![]() | 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 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | → | Archive 90 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Before the sentence "The human cause..." in the introduction, it might be appropriate to insert a short comment on agriculture. The reason is that recent research has shown that most analysts until now have only considered the negative side of agriculture and not the positiv side of it. That means they have more or less neglected the photosynthesis going on at every plant in world agriculture. So I sugest this comment to be inserted here: "Regarding agriculture recent research has shown that it is not only a negative contributor to negative greenhouse gases. Through the photosynthesis CO2 is captured by crops and bound in both what is later harvested and in the part being left in the fields and slowly bound into the soil. Improving soil organic carbon capturing can be an option for coping with climate change." Source: Frankelius, Per (2020). A proposal to rethink agriculture in the climate calculations, Agronomy Journal, vol 112, issue 4, pp. 3216-3221. doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20286 Per Frankelius ( talk) 13:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Heat emission. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Heat emission until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Heat emissions. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Heat emissions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
22:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I came across a great article in Vox. I attached my favorite line from it, which may have some relevance to the mitigation section:
"About 10 percent of global emissions — comes from combustion to produce large amounts of high-temperature heat for industrial products like cement, steel, and petrochemicals.
To put that in perspective, industrial heat’s 10 percent is greater than the CO2 emissions of all the world’s cars (6 percent) and planes (2 percent) combined. Yet, consider how much you hear about electric vehicles. Consider how much you hear about flying shame. Now consider how much you hear about ... industrial heat." MurrayScience ( talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Industrial efforts would focus on increasing |
FYI: I've just learned that this image was chosen as a Featured picture. It's one of the earlier Warming stripes graphics generated by their developer, Ed Hawkins (climatologist). See:
So here we go. Self-explaining...
Hedgehoque (
talk) 09:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@
Efbrazil: This is just a draft. If we could agree on this, you could upload the new version for continuity of the file and keep the copyright of course. I know it's a different size - but it would only take a few minutes to adjust the script. The palette here is continous. Each year has its own calculated RGB value.
Hedgehoque (
talk)
22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
$r=round(max(0,($av>0?255-sqrt($av*30):240+$av*2.4))); $g=round(max(0,255-$av*2.5*($av>0?1:-1))); $b=round(max(0,($av<0?255-sqrt(-$av*30):240-$av*2.4)));
When I first saw the Hawkins stripes I thought it was too obscure for the layman to understand, and not useful here for that reason. In Hedgehoque's File:Global Temperature And Forces 1.svg with diverging lines making the pattern clear, I like how the Hawkins lines are incorporated. Binksternet ( talk) 07:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Attn graphics people, esp User:Hedgehoque and User:Efbrazil and User:Femkemilene:
I've uploaded .xlsx (Microsoft Excel) spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for charts in SVG format.
You simply paste or enter your data into the spreadsheet, and specify image dimensions, number of grid lines, font sizes, etc. The spreadsheet instantly and automatically generates a column of XML code that you simply copy and paste into a text editor and save as an ".svg" file. The spreadsheets produce lean SVG code, avoiding the "extra stuff" that Inkscape inserts. They should save you time in creating SVG charts.
Feedback and suggestions on my talk page are welcome. RCraig09 ( talk) 23:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to download and use, and provide feedback. — RCraig09 ( talk) 07:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It is disingenuous to suggest that human caused climate change is an undisputed scientific fact. For example, we all agree that there was an actual ice age. We all agree that the ice age came to an end with a corresponding rise in temperature. I think that we would all also agree that such a rise in temperature at that time was NOT caused by human industrialization. Not to mention the fact that an ice age itself can only occur in an environment of warmer oceans and cooler continents.....both conditions also caused in the past by non human influence. As a scientist, one would have to acknowledge that we cannot attribute past climate change to natural processes and then completely ignore the impact of those same continuing natural processes at work today. As a result, the statement "The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[5" is statement that should actually be read as "the human cause of climate change is not disputed by those scientific bodies which only acknowledge data suggesting the support of human caused climate change" Donavan Reef ( talk) 08:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It would be helpful to acknowledge that we are talking here about recent climate change, not climate change in general. -- Bduke ( talk) 09:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
|
I’m not sure how much it has to do with changing the title of the article last year from “Global warming” to “Climate change”, but it looks to me like there has been a major drop in the number of page views we were getting at the end of last year compared to 2019. When I use the pageviews.toolforge.org site that WP recommends, and use the term global warming I get about 4.5+ million views in 2019, or about 380k views a month, although this started dropping in early 2020. Using the term climate change for 2020 looks like it shows around 140k views per month for Sep-Dec. Could someone please double check my math on this?
At one point I had suggested that we look at adjusting the title tag in the source code of the page so that both “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” are included in it. This is what NASA does, and their site regularly rank above ours in the recent searches that I’ve done for those two terms. Is there anyone who would want to try to figure out a way of doing this for this article? I believe Efbrazil had stated that there were problems with doing this, but given what appears to be a significant drop in page views, I think it’s worth looking at again. Dtetta ( talk) 04:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
There is less attention to climate change in general, so I'm not sure how this drop (which RCraig09 pointed out is less when you add the redirect views), compares to an overall decline. Anyway, the naming criteria don't give page views maximalisation as a criteria, whereas brevity is. I see very little reason to add redundancy to the title. FemkeMilene ( talk) 07:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I highly recommend this website for some very interesting (but a bit technical) browsing. https://science.breakthroughenergy.org/. They have some really incredible publications and reports that are long overdue, considering that electricity grid models are so heterogeneous, propriety, low-quality, etc. MurrayScience ( talk) 13:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC) For those programming-people interested in getting really into the weeds with their open source model, check out their GitHub: https://github.com/Breakthrough-Energy. Or if you want to read their report, you can see it here: https://bescienceswebsite.blob.core.windows.net/publications/MacroGridReport.pdf. :) MurrayScience ( talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to reorganize the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede so they have "flow" again. If you look at the current version, it is just a set of disconnected sentences that is very hard to digest as a whole. Note I am not proposing adding or removing content, just cleaning it up for readability.
Here is the proposed rewrite, with moved and reorganized sentences highlighted:
Bogazicili complained about moving the tipping points into the second paragraph as they are an effect, but I believe the move is an improvement, so would like feedback from others. Tipping points are risk factors that increase as temperatures rise above 2 degrees, so they naturally fit in with concerns about uncontained warming. Additionally, some tipping points are not about effects on ecosystems and people, but are about feedbacks impacting warming itself. I think it is better to present them in the second paragraph, where they can be used to emphasize the risks of exceeding 2 degrees celcius. Lastly, the effects paragraph is already overstuffed, and shoving in tipping points in there as well pushed the whole paragraph into the category of unreadable I think. Efbrazil ( talk) 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Dtetta!
Femke- Thanks for the careful review.
Striking the also from the third paragraph makes good sense.
I also agree about the awkwardness of lost fresh water access, I was trying to preserve the old wording, but water scarcity is better, and wikipedia even has a nice article on the topic that includes a section talking about climate change that we can link to. Does that work for you?
Regarding impacts, the old wording awkwardly splits human health effects into 2 sentences, semi-attaching the WHO statement to just the effects of the second sentence without being explicit, and then cutting off the impacts in the second sentence from the first. I mean, doesn't the WHO care about food insecurity and water scarcity? Won't flooding and extreme heat lead to displacement and economic losses? The whole thing is just confusing to read because it is unclear why it is split into 2 sentences, other than to avoid a run on sentence. The second sentence in particular is weirdly constructed and hard to digest. Here is the old (current) wording:
Regarding connecting the WHO statement to human impacts, I'm OK adding a bridge into the WHO statement, beginning it with "These impacts have led the World Health Organization to call...". It draws things out and is maybe too restrictive, but arguably improves the flow.
Regarding tipping points, I'm glad you're OK with the new location. I tried keeping it in the current paragraph, but to have it make sense really requires adding a lot of words, and the paragraph is already overstuffed. It works better in its new placement.
So that leaves us with this. Anyone have specific concerns with this change?
Efbrazil ( talk) 18:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
References
:0
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mountain and arctic ecosystems and species are particularly sensitive to climate change... As ocean temperatures warm and the acidity of the ocean increases, bleaching and coral die-offs are likely to become more frequent.
