Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Climate of India FAR

I have nominated Climate of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Climate psychology

Would anyone like to look at Draft:Climate Psychology by @Eswills:, and share your thoughts on whether it is ready to accept, and if so whether it should be a standalone article or merged into another article? It needs some reworking to explicitly attribute opinions rather than state them as facts, and some more reworking to summarize what sources have written rather than to only say "so and so has written about this issue." But my hunch is that it's a meaningful start to an article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What should the fossil fuel phase-out article look like?

If you have a view please comment at Talk:Fossil_fuel_phase-out#Scope_and_structure_of_the_article?

Thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for new articles

Some info from the old Fossil fuel phase out page (see link at Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out#Are_plastics_within_scope_of_this_article) can be kept and moved to new articles, describing the changes needed to phase out fossil fuel derivates. Seem important articles to make as the fossil fuel phase-out will have significant effects to other sectors. I hope someone from the climate change wikiproject takes this up, also because it is vital that existing fossil fuel infrastructure (i.e. ethane cracking facilities, ...) can be repurposed for the upcoming biobased economy (and not become "stranded assets"). Would then speed things up tremendously. For the ethane crackers, one significant riddle to solve would be how these machines can be repurposed not to make regular drop-in plastics, but really biodegradable plastics, hence solving the plastic pollution issue, with minimal changes and job losses due to restructurings, and changes in processes, ("disruption"), ... More info at the linked talk page section. --Genetics4good (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Name changes for sub-articles and categories with "global warming"

After the big name change went through, where global warming was renamed to climate change, I suggest we consistently also change it for all the sub-articles. I looked around today and still found these two: Long-term effects of global warming, Global warming conspiracy theory and Adaptation to global warming in Australia. Can they be moved without a fuss or do they first need to be nominated as per WP:RM? I am asking because yesterday someone (User:Wbm1058) reverted my name change for Regional effects of global warming. Are there other "global warming" sub-articles that still ought to be renamed? There are also two categories in Commons that should perhaps be renamed (is it easy to rename a category?): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Effects_of_global_warming and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_effects_by_country EMsmile (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

EMsmile, your edit summary "changed the direction of the redirect." implied you were making a bold move. It would have been helpful to point to the discussion at Talk:Regional effects of climate change#Name change in the edit summary. I only noticed that discussion after the fact. I'm not sure every title including "global warming" should be changed. I'm inclined to keep Long-term effects of global warming where it is; climate change is a long-term effect of global warming. It's kind of an oxymoron to say that extreme weather events are (long-term) effects of climate change... Extreme weather events ARE climate change. It's like saying climate change is a long-term effect of climate change. Now, if the focus is on economic damage, loss of life, health effects, etc. then maybe "climate change" is OK. Economic damage, loss of life, health effects, etc. are caused by both global warming and the extreme weather events (climate change) that result from the warming. Just my quick thoughts; I haven't studied Wikipedia's articles in this topic area. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In particular, "Ice loss and sea level rise" is specifically a direct effect of warming. I've not seen any other possible cause suggested for melting ice. wbm1058 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR renewable energy in Scotland

I have nominated Renewable energy in Scotland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Which country articles are a good example in the way they include information on climate change?

Can someone tell me which country article is a good example in the way it includes a section on climate change? The reason why I am asking is because in our upcoming edit-a-thon we want our participants to add some climate change content into the high level country articles. We have picked out some country articles, see this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Online_edit-a-thon_on_climate_change_-_November_2020#Country,_region_or_city_articles - So it would be good if we could point them to a good example where this is done well. I assume it's just a matter of a few sentences, perhaps a paragraph and then a link to the sub-article on "Climate change in Country X" (if it already exists). For example the article about Cameroon is a featured article but does not mention "climate change" once. Another example: The article "Climate change in Pakistan" starts with "Climate change is expected to cause wide reaching effects on Pakistan." and yet the country article on Pakistan doesn't mention climate change even once. - I've also asked the question here on the talk page of WikiProject Countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates But I don't have much faith for a response because I tried already in the past with regards to infrastructure and there wasn't much of a response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Suggestion:_Add_infrastructure_to_the_template . Since the country articles have high view rates, these could be very important for us; small amount of effort, high impact?! (@User:Mcnlisa, @User:Sadads. EMsmile (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey @EMsmile: Senegal, Ghana and Suriname -- but each of those, its integrated in a slightly different way. Sadads (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

We have reached 2500 articles

Yay

Our assessment table

Well done, everybody for tagging and writing!

