that 22 April was Earth Day, perhaps it had something to do with that. But then I looked at the graph and the spike is so huge that I think it's more likely "not real" but a technology glitch? See here. EMsmile (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Greater regard for Indigenous People as related to Climate Change

To Whom it may concern: I think it is an omission to not include a single mention of Indigenous people in an article of climate change. While I understand the article is generally explored, and perhaps holds neutral views, I think indigenous people's association to climate change is something that is already underrepresented when it wholly should not be. They can be mentioned in a variety of different contexts throughout the article. Before I propose specific edits, their relevance to climate change as a whole is due to the fact that 1. They are one of the more vulnerable populations, if not most to climate change. This is a whole issue on its own, but if you mention the vulnerability of women, children and poor folk, the intersection of these marginalized populations within their communities would note their vulnerability too, right? 2. Even though point #1 is the case, the traditional knowledge derived from living in tune with their ecosystems can inform even climate science itself and inform mitigation. Thus, in an article on climate change, some acknowledgement of indigenous knowledge, skill, and readiness to tackle climate change deserves mention. This does lead into the actual edits that I propose. I am proposing more minute mentions to begin, as I do understand this is a general article on climate change. The edit would concern the section surrounding impacts of climate change, specifically in the food and health section. A good spot to weave in some information would be in between the lines "Up to an additional 183 million people worldwide, particularly those with lower incomes, are at risk of hunger as a consequence of these impacts.[189]" (here) "Climate change also impacts fish populations. Globally, less will be available to be fished."

These lines ambiguously mentioning "particularly those with lower incomes" could say more, perhaps even a single sentence stating how indigenous people, who are subsistent on their land and ecosystems will face endangerment to their wellness and lifestyles due to climate change". A source I can provide is "Ignoring Indigenous peoples—climate change, oil development, and Indigenous rights clash in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" by Zentner et al., in this they state "the reduction in the availability of subsistence foods has also been noted" (Zentner et al., 2019). While this is specifically spoken in the context of the circumpolar region, such effects of climate change on indigenous livelihoods are omnipresent, and it would transition into the line touching upon how glacial regions are especially affected. In the circumpolar region, indigenous people experience the brunt of an environment where temperatures are rising twice as fast then the rest of the world. I think this is a brief piece of information that would not hurt to be added in the article as well.

Overall, I am aware that there is a specific article regarding indigenous people and climate change, but I would argue at the very least it should be hyperlinked alongside effects of climate change and effects of climate change on human health. In fact, that Wikipedia article would be highly relevant in an array of sections across the article, or even any of them- such as the mitigation or discovery section. My point remains that indigenous people should at least be mentioned somewhere in an article delving into climate change. While Wikipedia writes to a general audience, it would be most holistic to include such resilient and informed proponents of climate change and mitigation. Jollybeanz (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You might want to summarize text from Climate change and indigenous peoples. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. @Dimadick and ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm scratching my head over why this was declined. The request included a specific sentence to add to a specific location with a specific reference. I added the sentence verbatim, although I chose to put it in a different section. The source that Jollybeanz suggested is appropriately scholarly but too narrow in scope, so I used a UN source instead.

Thanks for pointing out this glaring oversight! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Likely because the requested was 600 words long, with a 22 word sentence tucked in there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I"m not sure if you are taking this issue as seriously as I am. We have very few regular editors on climate change topics and that makes newcomer retention super-important. Perhaps a lot of edit requests are from COI editors and it's OK for volunteer editors to demand brevity from them. In this case, an edit request was made by a new volunteer who seems to have the kind of writing skills, interpersonal skills, and attitude that we need around here. Please try to not scare these people away, OK? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence: "WHO has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change would cause around 250,000 additional deaths per year."

While discussing this figure of "250,000 additional deaths per year" with content expert Nick Watts (at effects of climate change on human health) he pointed out to me that the next sentence of that publication from 2014 stated that the data is basically very unreliable and a complete underestimation. The publication says: Under a base case socioeconomic scenario, we estimate approximately 250 000 additional deaths due to climate change per year between 2030 and 2050. These numbers do not represent a prediction of the overall impacts of climate change on health, since we could not quantify several important causal pathways. A main limitation of this assessment is the inability of current models to account for major pathways of potential health impact, such as the effects of economic damage, major heatwave events, river flooding and water scarcity. The assessment does not consider the impacts of 2 Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s climate change on human security, for example through increases in migration or conflict. The included models can capture only a subset of potential causal pathways, and none account for the effects of major discontinuities in climatic, social or ecological conditions. Nick pointed out to me that since 2014 nobody else has attempted to make a similar global estimate on health and CC (mortality or even DALYs) as it's just too hard and inaccurate. Therefore, I think that the number of 250,000 is misleading and should either be explained better or omitted. The next sentence in the Wikipedia article says "Over 500,000 more adult deaths are projected yearly by 2050 due to reductions in food availability and quality" which I also find a bit unclear ("adult deaths" sound strange) and perhaps too brief to be adding any value. If we're stating such figures we need to make it clear how rough those estimates are. I think it might actually be better to omit them here and to (maybe) rather explain it more in effects of climate change on human health. EMsmile (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

If we wanted to include more on health impacts, I'd say this is the key publication (which is currently only listed under "other publications): "The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future" But it may go into too much depth for this overview article and should just be in effects of climate change on human health. But the sentence with the "250,000 additional deaths per year" can be regarded as outdated and grossly under estimated. So either we improve on that or we delete it, I would suggest. EMsmile (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Bogazicili and I had some discussion on this in late ‘20 or early ‘21, I believe. Originally I had proposed simply saying well over 500,000 additional deaths per year and listed the general categories in both the Lancet and WHO reports. I even remember sending an email to one of the Lancet editors and asking whether or not their numbers and the WHO numbers were sufficiently discinct that they could be added. I believe he responded yes, they could. So we went with the more detailed breakdown that you see now. I’ve always thought it’s too detailed and somewhat confusing. It’s like we are just trying to get the most types of categories and numbers in there to make the mortality statistics as high as legitimately possible. I would still suggest that these various statistics be simplified into a more general number that includes both the WHO and Lancet statistics, as I believe they cover slightly different categories. I think it’s more important to give a rough estimate along with a good source that’s easy for the reader to follow. Dtetta (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping to get an expert to talk about that. I agree that omission is typically best for these numbers that may mislead (because it omits major categories of impact). It may be undue weight. However, The IPCC gives high confidence to the statement in its technical summary (page TS-33), so I'm only mildly leaning delete. Femke (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the feedback. The IPCC report (page TS-33) says Projections under mid-range emissions scenarios show an additional 250,000 deaths per year by 2050 (compared to 1961-1990) due to malaria, heat, childhood undernutrition, and diarrhea (high confidence), i.e. for only a sub-set of the expected climate related deaths (but readers might not understand this). A few lines earlier it says Over 9 million climate-related deaths per year are projected by the end of the century, under a high emissions scenario and accounting for 15 population growth, economic development, and adaptation. This figure is so much higher? No explanation given here, I guess we have to dig into the full IPCC report to understand it. It's probably higher because it includes undernutrition in general, not just for children (and also it's for the high emission scenario). Either way, when I spoke to health expert Nick Watts he said the figure from WHO from 2014 of 250,000 deaths is completely misleading (far too low) and that no global estimate has been attempted since then (perhaps that 9 million figure is brand new?). EMsmile (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I could not find anything in Chapter 7 to support that 9 million figure in the TS - very disappointing. There seem to be a number of reports, like the Lancet Countdown, that talk about mortality from climate related factors, heat, disease, etc. But they typically do not go the next step and attempt to apportion a certain number of deaths to climate change. You might need to contact one of the lead authors for that chapter (p 1294 in my copy of the report) to look into where that figure comes from, or if there are better figures to use. Dtetta (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

When I was working on this in late 2020, I used both the WHO study and the 2016 Lancet report as sources. The Lancet report is the one that cites a 500k mortality for food alone. I tried to capture this as something like “well over 500k”, and cited both Lancet 2016 and WHO.” Still think that is an accurate statement for the year 2050, based on those two sources. Particularly if there are no other studies recently that attempt that kind of assessment, as Nick Watts is suggesting. Dtetta (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If we leave that figure in (250,000 deaths) then we need to make it much clearer how this figure was determined and that it's likely to be rather an underestimate of the overall impact of climate change on human lives. Nowadays, with all those deaths from Covid for example, if I saw a figure of 250,000 deaths per year I would think "ah well, that's not a big deal - might just be all the oldies who are dying during heatwaves about 1 year earlier than they would have died anyway; not a big drama". So it's completely misleading as the biggest impact on mortality will likely be via the malnutrition route (effects of climate change on agriculture). When I spoke to Nick I got the sense that it's an outdated and misleading number which nobody in the health sector uses anymore. I can double check with him again. EMsmile (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Glad you are looking at this - good to have a fresh set of eyes. I would agree that using just the 250k figure is an underestimate, but what I was suggesting is that describing the results of these two reports as “ well over 500K” seem to me like a reasonable approach. One problem with the WHO study is that it did not include food related mortality estimates, which was a focus of the 2016 Lancet study. I would suggest we try and capture the uncertainty in the text, but I think it would be unfortunate to leave out the numbers entirely, simply because there is a concern that one of them is an underestimate, particularly since it seems like IPCC seems to have given the WHO figures a tacit endorsement. Dtetta (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, it might be one of those "zombie figures" that everyone just repeats because nobody could be bothered to try and re-do the analysis and come up with something more accurate. If we want to quote from the IPCC report why not rather take this number: Over 9 million climate-related deaths per year are projected by the end of the century, under a high emissions scenario and accounting for 15 population growth, economic development, and adaptation. Or at least show both numbers to give the readers an idea about the uncertainty and difficulty in estimating this. EMsmile (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I finally did find one source of the 9 million number on p 7-63. It looks like the 9 million statistic is based on a single study, like WHO and Lancet 2016 (Springmann 2016). In that section IPCC just summarizes both studies, but misses the 2016 Lancet report mortality findings (although they do quote Springmann 2016 elsewhere in the context of food crop impacts). I would consider the 9 million number to be just as problematic as the 250K number, given that it’s for 2100 and for a high emission scenario. The IPCC gives extensive coverage of the WHO report, even reproduces some of its graphics. It’s a shame they don’t discuss the Lancet/Springmann food mortality results - maybe that’s buried somewhere else. Have to say I still prefer the WHO and Lancet/Springmann numbers after all this additional digging, mainly because they are projecting less farther out in time, the WHO report is extensively reproduces by IPCC, and they don’t seem to be based on high emission scenarios. But I won’t object if you want to go with the 9 million figure - I would just suggest the proposed sentence could be a bit more readable. Dtetta (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that extra work. If the 250,000 figure is decided to be kept, can we at least provide more context? Like e.g. the second sentence from this paragraph in the WHO study? It's an important qualifier, I think: Under a base case socioeconomic scenario, we estimate approximately 250 000 additional deaths due to climate change per year between 2030 and 2050. These numbers do not represent a prediction of the overall impacts of climate change on health, since we could not quantify several important causal pathways. A main limitation of this assessment is the inability of current models to account for major pathways of potential health impact, such as the effects of economic damage, major heatwave events, river flooding and water scarcity. The assessment does not consider the impacts of quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s climate change on human security, for example through increases in migration or conflict. The included models can capture only a subset of potential causal pathways, and none account for the effects of major discontinuities in climatic, social or ecological conditions. EMsmile (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I like that kind of qualification, but I think it may be too detailed. I would just qualify it with “for a variety of reasons, these projections are considered to be underestimates”. Dtetta (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

How about: “However, this estimate is known to be an underestimate as it does not factor in effects of economic damage, major heatwave events, river flooding and water scarcity." Could even add: "possibly by an order of magnitude or more" (since we know the 9 million figure). EMsmile (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I like that qualification:) I would also suggest trying to link the WHO and Lancet/Springmann findings into one sentence on mortality rates and causes, and then a second sentence on qualifications/limits to those numbers. The end of the Springmann paper specifically mentions that some of the uncertainties would lead to higher projections. But your call on that. Dtetta (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if the focus on mortalities provides much insight into the real impacts and suffering that climate change disasters can cause. It's the impacts on human systems and the related mammoth costs that need to come forward and the effects on morbidity will always be much greater than those on mortalities. This site shows that the mortalities in developed countries (like US) are minimal, almost irrelevant. https://www.drought.gov/news/high-cost-drought

So maybe the mortality discussion should be shifted to the one surrounding climate change impacts in poor countries where coping capacity is so much more limited. Cheers. ASRASR (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Not happy with the figure. As stated, it is misleading because it implies that this is the total number for all impacts. A figure of 250,000 plays down the real threat by magnitudes. Any serious calculation is impossible because there are too many factors. With a world population of more than 7 bn today, small reductions in food production affect 100s of millions. Food distribution is a political issue. Same with heat waves: Death rates will largely depend on strategies how to manage these situations.Hedgehoque (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the good points made by ASRASR and Hedgehoque. Morbidity is likely far more relevant here. Climate change won't kill us straight off but will make our lives increasingly uncomfortable, causing famines etc... So what do we conclude about that sentence and figure now? I still vote for delete or second best solution a very strong and detailed qualifier for that figure. EMsmile (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that morbidity impacts will be more important for most people, so I see these as related, but separable, issues. I think the AR6WGII report provides a wide variety of morbidity examples that we could include in this section, like the graphic that was made for heat waves, floods and droughts based on the WGI report. But it doesn’t mean we should take out or downplay the mortality stats. Dtetta (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes to paragraph 2

The beginning of paragraph 2 currently says:

On land, temperatures have risen about twice as fast as the global average. Deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common.[5] Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms and other weather extremes.[7] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss.

I'm finding the first sentence strangely technical, and there's also some repetition in the paragraph. I propose changing this to:

Higher temperatures are causing more intense storms, heat waves, and other weather extremes, leading to floods and wildfires.[7] Deserts are expanding and the Arctic has seen melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, more disease, displacement, and economic loss.