SR15
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mountain and arctic ecosystems and species are particularly sensitive to climate change... As ocean temperatures warm and the acidity of the ocean increases, bleaching and coral die-offs are likely to become more frequent.
Please do go ahead. FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
It say in the first section that the images are in a slideshow, however every image is displaying at one time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.51.103 ( talk) 15:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I know there are several issues, but since we are debating lead...The last paragraph could use addition of few things such as (maybe a sentence): uncertainty in carbon budget/two-thirds chance in limiting warming to 1.5, negative emissions, uncertainties in such tech, etc.
And, after that, maybe another sentence about if we are on track with Paris goals, after this section is expanded a bit Climate_change#National_responses. I'd consider the lead pretty much complete after then. Bogazicili ( talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
So this paragraph is quite deficient as it omits several key concepts, such as Carbon dioxide removal and consequences of delaying CO2 reductions. SR15 p. 96:
"All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified and, in most cases, also to achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). The longer the delay in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero, the larger the likelihood of exceeding 1.5°C, and the heavier the implied reliance on net negative emissions after mid-century to return warming to 1.5°C (high confidence)."
"CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C. CDR is needed less in pathways with particularly strong emphasis on energy efficiency and low demand. The scale and type of CDR deployment varies widely across 1.5°C pathways, with different consequences for achieving sustainable development objectives (high confidence)."
Here's my suggestion:
Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050 |
Bogazicili ( talk) 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Per IPCC: "CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C." Mentioning this sounds too detailed for the lead to you? 5th paragraph is about goals, so a major risk to that goal is very relevant and fits with its "theme".
As for the earlier part, I suggest simplifying wording before adding large scale CO2 removal:
"Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050
Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030 and near-zero emissions by 2050, along with large scale carbon dioxide removal"
Bogazicili (
talk)
06:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I adopted Dtetta's suggestion of adding "achieving", and adjusted the wording a bit. Also added "over the 21st century" to make the scope of CO2 removal clearer. Bogazicili ( talk) 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Lol, I thought there was no disagreement to this, but it seems like everyone so far disagrees. For those that are new to lengthy discussions, like MurrayScience and RCraig09, I basically think the lead doesn't do a good job of explaining why immediate action is required; I think 2050 goal would seem far away enough for those that do not know built in assumptions. Instead of negative emissions, and that they are unproven, perhaps we can talk about carbon budget then? Bogazicili ( talk) 17:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
If overshoot is to be minimized, the remaining equivalent CO2 budget available for emissions is very small, which implies that large, immediate and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required (high confidence). SR 15 p. 177
Now that recent edits on this topic in the main body of the article are complete, I would vote for including Bogazicili’s proposal for incorporating text from IPCC 2018 p 34 as an additional clause at the end of the fifth paragraph. I’m referring to text on page 34 that states: “All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent.” So I wold suggest something along the lines of: “Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving near-zero emissions by 2050; along with the use of carbon dioxide removal technologies.”
If there is concern about ending the lede with a CDR reference, one option would be to revert these last two paragraph to an earlier version, where the fifth paragraph originally followed the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. As I recall, this format was a team edit that Efbrazil, MurrayScience and I worked on a while back for that fourth paragraph. The mitigation and adaptation text then constituted the fifth paragraph. I generally like the way it looks now, but that would be an option.
But I do think additional that text that briefly refers to that particular IPCC wording on CDR is a more accurate way to depict the current reports and papers on what 2050 will look like. My 2 cents on this. Dtetta ( talk) 20:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Split from the above discussion as topic has changed by Femke
For solar and wind power a key challenge is their intermittency and seasonal variability. Ways to reduce this limitation include improved energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and transmission grid improvements. As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can also be used to address intermittency and variability concerns, while still maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production. |
I left out the reference to combined cycle, mainly because that seems like a bit of jargon for what is essentially a slightly higher efficiency fossil fuel system with CCS. And if the issue is just to address intermittency, I don’t think it is really necessary to include this item; the reality is that some level of fossil fuel/CCS will probably be included in the electricity mix by 2050, and we discuss that elsewhere in the article.
I am also a little concerned that the idea in that second sentence reads like a somewhat biased, pro RE talking point. I think Hedgehoque and Efbrazil have been involved in previous incarnations of this paragraph, so they might have some ideas here as well, along with Femkemilene. Dtetta ( talk) 02:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
There are obstacles to the continued rapid development of renewable energy in electrical grids. For solar and wind power, a key challenge is their intermittency and seasonal variability. Ways to reduce this limitation include expanding grid energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and expanding long-distance transmission to smooth variability of renewable output across wider geographic areas. As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, on-demand, low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can also be used to cost-effectively address intermittency and variability, while still maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production. |
As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, reliable low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can address intermittency and variability, while maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production
I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction as follows:
Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C (2.7 or 3.6 °F),[207] 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.[208] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in sectors such as forestry and agriculture.[209] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] including reaching net negative emissions in most cases.[211] |
The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph:
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 its current use is limited in scale and expensive,[237] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century.[238] Carbon capture and storage in combination with bio-energy (BECCS) can result in net-negative emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount in the bio-energy fuel being grown.[212][239] As with CCS, it remains highly uncertain as to whether BECCS will actually be able to significantly help in limiting warming to 1.5 °C.[213] |
I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and modifying some of the text in these two paragraphs. So the numbered citations are the same as the corresponding footnotes that currently exist in the article. Dtetta ( talk) 03:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques such as BECCS will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C. I think that stays a tiny bit closer to the source, drops CCS (which is not as uncertain and its use is more an (expensive) policy choice as I read in IPCC than a fundamental uncertainty), and drops the word actually (not needed).
While carbon dioxide removal played a major role in 1.5 C-consistent model scenarios asssessed by the IPCC in 2018, it remains highly uncertain whether they can play such a role.
References
Bogazicili- I understand your interest in including text about the limitations of mitigation assumptions, but I think that particular point would be better covered in the Climate change mitigation article, which has room to go into that kind of nuance (which may also need to be updated, as Femke has pointed out). In this paragraph (and article), I think the goal should be to give the reader a more general sense of the feasibility of CCS and BECCS. Femke and I seem to be in agreement on the general wording. So I will wait another day to see if there are any other editors who share your concerns. Otherwise, I plan to make the changes along the lines Femke and I have discussed. Dtetta ( talk) 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
So, just to summarize again, I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction and moving rephrased versions of them to the Carbon sequestration subsection. The revised paragraph from the introduction would read as:
Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C (2.7 or 3.6 °F),[207] 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.[208] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in sectors such as forestry and agriculture.[209] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] including reaching net negative emissions in most cases.[211] |
I think the ideas in the two sentences I proposed to move are generally useful ones to have in the article, but I propose both of these fit better as part of the carbon sequestration subsection. The net negative emissions sentence is an expanded explanation of the last clause of the previous sentence, and doesn’t really fit the rest of the tone of the paragraph - we don’t define carbon sequestration or carbon dioxide removal, for instance. The next sentence then gets into some nuances regarding the risks of CO2 removal - again, this is out of character with the basic themes of the paragraph, which is to give an introduction to the key features of mitigation strategies designed to limit GW. Starting the CO2 removal sentence with “However” also doesn’t make sense given the preceding sentence, and illustrates the difficulty with having the sentence in this paragraph.
The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph. I have modified this from m earlier proposal by including Femke’s 26 Feb suggested sentence.
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 its current use is limited in scale and expensive,[237] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century.[238] Carbon capture and storage in combination with bio-energy (BECCS) can result in net-negative emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount in the bio-energy fuel being grown.[212][239] It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques such as BECCS will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C”.[213] |
I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and rephrasing some of the text in these two paragraphs.
From reading the earlier comments, I believe Efbrazil is ok with these edits, but that Bogazicili has some concerns about “changing something that explains a limitation of mitigation assumptions to something that reads like carbon removal is largely irrelevant”, and also states a belief that the current sentence, taken from the IPCC report (slightly rephrased) regarding risks associated with depending on CO2 removal, is DUE. My view is that DUE or not DUE is not really the issue... it’s that this idea is more detailed than appropriate for this article, and would be better suited for the Climate change mitigation article. I think Bogazicili’s concern about keeping it in this article could also be accommodated with an in-line citation, with the article text being the simpler last sentence that Femke proposed, but with the IPCC report quote included as part of the citation. Although I recognize that there is some discrepancy between calling something uncertain and saying there is a risk associated with depending on it, I think going with the simpler uncertainty sentence is a better choice for the target reading level of this article, and I don’t think that the sentence is saying that carbon removal is irrelevant, as Bogazicili contends, just that it’s feasibility is uncertain.
