![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
As a reader, I would be interested to know when both the concept and the term itself entered the discussion on global warming (as it was back then). This search need not be limited to the english language either. Simply a suggestion! RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 11:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think our current section on clouds is neutral. It talks about two different things:
The possibility of more substantial changes in climate feedbacks, sometimes accompanied by hysteresis and/or irreversibility, has been suggested from some theoretical and modelling studies. It has been postulated that such changes could occur on a global scale and across relatively narrow temperature changes (Popp et al., 2016; von der Heydt and Ashwin, 2016; Steffen et al., 2018; Schneider et al., 2019; Ashwin and von der Heydt, 2020; Bjordal et al., 2020). However, the associated mechanisms are highly uncertain, and as such there is low confidence as to whether such behaviour exists at all, and in the temperature thresholds at which it might occur.
Femke ( talk) 13:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I am working on a group project for a research class with the goal of improving the selected article to move it closer to “Featured Article” quality. For this project we are meant to make some sort of edit/add information to the current article. We have drafted a proposed new section that would add a new heading called “public opinions” This would briefly explore both leading scientists as well as global citizens' thoughts on climate change through large surveys and research. This will help improve the “Wikipedia: Featured article criteria” of Comprehension and Well Researched to add some new up to date information. ForgetMeNot2121 ( talk) 02:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)ForgetMeNot2121
We plan to add our section slowly over three days starting Tuesday (11/09), any input is welcome. ForgetMeNot2121 ( talk) 06:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)ForgetMeNot2121
That works better. While I would still prefer it not to be added, that is a matter of personal opinion, and I don't WP:OWN the article. I won't revert you. Femke ( talk) 08:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah I did not know about that source - will read it now - I can probably use it in one of the Turkey articles I am working on - thanks very much. Hope you enjoy your editing. Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thesunandsheflowers ForgetMeNot2121 I had a look at the question in the survey and as far as I can tell their description of "tipping point" does not match the first sentence of this article. They say "may be more difficult to stabilize in future" but isn't the problem after something has tipped that we don't want to stabilize but we want to go back and cross the threshold in reverse if you see what I mean? For example the Amazon rainforest is a carbon source but we don't want to stabilize it as a source (presumably easy for President Bolsonaro to do) we want to push it back to being a sink. By the way maybe the high mark for Brazil is encouraging as maybe the public there think the Amazon has only just passed the tipping point and is still close so might be pushed back. Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I am confused why we list this as a tipping element when the text says the IPCC says that even if all the ice melts it is not a tipping point. How could it tip further if all the ice had already melted? Should the section be deleted or am I misunderstanding something? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Yaklib I just looked at the cite supplemental file S2 page 10 and it does not itself mention observable early warning signals.
But I have not looked at (Hulbe 2021) and (Lenton et al. 2019) which that page cites.
If they mention observable early warning signals I think it will be best if you cite them
Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey hardworking and clever students,
Do you agree?
I cannot figure out how to improve the first sentence.
Can you?
Should we have a simple diagram something like https://ensia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Explainer_TippingPoints_vectorgraphic-920x604.jpg ?
Or maybe a seesaw animation like in https://climatetippingpoints.info/2016/11/08/new-video-a-quick-animated-guide-to-climate-tipping-points/ ? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah page 1-195 in AR6 WG1 report https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf has "Figure 1.17: Illustration of two types of tipping points: noise-induced (panels a, b) and bifurcation (panels c, d)." So students are you still here? If so what do you think? Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Femke and @William M. Connolley have been working together to remove any information describing early warning signals, using very dubious reasons for doing so. The thing is, removing this section in its entirety raises some problematic questions.
1) Does it mean there is no observable evidence of tipping points? Surely that would mean there is nothing we can do to prevent them occurring.
2) If there are no observable tipping points, why are so many scientists expressing concern about them. Here's a few.
If there are no observable warning signs, how do the scientists even know we are approaching these tipping points?
3) There is a section in the article describing Public concern about tipping points. It describes a survey conducted in 20 countries which found 73% of those surveyed believe "Because of human activities, the Earth is close to ‘tipping points’".
How could all these people come to believe the Earth is close to tipping points if there are no observable warning signals?
