![]() | 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 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
I have a question about the sentence in the lead that says: Smaller contributions come from
agriculture, industrial processes, and
forest loss.
Smaller makes it sound like they are almost negligible compared to the Burning
fossil fuels that is in the previous sentence. Is this really so? Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the other processes would still be a huge problem. Also where is the thawing of permafrost mentioned as a contributor to GHG emissions, not just as an effect of climate change (it's mentioned currently in the paragraph that summarises effects)? So anyway, could we change "smaller" to "further"? E.g. emissions from cement production (subsumed in the sentence about industrial processes is not small. GHG emissions from agriculture is not "small" either. Small is relative. Further or additional or other would be better.
EMsmile (
talk)
17:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Here's a proposed rewrite that I think covers everything being talked about here. It goes a bit further than just cutting that one sentence, doing these additional things:
In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's
climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is
primarily caused by humans. Burning
fossil fuels adds
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, most importantly
carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane. Smaller contributions come from
agriculture, industrial processes, and
forest loss.
Greenhouse gases warm the air burning
fossil fuels.
[1]
[2] Fossil fuel use and activities like
deforestation add
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, including
carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane.
[3]
These gases warm the air by absorbing heat radiated by the Earth, trapping the heat near the surface.
Greenhouse gas emissions amplify this effect, causing the Earth to take in
more energy from sunlight than it can radiate
Adding to greenhouse gases causes the Earth to take in
more energy from sunlight than it radiates back into space.
Efbrazil (
talk)
20:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Fossil fuel use plus activities like.
activities like deforestation add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere- do you refer here to the burning of forests? It doesn't add methane though? Isn't the bigger problem from deforestation that it removes carbon sinks in the process (and also leads to changes in the water cycle, but that's another story)?
causing the Earth to take in more energy from sunlight than it can radiate back into space., I find the word "can" strange as if Earth is a person. Perhaps better to say "causing the Earth to accumulate more heat than before which results in an energy imbalance". For comparison, see the wording used at greenhouse effect, e.g.
Additionally, human-caused increases in greenhouse gases trap greater amounts of heat, causing the Earth to grow warmer over time. - I suppose there are lots of similar ways to say the same thing, perhaps this has already been discussed to death before. EMsmile ( talk) 22:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels.[2 cites] Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.[cite] Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Adding to these gases traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.
bout one-third (33%) of anthropogenic emissions are from gas release during the extraction and delivery of fossil fuels; mostly due to gas venting and gas leaks from both active fossil fuel infrastructure and orphan wells. [...] Animal agriculture is a similarly large source (30%); primarily because of enteric fermentation by ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep.. Of course this would be way too long but perhaps we can summarise this in a few words. So I think in summary it's good that we mention methane but we should also mention something about where the human-caused emission of methane is coming from.
Greenhouse gases absorb the heat the Earth radiates in response to sunlight- what I find difficult (as a non-native speaker) is the "the heat the Earth" combination. Could we at least change it to "the heat which the Earth..."? But also "in response to sunlight" doesn't sound right to me. Maybe
Greenhouse gases absorb (or trap) the heat which the Earth radiates back into space after receiving it from the sun. - And there are probably loads of "plain English" explanations on the internet available to explain this greenhouse effect issue to children. Can we be inspired from one of those websites for this sentence? See e.g. their statement here:
Our globe is warming because the carbon dioxide gas in the air is trapping the sun's heat near the Earth.EMsmile ( talk)
Fossil fuel use and activities like deforestation create greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.I guess it's because we think the word "to emit" is difficult to understand? "Create" sounds strange in my ears. Perhaps "produce"? Or "produce additional greenhouse gases"? And I would suggest to put a wiklink to methane emissions behind "methane" in that sentence. EMsmile ( talk) 11:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
...caused by humans]] burning fossil fuels.[2 cites] Fossil fuel use and activities like...This is not elegant. Perhaps start that sentence with "This fossil fuel use...", or "Continued fossil fuel use..." or some other construct? Or perhaps others don't think it's bad style how it is now. EMsmile ( talk) 09:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Good to see the wikilink added to global average temperature. I don't think beginning and ending sentences with "fossil fuel" is a problem or reads weird, at least to this American, so I made no changes there.
I appreciate the concerns around brevity and being careful not to say that all heat is trapped. Unfortunately, I think the latest edits to the last sentence were a step backwards in terms of clarity and readability. Combining both how greenhouse gases work and also Earth's energy imbalance caused by GGE into the same sentence makes for a mess. For instance, the changed sentence says "trap more of the heat" without saying that any heat is trapped in the first place.
I went back and edited into 2 sentences but was careful to address the specific concerns about brevity and not implying that all heat is being retained. Note that even though it is 2 sentences now, the length is unchanged from the previous edit. Efbrazil ( talk) 16:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Smaller contributions come from agriculture, industrial processes, and forest loss.EMsmile ( talk) 11:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
by farming with methods that capture carbon in soilbut that's actually an overly specific example and wikilink. I still think a link to greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture would be good somewhere in the lead. But fine to be overruled, I think we might be getting exhausted and perhaps can't see the forest anymore for the trees (at least in my case). EMsmile ( talk) 19:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Great work. I spotted one small issue about readability now in the last sentence but will start a new section about this on the talk page, and would totally understand if you say "not now, later, I need a break". EMsmile ( talk) 08:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Click to show/hide refs
|
---|
References
|
Nonsense on both points, that's all well sourced. Crescent77 ( talk) 23:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
As I first said. Are you actually saying it is correct, or are you saying you are willing to accept the inaccuracy for the sake of brevity? Crescent77 ( talk) 23:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a new sentence that I stumbled over with regards to readability: It's the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead which now says Adding to these gases
traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.
. I think for non-native English speakers, starting a sentence with "Adding to these gases" is difficult to understand. Maybe it could be changed to simpler language by saying: When more of these gases are added to the atmosphere they
trap more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.
. Or "By adding..." Or "When increasing the concentration of these gases..." (is it useful to mention concentration here or is that the same as the absolute amount anyhow?). Note: I am finding
Quillbot useful to try out different ways of formulating this. It's a free tool although you do have to register for a free account after you've used it on 5 sentences or so.
EMsmile (
talk)
08:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Increasing these gases traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.. Still not easy to understand. I think clearer would be
When these gases are increased, this traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.. - Are there others in this group, from their own language background, who can confirm or reject my feeling that a sentence that starts with a gerund is most likely a bit "complicated"? I had a quick scan of the climate change article and am happy to report that we don't start many sentences with a gerund. - @ Dtetta: for another opinion regarding readability here. EMsmile ( talk) 17:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Man, you guys are just scapegoating the new editor. You've created the confusion, he just brought it (back) into the light (though I do agree he talks in some confusing run on phrasing with lots of tangents) The meaning of the term should be clearly and concisely covered in the lead, that's what an encyclopedia does. I understand the need for a Terminology section for further clarification, but one shouldn't have read that far into it for a start. Femke pointed out the German Wikipedia setup, I think they've got much a clearer setup concerning climate change and global warming. Crescent77 ( talk) 15:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Femke, I think any of your 3 proposals could address the issue. I'm not inclined to go with a formal procedure, I feel like that would be foolish of me. Even though I may disagree with folks here in methodology, I am happy to see that all folks here are editing with good intent. As that is not the case on alot of WP, were I to pursue formal procedures, it would be to address the agenda driven editors I see on several other articles. To reiterate, it's great to see all the efforts of many well intentioned folk here, including genuine discussion; if folks here are hell bent on maintaining current naming, so be it.
Likewise, we seem to agree that Climate Variablity and Change is a poor name, but to rename it to the more seemly Climate Change would require a change here that folks seem reluctant to accept. All that material could be included here, but that may make for too long an article and/or take too much effort.
On a more functional note, I think the opening should cover both the common and generic meanings, in a succinct manner. How about for an opening sentence something along the lines of "Climate Change is a long term shift in weather patterns." Then follow with something addressing anthropogenic driven global warming as the current state of affairs and therefore the default understanding of the term. Both the UN and NASA take that direction, I'm not understanding the resistance to that here. Crescent77 ( talk) 00:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is about contemporary climate change. For historical climate trends, see Climate variability and change.Or perhaps the hatnote is too easy to overlook, especially for novice readers? Regarding the article Climate variability and change, I also find its title a bit sub-optimal. I am sure there was a long discussion about it in the past already. But I am wondering: Maybe it could be renamed to Climate change (entire history of Earth). But the article confuses me a bit anyhow as it seems to overlap too much with content at climate change. Maybe it needs to be streamlined better. Could it be refocused to become Climate change (prior to human influences)? EMsmile ( talk) 06:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The fact that the opening word is a specifier indicating only a subset of climate change seems very unencyclopedic to me. I really feel it should start with the broadest meaning and build the specifics from there. Because the hat note is technical feature and not the direct wording of the article the duplication there doesn't seem inappropriate to me, as you say I do think it is easy to overlook.
I do think "Climate Change" and "climate variability and change" should be combined as one article, perhaps with subsections named as ESmile suggests above, but that would be alot of work that I wouldn't be able to effectively undertake. Crescent77 ( talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In common usage, climate change refers to contemporary global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans. . . .
I realize my proposal adds 1.5 sentences, but I think the clarification is worth the added word count. It immediately crystallizes the nomenclature issue before it's detailed in the /* Terminology */ section. — RCraig09 ( talk) 00:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
By any other name ... Whether referred to as "global warming" or "climate change," the consequences of the widescale changes currently being observed in Earth's climate system could be considerable.. EMsmile ( talk) 19:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
You guys are really into the esoteric. Too bad it detracts from broader understanding. Crescent77 ( talk) 23:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It's been almost five days since the blue quote-box suggestion, which has met either with approval or with suggestions that have been adopted. If I don't see disagreement, I think it's time to insert that quote-box material into the article lead. Speak up now if you have further suggestions. — RCraig09 ( talk) 23:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Building on Femke's recent change away from "broadest" sense, note the minor proposed changes, "refers to" and "a broader" in the blue box. Agreed? — RCraig09 ( talk) 03:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Wow, you seem quite inclined to proclaim your work. Seems like ownership to me.
Sorry for the exclamations, I didn't expect them to derail you so readily. That may explain why you failed to address my reasoning. Crescent77 ( talk) 23:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The recent discussions about terminology section reminded me of this. Can we move History section and its subsections up, after Terminology section? It seems like a more logical and chronological place. Terminology, History, and then the rest of the article. Bogazicili ( talk) 19:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the public is confused about the terms CC and GW. I think it's more of an issue with the euphenism treadmill. Crescent77 ( talk) 22:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Do we still need these anchors here for the section on solar activity? === <span class="anchor" id="Sun"></span><span class="anchor" id="Solar activity"></span> Solar and volcanic activity ===. I wonder if the snytax is outdated: It seems to cause an error when I use the excerpt template to transcribe this section to climate change mitigation. Could I just delete the <span class="anchor" id="Sun"></span><span class="anchor" id="Solar activity"></span> string? EMsmile ( talk) 10:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused, I'm hoping someone can offer clarity. The latest IPCC report shows land use changes as being a net negative (cooling) factor on balance. See here, which is just a reflection of SPM.2c: File:Physical Drivers of climate change.svg. SPM.4 repeats the assertion that land use change has a net cooling effect and is talked about along with aerosols.