This removes some repetition. I've also rearranged things to try to put impacts that are most interesting to most people first. Most people don't live near a desert so expanding deserts are seldom making the news.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've argued before that the first sentence should not be there, as too detailed for the lede (but overly technical is also a good reason). Other changes are mild improvements too imo. Have you checked if the sources now line up with the statements? Femke (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Good question. The sourcing for the extreme weather stuff was a little old and not as confident-sounding as the latest IPCC report. I'd add a ref to AR6 Chapter 11 Executive Summary, which says "It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial time, in particular for temperature extremes. Evidence of observed changes in extremes and their attribution to human influence (including greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions and landuse changes) has strengthened since AR5, in particular for extreme precipitation, droughts, tropical cyclones and compound extremes (including dry/hot events and fire weather). Some recent hot extreme events would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system."[2] The other refs support the new version. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Have to say I don’t see this as an improvement (although I would be ok with deleting the first sentence), even though I can see what you are trying to do in terms of avoiding repetition. Agree that the first sentence is a little technical. I do think it’s important that readers understand that when we are talking about 1.5 and 2 C temperature increases, the actual land increases are more like 3 and 4C - but we do cover that in the main part - so I have mixed feeling about keeping it in the lede, but am ok with deleting it. However, the rest does not seem like an improvement to me. I don’t understand your new first sentence - I don’t think that the most significant aspect of heat waves, for instance, is that they lead to wildfires, which I think is what that sentence implies to me. That sentence also misses droughts, which is another important condition that heat related weather extremes lead to. And I much prefer the current sentence starting with “Climate change threatens people. . .“, in particular I think extreme heat and flooding are important to highlight as human impacts (although they have non-human impacts as well). It’s admittedly a writing challenge in that some of these extreme weather events also have human impacts, so getting that balance between redundancy and accuracy is hard. Once, again, I think it would be best to get the main part of the article on ecosystem and human impacts updated as a first step, and that would then provide a much better backdrop for updating paragraph 2, including the fact that we would then have the most appropriate, current references - a lot of the references in this paragraph are outdated (and even some of those in the smaller part that you are proposing to revise, like citations 7 and 8). We could also use a cite for the human impacts sentence, whatever that ends up being. Dtetta (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Femke and Dtetta. I made some changes that nobody disagreed with. Unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to update the relevant section in the body or to add more refs. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

IPCC AR6 Mitigation of Climate Change-Suggested Edits Based on the Report

Just saw a news article, and noticed this new web page page for the AR6 Mitigation of Climate Change report. Figured I would post here. Will read through the SPM for any significant findings that may warrant edits to the article, like with the WGII report. Just wanted to post this first, in case others wanted to post thoughts/suggestions for article edits. Dtetta (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

In looking through this report, I was left with the impression that the article does a pretty good job of discussing most of the highlights in the SPM. The most significant items for me were the portions of the report that seem to warrant additional or revised subsections. There were also a number of areas where current sections/subsections in the report could be strengthened. I organized my comments by category within the article, rather than going chronologically through the IPCC report.

Two areas in the report I did not get to were Section D - Linkages between mitigation, adaption and sustainable development; and Section E- Strengthening the response. Like portions of the Adaptation section of the WGII report, I found these to contain a lot of techno speak. But maybe someone else can provide a better insight into their messages.

Potential new subsections

“Climate action” or “Climate movement”

• SPM-p.2 Stresses the growing role of state and non-state actors as a feature new element of this report. I think this warrants a section on the climate movement, or climate action . I had suggested this in a discussion back in October as part of the What to do about climate action topic. I think the information in the WGIII Report reinforces the need for a subsection on this as an addition to the article.

Changing “Energy efficiency” to “Demand reduction” and adding a paragraph on lifestyle choices

• C.10 p.44 Covers a variety of measures associated with demand side mitigation, including lifestyle choices. Chapter 5 goes into much of this in more detail. A paragraph on lifestyle choices has been in and out of the mitigation section a couple of times since that section was significantly expanded in mid 2020.I think these parts of the report argue for putting that kind of paragraph back in, and probably expanding it to include some of the additional concepts covered in this part of the IPCC report. It could be part of a subsection retitled “Demand reduction”

“Digital technologies”

• B.4.3 p.13 Mentions digital technology/IOT/AI approaches to help with energy management/energy efficiency, and promoting the adoption of low emission technologies. I think it’s worthwhile considering this as its own (brief) sub section in the mitigation section, since it covers both clean energy and energy efficiency.

Cities

• C.6 p.39 fairly strong picture of mitigation approaches that could work for urban areas. This might also warrant a separate (brief) subsection, since most of the information here doesn’t neatly fit into the categories we have.

Economics/Cost Effectiveness

• C.12 p.47 presents important information on the cost effectiveness of different mitigation options. Figure SPM.7 - p.50, in particular, does a nice job of presenting cost effectiveness for a variety of different low emission and demand reduction technologies. It would be nice to be able to present this graphically somehow, but I’m guessing there’s simply too much information here. I think it is important to try to capture this some way, and that’ll probably be through a text based description of what’s in that figure. Where that paragraph would go I’m not sure. The idea of including extensive information on mitigation economics has been opposed in the past. But I think this information is worth capturing somehow in the article
• C4.2 p.36 discusses another important economic issue, the estimated cost of stranded assets from unused fossil fuels.
• C4.5 p.37 highlights the cost effectiveness of reducing CH4 emissions through fugitive emission control.

Suggested Edits to Existing Sections

Drivers of recent temperature rise > Greenhouse Gasses

• B.2 pp.7-8 has some updated information, and a slightly different way of presenting the relative contribution of various sources of GHG emissions. We might want to adjust the text in the greenhouse gases subsection to reflect these new numbers.
• B.2.3 p.8 notes that the share of GHG attributed to urban areas is increasing
• B.3.4 p.9 has an interesting breakdown of GHG emissions by household income, which we might want to include in the drivers section.

Future warming and the carbon budget

• B.1.3, p.5 has updated information on the carbon budget that we may want to include.
• B.7-7.1 p.19 discusses cumulative emissions from existing and planned infrastructure that might fit into this subsection, or perhaps in the drivers section.

Mitigation - introduction

• B.2.4 p.8 has an interesting comparison of the energy per GDP decreases over the past decade compared to what’s necessary over the next 30 years to hit the 1.5 and 2° targets. The UNEP sources we cite discuss this in a slightly different manner. I still prefer those sources (partly because those Emissions Gap reports are updated annually), but these figures are another way of looking at it.
• C.2 p.31 talks about early reductions of methane emissions as a way of limiting peak warming.
• C.3 p.32 emphasizes a combination of low emission mitigation technologies, demand reduction, and CDR.
• C4 warns of locking In of emissions and infrastructure that will make major transitions harder.

Mitigation-Clean energy

• Throughout the report, mitigation technologies are typically referred to as “low-emission”, rather than “clean” or “low-carbon”. The exception seems to be when renewable energy sources are specifically mentioned. Like “low-carbon”, this terminology seems like jargon to me, but we might want to consider it for some descriptions.
• B.4.1 p.12 has information on deployment levels of various low emission technologies that we might want to add.
• C.7 pp. 40-41 provides some additional information on clean energy strategies for buildings.
• C.8 pp. 41-42 provides some additional information on clean energy strategies for transportation.

Mitigation-Energy efficiency

• C3.6 Highlights at all strategies face implementation risks and challenges. But points out that these are significantly reduced when demand reduction methods are strengthened.
• C.7 pp. 40-41 provides some additional information on energy efficiency strategies for buildings.
• C.8 pp. 41-42 provides some additional information on energy efficiency strategies for transportation.

Mitigation-Carbon sequestration

• C.11 p.47 paints a much stronger picture of the necessity of CDR than what’s currently in the article. It talks about a wide variety of methods, some more effective and less effective, as well as side benefits and risks. But the overall importance of CDR is clearly emphasized and much less qualified than how it is currently described in the article, IMO.
• 4.6 p.37 Paints a picture of CCS as technically achievable, but not yet economically feasible. It seems to be saying that the projections don’t show it as having a significant impact.

Mitigation-Agriculture and industry

• C.5 p.38 provides a more detailed picture of mitigation strategies for industry than is currently in the article.
• C9.1 & 9.2 p.43 discusses cost effective mitigation strategies for the ag/land-use sector, as well as co-benefits and risks.

Mitigation-Policy options

• B.4.2 p.12 covers policies to encourage low emission technologies. We might want to include some of these in the policy options subsection.
• Section B.5 p.14 includes a number of policy related findings, some of which we might want to add to the article. These include some statistics on current coverage of carbon taxes/ETSs, and specific climate regulations. Examples of programs to encourage energy efficiency, reduce deforestation, and accelerate technology deployment are also discussed. Specific reduction numbers are associated with some of these policies. All of these seem to me to be worth considering for inclusion.

National responses

• B.6 and B.7 pp.15-20 talk about NDCs and their implementation, in a similar way that UNEP talks about it in their emission gap reports. As mentioned earlier, I prefer the UNEP Emission Gap reports version of this type of information. But there may be some points in these pages that are worth incorporating into an edit. Dtetta (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Climate movement

Happy to rename "protest and lawsuits" into climate movement. Femke (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that would be a good start. I think there are other considerations, as we discussed last October, that might help it fit better in the Scientific consensus and society section. And there is probably some new information from this report that warrants inclusion as well as the Climate movement article. But that is a good foundation for starting the edit. Dtetta (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Energy efficiency

Demand reduction or energy conservation would be a nice broader term for that section. I think demand reduction may be too technical? Not sure. I think you're right we're not talking enough about behaviour. Not sure I want to have an entire paragraph added, but definitely a sentence. Figure SPM.6 indicates that socio-cultural factors (of which lifestyle changes is a subset) is most important in nutrition (we already have a paragraph there). I like how the IPCC indicates that developed countries are key here.

To make place for this extra content, we can remove "Several COVID-19 related changes in energy use patterns, energy efficiency investments, and funding have made forecasts for this decade more difficult and uncertain.[242]". Femke (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Digital technologies

They are a mixed bag, also increasing energy demand (for instance, cryptocurrencies). I would leave them out for now / discuss them in mitigation of climate change. Femke (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Cities

I dislike having overlapping sections. Cities would have aspects of transport (from more compact cities / the 15-minute city), buildings (major renovations.. ). If we shake up the structure, I'd instead go for a transport and buildings section. Femke (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I can appreciate your point about the overlapping sections, and agree that issues around urban form, like the 15 minute city, are probably the most important aspect of this, both as a driver and as a mitigation strategy. Maybe just something to note that when we’re updating certain sections, we might want to add a sentence on this topic within those already established sections. It also argues for having a brief comparison of production based versus consumption based accounting methods. We did have that at one point in an earlier version of the article, but the consumption-based accounting got removed somewhere along the line as we got more detailed in our production based descriptions. Section C.6.2 also talks about changes in material use for urban areas, as a key mitigation strategy, which I don’t think we talk about much in the article. Not sure where that would fit in best. Dtetta (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This kind of cross cutting idea might also fit in the intro portion of the mitigation section. Dtetta (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of SPM Fig.7 as Guide for Determining Relative Coverage/Balance in this Section

From a WP Balancing aspects perspective, I’m thinking that we should consider using Fig.7 (p.SPM-50) as a rough guide for determining the relative coverage we give to various mitigation techniques, based on the estimated mitigation potential for each. For instance, when I look at the coverage of industry in the Agriculture and industry subsection, the text currently focuses on feedstock decarbonization and process change (industrial energy efficiency is covered in an earlier section). But, Fig.7 would indicate to me that we should really be talking about material efficiency, enhanced recycling, and fuel switching instead. I think the same is true for how we treat agriculture/forestry. In terms of more easily implemented, lower cost measures, we should be devoting more time to forest preservation and carbon sequestration in agriculture. Of course there are other issues that may warrant additional coverage of a given technique, such as cost (which is shown in this figure) co-benefits and implementation risks. But to a first approximation, I think the idea of using this figure as a general guide is a good one. Thoughts? Dtetta (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to the figure. In general, that seems like a good idea. The figure only goes up to 2030, which means that some of the sectors that decarbonise more slowly (buildings) are underplayed compared to sectors that decarbonise fast (electricity production). Of course, some techniques may be overhyped (CCS?), and a statement may be required that its role is expected to be relatively low. Femke (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dtetta: I like! I'll see about mapping word counts in the article to each item in the bar chart. We could see areas that are way out of whack and discuss, then make cuts or additions. Let me know if you have a different thought on how to use this.

One thing that pops out right away is that we are underplaying AFOLU and overplaying transportation. We fail to mention diet in the lead but do mention electric vehicles, even though diet is a much larger issue. So I expect cuts will need to come from transportation to make way for more AFOLU.

Note that the figure text also says "Externalities are not taken into account". That plus the dating issue femke raised leave a lot of uncertainty in the numbers. For instance, to go back to the dietary issue, it plays strongly into the issues of deforestation and afforestation that are listed above it in AFOLU and for which the bars are much larger. Are land use changes as a result of dietary changes considered to be "externalities" and ignored? Efbrazil (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I figured I'd start with the lede. By my read we specifically mention 8 areas. According to the chart, 4 of the 8 are among the most important.

Here are the 4 most important things we don't mention, from most to least important:

1. AFOLU: Carbon sequestration in agriculture 3.44
2. Industry: Fuel switching 2.1
3. AFOLU: Shift to sustainable healthy diets 1.7
4. AFOLU: Forest management, fire management 1.4

Here are the 4 things we mention but perhaps shouldn't, from least important to most:

1. Industry: Steelmaking: Not mentioned, instead the report focuses on industrial fuel switching, steelmaking is just energy intensive is my understanding
2. Industry: Cementious material substitution .28 (cement production)
3. Transport: Electric light duty vehicles .59 (switching to electric vehicles)
4. Buildings: Efficient lighting, appliances and equipment 0.73 (switching to heat pumps in buildings)

So that suggests two changes:

1. In the 1st paragraph, cut "steelmaking, cement production" as sources because the real issue is already mentioned in the previous sentence- burning fossil fuels for energy use.
2. In the last paragraph, cut "switching to electric vehicles, switching to heat pumps in buildings" as ways to mitigate since they are marginal. Instead, we can say something like "burying carbon while farming, electrifying industry and transportation".