It seems to me there should be a section in this article describing early warning signals. Comment from other editors welcome. Yaklib ( talk) 07:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Yet another editor who is keen on his own opinion, but unwilling to answer the questions I have asked. Yaklib ( talk) 18:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Yaklib:. Overall, I think there were some good changes last night. I'm seeing the myth that 1.5C is in itself a tipping point back into the article. It failed verification, and a similar edit was previously reverted. When your edit gets reverted, the WP:ONUS is on you to find consensus on the talk page to have it reinstated.
A few other tips:
Femke. I am not into filing reports. That's antagonistic and creates bad feelings. I know you are extremely well informed on this subject and have nothing but good intentions. Nevertheless I hope you are willing to accept what is meant to be constructive feedback. If you seek outside help I will not participate any further. Is that what you want when I have written more than half of this article - and you wanted to nominate it for some kind of Good Article. Yaklib ( talk) 08:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
William M. Connolley IPCC AR6 Ch. 4 is cite 13 here
4.7.2 Potential for Abrupt and Irreversible Climate Change
Ch. 5
5.4.9 Abrupt Changes and Tipping Points
Ch. 12 page 118 has a table
So from those did I understand right they think the most likely is permafrost?
Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Prior to 13 November, The lede contained the following sentence: "The term 'tipping point' is used by climate scientists to identify vulnerable features of the climate system (such as those listed under Tipping elements below), but is also used in a more general way to describe the potential impact if the world exceeds the 1.5 °C limit to global warming goal established at the Paris Agreement in 2015.
On 14 November, @Femke deleted the second half of the sentence - "(such as those listed under Tipping elements below), but is also used in a more general way to describe the potential impact if the world exceeds the 1.5 °C limit to global warming goal established at the Paris Agreement in 2015." In the edit summary she claimed "Failed verification and untrue". She later wrote on the Talk page: "When I say 'failed verification', it means that the source does not say what you claim it to say, not that the source is unreliable."
Two sources were cited to justify the link between tipping points and temperature. One is IPCC steps up warning on climate tipping points in leaked draft report in the Guardian. It says: "Tipping points are triggered when temperatures reach a certain level, whereby one impact rapidly leads to a series of cascading events with vast repercussions... Earlier models predicted that Earth-altering climate change was not likely before 2100. But the UN draft report says prolonged warming even beyond 1.5C could produce “progressively serious, centuries-long and, in some cases, irreversible consequences.” Tipping points are described as irreversible.
The other is: Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against published in Nature. It says: "Information summarized in the two most recent IPCC Special Reports (published in 2018 and in September this year) suggests that tipping points could be exceeded even between 1 and 2 °C of warming."
In other words, both sources describe the possibility of tipping points being triggered if the world exceeds 1.5 °C. Femke's claim that the content she deleted 'failed verification' is simply not true. Yaklib ( talk) 01:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say it was an alternative definition. I said the term is being used (by the IPCC and other climate scientists) in a more general way to describe the potential impact if the world exceeds the 1.5 °C. In other words, the threshold of large-scale tipping (which includes potential impact) may be lower than scientists believed before. Your perspective only makes sense if you believe that passing tipping points has no impact. Yaklib ( talk) 22:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This section is a bit rubbish at the moment. SR is a nice guy but there's far too much of him. And there's a see-main, so the section should resemble a summary of that, but it doesn't - I presume people have been naughty and stuffed things in here without reference to there. Also, I think the "better models tend not to show tipping" has been lost William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The IPCC doesn't think sea ice is a tipping element, point, or whatever they're being called this week. And the IPCC is our primary reference. This [3] restores stuff which is over emotional in tone, and is clearly undue: giving *more* textual room to a fringe viewpoint is unreasonable William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed, one particular editor, @William M. Connolley, has been deleting massive quantities of material from this article. He adds very little new material. The 'reasons' he gives for these deletions in his edit summaries tend to be childish - such as "can't say I like it"; "you're still confused"; "you need to read what I write"; "rm Yaklib's errors"; "rm over-emotional stuff".
He has now removed content describing two separate tipping points Indian Monsoon shift and Boreal forest shift. He claims they have nothing to do with tipping points, even though climate scientists around the world consider them to be such. This is a breach of WP:Vandalism which states: "On wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."