That obviously runs against the other sources we have, which report land use changes as being a significant contributor to carbon emissions. For instance, here from the global carbon project: File:CO2 Emissions by Source Since 1880.svg
Can somebody explain the disparity here? I have a few theories, but I don't know if they are true. One is that the IPCC is just looking at warming influence change from 2010 - 2019 and finds land use change in that particular decade was net negative, maybe due to irrigation / reflectivity changes and because they are ignoring how much future warming is being banked by land use emissions today. Or maybe the IPCC was ignoring deforestation when they came up with their graphic, since they are qualifying land use changes as being irrigation and reflectivity, although the graphic makes it sound like its looking at all key factors. Anybody know what's actually going on here? Efbrazil ( talk) 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sssara7 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jaynean ( talk) 00:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I have just discovered that the page is restricted from editing. However the German version of this article has an information video about carbon dioxide's effect as a climate factor.
I have translated the audiotrack of the original video and uploaded the derived work to wikimedia commons and wanted to include the video also to this article. However I don't want to qualify for sanctions which is why I am opening the topic here and hope someone can help me!
-- Renepick ( talk) 22:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I wonder why aerosols come second in the section "Drivers of recent temperature rise" (even before land surface changes) even though aerosols are complicated as they can contribute to warming and cooling. Could we drop them to third place? So far it looks like this in the table of contents:
3 Drivers of recent temperature rise 3.1 Greenhouse gases 3.2 Aerosols and clouds 3.3 Land surface changes 3.4 Solar and volcanic activity 3.5 Climate change feedback
In comparison, in the article Attribution of recent climate change (less well developed than the climate change article of course) it looks like this:
3 Key attributions 3.1Greenhouse gases 3.1.1 Water vapor 3.2Land use 3.2.1Livestock and land use 3.3 Aerosol
I am asking today because I had included the same list and ordering in the article
climate change mitigation but another editor (
User:Hedgehoque) deleted the aerosols bullet point from the list saying: Sorry to remove aerosols again. But as commented earlier they are no driver for temperature rise. Quoting the excerpt: "aerosols having a dampening effect". If you want to include them, we need a separate list for this kind.
. So I would like to get the story straight for how the aerosol issue is included best in the "drivers of recent temperature rise" section for all three articles.
EMsmile (
talk)
22:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel that the topic of oceans is underrepresented in the lead and wonder if we could add one sentence about the effects of climate change on oceans? I see that the issue of
ocean acidification is framed in the lead and in the main text as "just" a "long term issue". I think this is misleading as those changes are already happening now and are having an impact. Also, there is so much more to oceans than just warming and a lowering pH value. The first sentence of the article
effects of climate change on oceans will be too long but I am just adding it here to show that there are so many effects on the ocean. I think this needs to come out more clearly, in the lead and in the main text: There are many significant effects of climate change on oceans including: an increase in
sea surface temperature as well as
ocean temperatures at greater depths, more frequent
marine heatwaves, a
reduction in pH value, a
rise in sea level from
ocean warming and
ice sheet melting,
sea ice decline in the Arctic, increased upper
ocean stratification,
reductions in oxygen levels, increased contrasts in salinity (salty areas becoming saltier and fresher areas becoming less salty),
[1] changes to
ocean currents including a weakening of the
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, and stronger
tropical cyclones and
monsoons.
[2]
EMsmile (
talk)
22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I am surprised that this article Climate change does not contain the word "wood" (nor does Attribution of recent climate change; I haven't checked other subarticles). As a reader, I have some questions about wood and climate change that the article doesn't answer:
Here are some recent sources about climate change and wood that I've read, though these are mostly "pop" sources, not hard science: NRDC, Guardian, Chatham House, New Yorker. Anyway, I'm not familiar with either the science, or the history of the development of this article. Is there a reason wood isn't mentioned in the article? Should it be? Has this been discussed before, am I unknowingly beating a dead horse? Thanks, Levivich ( talk) 17:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Here's a 2015 paper from Ecological Economics [2], titledThe treatment of biomass as zero-carbon in policy frameworks will give policymakers in consumer countries a false sense of optimism...In 2019, according to our analysis, US-sourced wood pellets burnt for energy in the UK were responsible for 13 million–16 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions, when taking into account [various factors]...Almost none of these emissions are included in the UK’s national greenhouse gas inventory; if they were, this would have added between 22 and 27 per cent to the emissions from total UK electricity generation, or 2.8–3.6 per cent of total UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. This volume is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from 6 million to 7 million passenger vehicles....Emissions from US-sourced biomass burnt in the UK are projected to rise to 17 million–20 million tonnes of CO₂ a year by 2025. This represents 4.4–5.1 per cent of the average annual greenhouse gas emissions target in the UK’s fourth carbon budget (which covers the period 2023–27), making it more difficult to hit a target which the government is already not on track to achieve.
Back to the past: Burning wood to save the globe, abstract:
There appears to be some scholarly debate here, and I was surprised it's not covered at all in our top-level article on climate change. I guess I'll keep reading and see if I can put together something about it. Levivich ( talk) 23:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)In an effort to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning, renewable energy policies incentivize use of forest biomass as an energy source. Many governments have assumed (legislated) the carbon flux from burning biomass to be neutral because biomass growth sequesters CO2...This study demonstrates that the assumed carbon neutrality of biomass for energy production hinges on the fact that we weakly discount future removals of carbon, and it is sensitive to tree species and the nature of the fuel for which biomass substitutes.
Experimenting with ChatGBT ( https://chat.openai.com/chat), and asked it “What is climate change?” It gave this response: “Climate change is the long-term alteration of temperature and weather patterns in the Earth's atmosphere. It is primarily caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, into the atmosphere, which trap heat and cause global temperatures to rise. This can lead to a variety of impacts, such as more extreme weather events, sea level rise, and changes in the distribution of species.” I thought this was a pretty good response. Seems like a useful tool to check if you are trying to say something in plain English. You can repeat the question, and it will usually give you a slightly different response - just to get a feel for different ways of expressing a concept. Dtetta ( talk) 16:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I was reading this today:
But it's important to understand that the majority of the world's population growth is concentrated in poorer countries with significantly lower emissions rates. They're not the ones creating the situation. But in reality, they're the ones having to face the consequences of this over-consumption in the West. They suffer disproportionately. Despite the growth in their populations, they're actually responsible for a very tiny percentage.
— Andrea Wojnar, India representative for the United Nations Population Fund, as quoted by NPR
...and then I read our article about climate change and was surprised that this point wasn't in the lead, and is instead mentioned further down in the body:
Countries that are most vulnerable to climate change have typically been responsible for a small share of global emissions.
— First sentence of Climate change § Policies and politics
I think the inequity between those causing climate change and those suffering from it is an important-enough aspect of the topic to be in the first paragraph of the lead, or at least somewhere in the lead. What do others think? Levivich ( talk) 00:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Countries that are most vulnerable to climate change have typically been responsible for a small share of global emissions.? Levivich ( talk) 19:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Second paragraph is changed to only cover the environment, with human impacts moved to the next (new) paragraph:
Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common.[5] Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes.[7] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include sea level rise, and oceans with an increased temperature and lowered pH values.[11]
Third paragraph is people, including from second paragraph, adaptation from last paragraph, and a new sentence at the end on how poor countries are less able to adapt:
Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[9] The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[10] Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like better coastline protection or by expanding access to air conditioning, but some impacts are unavoidable. Poorer countries are responsible for a small share of global emissions, yet they have the least ability to adapt and are most vulnerable to climate change.
Fourth paragraph unchanged:
Many of these impacts are already felt at the current 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) level of warming. Additional warming will increase these impacts and may trigger tipping points, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.[12] Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations collectively agreed to keep warming "well under 2 °C". However, with pledges made under the Agreement, global warming would still reach about 2.7 °C (4.9 °F) by the end of the century.[13] Limiting warming to 1.5 °C will require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.[14]
Last paragraph just has final sentence cut since it was moved to the new third paragraph:
Reducing emissions requires generating electricity from low-carbon sources rather than burning fossil fuels. This change includes phasing out coal and natural gas fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, and reducing energy use. Electricity generated from non-carbon-emitting sources will need to replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and operating industrial facilities.[16][17] Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and by farming with methods that capture carbon in soil.[18]
− | In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels.[2][3] Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane.[4] Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Larger amounts of these gases trap more heat in Earth's lower atmosphere, causing global warming.
Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common.[5] Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes.[7] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[9] The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[10] | + | In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels.[2][3] Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane.[4] Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Larger amounts of these gases trap more heat in Earth's lower atmosphere, causing global warming.
Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common.[5] Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes.[7] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include sea level rise, and oceans with an increased temperature and lowered pH values.[11] Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[9] The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[10] Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like better coastline protection or by expanding access to air conditioning, but some impacts are unavoidable. Poorer countries are responsible for a small share of global emissions, yet they have the least ability to adapt and are most vulnerable to climate change. Many of these impacts are already felt at the current 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) level of warming. Additional warming will increase these impacts and may trigger tipping points, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.[12] Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations collectively agreed to keep warming "well under 2 °C". However, with pledges made under the Agreement, global warming would still reach about 2.7 °C (4.9 °F) by the end of the century.[13] Limiting warming to 1.5 °C will require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.[14] Reducing emissions requires generating electricity from low-carbon sources rather than burning fossil fuels. This change includes phasing out coal and natural gas fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, and reducing energy use. Electricity generated from non-carbon-emitting sources will need to replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and operating industrial facilities.[16][17] Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and by farming with methods that capture carbon in soil.[18] |
Here is the {{ textdiff}} of the current and proposed lead. Levivich ( talk) 17:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Crescent77: Can you fix the WP:overcitation of the sentences that attribute global dimming and double check that they're all about this episode? You added one source about the more recent slowdown of global warming. This isn't really controversial, so should not have more than two citations. I'm not going to check all of them. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The most plausible explanation for global dimming is increased atmospheric aerosol loading derived from anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels and biomass, from [4], the second cited source. Many of the newly cited sources do not make any claim about attribution, at least within the categories of pollution. For instance, the 2021 press release only states that aerosols (likely human) rather than natural cloud cover was the cause, but does not delve into the source of these results. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, that's much improved.
Just to revent my general point of frustration on the work on these pages, please stop protecting crap passages. The previous version you insisted on returning to multiple times was innaccurate with poor sourcing. Based on my interactions with you which seem to indicate you are very proficient editor who generally ensures high quality material, it thouroughly befuddled me that you would do so. It really comes across as a knee jersey reaction against progress.
Are you using WP:SCIRS as your justification to do so? WP:SCIRS is an opinion essay. For you to suggest that you "don't think there's any avoiding of it" speaks to the issues with the methodology that produced much of the readability issues on these climate change pages. I did intend to finish my last comment with one more general discussion related to this and how we're handling these pages, but I got pulled into other activities. I will try to do so as I have time, likely on your talk page.
