Main | Participants | Popular articles | Recommended sources | Style guide |
Get started with easy edits | Talk |
This WikiProject is to organise climate change related articles. Use this talk page for discussion of issues that may involve multiple articles. Any article-specific discussion should take place on the talk page of the relevant article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Climate change and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The Copernicus Programme (related: Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, Sentinel-3) has generated some excellent graphics, including both satellite images and data charts. See Commons Category:Copernicus Sentinel Satellite Imagery and Copernicus' own legal notice.
After discussion at Talk:Sea surface temperature#Image used in lead, User:Uwappa uploaded the image shown at right after obtaining informal agreement at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
There is a Commons template, Template:Attribution-Copernicus, that refers to "data from a satellite". Most images using the template are satellite images, but my concern is that data does not have the same copyright protection as expressions of data (that is, charts like the one at right).
Before we go headlong into using (any and all?) Copernicus images, does anyone have authoritative proof we're safe to use them on Wikimedia projects? Are there limitations on the type of image (satellite images versus charted data) we can use? — RCraig09 ( talk) 15:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
https://global-tipping-points.org/
This was published in the middle of COP28, but somehow went unnoticed here at the time, unlike some of the other end-of-year reports. It's from many of the same scientists as the 2022 paper that is already featured prominently at tipping points in the climate system and related articles, so many of the points are familiar, but there is a fair amount of new material as well - most notably with the large sections on "social tipping points" and "positive tipping points". Those have the potential to be useful in a lot of articles here. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this article does not actually exist - there is a link, but it's a redirect to a fairly poor two-paragraph summary in the actual Asia article. That summary has a whole lot of "Further information" links, but they either point you to [[Category:Climate change in Asia]], which REALLY does not seem to be in line with WP:MOS, or to a mix of what are mostly other redirects. So, Climate change in Southeast Asia and Climate change in Central Asia just lead you to single short paragraphs in those articles (mere two sentences for the latter), while Climate change in North Asia is a redirect to Climate change in Russia. Climate change in East Asia is a disambig that points to pages for country-level climate change articles.
Climate change in South Asia is the only link which actually leads to a separate article, and it's not even as bad as it could have been. We'll probably end up merging it into the new continent-scale article, but I'm not 100% sure on this yet. What is certain, though, is that we needed to have the continent-scale article yesterday. The immediate obstacle which prompted me to look into this is that it's hard to move (excessive) regional detail from the sea level rise article, when there is a lack of a developed destination article, but the issues obviously do not stop here.
Strictly speaking, probably the only continental-scale articles that are in an acceptable state are Climate change in Antarctica after the recent overhaul and merge (though the biodiversity section is still a mess for now) and maybe Climate change in Australia (which is also a country-scale article). Climate change in North America and Climate change in South America do not exist either and instead redirect you to Climate change in the Americas, which is another disambiguation page. It would probably be a good idea to keep those two as redirects but turn the disambiguation page into a proper article (since a separate North America article would certainly end up dominated by the USA content, and the South America one would probably be mainly about Brazil). Climate change in Africa and Climate change in Europe at least exist as proper articles, though both seem to have very significant issues with bloat, referencing, etc.
However, Asia is the continent which accounts for the majority of human population, so its article is clearly needed before all the others. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 07:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I like to include content on climate change in articles where readers might not specifically look for it. The article on habitat destruction gets around 370 pageviews per day (not that many but OK) and had an outdated section on climate change which basically only mentioned polar bears. I've updated that a bit now and linked better to related articles.
Broadly speaking there are three main areas where I think CC leads to habitat destruction: (1) melting of sea ice, (2) sea level rise and (3) destroying coral reefs. The other things are more nuanced, right, where habitats are changing, like getting too wet, too dry, too hot. This is probably better covered in effects of climate change on biomes, which I have linked to. - The article on habitat destruction is overall pretty bad but for now I just wanted to ensure that at least its climate change section is OK. Have I missed anything important here? EMsmile ( talk) 14:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey all, discovered this paper that uses WikiProject Climate Change data to look at reader attention to climate topics on top 20 Wikipedias: https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/650852934/Meier_Wiki_Climate.pdf Sadads ( talk) 12:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Invasive species has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
In the past few days a very strange article [ [1]] was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Applications in Engineering Science" (Elsevier), which was immediately used by some deniers in the czwiki. What to do with it?? Have we to wait until some scientific critiques will appear?
