Climate sensitivity has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 16, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from Climate sensitivity appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 April 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I'm quite confident the article will pass the GA nomination (or in the worst case, the next one), so will start preparing for a WP:Did you know.
Please leave a comment if you'd like a different fact or a rewording.
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Stingray Trainer ( talk · contribs) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I will take on the GA review for this article.
Stingray Trainer ( talk) 19:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Review Criteria:
A) Well written:
B)
Verifiable with no original research:
C) Broad in its coverage:
D) Neutral:
E) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
F) Illustrated; If possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Conclusion
Stingray Trainer (
talk) 20:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Stringray Trainer: I'd recommend that this article be put on hold. Failing is generally only an option with extreme situations, and most articles aren't 100% GA-ready at the start of the review. The issues with this article aren't so massive that they are not readily fixable, and the nominator has expressed a desire to fix the issues. I'd recommend placing it on hold for a week or so to give the nominator a chance to get it up to standards. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Stringray Trainer and Femkemilene: As Femkemilene is one of the subject experts, if it is OK with you both as a layperson I can take on most of the work of fixing this if you like - with Femkemilene just responding to any scientific questions I may have and doing a final check to make sure I have not messed up any of the meaning. Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
So I guess I should:
1) Draft a new lede focusing on CO2 and feedback and avoiding using the term "radiative forcing". Correct me if I am wrong but I understand the common (school) use of the term is the one measured simply in degrees C so I guess the lede should concentrate on that for people who only read the lede.
2) Move the current first paragraph down to make a new first section titled "Definition".
3) Merge the current second paragraph into the "different forms of climate sensitivity" section.
4) Merge the current third paragraph into the "estimating climate sensitivity" section.
5) Think about the body of the article.
If that sounds right no need to reply. Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
1) I checked the cite for the statement lower down the article that "Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6 to 4.1 °C ..." and it is dated 2008. I think an estimated figure should be included in the lede - presumably the 1.5 to 4.5 °C IPCC figure?
2) The cite for: "If climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high side of what scientists estimate, it will likely be impossible to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2.0 °C." only has the abstract for free. In case the hypothetical high school kids don't want to pay 9 euros to read the whole paper is it allowed to quote the relevant sentence in the body of this article with more explanation? Or maybe there is some already and I missed it. Perhaps something to do with timelags in the feedbacks? Or maybe to do with overshooting causing feedbacks before CO2 removal - if so maybe there should be a link to carbon budget and full explanation there? If we are really sure that statement relates to the 4.5 figure and can solidly cite it then it could be good for "did you know".
3) Would it be a good idea to change "associated with" to "caused by"?
4) "and is not very well known" will of course no longer be true once this article is good!
5) I like that you added a clause to explain "radiative forcing". I wonder if it would be oversimplifying to change "the difference between incoming and outgoing energy on Earth" to "the sunlight that hits the Earth and is trapped as heat rather than returning to space". Maybe I should keep that for a new "Simple English" article instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 ( talk • contribs)
Ah OK great I will read it again once you have edited to see if I understand how it is possible we might have already overshot (or inevitably overshoot) the 2 degrees Paris limit if the sensitivity is large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 ( talk • contribs)
Following the extensive modifications that have been made to this article I am pleased to report that it has PASSED the GA review. Rather than create a new page I will summarise the final review below - that way anyone linking to the GA review will be able to see the original, and then this summary together without issues of version control:
A) Well written:
B) Verifiable with no original research:
C) Broad in its coverage:
D) Neutral:
E) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
F) Illustrated; If possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Conclusion
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 19:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Femkemilene ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC).
ECS and TCS can be confusing to general readers. The mean temperature is useful as an index of general warming, but the ECS for land is more relevant to people's experiences. These are available [1].
It may help to include a section which addresses this, and gives some typical values.
I have not yet examined the IPCC AR6 WG1 report to see if they say anything about these.