This is also a breach of WP:Tendentious editing which says: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."
I note that on his own wikipedia page William Connolley it says "In 2007, The Sunday Times of London ran an interview of author Andrew Keen that discussed Connolley and his Wikipedia editing. It identified Connolley as "an expert on global warming", stating: "After trying to correct inaccuracies Connolley was accused of trying to remove 'any point of view which does not match his own'.
I hope other editors will encourage WMC to pull his head in. Yaklib ( talk) 00:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Y: if you want to make accusations of vandalism, then do then at the proper noticeboard. But you won't, because you're fully aware that they are baseless. So, don't put up non-neutral section headers. As to the content of this page: it is sadly over-enthusiastic William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Y: please refer to policy, viz Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
PhatWabbit.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 February 2020 and 24 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mbrown2098.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Trebilibert,
K20shores,
Abuley34 (
article contribs).
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There are several mentions of the IPCC in the articles. In the introduction, the acronym is listed in its entirety but not followed by (IPCC). Instead, the next sentence uses IPCC directly and must be inferred from context. Later on in the article, such as in Coral reef die-off section, IPCC is again defined, but this time is followed by (IPCC). I see no reason for a redefinition and I would like to standardize the use of the acronym. Is there any reason that I should not do this? K20shores ( talk) 03:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I just removed the following from the article:
The North Atlantic Deep Water Formation [1] is an oceanic vertical mixing process of sinking water to about 1500-35000 meter deep, due to its high density, and salinity, and temperature differences. The overturning water has very rich oxygen content , and low in nutrients. Although North Atlantic circulation has been relatively stable, scientist warns that North Atlantic deep water formation could abruptly change and cause catastrophic impacts. These changes are due to increase in freshwater input from melting ice as global warming continues to rise.
The ScienceDirect topics search result page does not support this paragraph, and as a search result page is an unsuitable source (just like a Google search result would be unsuitable, as it changes regularly). The THC is mostly the same as the AMOC, for which we already have a subsection. @ Trebilibert:, see Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. Femke ( talk) 16:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
References
@
Pinkygonzales: you've changed the lede a couple of times, saying that the speed of a tipping point in Greenland may take centuries rather than millennia. The source says A complete disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet would occur over a period of several millennia due to increased melting of the ice sheet
. You may be confused with tipping points in Antarctica, where worst-case scenarios indicate that tipping under medium global warming levels may take place faster than that.
Femke (
talk)
10:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
That Nature paper also indicates that the Greenland ice sheet is set to melt on a timescale of millennia, see figure 2b. Misrepresenting sources is a form of WP:disruptive editing, which may get you blocked from editing. Femke ( talk) 13:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
On longer timescales, which talks about various nonlinearities they have included in their model. The sentence about mass loss this century does not refer to the tipping characteristics of the Greenland ice sheet, and is irrelevant to this discussion.
At sustained warming levels between 3°C and 5°C, near-complete loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet and complete loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is projected to occur irreversibly over multiple millennia (medium confidence)(page 71) Femke ( talk) 14:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a difference between a tipping point having passed (the moment tipping becomes inevitable) and a system having tipped into a new state. For Greenland, the tipping point may have passed, but it'll still take thousands of years to tip to its new state. My edit to clarify this difference was reverted. Femke ( talk) 19:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
References
I propose deleting the last sentence of the lede (However, a 2021 study by the American Geophysical Union states that the Thwaites ice shelf in Antarctica had the potential to shatter by 2025.
because
The following was inserted during the GAN process. As both reviewer and editors find it not necessary and not yet stable, moving it here for further work until it's ready to join the article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Some researchers say the field has less funding than other global risks such as asteroids or supervolcanoes: they say more research would reduce uncertainty and so help policymakers. [1] Because some tipping points are fast, some say that for those solar geoengineering would be the only type of climate engineering which would have a chance of avoiding tipping. [1]"
References
Moving this the social tipping points here. I'm not quite convinced guest contributions at CleanTechnica are sufficiently reliable, nor how ruralleaders is reliable. Nudge theory is from quite a different academic tradition, and typically disbelieved by system scientists as far as I'm aware. Not mentioned in the source given. More concerns with text-source integrity. Needs some more work. Femke ( talk) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Tipping points in human behaviour can have both positive and negative effects, contrasting with the normally negative connotation associated with climate tipping points.