I am unclear as to what Femke’s current thoughts are. But I would still propose to make these edits as an improvement to the text that is there, in particular to reposition those two sentences that really don’t belong in an introductory paragraph. Dtetta ( talk) 03:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
After taking a bit of break from this issue, I'm still not satisfied how Carbon Dioxide removal is portrayed in this section. Mentioning that large scale deployment is unproven would only add few words and would make the portrayal of this topic more comprehensive and neutral. I also think it is indeed suited to the paragraph. So I started an RFC, hoping we can get more community input. Bogazicili ( talk) 20:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I am proposing an additional (perhaps one or two paragraphs) subsection in the mitigation portion of the article that covers energy efficiency. The AR5 Synthesis Report, Fig 4.4, page 110, clearly shows that future investments in energy efficiency are expected to be significantly greater than those in renewable/clean energy, which we cover extensively. Within the Clean energy and Agriculture and industry subsections we briefly touch on these ideas, but I believe this an inadequate treatment, given the overall significance energy efficiency investments are expected to have in overall mitigation efforts.
Interested in others thoughts on this, in particular any references that you think would be most useful. In addition to AR5, I think the 2019 UNEP Emissions Gap report and Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals provide good background material. - Dtetta ( talk) 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
So, for this proposed edit, I would modify the existing text in paragraph three of the "Clean energy" subsection:
In transport, scenarios envision sharp increases in the market share of electric vehicles and low carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping |
There would then be a new subsection titled: “Demand reduction" or perhaps "Demand reduction and energy efficiency” with the following text:
As world GDP and global living standards increase over the next few decades, reducing energy demand, using a range of energy efficiency investments, is a major feature of scenarios and plans that achieve zero emissions by 2050. In addition to it’s role in limiting GHG emissions, measures to reduce demand are an important element of cost-effective mitigation strategies. They provide more flexibility for low carbon energy supplies, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development. AR5 WGIII SPM p20. Energy efficiency investments to reduce demand are expected to be the dominant form of investment in climate change mitigation through 2050. AR5 WGIII SPM p27 Fig 9 However, several COVID 19 related changes (such as in transportation patterns and building use), a decrease in energy efficiency investments, along with possible future in energy efficiency stimulus funding, have made energy demand and efficiency forecasts for this decade more difficult and uncertain. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 pp14-17 The IEA is currently predicting that world energy demand won’t return to 2019 levels until 2023. IEA World Energy Outlook 2020 In transport, demand reduction strategies that switch passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes (e.g., cars, trucks and airplanes to buses and trains) are seen as the most effective option. IPCC SR 15 Ch2 p142 However, recent 2020 shifts in the overall amount of transportation use, along with changing preferences for how to travel, make future transportation reductions more uncertain, particularly for long distance transport and travel. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 pp55-57 Industrial strategies to reduce demand generally focus on wide scale upgrading and deployment of newer technologies, particularly in less advanced countries. AR5 WGIII SPM pp753-757 Specific measures include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, increasing product lifetimes, and otherwise reducing waste. AR5 WGIII SPM pp753-757 Strategies in the building sector focus on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. AR5 WGIII SPM p675 As with transport, recent shifts in behavior, such as an increased preference for at home work, are causing shifts in demand and energy intensity for residential and commercial buildings. This has made estimates of future demand reduction for this sector more uncertain. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020p21 Buildings have been a focus for energy efficiency related stimulus funding, which may finance additional efficiency gains and demand reductions. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 p22 One constant is the potential for individual action to reduce personal carbon footprints and thereby reduce global warming. 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. NY Times 2020, Druckman 2016 |
Looks like around 400 words, with 25 or so words deleted from the Clean energy subsection. I thought additional detail on transport, building and industry measures would be helpful, but those portions could be shortened. Comments on this proposal would be much appreciated. - Dtetta ( talk) 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources. Reductions in demand limit emissions, provide more flexibility for low carbon energy supplies, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development. Energy efficiency investments to reduce demand are expected to be the dominant form of investment in climate change mitigation through 2050. Efficiency strategies vary by sector. In transport, demand reduction strategies include switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes and zero emission vehicles. Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes. In the building sector focus is on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing. Shifts in behavior, such as an increased preference for at home work, also cause shifts in demand for transport and buildings. Lifestyles that reduce carbon footprints 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. |
Efbrazil ( talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. So the goal is zero right? If energy efficiency is about reducing the amount of energy waste (like installing triple glaze windows in buildings or raising standards for fuel efficiency in cars) that reduces emissions by some percentage, sure, but the goal is zero! As long as the home is heated by gas and the car runs on gasoline, we haven’t reached it. So energy efficiency can help in the short term, and may reduce the need for solar panels, etc when we finally can electrify everything, but the only way to get to zero is if you are actually multiplying by zero (not using fossil fuels at all to make the car go, the house warm, the limestone decompose for cement, the iron reduce for steel, and on). Also, industrial processes, cargo shipping, and passenger jets, are already very efficient, after decades of innovation to reduce energy costs. So it’s not like there’s a whole lot of room to go. So energy efficiency, it helps, but alone it will not get us to zero, only eliminating the green premium on the non-emitting (green) ways to make the physical economy, will get us to zero. MurrayScience ( talk) 19:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any source backing up this claim for Efbrazil's proposal: "Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources". It seems to be WP:original research. As for Dtetta's proposals, it doesn't seem to be consistent with WP:Neutrality. For example, some scientist like Michael E. Mann think individual action is not enough:
"Many readers will be surprised to learn that one of Mann’s chief complaints concerns flight-shaming, vegan diets and other types of individual behaviour widely thought to be central to tackling climate change. Personal actions can help, and often set a sensible example. But, as Mann writes, they cannot rival broad, systemic measures such as carbon pricing or ending fossil fuel subsidies. For all the scrutiny of flying, it currently accounts for about 3 per cent of global carbon emissions." [4] Bogazicili ( talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the graph dtetta summarized, "Total electricity generation" annual investment is about 120 billion per year, whereas the energy efficiency investment is about 330 billion per year. Having said that, I don't think the graph itself is fully inclusive, as it only accounts for energy production and consumption, ignoring costs like switching transportation power sources.
It's fair to say that we should stick to strict IPCC wording here. I was trying to clear up confusion before- a lot of people think talk of lifestyles = saying it is up to individual choice, plus you raised the issue of "times zero" in opposition to adding this section.
Anyhow, I rewrote the first paragraph to use almost verbatim text from the IPCC plus I tried to make a more clear summary of the graph. The second and third paragraphs I thought were accurate to the sources, so no rewrite there:
Demand-side measures are key elements of 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) pathways, IPCC SR 15 p97 with investments in energy efficiency projected to be made at over twice the rate of investments made in new electricity generation. AR5 p110. Lifestyle choices also help in lowering energy demand and the land- and greenhouse gas-intensity of food consumption. By 2030 and 2050, all end-use sectors (including building, transport, and industry) must make marked energy demand reductions in order to limit warming to 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) or less. IPCC SR 15 p97 Efficiency strategies vary by sector. In transport, demand reduction strategies include switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes and zero emission vehicles IPCC SR 15 p142 2.4.3.3 Transport Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes. IPCC SR 15 p138, p140 2.4.3.1 Industry In the building sector focus is on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. IPCC SR 15 p141, p142 2.4.3.2 Buildings As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing. Shifts in behavior, such as an increased preference for at home work, also cause shifts in demand for transport and buildings. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 p21 Lifestyles that reduce carbon footprints 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. NY Times 2020, Druckman 2016 |
Efbrazil ( talk) 21:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I think Bogazicili makes a good point in his comment about shaming, and it’s similar to a comment Femke made on 27 March. In fact Mark Hoffman, our Wikipedia friend from Mashable, wrote an interesting article on some of the disreputable history of this. But I don’t think it changes the significance of foot print reduction methods in terms of either their current societal significance, or their demonstrated results. There’s still lots of good work in this area being done by reputable organizations such as UC Berkeley‘s Cool Climate, WWF, Global footprint network, and many others. So I think the correct thing to do would be to acknowledge this aspect in our sentences on footprints. Another option would be to put this paragraph within the policies and politics section, and to not have it be part of the demand reduction edit being discussed here. I think Efbrazil has generally done a nice job characterizing it in his last paragraph, but that would be an option.