EcoQuant ( talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
References
I feel (but am not sure) that the two concepts climate risk and climate change scenario are somewhat related to climate sensitivity. As they were not yet mentioned in the main text, I put them under "See also" for now. Or perhaps I am mistaken and they have nothing to do with this? EMsmile ( talk) 20:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I am always a bit wary when I see a section in any of our climate change articles that is called "Background". I feel that a "background" section could become too big - where to start and where to stop - and overlap or be repetitive with other articles. In this case here, is "background" really the ideal title? Perhaps rather call it "Fundamentals", "Theoretical basis", "Rationale" or something like that? EMsmile ( talk) 20:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I came here to make some quick improvements to the readability of the lead. However, as the article is a GA article, I hesitate to jump straight in. Is anyone who was involved in the earlier GA review still here and open to readability improvements? Currently the entire third paragraph and almost the entire first paragraph lights up in dark red with the readability tool. Also, I find the caption for the image in the lead is rather long and complicated. Pinging User:Jonesey95 and User:Femke. - I am happy to give it a go but don't want to step on anyone's toes (and might also not get it perfectly right on the first go as it's not my area of expertise). EMsmile ( talk) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Estimates of climate sensitivity are calculated by several methods: by looking directly at temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations since the Industrial Revolution (so around 1750 onwards), by using indirect measurements from the Earth's distant past, and by using climate models to simulate the climate.EMsmile ( talk) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I see the wording of "doubling" mentioned a few times, e.g. in the first sentence of the lead, as if it's part of the definition. However, the IPCC definition does not include "doubling". Are there different trains of thought here? Do we need to emphasise the "doubling" aspect by having it in the first sentence of the lead? If so, this should be clarified in the "definition" section. EMsmile ( talk) 10:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 09:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
There are two main level headings that for me don't make sense as main level headings: "Sensitivity to nature of forcing" and "State dependence". Could we move them to be within either "Fundamentals" or "Measures"? I don't understand how they fit into this article otherwise. The other main level headings are quite clear. We have now:
As a lay person it is fairly intuitive to know what is under "estimates" or "methods". But what is under "state dependence"? Unclear. EMsmile ( talk) 09:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
At the end of the section that is now called "factors that determine sensitivity" there is a hidden comment as follows:
"Do we need this section? If so, why? It seems to be out of place with the rest of the article >> Although the term "climate sensitivity" is usually used for the sensitivity to radiative forcing caused by rising atmospheric CO2, it is a general property of the climate system. Other things can cause a radiative imbalance. Climate sensitivity is the change in surface air temperature per unit change in radiative forcing, and the climate sensitivity parameter [note 1] is therefore expressed in units of °C/(W/m2). The measure is approximately the same, whatever the reason for the radiative forcing (such as from greenhouse gases or solar variation). [1] When climate sensitivity is expressed as the temperature change for a level of atmospheric CO2 double the pre-industrial level, its units are degrees Celsius (°C)."
I don't know when it was added and by whom. Is there something we ought to do to address this? EMsmile ( talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Femke, I used to mention IPCC explicitly quite often but was told by you not to (see here discussion from 2 years ago). This made sence to me and ever since then, I have mentioned IPCC only sparingly (like in a section on definition of a term). But now my edit to remove the IPCC mention was reverted by you here. With the justification "restore IPCC in-text. Scientists say is much weaker than a consensus statement".
Does that mean you no longer avoid the explicit IPCC mentions? I think lay persons have no clue what IPCC is so it might be better to use different wording. Like "The scientific consensus in 2022 is xxx". (rather than "scientists say" and rather than "The IPCC literature assessment estimates" or "The ocean heat uptake estimated by the IPCC AR5 as" or "The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that"). EMsmile ( talk) 09:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
Climate sensitivity has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 16, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from Climate sensitivity appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 April 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I'm quite confident the article will pass the GA nomination (or in the worst case, the next one), so will start preparing for a WP:Did you know.
Please leave a comment if you'd like a different fact or a rewording.
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Stingray Trainer ( talk · contribs) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I will take on the GA review for this article.
Stingray Trainer ( talk) 19:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Review Criteria:
A) Well written:
B)
Verifiable with no original research:
C) Broad in its coverage:
D) Neutral:
E) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
F) Illustrated; If possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Conclusion
Stingray Trainer (
talk) 20:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Stringray Trainer: I'd recommend that this article be put on hold. Failing is generally only an option with extreme situations, and most articles aren't 100% GA-ready at the start of the review. The issues with this article aren't so massive that they are not readily fixable, and the nominator has expressed a desire to fix the issues. I'd recommend placing it on hold for a week or so to give the nominator a chance to get it up to standards. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Stringray Trainer and Femkemilene: As Femkemilene is one of the subject experts, if it is OK with you both as a layperson I can take on most of the work of fixing this if you like - with Femkemilene just responding to any scientific questions I may have and doing a final check to make sure I have not messed up any of the meaning. Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
So I guess I should:
1) Draft a new lede focusing on CO2 and feedback and avoiding using the term "radiative forcing". Correct me if I am wrong but I understand the common (school) use of the term is the one measured simply in degrees C so I guess the lede should concentrate on that for people who only read the lede.
2) Move the current first paragraph down to make a new first section titled "Definition".
3) Merge the current second paragraph into the "different forms of climate sensitivity" section.
4) Merge the current third paragraph into the "estimating climate sensitivity" section.
5) Think about the body of the article.
If that sounds right no need to reply. Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
1) I checked the cite for the statement lower down the article that "Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6 to 4.1 °C ..." and it is dated 2008. I think an estimated figure should be included in the lede - presumably the 1.5 to 4.5 °C IPCC figure?
2) The cite for: "If climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high side of what scientists estimate, it will likely be impossible to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2.0 °C." only has the abstract for free. In case the hypothetical high school kids don't want to pay 9 euros to read the whole paper is it allowed to quote the relevant sentence in the body of this article with more explanation? Or maybe there is some already and I missed it. Perhaps something to do with timelags in the feedbacks? Or maybe to do with overshooting causing feedbacks before CO2 removal - if so maybe there should be a link to carbon budget and full explanation there? If we are really sure that statement relates to the 4.5 figure and can solidly cite it then it could be good for "did you know".