When I pointed out the content of the article to a Czech climatologist - representative in the IPCC, he wrote to me:
"If someone measures the thermal radiation from the Moon at the Earth's surface, finds that it is negligible, and concludes that CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb this radiation??? And therefore does not absorb thermal radiation in the opposite direction (from the Earth's surface)?
I looked up the lead author (Institute of Optolelectronics, Military University of Technology, Kaliskiego 2, Warsaw 00-908, Poland) and his work. Opto-electronically it has measured definitely correctly. But where did he get the idea that heat from the moon reaches the Earth??? And it is also stated at the end: "No data was used for the research described in the article." So that explains everything." Jirka Dl ( talk) 06:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a nice example of how news stories make people go to Wikipedia and look up stuff: See the spike in the pageviews for AMOC here around 10 Feb. There were news reports about AMOC weakening or collapsing. Wondering if information from those new studies should be added to the AMOC article but don't have the expertise, time, energy to do it myself. EMsmile ( talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rewilding (conservation biology)#Requested move 4 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Clayoquot, @ EMsmile, @ Femke and others! we are back after major changes this past six months – my family medical needs, one of my contractors having major family medical needs for three different nuclear relatives, and the Washington DC Tool Library that I jump-started being robbed three times one week - with subsequent incredible support by the media and community swamping us with love! (Our team raises a toast, almost, to the burglars.)
So, one of the projects we want to move along was in two phases: 1) Now Completed: merging many of your climate action refs with ours and collaborator Earth Hero’s to create a table with at least 4-5 key, overview references per type of climate action (e.g., transportation, buildings, energy, communication). 2) Now we want to make it available for use, commenting, and hopefully editing within the PCC , for those editors interested in having articles summarizing some of the latest climate actions for individuals (not government- or industry-level.).
First, the goal of the reference compilation was to assist CSteps, WP, and Earth Hero EDITORS in the beginning stages of researching individual action pros and cons, based on some secondary/consensus documents with a science underlayment. We were not seeking to create a table of resources for the articles themselves, though they could be used as such. More a table version of resources for editors, that also includes secondary articles.
@ Loupgrru did the bulk of the research, with the understanding that this is an initial framework to build upon - with lots of discussion back and forth and additions by any interested PCC editors – to help WP editors find the latest “consensus” information in addition to the IPCC and some generalized solution reports.
Since we created this table, further work has been done on the Individual Action on Climate Change article [ /info/en/?search=Individual_action_on_climate_change that is wonderful, so that it provides better coverage than before across a range of topics, and perhaps provides a good tagging structure for the references already. We seek to add some of these references now to a table structure.
A table within PCC (or outside) can provide the benefit of searchable tags and quick discovery of key, basically recommended references for multiple uses by multiple editors. Right now, you can see our reference table, with tags (and whether it is a secondary or primary source, and considered suitable for Wikipedia) here: https://airtable.com/invite/l?inviteId=invm4SukrrNzNI8LG&inviteToken=0c48e41a14c273460a30b2570172ef461a4014c176b6667516ccf9a64e5747f7&utm_medium=email&utm_source=product_team&utm_content=transactional-alerts.
We still see the references being put as a table in a subpage under the Recommended Sources page, as some of you supported before. Comments are welcome here and in the table before we put it into a temporary or permanent subpage, so we can make it a community tool.
Cheers, all!
