So this article has been split off from greenhouse gas today. We should now change the wiki links to this article that come from other articles to link correctly to either greenhouse gas or to greenhouse gas emissions. Is there an easy way to do this? I would start with the tab on the left which says "what links here". That's thousands of articles that are currently linking to greenhouse gas. Would be very time consuming to go through them all. Is there a faster method? I noticed that about 300 articles already link to here which is good. EMsmile ( talk) 08:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Phoenix7777: Thanks for updating this. As there are so many countries perhaps it should now be moved to List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions just leaving the top 10 or so here? Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Section 2 is called "Sources" and Section 3 is called "Regional and national attribution of emissions". This kind of split doesn't make sense to me. Either the two sections ought to be merged (Section 3 is also about sources) or renamed and restructured? EMsmile ( talk) 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I added a graphic showing changes in log(CO2 emissions) in the 'Projections' section, because there didn't seem to be a section on historical growth. Lee De Cola ( talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
In light of the accelerating effects of these emissions, I strongly suggest somebody - but who? - take charge of this article and reorganize/shorten/clarify. A place to begin would be the excellent pub I reference (Friedlingstein, P., et al. (2020)) in my contribution. Lee De Cola ( talk) 16:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I have some improvement suggestions and would work on them myself as soon as time permits, but perhaps I can find some collaborators here:
Perhaps the first 2 sections could be very brief summaries of, and with references to, other articles. Lee De Cola ( talk) 19:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
This topic - and all those relating to global climate - is far too important to be edited ad hoc by amateurs. Isn't there some kind of Wikipedia panel of experts that could undertake a complete reorg/rewrite of the various topics? For the moment I'm most preoccupied with the ‘piecewise analysis of CO2 emissions’ (which I feel deserves greater prominence once it’s been validated) so I’m not in a position to rework other sections. Lee De Cola ( talk) 22:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I am planning to approach some content experts to help with the review and improvements of this article. They won't have to do Wikipedia editing themselves if they don't want to but could mark up a Word document instead. This is part of this project that I am working on. Question: which content expert might be open to this - any suggestions? My experience so far is that textbook authors who are already in retirement are sometimes quite open to this kind of collaboration. They might also have a little bit more time on their hands than those in the middle of their hectic careers. Is there a good textbook on this topic? Another option could be some of the authors of the IPCC sixth assessment report but there are so many, I wouldn't know where to start. Or perhaps some science journalists? Some people value the opportunity to finally be shown how Wikipedia editing can work behind the scenes. EMsmile ( talk) 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Using the outline I suggested above, I volunteer to review, reassemble, and edit entries related to #3: temporal visualization and analysis. But it would be good if there were experts looking at my work. Lee De Cola ( talk) 22:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
There needs to be a distinction made between human-emitted greenhouse gases and natural greenhouse gases. A greenhouse gas is obviously not something else because it is emitted or generated naturally. The CO2 that is in the atmosphere that comes from volcanoes or termites is not a different kind of gas, nor does it have a different effect on the atmosphere than the CO2 which comes from a fosil fuel plant. By failing to make this distinction, the reader left wondering why the carbon emissions from natural phenomena and the offsetting processes, such as photosynthesis [1], are not even mentioned. The openning statement is incomplete, and therefore actually inacurrate and misleading. The increase in CO2 is obviously causes by human activity, but that is not the same as saying that this is what CO2 exclusively is. Contraverse ( talk) 20:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 1 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Aderush (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Pearl2070,
Bixle023,
Gray0696,
LandonA77.
There's a new report by IEA which could be used to update the data in this article: Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 . EMsmile ( talk) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to add information about GHG emissions from internet usage, streaming of videos, youtube etc. Those are not negligible and will continue to grow in future. See also discussion here on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change. I don't have time right now to search for the actual numbers on the internet, so am just putting this here as a reminder. EMsmile ( talk) 08:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Firstly I agree that streaming videos, video conferencing etc are likely to keep rising in future. Before we get into details and maybe my and your definition of "negligible" can we clarify the scope of the discussion. Would you agree:
1) All internet activities other than video, gaming and cryptocurrency emit negligible GHG
2) Crypto is outside the scope of this discussion (happy to discuss here but people might get confused as the arguments are a bit different to video and gaming)
Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 16 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Elluhnore (
article contribs).