3) Would it be a good idea to change "associated with" to "caused by"?
4) "and is not very well known" will of course no longer be true once this article is good!
5) I like that you added a clause to explain "radiative forcing". I wonder if it would be oversimplifying to change "the difference between incoming and outgoing energy on Earth" to "the sunlight that hits the Earth and is trapped as heat rather than returning to space". Maybe I should keep that for a new "Simple English" article instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 ( talk • contribs)
Ah OK great I will read it again once you have edited to see if I understand how it is possible we might have already overshot (or inevitably overshoot) the 2 degrees Paris limit if the sensitivity is large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 ( talk • contribs)
Following the extensive modifications that have been made to this article I am pleased to report that it has PASSED the GA review. Rather than create a new page I will summarise the final review below - that way anyone linking to the GA review will be able to see the original, and then this summary together without issues of version control:
A) Well written:
B) Verifiable with no original research:
C) Broad in its coverage:
D) Neutral:
E) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
F) Illustrated; If possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Conclusion
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 19:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Femkemilene ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC).
ECS and TCS can be confusing to general readers. The mean temperature is useful as an index of general warming, but the ECS for land is more relevant to people's experiences. These are available [1].
It may help to include a section which addresses this, and gives some typical values.
I have not yet examined the IPCC AR6 WG1 report to see if they say anything about these.
EcoQuant ( talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
References
I feel (but am not sure) that the two concepts climate risk and climate change scenario are somewhat related to climate sensitivity. As they were not yet mentioned in the main text, I put them under "See also" for now. Or perhaps I am mistaken and they have nothing to do with this? EMsmile ( talk) 20:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I am always a bit wary when I see a section in any of our climate change articles that is called "Background". I feel that a "background" section could become too big - where to start and where to stop - and overlap or be repetitive with other articles. In this case here, is "background" really the ideal title? Perhaps rather call it "Fundamentals", "Theoretical basis", "Rationale" or something like that? EMsmile ( talk) 20:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I came here to make some quick improvements to the readability of the lead. However, as the article is a GA article, I hesitate to jump straight in. Is anyone who was involved in the earlier GA review still here and open to readability improvements? Currently the entire third paragraph and almost the entire first paragraph lights up in dark red with the readability tool. Also, I find the caption for the image in the lead is rather long and complicated. Pinging User:Jonesey95 and User:Femke. - I am happy to give it a go but don't want to step on anyone's toes (and might also not get it perfectly right on the first go as it's not my area of expertise). EMsmile ( talk) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Estimates of climate sensitivity are calculated by several methods: by looking directly at temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations since the Industrial Revolution (so around 1750 onwards), by using indirect measurements from the Earth's distant past, and by using climate models to simulate the climate.EMsmile ( talk) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I see the wording of "doubling" mentioned a few times, e.g. in the first sentence of the lead, as if it's part of the definition. However, the IPCC definition does not include "doubling". Are there different trains of thought here? Do we need to emphasise the "doubling" aspect by having it in the first sentence of the lead? If so, this should be clarified in the "definition" section. EMsmile ( talk) 10:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 09:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
There are two main level headings that for me don't make sense as main level headings: "Sensitivity to nature of forcing" and "State dependence". Could we move them to be within either "Fundamentals" or "Measures"? I don't understand how they fit into this article otherwise. The other main level headings are quite clear. We have now:
As a lay person it is fairly intuitive to know what is under "estimates" or "methods". But what is under "state dependence"? Unclear. EMsmile ( talk) 09:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
At the end of the section that is now called "factors that determine sensitivity" there is a hidden comment as follows:
"Do we need this section? If so, why? It seems to be out of place with the rest of the article >> Although the term "climate sensitivity" is usually used for the sensitivity to radiative forcing caused by rising atmospheric CO2, it is a general property of the climate system. Other things can cause a radiative imbalance. Climate sensitivity is the change in surface air temperature per unit change in radiative forcing, and the climate sensitivity parameter [note 1] is therefore expressed in units of °C/(W/m2). The measure is approximately the same, whatever the reason for the radiative forcing (such as from greenhouse gases or solar variation). [1] When climate sensitivity is expressed as the temperature change for a level of atmospheric CO2 double the pre-industrial level, its units are degrees Celsius (°C)."
I don't know when it was added and by whom. Is there something we ought to do to address this? EMsmile ( talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Femke, I used to mention IPCC explicitly quite often but was told by you not to (see here discussion from 2 years ago). This made sence to me and ever since then, I have mentioned IPCC only sparingly (like in a section on definition of a term). But now my edit to remove the IPCC mention was reverted by you here. With the justification "restore IPCC in-text. Scientists say is much weaker than a consensus statement".
Does that mean you no longer avoid the explicit IPCC mentions? I think lay persons have no clue what IPCC is so it might be better to use different wording. Like "The scientific consensus in 2022 is xxx". (rather than "scientists say" and rather than "The IPCC literature assessment estimates" or "The ocean heat uptake estimated by the IPCC AR5 as" or "The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that"). EMsmile ( talk) 09:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).