Some tipping points in societal behaviour, such as adding rooftop solar, [2]: 8 can drive positive climate action. Once an initial nudge, such as subsidies, persuaded a few people to install rooftop solar, social contagion meant that people copied their friends or neighbours, economies of scale and the learning curve reduced the price and rooftop solar became widespread in many countries. A similar process is happening with electric vehicles. [3] Once the tipping point has passed the initial nudge (also called "perturbation") can be reduced and eventually removed - for example electric cars are now common in Norway and incentives are being removed. [4] Some say there will be a tipping point in plant milk and other foods which are now mainly dairy products. [5]
There is a link between human behaviour and environmental stability, not easily accounted for in climate models, such as the ongoing Lake Chad crisis. [6] The interaction of the socio-economic and regional changes induced by the climate in the Lake Chad region produces behaviours in society that change the environment of the region. For example, a lack of sustainable resource usage creates societal instabilities which prevent positive climate action. These responses can be included in climate models to improve the accuracy of climate predictions. [7]
Local environmental issues have the potential to affect regions across the globe. This effect is called telecoupling, and can happen when crop-producing regions experience a drought that causes a food shortage elsewhere. [7]
Climate models that can take account of human behaviour are called Integrated Assessment Models. As of 2021 [update], some models do not account for the societal changes that could be caused by social tipping points which would drastically change the results. [8] Because of the intertwined relationship between the environment and humanity, accurately modelling social tipping points is necessary to predict the future of Earth’s climate, and is an active area of research. [7] Femke ( talk) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
References
... that if the Greenland ice sheet passes a tipping point, this raises the risk of the West Antarctic ice sheet passing a tipping point
... that the Amazon rainforest may be approaching a tipping point which will see it transform into a savanna landscape
Femke (
talk)
17:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that Arctic Sea Ice is not a tipping point in the climate system Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that noise can tip the climate Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that warming microbes could tip the climate Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that permafrost isn't Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that a compost bomb could tip the climate Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Dtetta Thanks for offering to help me understand. So if the research reported at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/29/major-sea-level-rise-caused-by-melting-of-greenland-ice-cap-is-now-inevitable-27cm-climate is correct does that mean the Greenland Ice Sheet has tipped? Or does 27 cm not count as a "large change" as described in the first sentence of this article?
I realise it could be wrong as it is just one study - but even so should it not be added to this article? Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
We need to clarify, as the current definitions of tipping element and tipping points overlap
So, The article seems to imply that
The survey asking whether people think we are close to tipping points defined them (top page 11) as "climate or nature may change suddenly, or may be more difficult to stabilize in future" which is maybe wrong in the second clause? Because from the IPCC definitions if I understand them right the problem is not the difficulty of stabilization, but that the system will stabilize in the wrong place. So the results of the question may not be valid if the definition is wrong - do you think we should remove it or did I misunderstand? Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll have a go at this one. It's really a timely subject, and it's evident that the article has been carefully and intelligently rewritten. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The geological record shows that there have been abrupt changes the climate system that indicate ancient tipping points.Femke ( talk) 11:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Hope the section is easier to understand now. Found a good source that explains this is simpler terms. I do think it's inevitable that this section is more difficult than the rest of the article, and that people with less affinity for maths would skip over it. But let me know if I missed more opportunities to make it simpler. Femke ( talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source..