I'm not sure about how the IPCC diagrams are licensed for reuse, but I think the per capita emissions according to region used in AR6 WGIII SPM figure 2 is a more comprehensive visualization, if someone knows how to get that into Wikipedia.. – Jiaminglimjm ( talk) 21:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I came here looking for one (it's often hard to find one that isn't 2-3 years old from google results) and was rather startled that none exist, beyond that one starting in 1900 with 20 year increments (which therefore ends... 2020? 2017? Hard to say.) There are all kinds of very rich visual aides here and my hat's off to everyone, but surely I'm not the only one looking for the "how much has it gotten worse over the 5Y and 10Y" data hit. 134.41.20.147 ( talk) 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I came across this open access publication which is worth using in the section on emissions from the sanitation sector: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122007952?via%3Dihub (Title: "Non-negligible greenhouse gas emissions from non-sewered sanitation systems: A meta-analysis"). Am a bit undecided if I should add some content from the paper here in this article and also at sanitation or if that is inelegant (to have the same figures in two different Wikipedia articles). EMsmile ( talk) 21:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
So this article has been split off from greenhouse gas today. We should now change the wiki links to this article that come from other articles to link correctly to either greenhouse gas or to greenhouse gas emissions. Is there an easy way to do this? I would start with the tab on the left which says "what links here". That's thousands of articles that are currently linking to greenhouse gas. Would be very time consuming to go through them all. Is there a faster method? I noticed that about 300 articles already link to here which is good. EMsmile ( talk) 08:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Phoenix7777: Thanks for updating this. As there are so many countries perhaps it should now be moved to List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions just leaving the top 10 or so here? Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Section 2 is called "Sources" and Section 3 is called "Regional and national attribution of emissions". This kind of split doesn't make sense to me. Either the two sections ought to be merged (Section 3 is also about sources) or renamed and restructured? EMsmile ( talk) 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I added a graphic showing changes in log(CO2 emissions) in the 'Projections' section, because there didn't seem to be a section on historical growth. Lee De Cola ( talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
In light of the accelerating effects of these emissions, I strongly suggest somebody - but who? - take charge of this article and reorganize/shorten/clarify. A place to begin would be the excellent pub I reference (Friedlingstein, P., et al. (2020)) in my contribution. Lee De Cola ( talk) 16:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I have some improvement suggestions and would work on them myself as soon as time permits, but perhaps I can find some collaborators here:
Perhaps the first 2 sections could be very brief summaries of, and with references to, other articles. Lee De Cola ( talk) 19:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
This topic - and all those relating to global climate - is far too important to be edited ad hoc by amateurs. Isn't there some kind of Wikipedia panel of experts that could undertake a complete reorg/rewrite of the various topics? For the moment I'm most preoccupied with the ‘piecewise analysis of CO2 emissions’ (which I feel deserves greater prominence once it’s been validated) so I’m not in a position to rework other sections. Lee De Cola ( talk) 22:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I am planning to approach some content experts to help with the review and improvements of this article. They won't have to do Wikipedia editing themselves if they don't want to but could mark up a Word document instead. This is part of this project that I am working on. Question: which content expert might be open to this - any suggestions? My experience so far is that textbook authors who are already in retirement are sometimes quite open to this kind of collaboration. They might also have a little bit more time on their hands than those in the middle of their hectic careers. Is there a good textbook on this topic? Another option could be some of the authors of the IPCC sixth assessment report but there are so many, I wouldn't know where to start. Or perhaps some science journalists? Some people value the opportunity to finally be shown how Wikipedia editing can work behind the scenes. EMsmile ( talk) 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Using the outline I suggested above, I volunteer to review, reassemble, and edit entries related to #3: temporal visualization and analysis. But it would be good if there were experts looking at my work. Lee De Cola ( talk) 22:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
There needs to be a distinction made between human-emitted greenhouse gases and natural greenhouse gases. A greenhouse gas is obviously not something else because it is emitted or generated naturally. The CO2 that is in the atmosphere that comes from volcanoes or termites is not a different kind of gas, nor does it have a different effect on the atmosphere than the CO2 which comes from a fosil fuel plant. By failing to make this distinction, the reader left wondering why the carbon emissions from natural phenomena and the offsetting processes, such as photosynthesis [1], are not even mentioned. The openning statement is incomplete, and therefore actually inacurrate and misleading. The increase in CO2 is obviously causes by human activity, but that is not the same as saying that this is what CO2 exclusively is. Contraverse ( talk) 20:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 1 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Aderush (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Pearl2070,
Bixle023,
Gray0696,
LandonA77.
There's a new report by IEA which could be used to update the data in this article: Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 . EMsmile ( talk) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to add information about GHG emissions from internet usage, streaming of videos, youtube etc. Those are not negligible and will continue to grow in future. See also discussion here on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change. I don't have time right now to search for the actual numbers on the internet, so am just putting this here as a reminder. EMsmile ( talk) 08:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Firstly I agree that streaming videos, video conferencing etc are likely to keep rising in future. Before we get into details and maybe my and your definition of "negligible" can we clarify the scope of the discussion. Would you agree:
1) All internet activities other than video, gaming and cryptocurrency emit negligible GHG
2) Crypto is outside the scope of this discussion (happy to discuss here but people might get confused as the arguments are a bit different to video and gaming)
Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 16 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Elluhnore (
article contribs).
I'm not sure about how the IPCC diagrams are licensed for reuse, but I think the per capita emissions according to region used in AR6 WGIII SPM figure 2 is a more comprehensive visualization, if someone knows how to get that into Wikipedia.. – Jiaminglimjm ( talk) 21:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I came here looking for one (it's often hard to find one that isn't 2-3 years old from google results) and was rather startled that none exist, beyond that one starting in 1900 with 20 year increments (which therefore ends... 2020? 2017? Hard to say.) There are all kinds of very rich visual aides here and my hat's off to everyone, but surely I'm not the only one looking for the "how much has it gotten worse over the 5Y and 10Y" data hit. 134.41.20.147 ( talk) 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I came across this open access publication which is worth using in the section on emissions from the sanitation sector: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122007952?via%3Dihub (Title: "Non-negligible greenhouse gas emissions from non-sewered sanitation systems: A meta-analysis"). Am a bit undecided if I should add some content from the paper here in this article and also at sanitation or if that is inelegant (to have the same figures in two different Wikipedia articles). EMsmile ( talk) 21:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)