This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | → | Archive 90 |
Should the sentence below be added under Climate_change#Humans section?
"Moreover, decreased air pollution that would result from limiting global warming to 1.5 °C (or 2 °C without negative emissions) could prevent an estimated 153 million premature deaths worldwide over the remainder of 21st century, compared to base 2°C scenario which assumes large-scale carbon dioxide removal. [1]" Bogazicili ( talk) 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's my current suggestion:
Air pollution causes the deaths of around 7 million people worldwide each year, [3] [4] and decreasing fossil fuel related emissions to combat climate will reduce the number of these premature deaths. [1] |
Bogazicili ( talk) 22:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Air pollution, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and worsened by climate change, is responsible for millions of deaths per year |
Unfortunately, I'm not happy with that compromise. The location breaks up the paragraph, which is otherwise focused on climate change impacts on health. The first sentence is about climate change impacts on health, then the later sentences go into detail on how climate change impacts health. Breaking that up with a number that is currently 17X larger in terms of deaths (4.2 million vs 250K) and then not going into any detail just doesn't make sense to me.
I think the only resolution here is to give air pollution its own paragraph, because it really is separate from climate change and is clearly an important idea based on the numbers. I reviewed the WHO site some more and they have better links to more detailed information, which I included in an updated paragraph. I prefer using the WHO because it's not behind a registration wall and will be recognized as more authoritative and acccessible by the audience that is going to be looking at wikipedia. Here's the text which I updated the article with:
In addition to deaths caused by climate change, the WHO estimates that the related issue of ambient air pollution currently causes 4.2 million deaths per year due to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases. [5] The primary cause of these deaths is fine particulate matter produced by fuel combustion. [6] The WHO therefor states that "Policies to reduce air pollution offer a "win-win" strategy for both climate and health, lowering the burden of disease attributable to air pollution, as well as contributing to the near- and long-term mitigation of climate change." [7] |
Efbrazil ( talk) 15:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
In addition to deaths caused by climate change, the WHO estimates that the related issue of ambient air pollution currently causes 4.2 million deaths per year due to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases. [8] The primary cause of these deaths is fine particulate matter produced by fuel combustion. [9] The WHO therefor states that "policies to reduce air pollution offer a "win-win" strategy for both climate and health". [10] |
-- Efbrazil ( talk) 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks guys, one issue sorted out. I'm less certain about the second issue, whether to qualify the public website of the WHO as a high quality reliable source (HQRS), which are required to meet the FA criteria. I will ask the experts instead of going on about it here. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 07:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hi all, I am sorry for arriving late, but I see you have already made the change and the RFC is still in place. Please remove it once you are done. I have a note, though. The new addition is a violation of WP:NPOV and you need to either reword it to sound like a possibility, rather than a fact, or supplement the WHO report with several others that give a range. Further, you should not find the reports to use, there should be a secondary source out there that tells us the range of results from various studies. These are all simulations of chaotic systems, I hope I don't have to tell anyone that the numbers don't really mean much. They point to a problem, but say nothing definitively. This is why Wikipedia strives to give the point of view on scientific topics as it is accepted by the scientific community, not by politicians. Simulations and scenarios are important but depend on parameters we make up, they are not reliable sources for use in making bold claims. When it comes time for feature article review, this statement must have been fixed, it is not proper for a featured article, which must be exhaustive. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 03:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the paragraph with all the secondary sources that we collected here. Although it is important to be able to trace the primary sources to establish whether the secondary sources are reliable (unreliable sources often don't point towards the source of their claims), they are almost always unsuitable to be cited directly in this article. I hope this can conclude the request for comments. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 15:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
MurrayScience: Our article currently states Additional CO2 emissions come from deforestation and industrial processes, which include the CO2 released by the chemical reactions for making cement, steel, aluminum, and fertilizer.. The statement is however not fully supported by the (5!) sources and I believe also partially WP:UNDUE.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I think the first and second subtopics under mitigation are confusing and overlapping.
"Technologies and other methods": Why is transport not in that area? Changes to be made in transport are very technology driven. What is "and other methods" supposed to mean? Aren't "policies and measures" another method?
"Scenarios and strategies for 2050": All the stuff in the "technologies and other methods" could be in here, plus all the stuff under "policies and measures". Instead, we have transportation and agriculture in there, for no reason I can see. It's better to break things down clearly, then conclude sections by talking about 2050 changes needed.
After reviewing how the UN gap report organizes things, I think we should rename the first and second subtopics like this:
Mitigation
I think those 2 new topics offer a clear divide, and you can see that in how content pretty easily reorganizes on a paragraph by paragraph basis.
If you take P0 to be the first paragraph under "mitigation", there are 8 paragraphs before "policies and measures". P0 and P5 would go under the mitigation header, P1 P2 and P6 would go under Alternatives to fossil fuels, and Decarbonization would be p3 p7 p8 and p4. There would need to be a few wording tweaks, but I think the change could be pretty seamless and the end result would be a lot easier to process.
Thoughts? Efbrazil ( talk) 23:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Efbrazil So I am including your revised text here. Will take a look this weekend and provide comments. Don't really have a good idea why you made the changes you did. Definitely not the best way to do this. Dtetta ( talk) 01:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Efbrazil I tried to revert your changes by undoing them in the history, but I am not sure if I did that correctly. So I re-edited the text in the article this morning to reflect the version on October 14 (left in your new title of “Decarbonization pathways”). If you could look at the text below and confirm that it’s the way you intended the edit to be I’d appreciate it...if there is an error in it, and it does not reflect your intended edit, please just correct the text below. Dtetta ( talk) 15:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The IPCC has stressed the need to keep global warming below 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) compared to pre-industrial levels in order to avoid some irreversible impacts. [1] Climate change impacts can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and by enhancing the capacity of Earth's surface to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. [2] In order to limit global warming to less than 1.5 °C with a high likelihood of success, the IPCC estimates that global greenhouse gas emissions will need to be net zero by 2050, [3] or by 2070 with a 2 °C target. This will require far-reaching, systemic changes on an unprecedented scale in energy, land, cities, transport, buildings, and industry. [4] To make progress towards a goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C, the United Nations Environment Programme estimates that, within the next decade, countries will need to triple the amount of reductions they have committed to in their current Paris Agreements. [5]
Fossil fuels accounted for 80% of the world's energy in 2018, while the remaining share of power production was split between nuclear power, hydropower, and non-hydro renewables. [6] Nuclear power has seen costs increasing amid stagnant power share, so that nuclear power generation is now several times more expensive per megawatt hour than wind and solar. [7] Hydropower growth has been slowing and is set to decline further due to concerns about social and environmental impacts. [8] Non-hydro renewable energy technologies include solar and wind power, bioenergy, and geothermal energy. [9] Photovoltaic solar and wind, in particular, have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years, such that they are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation. [10] Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. [11]
There are obstacles to the rapid development of renewable energy. Environmental and land use concerns are sometimes associated with large solar, wind and hydropower projects. [12] Solar and wind power also require energy storage systems and other modifications to the electricity grid to operate effectively, [13] although several storage technologies are now emerging to supplement the traditional use of pumped-storage hydropower. [14] The use of rare-earth metals and other hazardous materials has also been raised as a concern with solar power. [15] The use of bioenergy is often not carbon neutral, and may have negative consequences for food security, [16] largely due to the amount of land required compared to other renewable energy options. [17]
To achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, renewable energy would become the dominant form of electricity generation, rising to 85% or more by 2050 in some scenarios. The use of electricity for other needs, such as heating, would rise to the point where electricity becomes the largest form of overall energy supply by 2050. [18] Investment in coal would be eliminated and coal use nearly phased out by 2050. [19]
Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 °C, [20] most scenarios and strategies see a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures to generate the needed greenhouse gas reductions. [21] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in forestry and agriculture. [22] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C generally project the large scale use of CO2 removal methods in addition to greenhouse gas reduction approaches. [23]
Where energy production or CO2-intensive heavy industries continue to produce waste CO2, the gas can be captured and stored instead of being released to the atmosphere. Although costly, [24] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century. [25] Earth's natural carbon sinks can be enhanced to sequester significantly larger amounts of CO2 beyond naturally occurring levels. [26] Forest preservation, reforestation and tree planting on non-forest lands are considered the most effective, although they raise food security concerns. Soil management on croplands and grasslands is another effective mitigation technique. [27] As models disagree on the feasibility of land-based negative emissions methods for mitigation, strategies based on them are risky. [28]
In transport, scenarios envision sharp increases in the market share of electric vehicles, low carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping, and changes in transportation patterns that increase efficiency, for example increased public transport. [29] Buildings will see additional electrification with the use of technologies like heat pumps, as well as continued energy efficiency improvements achieved via low energy building codes. [30] Industrial efforts will focus on increasing the energy efficiency of production processes, such as the use of cleaner technology for cement production, [31] designing and creating less energy intensive products, increasing product lifetimes, and developing incentives to reduce product demand. [32]
The agriculture and forestry sector faces a triple challenge of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, preventing further conversion of forests to agricultural land, and meeting increases in world food demand. [33] A suite of actions could reduce agriculture/forestry based greenhouse gas emissions by 66% from 2010 levels by reducing growth in demand for food and other agricultural products, increasing land productivity, protecting and restoring forests, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production. [34]
Individuals can also take actions to reduce their carbon footprint. These include: driving an electric or other energy efficient car, reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or cycling, adopting a plant-based diet, reducing energy use in the home, limiting consumption of goods and services, and foregoing air travel. [35]
A wide range of policies, regulations and laws are being used to reduce greenhouse gases. Carbon pricing mechanisms include carbon taxes and emissions trading systems. [36] As of 2019, carbon pricing covers about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. [37] Renewable portfolio standards have been enacted in several countries requiring utilities to increase the percentage of electricity they generate from renewable sources. [38] Phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, currently estimated at $300 billion globally (about twice the level of renewable energy subsidies), [39] could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. [40] Subsidies could also be redirected to support the transition to clean energy. [41] More prescriptive methods that can reduce greenhouse gases include vehicle efficiency standards, renewable fuel standards, and air pollution regulations on heavy industry. [42]
The WHO estimates that ambient air pollution currently causes 4.2 million deaths per year due to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases. [43] Reducing air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels will have significant co-benefits in terms of lives saved. [44] For instance, meeting Paris Agreement goals could save about a million lives per year worldwide from reduced pollution by 2050. [45]
As the use of fossil fuels is reduced, there are Just Transition considerations involving the social and economic challenges that arise. An example is the employment of workers in the affected industries, along with the well-being of the broader communities involved. [46] Climate justice considerations, such as those facing indigenous populations in the Arctic, [47] are another important aspect of mitigation policies. [48]
We need a short Benefits of Mitigation section. 3,4 sentences. Includes air pollution part we added, economic benfits etc. Bogazicili ( talk) 03:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
References
The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189. Over the past decade, (costs) for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%. For nuclear, they have increased by 23%.