Maybe we can state some goals for attaining more B and good articles for next year? It would be useful to have all articles assessed. If you have 5 minutes left, why not assess some articles and flag any urgent deficiencies / highlight our best material. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, we had about 100 million pageviews to that content in the last Twelve Months! Woot! (Fun fact, talk pages have also seen about 200k pageviews -- clearly popular to talk about too :D Sadads (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Pacific Meridional Mode

Tangentially related to the topic of this project, I've written Pacific Meridional Mode which could change in response to climate change. In case anyone here is interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes?

Is there a way to find infoboxes related to a project? I ask because there is a lot of structured info in the "Greenhouse gas emissions by COUNTRY" articles which might be tidier in an infobox don't you think? For example lots of numbers in the annual reports to the UNFCCC. I have not made an infobox before but I don't suppose it would be difficult. If so what should I call it? Maybe simply "Greenhouse gas emissions"? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I haven't seen any made yet -- but you could probably make one via the process at Help:Designing_infoboxes -- I suspect we would need ones for the energy industry articles, and for the Climate Change by country ones, Sadads (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Climate change FAR

I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Femke Nijsse, is this a review of its current status of "featured article"? It says on the front page that it's already a featured article. But are you saying it may no longer meet the criteria and needs to be reviewed? How long ago did it reach featured article status (oh wait, I see it now on the talk page: May 2007). Wow, that's a long time ago. Good idea to review that now, 13 years later. Thanks for starting the process. EMsmile (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it almost meets the criteria. Normally, FAR is for articles that fall short quite a bit, but here we're just doing the finishing touches (accessibility, not quite supportive sources, MOS, and DUE weight). That way, the article is main-page ready again. There is a comment about the SDG part you added iirc, which I agree with. I think it may be undue weight, and it currently fails verification. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Mekong and Tonle Sap articles need improvement

There is almost no information about climate issues affecting Mekong and Tonle Sap on their respective articles. They are both really important, developing topics that affect an entire region and millions of people, and warrant more attention. --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris: Is there anything we can do to help you in contributing to those articles? What kinds of improvements should we focus on? Sadads (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sadads: The environmental issues section needs expansion on the Mekong article, and the Tonle Sap article needs improvements and updates throughout - it currently does not even have an environmental issues or climate section. Both need to be updated with recent news stories and research. e.g. Tonle Sap's water levels have fallen, fish stocks affected, 2019 had a severe drought across Cambodia. Some sources and information can probably be brought across from Climate change in Vietnam and Climate change in Thailand. --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris: Is there are reason you can't contribute? I am happy to review contributions you make -- but not sure how you hope us to help. Remember, Wikipedia is requires each and every contributor to WP:Be Bold, Sadads (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sadads: Oh, wasn't flagging it because I can't contribute - just flagging it in case anyone else was interested in working on it too as this is a big topic and probably a big job. New to Wiki so still learning how collaboration and projects work. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Dates on Environmental impact of climate change subarticles

A lot of articles that focus on events triggered by climate change (sea level rise, impact on agriculture, ...) use fixed calculated dates. Dynamic dates which vary depending on actual annual emissions would be better and might improve accuracy greatly in some specific cases (depends on method of calculation per report). See here how that could be created and inserted to many articles. --Genetics4good (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Mass production in renewable energy industry

This needs to be improved, see Talk:Mass_production. Perhaps link from renewable energy page then (when finished). --Genetics4good (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Carbon credit forests

Forests can be created to produce carbon credits. Requires GIS and other software tools to find suitable locations though, help on this is appreciated: Talk:Carbon_credit#Missing_info_on_carbon_credit_production-related_software_and_online_tools Would benefit mainly smaller-scale plantations (individuals, silvopasture) and perhaps allow for completing wildlife corridors (indirectly).