Annette AnnetteCSteps ( talk) 00:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WikiProject Tree of Life arguing that each plant and animal article ought to have a main level heading on "threats" (which is also where any threats from climate change could go in future). This was prompted by User:InformationToKnowledge's addition of climate change effects content to flowering plant, somewhat hidden in the section on "conservation". If you are interested, please participate in the discussion here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Proposal_about_%22threats%22_in_the_standard_outline . (I think it's important to add climate change content not just in pure climate change articles but also in all the other articles where climate change has impacts.) EMsmile ( talk) 12:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I've just added a new section on "climate hazard" to the main hazard article, using content from the IPCC AR6 report. Its glossary didn't have an entry for "climate hazard" but the term is used a lot in the WG2 report. Climate hazards are pretty much those things that we call also effects of climate change. Please help me improve what I have written so far. Perhaps you also propose other publications that should be cited there, not just the IPCC AR6 report. In parallel, I have also proposed to merge anthropogenic hazard into hazard. (by the way, our main climate change article does not mention "hazard" once). EMsmile ( talk) 12:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Land use change is a big topic for us. When I see the term mentioned, or variations of it like "land use modification", I am undecided where to wikilink the term to. I used to wikilink to Land use, land-use change and forestry but now I see we also have land change science (I wasn't aware of that article before). Is it better to generally link there? Or should those two articles maybe be merged? I also noticed that the article on land use is rather bare. As a small quick fix, I have added an excerpt from land change science to land use. Just wondering if anyone is interested in this topic and could help to improve the situation? EMsmile ( talk) 11:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Please remember the correct terminology is "permafrost thawing", not "permafrost melting". This was pointed out by User:InformationToKnowledge on a few of the talk pages (see e.g. here). I now noticed the wrong terminology in two schematics that we use in several articles. Can someone please change it. This schematic and this one. Can someone please correct that; I don't know how to edit those schematics. EMsmile ( talk) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I am currently discussing with User:Uwappa the way forward with the climate change scenario article. Would appreciate an extra pair of eyes and brain power if anyone has time. The question is: do we keep the article on just the theory/fundamentals of scenario setting (my preference) or do we expand it to give actual practical information about the different likely scenarios that are ahead of us (Uwappa's preference). EMsmile ( talk) 08:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Climate change effects on tropical regions was created the other month. It's a very encouraging effort by a new editor, but I don't see how this article can be kept. Logically, its presence would necessarily entail articles on midlatitudes and high latitudes, and I don't think this subdivision would be practical. You could argue we already have Climate change in the Arctic and Climate change in Antarctica, but the former is clearly a special case, and the latter is more akin to the continent-scale articles like Climate change in Europe.
I would propose moving the material on tropical forests to the subsection of effects of climate change on biomes, and the ocean/reef material to any of the related articles. (The section on adaptation seems very general, and probably does not have anything we don't include elsewhere already.) Does anyone have other ideas? InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 05:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I am proposing to merge cloud forcing into cloud feedback, please contribute to the discussion here. EMsmile ( talk) 12:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion about this: do we really need the article Deforestation and climate change? I think its content is probably better off moved to deforestation, reforestation etc. Currently it contains a lot of excerpts (to avoid overlap with other articles). EMsmile ( talk) 09:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I see from the chart in https://unfccc.int/biennial-transparency-reports they are still called national inventory reports. There is not yet any link to 2024 from https://unfccc.int/ghg-inventories-annex-i-parties/2023 but I would have thought some countries would have submitted them by now as the deadline is the 15th.
Of course I tried googling and simply overtyping 2023 with 2024 in the url but presumably UNFCCC have changed “ghg-inventories-annex-i-parties” to something else now “annex 1” is becoming irrelevant. Any idea where they are? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that we don't have an article on global greening yet. We do touch on this topic in several of our articles, as climate change can lead to both: an increase in desertification and a reduction. For example in Tipping points in the climate system we mention Sahel greening. But in effects of climate change we don't mention greening at all. I got onto this topic through these two articles: The Earth is getting greener. Hurray? and Anthropogenic climate change has driven over 5 million km2 of drylands towards desertification. I've just added content from the latter paper to desertification.
Global greening is interesting because part of it is due to CC (counter-intuitive perhaps, as we often talk about droughts from CC). And it also does help a bit with mitigation. But it's not necessarily good for biodiversity. EMsmile ( talk) 10:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The question is about whether or not it should be merged into Environmental impacts of animal agriculture. The discussion began a little over a month ago, but hasn't had much activity and is currently deadlocked. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 15:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
There is an RFC requesting that editors choose between one of two draft sections on Food and Health in the article on Climate change. Please take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I was doing some work today on reforestation and got a bit stuck on one question: I noticed that several articles have content on tree planting + their role for mitigation. That content in the different articles is messy and often outdated. I wonder if we could centralise that content in just one place mainly (which one?) and then link or use excerpts from other articles to there. Here are the articles that all touch on this (the one with the best CC content first):
In terms of pageviews they are all fairly similar with around 200-400 pageviews per day. (300 page views per day)
As a related issue, these three forestry articles should probably each also have a section on climate change but don't have one yet (this could perhaps be addressed with an excerpt):
EMsmile ( talk) 16:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Lots of attention on the Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates article at the moment due to the floods. From what I've read, current consensus is that the floods are more likely due to climate change than cloud seeding activities but tonnes are blaming cloud seeding on social media. But when I tried to add this, I was reverted a couple times by an IP user for what I feel are unfounded reasons ( view history). They did not engage with my comments on the Talk page.