This is a well-written and informative article, intelligently organised and providing generally good coverage. Once the issues are addressed it will make a worthy Good Article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
There are two items remaining, both partially-addressed. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the new text quite meets the GA criteria. Having minor concerns with accuracy, weasel words, source quality and possibly neutrality. Happy to bring the last two sections to the talk page and work on it outside of the GAN. Don't think it's needed for broadness as it's mainly there to provide a broader context. Femke ( talk) 19:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I think this part of the Definition section could be reworded to make it easier to understand. I really struggled to figure it out at first and had to read the reference to understand what it meant. A "set of definitions" requiring something does not seem right. Maybe "requires to take into account..." or "implies" instead of "requires"? Thanks, Espandero ( talk) 08:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
As a reader, I would be interested to know when both the concept and the term itself entered the discussion on global warming (as it was back then). This search need not be limited to the english language either. Simply a suggestion! RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 11:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think our current section on clouds is neutral. It talks about two different things:
The possibility of more substantial changes in climate feedbacks, sometimes accompanied by hysteresis and/or irreversibility, has been suggested from some theoretical and modelling studies. It has been postulated that such changes could occur on a global scale and across relatively narrow temperature changes (Popp et al., 2016; von der Heydt and Ashwin, 2016; Steffen et al., 2018; Schneider et al., 2019; Ashwin and von der Heydt, 2020; Bjordal et al., 2020). However, the associated mechanisms are highly uncertain, and as such there is low confidence as to whether such behaviour exists at all, and in the temperature thresholds at which it might occur.
Femke ( talk) 13:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I am working on a group project for a research class with the goal of improving the selected article to move it closer to “Featured Article” quality. For this project we are meant to make some sort of edit/add information to the current article. We have drafted a proposed new section that would add a new heading called “public opinions” This would briefly explore both leading scientists as well as global citizens' thoughts on climate change through large surveys and research. This will help improve the “Wikipedia: Featured article criteria” of Comprehension and Well Researched to add some new up to date information. ForgetMeNot2121 ( talk) 02:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)ForgetMeNot2121
We plan to add our section slowly over three days starting Tuesday (11/09), any input is welcome. ForgetMeNot2121 ( talk) 06:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)ForgetMeNot2121
That works better. While I would still prefer it not to be added, that is a matter of personal opinion, and I don't WP:OWN the article. I won't revert you. Femke ( talk) 08:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah I did not know about that source - will read it now - I can probably use it in one of the Turkey articles I am working on - thanks very much. Hope you enjoy your editing. Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thesunandsheflowers ForgetMeNot2121 I had a look at the question in the survey and as far as I can tell their description of "tipping point" does not match the first sentence of this article. They say "may be more difficult to stabilize in future" but isn't the problem after something has tipped that we don't want to stabilize but we want to go back and cross the threshold in reverse if you see what I mean? For example the Amazon rainforest is a carbon source but we don't want to stabilize it as a source (presumably easy for President Bolsonaro to do) we want to push it back to being a sink. By the way maybe the high mark for Brazil is encouraging as maybe the public there think the Amazon has only just passed the tipping point and is still close so might be pushed back. Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I am confused why we list this as a tipping element when the text says the IPCC says that even if all the ice melts it is not a tipping point. How could it tip further if all the ice had already melted? Should the section be deleted or am I misunderstanding something? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Yaklib I just looked at the cite supplemental file S2 page 10 and it does not itself mention observable early warning signals.
But I have not looked at (Hulbe 2021) and (Lenton et al. 2019) which that page cites.
If they mention observable early warning signals I think it will be best if you cite them
Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey hardworking and clever students,
Do you agree?
I cannot figure out how to improve the first sentence.
Can you?
Should we have a simple diagram something like https://ensia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Explainer_TippingPoints_vectorgraphic-920x604.jpg ?
Or maybe a seesaw animation like in https://climatetippingpoints.info/2016/11/08/new-video-a-quick-animated-guide-to-climate-tipping-points/ ? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah page 1-195 in AR6 WG1 report https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf has "Figure 1.17: Illustration of two types of tipping points: noise-induced (panels a, b) and bifurcation (panels c, d)." So students are you still here? If so what do you think? Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Femke and @William M. Connolley have been working together to remove any information describing early warning signals, using very dubious reasons for doing so. The thing is, removing this section in its entirety raises some problematic questions.
1) Does it mean there is no observable evidence of tipping points? Surely that would mean there is nothing we can do to prevent them occurring.
2) If there are no observable tipping points, why are so many scientists expressing concern about them. Here's a few.
If there are no observable warning signs, how do the scientists even know we are approaching these tipping points?
3) There is a section in the article describing Public concern about tipping points. It describes a survey conducted in 20 countries which found 73% of those surveyed believe "Because of human activities, the Earth is close to ‘tipping points’".
How could all these people come to believe the Earth is close to tipping points if there are no observable warning signals?