Dtetta will be happy to see I didn't even add mention of dietary changes because I'm aiming for consensus here. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Efbrazil - glad you like the idea of using this as a guide, and I think you’re idea of mapping to the text is a good one. I might suggest we step back, and just do an assessment of what is there in the article first and compare it to Figure 7. I think you’ve already gotten to some conclusions, but I can’t quite follow your reasoning. Maybe a table like this? And we could probably just focus on the most significant 10 or so categories. And I would suggest we focus on the main body of the article first, and then discuss any changes to the lead after that.

Mitigation Category Ordered by Potential Impact from Fig 7	Word Count	Notes
Solar Energy
Wind Energy
Forest Preservation
Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture
Continue with other categories

Dtetta (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I started down that pathway but then backed off to doing the lede as a start point. I wanted to make sure that what we were doing was useful, and if it's useful to balance the body, it's especially useful to balance the lede. That's what most people see, so we should be talking about the most important things there.

I downloaded the chart data from the IPCC and ranked the list items from biggest impact to smallest. That's what the number next to each item is- the bar chart value. Then I went through the lede and looked at all the issues we specifically call out. I did a mapping and came up with the data above. So, for instance, we talk about cement in the lede but the chart ranks it only at .28 mitigation potential. Meanwhile, we don't mention carbon sequestration in agriculture, which is ranked at 3.44 mitigation potential. That's what led to my suggested text changes.

So before we move onto the body, I'd like to get the lede sorted.

Does that make sense? Given that, do you support those lede changes I proposed or have a different thought? Efbrazil (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess I have a few observations and one question:

• I see SPM Fig 7 as a useful guide (with some caveats) for calibrating the extent of coverage of ideas in the mitigation section. I think it’s utility outside of that context is much more limited.
• Right now the mitigation portion of the lead consists of three sentences in the last paragraph - your suggestions about other portions of the lead based on Fig.7 seems to be conflating it, and its coverage of mitigation potential, with other parts of this report (and other WG reports) that talk about drivers of climate change. So I think your second suggestion may be valid (I’d like to see a better assessment of the entire mitigation section first), but I don’t think Fig 7 is a relevant yardstick for your first suggestion. For that I think we need to do a more comprehensive look at what the reports are saying about the relative role of various sources.
• I believe WP guidance generally stresses the importance of basing the lead on the content of the article, so I am a believer in getting the body of the article right, then working on the lead.
• So at this point I would say there is not enough info here to support either of your suggestions.
• What do your numbers mean? That’s not clear to me. Dtetta (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

OK - I see now how you got the numbers you list - that makes sense. It was the lack of the GtCO2 unit that threw me off. Personally, I think the absolute values matter less than the rank order, but the numbers are somewhat helpful. Dtetta (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point regarding paragraph 1 cuts. Looking in the article, mention of cement as a source of CO2-eq references this graphic: See here: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

From that graphic, cement is only 3% of GGE, while steel and iron is 7%. That 7% number is entirely from the energy used by production though, and we mention energy sources in the previous sentence, so I think we can skip mentioning steel specifically. So I think cutting mention of those sources from paragraph 1 still makes sense.

Regarding starting with the lede, I agree the mitigation section also makes sense to tackle, but I think starting with the lede is fine. I'd rather get that done since I've already started down that track. While the lede needs to be backed by data in the article, it doesn't need to be weighted the same way.

Paragraph 4 changes are on solid ground I think, as they are mitigation focused. So, the proposed lede changes I made above still make sense to me. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think we have each laid out our positions and rationale fairly well. Probably good to get some other perspectives on this. To keep this topic focused on the general issue of SPM Fig7’s relevance for edits to the mitigation section in general, I think I’ll take a cue from Femke, and create a new section just devoted to changes to the lede. Dtetta (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the Lede

In the topic immediately above, Efbrazil has proposed some changes to the lede based on his assessment of SPM Fig.7 data and the Our World In Data source already cited in this article. My view is that we need to assess this more closely, and make sure we’re happy with the mitigation section before we propose changes to the lede. In particular, I think that given the number of potential changes to the mitigation section identified in this topic, our time would be better spent discussing/acting on those first. I also think that we should look systematically at the Our World in Data reference, as well as Figure TS.6 (p24) from WGIII, and discuss use that entire data set to see if any changes (and what) should be made to the first lede paragraph. Based on a cursory assessment of those two references, I think the sentences related to GHG sources still provide a good characterization. In particular, I think that changes to the chemistry of cement production are integrally related to both the direct CO2 emissions as well as the energy use, so I think the listing of cement as a category is still appropriate, particularly since that energy/chemistry combination represents a distinctive type of source. Femke, Clayoquot, RCraig09, EMsmile, and Chidgk1 - do any of you care to weigh in on this? Dtetta (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some work needs to be done on the mitigation paragraph (and main text); this could be done in parallel, I guess. Responding to a suggestion made by Efbrazil above: "cut "switching to electric vehicles, switching to heat pumps in buildings" as ways to mitigate since they are marginal. Instead, we can say something like "burying carbon while farming, electrifying industry and transportation"." I agree that this needs to be reworded because currently it's very much a first world, luxury topic (what about all the people who don't have any cars yet and are using bikes and walking? Are we telling them they ought to switch to electric vehicles?). Electrifying transportation might again be too context-specific. How about introducing the term sustainable transport here? Or "low carbon" transport. With regards to "burying carbon" I think this wording is misleading but could we refer to "removing carbon from the atmosphere through carbon sequestration in agriculture, or perhaps even refer to climate-smart agriculture? It might be useful to refer people to the correct and new terms. At the end of the day, we have to "climate-smart" everything which might involve electrifying stuff but might also involved a range of other approaches. EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

To summarise: the last paragraph of the lead which is on mitigation (and adaptation) needs to be written so that it works for all contexts. When I read "switching to electric vehicles, switching to heat pumps in buildings" I am thinking: OK this is written for Global North people only. EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Another option for the first paragraph would be to create a plain sentence version of the statement at the top of TS-23, dealing with non-energy sources, and state that ”Industry, agriculture, forestry, transport and buildings are additional sources.” This is probably more consistent with Efbrazil’s proposal. Dtetta (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• In general, I'd like to see the lead have more text on solutions and less text on how bad climate change is. The third paragraph has some repetition and unnecessary detail and could be tightened up. I'll try to make or propose some edits to the third paragraph.
• Industry, agriculture, forestry, transport and buildings are additional sources” is not correct. Nearly all of the emissions from industry, transport, and buildings are from energy use.
• Instead of saying "Agriculture is a source of emissions" I'd rather say something like "Certain agricultural practices are sources of emissions" or "Reforming agricultural practices would reduce emissions". If we say that something that's obviously necessary, like agriculture or transport, is a "source of emissions" it can reinforce either/or thinking along the lines of "If I have to choose between climate change and agriculture, agriculture is more important to me." Let's frame things in terms of specific practices, opportunities, and co-benefits.
• The SPM Figure 7 is a useful sanity check. However, I don't think it's a particularly helpful guide for organizing the mitigation section or choosing how to weight things. Most emissions are energy-related and most of the energy story is the same set of concepts across all sectors, i.e. conserve energy, electrify as much as possible, use clean energy sources for electricity, consider hydrogen, consider natural gas but be wary of carbon lock-in, and transform the system for distributing and using energy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  In response to Clayoquot’s statement on “Industry, agriculture. . . ” my read of the statement at the top of TS-23 is that the IPCC explicitly removes direct energy, and recalculates percentages for those other sectors. Even without direct energy considerations, those categories remain significant sources. And to modify the option I presented, I would suggest we keep the “forest loss” term, rather than just “forestry”, as it is more descriptive of what’s going on. I would be ok with the “certain agricultural practices term (even though it’s a bit wordy relative to the other categories described), but I would be concerned with putting something like “Reforming agricultural practices. . .” in the first paragraph, as it is (again) conflating mitigation actions with sources. It might be a useful phrase for the last paragraph. Dtetta (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Good point regarding keeping the first paragraph focused on sources of emissions.

  Re, my read of the statement at the top of TS-23 is that the IPCC explicitly removes direct energy, and recalculates percentages for those other sectors, I assume that you mean the part that says, "In 2019, 34% (20 GtCO2-eq) of global GHG emissions came from the energy sector, 24% (14 GtCO2-eq) from industry, 22% (13 GtCO2-eq) from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU), 15% (8.7 GtCO2-eq) from transport, and 5.6% (3.3 GtCO2-eq) from buildings. Once indirect emissions from energy use are considered, the relative shares of industry and buildings emissions rise to 34% and 17%, respectively."

  I disagree that this is saying it explicitly removes direct energy. If we use Industry as an example, the figure of 24% of emissions coming from Industry excludes indirect emissions from energy use. For example, if you are counting up the emissions from a factory, indirect emissions from energy use are things like the emissions from the coal-fired plant that produces the electricity that the factory uses.

  If we use Industry as an example, the OWID chart says 24.2% of global GHG emissions were from energy use in industry, and 5.2% of global GHG emissions were from the chemicals released in industrial processes. OWID's figures add up to saying that 29.4% of all GHG emissions are from Industry, which is very similar to the IPCC's number of 34%. Most of the difference is probably due to the fact that OWID's stats are from 2016 and industrial emissions have increased since then.

  I much prefer the way OWID breaks down sources of emissions, compared to the way the IPCC does it. OWID's way of slicing and dicing things is far easier for nearly everyone to understand. The IPCC is of course also right, and more up-to-date, but it's very arcane. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Clayoquot - I reviewed the Lamb 2021 article, which is what the IPCC is using as the main source for its table on page TS-24. In section 3.3 Lamb notes that the indirect category includes both electricity (which you referred to), and heat production, which are unique to specific sites in that sector. So it’s more than just the coal fired plant you are giving as an example. In steelmaking, for instance, coke is burned both as a source of heat and as an integral part of the production process, and electricity is also used. I agree that the OWID article in general is an easier to follow reference, but I think Lamb’s analysis is the more thorough. Regardless of how you want to do the accounting, after looking at Lamb’s article, and considering your suggestion on agriculture, I’m thinking a better sentence would be “Agricultural practices, industrial materials, and forest loss are additional sources.” In section 3.3 Lamb does a good job of characterizing all the various industrial materials that go into the direct component of of the industry sector. And I think the best way of characterizing this would be to use the term “industrial materials”. We could also list a couple of categories like steel and cement, parenthetically, as examples. Dtetta (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Lamb, along with the IPCC, uses the term "electricity and heat". This is a term of art in the field of emissions accounting. In the IPCC's definition, "electricity and heat" refers to emissions from power plants, combined heat and power (CHP) plants, and heat plants. (WG3 Annex II, p. 1302).

  The key word here is "plants". If you run a glass factory and burn natural gas in your factory to create the heat to melt glass, the emissions from that heat are attributed to the Industry sector, not to the "Electricity and heat" subsector.

  I understand that having a subsector called "electricity and heat" is counterintuitive. The convention of lumping together emissions from electricity generation and emissions from heat plants probably arose because of the existence of CHP plants. It sucks, I know.[3] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think you’re latest edit is a good one:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtetta (talk • contribs)

First paragraph is good! To come back to the last paragraph, I'm thinking of this as a new proposal based on what's been said above, with changed text highlighted:

Making deep cuts in emissions will require switching away from burning fossil fuels and towards using electricity generated from low-carbon sources. This includes phasing out coal-fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, switching to electric vehicles, switching to heat pumps in buildings, and taking measures to conserve energy. Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and by capturing and storing carbon while farming. While communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like better coastline protection, they cannot avert the risk of severe, widespread, and permanent impacts.

The added text is because of how heavily the IPCC mitigation report features the potential for carbon sequestration in agriculture, but I don't want to use less technical wording. I'd also add the new IPCC mitigation chart as a source after the new text. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I like your new text, Efbrazil. But the term "low-carbon sources" makes me stumble; can it at least be wikilinked? It sounds a bit like "low carb diet" and might confuse non-expert readers. I don't think "low carbon sources" has arrived in mainstream language yet? (but perhaps this was already discussed in great deal elsewhere). EMsmile (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I just changed "low-carbon sources" to "clean sources". It's older text, not one of the sentences being discussed. Will comment more shortly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing "switching to heat pumps in buildings". Most readers don't know what a heat pump is. I think we should keep one example of electrification, a critical concept in climate change mitigation. Electric vehicles are an excellent example that most people are familiar with. The IPCC's Figure 7 doesn't reflect the importance of energy system transformation, which includes electricification, because it only goes to 2030. The current source, i.e. the UN Emissions Gap report, is a much better source for getting an overview of mitigation strategies.

I like the idea of including carbon sequestration in farming. The wording sounds a bit strange, as if capturing and storing carbon are activities you do separately from farming rather than through farming. I'd suggest "by increasing forest cover and by farming with methods that capture carbon in soils and plants". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with how you worded the farming issue but I'd flip it to say "plants and soil", since it goes to plants and then to soil, and to avoid the plural on soil.

Regarding vehicle electrification, how about if we change that to "switching to electric and human powered transport"? The electrification of vehicles conjures up images of teslas in the first world and dismisses alternatives like biking or walking. Does that work for you? Efbrazil (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Plants and soil" works for me. As a cyclist I'm all for mentioning human-powered transport in the lead, but it should be separated from electric vehicles as it illustrates a different concept (energy demand reduction rather than electrification). So I'd change it to: "This includes phasing out coal-fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, and switching to technologies that use electricity instead of burning fuel, such as electric vehicles. Measures to conserve energy, such as walking and cycling for transport, are also important." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this generally is an improvement over what was there - nice work folks. In particular, moving energy efficiency into its own sentence is a nice grammatical/basic prose improvement, since that is not amongst the set of things alluded to in the first sentence. However, I count five categories in Fig SPM 7, focused on energy efficiency in buildings and industry, that all show more mitigation potential than walking or bicycling. Not that the relative values in that figure are the only factor to consider. But it is worth considering. The main issue I see is that that regenerative agriculture really isn’t covered well in the body of the mitigation section (it’s only described as a “less understood option”, and the lede really should be reflective of what is in the rest of the article. Dtetta (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Having had a little more time to look at it, I think the sentence on energy conservation needs to include other examples for another reason - to better reflect what’s in the article - the subsection on energy conservation doesn’t even mention walking or bicycling. This get’s back to my earlier point about getting the mitigation section right, and then work on the lede, largely to avoid these kinds of issues. Dtetta (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on all that. I removed the controversial parts from the lede, including electric vehicles and human powered transportation and the added part talking about electricfying power since that was redundant with the first sentence of the paragraph. Please get consensus here before making additions to the lede. Efbrazil (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Efbrazil, I wish you’d be a little more judicious with your reverts. My sense is that Clayoquot made the edits she made on 5 May after posting to this page. I would prefer she had made a more specific proposal, but she did post a suggestion. You yourself have just effectively made an edit, changing the sentence: “This includes phasing out coal-fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, switching to electric vehicles, switching to heat pumps in buildings, and taking measures to conserve energy.” to: ”This includes phasing out coal-fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, and taking measures to conserve energy.”, and keeping the end of that sentence, despite the fact that both Clayoquot and I expressed concerns with the: “taking measure to conserve energy” part.