Anyways, as to the specific passage, I might even go simpler : "Global Dimming is generally attributed to the burning of fossil fuels and biomass." For the time being, until someone has more time to review the literature. There's more to the story here, I would suggest you take a closer look, if for nothing more than your own personal understanding.
Crescent77 ( talk) 16:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, was absent for some time and not happy with the changes to the lead last month [6]
Previous version:
While communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like better coastline protection, they cannot avert the risk of severe, widespread, and permanent impacts. |
Current version:
Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning, but some impacts are unavoidable. |
This is what the source says:
Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, wide�spread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts. {3.2, 3.4} p=17 |
The current wording could be a misrepresentation of the source. At best it's super vague. What impacts are unavoidable? There is no reference to mitigation in that paragraph (reducing emissions is only mentioned later).
The current wording sounds like what interest groups that lobby against action to mitigate climate change might say (oh it's unavoidable anyway, why bother).
The lead is already short, it wouldn't hurt to add few more words and explain the issue clearly: mitigation is needed; without mitigation, adaptation cannot avert "severe, widespread, irreversible" impacts. Bogazicili ( talk) 17:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning, but risk of widespread, severe, and permanent global impacts are unavoidable without reducing emissions. |
EMsmile, we can switch to AR6. Updating the source would be an added benefit to changing the wording. Also the lead needs a link to climate change mitigation. Here are relevant quotes from AR6:
WG 2, p. 43:
Available evidence on projected climate risks indicates that opportunities for adaptation to many climate risks will likely become constrained and have reduced effectiveness should 1.5°C global warming be exceeded and that, for many locations on Earth, capacity for adaptation is already significantly limited. The maintenance and recovery of natural and human systems will require the achievement of mitigation targets. |
WG 2, p. 2504:
FAQ 16.2 | How does adaptation help to manage key risks and what are its limits? Adaptation helps to manage key risks by reducing vulnerability or exposure to climate hazards. However, constraining factors make it harder to plan or implement adaptation and result in adaptation limits beyond which risks cannot be prevented. Limits to adaptation are already being experienced, for instance by coastal communities, small-scale farmers and some natural systems. ... While adaptation is important to reduce risk, adaptation cannot prevent all climate impacts from occurring. Adaptation has soft and hard limits, points at which adaptive actions are unable to prevent risks. ... Adaptation is critical for responding to unavoidable climate risks. Greater warming will mean more and more severe impacts requiring a high level of adaptation which may face greater constraints and reach soft and hard limits. At high levels of warming, it may not be possible to adapt to some severe impacts. |
WG 2, p. 63:
Although risks are distributed across cities and settlements at all levels of economic development, wealthier and more urbanised coastal cities and settlements are more likely to be able to limit impacts and risk in the near- to mid-term through infrastructure resilience and coastal protection interventions, with highly uncertain prospects in many of these locations beyond 2100 (high confidence). |
WG 2 p: 1108
Adaptations options for heat refer to strategies implemented at short time scales such as air conditioning and HAPs, including heat warning systems and longer-term solutions such as urban design and planning and NbS (Table 7.4). |
So here's the updated suggestion, with link to climate change mitigation:
"Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning, but severe impacts may be unavoidable without limiting warning (WG 2, p. 2504; p. 63; p. 1108; p. 43)." Bogazicili ( talk) 08:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those sources, that is good to work off of. I'd like to avoid "may" wherever possible though. Saying "may be unavoidable" is the same as "could be unavoidable", which is so weak as to be meaningless (anything *could* happen). It is best to be declarative and precise if possible.
I looked at wording things in a more precise way, but then there is a run on sentence. I think reorganizing the paragraph is for the best. This is what I came up with:
Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Communities may partly adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning. Poorer countries have the least ability to adapt and are also least responsible for global emissions. If mitigation targets are passed then human and natural systems will increasingly break down, and human migration and conflict can also be a result. |
Rationale:
Efbrazil ( talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
There is low confidence that the Mediterranean region can adapt to rapid sea level rise for the case of rapid Antarctic ice-sheets collapse, even in regions with high capabilities to adapt, such as the northwest Mediterranean (Poumadère et al., 2008). |
If global warming transiently exceeds 1.5°C in the coming decades or later (overshoot)37, then many human and natural systems will face additional severe risks, compared to remaining below 1.5°C (high confidence). Depending on the magnitude and duration of overshoot, some impacts will cause release of additional greenhouse gases (medium confidence) and some will be irreversible, even if global warming is reduced (high confidence). (Box SPM.1, Figure SPM.3) {2.5, 3.4, 12.3, 16.6, CCB DEEP, CCB SLR} |
Climate change
threatens people with increased
food and
water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and
economic loss.
Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[sources] The
World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[sources] Some communities may partly
adapt to climate change through efforts like
coastline protection or expanding access to
air conditioning [there might be better examples here], but |
Climate change
threatens people with increased
food and
water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and
economic loss.
Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[sources] The
World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[sources] Natural and human systems will experience severe risks without
limiting warming [Wg2 p 19], but some communities may partly
adapt to climate change through efforts like
coastline protection or expanding access to
air conditioning [there might be better examples here]. |
(I copied EMsmile's message from above, as it pertains to two separate topics) —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I've boldly added 3 images to the article now (in the conventional format, i.e. below each other on the right handside): mangrove planting, sea wall and green roofs. It happens to fit nicely with the new skin layout, at least on my screen. But perhaps 3 are too many, do we need to take one out? EMsmile ( talk) 09:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
In the mid- to long-term, displacement will increase with intensification of heavy precipitation and associated flooding, tropical cyclones, drought and, increasingly, sea level rise (high confidence). At progressive levels of warming, involuntary migration from regions with high exposure and low adaptive capacity would occur (medium confidence). Compared to other socioeconomic factors the influence of climate on conflict is assessed as relatively weak (high confidence). Along long-term socioeconomic pathways that reduce non-climatic drivers, risk of violent conflict would decline (medium confidence). At higher global warming levels, impacts of weather and climate extremes, particularly drought, by increasing vulnerability will increasingly affect violent intrastate conflict (medium confidence). {TS B.7.4, 7.3, 16.5, CCB MIGRATE } |
TS.B.7.4 Climate variability and extremes are associated with more prolonged conflict through food price spikes, food and water insecurity, loss of income and loss of livelihoods (high confidence), with more consistent evidence for low intensity organised violence within countries than for major or international armed conflict (medium confidence). .... There is insufficient evidence at present to attribute armed conflict to human-induced climate change. |
Societies and ecosystems will experience more severe risks in the future without without limiting warming.[Wg2 p 19] Adapting to climate change through efforts like [example 1] or [example 2] reduces climate change risks, although this may not be possible with increasing warming.[WG 2, p.21-26; p.2504] |
Coming back to Femke's comment above: "The horizontal picture gallery to me looks highly unprofessional and breaks up the article" I think they are actually quite OK but if others also dislike them then perhaps now is a good time to change that (rather than adding a third horizontal picture gallery for adaptation images). What do you think of the layout where 2-3 images are put side by side, on the right handside? I've seen this from time to time, see e.g. here: /info/en/?search=Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Causes . If its just single images on the right side of the article, one below the other, it's a little bit hard to make sure they are seen as belonging together. EMsmile ( talk) 08:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The current text in the Modelling section of the article says things like:
Models are used to calculate the degree of warming future emissions will cause...
I tried to fix this to:
Models are used to predict the degree of warming future emissions might cause
but was instantly reverted by @femke, who said, "Feels less neutral to overemphasize limits to models".
It is not neutral to state that models reflect the actual future. That is clearly false. Most people have no idea how models work or how accurate or inaccurate they are -- which is why the article got wording like that. People think, "The computer said X, therefore X is the truth." But why did it say X? Because of the model's internal programming and the data that was input to that program about the past. Both of those can be, and almost certainly are, inaccurate and incomplete. They create working approximations but they are nowhere near gospel truth. Responsible models calculate "error bars" which are mathematical estimates of the likely range of errors in the predictions, though most laypeople ignore these or don't know how to interpret them. There is a bit more information about how models work at Atmospheric model but @femke deleted the wikilink that I added leading to that article.
I accept that some of the specific changes that I contributed may not be right for the article. And yet, I think it's important to tell people in the section on climate modelling, that these models are software simulations, and not reality. The models used to write the original IPCC reports did not correctly predict what happened over the subsequent 20 years. The models that we have today will not correctly predict what happens over the next 20 years. Responding to climate change means making decisions based on uncertain predictions and only partial understandings. This is obvious to anyone who deals with predictive models, but these obvious attributes of models are not reflected in the current wording of the Climate change article. How can we improve this? Gnuish ( talk) 03:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This is what WG2 says, p. 21
Adaptation to water-related risks and impacts make up the majority of all documented adaptation (high confidence). For inland flooding, combinations of non-structural measures like early warning systems and structural measures like levees have reduced loss of lives (medium confidence). Enhancing natural water retention such as by restoring wetlands and rivers, land use planning such as no build zones or upstream forest management, can further reduce flood risk (medium confidence). On-farm water management, water storage, soil moisture conservation and irrigation are some of the most common adaptation responses and provide economic, institutional or ecological benefits and reduce vulnerability (high confidence). Irrigation is effective in reducing drought risk and climate impacts in many regions and has several livelihood benefits, but needs appropriate management to avoid potential adverse outcomes, which can include accelerated depletion of groundwater and other water sources and increased soil salinization (medium confidence). Large scale irrigation can also alter local to regional temperature and precipitation patterns (high confidence), including both alleviating and exacerbating temperature extremes (medium confidence). The effectiveness of most water-related adaptation options to reduce projected risks declines with increasing warming (high confidence). |
so maybe we can say "through efforts like additional flood control measures or farm water management". For the earlier sentence, I'm good with "societies and ecosystems" btw. Bogazicili ( talk) 20:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article). We could use Bogazicili's source to add that. Adaptation is the only section that can still be expanded, so no need to remove anything else when adding info about irrigation. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with air conditioning, but if people want to drop it and if farm water management is too vague, how about drought-resistant crops? It's in the gallery below. Combining it with suggestion from above, how about:
Climate change
threatens people with increased
food and
water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and
economic loss.
Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[sources] The
World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[sources] Societies and ecosystems will experience more severe risks in the future without without
limiting warming.[Wg2 p 19]
Adapting to climate change through efforts like
flood control measures or
drought-resistant crops reduces climate change risks, although this may not be possible with increasing warming.[WG 2, p.21-26; p.2504]' |
Bogazicili ( talk) 13:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I was looking for a good summary sentence on the effects of climate change (to be used in the lead of
effects of climate change). I then came across this sentence in our article which I find odd: The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching,
affecting oceans, ice, and weather.
. I'm assuming that "ice" was added there instead of "cryosphere" but still the sentence is odd. At the very least, it should be introduced with "for example". When you look at the IPCC AR 6 WG I report chapters, I see there:
Therefore, a better summary sentence could be The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting the water cycle, oceans, sea and land ice, sea level, weather and climate extreme events
.