Hydropower generation is estimated to have increased by over 2% in 2019 owing to continued recovery from drought in Latin America as well as strong capacity expansion and good water availability in China (...) capacity expansion has been losing speed. This downward trend is expected to continue, due mainly to less large-project development in China and Brazil, where concerns over social and environmental impacts have restricted projects.
The following sentence was added to the article: A recent report put the number of people at risk of displacement by 2050 at 1.2 billion. [1]. There are multiple problems with the sentence, and I'm not sure that the sourcing is sufficiently good. Most importantly, the current formulation gives the impression that the displacement is caused by climate change, instead of a very wide selection of ecological threats. Less importantly, we should avoid the word recent in this article ( WP:RELTIME). I'm not that familiar with the think tank, but I'm always sceptical of them. A further concern is that there is cherry picking by only quoting high numbers of people at risk of displacement, without indicating that confidence is low in a certain direction. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 07:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
References
“ | Like the tobacco industry before, the main strategy of these groups has been to manufacture doubt about scientific data and results. Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt... | ” |
— Section 7.3 "The public. Denial and misinformation" |
How can doubt be "manufactured" or "unwarranted"? Doubt is always possible and it's always "warranted", if we are commited to critical thinking. What really can be manufactured is perception that there is no prevalent view among scientists (which is a false perception), and what really can be unwarranted is the opinion that there is no prevalent view among scientists (this opinion has no basis in reality).
Moreover, the tobacco industry exploited a really existing uncertainty to its own advantage. After the relevant evidence had accumulated and uncertainty had been largely cleared, it ceased to claim anything along the lines of "the harm of smoking is unproven" etc. The whole point of the concept of "climate change denialism" is that the people holding the views encompassed by the concept reject the scientific consesnsus and do not exploit any controversy.
109.252.202.95 ( talk) 13:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
"...at global warming levels around 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, West Antarctica is committed to long-term partial collapse owing to the marine ice-sheet instability."
"...the West Antarctic Ice Sheet does not regrow to its modern extent until temperatures are at least one degree Celsius lower than pre-industrial levels. Our results show that if the Paris Agreement is not met, Antarctica’s long-term sea-level contribution will dramatically increase and exceed that of all other sources." Count Iblis ( talk) 02:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Current paragraph is this:
Key factors to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in all long-term scenarios include rapid and significant investment in renewable energy, nuclear energy, and energy efficiency. [1] Renewable energy technologies include solar and wind power, bioenergy, geothermal energy, and hydropower. [2] Photovoltaic solar and wind, in particular, have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years, such that they are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation. [3] Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. [4] However, fossil fuels continue to dominate world energy supplies. In 2018, fossil fuels produced 80% of the world's energy, with modern renewable sources, including solar and wind power, accounting for around 11%. [5] |
Suggested rewrite is this:
Fossil fuels accounted for 80% of the world's energy in 2018, while the remaining share of power production was split between nuclear power, hydropower, and non-hydro renewables. [6] Nuclear power has seen costs increasing amid stagnant power share, raising questions about its future prospects. [7] Hydropower will continue to grow slowly due to efficiency gains, but expansion is difficult as there are few remaining places to build dams that are environmentally, economically and socially acceptable. [8] Non-hydro renewable energy technologies include solar and wind power, bioenergy, and geothermal energy. [9] Photovoltaic solar and wind, in particular, have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years, such that they are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation. [10] Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. [11] |
Reasoning: I believe the section benefits from breaking down the current power mix, and in particular spelling out the prospects for nuclear and hydro. Nuclear equals non-hydro renewable power production, and hydro currently leads both nuclear and non-hydro renewables by quite a bit. Nuclear needs to be mentioned to say why it is not a focus of the rest of the section. Hydro needs to be broken out because too often it is grouped with renewables for the purpose of talking about power share (where it dominates the power mix), then ungrouped when talking about future prospects (where there is not much growth prospect, plus major environmental concerns). There's also some verbiage and puffery in the current wording that can be squeezed out (what is a "modern renewable"?). I think the rewrite better grounds the introduction, to justify why the remainder is focused on non-hydro renewables (other than bias). Efbrazil ( talk) 18:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
While we are writing the new version, shall we go back to the old version? The two new sentences are not supported by the sources. Furthermore, the sources don't make clear that this information is due, because specialist literature is used instead of climate change literature. Per WP:SCIRS: Cite reviews, don't write them. I think using reviews is very important in this case as we have a discussion about the relative importance of different topics in these paragraphs. Review sources are the easiest way to solve these questions, and we're lucky to have plenty of high quality reviews.
I agree with Dtetta that there is a mix match between how nuclear and hydro are described compared to the power sources that are projected to play the main role in decarbonisation. I think having expert assessment language is fine (the nuclear sentence if sourcing is fixed), but the sentence for hydropower is too long and more certain than the sources it cites. We should not have an entire paragraph dedicated to nuclear, that will be undue. I'm happy for Dtetta to propose a revised paragraph based on the ideas described above, and based on various review sources. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 17:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Efbrazil - what do you think of this as compromise language?
Long-term scenarios point to rapid and significant investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency as key to reducing GHG emissions. [1] Fossil fuels accounted for 80% of the world's energy in 2018, while the remaining share of power production was split between nuclear power, hydropower, and non-hydro renewables. [12]; that mix is expected to change significantly over the next 30 years. [13] Renewable energy technologies include solar and wind power, bioenergy, geothermal energy, and hydropower. [14] Photovoltaic solar and wind, in particular, have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years, such that they are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation. [15] Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. [16] |
The second paragraph of the currently tItled “Technologies and other methods” section would then read something like:
There are obstacles to the continued rapid development of renewable energy. Environmental and land use concerns are sometimes associated with large solar, wind and hydropower projects. [17] Solar and wind power also require energy storage systems and other modifications to the electricity grid to operate effectively, [1] although several storage technologies are now emerging to supplement the traditional use of pumped-storage hydropower. [18] The use of rare-earth metals and other hazardous materials has also been raised as a concern with solar power. [19] The use of bioenergy is often not carbon neutral, and may have negative consequences for food security, [20] largely due to the amount of land required compared to other renewable energy options. [21] Hydropower growth has been slowing and is set to decline further due to concerns about social and environmental impacts. [22] While not a traditional renewable, nuclear energy has continued to be a significant part of the global energy mix. However, nuclear power has seen costs increasing amid stagnant power share, so that nuclear power generation is now several times more expensive per megawatt hour than wind and solar. [23] |
Dtetta ( talk) 14:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
between 2009 and 2019, utility-scale solar costs came down 89 percent and wind 70 percent, while new nuclear costs increased by 26 percent. The gap has continued to widen between 2018 and 2019.
Hydropower generation is estimated to have increased by over 2% in 2019 owing to continued recovery from drought in Latin America as well as strong capacity expansion and good water availability in China. However, capacity additions overall declined for the fifth consecutive year.
Hydropower generation is estimated to have increased by over 2% in 2019 owing to continued recovery from drought in Latin America as well as strong capacity expansion and good water availability in China (...) capacity expansion has been losing speed. This downward trend is expected to continue, due mainly to less large-project development in China and Brazil, where concerns over social and environmental impacts have restricted projects.
The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189. Over the past decade, (costs) for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%. For nuclear, they have increased by 23%.
I wanted to make a change in a similar direction. Seems like improvement. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 14:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
Good to see the collaboration here being recognized. [7] Congratulations to everyone involved! Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
Thanks! It really was a wonderful article about a wonderful wiki page. Congrats everyone. MurrayScience ( talk) 21:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This image was deleted by Efbrazil.
It's not dated as the review study is from 2016. It also shows the actual scientific consensus, which is the subsection it is in. It's a better image than the current image to represent that subsection. The current image in that subsection should be replaced with this one again. Bogazicili ( talk) 15:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Popular Mechanics, Aug 1964, p 81 on: https://archive.org/details/PopularMechanics1964/Popular%20mechanics-08-1964 'The Air around Us: How it is changing' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.173.22 ( talk) 10:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I kind of get information overload when reading this article. But one of the high level things I was looking for, was a succinct paragraph on what a year 2100 Earth looks like with everybody's CO2 emissions staying the same. Or just any summary of the main problems that un-checked global warming causes.