Besides a section a new page on those tools (see talk above), a section on carbon credits page called "List of different carbon credits" can be made. Reason is that (I assume) there are multiple credits being issued (such as Certified Emission Reductions, ... To make things even more complicated, there are also different "Carbon markets" (i.e. EU ETS, ...) so we also need a new section called "List of carbon markets" on the Emissions trading page. Some redirects can be made from List of carbon credits and List of carbon markets then. That makes it easier to add them in other articles in see also section.

Lastly, we also need info regarding what mechanisms exist (if any) to make sure that carbon credit forests are actually designed in a way that creates a healthy, livable forest (rather then "dead forests", not allowing any wildlife to use it). I mean by this systems that prevent monoculture forests (or even worse forests containing only exotic tree species) from being created (otherwise put, which make native polyculture forests mandatory). Monoculture forests would be (a bit) easier to produce, but really simply propagating some multiple native tree species is almost as easy, and it would be quite easy to then alternate those species and planting them in this alternated pattern using a planting machine. Besides trees, some other plants (shrubs) would benefit wildlife too btw, but that might be a stretch. --Genetics4good (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Climate and energy

Between climate change, Climate change mitigation, and greenhouse gases, Environmental impact of the energy industry#Climate change, Energy policy and other articles that are already well developed on the content, any thoughts where this article should be merged? Don't think we need a vague new separate article on this topic. Reywas92^Talk 02:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't have particularly strong feelings on this, but "Environmental impact of the energy industry#Climate change" feels right to me. Jlevi (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Article focused on observed effects to date?

I have collected a list of over 250 hand-selected, peer reviewed papers that are strictly focused on observed (negative) effects of climate change to date, such as increases in extreme precipitation, heat waves, hurricane intensity, disease, etc.

I don't see any article that focuses only on observed effects, or indeed any other similar collection anywhere on the internet, and am curious to hear people's thoughts on whether this could be a new article, or if the content should just be added as references to an existing article (and if so, which? Maybe 'Effects of climate change on humans'?). For now I have been uploading everything I've found to a small website I created myself, but I don't really have the time to advertise it or boost its SEO and mainly I just want this information to be of use to as many people as possible, so I think a Wikipedia article makes sense.

I also categorize every paper by country where the effect was observed, so it could be useful for anyone working on the Effects by Region articles. Thanks in advance -- Dawei20 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have anything for Turkey please add to Climate change in Turkey, or just dump on my talk page if you don't have time to put in that article. Thanks. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

In many countries I have dozens of observed effects, but for Turkey just one right now, Kuglitsch et al., 2010, which documents an increase in heat wave frequency, intensity, and length. I see you don't have it yet but am unsure which section this would belong. Technically the paper spans multiple countries, but you look at the figures in the paper, you will see the data is predominantly coming from Turkey. Key quote: "Since the 1960s, the mean heat wave intensity, heat wave length and heat wave number across the eastern Mediterranean region have increased by a factor of 7.6 +/- 1.3, 7.5 +/- 1.3 and 6.2 +/- 1.1, respectively." https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041841 Dawei20 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dawei20: Is there any way you could transfer that kind of list into a Sandbox or other page? Or share a link to the website you have already published? We could systematically include those into related articles.Sadads (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads: Sure: it's https://climateobserved.org . The map view where you can explore by specific country (or see papers who note a global trend, via the button below the map) is at https://climateobserved.org/MapView . The site consists only of peer reviewed studies that are based on observations, which makes it the only resource available that serves this purpose (at least to my knowledge, and believe me, I looked!) You can also search by the category of the effect, and there is an "anthropogenic" section which lists observation-based papers that support the attribution of the warming to human activities.