IMO, I don’t think we need to be overly focused on hewing to specific IPCC language, in fact, I think that often leads to confusing and somewhat technocratic prose, and I think it should generally be avoided - good paraphrasing seems a much better choice.
I still have some concerns with the wording of the above proposal:
Other items of note: Femke had noted that text in my original proposal overlaps with the paragraph on industry - not sure if that is still an issue. I think the COVID related language is important - although Femke cited WP:RECENT and noted that the COVID language gets outdated in a year and a half, the IEA energy outlook and efficiency reports discuss impacts and uncertainties that will cary on for several years.
Here is my new proposal, based in part on the revisions made by Efbrazil. Did not address Bogazicili's comment about neutrality for the Druckman source, so that may still need to be dealt with. Re: his comment on the IEA paywall, this might be an acceptable alternative. Re: his comment on The NY Times reporter not being an expert, I don't think that's a requirement for a news source, and The NY Times seems like a reputable source with a pretty good record on editorial control.
Reducing energy demand is a major feature of scenarios and plans that limit GHG emissions by 2050. In addition to directly reducing GHG emissions, demand reduction measures provide more flexibility for low carbon energy development, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development. AR5 SYR p29 In recent IPCC modeling, energy efficiency investment has been projected at over twice the rate of investments made in new electricity generation. AR5 SYR p110 However, several COVID 19 related changes in demand patterns, investments and funding have made current forecasts for this decade more difficult and uncertain. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020p16 Efficiency strategies vary by sector. In transport, demand reduction strategies include switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes and zero emission vehicles IPCC SR 15 p142 2.4.3.3 Transport Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes. IPCC SR 15 p138, p140 2.4.3.1 Industry In the building sector focus is on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. IPCC SR 15 p141, p142 2.4.3.2 Buildings As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing. Individual and community efforts that reduce carbon footprints can aid demand reduction objectives. 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. NY Times 2020, Druckman 2016 |
Dtetta ( talk) 02:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Femke also had some comments on text-source consistency that may still need to be addressed with the citations used in this revision. Dtetta ( talk) 04:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
FemkeMilene ( talk) 16:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m getting the sense from these 30 March comments that this discussion is not moving toward a resolution as to what this new subsection should say. So I would like to take a different tack as a way to try and move toward some consensus on this proposal. I think the major ideas that should be included in this section include, at a minimum, the following:
Are there concerns with these ideas as the basis for the new subsection?- Dtetta ( talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is the revised proposal:
Reducing energy demand is a major feature of decarbonisation scenarios and plans Efficiency strategies to reduce demand vary by sector. In transport, gains can be made by As world GDP and global living standards rise |
I tried to address Femke's concerns about close paraphrasing, and Bocazicili's point about putting lifestyle changes in context with other mitigation strategies. Still think that a slightly modified version of the footprint/lifestye choice paragraph might fit better in the Policies and politics section, but included it here for review. Will also work on revising the second paragraph of the Agriculture and industry subsection along the lines of what I was suggesting in my 2 April response to Femke's concern about redundancy, but probably won't get to that until Monday.- Dtetta ( talk) 17:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
As world GDP and global living standards increase, recent research has focused on the implications for future energy demand (Hopkins 2020). In addition to system transitions that include "adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation" (SR15 SPM p21), individual and community efforts focused on less energy intensive lifestyle choices can support demand reduction goals. These include driving an electric or other energy efficient car, reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or cycling....(to be clarified from the source, I'll take another look)( |
I mentioned Wikipedia:Core content policies so many times. I can't make a more detailed suggestion myself because I'm short on time. How does this quote "over half the emissions reductions we identified to reach Net Zero actively involve people, whether by choosing to purchase low-carbon technologies like electric cars, or by making different choices, for example on their travel and diets" become "foregoing air travel" in the suggested text??? Even BBC article doesn't say that, it says this: "It calls for an "Air Miles Levy" to discourage what it calls "excessive flying", something the Committee on Climate Change has already proposed." [8]
excessive flying != all flying
The report actually says this p 50:
"Assembly members would like to see a solution to air travel emissions that allows people to continue to fly.•But not without limits, promoting an acceptable balance between achieving the net zero target, impacts on lifestyles, reliance on new technologies, and investment in alternatives"
"Flying ranges between a 15% fall and 50% increase on pre-COVID-19 levels, matching popular Climate Assembly scenarios.•Low-carbon fuels in all scenarios, providing 20-95% of fuel by 2050"
Please do not make up stuff that the sources do not say. Please make sure everything else is properly backed up by the high quality sources. You can also add an additional newspaper article as a source for readers, but everything should still be backed up by the high quality sources. Bogazicili ( talk) 17:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Dtetta ( talk) 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
These include driving an electric or other energy-efficient car, switching to public transport or cycling, and reducing or limiting increase in air travel. Further reductions are suggested in energy use in the home, meat and dairy consumption, waste, and consumption emissions. |
As world GDP and global living standards rise, future increases in energy demand may follow. [1] Reducing energy demand and making behaviour changes contribute to reducing emissions. [2] Behaviour changes include driving an electric or other energy-efficient car, switching to public transport or cycling, and reducing air travel. For a net-zero pathway, further reductions are suggested in energy use in the home, meat and dairy consumption, carbon-intensive activity, and consumption emissions. [3] These kinds of changes can work in concert with other mitigation strategies, [4] and, at the national level, can have a significant impact on overall greenhouse gas emission reductions. [5] |
To address Femke’s redundancy concerns, for the second paragraph in the Agriculture and industry subsection I would suggest the following revisions:
|
Dtetta ( talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
References
The world climate map shows India as "green" meaning good. This is from the India wiki itself: "Greenhouse gas emissions by India are the third largest in the world and the main source is coal.[8] India emits about 3 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2eq of greenhouse gases each year; about two and a half tons per person, which is half the world average.[2] The country emits 7% of global emissions.[3]" Am i missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:B0BF:F114:8588:B80A:BF91:1841 ( talk) 15:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I am embarking on some work on the sub-article Climate change adaptation together with some experts from WeAdapt (I hope). Therefore, I would like to know if the content that is in this article here in the sub-heading "climate change adaptation" is likely to be better than the equivalent content over at at Climate change adaptation? I am just asking because I know that this article recently passed its Featured Article Review so every paragraph should be nearly perfect ;-) . Whereas the sub-article Climate change adaptation is only at C level and less up to date. Should I perhaps even copy the content from the sub-heading "climate change adaptation" across to the sub-article and weave it into there? And is anyone who is watching this page particularly interested in adaptation and would have an interest to work together on this? EMsmile ( talk) 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to quickly mention that the statement in the summarizing paragraph "The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing." independently of being true or not is not supported by the given source [5]. On the Nasa page it merely says "most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." and that's all I can find on the page regarding the claim.
I am not a regular editor of the Wikipedia and not that well versed in the usual procedures so forgive me if this is not the right place or insignificant, I just wanted to point out the error so someone who is a more regular editor can fix it.