Yes, the trees have more pests, and some permafrost melts. But those issues by themselves are surely not the main reason that people are sounding the alarm.
What are some of the serious problems that late stage global warming would cause? Uninhabitability of the equator? Crop disruption and famine? Quadruple the number of hurricanes?
Did I fail to see this info? Or do we need to insert a succinct paragraph or two somewhere to cover this?
Thanks for your time. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
In 2017, in the second warning to humanity, 15,364 scientists from 184 countries stated that "the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural production – particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption" is "especially troubling".
The scientific consensus on climate change says that climate change is real. It does not say that climate change is dangerous, or that there will be a "climate crisis". Because Wikipedia requires content to be WP:VERIFIABLE and does not allow WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, the encyclopedia should not be using the terminology "climate crisis", "climate catastrophe" or other similar terms. However, school strike for climate uses "climate disaster" in lead, effects of climate change on human health uses "climate crisis" in lead, climate change in Turkey#Public perception of climate change in Turkey uses "current climate crisis", Global Day of Climate Action 2020 uses "climate crisis" and appears to be written with a pov and Rory Kennedy#Activism and politics uses "climate crisis" while talking about an interview with Rolling Stone. There are probably other examples out there. I would like the Wikipedia community to stop using the wording "climate crisis/catastrophe/disaster" outside of refs and quotes. 122.60.173.107 ( talk) 10:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
ALL OF THESE SOURCES DO NOT MENTION "CLIMATE CRISIS":
References
Immediately bombards with such like "that human activity has caused climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing" 200.118.62.87 ( talk) 23:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
One of the comments we got in the featured article review, was that we have too many short sections and paragraphs. I've expanded one paragraph, but most of the remaining text has come about as part of consensus, so I would like some input on the solutions I have in mind.
I think these are the three places that need changing, but I'm no expert on the manual of style, so there might be more. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 10:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The mitigation subsection is disproportionately long now. It's length is more appropriate as a section, which I hope will get support. I'd be against adding anything now, but I think some of the introductory material of political response could be moved to a cobenifits paragraph. The humans subsection of effects is inappropriate as said before. As always: for big changes, propose on talk page first to get consensus :). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 21:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I had missed that Femkemilene had deleted this part [10], which was thankfully reverted by C.J. Griffin [11]. That part was reliably sourced and relevant, and I consider it to be massively important. Being bold is one thing but excessive and rapid deletion of long-standing material needs to slow down I think. Bogazicili ( talk) 19:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
We need a paragraph or two about these topics in Humans subsection under Effects section. This was my previous suggestion:
Climate change has also been called a security threat. [1] US intelligence analysts have expressed concern about the "serious security risks" of climate change since the 1980s. [2] The Pentagon has also released a report stating that climate change is a national security threat to USA. [3] [4] [5] Moreover, the available evidence suggests that scientists have underestimated the impacts of climate change in their projections. [6] Exceeding tipping points can also bring abrupt and irreversible climate changes which could be an existential threat to civilization. [7] |
Additional sources: [13], "Warming of 4°C or more could reduce the global human population by 80% or 90%,35 and the World Bank reports “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible”" [14], "The broad consensus in the literature is that expected damages caused by unmitigated climate change will be high and the probability of catastrophic tail-risk events is non-negligible...There is growing agreement between economists and scientists that the tail risks are material and the risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change, including, in the extreme, human extinction" IMF Bogazicili ( talk) 22:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll break down the issues to keep focused on where agreement lies: Bogazicili ( talk) 01:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
1) I guess everyone agrees mentioning this?
2) Femkemilene said "climate change being an existential threat is a significant minority view among scientists, and the wording is correct using the word 'could'". So I think we can agree to add this along with the scientific consensus (from IMF: "The broad consensus in the literature is that expected damages caused by unmitigated climate change will be high and the probability of catastrophic tail-risk events is non-negligible"). I'm looking for more sources about this.
3) Note that even some scientist that do not agree with existential threat still see massive damage:
"Johan Rockström, the head of one of Europe’s leading research institutes, warned in 2019 that in a 4°C-warmer world it would be “difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that … There will be a rich minority of people who survive with modern lifestyles, no doubt, but it will be a turbulent, conflict-ridden world”." [15]
"Why terrifying? As Professor Kevin Anderson, a leading climate scientist at the University of Manchester, said: “There is a widespread view that a 4C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond adaptation and be devastating to the majority of ecosystems.” In other words, a world where food crops would collapse, billions could starve, governments collapse and coastal cities flood, making hundreds of millions homeless." [16]
I'll get back to this in a few weeks. Bogazicili ( talk) 14:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't have specific suggestions at present; my point was that this is something that should be worked on, preferably in a collaborative way. If you look at the Wayback Machine for Climate Change, and go to one of the Sep. 9 archives, you can see the original text when this subsection was revised based on the talk page proposal I made. In particular, I think the editing downward of the sentence describing estimated annual deaths is an example of what I was saying in my earlier comment about downplaying the effects. Dtetta ( talk) 15:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Haines article, Bogazicili, I think it is excellent. I would still recommend something like: “It is estimated that, by mid century, climate change will be responsible for well over 500,000 additional deaths globally per year due to undernutrition, heat stress, and disease alone” for sentences 4 & 5, and include the WHO report and Haines/NEJM article as the citations for this statement. This characterization of mortality seems to strike a reasonable balance between the need for some context in the extent of the impact, while recognizing that more exact numbers are probably not appropriate. I agree that sentence 6, dealing with other health risks, could be deleted for the sake of brevity. Dtetta ( talk) 17:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC) It would be nice to have an article that referenced the original Nature Communications work, as Femke points out. But that seems like something we can flag to work on. Dtetta ( talk) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that approximately 250,000 deaths annually between 2030 and 2050 could be due to climate change–related increases in heat exposure in elderly people, as well as increases in diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, and childhood stunting.16 This is a conservative estimate, because it does not include deaths from other climate-sensitive health outcomes and does not include morbidity or the effects associated with the disruption of health services from extreme weather and climate events. For example, a climate change–associated net increase of 529,000 adult deaths worldwide (95% confidence interval [CI], 314,000 to 736,000) was projected to result from expected reductions in food availability (particularly fruit and vegetables) by 2050, as compared with a reference scenario without climate change.23 |
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress.[177][176] This is a conservative estimate, as it does not include deaths due to other related reasons. For example, additional 529,000 adult deaths are predicted worldwide by 2050, due to expected reductions in food availability.[176] |
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year due to heat exposure in elderly people, increases in diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, and childhood stunting.[177][176] This is a conservative estimate, as it does not include deaths due to other related reasons. For example, additional 529,000 adult deaths (95% confidence interval, 314,000 to 736,000) are predicted worldwide by 2050, due to expected reductions in food availability.[176] |
Here's my updated suggestion, which is basically the version after Femkemilene's edit, with 3 changes:
1) corrected causes for 250k WHO number 2) added "further" instead of "additional" 3) added 529,000 instead of half million
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from heat exposure in elderly people, increases in diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, and childhood stunting.[176] [177] A further 529,000 adult deaths are projected yearly by 2050, due to reductions in food availability and quality.[178] Other major health risks associated with climate change include air and water quality, and social factors.[179] The WHO has classified human health impacts from climate change as the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[11] |
First and second changes are self-explanatory. Third change is because I think we should stick to the exact numbers the sources use. I also think this is more sustainable. If new editors come down the road and question the half a million number, I don't want to go through lengthy and time-consuming discussions again (about that 3 significant numbers were too much and we settled on half a million number). We can also add the confidence interval or make a footnote for it if required. Bogazicili ( talk) 18:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Complementarity in science means something slightly different than in mathematics. It means there is very little overlap, not necessarily none. You could indeed ask the authors whether they think there is none. I still believe we shouldn't commit any crimes against significant digits, nor include to many numbers to maintain readability. I have removed childhood stunting, because it feels like jargon to me, and I don't think it is necessary to repeat other causes as they are ready mention above.
It is estimated that reduced food quality and quantity will be responsible for around half a million adult deaths per year by mid-century. (cite NEJM & Lancet). Climate change drives additional mortality via heat exposure in elderly people, diarrheal disease, and increased risk of coastal flooding. (cite NEJM and WHO). |
P.S. Dtetta, I notice that you're not quite following the (overly complicated) citation style. The short cites should cite authors, not the publisher. For some publications those two approximately coincide (for instance the WHO). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year from heat exposure in elderly people, increases in diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, and childhood undernutrition. [9] Over 500,000 additional adult deaths are projected yearly by 2050 due to reductions in food availability and quality. [10] |
Dtetta ( talk) 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I can live with a version by Dtetta just slightly sad we needed five different numbers. The sentence with social factors is wishy-washy, I don't think it will be clear to our readers. Furthermore, it will make a very long paragraph even longer. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
We need two sentences here. Military experts are experts on security, so opinions of US military, NATO [31] etc are relevant. One sentence for that, and another from scientific or other sources such as UN [32] Bogazicili ( talk) 01:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll get back to this in a few weeks (do not want to get this archived). Bogazicili ( talk) 14:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Femkemilene said "Saying that scientists have underestimated impacts may be true, but the source is from 2013." I have found later sources such as [33], ""The IPCC tends to be very cautious and conservative, which is why it had to correct itself upwards already several times," Rahmstorf said." [34] Again needs better sources. Bogazicili ( talk) 01:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
We have already added text to the economics section, and your previous comments seem to suggest that you want to and general comments about that human impacts have been underestimated. You have not provided any general source, and I doubt you will find one which has broad support from the scientific community.