EMsmile (
talk)
13:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
As has been discussed before, be careful using IPCC work as a model for wording. They are a political organization whose role is to provide high level analyses to inform policy makers. They have a level of political responsibility that often requires a nuance in wording that can easily confuse lay readers, and it often doesn't work with WP's value as a provider of information in a readable common language form. Crescent77 ( talk) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, we have heard of events on the news and on social media, like acid rain in Ohio due to a train derailment, sea levels rising because ice sheets and glaciers are melting in the Arctic, and the amount of pollution we create through gas and trash in the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeleeh574 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affects oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle. This, in turn, affects other aspects of the climate system, for example the frequency of extreme weather events(or without the third sentence). EMsmile ( talk) 21:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
How is "an intergovernmental body of the UN" not political? That's about as political as politics goes, I'd suggested taking a look at the concept of "politics" on WP.
Our job is most definitely not to translate the IPCC's language. Our job is to use the information they, and other sources, provide to further a readers understanding of the topic at hand. In some cases, that may mean the specific wording the IPCC uses is best left in their reports and off WP. Provide the reader the reference information, let them read it for themselves.
I'm with Femke. The meaning of "extreme" events can be quite vague, and is better left off. Keep it simple. Crescent77 ( talk) 21:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The IPCC is most definitely a reliable source. Couple problems:
1. As discussed above, they are a group of expert scientists/policy advisors reviewing material for expert scientists/policy advisors. The language does not present itself well for the average reader. It can easily lead to confusing passages when a layperson attempts to "translate" it. It should be summarized, in your own words. I challenge you to do so, you've been fighting to hold onto IPCC language, rather than prioritizing clear summaries. Please share the greater understanding you have gleaned from reading the IPCC work.
2. WP is NOT a repository for any and all information. Just because the IPCC included it in their reports, does not mean it needs to be here on WP, if it does not contribute to a general understanding. See #1 above, the IPCC experts include alot of wording in their reports for expert understanding that does not need to be covered in detail on WP, especially on a high level summary article.
Sometimes, these climate change articles look like bad hoarder situations. There's alot of great material from great sources, but it's buried under piles and piles of stuff, and it's hard to move around. They need some cleanup, and the folks inhabiting this page who are holding on to stuff are going to have let things go if they want visitors to be comfortable to learn here.
That is what we're hoping for, I believe? Crescent77 ( talk) 14:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
bad hoarder situations, I love this wording, and very much agree. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 15:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
bad hoarder situationsexcuse me I feel the need to rant here
BAD HOARDER SITUATIONSTurkish Wikipedia is so stupid - maybe 10 times I tried to remove rubbish like paragraphs of decades old fire risk from the electric car article and it was always put back in - those editors are just disrespecting the work of the guys in the factory here who are making the cars - rant over I feel better now thanks Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting oceans, ice, and weather. My proposal is to change it to this which I think is actually clearer for lay persons: I am not a fan of gerunds in general (in this case: "affecting") as they are difficult to understand for non native English speakers.:
The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affect oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle. This, in turn, affects other aspects of the climate system, for example the frequency of extreme weather events. I think my proposal is also more accurate while only being a little bit longer. If we are only allowed to have 3 items in a listing, then I think the three that I chose make the most sense: oceans, ice and water cycle. The other things (weather extremes) stem from that. EMsmile ( talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affect oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle.. EMsmile ( talk) 23:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Should we change the main picture to the climate stripes? https://www.reading.ac.uk/planet/climate-resources/climate-stripes Our2050World ( talk) 15:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add one new reference to the following sentence: "Arctic amplification is also melting permafrost, which releases methane and CO2 into the atmosphere."
It is new and relevant research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JG006956
Galera, L. A., Eckhardt, T., Beer, C., Pfeiffer, E.-M., & Knoblauch, C. (2023). Ratio of in situ CO2 to CH4 production and its environmental controls in polygonal tundra soils of Samoylov Island, Northeastern Siberia. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 128, e2022JG006956. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JG006956 A345678B ( talk) 11:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I recently started a discussion at WT:Climate regarding the term "enhancing carbon sinks". In the discussion, people were comfortable using the term "removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" instead. I would like to use that wording in the first sentence of the Mitigation section to make it more understandable to the general reader. It currently says:
I propose changing this to:
Thoughts? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 16:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe that the fact of how Earth absorbs radiation from the sun and how it redistributes it back to the atmosphere and ocean, and re-radiated into space because it is a key concept that plays that helps explain how climate change is produced. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5700:5D:75D8:D5F5:334B:4484 ( talk) 07:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
References
I've just made some small changes to the last para of the adaptation section, shown in bold below. My aim was to make it clearer to our readers that first we give examples of trade-offs, then of synergies:
"There are synergies but also trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation often offer short-term benefits, whereas mitigation has longer-term benefits. [1] Two examples for trade-offs include: Increased use of air conditioning allows people to better cope with heat, but increases energy demand. Compact urban development may lead to reduced emissions from transport and construction. At the same time, this kind of urban development may increase the urban heat island effect, leading to higher temperatures and increased exposure. [2] An example for synergy is increased food productivity which has large benefits for both adaptation and mitigation. [3]"
Further points that I think need thinking about:
Pinging User:Richarit. EMsmile ( talk) 09:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Synergies include the benefits of public transport for both mitigation and adaptation. Public transport has lower greenhouse gas emissions per kilometer travelled than cars. A good public transport network also increases resilience in case of disasters: evacuation and emergency access becomes easier. Reduced air pollution from public transport improves health, which in turn may lead to improved economic resilience, as healthy workers perform better. [5]EMsmile ( talk) 09:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
References
The Department of Defense has developed the DOD Climate Assessment Tool. DCAT, as it's called, is a web-based tool informed by volumes of data from global climate models, historical observations, and flood modeling that can help the department prepare for climate hazards at over 2,300 DOD locations around the world. In 2023, the department expanded DCAT to include over 400 locations outside the United States. But also, the department has been developing a separate capability, the Climate Assessment Tool, or CAT, that will be provided to several partner nations to give those countries access to an assessment tool similar to DCAT to enable their own climate change exposure analyses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mengmengz ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The announcement in the news today might have a place in this article. We've made reference to the temperature targets so this is relevant I think. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602293 Thelisteninghand ( talk) 23:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Femke, in your recent revert of my changes, you stated in the edit summary that "a tweet is not a RS". WP:TWITTER does say that tweets are not reliable. However, exceptions are normally made for established experts in their related fields/topics. In this case, Ryan Maue, the author of the tweet, served as the NOAA chief scientist and was hand-picked for the position by the US President. [9] Multiple of his tweets are used throughout Wikipedia as he is considered an established expert in the field of atmospheric science and climate related things. I do agree that it is US Specific, but some level of inclusion of his tweet would probably be best since a NOAA Chief Scientist said something fairly significant in regards to climate change/global warming. I just wanted to make you aware of that. After you comment here, I will figure out a different way of wording the sentence since it is based on the US. Elijahandskip ( talk) 16:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
On May 26, 2023, Ryan Maue, the former chief scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that the frequency or strength of tropical cyclones impacting the United States has not increased or decreased as a result of an increase in global warming saying, "There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, although by some measures, U.S. landfalling tropical cyclone activity for 2004-2010 was the strongest in the records since the late 1800s. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for observing capabilities), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity."in the paragraph on tropical cyclones in Climate change in the United States should be fine. "
a comprehensive 2006 article in Geophysical Research Letters found "no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity" during past decades...is mentioned in the article as well. Maue basically just confirms that statement. I see no issues with the inclusion of the quote since it specifically says (1) when it was said, (2) by whom, and (3) the exact quote itself. Wouldn't not including it be more along the lines of bias since it just somewhat restates an earlier thing mentioned in the article. Elijahandskip ( talk) 19:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change sentence "In the 1820s, Joseph Fourier proposed the greenhouse effect to explain why Earth's temperature was higher than the sun's energy alone could explain." to add reference at the end of the sentence to the original work where this was discussed, available freely online in La Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) Gallica online library at
URL https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65708960
Title of work: "Remarques générales sur les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires."
Author: M. Fourier
Date: 1st of January 1824 Nsphy ( talk) 14:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.Tollens ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This Article contains misleading information about climate change that may have come as a result of international government propaganda. The trusted sources to show this is https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-why-climate-change-is-real/a-62482188 and the book “The Creature From Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin. Bob Jefferson jr ( talk) 18:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about the term fossil fuel use in an important sentence in the first paragraph of the lead: Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.
A reviewer that I am working with on the
carbon footprint article (to where I had copied this sentence) pointed out to me: "I find this quite imprecise (fossil fuel use is too unspecific, it is almost always about burning or, in industry, about material use, which, however, is often also associated with oxidation)." petrochem
Mind you, the sentence just before does talk about burning of fossil fuels: The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.
Shouldn't the second sentence therefore include an "also", to indicate that the two sentences belong together?: Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices also increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.
So why do we include fossil fuel use just after burning of fossil fuel? Which kind of non-burning fossil fuel uses do we have in mind that would emit so much GHGE that it's mentioned so prominently here, even before deforestation and GHGE from agriculture? It it e.g. the conversion of natural gas to fertiliser? Wouldn't that rather be included in "industrial practices" (which wikilinks only to concrete production ( Environmental impact of concrete); why only that one)?
The reviewer also said by the way "Refrigerants should also be mentioned (like the CFCs often used in the past)."
My proposal:
:::: And what about my question about mentioning refrigerants or not? Is this deliberately omitted because their contribution is too small to warrant a mention here? I just want to make sure it was a deliberate choice, not an oversight.
EMsmile (
talk)
07:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (edit: don't want to waste people's time, contributions much smaller)
The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans who are burning fossil fuels. [1] [2] Additional contributions to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere include deforestation as well as agricultural and industrial practices, for example cement production. The two most notable greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and methane. [3]
The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.
The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes. It is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This, together with deforestation, agricultural and industrial practices and other activities increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.(I've left off wikilinks for easier reading for now; but the wikilink behind "industrial practices" ought to go to here in my opinion, do you agree?: industrial practices).
caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation,Perhaps someone will come along later to bring a better solution to the table for this. Anyhow, time for me to move on. EMsmile ( talk) 08:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This fossil fuel use, deforestation,, so just adding the word "This". (And it's not true that sentences cannot commence with "this". It's OK if the antecedent is clearly defined, like it would be in this case.) Sorry for being annoying / harping on about this. I do think this could be a nice little tweak that would add value. But if I am the only one who thinks that then I'll shut up. EMsmile ( talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing with me on this one and not (yet) telling me to go away. ;-) Just for my own understanding: which parts of the fossil fuel that is not burning, contributes so much to GHGE that it would warrant a mentioning in first spot of the sentence, even before deforestation? Please point me to the relevant graphic. I look e.g. at this one on GHGE. If I understand it correctly, then the non-burning fossil fuel use is in the segment on industrial processes which is only 5.7% (or is this not the right graph to look at as it's all about burning fossil fuel in this graph?). You said above "The vast majority of fossil fuel use consists of burning. Other uses are also a problem though, as once fossil fuels are extracted they are likely to release their carbon." So how much do the non-burning FF uses contribute to GHGE? I think I am missing something. EMsmile ( talk) 10:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This fossil fuel use, deforestation,. But OK, I promise to keep quiet now and really move on! :-) EMsmile ( talk) 21:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Click at right to show/hide refs
|
---|
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 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
I have a question about the sentence in the lead that says: Smaller contributions come from
agriculture, industrial processes, and
forest loss.