I expressed general support for Clayoquot’s 4 May alternate proposal on energy conservation language and her 5 May edit, as I stated. I think it was an improvement that needed some tweaking. I did not say it should be reverted. In particular, I specifically said I thought her change to separate out energy conservation was an improvement to the paragraph. From a basic English prose 101 standpoint, the current second sentence is simply badly written. “taking measures to conserve energy” is not an example of “switching away from burning fossil fuels and towards using electricity generated from clean sources”, which is how those two sentences read together. I prefer Clayoquot’s edit that separated those sentences. So your revert specifically disregarded my comment of support for her proposal and edit. Is that consensus? It seems like you are going against the common position that Clayoquot and I have that energy conservation should be a separate sentence (it’s demand reduction rather than electrification, as Clayoquot stated on 4 May).

Could you also explain what you see as your standard for consensus when it comes to edits? From my perspective it would include clear support from one or two other editors before a change is made. Or it could also include a lack of opposition to a proposal made to the talk page, after a few days wait. The addition of soil carbon sequestration seems to be just a discussion between you and Clayoquot. Is that consensus? (I would say that particular one is, even though I think the edit should have included text in the main article as well) I also see consensus in my support for her edit on energy conservation. But that was reverted by you. This seems inconsistent to me. How do others see this?

Main point -I agree with you that we should all propose specific edits and look for some consensus before we make changes to the lede (IMO ideally in underline strikeout fashion - which I appreciate you doing in your 3 May posting) . Let’s all follow that advice. And I think we should go with Clayoquot’s suggestion to make energy conservation it’s own sentence - although IMO we should be using different examples. Dtetta (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Efbrazil, regarding your justification for removing "the added part talking about electricfying power since that was redundant with the first sentence of the paragraph," there is no such thing as "electrifying power." The first sentence says "switching... towards using electricity generated from low-carbon sources" and the sentence you removed said "switching to technologies that use electricity instead of burning fuel". These aren't the same thing at all. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to address EMsmile's comment that electric vehicles are "very much a first world, luxury topic". This isn't the case - China, a Global South country, is a leader in electric vehicles. Additionally, the issue of how to mitigate emissions is one of the rare times that it's appropriate to focus on the habits of the richer people of the world, because the rich people are the ones who are producing the most emissions. That said, I'm open to other examples of electrification of energy usage technologies.. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Dtetta Clayoquot, the main reason I backed out the edit was it included parts there have been significant objections to. Most importantly, that includes mention of electric vehicles (which EMsmile and I object to) and human powered transportation (which dtetta rightly states is not in the body and so cannot be in the lede). Breaking energy conservation into it's own sentence did not seem necessary at that point, since we had cut enough content to recombine the sentences as they were before.

I understand that there are two parts to electrification (low carbon generation and expanded use). I don't mind mentioning expanded use, but it should probably be part of the first sentence, so all of electrification is tied together into one idea. Efbrazil (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Re I understand that there are two parts to electrification (low carbon generation and expanded use, this isn't true. Electrification is the process of converting a system to use electricity as its energy source[4][5][6]. It has nothing to do with how electricity is generated. Decarbonization of electricity generation, electrification, and energy conservation are three separate concepts. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, putting aside cuts to electric vehicles and heat pumps, does anyone object to adding "and by farming with methods that capture carbon in plants and soil" after "for instance by increasing forest cover"? I think everyone agreed to that. The main reason for the add is the IPCC mitigation report chart, so I'll add reference to that.Efbrazil (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I did some reading and editing over the weekend on the issue of carbon sequestration in agriculture. I think it would be better to say "and by farming with methods that capture carbon in soil". The IPCC has said in reference to agriculture, "Soil carbon sequestration (enhanced sinks) is the mechanism responsible for most of the mitigation potential (high agreement, much evidence)"[7] In AR6, Chapter 7 p. 44, a table describes "Agriculture - Carbon sequestration" as "(soil carbon management in croplands and grasslands, agroforestry, and biochar)".[8]

There are many ways for all farmers to sequester carbon in soil. There are relatively few ways for most farmers to increase the sequestration of carbon in plants, as most farming grows annual species such as rice and tomatoes. If you want to sequester carbon in plants you can add trees to your farm (agroforestry), you can switch to growing legumes or perennial woody species, or you can restore barren land to grassland, as grass can sequester carbon in deep roots.

If we're doing a citation I'd suggest using the NASEM report that I cited in the body, as it explains what carbon sequestration in agriculture means. The IPCC's AR6 Figure 7 - which is one of the many charts that the IPCC has on mitigation and not something all-encompassing - doesn't explain the terms it uses. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That text works for me so I edited the lead with it. The wiki link to carbon farming goes into the details and we have references in the article, so I didn't add another reference to the lede for now. To be clear, that's sort of the standard for lead edits as I understand it- just a proposal on the talk page and somebody agrees with it and nobody objects.

The idea behind including the figure 7 ipcc reference is to make it clear why we are presenting the examples we're presenting. That seems to be controversial though, so for now I'm happy to leave it out. Perhaps if we remove heat pumps and do a better job on electric vehicles that would be a good time to add the reference, since our examples would then be in line with the chart. Efbrazil (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Another change that we could make is to swap out "switching to electric vehicles, switching to heat pumps in buildings" in favor of EMSmile's proposal of "electrifying industry and transportation". I think I prefer that wording as it is more succinct and sweeping while being less prescriptive. For instance, "electric vehicles" conjures images of teslas, not electric bikes or trains. Similarly, heat pumps ignores energy used in industrial production and ignores other temperature control technologies like heat exchangers, whole house fans, and swamp coolers. Any objections? Efbrazil (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Heat pumps use heat exchangers, but that's beside the point. The point is to help the reader understand that electrification is critical to making deep cuts in emissions. There is extremely strong consensus in the climate change mitigation literature that electrification is critical. To get this point across, I proposed that we describe the concept of electrification, with a link to electrification and an example. The phrase I proposed was "and switching to technologies that use electricity instead of burning fuel, such as electric vehicles." I've explained why it's not redundant with decarbonizing electricity generation, a separate (and also critical) concept. I've addressed the myth that electric vehicles = Teslas by explaining that China is a world leader in electric vehicles.[9] Are there any remaining problems with what I'm proposing? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant ground heat exchangers specifically, but like you said, that's beside the point. I prefer EMSmile's wording to yours. It's more succinct and inclusive and it features electrification like you ask, just less verbosely than you do. I also disagree with featuring "electric vehicles" because of the reasons I gave above. Anyhow, I won't make the change since you disagree with it. Efbrazil (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There are two issues with the proposed "electrifying industry and transportation". First, it doesn't make sense to name these two end-use sectors and not also name the buildings sector. Second, the reader won't learn from it because it doesn't explain what "electrifying" means. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I agree with that critique.

Here's yet another crack at things. We replace this sentence:

This includes phasing out coal-fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, switching to electric vehicles, switching to heat pumps in buildings, and taking measures to conserve energy

With these two sentences. The main idea is to break out electrification on its own instead or trying to capture it in a couple examples in a run on sentence:

This includes phasing out coal-fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, and taking measures to reduce energy use. Electricity will need to replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and operating industrial facilities. Efbrazil (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That works for me :) The second sentence is nice and concrete. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! One bit I struggled over was saying "heating buildings", as that can arguably be done with passive solar or geothermal and neglects other aspects of green building, like embodied carbon. It is easy to explain though and a major issue. Efbrazil (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing process

Efbrazil and Dtetta, if you prefer to propose edits to the lead on the Talk page and get consensus before implementing them, that's fine. But if you're suggesting this as a process that everyone must follow, I'd have to point out that this isn't Wikipedia's normal editing process and we aren't allowed to establish a special editing process for one article. WP:Consensus says "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing." We can't decide that for the lead section of this article, the policy is going to be "Editors may propose a consensus change only by discussion." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

We’ve had this discussion a few times. I think we all recognize that this is not an official WP policy, but for this article it seems to be better than the alternative (multiple reverts/rewrites with often poorly written summaries). Several editors have expressed support for this approach, I believe. But maybe this is a good time to check in with people again. This is IMO a voluntary agreement amongst those of us that are regular contributors to this page, not official WP policy. And I think it helps us make more efficient use of our time as editors. I for one would like to spend more time working on other edits that seem to be warranted based on the IPCC report. Dtetta (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I too would like to be spending more time on substance. Personally I believe normal Wikipedia editing processes are the most efficient way to do that. However, regardless of what I or any other regular contributors to this page believe, it's not in our purview to declare a special editing process for this article. The normal editing process is that anyone may edit boldly and if someone does, you revert only if you believe the edit actually made the article worse and/or if the edit is going against a previous Talk page consensus. (And when possible, you only revert the part of the edit that's a problem, not the entire edit.) It's not OK to revert just because the other person didn't first get consensus on the Talk page. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think the whole idea of consensus is fuzzy, as I stated in my earlier post today. To me the most important part is that that people post proposed edits on the talk page first - a voluntary step that I think we should encourage for the reasons I mentioned. But I’ll stop and let others post their thoughts. And I should point out that I did not revert your edits on process grounds. Dtetta (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence - it was Efbrazil, not you, who reverted on process grounds.[10]. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it was Femke that suggested the talk page process around lead edits. Reasoning is that this is a featured article and the highest profile article on the contentious topic of climate change so it's important to get it right and not have it thrash around. Note that there is a comment saying "Please do not change the content in the lead section without prior discussion" Consensus just means we should try for consensus before making edits.

Also, I reverted the edits on substance grounds, but the substance I'll take up in the talk page section above. Efbrazil (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The policy-ground to request consensus before is WP:FAOWN, which states Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first.. It's just a request, but it's a process that has worked well here, so I hope we'll agree to keep it. Silence after posting on a talk page is a form of consensus, albeit a weak one. (reading along, but not much energy to engage, apologies). Femke (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm hearing, to my relief, that nobody seems to expect consensus to be established for every change before implementing the change. The sentiment seems to be more to advise a cautious editing style relative to other articles. I'll try to work with that. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Biology

Make a project file on climate change its consequences Hazards and methods to control the pollination 2409:4043:4C8B:C5AA:42F9:F94A:B0A2:D2BF (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Do you want us to change the article? And how so? Femke (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

About the sub-structure in "Sources" and why so many?

Hi Rcraig09 what did you mean with "The Sources section is an idiosyncrasy of a movement in this particular article's history of a few years ago, regrettably."? What happened and what were the different options at the time? I am not used to seeing a sub-structure under "Sources". I wonder if we could have just references and sources, without the sub-structure below that? And do we really need this incredibly long list under Other peer-reviewed sources, Books, reports and legal documents, Non-technical sources? If anything that should be under "further reading" but I wonder why we even have it at all? Perhaps a legacy from the days when climate change was very controversial? I would radically cull it, perhaps even remove it completely. After all, other articles on "hot" topics (e.g. abortion, vaccination) don't have this either. Who does the "vetting" and updating of such long lists of publications? Waste of time? EMsmile (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't have sources appropriate for a 'further reading' section in this article: All sources are used to support text. Therefore they cannot be deleted. (That is why every time you delete a harvnb / sfn source from the body of the text, you should likely delete the corresponding source in the sources section.) We had a user very adament that FA articles needed to be fully sfn (which is a great format for sources that are used multiple times & require page numbers) OR no sfn at all. In practice, the two styles of citations are sometimes used in a mixed way, even in FAs, as long as the system is internally consistent.