Kind regards -- Laggkind ( talk) 10:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
A reminder that it would be nice if sourcing is cleaned after editing. Often only the short-cite is removed from the text, but the unused full cite is kept in the reference section. There is a script that helps by highlighting unused sources: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. Everybody here, please install it (by simply clicking install on the top right of that page), so that the cleaning duty gets more fairly distributed. Thanks :). I'll start by cleaning up the redundant IPCC sources. FemkeMilene ( talk) 07:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Today I added the following section [ here]. I think the projected economic impact is an important aspect of climate change. It was reverted with the comment "not neutral." I don't see how it wasn't. Here is my contribution at length: The ravages of disease, rising seas, and reduced crop yields, all driven by climate change, will likely have a major deleterious impact on the economy by 2050, unless the world sharply reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, according to a study by insurance giant Swiss Re. The study, which will impact how the insurance industry prices a variety of risks, finds that the cost to the world economy will be $23 trillion annually, with poorer countries bearing a disproportionate portion of the economic loss. A third of the economy of Southwest Asian nations will likely be wiped out, unless the rapid sharp global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is implemented. [1] [2] -- NYCJosh ( talk) 21:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
References
References
![]() | 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 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | → | Archive 90 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Before the sentence "The human cause..." in the introduction, it might be appropriate to insert a short comment on agriculture. The reason is that recent research has shown that most analysts until now have only considered the negative side of agriculture and not the positiv side of it. That means they have more or less neglected the photosynthesis going on at every plant in world agriculture. So I sugest this comment to be inserted here: "Regarding agriculture recent research has shown that it is not only a negative contributor to negative greenhouse gases. Through the photosynthesis CO2 is captured by crops and bound in both what is later harvested and in the part being left in the fields and slowly bound into the soil. Improving soil organic carbon capturing can be an option for coping with climate change." Source: Frankelius, Per (2020). A proposal to rethink agriculture in the climate calculations, Agronomy Journal, vol 112, issue 4, pp. 3216-3221. doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20286 Per Frankelius ( talk) 13:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Heat emission. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Heat emission until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Heat emissions. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Heat emissions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
22:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I came across a great article in Vox. I attached my favorite line from it, which may have some relevance to the mitigation section:
"About 10 percent of global emissions — comes from combustion to produce large amounts of high-temperature heat for industrial products like cement, steel, and petrochemicals.
To put that in perspective, industrial heat’s 10 percent is greater than the CO2 emissions of all the world’s cars (6 percent) and planes (2 percent) combined. Yet, consider how much you hear about electric vehicles. Consider how much you hear about flying shame. Now consider how much you hear about ... industrial heat." MurrayScience ( talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Industrial efforts would focus on increasing |
FYI: I've just learned that this image was chosen as a Featured picture. It's one of the earlier Warming stripes graphics generated by their developer, Ed Hawkins (climatologist). See:
So here we go. Self-explaining...
Hedgehoque (
talk) 09:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@
Efbrazil: This is just a draft. If we could agree on this, you could upload the new version for continuity of the file and keep the copyright of course. I know it's a different size - but it would only take a few minutes to adjust the script. The palette here is continous. Each year has its own calculated RGB value.
Hedgehoque (
talk)
22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
$r=round(max(0,($av>0?255-sqrt($av*30):240+$av*2.4))); $g=round(max(0,255-$av*2.5*($av>0?1:-1))); $b=round(max(0,($av<0?255-sqrt(-$av*30):240-$av*2.4)));
When I first saw the Hawkins stripes I thought it was too obscure for the layman to understand, and not useful here for that reason. In Hedgehoque's File:Global Temperature And Forces 1.svg with diverging lines making the pattern clear, I like how the Hawkins lines are incorporated. Binksternet ( talk) 07:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Attn graphics people, esp User:Hedgehoque and User:Efbrazil and User:Femkemilene:
I've uploaded .xlsx (Microsoft Excel) spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for charts in SVG format.
You simply paste or enter your data into the spreadsheet, and specify image dimensions, number of grid lines, font sizes, etc. The spreadsheet instantly and automatically generates a column of XML code that you simply copy and paste into a text editor and save as an ".svg" file. The spreadsheets produce lean SVG code, avoiding the "extra stuff" that Inkscape inserts. They should save you time in creating SVG charts.
Feedback and suggestions on my talk page are welcome. RCraig09 ( talk) 23:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to download and use, and provide feedback. — RCraig09 ( talk) 07:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It is disingenuous to suggest that human caused climate change is an undisputed scientific fact. For example, we all agree that there was an actual ice age. We all agree that the ice age came to an end with a corresponding rise in temperature. I think that we would all also agree that such a rise in temperature at that time was NOT caused by human industrialization. Not to mention the fact that an ice age itself can only occur in an environment of warmer oceans and cooler continents.....both conditions also caused in the past by non human influence. As a scientist, one would have to acknowledge that we cannot attribute past climate change to natural processes and then completely ignore the impact of those same continuing natural processes at work today. As a result, the statement "The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[5" is statement that should actually be read as "the human cause of climate change is not disputed by those scientific bodies which only acknowledge data suggesting the support of human caused climate change" Donavan Reef ( talk) 08:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It would be helpful to acknowledge that we are talking here about recent climate change, not climate change in general. -- Bduke ( talk) 09:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
|
I’m not sure how much it has to do with changing the title of the article last year from “Global warming” to “Climate change”, but it looks to me like there has been a major drop in the number of page views we were getting at the end of last year compared to 2019. When I use the pageviews.toolforge.org site that WP recommends, and use the term global warming I get about 4.5+ million views in 2019, or about 380k views a month, although this started dropping in early 2020. Using the term climate change for 2020 looks like it shows around 140k views per month for Sep-Dec. Could someone please double check my math on this?
At one point I had suggested that we look at adjusting the title tag in the source code of the page so that both “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” are included in it. This is what NASA does, and their site regularly rank above ours in the recent searches that I’ve done for those two terms. Is there anyone who would want to try to figure out a way of doing this for this article? I believe Efbrazil had stated that there were problems with doing this, but given what appears to be a significant drop in page views, I think it’s worth looking at again. Dtetta ( talk) 04:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
There is less attention to climate change in general, so I'm not sure how this drop (which RCraig09 pointed out is less when you add the redirect views), compares to an overall decline. Anyway, the naming criteria don't give page views maximalisation as a criteria, whereas brevity is. I see very little reason to add redundancy to the title. FemkeMilene ( talk) 07:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I highly recommend this website for some very interesting (but a bit technical) browsing. https://science.breakthroughenergy.org/. They have some really incredible publications and reports that are long overdue, considering that electricity grid models are so heterogeneous, propriety, low-quality, etc. MurrayScience ( talk) 13:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC) For those programming-people interested in getting really into the weeds with their open source model, check out their GitHub: https://github.com/Breakthrough-Energy. Or if you want to read their report, you can see it here: https://bescienceswebsite.blob.core.windows.net/publications/MacroGridReport.pdf. :) MurrayScience ( talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to reorganize the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede so they have "flow" again. If you look at the current version, it is just a set of disconnected sentences that is very hard to digest as a whole. Note I am not proposing adding or removing content, just cleaning it up for readability.
Here is the proposed rewrite, with moved and reorganized sentences highlighted:
Bogazicili complained about moving the tipping points into the second paragraph as they are an effect, but I believe the move is an improvement, so would like feedback from others. Tipping points are risk factors that increase as temperatures rise above 2 degrees, so they naturally fit in with concerns about uncontained warming. Additionally, some tipping points are not about effects on ecosystems and people, but are about feedbacks impacting warming itself. I think it is better to present them in the second paragraph, where they can be used to emphasize the risks of exceeding 2 degrees celcius. Lastly, the effects paragraph is already overstuffed, and shoving in tipping points in there as well pushed the whole paragraph into the category of unreadable I think. Efbrazil ( talk) 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Dtetta!
Femke- Thanks for the careful review.
Striking the also from the third paragraph makes good sense.
I also agree about the awkwardness of lost fresh water access, I was trying to preserve the old wording, but water scarcity is better, and wikipedia even has a nice article on the topic that includes a section talking about climate change that we can link to. Does that work for you?
Regarding impacts, the old wording awkwardly splits human health effects into 2 sentences, semi-attaching the WHO statement to just the effects of the second sentence without being explicit, and then cutting off the impacts in the second sentence from the first. I mean, doesn't the WHO care about food insecurity and water scarcity? Won't flooding and extreme heat lead to displacement and economic losses? The whole thing is just confusing to read because it is unclear why it is split into 2 sentences, other than to avoid a run on sentence. The second sentence in particular is weirdly constructed and hard to digest. Here is the old (current) wording:
Regarding connecting the WHO statement to human impacts, I'm OK adding a bridge into the WHO statement, beginning it with "These impacts have led the World Health Organization to call...". It draws things out and is maybe too restrictive, but arguably improves the flow.
Regarding tipping points, I'm glad you're OK with the new location. I tried keeping it in the current paragraph, but to have it make sense really requires adding a lot of words, and the paragraph is already overstuffed. It works better in its new placement.
So that leaves us with this. Anyone have specific concerns with this change?
Efbrazil ( talk) 18:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
References
:0
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mountain and arctic ecosystems and species are particularly sensitive to climate change... As ocean temperatures warm and the acidity of the ocean increases, bleaching and coral die-offs are likely to become more frequent.