While I like criticising current integrated assessment modelling, I don't see a way to include that 2020 study into our article. It is criticising information that we don't even include in our article because it is too detailed. The article is my opinion probably even too specialised for a sub article: effects of climate change. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 17:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Currently, there is no image in this section. On the right is the image suggested.
It comes from this peer-reviewed secondary source [40], which NASA also uses on their Climate Change facts pages [41]. The image does not contain the 3 lower percentages in the study, for agreement among "Sub-sample of publishing climatologists" (see table 1): 83.5% (2008), 88.5% (2005), 89% (2012).
Should we use this image, or another image, or edit this image (only contain cited studies newer than 2010 or all studies), or use no image? Bogazicili ( talk) 19:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
. It's a question to what extent 'convincing readers' should be any of our concern. If we do try to take it into account, we should do it with facts in hand, not intuition. Scientific consensus communication has been shown effective to convince people climate change is real and action is needed, see for instance: [1] Femke Nijsse ( talk) 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I'm a 100% sure that these warnings to humanity are getting UNDUE attention. They're barely getting mention in overview sources (like short introduction to climate change). One sentence, which is what I'm proposing, is more than enough. I think it is important to keep the other aspects of going beyond humans-cause-CC. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 18:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think consensus is clear. Any objections to closing this RfC? I hope my condensing of the section at least addressed a small fraction of Efbrazil's concern. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 10:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Bottomline: As I understand it, you think only the following should be included:
Anyone, especially Bogazicili and Femke Nijsse: Please be specific if you (dis)agree with including these studies in the graphic. — RCraig09 ( talk) 06:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The size of the figure in the article is larger than was proposed in the RfC, for consistency with other images in the article. This gives the figure too much prominence imo and according to CMD in the FAR. Furthermore, the text size is now larger than most of the other images.
RCraig09, would it be an option to put the five pie charts next to each other horizontally? If that doesn't work, could we have four next to each other? The other from Verheggen may be removed (for they specifically sought out climate contrarians, leading to low consensus). Simply displaying the figure smaller wouldn't work, as the caption would be spread over more lines. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
upright=1.25
declaration, I'm not understanding how the pie chart image is bigger than preceding images declaring upright=1.35
. The images look consistent on my desktop, at least. I disfavor removing Verheggen because the Cook et al "Consensus on Consensus" reference included them and to omit Verheggen seems cherry-picking-ish. A creative option is to move away from pie charts to another form of
data visualization, but at first glance I think pie charts are the most appropriate for the concept being conveyed. In Inkscape, I can move the elements closer together vertically, which would reduce "spillage" into the next section (a small amount); that approach may be best. —
RCraig09 (
talk) 17:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Think we need another sentence or may be even two about mitigation in agriculture. The recent restructuring exposed that we don't talk about this a lot. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for starting a discussion here, I'd like to address concerns instead of just hastily deleting the gallery. There was an extensive review of all this back in May, when we came to consensus that the gallery was a great improvement, as you can see here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Climate_change/Archive_81#Adding_effects_to_the_summary_at_the_beginning_of_the_article
The reason to include it is that it surfaces impacts in the intro on desktop. We wanted to surface impacts visually in the intro instead of burying that information visually way down in the article. There's no way to summarize impacts in a single image, hence the gallery. We did not want the gallery in mobile view because it would be too much content for an intro, but on desktop view it works well as an accent.
Regarding mobile view: Deleting the gallery has zero impact on mobile view (it's not visible either way). This gallery is just an accent that enhances desktop view by better surfacing important information up front for the users, for those that don't read the full article. Desktop and mobile view have lots of differences in their rendering, this is just another example of a difference. This issue was raised and dismissed in the initial review based on that reasoning.
Regarding accessibility: This gallery has no impact on accessibility that I'm aware of. For mobile view, you simply see the images later on in the article. There's no issues here around screen readers or voice command or color blindness or any other accessibility issues. Please clarify the accessibility concern.
Regarding Firefox, can you clarify the problem case? I have not seen it and it has not surfaced previously. Firefox is used by less than 4% of users and not showing images 10% of the time means 0.4% of desktop users are impacted. If the page is badly busted that's obviously a problem, but if the issue is just a firefox glitch in image loading then I think it's OK- firefox users are used to having a buggy browser, as they are the only users with a non-standard rendering engine (gecko) at this point (all other browsers are on webkit forks). Efbrazil ( talk) 18:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Somewhat a solution....different image everyday. All have access no matter what device or how old. Your just regurgitating the galleries' right?--
Moxy 🍁 22:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
{{#switch: {{#expr: {{CURRENTDAYOFYEAR}} mod 8}} |0=[[File:Bleachedcoral.jpg|thumb|Underwater photograph of branching coral that is bleached white|[[Ecological collapse]]. Bleaching has damaged the [[Great Barrier Reef]] and threatens reefs worldwide]] |1=[[File:Orroral Valley Fire viewed from Tuggeranong January 2020.jpg|thumb|Photograph of evening in a valley settlement. The skyline in the hills beyond is lit up red from the fires.|[[Extreme weather]]. Drought and high temperatures worsened the [[2019–20 Australian bushfire season#Climate change|2020 bushfires in Australia]].]] |2=[[File:National Park Service Thawing permafrost (27759123542).jpg|thumb|The green landscape is interrupted by a huge muddy scar where the ground has subsided.|[[Climate change in the Arctic|Arctic warming]]. [[Permafrost#Climate change effects|Permafrost thaws]] undermine infrastructure and [[Arctic methane emissions|release methane]] in a [[Climate change feedback|self-reinforcing feedback loop]].]] |3=[[File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear edit.jpg|thumb|An emaciated polar bear stands atop the remains of a melting ice floe.|[[Habitat destruction]]. Many arctic animals rely on sea ice, which has been disappearing in a warming Arctic.]] |4=[[File:Mountain Pine Beetle damage in the Fraser Experimental Forest 2007.jpg|thumb|Photograph of a large area of forest. The green trees are interspersed with large patches of damaged or dead trees turning purple-brown and light red.|[[Climate change and invasive species|Pest propagation]]. Mild winters allow more [[mountain pine beetle|pine beetles]] to survive to kill large swaths of forest.]] |5=[[File:Corn shows the affect of drought.jpg|thumb|[[Climate change and agriculture|Agricultural changes]]. Droughts, rising temperatures, and extreme weather negatively impact agriculture. Shown: Texas, USA..]] |6=[[File:Acqua alta in Piazza San Marco-original.jpg|thumb|[[Tidal flooding]]. [[Sea level rise|Sea-level rise]] increases flooding in low-lying coastal regions. Shown: [[Venice#Flooding|Venice, Italy]]]] |7=[[File:US Navy 071120-M-8966H-005 An aerial view over southern Bangladesh reveals extensive flooding as a result of Cyclone Sidr.jpg|thumb |[[Tropical cyclones and climate change|Storm intensification]]. Bangladesh after [[Cyclone Sidr]] is an example of catastrophic flooding from increased rainfall.]] |8=[[File:The heat is on ESA19461898.jpeg|thumb|[[Heat wave|Heat wave intensification]]. Events like the [[June 2019 European heat wave]] are becoming more common.]] }}
Access problems include )sandwiching of text )screen reader will read every image). Does the below code work for everyone? Has purge option to change on the fly.--
Moxy 🍁 03:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
{{random item|1=[[File:Orroral Valley Fire viewed from Tuggeranong January 2020.jpg|thumb|[[Extreme weather]]. Drought and high temperatures worsened the [[2019–20 Australian bushfire season#Climate change|2020 bushfires in Australia]].<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |2=[[File:National Park Service Thawing permafrost (27759123542).jpg|thumb|[[Climate change in the Arctic|Arctic warming]]. [[Permafrost#Climate change effects|Permafrost thaws]] undermine infrastructure and [[Arctic methane emissions|release methane]] in a [[Climate change feedback|self-reinforcing feedback loop]].<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |3=[[File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear edit.jpg|thumb|[[Habitat destruction]]. Many arctic animals rely on sea ice, which has been disappearing in a warming Arctic.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |4=[[File:Mountain Pine Beetle damage in the Fraser Experimental Forest 2007.jpg|thumb|[[Climate change and invasive species|Pest propagation]]. Mild winters allow more [[mountain pine beetle|pine beetles]] to survive to kill large swaths of forest.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |5=[[File:Corn shows the affect of drought.jpg|thumb|[[Climate change and agriculture|Agricultural changes]]. Droughts, rising temperatures, and extreme weather negatively impact agriculture. Shown: Texas, USA.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |6=[[File:Acqua alta in Piazza San Marco-original.jpg|thumb|[[Tidal flooding]]. [[Sea level rise|Sea-level rise]] increases flooding in low-lying coastal regions. Shown: [[Venice#Flooding|Venice, Italy]]<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |7=[[File:US Navy 071120-M-8966H-005 An aerial view over southern Bangladesh reveals extensive flooding as a result of Cyclone Sidr.jpg|thumb |[[Tropical cyclones and climate change|Storm intensification]]. Bangladesh after [[Cyclone Sidr]] is an example of catastrophic flooding from increased rainfall.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |8=[[File:The heat is on ESA19461898.jpeg|thumb|[[Heat wave|Heat wave intensification]]. Events like the [[June 2019 European heat wave]] are becoming more common.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]]}}
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | → | Archive 90 |
Should the sentence below be added under Climate_change#Humans section?