About a year ago, I proposed that we go towards this mixed style (books/reports still in sfn format, but news articles and scientific papers using the "normal" or simple citation style). I got one person mostly agreeing, and have been doing this since. I think we shouldn't be spending active energy on this, just use this from now on, until we have the next FAR (would be good in a year or 3). Femke (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I didn't realise all those newspaper articles were actually used as refs. I think what confused me was that the IPCC reports are shown in 1-column style but the other sources are in 4-column style. So it felt like there was something different between them. Wondering if we could change the IPCC reports also into 4 column style to save space? I tried and it didn't look good but it might work by putting the {{refbegin|30em}} at the start of each of the IPCC reports? And I like your approach of mixing styles: books/reports still in sfn format, but news articles and scientific papers using the "normal" or simple citation style. In general, when working across a range of smaller sub-articles where we move text blocks from A to B I am finding the "simple citation style" better, especially when collaborating with newbies and students. EMsmile (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

More compact TOC? (and discussion about tipping points section)

This is a minor thing and I don't want to make a big deal out of it. However, it could be useful to reach some consensus here, also for the other CC articles. I would like to make the table of content (TOC) more compact by adding the command {{TOC limit|3}}. User:RCraig09 reverted this by saying "More detailed ToC provides information that's especially useful in longer, more technical articles, and provides quicker navigation to subtopics that readers might be looking for". I feel that lay persons could be put off by overly detailed TOCs (as a scientist myself I do like them but I think lay persons might have different preferences). Has this been investigated in the past? I know that at WikiProject Medicine the broad consensus was to use the compact TOC style. It would mean in this case that the "sub-heading 2" section headings do not show up in the TOC. I think they are not that important for lay persons (and if they were, then perhaps they should become a sub-heading 1 level, such as "Tipping points and long-term impacts" which is currently below "physical environment"). Other sub-heading 2 headings are food and health, livelihoods, 12.3.1 IP C reports, 12.3.2 Other peer-reviewed sources, 12.3.3 Books, reports and legal documents, 12.3.4 Non-technical sources. - is it really crucial that they are accessible from the TOC? EMsmile (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with a more compact TOC. I think we'd be better in compliance with FA criterion 2b of a not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings. I would agree even more if we give mitigation it's own heading. An entire IPCC report is dedicated to mitigation, but we put it as a subheading?. Femke (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that mitigation and adaptation should each move up a level and become Level 1 headers. However, perhaps the term "mitigation" is unclear for lay persons, so perhaps "Mitigation to reduce emissions"? Or is that too inaccurate. Mitigation is defined in the CC mitigation article like this "Climate change mitigation consists of actions to limit global warming and its related effects. This is mainly reductions in human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) as well as activities that reduce their concentration in the atmosphere.". - And the heading adaptation could become "Adaptation by adjusting to effects of climate change" (or maybe that's too long). EMsmile (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with bumping "Mitigation" and "Adaptation" up a level, especially since "Responses" doesn't have standalone content. But if you condense the ToC, you will delete all of the following important concepts which would be hard to find because the article itself is so long: Tipping points and long-term impacts, Food and health, Livelihoods, Clean energy, Energy conservation, Agriculture and industry, Carbon sequestration Climate movement. Three levels is not "overwhelming" under FA criterion 2b. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The content would not be deleted, it would just not be directly accessible from the TOC. I doubt that so many readers of that article want to jump directly to "clean energy" or livelihoods for exaxmple. If they did, they would type in "clean energy" in the search field, wouldn't they? It all comes down again to who our target readers for this article are. Is it scientists and engineers like you and me (who enjoy a very detailed TOC), or is it the general public (who might not require a detailed TOC). Any popular science book, article blog etc. that I've read recently, usually has a high level TOC, only showing chapter titles (or no TOC at all in the case of blog posts). The books with detailed TOCs are those that are textbooks or scientific reports like the IPCC reports maybe. So therefore, I would like to add the {{TOC limit|3}} to this article and make the TOC showing one level of headings less than currently. EMsmile (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hierarchical TOCs show the relationship between concepts, and it's extremely important to note how, for example, "clean energy" relates to the mitigation within broad topic of climate change. Fortunately, bumping up "Mitigation" has rendered the issue moot for most sub-topics. Separately, I agree with bumping up "Tipping points..." as it's a crucial topic. I also agree with explanatory section titles, though they may run afoul of official Wikipedia guidelines for conciseness. (P.S. "sink" is a techy term, but I'm having trouble thinking of a concise alternative.) —RCraig09 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see your response when I reverted the tipping point edit. My reason for reverting it is the little attention tipping points got in the AR6 report. Iirc, it was 1.5 page in the technical summary. As such, it seems undue and not NPOV to bump this "scary" effect up a level. Femke (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I see your point about the IPCC's (de-)emphasis re tipping points. I was thinking about the topic disappearing from the ToC if the ToC is cut to only two levels. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's surprising to me that tipping points are downplayed in the IPCC AR6 reports but so be it (perhaps some time in future they will be played up again?). So if tipping points must stay at sub-heading 2 level and are regarded as not so important (at this stage9 then we could now switch over to the more compact TOC, right, RCraig09? There are only a few fairly unimportant sub-heading 2 type section headings that would no longer be visible in the more compact TOC. Like those groupings of sources in the references section. EMsmile (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This is another example of form versus substance. Cutting the ToC to two levels would remove from the ToC the tipping point topic that is widely referenced even though de-emphasized in AR6—with minimal change in how "overwhelming" the ToC is under FA criterion 2b. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not just a "form versus substance" issue. (and even if it was, so what? Form and substance are both important, given our target audience). Like I wrote above, our target audience are lay persons, not scientists and engineers. They don't value a detailed TOC as much as you do (this is my opinion; I'd love to back it up with facts from studies that others have conducted?). Why do you insist that things like this be accessible through the TOC? IPCC reports, Other peer-reviewed sources, Books, reports and legal documents, Non-technical sources? Anyway, the two us us may need to agree to disagree on this one. Do any of the other page watchers have an opinion? We heard from Femke that they were supportive of my suggestion of a more compact TOC. EMsmile (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Again: the ToC provides a quick summary of the relation of various concepts, including the important concept of tipping points which readers wouldn't easily see since that section is eight desktop-screenfuls down in this long article. Our target audience should know about that topic despite AR6's treatment of it. (The Sources section is an idiosyncrasy of a movement in this particular article's history of a few years ago, regrettably.) It's not " "overwhelming" in any event. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Another view: I think I agree with Craig's view that either tipping points should be bumped up to L2 or the TOC should be kept at 3 levels, and I'd prefer the bump up to L2 and collapse option because other L3 topics can be hidden. While the IPCC may underplay tipping points (partly because the science is muddled), politicians and the media always talk about climate change in terms of tipping points. Every action must be taken before it is "too late" and this is our "last chance" or there will be "irreversible effects" and so forth. Nobody says stuff like "if we wait another 5 years to act then the land surface will likely be another 0.1 C hotter in 50 years". So while the IPCC may underplay the issue, it's of great interest to the general public, and that's our audience. Nothing brings climate change into focus like talking about species extinction or lost farmland or ecosystem collapses like the Amazon, the Arctic, and the Great Barrier Reef. Efbrazil (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I would also like to bump the tipping point section up to sub-heading 1 level for the same reasons that you listed, RCraig09 and Efbrazil (and then condense the TOC so that sub-headings 2 are no longer visible). Perhaps as a compromise would be that we come up with a suitable title for this sub-heading 1 level (perhaps the current one ("Tipping points and long-term impacts") is not ideal yet). And I don't think we need to stick like slaves to the "weightings" that the AR6 applies for the various topics. It's an extremely important source but not the only one that would inform us on how we'd like to structure this article. EMsmile (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Good! I personally wouldn't mind just keeping the same title and bumping it up a level and doing the collapse. I'm open to a different title but nothing occurs to me as better. We should also probably be mentioning tipping points as they relate to ecosystems, but we aren't currently (maybe because of the current TOC location). Efbrazil (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What sources are you looking at to support so much attention to tipping points? Femke (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a way to break down media coverage by TOC category, but I don't see that as a reason to just mirror the IPCC TOC. Our audience is not the IPCC audience.

We should also consider how the term is used in communications by authorities. For instance, PEW research summarizes the latest IPCC report this way: "Central to the report is evidence that rising temperatures could push our planet beyond tipping points at which changes can no longer be avoided or undone.". Similarly, the UN secretary general recently said "We have reached a tipping point on the need for climate action."

It's easy of course to search google news and find tons of hits on "climate change tipping point". Even when the word tipping point is not used, the issues covered by media very often center on tipping point issues. I think the section we have also has a good pairing with long term effects, making it clear that a tipping point typically is not an abrupt thing but rather a long term, irreversible thing.

In the interest of compromise and not overhyping the issue, one thing we could do is move the section down to the end of Impacts, so it is at L2 but after Humans. Efbrazil (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that is a good analysis and suggestion by Efbrazil. Is it perhaps the term "tipping point" that you (Femkemilene) don't like? Would it be better to talk about "irreversible impacts"? Or is it more about climate feedbacks? In the article on effects of climate change we've called it "Abrupt changes and irreversible impacts", see here (although that section might also require further work).EMsmile (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I, also, agree with Efbrazil. But I strongly favor tipping points (much used in literature) over irreversible impacts (sounds like a euphemism). —RCraig09 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind the term tipping point much. I'm mostly concerned we're giving a bit too much emphasis on what people think are abrupt changes (most tipping points aren't that abrupt) wrt the literature. I think I'm in the minority here though, so please go ahead. I prefer a section before humans (either 2nd or 3rd), as that makes more sense. Femke (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I bumped tipping points up a level, collapsed the TOC, trimmed the bit on ocean circulation, and added a bit on ecosystem loss. Efbrazil (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There's only one lonely "explanatory note"?

How about we move the one lonely "explanatory note" into the main text and then do away with the section that is called "explanatory notes"? I've also just removed the section heading called "notes" as I felt it was superfluous. Many articles just have references and sources, I think that works quite fine. EMsmile (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Femke Haven't scientists agreed whether to use air or ground temperature by now do you know (e.g. in AR6)? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I restarted the explanatory notes when we started simplifying the article in terms of readability. That process isn't quite finished, so maybe there will be more.

And no, don't think so Chidgk1, because this is about historical measurements, there continue to be advantages and disadvantages to how it is reported. I'm okay with deleting it, as instrumental temperature record should cover this too. Femke (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the sentence now to instrumental temperature record (perhaps User:RCraig09 can help to embed it better there?). I've taken out the explanatory notes section. The intention might be noble but I think it'll make it feel more "academic" if we now started to add several explanatory notes. Better to have them in the main text if needed. I can't imagine that many featured articles in Wikipedia use many footnotes (at least I haven't come across it yet). EMsmile (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction between temperature measurement methods causes too small a difference to warrant explicit discussion in this high-level article. EMsmile's recent addition to Instrumental temperature record seems appropriate, based on my initial, brief reading of "near surface air temperatures" (AR6). The apparently small difference in resulting measurements, and whether those measurement differences affect any ultimate scientific conclusions, might be appropriate content there. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Business section

I've just deleted the following section, to be improved before it can feature in this WP:featured article.

• Mention of AI paper seems WP:undue (is AI that important to identify nonsustainable business?)
• Not sure an interview the Paulson Institute is reliable, quite sure it's not a high-quality reliable source as required by WP:FA criteria
• The iShares website is a primary source, again not high-quality. Doesn't support the full statement.
• The GSIA is a blog post, not highly reliable.

That said, I think we may be missing some information here. We don't really mention climate finance or business, but I'm not sure where it logically fits. I think we could add a paragraph to the initial part of the reducing emissions section (even if a four paragraph into is a bit too long).

Courtesy ping to @Omygoshogolly: (don't be discouraged by this: editing a featured article is very difficult, and I'm sure you can put your mark on the article with some help from experienced users).

By the end of 2021, investors were expressing a preference for businesses that act to reduce CO₂ and methane pollution. Improved ways of handling computer data (including Big data and artificial intelligence) were beginning to help identify "climate responsible" businesses, governments and other organizations.

As of December 2021, the equivalent of 4 trillion US dollars had been invested worldwide in sustainable enterprises, using a variety of new investment strategies. Examples include Climate Investment Funds, Green Climate Fund, and iShares by Blackrock.

Femke (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

References

I’m working on revisions. I will appreciate further suggestions about where to place this information within the article. Omygoshogolly (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Great! The IPCC AR6 WGIII report should be a good place for high-quality information about the roles the business sector plays in retarding and accelerating the transition, I would guess. Femke (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Inspiring pictures for "Reducing and recapturing emissions" section?

Following on from above discussion but I started new talk section as title above is about a different article section.

I know we can only have a few photos but currently there are none. As this article is so popular I think they need to be excellent in some way.

Any great pics of, for example: agriculture, cycling, wind and solar(most are boring - maybe need sexy installer on roof or turbine!), carbon in sea (whale in marine protected area to surprise readers?)?

If there are several great ones they could perhaps be swapped in and out every few months.

Any ideas?

Chidgk1 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

General Tone of Article

The majority of impacts due to climate change are predicted and have not yet been observed. Moreover, the actual severity and increase in occurrence of weather events has NOT been statistically shown to be any greater now than in the past. (This is easily corroborated by stopping by any county seat and reviewing weather records, many in the US going back over a hundred years.) While I do not dispute that there could be impacts due to climate change some distinction should be made between what has actually happened and what is predicted could happen, and how those predictions are made. Likewise, a more thorough and unbiased review of weather events should be undertaken before attributing them unequivocally to the addition of man-made combustion products to the atmosphere. To evoke a metaphor this is LIKE telling kids that if they don't wear their seatbelt they are as good as dead. Since all of us see people all the time driving without seatbelts kids will very quickly decide that the advice they've been given is stupid. In fact, we're better off educating them as to why we wear seatbelts than through scaring them, which doesn't work well in the long term.

Thoughts?JohnSKepler (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSKepler (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you read through the FAQ at the top of this Talk Page? I imagine most of your concerns would be answered there. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @JohnSKepler. Most of the main effects of climate change detailed in this article have been observed and formally attributed to climate change. Where uncertainty still exists (for instance the increased intensity of tropical cyclones), wording indicates that ('likely increasing'). Possible future effects (f.i. tipping points), are described as risks. If there is any specific impact where you believe the wording is too strong, I'm happy to check the latest review literature, but you need to be specific. Femke (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the general tone of this article is actually spot on. Very factual, objective, not overly alarmist, everything is backed up by reliable sources, often from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. If you can provide specific examples where you think the wording of statements about observed or predicted effects is not right in the article then please provide those examples. You might also want to head over to effects of climate change, effects of climate change on human health, effects of climate change on oceans etc. which talks about the effects in more detail (those article are not yet "featured article" quality so it's quite possible that some text there needs to be improved). EMsmile (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, agreed. Encyclopedias are by nature slightly drab and boring..and that’s perfectly fine. Let’s please emphasize notability over sensationalism and over variety that is offered only for the sake of variety, thank you.. Castncoot (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

ENSO

To have blanket-deleted the deep-dive ENSO section which I thoughtfully added as a a basic preliminary template with the appropriate caveats built in, rather than improving upon that preliminary template as appropriate, is unfortunate. The article is now clearly devoid of this all-important discussion and is difficult to take seriously without an in-depth section analyzing with caveats the potential contribution of the ENSO behemoth. Castncoot (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The section had one sentence about climate change, a sentence that was not cited to the standards expected of featured articles. The section implied La Niña was becoming more frequent, while there has been more focus on El Niño becoming more frequent in the literature as far as I'm aware (f.i. This lay explanation of the AR6). The rest of the section was way too much in detail for an overview article like this. Climate change has millions of effects, and we do not have the space to give each an entire section. Many equally big impacts are way better understood. Happy to hear other views. Femke (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The focus on El Niño has been upon its strength (2015-16 was the strongest ever), but not its frequency. On the other hand, not only have La Niñas been documented as becoming statistically significantly more frequent, but April 2022 featured the strongest negative equatorial Pacific Zone 3/4 temperature anomaly ever. ENSO is one of the elephants in the room, and to dismiss a robust summary discussion of its analytics in this article is simply not responsible. Castncoot (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Femke's position here. The text in question might be better off added to ENSO or perhaps to effects of climate change or effects of climate change on the water cycle. However, it might help if we link to the ENSO sub-article a little more prominently. So far I can only find one wikilink to the ENSO article, perhaps a second one in an appropriate place might be good? (although I am not sure where exactly) EMsmile (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it OK to attribute one particular drought to climate change without a strong ref?