Given the tendancy for cloud seeding to be popular with conspiracy theorists I'm concerned, that at worst, this could be climate denialist coopting another narrative to avoid a possible climate change link to the April 2024 floods.
(On another note, I hope to conduct some reviews of cloud seeding content with experts shortly). TatjanaClimate ( talk) 06:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the dispute on the Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates article? TatjanaClimate ( talk) 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I've started nominating a bunch of "Climate change in country x" redirects for deletion. The discussion is here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_22#Climate_change_in_Bahrain Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I had noticed a while ago that the climate change content for the high level article on water cycle was very weak or non existent. So then I added a section to the main text, waited a while for reactions and then just the other day also added it to the lead as a new paragraph at the end. Anyone interested in CC and the water cycle please take a look and help me improve it further. Interestingly, the pagewviews for the water cycle article are not as high as I would have thought. They have been dropping over the years and are now at around 1000 pageviews per day. The article is not great (that's probably one of the reasons for the low-ish pageviews), and a google search gives loads of other websites explaining what the water cycle is.
In any case, I think it's important and strategic for us if the water cycle article makes it very clear how climate change is changing the water cycle and making it more intense. Of course we also have effects of climate change on the water cycle which will hopefully grow and mature over time as well. EMsmile ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a reasonably important contributor to climate change (and to general air pollution) and its article receives ~100 daily pageviews. Yet, whole paragraphs are unreferenced, there is a large table cited to 2000s research which is bound to be obsolete by now, and there are a lot of other, fairly basic structural issues which I would hope many of us can fix. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Main | Participants | Popular articles | Recommended sources | Style guide |
Get started with easy edits | Talk |
This WikiProject is to organise climate change related articles. Use this talk page for discussion of issues that may involve multiple articles. Any article-specific discussion should take place on the talk page of the relevant article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Climate change and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The Copernicus Programme (related: Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, Sentinel-3) has generated some excellent graphics, including both satellite images and data charts. See Commons Category:Copernicus Sentinel Satellite Imagery and Copernicus' own legal notice.
After discussion at Talk:Sea surface temperature#Image used in lead, User:Uwappa uploaded the image shown at right after obtaining informal agreement at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
There is a Commons template, Template:Attribution-Copernicus, that refers to "data from a satellite". Most images using the template are satellite images, but my concern is that data does not have the same copyright protection as expressions of data (that is, charts like the one at right).
Before we go headlong into using (any and all?) Copernicus images, does anyone have authoritative proof we're safe to use them on Wikimedia projects? Are there limitations on the type of image (satellite images versus charted data) we can use? — RCraig09 ( talk) 15:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
https://global-tipping-points.org/
This was published in the middle of COP28, but somehow went unnoticed here at the time, unlike some of the other end-of-year reports. It's from many of the same scientists as the 2022 paper that is already featured prominently at tipping points in the climate system and related articles, so many of the points are familiar, but there is a fair amount of new material as well - most notably with the large sections on "social tipping points" and "positive tipping points". Those have the potential to be useful in a lot of articles here. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this article does not actually exist - there is a link, but it's a redirect to a fairly poor two-paragraph summary in the actual Asia article. That summary has a whole lot of "Further information" links, but they either point you to [[Category:Climate change in Asia]], which REALLY does not seem to be in line with WP:MOS, or to a mix of what are mostly other redirects. So, Climate change in Southeast Asia and Climate change in Central Asia just lead you to single short paragraphs in those articles (mere two sentences for the latter), while Climate change in North Asia is a redirect to Climate change in Russia. Climate change in East Asia is a disambig that points to pages for country-level climate change articles.