Carbon credit penalties

Another thought is whether the carbon credits also work in reverse, i.e. if large forests burn down, are these emissions then being fined, and how does this occur ? I assume atmospherical data sensors (satellites) will pick up on the additional emissions and they would be registered somehow, perhaps at the Climate Change Performance Index and Climate Action Tracker (so as "country emissions"), meaning they are payed for by the country. However, in the case when individuals deliberately burn down trees on their own land (i.e. slash-and-burn agriculture, to make room for grazing cattle, crops the next year) then, are these individuals fined with the cost of the carbon emissions directly (Polluter Pays Principle) ? It would seem logical if that were the case (especially as under REDD+, some are even compensated for not cutting forests down which seems a step further still), but I'm not sure at all. Those costs would be quite low I assume, but might be enough to recover the emissions generated (ie through emissions trading), assuming that indeed happens with such revenue (assuming it exists at all, which I somewhat doubt).

This info needs to be looked up and added as a section to Slash-and-burn agriculture and/or Deforestation article --Genetics4good (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

ET/carbon sink upscaling jam ?

What puzzles me is what problem exist that disallows countries to reach their emission reduction goals set by the Paris Agreement ? There is no info on how this is actually a problem on wikipedia, yet it is quite important.

Countries typically submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (see https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx ). Whether the measures taken suffice can be followed in real time at Climate Change Performance Index (per country), Climate Action Tracker (per country), and Climate Clock (obviously).

But then, if a country (Ministry of Environment, ...) sees it doesn't reach the required reductions set by the Paris Agreement at Climate Action Tracker (through its NDC), why doesn't it simply outsource the missing last bit of emission reductions buying sufficient Certified Emission Reductions (Emissions Trading) through the global carbon market ? Emission reductions can be easily created through reforestation projects and other biosequestration (carbon sinks restoration) projects, and currently there is still enough space and areas which can be forested, ... so that's not an issue there.

The only reason I can think of is that either:

• there are not enough emissions trading projects available globally and so all available emissions reductions from these trading projects are already purchased and it still doesn't suffice. If that is the reason, I assume at least some countries would reach to 100% of their Paris Agreement goals (through buying offsets), and other countries wouldn't attain it. This would show up in the proposed Emission reductions by NDC article then I assume (see below), and list of certified emission reductions still available for purchase should be equal or near equal to zero then.
• there are enough emission reduction trading projects available (surplus), but countries simply aren't purchasing enough of the certified emission reductions created by them, and as such they don't attain their Paris agreement emission reduction goals. This can be checked by simply looking at the list of certified emission reductions still available for purchase (pool) and comparing that against the amount of global emission reductions that are still needed. But really, as the Climate Change Performance Index (per country), Climate Action Tracker (per country), and Climate Clock already indicate that action taken is far below the requirements set out by the Paris agreement, there is no chance of this.

I would propose that a list of certified emission reductions still available for purchase article be made, if anyone has the required source information to make this article.

I would also propose that a Emission reductions by NDC article be made containing a table with

• all countries that agreed to the Paris agreement (first column)
• % of actual emission reductions attained through their NDC (compared against the individual country emissions target under the Paris agreement -1,5° warming target)
• % of purchased emission reductions attained through Emissions Trading reductions (compared against the individual country emissions target under the Paris agreement -1,5° warming target)
• % of still needed Emissions Trading emission reductions (compared against the individual country emissions target under the Paris agreement -1,5° warming target)

Can anyone do this ? It's probably a lot of work, but figuring out possible imperfections/jams in the system (which is causing countries to not attain their Paris agreement goal) seems very important. This because -assuming there are imperfections that need addressing-, then without describing the problem, there is (theoretically -assuming other people actually read these articles-) less change of it being tackled at all at some point (making it perhaps less probably that the goals will be attained at all).