I have a question to all CC water cycle experts here: It's about a figure caption that you, User:Castncoot) have recently added here which reads: "A typical dry riverbed is seen in California, which is experiencing its worst megadrought in 1,200 years, precipitated by climate change, with water rationing leaving less water for salmon migration." The reference that you provided is only to a newspaper article. I know that IPCC reports say that droughts are more likely in certain regions in future (as well as flash flooding etc.) but I thought that scientists are always careful to attribute one particular drought squarely to climate change effects. Is the wording "precipitated by climate change" correct and clear to lay persons? Perhaps it's different with this California drought, and it's proven that without CC it wouldn't be here, but if so, could we please use a stronger reference to make this point? In addition, you've added the same image and caption to water scarcity, Effects of climate change, extreme weather and drought. For everyone's info: For the drought article, I've proposed an image collage for the lead here to prevent one region/country/Global North (California) from dominating the imagery on CC topics in Wikipedia. EMsmile (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done. Megadrought essentially incorporates climate change into its identity and definition, so it does sound redundant, agreed. I have removed that phrase. Castncoot (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

California Drought Dry Riverbed 2009

I don't think this has been sufficient thought through. The new caption now reads "A dry riverbed in California, which is experiencing its worst megadrought in 1,200 years.". I don't think the linkage with climate change is sufficiently clear now, as the term megadrought is not well defined either. We can say that the risks of droughts in certain areas increase but we cannot say that this particular flood is caused 100% by human-included climate change, or can we (if we can, then good but then we need a very reliable source for that)? I think a linkage with climate change should be in the caption but not "precipitated by climate change". Also, I don't think it's right/elegant/useful that you've by now added the same image and caption to a bunch of articles. It is not THE most important image of climate change and drought that we want our readers to see on a bunch of pages. So far you've added it (with the same caption) to these 14 and perhaps you're looking for even more articles (granted, the articles all have something to do with drought but firstly the caption needs to be correct and secondly wouldn't our readers at some point get bored with seeing the same California river picture everywhere?):

• Drought
• Extreme weather
• Effects of climate change
• Climate change
• United States rainfall climatology
• Water scarcity
• Climate change in California
• Climate change in the United States
• Droughts in the United States
• Megadrought
• Effects of climate change on human health (was in there only due to an excerpt, which I have now changed to not include the image from the lead)
• Droughts in California
• Effects of climate change on the water cycle
• Southwestern North American megadrought EMsmile (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The correct wording might be (too long, I know): "droughts in California have worsened likely due to the effect of global warming which according to the AR6-WGI report of IPCC will result in hotter and drier extremes." (sentence proposed to me by Thian Gan via e-mail). I think the key words are probably "worsened" and "likely due to". We should never say that a particular drought is "caused by climate change" (if I understand the science correctly) - right? So "precipitated by climate change" would also be confusing to readers and should therefore not be used because "precipitated by" is the same as "caused by", isn't it EMsmile (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I object to the use of this photo. period. Present a photo captioned as representative of a dried-up river, and viewers expect to see something recognizable as a dried-up river, not whatever this is, not a reservoir behind a dam on a stream. And in California, that size of stream course makes it a dammed creek (with seasonally intermittent flow), not big enough for a river (perennially flowing). Details matter. Accuracy matters.-- Paleorthid (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s a pedestrian bridge over a dried-up riverbed/tributary bed that would normally have water perenially flowing prior to the current megadrought. Castncoot (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't know the context enough to reply to Paleorthid, but in response to EMsmile

• there is consensus these in-text mentions of IPCC are unnecessary, and often pose a POV problem for those who aren't familiar with the IPCC (implying it's just one opinion, rather than fact)
• Extreme event attribution is getting stronger, so we'll be able to make statements like 'caused by climate change' or 'worsened due to climate change' more often. Not sure in this case. Femke (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

————- This should add some context, from Drought talk page:

Maybe a collage of 6 images would work then. There are many images indeed worthy of representation and this should not become a competition between countries or regions for representation, for goodness sake. Castncoot (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to give readers an idea of the magnitude and intensity of the California meteorological megadrought:[11]—the fact that this can occur in a developed country not only shocks the mind but should also be even more alarming vis-a-vis droughts in developing countries with poor infrastructure and fingerprints of corruption all over those droughts. Therein the essentiality of the placed image. Castncoot (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a collage of 6 would add more value than a collage of 4 because drought photos look rather similar all around the world, don't they? It's usually very dry soil or much smaller rivers and lakes than normal. But if you or someone prefers a collage of 6, OK (the article on city even has a collage of 9 by the way). Regarding California: personally I find a drought more worrisome and shocking when it results in loss of lives (like in East Africa). The drought in California might shock you more if you live in the United States but Wikipedia is written with a global audience in mind so I think we should be mindful of not projecting what we find most relevant onto everyone else. Readers from all over the world should feel included and addressed when reading Wikipedia articles. To date, many many Wikipedia articles are US centric or Europe centric simply because a majority of the Wikipedia volunteers currently come from those regions (this problem is well documented (see e.g. WP:BIAS). So we should make an extra effort to reduce that US and Euro centricity wherever we can (including with respect to images used), especially for topics that are global in nature, like droughts. EMsmile (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Notability is notability, reliably sourced, regardless of where it originates, and that’s the only metric that counts for me. Let’s not open a Pandora's box here. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

————

Encyclopedias are by nature slightly drab and boring..and that’s perfectly fine. Let’s please emphasize notability over sensationalism and over variety that is offered only for the sake of variety, thank you.. Castncoot (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is another good source tying climate change, collapse of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream, and ensuing greater frequency of La Niña, to megadrought in the Southwestern US (which would include California plus other states) as well as deluge in Queensland and Eastern Australia. Castncoot (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Castncoot. While newspapers may be a good supplementary source of information, they should not be used on their own per WP:SCIRS. In general, we want peer-reviewed review articles and peer-reviewed review/overview reports. The Guardian has a bias with climate change reporting and may sometimes overstate results. Even as a supplementary, it should be used with caution. Femke (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I hear you Femke, and I would love to be flush with peer-reviewed articles as anyone else. The big problem here with this particular topic is that it is moving so fast and with such gravitas that I also give credence to the counterbalancing argument that it would simultaneously be remiss to veer too far in the other direction and not include sources that are relatively august, such as CBS, The New York Times, the Associated Press, The Guardian, etc. We could always add a hedge or caveat such as ‘Some sources have found that..’ or something along those lines. If we draw too hard a line with expert peer review, that may take many years (if ever) and we may miss our opportunity (and responsibility?) to inform the public of extremely plausible and even probable hypotheses that are being advanced. Castncoot (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The drought has been going on for years, there must be acceptable sources out there... This is an featured article of a controversial topic, and it citing lay sources, especially lay sources with liberal or leftwing bias, should really be avoided. I've seen too many mistakes in those publications on the topic of climate science. Femke (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you looked what the IPCC said about the topic? Femke (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes Femke, numerous times, and its statements are so frustratingly vague, due perhaps to the degree of overcautiousness and fear exercised, that in many cases they cease to be helpful. Please do note that this is Wikipedia, and not meant to be an echo of the IPCC. Castncoot (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There are loads of peer-reviewed sources besides the IPCC, but it's a very easy start given that they publish summaries for lay people. I agree that some parts of the IPCC become too abstract to be useful to Wikipedia editing (I found WGII very difficult to translate to Wikipedia), but I'd expect this information to be in WGI, which is more to-the-point. Sometimes the IPCC is too abstract and there are no recent review papers. In that case, the introduction section of normal peer-reviewed papers can sometimes provide a decent review of the literature. Femke (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Femke I'm fine with not citing IPCC in-line (too often) but the advice by Thian was quite clear: we should include "worsened" and "likely" rather than "caused by" when it comes to a particular drought unless we have a very reliable source for it - which I don't think we have for this California drought (in a region that has had droughts before and is known to be arid). We would be on the safe(r) side if we said that the "current California drought was likely worsened by the effects of climate change". EMsmile (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Commenting on Paleorthid's comment. I hear you. I also find this image not that great that it should suddenly become THE photo to illustrate climate change and drought in 14 Wikipedia articles (OK, 5 of them deal with California or the U.S. so there it's more justified). It's an OK photo but I feel it should be used in moderation and balanced out with other photos so that our readers are not repetitively shown this photo whereever a (global) article deals with drought. It also adds to the problem that so many of our global-topic Wikipedia articles are U.S. centric. We could equally add the image of a dried up river bed in Kenya to heaps of Wikipedia articles... Better would be to have a balance, mixture and variety of images. EMsmile (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Images impacts, revisited

For ages I've been discontent about the images in the impact section. I think there are too many, and the fact we put them in a line means it's quite ugly on loads of devices (either a lot of greyspace, or on phone, a lot of images to scroll through)

Tree ridge in flames during the Woolsey Fire, California

Climate change affects the environment and nature in many places: sea ice retreat endangers polar bears, higher temperatures make bush fires more likely, and permaforst .

Tree ridge in flames during the Woolsey Fire, California

Climate change affects the environment and nature in many places: extreme heat makes bush fires more likely, extreme rainfall makes flooding more likely, sea ice retreat endangers polar bears, and higher temperatures when eggs mature cause an imbalanced male-to-female ratio in certain turtles.

What about something like this instead? I've replaced the image of the fire, as the one I selected is higher quality (finalist in Picture of the Year 2019.). I think we should crop the image of the polar bear a bit, to make it more horizontal and not too dominant. And we should be able to find a better picture instead of unclear coral, unclear pest / unclear permafrost. Note that Commons now allows you to select "any assessment" to only get the images of higher quality. Femke (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the Woolsey Fire image is a definite improvement.

Does the uncropped image, File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear.jpg, accomplish what you want?

I suggest adding a pic showing sea level rise SLR in the same row as our old friend, the polar bear, to make him less dominant. A tidal flooding pic is easier to find since "average" SLR isn't very dramatic or visible. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Re permafrost, see Category:Effects of thawing permafrost. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The uncropped image is still somewhat square, I'm really looking for those panorama images to be able to get away with displaying three images. Good suggestion about flooding (even if it may become a bit redundant wrt the human photos, for which I want to make a similar suggestion later). I found a nice tree submerged. Also included a second animal, as we're a second example (next to the lede's coral reef) of climate change under the ocean. Chelonia mydas have a temperature-dependent sex determination: some hatches are now 99% female. Femke (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with replacing the galleries with collages. There are a lot of effects to cover, and mushing them all together means cutting all the caption content and the images that highlight those captions. I think that will be seriously damaging to comprehension. I find the galleries that are there now look good both on desktop and on smartphones.

I have no objection to swapping out some images in the galleries. Efbrazil (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Cutting down on the captions is one of my main intentions, absolutely. I believe long captions will just cause readers to not read them, rather than get a better understanding. Because there is so little horizontal space per caption, the text flow is poor, with only 2 to 5 words per line. To highlight which part of the caption belongs to which image we can include text like "(Clockwise from upper left)" or "sea ice retreat endangers polar bears (top), higher temperatures make bush fires more likely (bottom left)..."

The gallery looks really ugly on my side because of the grey space between the captions, and the grey space left/right of the WP:gallery. For me, that grey left/right takes up 45% of screen space. On some smaller screens, the fifth image drops to a second line, also causing around 40% of grey space. As such, the two galleries act as barriers between different parts of the text. That in combination with the conservative language on WP:GALLERY makes me feel really strongly about improving this aspect of the article.