Smaller makes it sound like they are almost negligible compared to the Burning
fossil fuels that is in the previous sentence. Is this really so? Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the other processes would still be a huge problem. Also where is the thawing of permafrost mentioned as a contributor to GHG emissions, not just as an effect of climate change (it's mentioned currently in the paragraph that summarises effects)? So anyway, could we change "smaller" to "further"? E.g. emissions from cement production (subsumed in the sentence about industrial processes is not small. GHG emissions from agriculture is not "small" either. Small is relative. Further or additional or other would be better.
EMsmile (
talk)
17:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Here's a proposed rewrite that I think covers everything being talked about here. It goes a bit further than just cutting that one sentence, doing these additional things:
In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's
climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is
primarily caused by humans. Burning
fossil fuels adds
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, most importantly
carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane. Smaller contributions come from
agriculture, industrial processes, and
forest loss.
Greenhouse gases warm the air burning
fossil fuels.
[1]
[2] Fossil fuel use and activities like
deforestation add
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, including
carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane.
[3]
These gases warm the air by absorbing heat radiated by the Earth, trapping the heat near the surface.
Greenhouse gas emissions amplify this effect, causing the Earth to take in
more energy from sunlight than it can radiate
Adding to greenhouse gases causes the Earth to take in
more energy from sunlight than it radiates back into space.
Efbrazil (
talk)
20:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Fossil fuel use plus activities like.
activities like deforestation add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere- do you refer here to the burning of forests? It doesn't add methane though? Isn't the bigger problem from deforestation that it removes carbon sinks in the process (and also leads to changes in the water cycle, but that's another story)?
causing the Earth to take in more energy from sunlight than it can radiate back into space., I find the word "can" strange as if Earth is a person. Perhaps better to say "causing the Earth to accumulate more heat than before which results in an energy imbalance". For comparison, see the wording used at greenhouse effect, e.g.
Additionally, human-caused increases in greenhouse gases trap greater amounts of heat, causing the Earth to grow warmer over time. - I suppose there are lots of similar ways to say the same thing, perhaps this has already been discussed to death before. EMsmile ( talk) 22:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels.[2 cites] Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.[cite] Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Adding to these gases traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.
bout one-third (33%) of anthropogenic emissions are from gas release during the extraction and delivery of fossil fuels; mostly due to gas venting and gas leaks from both active fossil fuel infrastructure and orphan wells. [...] Animal agriculture is a similarly large source (30%); primarily because of enteric fermentation by ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep.. Of course this would be way too long but perhaps we can summarise this in a few words. So I think in summary it's good that we mention methane but we should also mention something about where the human-caused emission of methane is coming from.
Greenhouse gases absorb the heat the Earth radiates in response to sunlight- what I find difficult (as a non-native speaker) is the "the heat the Earth" combination. Could we at least change it to "the heat which the Earth..."? But also "in response to sunlight" doesn't sound right to me. Maybe
Greenhouse gases absorb (or trap) the heat which the Earth radiates back into space after receiving it from the sun. - And there are probably loads of "plain English" explanations on the internet available to explain this greenhouse effect issue to children. Can we be inspired from one of those websites for this sentence? See e.g. their statement here:
Our globe is warming because the carbon dioxide gas in the air is trapping the sun's heat near the Earth.EMsmile ( talk)
Fossil fuel use and activities like deforestation create greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.I guess it's because we think the word "to emit" is difficult to understand? "Create" sounds strange in my ears. Perhaps "produce"? Or "produce additional greenhouse gases"? And I would suggest to put a wiklink to methane emissions behind "methane" in that sentence. EMsmile ( talk) 11:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
...caused by humans]] burning fossil fuels.[2 cites] Fossil fuel use and activities like...This is not elegant. Perhaps start that sentence with "This fossil fuel use...", or "Continued fossil fuel use..." or some other construct? Or perhaps others don't think it's bad style how it is now. EMsmile ( talk) 09:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Good to see the wikilink added to global average temperature. I don't think beginning and ending sentences with "fossil fuel" is a problem or reads weird, at least to this American, so I made no changes there.
I appreciate the concerns around brevity and being careful not to say that all heat is trapped. Unfortunately, I think the latest edits to the last sentence were a step backwards in terms of clarity and readability. Combining both how greenhouse gases work and also Earth's energy imbalance caused by GGE into the same sentence makes for a mess. For instance, the changed sentence says "trap more of the heat" without saying that any heat is trapped in the first place.
I went back and edited into 2 sentences but was careful to address the specific concerns about brevity and not implying that all heat is being retained. Note that even though it is 2 sentences now, the length is unchanged from the previous edit. Efbrazil ( talk) 16:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Smaller contributions come from agriculture, industrial processes, and forest loss.EMsmile ( talk) 11:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
by farming with methods that capture carbon in soilbut that's actually an overly specific example and wikilink. I still think a link to greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture would be good somewhere in the lead. But fine to be overruled, I think we might be getting exhausted and perhaps can't see the forest anymore for the trees (at least in my case). EMsmile ( talk) 19:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Great work. I spotted one small issue about readability now in the last sentence but will start a new section about this on the talk page, and would totally understand if you say "not now, later, I need a break". EMsmile ( talk) 08:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Click to show/hide refs
|
---|
References
|
Nonsense on both points, that's all well sourced. Crescent77 ( talk) 23:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
As I first said. Are you actually saying it is correct, or are you saying you are willing to accept the inaccuracy for the sake of brevity? Crescent77 ( talk) 23:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a new sentence that I stumbled over with regards to readability: It's the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead which now says Adding to these gases
traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.
. I think for non-native English speakers, starting a sentence with "Adding to these gases" is difficult to understand. Maybe it could be changed to simpler language by saying: When more of these gases are added to the atmosphere they
trap more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.
. Or "By adding..." Or "When increasing the concentration of these gases..." (is it useful to mention concentration here or is that the same as the absolute amount anyhow?). Note: I am finding
Quillbot useful to try out different ways of formulating this. It's a free tool although you do have to register for a free account after you've used it on 5 sentences or so.
EMsmile (
talk)
08:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Increasing these gases traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.. Still not easy to understand. I think clearer would be
When these gases are increased, this traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.. - Are there others in this group, from their own language background, who can confirm or reject my feeling that a sentence that starts with a gerund is most likely a bit "complicated"? I had a quick scan of the climate change article and am happy to report that we don't start many sentences with a gerund. - @ Dtetta: for another opinion regarding readability here. EMsmile ( talk) 17:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Man, you guys are just scapegoating the new editor. You've created the confusion, he just brought it (back) into the light (though I do agree he talks in some confusing run on phrasing with lots of tangents) The meaning of the term should be clearly and concisely covered in the lead, that's what an encyclopedia does. I understand the need for a Terminology section for further clarification, but one shouldn't have read that far into it for a start. Femke pointed out the German Wikipedia setup, I think they've got much a clearer setup concerning climate change and global warming. Crescent77 ( talk) 15:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Femke, I think any of your 3 proposals could address the issue. I'm not inclined to go with a formal procedure, I feel like that would be foolish of me. Even though I may disagree with folks here in methodology, I am happy to see that all folks here are editing with good intent. As that is not the case on alot of WP, were I to pursue formal procedures, it would be to address the agenda driven editors I see on several other articles. To reiterate, it's great to see all the efforts of many well intentioned folk here, including genuine discussion; if folks here are hell bent on maintaining current naming, so be it.
Likewise, we seem to agree that Climate Variablity and Change is a poor name, but to rename it to the more seemly Climate Change would require a change here that folks seem reluctant to accept. All that material could be included here, but that may make for too long an article and/or take too much effort.
On a more functional note, I think the opening should cover both the common and generic meanings, in a succinct manner. How about for an opening sentence something along the lines of "Climate Change is a long term shift in weather patterns." Then follow with something addressing anthropogenic driven global warming as the current state of affairs and therefore the default understanding of the term. Both the UN and NASA take that direction, I'm not understanding the resistance to that here. Crescent77 ( talk) 00:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is about contemporary climate change. For historical climate trends, see Climate variability and change.Or perhaps the hatnote is too easy to overlook, especially for novice readers? Regarding the article Climate variability and change, I also find its title a bit sub-optimal. I am sure there was a long discussion about it in the past already. But I am wondering: Maybe it could be renamed to Climate change (entire history of Earth). But the article confuses me a bit anyhow as it seems to overlap too much with content at climate change. Maybe it needs to be streamlined better. Could it be refocused to become Climate change (prior to human influences)? EMsmile ( talk) 06:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The fact that the opening word is a specifier indicating only a subset of climate change seems very unencyclopedic to me. I really feel it should start with the broadest meaning and build the specifics from there. Because the hat note is technical feature and not the direct wording of the article the duplication there doesn't seem inappropriate to me, as you say I do think it is easy to overlook.
I do think "Climate Change" and "climate variability and change" should be combined as one article, perhaps with subsections named as ESmile suggests above, but that would be alot of work that I wouldn't be able to effectively undertake. Crescent77 ( talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In common usage, climate change refers to contemporary global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans. . . .
I realize my proposal adds 1.5 sentences, but I think the clarification is worth the added word count. It immediately crystallizes the nomenclature issue before it's detailed in the /* Terminology */ section. — RCraig09 ( talk) 00:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
By any other name ... Whether referred to as "global warming" or "climate change," the consequences of the widescale changes currently being observed in Earth's climate system could be considerable.. EMsmile ( talk) 19:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
You guys are really into the esoteric. Too bad it detracts from broader understanding. Crescent77 ( talk) 23:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It's been almost five days since the blue quote-box suggestion, which has met either with approval or with suggestions that have been adopted. If I don't see disagreement, I think it's time to insert that quote-box material into the article lead. Speak up now if you have further suggestions. — RCraig09 ( talk) 23:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Building on Femke's recent change away from "broadest" sense, note the minor proposed changes, "refers to" and "a broader" in the blue box. Agreed? — RCraig09 ( talk) 03:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Wow, you seem quite inclined to proclaim your work. Seems like ownership to me.
Sorry for the exclamations, I didn't expect them to derail you so readily. That may explain why you failed to address my reasoning. Crescent77 ( talk) 23:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The recent discussions about terminology section reminded me of this. Can we move History section and its subsections up, after Terminology section? It seems like a more logical and chronological place. Terminology, History, and then the rest of the article. Bogazicili ( talk) 19:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the public is confused about the terms CC and GW. I think it's more of an issue with the euphenism treadmill. Crescent77 ( talk) 22:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Do we still need these anchors here for the section on solar activity? === <span class="anchor" id="Sun"></span><span class="anchor" id="Solar activity"></span> Solar and volcanic activity ===. I wonder if the snytax is outdated: It seems to cause an error when I use the excerpt template to transcribe this section to climate change mitigation. Could I just delete the <span class="anchor" id="Sun"></span><span class="anchor" id="Solar activity"></span> string? EMsmile ( talk) 10:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused, I'm hoping someone can offer clarity. The latest IPCC report shows land use changes as being a net negative (cooling) factor on balance. See here, which is just a reflection of SPM.2c: File:Physical Drivers of climate change.svg. SPM.4 repeats the assertion that land use change has a net cooling effect and is talked about along with aerosols.