"Moreover, decreased air pollution that would result from limiting global warming to 1.5 °C (or 2 °C without negative emissions) could prevent an estimated 153 million premature deaths worldwide over the remainder of 21st century, compared to base 2°C scenario which assumes large-scale carbon dioxide removal. [1]" Bogazicili ( talk) 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's my current suggestion:
Air pollution causes the deaths of around 7 million people worldwide each year, [3] [4] and decreasing fossil fuel related emissions to combat climate will reduce the number of these premature deaths. [1] |
Bogazicili ( talk) 22:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Air pollution, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and worsened by climate change, is responsible for millions of deaths per year |
Unfortunately, I'm not happy with that compromise. The location breaks up the paragraph, which is otherwise focused on climate change impacts on health. The first sentence is about climate change impacts on health, then the later sentences go into detail on how climate change impacts health. Breaking that up with a number that is currently 17X larger in terms of deaths (4.2 million vs 250K) and then not going into any detail just doesn't make sense to me.
I think the only resolution here is to give air pollution its own paragraph, because it really is separate from climate change and is clearly an important idea based on the numbers. I reviewed the WHO site some more and they have better links to more detailed information, which I included in an updated paragraph. I prefer using the WHO because it's not behind a registration wall and will be recognized as more authoritative and acccessible by the audience that is going to be looking at wikipedia. Here's the text which I updated the article with:
In addition to deaths caused by climate change, the WHO estimates that the related issue of ambient air pollution currently causes 4.2 million deaths per year due to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases. [5] The primary cause of these deaths is fine particulate matter produced by fuel combustion. [6] The WHO therefor states that "Policies to reduce air pollution offer a "win-win" strategy for both climate and health, lowering the burden of disease attributable to air pollution, as well as contributing to the near- and long-term mitigation of climate change." [7] |
Efbrazil ( talk) 15:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
In addition to deaths caused by climate change, the WHO estimates that the related issue of ambient air pollution currently causes 4.2 million deaths per year due to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases. [8] The primary cause of these deaths is fine particulate matter produced by fuel combustion. [9] The WHO therefor states that "policies to reduce air pollution offer a "win-win" strategy for both climate and health". [10] |
-- Efbrazil ( talk) 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks guys, one issue sorted out. I'm less certain about the second issue, whether to qualify the public website of the WHO as a high quality reliable source (HQRS), which are required to meet the FA criteria. I will ask the experts instead of going on about it here. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 07:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hi all, I am sorry for arriving late, but I see you have already made the change and the RFC is still in place. Please remove it once you are done. I have a note, though. The new addition is a violation of WP:NPOV and you need to either reword it to sound like a possibility, rather than a fact, or supplement the WHO report with several others that give a range. Further, you should not find the reports to use, there should be a secondary source out there that tells us the range of results from various studies. These are all simulations of chaotic systems, I hope I don't have to tell anyone that the numbers don't really mean much. They point to a problem, but say nothing definitively. This is why Wikipedia strives to give the point of view on scientific topics as it is accepted by the scientific community, not by politicians. Simulations and scenarios are important but depend on parameters we make up, they are not reliable sources for use in making bold claims. When it comes time for feature article review, this statement must have been fixed, it is not proper for a featured article, which must be exhaustive. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 03:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the paragraph with all the secondary sources that we collected here. Although it is important to be able to trace the primary sources to establish whether the secondary sources are reliable (unreliable sources often don't point towards the source of their claims), they are almost always unsuitable to be cited directly in this article. I hope this can conclude the request for comments. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 15:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
MurrayScience: Our article currently states Additional CO2 emissions come from deforestation and industrial processes, which include the CO2 released by the chemical reactions for making cement, steel, aluminum, and fertilizer.. The statement is however not fully supported by the (5!) sources and I believe also partially WP:UNDUE.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I think the first and second subtopics under mitigation are confusing and overlapping.
"Technologies and other methods": Why is transport not in that area? Changes to be made in transport are very technology driven. What is "and other methods" supposed to mean? Aren't "policies and measures" another method?
"Scenarios and strategies for 2050": All the stuff in the "technologies and other methods" could be in here, plus all the stuff under "policies and measures". Instead, we have transportation and agriculture in there, for no reason I can see. It's better to break things down clearly, then conclude sections by talking about 2050 changes needed.
After reviewing how the UN gap report organizes things, I think we should rename the first and second subtopics like this:
Mitigation
I think those 2 new topics offer a clear divide, and you can see that in how content pretty easily reorganizes on a paragraph by paragraph basis.
If you take P0 to be the first paragraph under "mitigation", there are 8 paragraphs before "policies and measures". P0 and P5 would go under the mitigation header, P1 P2 and P6 would go under Alternatives to fossil fuels, and Decarbonization would be p3 p7 p8 and p4. There would need to be a few wording tweaks, but I think the change could be pretty seamless and the end result would be a lot easier to process.
Thoughts? Efbrazil ( talk) 23:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Efbrazil So I am including your revised text here. Will take a look this weekend and provide comments. Don't really have a good idea why you made the changes you did. Definitely not the best way to do this. Dtetta ( talk) 01:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Efbrazil I tried to revert your changes by undoing them in the history, but I am not sure if I did that correctly. So I re-edited the text in the article this morning to reflect the version on October 14 (left in your new title of “Decarbonization pathways”). If you could look at the text below and confirm that it’s the way you intended the edit to be I’d appreciate it...if there is an error in it, and it does not reflect your intended edit, please just correct the text below. Dtetta ( talk) 15:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The IPCC has stressed the need to keep global warming below 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) compared to pre-industrial levels in order to avoid some irreversible impacts. [1] Climate change impacts can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and by enhancing the capacity of Earth's surface to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. [2] In order to limit global warming to less than 1.5 °C with a high likelihood of success, the IPCC estimates that global greenhouse gas emissions will need to be net zero by 2050, [3] or by 2070 with a 2 °C target. This will require far-reaching, systemic changes on an unprecedented scale in energy, land, cities, transport, buildings, and industry. [4] To make progress towards a goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C, the United Nations Environment Programme estimates that, within the next decade, countries will need to triple the amount of reductions they have committed to in their current Paris Agreements. [5]
Fossil fuels accounted for 80% of the world's energy in 2018, while the remaining share of power production was split between nuclear power, hydropower, and non-hydro renewables. [6] Nuclear power has seen costs increasing amid stagnant power share, so that nuclear power generation is now several times more expensive per megawatt hour than wind and solar. [7] Hydropower growth has been slowing and is set to decline further due to concerns about social and environmental impacts. [8] Non-hydro renewable energy technologies include solar and wind power, bioenergy, and geothermal energy. [9] Photovoltaic solar and wind, in particular, have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years, such that they are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation. [10] Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. [11]
There are obstacles to the rapid development of renewable energy. Environmental and land use concerns are sometimes associated with large solar, wind and hydropower projects. [12] Solar and wind power also require energy storage systems and other modifications to the electricity grid to operate effectively, [13] although several storage technologies are now emerging to supplement the traditional use of pumped-storage hydropower. [14] The use of rare-earth metals and other hazardous materials has also been raised as a concern with solar power. [15] The use of bioenergy is often not carbon neutral, and may have negative consequences for food security, [16] largely due to the amount of land required compared to other renewable energy options. [17]
To achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, renewable energy would become the dominant form of electricity generation, rising to 85% or more by 2050 in some scenarios. The use of electricity for other needs, such as heating, would rise to the point where electricity becomes the largest form of overall energy supply by 2050. [18] Investment in coal would be eliminated and coal use nearly phased out by 2050. [19]
Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 °C, [20] most scenarios and strategies see a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures to generate the needed greenhouse gas reductions. [21] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in forestry and agriculture. [22] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C generally project the large scale use of CO2 removal methods in addition to greenhouse gas reduction approaches. [23]
Where energy production or CO2-intensive heavy industries continue to produce waste CO2, the gas can be captured and stored instead of being released to the atmosphere. Although costly, [24] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century. [25] Earth's natural carbon sinks can be enhanced to sequester significantly larger amounts of CO2 beyond naturally occurring levels. [26] Forest preservation, reforestation and tree planting on non-forest lands are considered the most effective, although they raise food security concerns. Soil management on croplands and grasslands is another effective mitigation technique. [27] As models disagree on the feasibility of land-based negative emissions methods for mitigation, strategies based on them are risky. [28]
In transport, scenarios envision sharp increases in the market share of electric vehicles, low carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping, and changes in transportation patterns that increase efficiency, for example increased public transport. [29] Buildings will see additional electrification with the use of technologies like heat pumps, as well as continued energy efficiency improvements achieved via low energy building codes. [30] Industrial efforts will focus on increasing the energy efficiency of production processes, such as the use of cleaner technology for cement production, [31] designing and creating less energy intensive products, increasing product lifetimes, and developing incentives to reduce product demand. [32]
The agriculture and forestry sector faces a triple challenge of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, preventing further conversion of forests to agricultural land, and meeting increases in world food demand. [33] A suite of actions could reduce agriculture/forestry based greenhouse gas emissions by 66% from 2010 levels by reducing growth in demand for food and other agricultural products, increasing land productivity, protecting and restoring forests, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production. [34]
Individuals can also take actions to reduce their carbon footprint. These include: driving an electric or other energy efficient car, reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or cycling, adopting a plant-based diet, reducing energy use in the home, limiting consumption of goods and services, and foregoing air travel. [35]
A wide range of policies, regulations and laws are being used to reduce greenhouse gases. Carbon pricing mechanisms include carbon taxes and emissions trading systems. [36] As of 2019, carbon pricing covers about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. [37] Renewable portfolio standards have been enacted in several countries requiring utilities to increase the percentage of electricity they generate from renewable sources. [38] Phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, currently estimated at $300 billion globally (about twice the level of renewable energy subsidies), [39] could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. [40] Subsidies could also be redirected to support the transition to clean energy. [41] More prescriptive methods that can reduce greenhouse gases include vehicle efficiency standards, renewable fuel standards, and air pollution regulations on heavy industry. [42]
The WHO estimates that ambient air pollution currently causes 4.2 million deaths per year due to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases. [43] Reducing air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels will have significant co-benefits in terms of lives saved. [44] For instance, meeting Paris Agreement goals could save about a million lives per year worldwide from reduced pollution by 2050. [45]
As the use of fossil fuels is reduced, there are Just Transition considerations involving the social and economic challenges that arise. An example is the employment of workers in the affected industries, along with the well-being of the broader communities involved. [46] Climate justice considerations, such as those facing indigenous populations in the Arctic, [47] are another important aspect of mitigation policies. [48]
We need a short Benefits of Mitigation section. 3,4 sentences. Includes air pollution part we added, economic benfits etc. Bogazicili ( talk) 03:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
References
The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189. Over the past decade, (costs) for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%. For nuclear, they have increased by 23%.