SR15
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mountain and arctic ecosystems and species are particularly sensitive to climate change... As ocean temperatures warm and the acidity of the ocean increases, bleaching and coral die-offs are likely to become more frequent.
Please do go ahead. FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
It say in the first section that the images are in a slideshow, however every image is displaying at one time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.51.103 ( talk) 15:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I know there are several issues, but since we are debating lead...The last paragraph could use addition of few things such as (maybe a sentence): uncertainty in carbon budget/two-thirds chance in limiting warming to 1.5, negative emissions, uncertainties in such tech, etc.
And, after that, maybe another sentence about if we are on track with Paris goals, after this section is expanded a bit Climate_change#National_responses. I'd consider the lead pretty much complete after then. Bogazicili ( talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
So this paragraph is quite deficient as it omits several key concepts, such as Carbon dioxide removal and consequences of delaying CO2 reductions. SR15 p. 96:
"All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified and, in most cases, also to achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). The longer the delay in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero, the larger the likelihood of exceeding 1.5°C, and the heavier the implied reliance on net negative emissions after mid-century to return warming to 1.5°C (high confidence)."
"CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C. CDR is needed less in pathways with particularly strong emphasis on energy efficiency and low demand. The scale and type of CDR deployment varies widely across 1.5°C pathways, with different consequences for achieving sustainable development objectives (high confidence)."
Here's my suggestion:
Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050 |
Bogazicili ( talk) 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Per IPCC: "CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C." Mentioning this sounds too detailed for the lead to you? 5th paragraph is about goals, so a major risk to that goal is very relevant and fits with its "theme".
As for the earlier part, I suggest simplifying wording before adding large scale CO2 removal:
"Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050
Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030 and near-zero emissions by 2050, along with large scale carbon dioxide removal"
Bogazicili (
talk)
06:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I adopted Dtetta's suggestion of adding "achieving", and adjusted the wording a bit. Also added "over the 21st century" to make the scope of CO2 removal clearer. Bogazicili ( talk) 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Lol, I thought there was no disagreement to this, but it seems like everyone so far disagrees. For those that are new to lengthy discussions, like MurrayScience and RCraig09, I basically think the lead doesn't do a good job of explaining why immediate action is required; I think 2050 goal would seem far away enough for those that do not know built in assumptions. Instead of negative emissions, and that they are unproven, perhaps we can talk about carbon budget then? Bogazicili ( talk) 17:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
If overshoot is to be minimized, the remaining equivalent CO2 budget available for emissions is very small, which implies that large, immediate and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required (high confidence). SR 15 p. 177
Now that recent edits on this topic in the main body of the article are complete, I would vote for including Bogazicili’s proposal for incorporating text from IPCC 2018 p 34 as an additional clause at the end of the fifth paragraph. I’m referring to text on page 34 that states: “All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent.” So I wold suggest something along the lines of: “Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving near-zero emissions by 2050; along with the use of carbon dioxide removal technologies.”
If there is concern about ending the lede with a CDR reference, one option would be to revert these last two paragraph to an earlier version, where the fifth paragraph originally followed the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. As I recall, this format was a team edit that Efbrazil, MurrayScience and I worked on a while back for that fourth paragraph. The mitigation and adaptation text then constituted the fifth paragraph. I generally like the way it looks now, but that would be an option.
But I do think additional that text that briefly refers to that particular IPCC wording on CDR is a more accurate way to depict the current reports and papers on what 2050 will look like. My 2 cents on this. Dtetta ( talk) 20:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Split from the above discussion as topic has changed by Femke
For solar and wind power a key challenge is their intermittency and seasonal variability. Ways to reduce this limitation include improved energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and transmission grid improvements. As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can also be used to address intermittency and variability concerns, while still maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production. |
I left out the reference to combined cycle, mainly because that seems like a bit of jargon for what is essentially a slightly higher efficiency fossil fuel system with CCS. And if the issue is just to address intermittency, I don’t think it is really necessary to include this item; the reality is that some level of fossil fuel/CCS will probably be included in the electricity mix by 2050, and we discuss that elsewhere in the article.
I am also a little concerned that the idea in that second sentence reads like a somewhat biased, pro RE talking point. I think Hedgehoque and Efbrazil have been involved in previous incarnations of this paragraph, so they might have some ideas here as well, along with Femkemilene. Dtetta ( talk) 02:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
There are obstacles to the continued rapid development of renewable energy in electrical grids. For solar and wind power, a key challenge is their intermittency and seasonal variability. Ways to reduce this limitation include expanding grid energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and expanding long-distance transmission to smooth variability of renewable output across wider geographic areas. As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, on-demand, low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can also be used to cost-effectively address intermittency and variability, while still maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production. |
As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, reliable low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can address intermittency and variability, while maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production
I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction as follows:
Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C (2.7 or 3.6 °F),[207] 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.[208] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in sectors such as forestry and agriculture.[209] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] including reaching net negative emissions in most cases.[211] |
The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph:
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 its current use is limited in scale and expensive,[237] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century.[238] Carbon capture and storage in combination with bio-energy (BECCS) can result in net-negative emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount in the bio-energy fuel being grown.[212][239] As with CCS, it remains highly uncertain as to whether BECCS will actually be able to significantly help in limiting warming to 1.5 °C.[213] |
I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and modifying some of the text in these two paragraphs. So the numbered citations are the same as the corresponding footnotes that currently exist in the article. Dtetta ( talk) 03:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques such as BECCS will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C. I think that stays a tiny bit closer to the source, drops CCS (which is not as uncertain and its use is more an (expensive) policy choice as I read in IPCC than a fundamental uncertainty), and drops the word actually (not needed).
While carbon dioxide removal played a major role in 1.5 C-consistent model scenarios asssessed by the IPCC in 2018, it remains highly uncertain whether they can play such a role.
References
Bogazicili- I understand your interest in including text about the limitations of mitigation assumptions, but I think that particular point would be better covered in the Climate change mitigation article, which has room to go into that kind of nuance (which may also need to be updated, as Femke has pointed out). In this paragraph (and article), I think the goal should be to give the reader a more general sense of the feasibility of CCS and BECCS. Femke and I seem to be in agreement on the general wording. So I will wait another day to see if there are any other editors who share your concerns. Otherwise, I plan to make the changes along the lines Femke and I have discussed. Dtetta ( talk) 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
So, just to summarize again, I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction and moving rephrased versions of them to the Carbon sequestration subsection. The revised paragraph from the introduction would read as:
Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C (2.7 or 3.6 °F),[207] 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.[208] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in sectors such as forestry and agriculture.[209] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] including reaching net negative emissions in most cases.[211] |
I think the ideas in the two sentences I proposed to move are generally useful ones to have in the article, but I propose both of these fit better as part of the carbon sequestration subsection. The net negative emissions sentence is an expanded explanation of the last clause of the previous sentence, and doesn’t really fit the rest of the tone of the paragraph - we don’t define carbon sequestration or carbon dioxide removal, for instance. The next sentence then gets into some nuances regarding the risks of CO2 removal - again, this is out of character with the basic themes of the paragraph, which is to give an introduction to the key features of mitigation strategies designed to limit GW. Starting the CO2 removal sentence with “However” also doesn’t make sense given the preceding sentence, and illustrates the difficulty with having the sentence in this paragraph.
The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph. I have modified this from m earlier proposal by including Femke’s 26 Feb suggested sentence.
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 its current use is limited in scale and expensive,[237] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century.[238] Carbon capture and storage in combination with bio-energy (BECCS) can result in net-negative emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount in the bio-energy fuel being grown.[212][239] It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques such as BECCS will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C”.[213] |
I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and rephrasing some of the text in these two paragraphs.
From reading the earlier comments, I believe Efbrazil is ok with these edits, but that Bogazicili has some concerns about “changing something that explains a limitation of mitigation assumptions to something that reads like carbon removal is largely irrelevant”, and also states a belief that the current sentence, taken from the IPCC report (slightly rephrased) regarding risks associated with depending on CO2 removal, is DUE. My view is that DUE or not DUE is not really the issue... it’s that this idea is more detailed than appropriate for this article, and would be better suited for the Climate change mitigation article. I think Bogazicili’s concern about keeping it in this article could also be accommodated with an in-line citation, with the article text being the simpler last sentence that Femke proposed, but with the IPCC report quote included as part of the citation. Although I recognize that there is some discrepancy between calling something uncertain and saying there is a risk associated with depending on it, I think going with the simpler uncertainty sentence is a better choice for the target reading level of this article, and I don’t think that the sentence is saying that carbon removal is irrelevant, as Bogazicili contends, just that it’s feasibility is uncertain.