That obviously runs against the other sources we have, which report land use changes as being a significant contributor to carbon emissions. For instance, here from the global carbon project: File:CO2 Emissions by Source Since 1880.svg
Can somebody explain the disparity here? I have a few theories, but I don't know if they are true. One is that the IPCC is just looking at warming influence change from 2010 - 2019 and finds land use change in that particular decade was net negative, maybe due to irrigation / reflectivity changes and because they are ignoring how much future warming is being banked by land use emissions today. Or maybe the IPCC was ignoring deforestation when they came up with their graphic, since they are qualifying land use changes as being irrigation and reflectivity, although the graphic makes it sound like its looking at all key factors. Anybody know what's actually going on here? Efbrazil ( talk) 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sssara7 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jaynean ( talk) 00:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I have just discovered that the page is restricted from editing. However the German version of this article has an information video about carbon dioxide's effect as a climate factor.
I have translated the audiotrack of the original video and uploaded the derived work to wikimedia commons and wanted to include the video also to this article. However I don't want to qualify for sanctions which is why I am opening the topic here and hope someone can help me!
-- Renepick ( talk) 22:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I wonder why aerosols come second in the section "Drivers of recent temperature rise" (even before land surface changes) even though aerosols are complicated as they can contribute to warming and cooling. Could we drop them to third place? So far it looks like this in the table of contents:
3 Drivers of recent temperature rise 3.1 Greenhouse gases 3.2 Aerosols and clouds 3.3 Land surface changes 3.4 Solar and volcanic activity 3.5 Climate change feedback
In comparison, in the article Attribution of recent climate change (less well developed than the climate change article of course) it looks like this:
3 Key attributions 3.1Greenhouse gases 3.1.1 Water vapor 3.2Land use 3.2.1Livestock and land use 3.3 Aerosol
I am asking today because I had included the same list and ordering in the article
climate change mitigation but another editor (
User:Hedgehoque) deleted the aerosols bullet point from the list saying: Sorry to remove aerosols again. But as commented earlier they are no driver for temperature rise. Quoting the excerpt: "aerosols having a dampening effect". If you want to include them, we need a separate list for this kind.
. So I would like to get the story straight for how the aerosol issue is included best in the "drivers of recent temperature rise" section for all three articles.
EMsmile (
talk)
22:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel that the topic of oceans is underrepresented in the lead and wonder if we could add one sentence about the effects of climate change on oceans? I see that the issue of
ocean acidification is framed in the lead and in the main text as "just" a "long term issue". I think this is misleading as those changes are already happening now and are having an impact. Also, there is so much more to oceans than just warming and a lowering pH value. The first sentence of the article
effects of climate change on oceans will be too long but I am just adding it here to show that there are so many effects on the ocean. I think this needs to come out more clearly, in the lead and in the main text: There are many significant effects of climate change on oceans including: an increase in
sea surface temperature as well as
ocean temperatures at greater depths, more frequent
marine heatwaves, a
reduction in pH value, a
rise in sea level from
ocean warming and
ice sheet melting,
sea ice decline in the Arctic, increased upper
ocean stratification,
reductions in oxygen levels, increased contrasts in salinity (salty areas becoming saltier and fresher areas becoming less salty),
[1] changes to
ocean currents including a weakening of the
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, and stronger
tropical cyclones and
monsoons.
[2]
EMsmile (
talk)
22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I am surprised that this article Climate change does not contain the word "wood" (nor does Attribution of recent climate change; I haven't checked other subarticles). As a reader, I have some questions about wood and climate change that the article doesn't answer:
Here are some recent sources about climate change and wood that I've read, though these are mostly "pop" sources, not hard science: NRDC, Guardian, Chatham House, New Yorker. Anyway, I'm not familiar with either the science, or the history of the development of this article. Is there a reason wood isn't mentioned in the article? Should it be? Has this been discussed before, am I unknowingly beating a dead horse? Thanks, Levivich ( talk) 17:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Here's a 2015 paper from Ecological Economics [2], titledThe treatment of biomass as zero-carbon in policy frameworks will give policymakers in consumer countries a false sense of optimism...In 2019, according to our analysis, US-sourced wood pellets burnt for energy in the UK were responsible for 13 million–16 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions, when taking into account [various factors]...Almost none of these emissions are included in the UK’s national greenhouse gas inventory; if they were, this would have added between 22 and 27 per cent to the emissions from total UK electricity generation, or 2.8–3.6 per cent of total UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. This volume is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from 6 million to 7 million passenger vehicles....Emissions from US-sourced biomass burnt in the UK are projected to rise to 17 million–20 million tonnes of CO₂ a year by 2025. This represents 4.4–5.1 per cent of the average annual greenhouse gas emissions target in the UK’s fourth carbon budget (which covers the period 2023–27), making it more difficult to hit a target which the government is already not on track to achieve.
Back to the past: Burning wood to save the globe, abstract:
There appears to be some scholarly debate here, and I was surprised it's not covered at all in our top-level article on climate change. I guess I'll keep reading and see if I can put together something about it. Levivich ( talk) 23:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)In an effort to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning, renewable energy policies incentivize use of forest biomass as an energy source. Many governments have assumed (legislated) the carbon flux from burning biomass to be neutral because biomass growth sequesters CO2...This study demonstrates that the assumed carbon neutrality of biomass for energy production hinges on the fact that we weakly discount future removals of carbon, and it is sensitive to tree species and the nature of the fuel for which biomass substitutes.
Experimenting with ChatGBT ( https://chat.openai.com/chat), and asked it “What is climate change?” It gave this response: “Climate change is the long-term alteration of temperature and weather patterns in the Earth's atmosphere. It is primarily caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, into the atmosphere, which trap heat and cause global temperatures to rise. This can lead to a variety of impacts, such as more extreme weather events, sea level rise, and changes in the distribution of species.” I thought this was a pretty good response. Seems like a useful tool to check if you are trying to say something in plain English. You can repeat the question, and it will usually give you a slightly different response - just to get a feel for different ways of expressing a concept. Dtetta ( talk) 16:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I was reading this today:
But it's important to understand that the majority of the world's population growth is concentrated in poorer countries with significantly lower emissions rates. They're not the ones creating the situation. But in reality, they're the ones having to face the consequences of this over-consumption in the West. They suffer disproportionately. Despite the growth in their populations, they're actually responsible for a very tiny percentage.
— Andrea Wojnar, India representative for the United Nations Population Fund, as quoted by NPR
...and then I read our article about climate change and was surprised that this point wasn't in the lead, and is instead mentioned further down in the body:
Countries that are most vulnerable to climate change have typically been responsible for a small share of global emissions.
— First sentence of Climate change § Policies and politics
I think the inequity between those causing climate change and those suffering from it is an important-enough aspect of the topic to be in the first paragraph of the lead, or at least somewhere in the lead. What do others think? Levivich ( talk) 00:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Countries that are most vulnerable to climate change have typically been responsible for a small share of global emissions.? Levivich ( talk) 19:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Second paragraph is changed to only cover the environment, with human impacts moved to the next (new) paragraph:
Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common.[5] Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes.[7] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include sea level rise, and oceans with an increased temperature and lowered pH values.[11]
Third paragraph is people, including from second paragraph, adaptation from last paragraph, and a new sentence at the end on how poor countries are less able to adapt:
Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[9] The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[10] Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like better coastline protection or by expanding access to air conditioning, but some impacts are unavoidable. Poorer countries are responsible for a small share of global emissions, yet they have the least ability to adapt and are most vulnerable to climate change.
Fourth paragraph unchanged:
Many of these impacts are already felt at the current 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) level of warming. Additional warming will increase these impacts and may trigger tipping points, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.[12] Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations collectively agreed to keep warming "well under 2 °C". However, with pledges made under the Agreement, global warming would still reach about 2.7 °C (4.9 °F) by the end of the century.[13] Limiting warming to 1.5 °C will require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.[14]
Last paragraph just has final sentence cut since it was moved to the new third paragraph:
Reducing emissions requires generating electricity from low-carbon sources rather than burning fossil fuels. This change includes phasing out coal and natural gas fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, and reducing energy use. Electricity generated from non-carbon-emitting sources will need to replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and operating industrial facilities.[16][17] Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and by farming with methods that capture carbon in soil.[18]
− | In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels.[2][3] Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane.[4] Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Larger amounts of these gases trap more heat in Earth's lower atmosphere, causing global warming.
Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common.[5] Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes.[7] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[9] The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[10] | + | In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels.[2][3] Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane.[4] Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Larger amounts of these gases trap more heat in Earth's lower atmosphere, causing global warming.
Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common.[5] Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes.[7] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include sea level rise, and oceans with an increased temperature and lowered pH values.[11] Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[9] The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[10] Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like better coastline protection or by expanding access to air conditioning, but some impacts are unavoidable. Poorer countries are responsible for a small share of global emissions, yet they have the least ability to adapt and are most vulnerable to climate change. Many of these impacts are already felt at the current 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) level of warming. Additional warming will increase these impacts and may trigger tipping points, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.[12] Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations collectively agreed to keep warming "well under 2 °C". However, with pledges made under the Agreement, global warming would still reach about 2.7 °C (4.9 °F) by the end of the century.[13] Limiting warming to 1.5 °C will require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.[14] Reducing emissions requires generating electricity from low-carbon sources rather than burning fossil fuels. This change includes phasing out coal and natural gas fired power plants, vastly increasing use of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy, and reducing energy use. Electricity generated from non-carbon-emitting sources will need to replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and operating industrial facilities.[16][17] Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and by farming with methods that capture carbon in soil.[18] |
Here is the {{ textdiff}} of the current and proposed lead. Levivich ( talk) 17:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Crescent77: Can you fix the WP:overcitation of the sentences that attribute global dimming and double check that they're all about this episode? You added one source about the more recent slowdown of global warming. This isn't really controversial, so should not have more than two citations. I'm not going to check all of them. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The most plausible explanation for global dimming is increased atmospheric aerosol loading derived from anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels and biomass, from [4], the second cited source. Many of the newly cited sources do not make any claim about attribution, at least within the categories of pollution. For instance, the 2021 press release only states that aerosols (likely human) rather than natural cloud cover was the cause, but does not delve into the source of these results. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, that's much improved.
Just to revent my general point of frustration on the work on these pages, please stop protecting crap passages. The previous version you insisted on returning to multiple times was innaccurate with poor sourcing. Based on my interactions with you which seem to indicate you are very proficient editor who generally ensures high quality material, it thouroughly befuddled me that you would do so. It really comes across as a knee jersey reaction against progress.
Are you using WP:SCIRS as your justification to do so? WP:SCIRS is an opinion essay. For you to suggest that you "don't think there's any avoiding of it" speaks to the issues with the methodology that produced much of the readability issues on these climate change pages. I did intend to finish my last comment with one more general discussion related to this and how we're handling these pages, but I got pulled into other activities. I will try to do so as I have time, likely on your talk page.