It seems to me there should be a section in this article describing early warning signals. Comment from other editors welcome. Yaklib ( talk) 07:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Yet another editor who is keen on his own opinion, but unwilling to answer the questions I have asked. Yaklib ( talk) 18:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Yaklib:. Overall, I think there were some good changes last night. I'm seeing the myth that 1.5C is in itself a tipping point back into the article. It failed verification, and a similar edit was previously reverted. When your edit gets reverted, the WP:ONUS is on you to find consensus on the talk page to have it reinstated.
A few other tips:
Femke. I am not into filing reports. That's antagonistic and creates bad feelings. I know you are extremely well informed on this subject and have nothing but good intentions. Nevertheless I hope you are willing to accept what is meant to be constructive feedback. If you seek outside help I will not participate any further. Is that what you want when I have written more than half of this article - and you wanted to nominate it for some kind of Good Article. Yaklib ( talk) 08:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
William M. Connolley IPCC AR6 Ch. 4 is cite 13 here
4.7.2 Potential for Abrupt and Irreversible Climate Change
Ch. 5
5.4.9 Abrupt Changes and Tipping Points
Ch. 12 page 118 has a table
So from those did I understand right they think the most likely is permafrost?
Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Prior to 13 November, The lede contained the following sentence: "The term 'tipping point' is used by climate scientists to identify vulnerable features of the climate system (such as those listed under Tipping elements below), but is also used in a more general way to describe the potential impact if the world exceeds the 1.5 °C limit to global warming goal established at the Paris Agreement in 2015.
On 14 November, @Femke deleted the second half of the sentence - "(such as those listed under Tipping elements below), but is also used in a more general way to describe the potential impact if the world exceeds the 1.5 °C limit to global warming goal established at the Paris Agreement in 2015." In the edit summary she claimed "Failed verification and untrue". She later wrote on the Talk page: "When I say 'failed verification', it means that the source does not say what you claim it to say, not that the source is unreliable."
Two sources were cited to justify the link between tipping points and temperature. One is IPCC steps up warning on climate tipping points in leaked draft report in the Guardian. It says: "Tipping points are triggered when temperatures reach a certain level, whereby one impact rapidly leads to a series of cascading events with vast repercussions... Earlier models predicted that Earth-altering climate change was not likely before 2100. But the UN draft report says prolonged warming even beyond 1.5C could produce “progressively serious, centuries-long and, in some cases, irreversible consequences.” Tipping points are described as irreversible.
The other is: Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against published in Nature. It says: "Information summarized in the two most recent IPCC Special Reports (published in 2018 and in September this year) suggests that tipping points could be exceeded even between 1 and 2 °C of warming."
In other words, both sources describe the possibility of tipping points being triggered if the world exceeds 1.5 °C. Femke's claim that the content she deleted 'failed verification' is simply not true. Yaklib ( talk) 01:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say it was an alternative definition. I said the term is being used (by the IPCC and other climate scientists) in a more general way to describe the potential impact if the world exceeds the 1.5 °C. In other words, the threshold of large-scale tipping (which includes potential impact) may be lower than scientists believed before. Your perspective only makes sense if you believe that passing tipping points has no impact. Yaklib ( talk) 22:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This section is a bit rubbish at the moment. SR is a nice guy but there's far too much of him. And there's a see-main, so the section should resemble a summary of that, but it doesn't - I presume people have been naughty and stuffed things in here without reference to there. Also, I think the "better models tend not to show tipping" has been lost William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The IPCC doesn't think sea ice is a tipping element, point, or whatever they're being called this week. And the IPCC is our primary reference. This [3] restores stuff which is over emotional in tone, and is clearly undue: giving *more* textual room to a fringe viewpoint is unreasonable William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed, one particular editor, @William M. Connolley, has been deleting massive quantities of material from this article. He adds very little new material. The 'reasons' he gives for these deletions in his edit summaries tend to be childish - such as "can't say I like it"; "you're still confused"; "you need to read what I write"; "rm Yaklib's errors"; "rm over-emotional stuff".
He has now removed content describing two separate tipping points Indian Monsoon shift and Boreal forest shift. He claims they have nothing to do with tipping points, even though climate scientists around the world consider them to be such. This is a breach of WP:Vandalism which states: "On wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."