Before we continue the discussion, it may be nice to gauge the opinions of the wider group: @EMsmile, Clayoquot, Dtetta, and Chidgk1:. Femke (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

(I'm frankly not following the distinction among galleries, collages and multiple images, but...) In terms of content, I think the more recent set of (4) pics is an improvement. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Basically the question: do we want 5 images horizontally with individual captions (Efbrazil preference), or 2x2 (or 1/2) collage with a common caption? (my preference) Femke (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I find the 2x2 image collages of Femke a great idea and would prefer them over the horizontal "galleries". I can't really say why but somehow the gallery style with the long captions for each image seem old-fashioned whereas the image collage seem more modern. Also, they nicely tie a range of issues together which are all related and all caused by the 1 deg warming even if they manifests themselves in different ways - often through the water cycle. Perhaps Femke's new approach will help the readers to understand that things fit together. EMsmile (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

At the same time, I would not build up the impacts section too much with too many images (the current number is fine, I guess, but not more; perhaps less?) because I feel that at some point we need to find the jump-off to the sub-article on effects of climate change (which we need to also build up to GA and perhaps FA eventually). It'll be hard to decide exactly what the weighting should be, i.e. how much space the impacts can receive in a climate change overarching Wikipedia article. On the one hand: "a lot" (the whole of the IPCC AR 6 WG II report is about impacts & adaptation, so one third or one sixth of the overall content of the AR6 reports? But we do have a sub-article so people can read more about it at effects of climate change. Maybe we need to (soon) turn our attention to the very important three sub-articles: effects of climate change, climate change adaptation, climate change mitigation and be ambitious about them as well. EMsmile (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the lead images, where I think the 2x2 arrangement is best. However, in the Impacts section, I favor the wide "gallery" display to convey the wide-ranging impacts. I don't have a strong opinion on this formal question, as long as the range of substantive content is communicated. (I've struck out my previous comment.) —RCraig09 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for the current gallery. I think the idea of trying to regularly focus on what are the best graphics and text is good, so for me this is a useful conversation to be having. My first impression with the 2x2 proposal is that it’s more challenging to create good text when you are distilling down the caption into one long sentence. And I think a strength of the current gallery generally is that it has a good text-picture connection for each of the impacts being described. The main issues I see with it is that the permafrost description and accompanying picture don’t seem to work particularly well together. Same with the pest propagation picture - I don’t think beetle infestation when I look at that picture. With the 2 x 2 gallery it’s seems more challenging to capture these same ideas in fewer words, and it’s also harder to go back and forth between the picture and the text that’s trying to describe the impacts. When I look at the sea turtle picture, for instance, it doesn’t conjure up an image of a climate impact, and it’s more work to find the relevant text in the caption than it is in the current gallery, where there’s a clear 1 to 1 relationship between the text and the picture. Dosen’t mean the 2x2 format couldn’t work, but I think it’s harder to do well. Dtetta (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The second 2x2 proposal, with a single caption for everything, is my favourite option so far. The new flood picture and turtle picture are clear and not emotionally overwhelming. Ideally I'd rather not have a polar bear picture at all. It's been known for over a decade that "standard polar bear images have a limited effect, because even when they raise awareness and elicit emotion they tend to only appeal to people who are wildlife lovers already, with little or no impact outside of this group."[12] Any picture of a starving mammal will also generate an avoidance response for many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayoquot (talk • contribs)

Yes remove polar bear - maybe Ringed seal could replace it. Er was there some other question/proposal awaiting opinions? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a really interesting point, Clayoquot. We currently only have (boring) graphs in our sections about reducing emissions and adaptation. It would be good if we can balance that out, and not only show how bad climate change it. We have 10 photos in total, which is rather ridiculous. Eight would still be quite a lot, but definitely a step towards balance. Femke (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd love to have more photos that show the co-benefits of clean energy. Another thought for the Impact section is if we're going to include animal photos, we could use photos of species that people recognize as being economically important. Salmon, mosquitoes, that kind of thing. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Intermezzo about lead images

• Too many images in lead is causing mobile readers to scroll many times before any real info - most readers will only scroll 1 time....thus most will only read the first paragraph. This can change if images are removed. data.Moxy- 11:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  I just tested on the wikipedia mobile app and the browser and in neither case was that true as far as I can tell. Images only appear after paragraphs of text and aren't out of proportion, although the first 2 images are stacked together. We could move the image "Change in average surface air temperature" to the end of the lead from the beginning if that would help address the concern. Efbrazil (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Back to impacts section

Tree ridge in flames during the Woolsey Fire, California

Climate change affects the environment and nature in many places:

• extreme heat makes bush fires more likely
  
• extreme rainfall makes flooding more likely
  
• heat impacts pollinators such as bumblebees
  
• Wildlife gets lost when rivers dry out

Third proposal. Note that User:Castncoot has added a second picture about the California drought (there is a less clear one in the lead of the article). I've incorporated it here, but it may instead be better placed in the lede. Very cool picture with the boats, but I do not believe it's clear from context what it's about.

I've added bumblebees in. I did not want to put in an animal that is mostly associated with humans (that what the second set of photos is about. I think bumblebees / pollinator is a problem most people are familiar with. Climate change is only one of the pressures on these animals, and as far as I know the jury is still out what percentage cliamte change contributes to their loss (I believe pesticides are considered more important.. )

As a compromise to Efbrazil and others who prefer a gallary for its space, I've bulleted some commentary about the images, so that they become more distinct and easier to follow. What do you guys think? Femke (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion, Femke. The most immediate dichotomous issue with drought is that there are two very different immediate issues at hand. As you have mentioned, the extremely pertinent problem of catastrophic wildfire emerges; but even more acutely, there is simply less water all around, for potable purposes, for bathing, and for the environment. The best way in my humble opinion to demonstrate that water deficit illustratively is to include a combination of low water flows juxtaposed with the cracked, desiccated earth that this exposes—and hence the image I posted. I think it is very reasonable to include images that demonstrate both aforementioned sides of that drought coin. Castncoot (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I like it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I like your image collage, Femke, and far prefer it over the current gallery which just takes up a lot of space. I wouldn't be a fan of bullet points in an image caption though, it's very non-standard, isn't it? The clockwise explanations works better, I think. Great idea about the bumble bees. And I agree that the image with the boats lying low in a reservoir is not very clear (it took me several thought processes to realise what it was trying to show me; also it feels like a luxury problem as those are "just" recreational boats. EMsmile (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Amusingly, the main thing I like from this proposal are the bullet points. The bullet points allow you to enumerate impacted areas instead of mushing them all together. In general I don't like this change though- if feels redundant with the lead collage, which already has fire and drying lake beds and could easily have floods and bees as shown here. The cut of coral reefs is also a mistake I think, as they are the most highly impacted ecosystem of all from climate change. So I am opposed to this change, but the bullet points soften the blow somewhat.

Also, please keep the galleries to 5 images each- it makes them match nicely when scrolling and resizing prevents them from feeling overstuffed. Before cutting the galleries please consider that Craig and I both want them to stay as are, although we are happy to see a discussion about replacing certain images. We believe switching to collages is a mistake. Efbrazil (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I do confirm my moderately strong preference for a wider gallery with closely attached captions. I trust the present community of editors to achieve a good variety of appropriate images, so I won't jump into the fray here on Talk Page (I suggest that a good set of images can best be achieved through normal editing with specific edit comments). —RCraig09 (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I moved the drought image to the lead collage to replace the pleasure boat drought image. At 5 images the gallery does not wrap at most resolutions, and people objected to the old image that's now replaced. We also have drought images in the human impacts sections, so I don't think it's necessary to repeat drought in the environmental impacts section as well.

I think it would be good if we can refresh images in the galleries and some are a bit old, but I don't have a particular set of better images in mind. In the pollinator / bee image the bee looks happy and the connection to climate change is a lot fuzzier than it is for a polar bear. I think the images should be about ecosystems or animals suffering from climate change impacts, preferably in the last 5 years or so. Efbrazil (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This Article Only Provides a Very Simplistic Explanation of the Greenhouse Gas Mechanism

This article explains the greenhouse mechanism in simplistic terms, stating that "When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth's surface".

This simplified hand-waving explanation is often given to the general public, but it is technically incorrect, and does not detail the actual mechanism of heat trapping.

The actual mechanism for trapping heat is far more complicated. See these two discussions on the subject:

Can anyone explain the REAL reason why CO2 increases global temperatures (not the simplistic greenhouse analogy provided for public consumption)?

Can anyone explain the reason why CO increases global temperatures (not the simplistic greenhouse analogy provided for public consumption)?

The second link has the similar title, but a different discussion.

What this Wikipedia climate change article needs is a scientific expert on the greenhouse mechanism to provide a more precise explanation of this mechanism. The simplistic explanation is good for the lead of this article, but further down in the page, it would be nice to see the precise explanation for global warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hip-IV (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hip-IV: The technical details of the greenhouse effect are probably best located in the Greenhouse effect article itself. You may wish to consider improving the description there (if needed), or propose a specific change or addition at Talk:Greenhouse effect. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You can also look to refine the more detailed explanation in the "Greenhouse gases" section of this article. We don't want to add more text to the lead though. What is said in the lead is simplified, but not incorrect. Efbrazil (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Completely one sided article

This Wikipedia page is nothing more propaganda. There is absolutely no objectivity at all. It completely ignores any theory that climate change may be natural and asserts that it’s entirely man made. Wikipedia is really going down hill lately. 24.189.68.39 (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be more productive to identify content from the article that you feel is inappropriate and discuss why. In this way, other editors can discuss changes with you. It's better than complaining in the abstract. Cheers! Wikipelli ^Talk 11:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Specifics would help as Wikipelli said. A key point is that we rely on scientific consensus documents, as you can see in the sources. There are many studies and views that run contrary to the consensus- both on the side of saying climate change will be more extreme, and on the side of saying it will be less extreme. In the end though, climate change is based in hard science like physics, not fuzzy social science, and the basics are very well established. Efbrazil (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Standard wikipedia sucks WP:SOAP NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

IPCC copyright

One question regarding climate change articles in general: Has anyone every made an inquiry to the IPCC whether WP and Wikimedia Commons can use their graphics and charts? Among the 3374 copyright tags in Wikimedia Commons there seems to be no appropriate one for the IPCC yet (see here - just click on "Do it!"). I know we prefer our own SVGs. But in some cases an image copy appears to be very useful. So it could be a benefit to include AR6 WG3 SPM-50 (Overview of mitigation options and their estimated ranges of costs and potentials in 2030) with its full colour scheme in some articles, maybe reduced to the energy sector in some usages. The IPCC copyright information allows downloads and copies without special permission if the use is private and non-commercial. But it is definitely not public domain. And modifications are not allowed. Hedgehoque (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Minor suggested rewording of sentence in lead section

I'd like to suggest rewording the following sentence, from the third paragraph: "However, with pledges made under the Agreement, global warming would still reach about 2.7 °C (4.9 °F) by the end of the century." Suggested rewording: "However, with pledges made under the Agreement, global warming is still estimated to reach about 2.7 °C (4.9 °F) by the end of the century." The suggested text is taken from the provided reference. I am not a climate change denier - I am just a fan of communicating carefully and modestly. Great article and thanks Wikipedians! 2601:600:827F:9180:D9FB:E48A:BCD2:539B (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating the article! I'm afraid I'm not partial to the change though. We already say "about", so I don't see a need to further soften and inflate the text by adding a second equivocation like "is still estimated to". Not strongly opposed though, if others like it I won't object. Efbrazil (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If this was lower down in the article I might agree but here I also think "about" is enough and that extra words would make the lead too wordy. However if you have time please check back here in 3 months when the new report is due as it would be good to keep the estimate up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove citevar edit notice?

Any objections to removing the WP:edit notice about WP:CITEVAR? The edit notice is shown to editors after clicking edit. I don't think we need to put this in the face of editors. Experienced editors will know to follow the established citevar, and newer editors may not be able to understand. With this discussion, these notices will be placed on mobile too, and may become too obtrusive. Femke (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, seems a bit pointless. CMD (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza: would you be able to do it? I don't have the required permissions. Femke (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Femkemilene, am pretty sure I can do it, if everyone's happy it's not needed. See Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Climate change, this was r4equested by J. Johnson so I'll alert them to the change, won't delay but can undo the change if there's a good argument for keeping the template. . .dave souza, talk 17:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Femkemilene, done. Hope that works for everyone, let me know if there are any problems with this, . . dave souza, talk 22:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Source for "CO2 concentrations" graph

I'm looking for citations for the graph titled:

"CO2 concentrations over the last 800,000 years as measured from ice cores (blue/green) and directly (black)"

Searched google but never found the same image. Help greatly appreciated.

Oddly, I found this book(http://www.inference.org.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf) with a graph ice core ppm, same sharp increase after 1800, but looks very different: , p. 6.

Should we be looking for a particular study? Apologies if it's in the metadata of the image, I didn't find it there.

Please add it when you find it.

DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've constructed the image, but there are similar images made by others though that can be found via Google. You can find the citations on Commons: c:File:Carbon Dioxide 800kyr.svg#Data_sources. It's common not to repeat the citations of images on Wikipedia, especially if there are multiple, as they may slightly change when images are updated.

The reason why the two graphs are so different is that different time periods are plotted. The graph we use is covers 800,000 years, and covers a set of "ice ages", while the book you links only cover a 1000 years. Femke (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to Greenhouse Effect language in lede and GHG subsection

I think the first paragraph in the lede needs to be edited to shorten the description of the greenhouse effect, and eliminate the last sentence dealing with feedbacks. The greenhouse effect description is much more detailed than other parts of the lede, particularly compared to the amount of words used to describe it in the main article. This level of detail reads to me like a bit of a distraction for the lede. I would suggest a shorter description for the two sentences that begin with “Greenhouse gases are. . .”, something like:

“As their name suggests, these gases trap heat from sunlight near the earth’s surface, causing present day warming and climate change.”

I would also delete the last sentence of the first paragraph out. Because of the nuances involved in describing climate feedbacks, I think the issue is overly detailed for the lede. And the way the current sentence is worded is an inaccurate reflection of the way climate feedbacks are discussed in the main body of the article, and summarized on p TS 133 (Fig TS.17) of the AR6 WGI report. We’ve had a number of discussion threads on how best to word this aspect of Climate Change in the lede, and it seems like we have not been able to come up with a succinct, clear, one sentence summary. Better to leave it out of the lede, as we have done with a host of other topics from the main body of the article.

I suggest we then use those two greenhouse effect sentences from the first lead paragraph to supplement/modify the first two sentence of the greenhouse gases subsection. Perhaps something like:

“Greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth's surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation, the gases absorb a portion of it, The Earth absorbs sunlight, then radiates it as heat. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb and reemit infrared radiation,. This slowsing the rate at which that radiation can pass through the atmosphere and escape into space, and traps heat near the Earth's surface.”

This would create a sentence in the lede that is a brief description of the more detailed coverage in the main body of the article, which is how WP articles should be structured. It would also preserve some of the work that went into those two lede paragraph sentences.

Thoughts? Dtetta (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

To avoid long discussions about some fairly short content, maybe we could simply be bold by making our changes to the following content itself. When it seems to have a stable consensus here, we can simply copy it to the mainspace article. I've started with some ~minor wording changes to Dtetta's text, but feel free to improve over what I've written.

Group: please amend the following boldly, using edit comments to save space here on Talk Page:
Greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it to pass through the atmosphere to heat the Earth's surface. The Earth radiates that heat, and greenhouse gases absorb part of it. This absorption slows the rate at which heat escapes into space, trapping heat near the Earth's surface and causing global warming.

Just a suggested way to proceed. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think RCraig09’s proposed language is generally well written. I edited his text to reinsert the distinction between heat and radiation, but don’t feel strongly about that point. Dtetta (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with Craig's wording in general, just tightened the text a tiny bit. I made the edit along with the deletion of feedbacks. Efbrazil (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Efbrazil - Thanks for deleting the sentence on feedbacks. However, you also effectively reverted my attempt at summarizing the sentences on the greenhouse effect that are now in the main body of the article, which I proposed earlier in this post, provided a rationale for, and which no one objected to (and I think Femke described that a few weeks ago as a form of consensus).