Anyways, as to the specific passage, I might even go simpler : "Global Dimming is generally attributed to the burning of fossil fuels and biomass." For the time being, until someone has more time to review the literature. There's more to the story here, I would suggest you take a closer look, if for nothing more than your own personal understanding.
Crescent77 ( talk) 16:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, was absent for some time and not happy with the changes to the lead last month [6]
Previous version:
While communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like better coastline protection, they cannot avert the risk of severe, widespread, and permanent impacts. |
Current version:
Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning, but some impacts are unavoidable. |
This is what the source says:
Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, wide�spread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts. {3.2, 3.4} p=17 |
The current wording could be a misrepresentation of the source. At best it's super vague. What impacts are unavoidable? There is no reference to mitigation in that paragraph (reducing emissions is only mentioned later).
The current wording sounds like what interest groups that lobby against action to mitigate climate change might say (oh it's unavoidable anyway, why bother).
The lead is already short, it wouldn't hurt to add few more words and explain the issue clearly: mitigation is needed; without mitigation, adaptation cannot avert "severe, widespread, irreversible" impacts. Bogazicili ( talk) 17:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning, but risk of widespread, severe, and permanent global impacts are unavoidable without reducing emissions. |
EMsmile, we can switch to AR6. Updating the source would be an added benefit to changing the wording. Also the lead needs a link to climate change mitigation. Here are relevant quotes from AR6:
WG 2, p. 43:
Available evidence on projected climate risks indicates that opportunities for adaptation to many climate risks will likely become constrained and have reduced effectiveness should 1.5°C global warming be exceeded and that, for many locations on Earth, capacity for adaptation is already significantly limited. The maintenance and recovery of natural and human systems will require the achievement of mitigation targets. |
WG 2, p. 2504:
FAQ 16.2 | How does adaptation help to manage key risks and what are its limits? Adaptation helps to manage key risks by reducing vulnerability or exposure to climate hazards. However, constraining factors make it harder to plan or implement adaptation and result in adaptation limits beyond which risks cannot be prevented. Limits to adaptation are already being experienced, for instance by coastal communities, small-scale farmers and some natural systems. ... While adaptation is important to reduce risk, adaptation cannot prevent all climate impacts from occurring. Adaptation has soft and hard limits, points at which adaptive actions are unable to prevent risks. ... Adaptation is critical for responding to unavoidable climate risks. Greater warming will mean more and more severe impacts requiring a high level of adaptation which may face greater constraints and reach soft and hard limits. At high levels of warming, it may not be possible to adapt to some severe impacts. |
WG 2, p. 63:
Although risks are distributed across cities and settlements at all levels of economic development, wealthier and more urbanised coastal cities and settlements are more likely to be able to limit impacts and risk in the near- to mid-term through infrastructure resilience and coastal protection interventions, with highly uncertain prospects in many of these locations beyond 2100 (high confidence). |
WG 2 p: 1108
Adaptations options for heat refer to strategies implemented at short time scales such as air conditioning and HAPs, including heat warning systems and longer-term solutions such as urban design and planning and NbS (Table 7.4). |
So here's the updated suggestion, with link to climate change mitigation:
"Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning, but severe impacts may be unavoidable without limiting warning (WG 2, p. 2504; p. 63; p. 1108; p. 43)." Bogazicili ( talk) 08:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those sources, that is good to work off of. I'd like to avoid "may" wherever possible though. Saying "may be unavoidable" is the same as "could be unavoidable", which is so weak as to be meaningless (anything *could* happen). It is best to be declarative and precise if possible.
I looked at wording things in a more precise way, but then there is a run on sentence. I think reorganizing the paragraph is for the best. This is what I came up with:
Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Communities may partly adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning. Poorer countries have the least ability to adapt and are also least responsible for global emissions. If mitigation targets are passed then human and natural systems will increasingly break down, and human migration and conflict can also be a result. |
Rationale:
Efbrazil ( talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
There is low confidence that the Mediterranean region can adapt to rapid sea level rise for the case of rapid Antarctic ice-sheets collapse, even in regions with high capabilities to adapt, such as the northwest Mediterranean (Poumadère et al., 2008). |
If global warming transiently exceeds 1.5°C in the coming decades or later (overshoot)37, then many human and natural systems will face additional severe risks, compared to remaining below 1.5°C (high confidence). Depending on the magnitude and duration of overshoot, some impacts will cause release of additional greenhouse gases (medium confidence) and some will be irreversible, even if global warming is reduced (high confidence). (Box SPM.1, Figure SPM.3) {2.5, 3.4, 12.3, 16.6, CCB DEEP, CCB SLR} |
Climate change
threatens people with increased
food and
water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and
economic loss.
Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[sources] The
World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[sources] Some communities may partly
adapt to climate change through efforts like
coastline protection or expanding access to
air conditioning [there might be better examples here], but |
Climate change
threatens people with increased
food and
water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and
economic loss.
Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[sources] The
World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[sources] Natural and human systems will experience severe risks without
limiting warming [Wg2 p 19], but some communities may partly
adapt to climate change through efforts like
coastline protection or expanding access to
air conditioning [there might be better examples here]. |
(I copied EMsmile's message from above, as it pertains to two separate topics) —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I've boldly added 3 images to the article now (in the conventional format, i.e. below each other on the right handside): mangrove planting, sea wall and green roofs. It happens to fit nicely with the new skin layout, at least on my screen. But perhaps 3 are too many, do we need to take one out? EMsmile ( talk) 09:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
In the mid- to long-term, displacement will increase with intensification of heavy precipitation and associated flooding, tropical cyclones, drought and, increasingly, sea level rise (high confidence). At progressive levels of warming, involuntary migration from regions with high exposure and low adaptive capacity would occur (medium confidence). Compared to other socioeconomic factors the influence of climate on conflict is assessed as relatively weak (high confidence). Along long-term socioeconomic pathways that reduce non-climatic drivers, risk of violent conflict would decline (medium confidence). At higher global warming levels, impacts of weather and climate extremes, particularly drought, by increasing vulnerability will increasingly affect violent intrastate conflict (medium confidence). {TS B.7.4, 7.3, 16.5, CCB MIGRATE } |
TS.B.7.4 Climate variability and extremes are associated with more prolonged conflict through food price spikes, food and water insecurity, loss of income and loss of livelihoods (high confidence), with more consistent evidence for low intensity organised violence within countries than for major or international armed conflict (medium confidence). .... There is insufficient evidence at present to attribute armed conflict to human-induced climate change. |
Societies and ecosystems will experience more severe risks in the future without without limiting warming.[Wg2 p 19] Adapting to climate change through efforts like [example 1] or [example 2] reduces climate change risks, although this may not be possible with increasing warming.[WG 2, p.21-26; p.2504] |
Coming back to Femke's comment above: "The horizontal picture gallery to me looks highly unprofessional and breaks up the article" I think they are actually quite OK but if others also dislike them then perhaps now is a good time to change that (rather than adding a third horizontal picture gallery for adaptation images). What do you think of the layout where 2-3 images are put side by side, on the right handside? I've seen this from time to time, see e.g. here: /info/en/?search=Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Causes . If its just single images on the right side of the article, one below the other, it's a little bit hard to make sure they are seen as belonging together. EMsmile ( talk) 08:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The current text in the Modelling section of the article says things like:
Models are used to calculate the degree of warming future emissions will cause...
I tried to fix this to:
Models are used to predict the degree of warming future emissions might cause
but was instantly reverted by @femke, who said, "Feels less neutral to overemphasize limits to models".
It is not neutral to state that models reflect the actual future. That is clearly false. Most people have no idea how models work or how accurate or inaccurate they are -- which is why the article got wording like that. People think, "The computer said X, therefore X is the truth." But why did it say X? Because of the model's internal programming and the data that was input to that program about the past. Both of those can be, and almost certainly are, inaccurate and incomplete. They create working approximations but they are nowhere near gospel truth. Responsible models calculate "error bars" which are mathematical estimates of the likely range of errors in the predictions, though most laypeople ignore these or don't know how to interpret them. There is a bit more information about how models work at Atmospheric model but @femke deleted the wikilink that I added leading to that article.
I accept that some of the specific changes that I contributed may not be right for the article. And yet, I think it's important to tell people in the section on climate modelling, that these models are software simulations, and not reality. The models used to write the original IPCC reports did not correctly predict what happened over the subsequent 20 years. The models that we have today will not correctly predict what happens over the next 20 years. Responding to climate change means making decisions based on uncertain predictions and only partial understandings. This is obvious to anyone who deals with predictive models, but these obvious attributes of models are not reflected in the current wording of the Climate change article. How can we improve this? Gnuish ( talk) 03:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This is what WG2 says, p. 21
Adaptation to water-related risks and impacts make up the majority of all documented adaptation (high confidence). For inland flooding, combinations of non-structural measures like early warning systems and structural measures like levees have reduced loss of lives (medium confidence). Enhancing natural water retention such as by restoring wetlands and rivers, land use planning such as no build zones or upstream forest management, can further reduce flood risk (medium confidence). On-farm water management, water storage, soil moisture conservation and irrigation are some of the most common adaptation responses and provide economic, institutional or ecological benefits and reduce vulnerability (high confidence). Irrigation is effective in reducing drought risk and climate impacts in many regions and has several livelihood benefits, but needs appropriate management to avoid potential adverse outcomes, which can include accelerated depletion of groundwater and other water sources and increased soil salinization (medium confidence). Large scale irrigation can also alter local to regional temperature and precipitation patterns (high confidence), including both alleviating and exacerbating temperature extremes (medium confidence). The effectiveness of most water-related adaptation options to reduce projected risks declines with increasing warming (high confidence). |
so maybe we can say "through efforts like additional flood control measures or farm water management". For the earlier sentence, I'm good with "societies and ecosystems" btw. Bogazicili ( talk) 20:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article). We could use Bogazicili's source to add that. Adaptation is the only section that can still be expanded, so no need to remove anything else when adding info about irrigation. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with air conditioning, but if people want to drop it and if farm water management is too vague, how about drought-resistant crops? It's in the gallery below. Combining it with suggestion from above, how about:
Climate change
threatens people with increased
food and
water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and
economic loss.
Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[sources] The
World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[sources] Societies and ecosystems will experience more severe risks in the future without without
limiting warming.[Wg2 p 19]
Adapting to climate change through efforts like
flood control measures or
drought-resistant crops reduces climate change risks, although this may not be possible with increasing warming.[WG 2, p.21-26; p.2504]' |
Bogazicili ( talk) 13:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I was looking for a good summary sentence on the effects of climate change (to be used in the lead of
effects of climate change). I then came across this sentence in our article which I find odd: The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching,
affecting oceans, ice, and weather.
. I'm assuming that "ice" was added there instead of "cryosphere" but still the sentence is odd. At the very least, it should be introduced with "for example". When you look at the IPCC AR 6 WG I report chapters, I see there:
Therefore, a better summary sentence could be The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting the water cycle, oceans, sea and land ice, sea level, weather and climate extreme events
.