This is also a breach of WP:Tendentious editing which says: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."
I note that on his own wikipedia page William Connolley it says "In 2007, The Sunday Times of London ran an interview of author Andrew Keen that discussed Connolley and his Wikipedia editing. It identified Connolley as "an expert on global warming", stating: "After trying to correct inaccuracies Connolley was accused of trying to remove 'any point of view which does not match his own'.
I hope other editors will encourage WMC to pull his head in. Yaklib ( talk) 00:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Y: if you want to make accusations of vandalism, then do then at the proper noticeboard. But you won't, because you're fully aware that they are baseless. So, don't put up non-neutral section headers. As to the content of this page: it is sadly over-enthusiastic William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Y: please refer to policy, viz Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
PhatWabbit.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 February 2020 and 24 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mbrown2098.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Trebilibert,
K20shores,
Abuley34 (
article contribs).
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There are several mentions of the IPCC in the articles. In the introduction, the acronym is listed in its entirety but not followed by (IPCC). Instead, the next sentence uses IPCC directly and must be inferred from context. Later on in the article, such as in Coral reef die-off section, IPCC is again defined, but this time is followed by (IPCC). I see no reason for a redefinition and I would like to standardize the use of the acronym. Is there any reason that I should not do this? K20shores ( talk) 03:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I just removed the following from the article:
The North Atlantic Deep Water Formation [1] is an oceanic vertical mixing process of sinking water to about 1500-35000 meter deep, due to its high density, and salinity, and temperature differences. The overturning water has very rich oxygen content , and low in nutrients. Although North Atlantic circulation has been relatively stable, scientist warns that North Atlantic deep water formation could abruptly change and cause catastrophic impacts. These changes are due to increase in freshwater input from melting ice as global warming continues to rise.
The ScienceDirect topics search result page does not support this paragraph, and as a search result page is an unsuitable source (just like a Google search result would be unsuitable, as it changes regularly). The THC is mostly the same as the AMOC, for which we already have a subsection. @ Trebilibert:, see Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. Femke ( talk) 16:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
References
@
Pinkygonzales: you've changed the lede a couple of times, saying that the speed of a tipping point in Greenland may take centuries rather than millennia. The source says A complete disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet would occur over a period of several millennia due to increased melting of the ice sheet
. You may be confused with tipping points in Antarctica, where worst-case scenarios indicate that tipping under medium global warming levels may take place faster than that.
Femke (
talk)
10:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
That Nature paper also indicates that the Greenland ice sheet is set to melt on a timescale of millennia, see figure 2b. Misrepresenting sources is a form of WP:disruptive editing, which may get you blocked from editing. Femke ( talk) 13:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
On longer timescales, which talks about various nonlinearities they have included in their model. The sentence about mass loss this century does not refer to the tipping characteristics of the Greenland ice sheet, and is irrelevant to this discussion.
At sustained warming levels between 3°C and 5°C, near-complete loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet and complete loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is projected to occur irreversibly over multiple millennia (medium confidence)(page 71) Femke ( talk) 14:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a difference between a tipping point having passed (the moment tipping becomes inevitable) and a system having tipped into a new state. For Greenland, the tipping point may have passed, but it'll still take thousands of years to tip to its new state. My edit to clarify this difference was reverted. Femke ( talk) 19:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
References
I propose deleting the last sentence of the lede (However, a 2021 study by the American Geophysical Union states that the Thwaites ice shelf in Antarctica had the potential to shatter by 2025.
because
The following was inserted during the GAN process. As both reviewer and editors find it not necessary and not yet stable, moving it here for further work until it's ready to join the article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Some researchers say the field has less funding than other global risks such as asteroids or supervolcanoes: they say more research would reduce uncertainty and so help policymakers. [1] Because some tipping points are fast, some say that for those solar geoengineering would be the only type of climate engineering which would have a chance of avoiding tipping. [1]"
References
Moving this the social tipping points here. I'm not quite convinced guest contributions at CleanTechnica are sufficiently reliable, nor how ruralleaders is reliable. Nudge theory is from quite a different academic tradition, and typically disbelieved by system scientists as far as I'm aware. Not mentioned in the source given. More concerns with text-source integrity. Needs some more work. Femke ( talk) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Tipping points in human behaviour can have both positive and negative effects, contrasting with the normally negative connotation associated with climate tipping points.