Hydropower generation is estimated to have increased by over 2% in 2019 owing to continued recovery from drought in Latin America as well as strong capacity expansion and good water availability in China (...) capacity expansion has been losing speed. This downward trend is expected to continue, due mainly to less large-project development in China and Brazil, where concerns over social and environmental impacts have restricted projects.
The following sentence was added to the article: A recent report put the number of people at risk of displacement by 2050 at 1.2 billion. [1]. There are multiple problems with the sentence, and I'm not sure that the sourcing is sufficiently good. Most importantly, the current formulation gives the impression that the displacement is caused by climate change, instead of a very wide selection of ecological threats. Less importantly, we should avoid the word recent in this article ( WP:RELTIME). I'm not that familiar with the think tank, but I'm always sceptical of them. A further concern is that there is cherry picking by only quoting high numbers of people at risk of displacement, without indicating that confidence is low in a certain direction. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 07:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
References
“ | Like the tobacco industry before, the main strategy of these groups has been to manufacture doubt about scientific data and results. Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt... | ” |
— Section 7.3 "The public. Denial and misinformation" |
How can doubt be "manufactured" or "unwarranted"? Doubt is always possible and it's always "warranted", if we are commited to critical thinking. What really can be manufactured is perception that there is no prevalent view among scientists (which is a false perception), and what really can be unwarranted is the opinion that there is no prevalent view among scientists (this opinion has no basis in reality).
Moreover, the tobacco industry exploited a really existing uncertainty to its own advantage. After the relevant evidence had accumulated and uncertainty had been largely cleared, it ceased to claim anything along the lines of "the harm of smoking is unproven" etc. The whole point of the concept of "climate change denialism" is that the people holding the views encompassed by the concept reject the scientific consesnsus and do not exploit any controversy.
109.252.202.95 ( talk) 13:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
"...at global warming levels around 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, West Antarctica is committed to long-term partial collapse owing to the marine ice-sheet instability."
"...the West Antarctic Ice Sheet does not regrow to its modern extent until temperatures are at least one degree Celsius lower than pre-industrial levels. Our results show that if the Paris Agreement is not met, Antarctica’s long-term sea-level contribution will dramatically increase and exceed that of all other sources." Count Iblis ( talk) 02:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Current paragraph is this:
Key factors to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in all long-term scenarios include rapid and significant investment in renewable energy, nuclear energy, and energy efficiency. [1] Renewable energy technologies include solar and wind power, bioenergy, geothermal energy, and hydropower. [2] Photovoltaic solar and wind, in particular, have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years, such that they are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation. [3] Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. [4] However, fossil fuels continue to dominate world energy supplies. In 2018, fossil fuels produced 80% of the world's energy, with modern renewable sources, including solar and wind power, accounting for around 11%. [5] |
Suggested rewrite is this:
Fossil fuels accounted for 80% of the world's energy in 2018, while the remaining share of power production was split between nuclear power, hydropower, and non-hydro renewables. [6] Nuclear power has seen costs increasing amid stagnant power share, raising questions about its future prospects. [7] Hydropower will continue to grow slowly due to efficiency gains, but expansion is difficult as there are few remaining places to build dams that are environmentally, economically and socially acceptable. [8] Non-hydro renewable energy technologies include solar and wind power, bioenergy, and geothermal energy. [9] Photovoltaic solar and wind, in particular, have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years, such that they are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation. [10] Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. [11] |
Reasoning: I believe the section benefits from breaking down the current power mix, and in particular spelling out the prospects for nuclear and hydro. Nuclear equals non-hydro renewable power production, and hydro currently leads both nuclear and non-hydro renewables by quite a bit. Nuclear needs to be mentioned to say why it is not a focus of the rest of the section. Hydro needs to be broken out because too often it is grouped with renewables for the purpose of talking about power share (where it dominates the power mix), then ungrouped when talking about future prospects (where there is not much growth prospect, plus major environmental concerns). There's also some verbiage and puffery in the current wording that can be squeezed out (what is a "modern renewable"?). I think the rewrite better grounds the introduction, to justify why the remainder is focused on non-hydro renewables (other than bias). Efbrazil ( talk) 18:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
While we are writing the new version, shall we go back to the old version? The two new sentences are not supported by the sources. Furthermore, the sources don't make clear that this information is due, because specialist literature is used instead of climate change literature. Per WP:SCIRS: Cite reviews, don't write them. I think using reviews is very important in this case as we have a discussion about the relative importance of different topics in these paragraphs. Review sources are the easiest way to solve these questions, and we're lucky to have plenty of high quality reviews.
I agree with Dtetta that there is a mix match between how nuclear and hydro are described compared to the power sources that are projected to play the main role in decarbonisation. I think having expert assessment language is fine (the nuclear sentence if sourcing is fixed), but the sentence for hydropower is too long and more certain than the sources it cites. We should not have an entire paragraph dedicated to nuclear, that will be undue. I'm happy for Dtetta to propose a revised paragraph based on the ideas described above, and based on various review sources. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 17:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Efbrazil - what do you think of this as compromise language?
Long-term scenarios point to rapid and significant investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency as key to reducing GHG emissions. [1] Fossil fuels accounted for 80% of the world's energy in 2018, while the remaining share of power production was split between nuclear power, hydropower, and non-hydro renewables. [12]; that mix is expected to change significantly over the next 30 years. [13] Renewable energy technologies include solar and wind power, bioenergy, geothermal energy, and hydropower. [14] Photovoltaic solar and wind, in particular, have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years, such that they are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation. [15] Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. [16] |
The second paragraph of the currently tItled “Technologies and other methods” section would then read something like:
There are obstacles to the continued rapid development of renewable energy. Environmental and land use concerns are sometimes associated with large solar, wind and hydropower projects. [17] Solar and wind power also require energy storage systems and other modifications to the electricity grid to operate effectively, [1] although several storage technologies are now emerging to supplement the traditional use of pumped-storage hydropower. [18] The use of rare-earth metals and other hazardous materials has also been raised as a concern with solar power. [19] The use of bioenergy is often not carbon neutral, and may have negative consequences for food security, [20] largely due to the amount of land required compared to other renewable energy options. [21] Hydropower growth has been slowing and is set to decline further due to concerns about social and environmental impacts. [22] While not a traditional renewable, nuclear energy has continued to be a significant part of the global energy mix. However, nuclear power has seen costs increasing amid stagnant power share, so that nuclear power generation is now several times more expensive per megawatt hour than wind and solar. [23] |
Dtetta ( talk) 14:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
between 2009 and 2019, utility-scale solar costs came down 89 percent and wind 70 percent, while new nuclear costs increased by 26 percent. The gap has continued to widen between 2018 and 2019.
Hydropower generation is estimated to have increased by over 2% in 2019 owing to continued recovery from drought in Latin America as well as strong capacity expansion and good water availability in China. However, capacity additions overall declined for the fifth consecutive year.
Hydropower generation is estimated to have increased by over 2% in 2019 owing to continued recovery from drought in Latin America as well as strong capacity expansion and good water availability in China (...) capacity expansion has been losing speed. This downward trend is expected to continue, due mainly to less large-project development in China and Brazil, where concerns over social and environmental impacts have restricted projects.
The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189. Over the past decade, (costs) for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%. For nuclear, they have increased by 23%.
I wanted to make a change in a similar direction. Seems like improvement. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 14:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
Good to see the collaboration here being recognized. [7] Congratulations to everyone involved! Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
Thanks! It really was a wonderful article about a wonderful wiki page. Congrats everyone. MurrayScience ( talk) 21:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This image was deleted by Efbrazil.
It's not dated as the review study is from 2016. It also shows the actual scientific consensus, which is the subsection it is in. It's a better image than the current image to represent that subsection. The current image in that subsection should be replaced with this one again. Bogazicili ( talk) 15:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Popular Mechanics, Aug 1964, p 81 on: https://archive.org/details/PopularMechanics1964/Popular%20mechanics-08-1964 'The Air around Us: How it is changing' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.173.22 ( talk) 10:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I kind of get information overload when reading this article. But one of the high level things I was looking for, was a succinct paragraph on what a year 2100 Earth looks like with everybody's CO2 emissions staying the same. Or just any summary of the main problems that un-checked global warming causes.