I am unclear as to what Femke’s current thoughts are. But I would still propose to make these edits as an improvement to the text that is there, in particular to reposition those two sentences that really don’t belong in an introductory paragraph. Dtetta ( talk) 03:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
After taking a bit of break from this issue, I'm still not satisfied how Carbon Dioxide removal is portrayed in this section. Mentioning that large scale deployment is unproven would only add few words and would make the portrayal of this topic more comprehensive and neutral. I also think it is indeed suited to the paragraph. So I started an RFC, hoping we can get more community input. Bogazicili ( talk) 20:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I am proposing an additional (perhaps one or two paragraphs) subsection in the mitigation portion of the article that covers energy efficiency. The AR5 Synthesis Report, Fig 4.4, page 110, clearly shows that future investments in energy efficiency are expected to be significantly greater than those in renewable/clean energy, which we cover extensively. Within the Clean energy and Agriculture and industry subsections we briefly touch on these ideas, but I believe this an inadequate treatment, given the overall significance energy efficiency investments are expected to have in overall mitigation efforts.
Interested in others thoughts on this, in particular any references that you think would be most useful. In addition to AR5, I think the 2019 UNEP Emissions Gap report and Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals provide good background material. - Dtetta ( talk) 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
So, for this proposed edit, I would modify the existing text in paragraph three of the "Clean energy" subsection:
In transport, scenarios envision sharp increases in the market share of electric vehicles and low carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping |
There would then be a new subsection titled: “Demand reduction" or perhaps "Demand reduction and energy efficiency” with the following text:
As world GDP and global living standards increase over the next few decades, reducing energy demand, using a range of energy efficiency investments, is a major feature of scenarios and plans that achieve zero emissions by 2050. In addition to it’s role in limiting GHG emissions, measures to reduce demand are an important element of cost-effective mitigation strategies. They provide more flexibility for low carbon energy supplies, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development. AR5 WGIII SPM p20. Energy efficiency investments to reduce demand are expected to be the dominant form of investment in climate change mitigation through 2050. AR5 WGIII SPM p27 Fig 9 However, several COVID 19 related changes (such as in transportation patterns and building use), a decrease in energy efficiency investments, along with possible future in energy efficiency stimulus funding, have made energy demand and efficiency forecasts for this decade more difficult and uncertain. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 pp14-17 The IEA is currently predicting that world energy demand won’t return to 2019 levels until 2023. IEA World Energy Outlook 2020 In transport, demand reduction strategies that switch passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes (e.g., cars, trucks and airplanes to buses and trains) are seen as the most effective option. IPCC SR 15 Ch2 p142 However, recent 2020 shifts in the overall amount of transportation use, along with changing preferences for how to travel, make future transportation reductions more uncertain, particularly for long distance transport and travel. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 pp55-57 Industrial strategies to reduce demand generally focus on wide scale upgrading and deployment of newer technologies, particularly in less advanced countries. AR5 WGIII SPM pp753-757 Specific measures include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, increasing product lifetimes, and otherwise reducing waste. AR5 WGIII SPM pp753-757 Strategies in the building sector focus on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. AR5 WGIII SPM p675 As with transport, recent shifts in behavior, such as an increased preference for at home work, are causing shifts in demand and energy intensity for residential and commercial buildings. This has made estimates of future demand reduction for this sector more uncertain. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020p21 Buildings have been a focus for energy efficiency related stimulus funding, which may finance additional efficiency gains and demand reductions. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 p22 One constant is the potential for individual action to reduce personal carbon footprints and thereby reduce global warming. 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. NY Times 2020, Druckman 2016 |
Looks like around 400 words, with 25 or so words deleted from the Clean energy subsection. I thought additional detail on transport, building and industry measures would be helpful, but those portions could be shortened. Comments on this proposal would be much appreciated. - Dtetta ( talk) 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources. Reductions in demand limit emissions, provide more flexibility for low carbon energy supplies, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development. Energy efficiency investments to reduce demand are expected to be the dominant form of investment in climate change mitigation through 2050. Efficiency strategies vary by sector. In transport, demand reduction strategies include switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes and zero emission vehicles. Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes. In the building sector focus is on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing. Shifts in behavior, such as an increased preference for at home work, also cause shifts in demand for transport and buildings. Lifestyles that reduce carbon footprints 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. |
Efbrazil ( talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. So the goal is zero right? If energy efficiency is about reducing the amount of energy waste (like installing triple glaze windows in buildings or raising standards for fuel efficiency in cars) that reduces emissions by some percentage, sure, but the goal is zero! As long as the home is heated by gas and the car runs on gasoline, we haven’t reached it. So energy efficiency can help in the short term, and may reduce the need for solar panels, etc when we finally can electrify everything, but the only way to get to zero is if you are actually multiplying by zero (not using fossil fuels at all to make the car go, the house warm, the limestone decompose for cement, the iron reduce for steel, and on). Also, industrial processes, cargo shipping, and passenger jets, are already very efficient, after decades of innovation to reduce energy costs. So it’s not like there’s a whole lot of room to go. So energy efficiency, it helps, but alone it will not get us to zero, only eliminating the green premium on the non-emitting (green) ways to make the physical economy, will get us to zero. MurrayScience ( talk) 19:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any source backing up this claim for Efbrazil's proposal: "Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources". It seems to be WP:original research. As for Dtetta's proposals, it doesn't seem to be consistent with WP:Neutrality. For example, some scientist like Michael E. Mann think individual action is not enough:
"Many readers will be surprised to learn that one of Mann’s chief complaints concerns flight-shaming, vegan diets and other types of individual behaviour widely thought to be central to tackling climate change. Personal actions can help, and often set a sensible example. But, as Mann writes, they cannot rival broad, systemic measures such as carbon pricing or ending fossil fuel subsidies. For all the scrutiny of flying, it currently accounts for about 3 per cent of global carbon emissions." [4] Bogazicili ( talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the graph dtetta summarized, "Total electricity generation" annual investment is about 120 billion per year, whereas the energy efficiency investment is about 330 billion per year. Having said that, I don't think the graph itself is fully inclusive, as it only accounts for energy production and consumption, ignoring costs like switching transportation power sources.
It's fair to say that we should stick to strict IPCC wording here. I was trying to clear up confusion before- a lot of people think talk of lifestyles = saying it is up to individual choice, plus you raised the issue of "times zero" in opposition to adding this section.
Anyhow, I rewrote the first paragraph to use almost verbatim text from the IPCC plus I tried to make a more clear summary of the graph. The second and third paragraphs I thought were accurate to the sources, so no rewrite there:
Demand-side measures are key elements of 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) pathways, IPCC SR 15 p97 with investments in energy efficiency projected to be made at over twice the rate of investments made in new electricity generation. AR5 p110. Lifestyle choices also help in lowering energy demand and the land- and greenhouse gas-intensity of food consumption. By 2030 and 2050, all end-use sectors (including building, transport, and industry) must make marked energy demand reductions in order to limit warming to 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) or less. IPCC SR 15 p97 Efficiency strategies vary by sector. In transport, demand reduction strategies include switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes and zero emission vehicles IPCC SR 15 p142 2.4.3.3 Transport Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes. IPCC SR 15 p138, p140 2.4.3.1 Industry In the building sector focus is on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. IPCC SR 15 p141, p142 2.4.3.2 Buildings As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing. Shifts in behavior, such as an increased preference for at home work, also cause shifts in demand for transport and buildings. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 p21 Lifestyles that reduce carbon footprints 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. NY Times 2020, Druckman 2016 |
Efbrazil ( talk) 21:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I think Bogazicili makes a good point in his comment about shaming, and it’s similar to a comment Femke made on 27 March. In fact Mark Hoffman, our Wikipedia friend from Mashable, wrote an interesting article on some of the disreputable history of this. But I don’t think it changes the significance of foot print reduction methods in terms of either their current societal significance, or their demonstrated results. There’s still lots of good work in this area being done by reputable organizations such as UC Berkeley‘s Cool Climate, WWF, Global footprint network, and many others. So I think the correct thing to do would be to acknowledge this aspect in our sentences on footprints. Another option would be to put this paragraph within the policies and politics section, and to not have it be part of the demand reduction edit being discussed here. I think Efbrazil has generally done a nice job characterizing it in his last paragraph, but that would be an option.