Some tipping points in societal behaviour, such as adding rooftop solar, [2]: 8 can drive positive climate action. Once an initial nudge, such as subsidies, persuaded a few people to install rooftop solar, social contagion meant that people copied their friends or neighbours, economies of scale and the learning curve reduced the price and rooftop solar became widespread in many countries. A similar process is happening with electric vehicles. [3] Once the tipping point has passed the initial nudge (also called "perturbation") can be reduced and eventually removed - for example electric cars are now common in Norway and incentives are being removed. [4] Some say there will be a tipping point in plant milk and other foods which are now mainly dairy products. [5]
There is a link between human behaviour and environmental stability, not easily accounted for in climate models, such as the ongoing Lake Chad crisis. [6] The interaction of the socio-economic and regional changes induced by the climate in the Lake Chad region produces behaviours in society that change the environment of the region. For example, a lack of sustainable resource usage creates societal instabilities which prevent positive climate action. These responses can be included in climate models to improve the accuracy of climate predictions. [7]
Local environmental issues have the potential to affect regions across the globe. This effect is called telecoupling, and can happen when crop-producing regions experience a drought that causes a food shortage elsewhere. [7]
Climate models that can take account of human behaviour are called Integrated Assessment Models. As of 2021 [update], some models do not account for the societal changes that could be caused by social tipping points which would drastically change the results. [8] Because of the intertwined relationship between the environment and humanity, accurately modelling social tipping points is necessary to predict the future of Earth’s climate, and is an active area of research. [7] Femke ( talk) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
References
... that if the Greenland ice sheet passes a tipping point, this raises the risk of the West Antarctic ice sheet passing a tipping point
... that the Amazon rainforest may be approaching a tipping point which will see it transform into a savanna landscape
Femke (
talk)
17:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that Arctic Sea Ice is not a tipping point in the climate system Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that noise can tip the climate Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that warming microbes could tip the climate Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that permafrost isn't Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
... that a compost bomb could tip the climate Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Dtetta Thanks for offering to help me understand. So if the research reported at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/29/major-sea-level-rise-caused-by-melting-of-greenland-ice-cap-is-now-inevitable-27cm-climate is correct does that mean the Greenland Ice Sheet has tipped? Or does 27 cm not count as a "large change" as described in the first sentence of this article?
I realise it could be wrong as it is just one study - but even so should it not be added to this article? Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
We need to clarify, as the current definitions of tipping element and tipping points overlap
So, The article seems to imply that
The survey asking whether people think we are close to tipping points defined them (top page 11) as "climate or nature may change suddenly, or may be more difficult to stabilize in future" which is maybe wrong in the second clause? Because from the IPCC definitions if I understand them right the problem is not the difficulty of stabilization, but that the system will stabilize in the wrong place. So the results of the question may not be valid if the definition is wrong - do you think we should remove it or did I misunderstand? Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll have a go at this one. It's really a timely subject, and it's evident that the article has been carefully and intelligently rewritten. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The geological record shows that there have been abrupt changes the climate system that indicate ancient tipping points.Femke ( talk) 11:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Hope the section is easier to understand now. Found a good source that explains this is simpler terms. I do think it's inevitable that this section is more difficult than the rest of the article, and that people with less affinity for maths would skip over it. But let me know if I missed more opportunities to make it simpler. Femke ( talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source..
This is a well-written and informative article, intelligently organised and providing generally good coverage. Once the issues are addressed it will make a worthy Good Article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
There are two items remaining, both partially-addressed. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the new text quite meets the GA criteria. Having minor concerns with accuracy, weasel words, source quality and possibly neutrality. Happy to bring the last two sections to the talk page and work on it outside of the GAN. Don't think it's needed for broadness as it's mainly there to provide a broader context. Femke ( talk) 19:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I think this part of the Definition section could be reworded to make it easier to understand. I really struggled to figure it out at first and had to read the reference to understand what it meant. A "set of definitions" requiring something does not seem right. Maybe "requires to take into account..." or "implies" instead of "requires"? Thanks, Espandero ( talk) 08:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)