Yes, the trees have more pests, and some permafrost melts. But those issues by themselves are surely not the main reason that people are sounding the alarm.
What are some of the serious problems that late stage global warming would cause? Uninhabitability of the equator? Crop disruption and famine? Quadruple the number of hurricanes?
Did I fail to see this info? Or do we need to insert a succinct paragraph or two somewhere to cover this?
Thanks for your time. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
In 2017, in the second warning to humanity, 15,364 scientists from 184 countries stated that "the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural production – particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption" is "especially troubling".
The scientific consensus on climate change says that climate change is real. It does not say that climate change is dangerous, or that there will be a "climate crisis". Because Wikipedia requires content to be WP:VERIFIABLE and does not allow WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, the encyclopedia should not be using the terminology "climate crisis", "climate catastrophe" or other similar terms. However, school strike for climate uses "climate disaster" in lead, effects of climate change on human health uses "climate crisis" in lead, climate change in Turkey#Public perception of climate change in Turkey uses "current climate crisis", Global Day of Climate Action 2020 uses "climate crisis" and appears to be written with a pov and Rory Kennedy#Activism and politics uses "climate crisis" while talking about an interview with Rolling Stone. There are probably other examples out there. I would like the Wikipedia community to stop using the wording "climate crisis/catastrophe/disaster" outside of refs and quotes. 122.60.173.107 ( talk) 10:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
ALL OF THESE SOURCES DO NOT MENTION "CLIMATE CRISIS":
References
Immediately bombards with such like "that human activity has caused climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing" 200.118.62.87 ( talk) 23:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
One of the comments we got in the featured article review, was that we have too many short sections and paragraphs. I've expanded one paragraph, but most of the remaining text has come about as part of consensus, so I would like some input on the solutions I have in mind.
I think these are the three places that need changing, but I'm no expert on the manual of style, so there might be more. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 10:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The mitigation subsection is disproportionately long now. It's length is more appropriate as a section, which I hope will get support. I'd be against adding anything now, but I think some of the introductory material of political response could be moved to a cobenifits paragraph. The humans subsection of effects is inappropriate as said before. As always: for big changes, propose on talk page first to get consensus :). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 21:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I had missed that Femkemilene had deleted this part [10], which was thankfully reverted by C.J. Griffin [11]. That part was reliably sourced and relevant, and I consider it to be massively important. Being bold is one thing but excessive and rapid deletion of long-standing material needs to slow down I think. Bogazicili ( talk) 19:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
We need a paragraph or two about these topics in Humans subsection under Effects section. This was my previous suggestion:
Climate change has also been called a security threat. [1] US intelligence analysts have expressed concern about the "serious security risks" of climate change since the 1980s. [2] The Pentagon has also released a report stating that climate change is a national security threat to USA. [3] [4] [5] Moreover, the available evidence suggests that scientists have underestimated the impacts of climate change in their projections. [6] Exceeding tipping points can also bring abrupt and irreversible climate changes which could be an existential threat to civilization. [7] |
Additional sources: [13], "Warming of 4°C or more could reduce the global human population by 80% or 90%,35 and the World Bank reports “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible”" [14], "The broad consensus in the literature is that expected damages caused by unmitigated climate change will be high and the probability of catastrophic tail-risk events is non-negligible...There is growing agreement between economists and scientists that the tail risks are material and the risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change, including, in the extreme, human extinction" IMF Bogazicili ( talk) 22:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll break down the issues to keep focused on where agreement lies: Bogazicili ( talk) 01:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
1) I guess everyone agrees mentioning this?
2) Femkemilene said "climate change being an existential threat is a significant minority view among scientists, and the wording is correct using the word 'could'". So I think we can agree to add this along with the scientific consensus (from IMF: "The broad consensus in the literature is that expected damages caused by unmitigated climate change will be high and the probability of catastrophic tail-risk events is non-negligible"). I'm looking for more sources about this.
3) Note that even some scientist that do not agree with existential threat still see massive damage:
"Johan Rockström, the head of one of Europe’s leading research institutes, warned in 2019 that in a 4°C-warmer world it would be “difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that … There will be a rich minority of people who survive with modern lifestyles, no doubt, but it will be a turbulent, conflict-ridden world”." [15]
"Why terrifying? As Professor Kevin Anderson, a leading climate scientist at the University of Manchester, said: “There is a widespread view that a 4C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond adaptation and be devastating to the majority of ecosystems.” In other words, a world where food crops would collapse, billions could starve, governments collapse and coastal cities flood, making hundreds of millions homeless." [16]
I'll get back to this in a few weeks. Bogazicili ( talk) 14:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't have specific suggestions at present; my point was that this is something that should be worked on, preferably in a collaborative way. If you look at the Wayback Machine for Climate Change, and go to one of the Sep. 9 archives, you can see the original text when this subsection was revised based on the talk page proposal I made. In particular, I think the editing downward of the sentence describing estimated annual deaths is an example of what I was saying in my earlier comment about downplaying the effects. Dtetta ( talk) 15:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Haines article, Bogazicili, I think it is excellent. I would still recommend something like: “It is estimated that, by mid century, climate change will be responsible for well over 500,000 additional deaths globally per year due to undernutrition, heat stress, and disease alone” for sentences 4 & 5, and include the WHO report and Haines/NEJM article as the citations for this statement. This characterization of mortality seems to strike a reasonable balance between the need for some context in the extent of the impact, while recognizing that more exact numbers are probably not appropriate. I agree that sentence 6, dealing with other health risks, could be deleted for the sake of brevity. Dtetta ( talk) 17:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC) It would be nice to have an article that referenced the original Nature Communications work, as Femke points out. But that seems like something we can flag to work on. Dtetta ( talk) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that approximately 250,000 deaths annually between 2030 and 2050 could be due to climate change–related increases in heat exposure in elderly people, as well as increases in diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, and childhood stunting.16 This is a conservative estimate, because it does not include deaths from other climate-sensitive health outcomes and does not include morbidity or the effects associated with the disruption of health services from extreme weather and climate events. For example, a climate change–associated net increase of 529,000 adult deaths worldwide (95% confidence interval [CI], 314,000 to 736,000) was projected to result from expected reductions in food availability (particularly fruit and vegetables) by 2050, as compared with a reference scenario without climate change.23 |
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress.[177][176] This is a conservative estimate, as it does not include deaths due to other related reasons. For example, additional 529,000 adult deaths are predicted worldwide by 2050, due to expected reductions in food availability.[176] |
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year due to heat exposure in elderly people, increases in diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, and childhood stunting.[177][176] This is a conservative estimate, as it does not include deaths due to other related reasons. For example, additional 529,000 adult deaths (95% confidence interval, 314,000 to 736,000) are predicted worldwide by 2050, due to expected reductions in food availability.[176] |
Here's my updated suggestion, which is basically the version after Femkemilene's edit, with 3 changes:
1) corrected causes for 250k WHO number 2) added "further" instead of "additional" 3) added 529,000 instead of half million
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from heat exposure in elderly people, increases in diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, and childhood stunting.[176] [177] A further 529,000 adult deaths are projected yearly by 2050, due to reductions in food availability and quality.[178] Other major health risks associated with climate change include air and water quality, and social factors.[179] The WHO has classified human health impacts from climate change as the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[11] |
First and second changes are self-explanatory. Third change is because I think we should stick to the exact numbers the sources use. I also think this is more sustainable. If new editors come down the road and question the half a million number, I don't want to go through lengthy and time-consuming discussions again (about that 3 significant numbers were too much and we settled on half a million number). We can also add the confidence interval or make a footnote for it if required. Bogazicili ( talk) 18:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Complementarity in science means something slightly different than in mathematics. It means there is very little overlap, not necessarily none. You could indeed ask the authors whether they think there is none. I still believe we shouldn't commit any crimes against significant digits, nor include to many numbers to maintain readability. I have removed childhood stunting, because it feels like jargon to me, and I don't think it is necessary to repeat other causes as they are ready mention above.
It is estimated that reduced food quality and quantity will be responsible for around half a million adult deaths per year by mid-century. (cite NEJM & Lancet). Climate change drives additional mortality via heat exposure in elderly people, diarrheal disease, and increased risk of coastal flooding. (cite NEJM and WHO). |
P.S. Dtetta, I notice that you're not quite following the (overly complicated) citation style. The short cites should cite authors, not the publisher. For some publications those two approximately coincide (for instance the WHO). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year from heat exposure in elderly people, increases in diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, and childhood undernutrition. [9] Over 500,000 additional adult deaths are projected yearly by 2050 due to reductions in food availability and quality. [10] |
Dtetta ( talk) 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I can live with a version by Dtetta just slightly sad we needed five different numbers. The sentence with social factors is wishy-washy, I don't think it will be clear to our readers. Furthermore, it will make a very long paragraph even longer. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
We need two sentences here. Military experts are experts on security, so opinions of US military, NATO [31] etc are relevant. One sentence for that, and another from scientific or other sources such as UN [32] Bogazicili ( talk) 01:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll get back to this in a few weeks (do not want to get this archived). Bogazicili ( talk) 14:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Femkemilene said "Saying that scientists have underestimated impacts may be true, but the source is from 2013." I have found later sources such as [33], ""The IPCC tends to be very cautious and conservative, which is why it had to correct itself upwards already several times," Rahmstorf said." [34] Again needs better sources. Bogazicili ( talk) 01:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
We have already added text to the economics section, and your previous comments seem to suggest that you want to and general comments about that human impacts have been underestimated. You have not provided any general source, and I doubt you will find one which has broad support from the scientific community.