Climate change in South Asia is the only link which actually leads to a separate article, and it's not even as bad as it could have been. We'll probably end up merging it into the new continent-scale article, but I'm not 100% sure on this yet. What is certain, though, is that we needed to have the continent-scale article yesterday. The immediate obstacle which prompted me to look into this is that it's hard to move (excessive) regional detail from the sea level rise article, when there is a lack of a developed destination article, but the issues obviously do not stop here.
Strictly speaking, probably the only continental-scale articles that are in an acceptable state are Climate change in Antarctica after the recent overhaul and merge (though the biodiversity section is still a mess for now) and maybe Climate change in Australia (which is also a country-scale article). Climate change in North America and Climate change in South America do not exist either and instead redirect you to Climate change in the Americas, which is another disambiguation page. It would probably be a good idea to keep those two as redirects but turn the disambiguation page into a proper article (since a separate North America article would certainly end up dominated by the USA content, and the South America one would probably be mainly about Brazil). Climate change in Africa and Climate change in Europe at least exist as proper articles, though both seem to have very significant issues with bloat, referencing, etc.
However, Asia is the continent which accounts for the majority of human population, so its article is clearly needed before all the others. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 07:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I like to include content on climate change in articles where readers might not specifically look for it. The article on habitat destruction gets around 370 pageviews per day (not that many but OK) and had an outdated section on climate change which basically only mentioned polar bears. I've updated that a bit now and linked better to related articles.
Broadly speaking there are three main areas where I think CC leads to habitat destruction: (1) melting of sea ice, (2) sea level rise and (3) destroying coral reefs. The other things are more nuanced, right, where habitats are changing, like getting too wet, too dry, too hot. This is probably better covered in effects of climate change on biomes, which I have linked to. - The article on habitat destruction is overall pretty bad but for now I just wanted to ensure that at least its climate change section is OK. Have I missed anything important here? EMsmile ( talk) 14:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey all, discovered this paper that uses WikiProject Climate Change data to look at reader attention to climate topics on top 20 Wikipedias: https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/650852934/Meier_Wiki_Climate.pdf Sadads ( talk) 12:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Invasive species has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
In the past few days a very strange article [ [1]] was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Applications in Engineering Science" (Elsevier), which was immediately used by some deniers in the czwiki. What to do with it?? Have we to wait until some scientific critiques will appear?
When I pointed out the content of the article to a Czech climatologist - representative in the IPCC, he wrote to me:
"If someone measures the thermal radiation from the Moon at the Earth's surface, finds that it is negligible, and concludes that CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb this radiation??? And therefore does not absorb thermal radiation in the opposite direction (from the Earth's surface)?
I looked up the lead author (Institute of Optolelectronics, Military University of Technology, Kaliskiego 2, Warsaw 00-908, Poland) and his work. Opto-electronically it has measured definitely correctly. But where did he get the idea that heat from the moon reaches the Earth??? And it is also stated at the end: "No data was used for the research described in the article." So that explains everything." Jirka Dl ( talk) 06:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a nice example of how news stories make people go to Wikipedia and look up stuff: See the spike in the pageviews for AMOC here around 10 Feb. There were news reports about AMOC weakening or collapsing. Wondering if information from those new studies should be added to the AMOC article but don't have the expertise, time, energy to do it myself. EMsmile ( talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rewilding (conservation biology)#Requested move 4 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Clayoquot, @ EMsmile, @ Femke and others! we are back after major changes this past six months – my family medical needs, one of my contractors having major family medical needs for three different nuclear relatives, and the Washington DC Tool Library that I jump-started being robbed three times one week - with subsequent incredible support by the media and community swamping us with love! (Our team raises a toast, almost, to the burglars.)
So, one of the projects we want to move along was in two phases: 1) Now Completed: merging many of your climate action refs with ours and collaborator Earth Hero’s to create a table with at least 4-5 key, overview references per type of climate action (e.g., transportation, buildings, energy, communication). 2) Now we want to make it available for use, commenting, and hopefully editing within the PCC , for those editors interested in having articles summarizing some of the latest climate actions for individuals (not government- or industry-level.).
First, the goal of the reference compilation was to assist CSteps, WP, and Earth Hero EDITORS in the beginning stages of researching individual action pros and cons, based on some secondary/consensus documents with a science underlayment. We were not seeking to create a table of resources for the articles themselves, though they could be used as such. More a table version of resources for editors, that also includes secondary articles.