IMO, I don’t think we need to be overly focused on hewing to specific IPCC language, in fact, I think that often leads to confusing and somewhat technocratic prose, and I think it should generally be avoided - good paraphrasing seems a much better choice.
I still have some concerns with the wording of the above proposal:
Other items of note: Femke had noted that text in my original proposal overlaps with the paragraph on industry - not sure if that is still an issue. I think the COVID related language is important - although Femke cited WP:RECENT and noted that the COVID language gets outdated in a year and a half, the IEA energy outlook and efficiency reports discuss impacts and uncertainties that will cary on for several years.
Here is my new proposal, based in part on the revisions made by Efbrazil. Did not address Bogazicili's comment about neutrality for the Druckman source, so that may still need to be dealt with. Re: his comment on the IEA paywall, this might be an acceptable alternative. Re: his comment on The NY Times reporter not being an expert, I don't think that's a requirement for a news source, and The NY Times seems like a reputable source with a pretty good record on editorial control.
Reducing energy demand is a major feature of scenarios and plans that limit GHG emissions by 2050. In addition to directly reducing GHG emissions, demand reduction measures provide more flexibility for low carbon energy development, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development. AR5 SYR p29 In recent IPCC modeling, energy efficiency investment has been projected at over twice the rate of investments made in new electricity generation. AR5 SYR p110 However, several COVID 19 related changes in demand patterns, investments and funding have made current forecasts for this decade more difficult and uncertain. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020p16 Efficiency strategies vary by sector. In transport, demand reduction strategies include switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes and zero emission vehicles IPCC SR 15 p142 2.4.3.3 Transport Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes. IPCC SR 15 p138, p140 2.4.3.1 Industry In the building sector focus is on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. IPCC SR 15 p141, p142 2.4.3.2 Buildings As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing. Individual and community efforts that reduce carbon footprints can aid demand reduction objectives. 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. NY Times 2020, Druckman 2016 |
Dtetta ( talk) 02:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Femke also had some comments on text-source consistency that may still need to be addressed with the citations used in this revision. Dtetta ( talk) 04:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
FemkeMilene ( talk) 16:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m getting the sense from these 30 March comments that this discussion is not moving toward a resolution as to what this new subsection should say. So I would like to take a different tack as a way to try and move toward some consensus on this proposal. I think the major ideas that should be included in this section include, at a minimum, the following:
Are there concerns with these ideas as the basis for the new subsection?- Dtetta ( talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is the revised proposal:
Reducing energy demand is a major feature of decarbonisation scenarios and plans Efficiency strategies to reduce demand vary by sector. In transport, gains can be made by As world GDP and global living standards rise |
I tried to address Femke's concerns about close paraphrasing, and Bocazicili's point about putting lifestyle changes in context with other mitigation strategies. Still think that a slightly modified version of the footprint/lifestye choice paragraph might fit better in the Policies and politics section, but included it here for review. Will also work on revising the second paragraph of the Agriculture and industry subsection along the lines of what I was suggesting in my 2 April response to Femke's concern about redundancy, but probably won't get to that until Monday.- Dtetta ( talk) 17:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
As world GDP and global living standards increase, recent research has focused on the implications for future energy demand (Hopkins 2020). In addition to system transitions that include "adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation" (SR15 SPM p21), individual and community efforts focused on less energy intensive lifestyle choices can support demand reduction goals. These include driving an electric or other energy efficient car, reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or cycling....(to be clarified from the source, I'll take another look)( |
I mentioned Wikipedia:Core content policies so many times. I can't make a more detailed suggestion myself because I'm short on time. How does this quote "over half the emissions reductions we identified to reach Net Zero actively involve people, whether by choosing to purchase low-carbon technologies like electric cars, or by making different choices, for example on their travel and diets" become "foregoing air travel" in the suggested text??? Even BBC article doesn't say that, it says this: "It calls for an "Air Miles Levy" to discourage what it calls "excessive flying", something the Committee on Climate Change has already proposed." [8]
excessive flying != all flying
The report actually says this p 50:
"Assembly members would like to see a solution to air travel emissions that allows people to continue to fly.•But not without limits, promoting an acceptable balance between achieving the net zero target, impacts on lifestyles, reliance on new technologies, and investment in alternatives"
"Flying ranges between a 15% fall and 50% increase on pre-COVID-19 levels, matching popular Climate Assembly scenarios.•Low-carbon fuels in all scenarios, providing 20-95% of fuel by 2050"
Please do not make up stuff that the sources do not say. Please make sure everything else is properly backed up by the high quality sources. You can also add an additional newspaper article as a source for readers, but everything should still be backed up by the high quality sources. Bogazicili ( talk) 17:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Dtetta ( talk) 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
These include driving an electric or other energy-efficient car, switching to public transport or cycling, and reducing or limiting increase in air travel. Further reductions are suggested in energy use in the home, meat and dairy consumption, waste, and consumption emissions. |
As world GDP and global living standards rise, future increases in energy demand may follow. [1] Reducing energy demand and making behaviour changes contribute to reducing emissions. [2] Behaviour changes include driving an electric or other energy-efficient car, switching to public transport or cycling, and reducing air travel. For a net-zero pathway, further reductions are suggested in energy use in the home, meat and dairy consumption, carbon-intensive activity, and consumption emissions. [3] These kinds of changes can work in concert with other mitigation strategies, [4] and, at the national level, can have a significant impact on overall greenhouse gas emission reductions. [5] |
To address Femke’s redundancy concerns, for the second paragraph in the Agriculture and industry subsection I would suggest the following revisions:
|
Dtetta ( talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
References
The world climate map shows India as "green" meaning good. This is from the India wiki itself: "Greenhouse gas emissions by India are the third largest in the world and the main source is coal.[8] India emits about 3 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2eq of greenhouse gases each year; about two and a half tons per person, which is half the world average.[2] The country emits 7% of global emissions.[3]" Am i missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:B0BF:F114:8588:B80A:BF91:1841 ( talk) 15:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I am embarking on some work on the sub-article Climate change adaptation together with some experts from WeAdapt (I hope). Therefore, I would like to know if the content that is in this article here in the sub-heading "climate change adaptation" is likely to be better than the equivalent content over at at Climate change adaptation? I am just asking because I know that this article recently passed its Featured Article Review so every paragraph should be nearly perfect ;-) . Whereas the sub-article Climate change adaptation is only at C level and less up to date. Should I perhaps even copy the content from the sub-heading "climate change adaptation" across to the sub-article and weave it into there? And is anyone who is watching this page particularly interested in adaptation and would have an interest to work together on this? EMsmile ( talk) 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to quickly mention that the statement in the summarizing paragraph "The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing." independently of being true or not is not supported by the given source [5]. On the Nasa page it merely says "most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." and that's all I can find on the page regarding the claim.
I am not a regular editor of the Wikipedia and not that well versed in the usual procedures so forgive me if this is not the right place or insignificant, I just wanted to point out the error so someone who is a more regular editor can fix it.
Kind regards -- Laggkind ( talk) 10:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
A reminder that it would be nice if sourcing is cleaned after editing. Often only the short-cite is removed from the text, but the unused full cite is kept in the reference section. There is a script that helps by highlighting unused sources: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. Everybody here, please install it (by simply clicking install on the top right of that page), so that the cleaning duty gets more fairly distributed. Thanks :). I'll start by cleaning up the redundant IPCC sources. FemkeMilene ( talk) 07:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Today I added the following section [ here]. I think the projected economic impact is an important aspect of climate change. It was reverted with the comment "not neutral." I don't see how it wasn't. Here is my contribution at length: The ravages of disease, rising seas, and reduced crop yields, all driven by climate change, will likely have a major deleterious impact on the economy by 2050, unless the world sharply reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, according to a study by insurance giant Swiss Re. The study, which will impact how the insurance industry prices a variety of risks, finds that the cost to the world economy will be $23 trillion annually, with poorer countries bearing a disproportionate portion of the economic loss. A third of the economy of Southwest Asian nations will likely be wiped out, unless the rapid sharp global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is implemented. [1] [2] -- NYCJosh ( talk) 21:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
References
References