While I like criticising current integrated assessment modelling, I don't see a way to include that 2020 study into our article. It is criticising information that we don't even include in our article because it is too detailed. The article is my opinion probably even too specialised for a sub article: effects of climate change. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 17:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Currently, there is no image in this section. On the right is the image suggested.
It comes from this peer-reviewed secondary source [40], which NASA also uses on their Climate Change facts pages [41]. The image does not contain the 3 lower percentages in the study, for agreement among "Sub-sample of publishing climatologists" (see table 1): 83.5% (2008), 88.5% (2005), 89% (2012).
Should we use this image, or another image, or edit this image (only contain cited studies newer than 2010 or all studies), or use no image? Bogazicili ( talk) 19:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
. It's a question to what extent 'convincing readers' should be any of our concern. If we do try to take it into account, we should do it with facts in hand, not intuition. Scientific consensus communication has been shown effective to convince people climate change is real and action is needed, see for instance: [1] Femke Nijsse ( talk) 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I'm a 100% sure that these warnings to humanity are getting UNDUE attention. They're barely getting mention in overview sources (like short introduction to climate change). One sentence, which is what I'm proposing, is more than enough. I think it is important to keep the other aspects of going beyond humans-cause-CC. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 18:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think consensus is clear. Any objections to closing this RfC? I hope my condensing of the section at least addressed a small fraction of Efbrazil's concern. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 10:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Bottomline: As I understand it, you think only the following should be included:
Anyone, especially Bogazicili and Femke Nijsse: Please be specific if you (dis)agree with including these studies in the graphic. — RCraig09 ( talk) 06:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The size of the figure in the article is larger than was proposed in the RfC, for consistency with other images in the article. This gives the figure too much prominence imo and according to CMD in the FAR. Furthermore, the text size is now larger than most of the other images.
RCraig09, would it be an option to put the five pie charts next to each other horizontally? If that doesn't work, could we have four next to each other? The other from Verheggen may be removed (for they specifically sought out climate contrarians, leading to low consensus). Simply displaying the figure smaller wouldn't work, as the caption would be spread over more lines. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
upright=1.25
declaration, I'm not understanding how the pie chart image is bigger than preceding images declaring upright=1.35
. The images look consistent on my desktop, at least. I disfavor removing Verheggen because the Cook et al "Consensus on Consensus" reference included them and to omit Verheggen seems cherry-picking-ish. A creative option is to move away from pie charts to another form of
data visualization, but at first glance I think pie charts are the most appropriate for the concept being conveyed. In Inkscape, I can move the elements closer together vertically, which would reduce "spillage" into the next section (a small amount); that approach may be best. —
RCraig09 (
talk) 17:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Think we need another sentence or may be even two about mitigation in agriculture. The recent restructuring exposed that we don't talk about this a lot. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for starting a discussion here, I'd like to address concerns instead of just hastily deleting the gallery. There was an extensive review of all this back in May, when we came to consensus that the gallery was a great improvement, as you can see here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Climate_change/Archive_81#Adding_effects_to_the_summary_at_the_beginning_of_the_article
The reason to include it is that it surfaces impacts in the intro on desktop. We wanted to surface impacts visually in the intro instead of burying that information visually way down in the article. There's no way to summarize impacts in a single image, hence the gallery. We did not want the gallery in mobile view because it would be too much content for an intro, but on desktop view it works well as an accent.
Regarding mobile view: Deleting the gallery has zero impact on mobile view (it's not visible either way). This gallery is just an accent that enhances desktop view by better surfacing important information up front for the users, for those that don't read the full article. Desktop and mobile view have lots of differences in their rendering, this is just another example of a difference. This issue was raised and dismissed in the initial review based on that reasoning.
Regarding accessibility: This gallery has no impact on accessibility that I'm aware of. For mobile view, you simply see the images later on in the article. There's no issues here around screen readers or voice command or color blindness or any other accessibility issues. Please clarify the accessibility concern.
Regarding Firefox, can you clarify the problem case? I have not seen it and it has not surfaced previously. Firefox is used by less than 4% of users and not showing images 10% of the time means 0.4% of desktop users are impacted. If the page is badly busted that's obviously a problem, but if the issue is just a firefox glitch in image loading then I think it's OK- firefox users are used to having a buggy browser, as they are the only users with a non-standard rendering engine (gecko) at this point (all other browsers are on webkit forks). Efbrazil ( talk) 18:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Somewhat a solution....different image everyday. All have access no matter what device or how old. Your just regurgitating the galleries' right?--
Moxy 🍁 22:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
{{#switch: {{#expr: {{CURRENTDAYOFYEAR}} mod 8}} |0=[[File:Bleachedcoral.jpg|thumb|Underwater photograph of branching coral that is bleached white|[[Ecological collapse]]. Bleaching has damaged the [[Great Barrier Reef]] and threatens reefs worldwide]] |1=[[File:Orroral Valley Fire viewed from Tuggeranong January 2020.jpg|thumb|Photograph of evening in a valley settlement. The skyline in the hills beyond is lit up red from the fires.|[[Extreme weather]]. Drought and high temperatures worsened the [[2019–20 Australian bushfire season#Climate change|2020 bushfires in Australia]].]] |2=[[File:National Park Service Thawing permafrost (27759123542).jpg|thumb|The green landscape is interrupted by a huge muddy scar where the ground has subsided.|[[Climate change in the Arctic|Arctic warming]]. [[Permafrost#Climate change effects|Permafrost thaws]] undermine infrastructure and [[Arctic methane emissions|release methane]] in a [[Climate change feedback|self-reinforcing feedback loop]].]] |3=[[File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear edit.jpg|thumb|An emaciated polar bear stands atop the remains of a melting ice floe.|[[Habitat destruction]]. Many arctic animals rely on sea ice, which has been disappearing in a warming Arctic.]] |4=[[File:Mountain Pine Beetle damage in the Fraser Experimental Forest 2007.jpg|thumb|Photograph of a large area of forest. The green trees are interspersed with large patches of damaged or dead trees turning purple-brown and light red.|[[Climate change and invasive species|Pest propagation]]. Mild winters allow more [[mountain pine beetle|pine beetles]] to survive to kill large swaths of forest.]] |5=[[File:Corn shows the affect of drought.jpg|thumb|[[Climate change and agriculture|Agricultural changes]]. Droughts, rising temperatures, and extreme weather negatively impact agriculture. Shown: Texas, USA..]] |6=[[File:Acqua alta in Piazza San Marco-original.jpg|thumb|[[Tidal flooding]]. [[Sea level rise|Sea-level rise]] increases flooding in low-lying coastal regions. Shown: [[Venice#Flooding|Venice, Italy]]]] |7=[[File:US Navy 071120-M-8966H-005 An aerial view over southern Bangladesh reveals extensive flooding as a result of Cyclone Sidr.jpg|thumb |[[Tropical cyclones and climate change|Storm intensification]]. Bangladesh after [[Cyclone Sidr]] is an example of catastrophic flooding from increased rainfall.]] |8=[[File:The heat is on ESA19461898.jpeg|thumb|[[Heat wave|Heat wave intensification]]. Events like the [[June 2019 European heat wave]] are becoming more common.]] }}
Access problems include )sandwiching of text )screen reader will read every image). Does the below code work for everyone? Has purge option to change on the fly.--
Moxy 🍁 03:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
{{random item|1=[[File:Orroral Valley Fire viewed from Tuggeranong January 2020.jpg|thumb|[[Extreme weather]]. Drought and high temperatures worsened the [[2019–20 Australian bushfire season#Climate change|2020 bushfires in Australia]].<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |2=[[File:National Park Service Thawing permafrost (27759123542).jpg|thumb|[[Climate change in the Arctic|Arctic warming]]. [[Permafrost#Climate change effects|Permafrost thaws]] undermine infrastructure and [[Arctic methane emissions|release methane]] in a [[Climate change feedback|self-reinforcing feedback loop]].<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |3=[[File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear edit.jpg|thumb|[[Habitat destruction]]. Many arctic animals rely on sea ice, which has been disappearing in a warming Arctic.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |4=[[File:Mountain Pine Beetle damage in the Fraser Experimental Forest 2007.jpg|thumb|[[Climate change and invasive species|Pest propagation]]. Mild winters allow more [[mountain pine beetle|pine beetles]] to survive to kill large swaths of forest.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |5=[[File:Corn shows the affect of drought.jpg|thumb|[[Climate change and agriculture|Agricultural changes]]. Droughts, rising temperatures, and extreme weather negatively impact agriculture. Shown: Texas, USA.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |6=[[File:Acqua alta in Piazza San Marco-original.jpg|thumb|[[Tidal flooding]]. [[Sea level rise|Sea-level rise]] increases flooding in low-lying coastal regions. Shown: [[Venice#Flooding|Venice, Italy]]<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |7=[[File:US Navy 071120-M-8966H-005 An aerial view over southern Bangladesh reveals extensive flooding as a result of Cyclone Sidr.jpg|thumb |[[Tropical cyclones and climate change|Storm intensification]]. Bangladesh after [[Cyclone Sidr]] is an example of catastrophic flooding from increased rainfall.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]] |8=[[File:The heat is on ESA19461898.jpeg|thumb|[[Heat wave|Heat wave intensification]]. Events like the [[June 2019 European heat wave]] are becoming more common.<br><small>{{Purge|Another example}}</small>]]}}