@ Loupgrru did the bulk of the research, with the understanding that this is an initial framework to build upon - with lots of discussion back and forth and additions by any interested PCC editors – to help WP editors find the latest “consensus” information in addition to the IPCC and some generalized solution reports.
Since we created this table, further work has been done on the Individual Action on Climate Change article [ /info/en/?search=Individual_action_on_climate_change that is wonderful, so that it provides better coverage than before across a range of topics, and perhaps provides a good tagging structure for the references already. We seek to add some of these references now to a table structure.
A table within PCC (or outside) can provide the benefit of searchable tags and quick discovery of key, basically recommended references for multiple uses by multiple editors. Right now, you can see our reference table, with tags (and whether it is a secondary or primary source, and considered suitable for Wikipedia) here: https://airtable.com/invite/l?inviteId=invm4SukrrNzNI8LG&inviteToken=0c48e41a14c273460a30b2570172ef461a4014c176b6667516ccf9a64e5747f7&utm_medium=email&utm_source=product_team&utm_content=transactional-alerts.
We still see the references being put as a table in a subpage under the Recommended Sources page, as some of you supported before. Comments are welcome here and in the table before we put it into a temporary or permanent subpage, so we can make it a community tool.
Cheers, all!
Annette AnnetteCSteps ( talk) 00:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WikiProject Tree of Life arguing that each plant and animal article ought to have a main level heading on "threats" (which is also where any threats from climate change could go in future). This was prompted by User:InformationToKnowledge's addition of climate change effects content to flowering plant, somewhat hidden in the section on "conservation". If you are interested, please participate in the discussion here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Proposal_about_%22threats%22_in_the_standard_outline . (I think it's important to add climate change content not just in pure climate change articles but also in all the other articles where climate change has impacts.) EMsmile ( talk) 12:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I've just added a new section on "climate hazard" to the main hazard article, using content from the IPCC AR6 report. Its glossary didn't have an entry for "climate hazard" but the term is used a lot in the WG2 report. Climate hazards are pretty much those things that we call also effects of climate change. Please help me improve what I have written so far. Perhaps you also propose other publications that should be cited there, not just the IPCC AR6 report. In parallel, I have also proposed to merge anthropogenic hazard into hazard. (by the way, our main climate change article does not mention "hazard" once). EMsmile ( talk) 12:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Land use change is a big topic for us. When I see the term mentioned, or variations of it like "land use modification", I am undecided where to wikilink the term to. I used to wikilink to Land use, land-use change and forestry but now I see we also have land change science (I wasn't aware of that article before). Is it better to generally link there? Or should those two articles maybe be merged? I also noticed that the article on land use is rather bare. As a small quick fix, I have added an excerpt from land change science to land use. Just wondering if anyone is interested in this topic and could help to improve the situation? EMsmile ( talk) 11:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Please remember the correct terminology is "permafrost thawing", not "permafrost melting". This was pointed out by User:InformationToKnowledge on a few of the talk pages (see e.g. here). I now noticed the wrong terminology in two schematics that we use in several articles. Can someone please change it. This schematic and this one. Can someone please correct that; I don't know how to edit those schematics. EMsmile ( talk) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I am currently discussing with User:Uwappa the way forward with the climate change scenario article. Would appreciate an extra pair of eyes and brain power if anyone has time. The question is: do we keep the article on just the theory/fundamentals of scenario setting (my preference) or do we expand it to give actual practical information about the different likely scenarios that are ahead of us (Uwappa's preference). EMsmile ( talk) 08:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Climate change effects on tropical regions was created the other month. It's a very encouraging effort by a new editor, but I don't see how this article can be kept. Logically, its presence would necessarily entail articles on midlatitudes and high latitudes, and I don't think this subdivision would be practical. You could argue we already have Climate change in the Arctic and Climate change in Antarctica, but the former is clearly a special case, and the latter is more akin to the continent-scale articles like Climate change in Europe.