While it’s unclear whether RCraig09’s posted wording was meant to go in the lead or main body, what is clear is that MOS:LS guidance calls for the lead to summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. Your latest edit is pretty much a repeat of current text in the main body of the article, and for that reason is inappropriate for the lede. So I will reinsert the language proposed I proposed earlier in this post. If you want to propose a different (ideally one sentence) summary of the three sentences on the greenhouse effect that are currently in the GHG subsection that would be used for the lede, please propose something here.Dtetta (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I had imagined the blue quotebox text to be inserted into the lead since its text is concise and has an appropriate level of detail. I think the main-body text may be modified, if needed, to comport with the lead—even if that's not the order articles are traditionally written ;-). —RCraig09 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Dtetta, the wording you replaced on the 17th was the result of a long discussion where several people contributed to get the idea across as concisely as possible. Your edit removed all the substance and just said greenhouse gases work like a greenhouse, which isn't helpful or true. Greenhouses work by blocking airflow (convection), which greenhouse gases obviously do not, so offering only that explanation confuses people and gives ground for skeptics to say it's all nonsense. If you want to propose tighter wording please feel free, but keep in mind that we want a clear statement on how greenhouse gases actually work. Efbrazil (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Well it sounds like there are at least two people (and perhaps Femke as well, based on her 15 Jan post) that would rather have a more detailed explanation of the greenhouse effect in the lede. If that’s the case, I won’t object to a more detailed explanation, although it would be nice if someone had responded to the concerns I had expressed about the lead/main body coverage issue, such as the idea that this level of explanation is a different tone than the rest of the text in the paragraph/lede (i.e. we don’t go into this kind of detail for any other topics covered there). If Craig’s proposal is re-inserted into that paragraph, and if you think that more detailed explanation is critical, I think you need to also edit the main body of the article to provide a more detailed explanation of the greenhouse effect there as well. I had included a wiki link to the greenhouse effect article in my edit as a way of accomplishing that while keeping the description in the lede to one sentence. In any case, it seems like a poor way to construct a WP article, and certainly not appropriate for a featured article, to have coverage in the lede that’s essentially a reiteration of what’s in the main body. That’s what I was trying to improve when I started this post. Dtetta (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Dtetta- there is not support for the lede edit you keep making. For now, I just reverted the text back to what it was before all this started, since you don't seem to agree with Craig's text up above. If you have another proposal please make it here, so we can discuss it. Don't just keep making unsupported edits to the lede. Efbrazil (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Since many readers don't read beyond the intro, I think it's absolutely critical for the lead to explain how greenhouse gases cause global warming—whether it's in two sentences or three. I think the quotebox text is best included in the lead; it's a formal matter to expand body text as deemed proper under Wikipedia guidelines. I'm adding a few words to the end of the text you, Efbrazil, just added, in order to explicitly/causally tie greenhouse gases to global warming per se. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Efbrazil - please don’t mischaracterize what I did. I followed a process of posting a suggestion, seeing if there was any response, waiting a few days, not seeing any concerns expressed with my proposal, and making the edit. Totally in line with the process we’ve discussed more than once. Conversely, you continue fail to respond to the legitimate concerns I’ve expressed about the length and complexity of the GH effect explanation in the lede, instead falling back on the justification that it was discussed back in January. Moreover, your latest edit ignores the adjustment Craig made to simplify the language to eliminate the more complex infrared radiation concept. The edit you just made is clearly at odds with both WP guidance and basic principles for how write a summary/abstract. That I think is the bigger problem here. Dtetta (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

dtetta- Your initial edit on the 17th is not what I am complaining about, it is your follow up on the 20th that was contrary to the consensus opinion here. This edit should not have been made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&type=revision&diff=1099288143&oldid=1099247192

I have no strong preference between Craig's new wording and the older text that is there now, but I agree with everyone else that we don't want to use the text you put forward on the 17th and the 20th. If you prefer Craig's new text above to what is there now then please go forward with it, as I think there is then consensus for that new text.

I think I've made clear why your wording is wrong. Please read the lede to the greenhouse effect article, which explicitly states "The term greenhouse effect comes from a flawed analogy comparing this to transparent glass allowing sunlight into greenhouses, but greenhouses mainly retain heat by restricting air movement, unlike this effect."

Regarding the issue of this article not expounding on the topic enough, I have no objection to putting some stuff from the greenhouse effect article into this article if you think that will help with your concerns. We have a long section on drivers of climate change and greenhouse gases that includes graphics, certainly we could go into more detail on the mechanics of the greenhouse effect and less on gas concentrations. You won't get push back from me about going in that direction. Efbrazil (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Deleting feedback sentence from first paragraph in lede

Mentioned this as part of the earlier post on greenhouse effect language, but in case anyone missed it, I'm reposting it here as a subtopic. I suggest deleting the last sentence of the first lede paragraph, which deals with climate feedbacks. Because of the nuances involved in describing these feedbacks, I think the issue is overly detailed for the lede. And the way the current sentence is worded is an inaccurate reflection of both the way climate feedbacks are discussed in the main body of the article, as well as how they are summarized on p TS 96 (Fig TS.17) of the AR6 WGI report. We’ve had a number of discussion threads on how best to word this aspect of Climate Change in the lede, and it seems like we have not been able to come up with a succinct, clear, one sentence summary. Better to leave it out of the lede, as we have done with a host of other topics from the main body of the article.Dtetta (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with this. Femke (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Though I think the feedback concept is important, I remember we've had a hard time condensing the concept to few enough words for it to fit well in the lead of this top level article. I think the current wording, "...amplifying global warming", doesn't capture the feedback concept accurately anyway. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I've always thought feedbacks don't belong in the lede, because they are a secondary issue that relates to how climate sensitivity is calculated, not the primary cause, which is burning of fossil fuels. Also, what's written there now is one example of a feedback, and there are many others, some negative and some positive. Since we seem to be in agreement, I will cut the sentence. Efbrazil (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

When CO2 emissions became pollution

The following discussion 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.

---

We need a new section that describes when atmospheric CO2 emissions became more harmful than helpful. This is currently a critical issue internationally, because major CO2 emitters like China argue that the West has contributed most CO2 pollution, and therefore that the West should pay most of the price of phasing it out. But if CO2 emission was not initially harmful and instead was actually helpful up to a particular point in time, then that argument for the West to carry the greatest burden becomes much weaker.

I have not yet assembled a complete set of references for such a new section, but for starters I notice that Joseph Sternberg wrote this in 2006:

“ Urgent steps are needed to limit the rapid growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, which can be expected to have serious consequences such as an increase in the sea level. But preventing another ice age is also an important objective. It may well be that the intense worldwide exploitation of fossil fuel resources came just in time to provide a way to warm the Earth enough to delay, for a long time, the occurrence of another ice age. ”

Sternberg, Joseph. “Preventing Another Ice Age”, Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 87, p. 539 (November 2006).

While the notion that “CO2 emission is bad” and “CO2 emission is pollution” currently is probably quite true scientifically, it apparently has not always been true and industrial-age CO2 emission probably lengthened the interglacial period.

The helpfulness of CO2 emission may well have been inadvertent, but intentionality often has little to do with responsibility. For example, there was little scientific evidence for global warming caused by CO2 prior to the discoveries of Guy Stewart Callendar in 1938 and Charles David Keeling around 1960, and yet the West is often held blameworthy for preceding CO2 emissions under the polluter pays principle.

He was a solitary voice, but as early as 1908, Svante Arrhenius realized that CO2 emissions could be beneficial:

“ By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind. ”

What we are presently witnessing seems to be too much of a good thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(A) I see you started to develope this at Talk:Global cooling but then moved it here. You're getting warmer (ha ha). If you're saying some greenhouse gas level is good, you are not proposing any text that is within the scope of this article. A better article might be Greenhouse gas or possibly Climate system. So setting aside the content of your post here, I think you're getting closer but this is still the wrong article.

(B) since I'm banned from AYW's talk page, would someone please provide AYW with the {{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~ Thanks

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, I'm not saying that any level of greenhouse gas level is good. I'm saying that long ago, greenhouse gas emissions in the 1800s and first half of the 1900s were beneficial to the climate. Therefore those early emissions do not count as "pollution" and do not count as a reason why China should demand that we pay for them to cut back on current emissions. And you can post a template at my talk page anytime you want, once you lift the ban you put on me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM, to avoid the chaos like at Talk:List of coups and coup attempts please start by doing RS research and write proposed text with citations for us to discuss. NewsAndEventsGuy|different article's talk page (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your POV about it. So far you've managed to complain about my ban of you at my talk page, and also complain about my editing on the coup subject. I'm afraid you are using this talk page as a soapbox, cut it out please. I'd like feedback from further editors before I waste my time doing futile non-original research. As a simple factual matter, that I'm sure you can grasp, CO2 became a pollutant at some point in time, and as a scientific factual matter we ought to provide information per reliable sources about when approximately that point of time was. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

See Is CO2 a pollutant and when did it become one? at History of climate change science. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I was away from internet service for much of the day, and while I was "out there" I thought to point you towards History of climate change science. We agree (I think) that a certain amount of GHG is essential for life on earth, and we agree (I think) that at some theortetically pinpoint amount of GHG in the atmosphere we started the trend that has brought us to the "climate crisis". As a thought-exercise, it is interesting to try to pinpoint the flashbulp instant of time when GHG concetratrions went from "perfectly normal fluctation" to "big &ss problem" but rather than blabber about our opinions what we need are RSs. And since you admit you don't have those, it seems to me this thread is SOAP and FORUM until you get such sources. Meanwhile there are many competent climate eds and since you started this, maybe we should both be still while they get a chance to speak? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I deliberately closed and archived this discussion when you said it was at the wrong place and you raised various personal issues, then I started a new discussion at Talk:History of climate change science and put a brief note here pointing editors over there where the opening comment is much improved. Despite all that, you have unilaterally unarchived this discussion against my actions and wishes, against your own recommendation, creating multiple discussions at multiple forums. I strongly object. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The comment you added to your non-admin closure [13] did not say there is a new thread in a new place intended to take this one's place, so I did not connect the dots until you complained. I will re hat. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

[14]. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

Climate change is not caused by human activity, so please fix the article to acknowledge that. 70.70.137.252 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The article contains plenty of reliable sources from the scientific world that tell us precisely the opposite. YouTube videos rarely count as reliable sources on matters such as this. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48 You're correct that YouTube videos rarely count as reliable sources on matters such as this but this is one of the rare cases where they do count because all of the videos I referenced cited reliable sources. 70.70.137.252 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Sorry, "Scientists vs Climate | Global Deception of Humanity (part 1)" published by Allatra with 191 views is in no way a reliable source to overcome the entirety of scientific consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That so-called "scientific consensus" was artificially made by not giving a voice to scientists who have a different opinion. And the hypothesis that CO2 emissions is the cause of climate change doesn't have a scientific base since it's built on models that can't reconstruct past temperatures or explain the current rise of global temperatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.137.252 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

IP, please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

IP, there is also a section in this article on scientific consensus here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Scientific_consensus_and_society Efbrazil (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

So sad that people like 70.70.137.252 still don't get it, live in their youtube, facebook etc. bubbles and waste our time here. If you were serious about Wikipedia editing, you'd take up a Wikipedia login for starters. If you did, then go to this page first to learn about reliable sources: WP:RS. EMsmile (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Engagement by doubters or deniers is valuable when it is civil like this exchange. It gives us the opportunity to see what is not clear to them and possibly upgrade the article in response. For every denier that bothers to comment here there are thousands who just scoff and go back to a misinformation echo chamber. Sad, yes, but also a good case for why wikipedia is important. Efbrazil (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

True, good point, Efbrazil. One gets tired of explaining things over and over (as the world is running out of time to take action on climate), but still you are right in pointing this out. EMsmile (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

References

@User:HiLo48 @ScottishFinnishRadish @McSly @Efbrazil @EMsmile

Here is very-detailed proof that climate change is happening because of a 12,000-year cycle of galactic interactions: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uzQO5sBW6AY,, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PMNJ4Lwoo48,and https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlyvbt8Nlk. 70.68.168.129 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope

YouTube is not WP:RS and your edit request is still unclear. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fama Clamosa (talk)

No, the people in the videos are experts and they proved that climate change is caused by a 12,000-year cycle of galactic interactions, therefore, they are reliable. And what I'm requesting is to replace the parts of that say that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are causing climate change with information that says that climate change is caused by a 12,000-year cycle of galactic interactions. 70.68.168.129 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Those videos are produced by self-proclaimed experts and those videos are not peer-reviewed scientific references and the cycles they are referring to can't explain recent climate change. They are conspiracies. As detailed to you above you need to do better than that. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

Breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming

This could perhaps be mentioned in the tipping points section:

See here:

"Stratocumulus clouds cover 20% of the low-latitude oceans and are especially prevalent in the subtropics. They cool the Earth by shading large portions of its surface from sunlight. However, as their dynamical scales are too small to be resolvable in global climate models, predictions of their response to greenhouse warming have remained uncertain. Here we report how stratocumulus decks respond to greenhouse warming in large-eddy simulations that explicitly resolve cloud dynamics in a representative subtropical region. In the simulations, stratocumulus decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200 ppm. In addition to the warming from rising CO2 levels, this instability triggers a surface warming of about 8 K globally and 10 K in the subtropics. Once the stratocumulus decks have broken up, they only re-form once CO2 concentrations drop substantially below the level at which the instability first occurred. Climate transitions that arise from this instability may have contributed importantly to hothouse climates and abrupt climate changes in the geological past. Such transitions to a much warmer climate may also occur in the future if CO2 levels continue to rise."

Count Iblis (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

An interesting study, but I do not think we can include it in this article. I've removed this study before from Tipping points in the climate system, with this explanation. The IPCC assessment report uses very cautionary wording when describing the study, indicating that it does not have widespread support in the scientific community.

A single study is a primary source, and not ideal for articles on science. It would further be WP:UNDUE to include the study: most of the sentences in this articles can be derived from tens or hundreds of sources. Femke (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

https://theworldtrendz.com/?p=814 RohitK2586 (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That link is probably not a good source and you aren't clear about what you want to be done with it. --Mvqr (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)