EMsmile (
talk)
13:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
As has been discussed before, be careful using IPCC work as a model for wording. They are a political organization whose role is to provide high level analyses to inform policy makers. They have a level of political responsibility that often requires a nuance in wording that can easily confuse lay readers, and it often doesn't work with WP's value as a provider of information in a readable common language form. Crescent77 ( talk) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, we have heard of events on the news and on social media, like acid rain in Ohio due to a train derailment, sea levels rising because ice sheets and glaciers are melting in the Arctic, and the amount of pollution we create through gas and trash in the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeleeh574 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affects oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle. This, in turn, affects other aspects of the climate system, for example the frequency of extreme weather events(or without the third sentence). EMsmile ( talk) 21:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
How is "an intergovernmental body of the UN" not political? That's about as political as politics goes, I'd suggested taking a look at the concept of "politics" on WP.
Our job is most definitely not to translate the IPCC's language. Our job is to use the information they, and other sources, provide to further a readers understanding of the topic at hand. In some cases, that may mean the specific wording the IPCC uses is best left in their reports and off WP. Provide the reader the reference information, let them read it for themselves.
I'm with Femke. The meaning of "extreme" events can be quite vague, and is better left off. Keep it simple. Crescent77 ( talk) 21:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The IPCC is most definitely a reliable source. Couple problems:
1. As discussed above, they are a group of expert scientists/policy advisors reviewing material for expert scientists/policy advisors. The language does not present itself well for the average reader. It can easily lead to confusing passages when a layperson attempts to "translate" it. It should be summarized, in your own words. I challenge you to do so, you've been fighting to hold onto IPCC language, rather than prioritizing clear summaries. Please share the greater understanding you have gleaned from reading the IPCC work.
2. WP is NOT a repository for any and all information. Just because the IPCC included it in their reports, does not mean it needs to be here on WP, if it does not contribute to a general understanding. See #1 above, the IPCC experts include alot of wording in their reports for expert understanding that does not need to be covered in detail on WP, especially on a high level summary article.
Sometimes, these climate change articles look like bad hoarder situations. There's alot of great material from great sources, but it's buried under piles and piles of stuff, and it's hard to move around. They need some cleanup, and the folks inhabiting this page who are holding on to stuff are going to have let things go if they want visitors to be comfortable to learn here.
That is what we're hoping for, I believe? Crescent77 ( talk) 14:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
bad hoarder situations, I love this wording, and very much agree. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 15:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
bad hoarder situationsexcuse me I feel the need to rant here
BAD HOARDER SITUATIONSTurkish Wikipedia is so stupid - maybe 10 times I tried to remove rubbish like paragraphs of decades old fire risk from the electric car article and it was always put back in - those editors are just disrespecting the work of the guys in the factory here who are making the cars - rant over I feel better now thanks Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting oceans, ice, and weather. My proposal is to change it to this which I think is actually clearer for lay persons: I am not a fan of gerunds in general (in this case: "affecting") as they are difficult to understand for non native English speakers.:
The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affect oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle. This, in turn, affects other aspects of the climate system, for example the frequency of extreme weather events. I think my proposal is also more accurate while only being a little bit longer. If we are only allowed to have 3 items in a listing, then I think the three that I chose make the most sense: oceans, ice and water cycle. The other things (weather extremes) stem from that. EMsmile ( talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affect oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle.. EMsmile ( talk) 23:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Should we change the main picture to the climate stripes? https://www.reading.ac.uk/planet/climate-resources/climate-stripes Our2050World ( talk) 15:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add one new reference to the following sentence: "Arctic amplification is also melting permafrost, which releases methane and CO2 into the atmosphere."
It is new and relevant research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JG006956
Galera, L. A., Eckhardt, T., Beer, C., Pfeiffer, E.-M., & Knoblauch, C. (2023). Ratio of in situ CO2 to CH4 production and its environmental controls in polygonal tundra soils of Samoylov Island, Northeastern Siberia. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 128, e2022JG006956. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JG006956 A345678B ( talk) 11:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I recently started a discussion at WT:Climate regarding the term "enhancing carbon sinks". In the discussion, people were comfortable using the term "removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" instead. I would like to use that wording in the first sentence of the Mitigation section to make it more understandable to the general reader. It currently says:
I propose changing this to:
Thoughts? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 16:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe that the fact of how Earth absorbs radiation from the sun and how it redistributes it back to the atmosphere and ocean, and re-radiated into space because it is a key concept that plays that helps explain how climate change is produced. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5700:5D:75D8:D5F5:334B:4484 ( talk) 07:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
References
I've just made some small changes to the last para of the adaptation section, shown in bold below. My aim was to make it clearer to our readers that first we give examples of trade-offs, then of synergies:
"There are synergies but also trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation often offer short-term benefits, whereas mitigation has longer-term benefits. [1] Two examples for trade-offs include: Increased use of air conditioning allows people to better cope with heat, but increases energy demand. Compact urban development may lead to reduced emissions from transport and construction. At the same time, this kind of urban development may increase the urban heat island effect, leading to higher temperatures and increased exposure. [2] An example for synergy is increased food productivity which has large benefits for both adaptation and mitigation. [3]"
Further points that I think need thinking about:
Pinging User:Richarit. EMsmile ( talk) 09:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Synergies include the benefits of public transport for both mitigation and adaptation. Public transport has lower greenhouse gas emissions per kilometer travelled than cars. A good public transport network also increases resilience in case of disasters: evacuation and emergency access becomes easier. Reduced air pollution from public transport improves health, which in turn may lead to improved economic resilience, as healthy workers perform better. [5]EMsmile ( talk) 09:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
References
The Department of Defense has developed the DOD Climate Assessment Tool. DCAT, as it's called, is a web-based tool informed by volumes of data from global climate models, historical observations, and flood modeling that can help the department prepare for climate hazards at over 2,300 DOD locations around the world. In 2023, the department expanded DCAT to include over 400 locations outside the United States. But also, the department has been developing a separate capability, the Climate Assessment Tool, or CAT, that will be provided to several partner nations to give those countries access to an assessment tool similar to DCAT to enable their own climate change exposure analyses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mengmengz ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The announcement in the news today might have a place in this article. We've made reference to the temperature targets so this is relevant I think. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602293 Thelisteninghand ( talk) 23:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Femke, in your recent revert of my changes, you stated in the edit summary that "a tweet is not a RS". WP:TWITTER does say that tweets are not reliable. However, exceptions are normally made for established experts in their related fields/topics. In this case, Ryan Maue, the author of the tweet, served as the NOAA chief scientist and was hand-picked for the position by the US President. [9] Multiple of his tweets are used throughout Wikipedia as he is considered an established expert in the field of atmospheric science and climate related things. I do agree that it is US Specific, but some level of inclusion of his tweet would probably be best since a NOAA Chief Scientist said something fairly significant in regards to climate change/global warming. I just wanted to make you aware of that. After you comment here, I will figure out a different way of wording the sentence since it is based on the US. Elijahandskip ( talk) 16:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
On May 26, 2023, Ryan Maue, the former chief scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that the frequency or strength of tropical cyclones impacting the United States has not increased or decreased as a result of an increase in global warming saying, "There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, although by some measures, U.S. landfalling tropical cyclone activity for 2004-2010 was the strongest in the records since the late 1800s. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for observing capabilities), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity."in the paragraph on tropical cyclones in Climate change in the United States should be fine. "
a comprehensive 2006 article in Geophysical Research Letters found "no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity" during past decades...is mentioned in the article as well. Maue basically just confirms that statement. I see no issues with the inclusion of the quote since it specifically says (1) when it was said, (2) by whom, and (3) the exact quote itself. Wouldn't not including it be more along the lines of bias since it just somewhat restates an earlier thing mentioned in the article. Elijahandskip ( talk) 19:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change sentence "In the 1820s, Joseph Fourier proposed the greenhouse effect to explain why Earth's temperature was higher than the sun's energy alone could explain." to add reference at the end of the sentence to the original work where this was discussed, available freely online in La Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) Gallica online library at
URL https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65708960
Title of work: "Remarques générales sur les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires."
Author: M. Fourier
Date: 1st of January 1824 Nsphy ( talk) 14:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.Tollens ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This Article contains misleading information about climate change that may have come as a result of international government propaganda. The trusted sources to show this is https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-why-climate-change-is-real/a-62482188 and the book “The Creature From Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin. Bob Jefferson jr ( talk) 18:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about the term fossil fuel use in an important sentence in the first paragraph of the lead: Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.
A reviewer that I am working with on the
carbon footprint article (to where I had copied this sentence) pointed out to me: "I find this quite imprecise (fossil fuel use is too unspecific, it is almost always about burning or, in industry, about material use, which, however, is often also associated with oxidation)." petrochem
Mind you, the sentence just before does talk about burning of fossil fuels: The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.
Shouldn't the second sentence therefore include an "also", to indicate that the two sentences belong together?: Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices also increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.
So why do we include fossil fuel use just after burning of fossil fuel? Which kind of non-burning fossil fuel uses do we have in mind that would emit so much GHGE that it's mentioned so prominently here, even before deforestation and GHGE from agriculture? It it e.g. the conversion of natural gas to fertiliser? Wouldn't that rather be included in "industrial practices" (which wikilinks only to concrete production ( Environmental impact of concrete); why only that one)?
The reviewer also said by the way "Refrigerants should also be mentioned (like the CFCs often used in the past)."
My proposal:
:::: And what about my question about mentioning refrigerants or not? Is this deliberately omitted because their contribution is too small to warrant a mention here? I just want to make sure it was a deliberate choice, not an oversight.
EMsmile (
talk)
07:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (edit: don't want to waste people's time, contributions much smaller)
The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans who are burning fossil fuels. [1] [2] Additional contributions to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere include deforestation as well as agricultural and industrial practices, for example cement production. The two most notable greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and methane. [3]
The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.
The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes. It is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This, together with deforestation, agricultural and industrial practices and other activities increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.(I've left off wikilinks for easier reading for now; but the wikilink behind "industrial practices" ought to go to here in my opinion, do you agree?: industrial practices).
caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation,Perhaps someone will come along later to bring a better solution to the table for this. Anyhow, time for me to move on. EMsmile ( talk) 08:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This fossil fuel use, deforestation,, so just adding the word "This". (And it's not true that sentences cannot commence with "this". It's OK if the antecedent is clearly defined, like it would be in this case.) Sorry for being annoying / harping on about this. I do think this could be a nice little tweak that would add value. But if I am the only one who thinks that then I'll shut up. EMsmile ( talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing with me on this one and not (yet) telling me to go away. ;-) Just for my own understanding: which parts of the fossil fuel that is not burning, contributes so much to GHGE that it would warrant a mentioning in first spot of the sentence, even before deforestation? Please point me to the relevant graphic. I look e.g. at this one on GHGE. If I understand it correctly, then the non-burning fossil fuel use is in the segment on industrial processes which is only 5.7% (or is this not the right graph to look at as it's all about burning fossil fuel in this graph?). You said above "The vast majority of fossil fuel use consists of burning. Other uses are also a problem though, as once fossil fuels are extracted they are likely to release their carbon." So how much do the non-burning FF uses contribute to GHGE? I think I am missing something. EMsmile ( talk) 10:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This fossil fuel use, deforestation,. But OK, I promise to keep quiet now and really move on! :-) EMsmile ( talk) 21:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Click at right to show/hide refs
|
---|
References
|