I would propose moving the material on tropical forests to the subsection of effects of climate change on biomes, and the ocean/reef material to any of the related articles. (The section on adaptation seems very general, and probably does not have anything we don't include elsewhere already.) Does anyone have other ideas? InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 05:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I am proposing to merge cloud forcing into cloud feedback, please contribute to the discussion here. EMsmile ( talk) 12:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion about this: do we really need the article Deforestation and climate change? I think its content is probably better off moved to deforestation, reforestation etc. Currently it contains a lot of excerpts (to avoid overlap with other articles). EMsmile ( talk) 09:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I see from the chart in https://unfccc.int/biennial-transparency-reports they are still called national inventory reports. There is not yet any link to 2024 from https://unfccc.int/ghg-inventories-annex-i-parties/2023 but I would have thought some countries would have submitted them by now as the deadline is the 15th.
Of course I tried googling and simply overtyping 2023 with 2024 in the url but presumably UNFCCC have changed “ghg-inventories-annex-i-parties” to something else now “annex 1” is becoming irrelevant. Any idea where they are? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that we don't have an article on global greening yet. We do touch on this topic in several of our articles, as climate change can lead to both: an increase in desertification and a reduction. For example in Tipping points in the climate system we mention Sahel greening. But in effects of climate change we don't mention greening at all. I got onto this topic through these two articles: The Earth is getting greener. Hurray? and Anthropogenic climate change has driven over 5 million km2 of drylands towards desertification. I've just added content from the latter paper to desertification.
Global greening is interesting because part of it is due to CC (counter-intuitive perhaps, as we often talk about droughts from CC). And it also does help a bit with mitigation. But it's not necessarily good for biodiversity. EMsmile ( talk) 10:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The question is about whether or not it should be merged into Environmental impacts of animal agriculture. The discussion began a little over a month ago, but hasn't had much activity and is currently deadlocked. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 15:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
There is an RFC requesting that editors choose between one of two draft sections on Food and Health in the article on Climate change. Please take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I was doing some work today on reforestation and got a bit stuck on one question: I noticed that several articles have content on tree planting + their role for mitigation. That content in the different articles is messy and often outdated. I wonder if we could centralise that content in just one place mainly (which one?) and then link or use excerpts from other articles to there. Here are the articles that all touch on this (the one with the best CC content first):
In terms of pageviews they are all fairly similar with around 200-400 pageviews per day. (300 page views per day)
As a related issue, these three forestry articles should probably each also have a section on climate change but don't have one yet (this could perhaps be addressed with an excerpt):
EMsmile ( talk) 16:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Lots of attention on the Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates article at the moment due to the floods. From what I've read, current consensus is that the floods are more likely due to climate change than cloud seeding activities but tonnes are blaming cloud seeding on social media. But when I tried to add this, I was reverted a couple times by an IP user for what I feel are unfounded reasons ( view history). They did not engage with my comments on the Talk page.
Given the tendancy for cloud seeding to be popular with conspiracy theorists I'm concerned, that at worst, this could be climate denialist coopting another narrative to avoid a possible climate change link to the April 2024 floods.
(On another note, I hope to conduct some reviews of cloud seeding content with experts shortly). TatjanaClimate ( talk) 06:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the dispute on the Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates article? TatjanaClimate ( talk) 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I've started nominating a bunch of "Climate change in country x" redirects for deletion. The discussion is here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_22#Climate_change_in_Bahrain Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I had noticed a while ago that the climate change content for the high level article on water cycle was very weak or non existent. So then I added a section to the main text, waited a while for reactions and then just the other day also added it to the lead as a new paragraph at the end. Anyone interested in CC and the water cycle please take a look and help me improve it further. Interestingly, the pagewviews for the water cycle article are not as high as I would have thought. They have been dropping over the years and are now at around 1000 pageviews per day. The article is not great (that's probably one of the reasons for the low-ish pageviews), and a google search gives loads of other websites explaining what the water cycle is.
In any case, I think it's important and strategic for us if the water cycle article makes it very clear how climate change is changing the water cycle and making it more intense. Of course we also have effects of climate change on the water cycle which will hopefully grow and mature over time as well. EMsmile ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a reasonably important contributor to climate change (and to general air pollution) and its article receives ~100 daily pageviews. Yet, whole paragraphs are unreferenced, there is a large table cited to 2000s research which is bound to be obsolete by now, and there are a lot of other, fairly basic structural issues which I would hope many of us can fix. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)