--Genetics4good (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The article on the Paris agreement is in need of updating on it's sustainable development mechanism, which is intended cover this. Under the Kyoto Protocol, it was possibly to reduce some of your emissions via questionable and poorly governed forestry projects. I believe they wanted to reduce possibilities of cheating in Paris. Even properly managed new forests don't absorb emissions immediately, saplings take some time to become big carbon sinks. Maybe that is (going to be) taken into account now as well. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I knew of the Flexible Mechanisms. It's a part of emissions trading as it issues CER's. As I remember (I read the Afforestation/Reforestation docs back in the day) it basically assumed/required that offsets would last for 100 years. The amount of actually generated CER's were determined by tree diameter thickness/size I believe multiplied by a certain amount (up to 1.00) to factor in the carbon "density" of the tree (depends on tree species). Anyway, using this data, you can either determine real-life "immediate" carbon reductions from the very first year, or (theoretically) immediate "average" reductions from the very first year (by dividing projected thickness/size when tree is mature divided by 100 years -as many tree species will be mature by 100 years and may well live 100 years-). Even if they die prematurely, the opened up space will mean you can replant a tree there (in about the same space, just next to the roots of the old tree).

Only the first method is officially used, and back in the day this was very cumbersome as you needed to measure the tree every year by hand (meaning that for small-scale plantations, this may have been an issue). I'm assuming though that nowadays with those LIDAR-equipped drones, you can measure everything out really quickly (assuming the use of LIDAR-equipped drones is permitted).

Anyway, besides tree plantations, there are other types of carbon sinks (ie blue carbon) and the emissions trading/flexible mechanisms also had other projects (not carbon sinks related), so the possible "carbon sink/ET problem" isn't related to this. --Genetics4good (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not keen on working on new articles, that will probably get a low view rate. Paris Agreement is on my to-do list, but only after couple of big other projects, so I hope somebody else will do it first. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Genetics4good: I am a bit confused - what is the new article that you are saying needs work? Like Femke Nijsse, I also tend to stay away from new articles but perhaps I can find some experts for it. I find that experts who are Wikipedia novices often prefer to work on new articles rather than on existing ones. EMsmile (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A place for newbies (in their 'secondary research') to look for clues on engineered carbon removal might be https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernestmoniz/detail/recent-activity/ and [https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/clee/research/climate/climate-change-and-business-research-initiative/accelerating-engineered-carbon-removal-in-california/ Accelerating Engineered Carbon Removal in California

Berkeley Law. December 2020]. MaynardClark (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ideas without sources = not possible to create content

These concepts are unfamiliar to me. I favor making stubs, because at least if we have stubs in place then we can start getting traffic data to anticipate how many people are interested in these topics. But what are the foundational sources presenting this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Genetics4good, and thanks for bringing this idea forward. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about the Paris agreement or climate finance so I can't be of much help myself. I'm not sure what exactly you're proposing, but FWIW it's fairly rare for Wikipedia volunteers to write new articles based on someone else's suggestion. Usually the person who suggests writing an article is the person who is most passionate and knowledgeable about the topic, and when that person just does it is when it gets done. Another thought FWIW is that expanding and updating existing articles is usually the most effective way to reach the maximum number of readers. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:EMsmile @User:MaynardClark @User:Bluerasberry @User:Clayoquot I'm not sure whether you also visited the link to additional info on carbon sink upscaling (missing info) which I placed on your user talk (and I agree, it's easy to miss in retrospect as it looks like one link. Yes, there are new articles to be made (see the article section here, redlinks). Basically, I think it should be a collaborative effort (I can't do it alone, and I think I'll actually do a bit less editing the next couple of weeks) and should start off from Emission reductions by NDC. Let's make that article first, by simply putting in info from any country's NDC (available as pdf at https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx ). It should be short and just mention the measures taken by each country along with additional info in a table (mentioned above). We can do this for each country participating in the Paris agreement, but perhaps we should focus on those countries first that miss their current targets the most (you can see which ones those are at the Climate Change Performance Index and Climate Action Tracker website.

I doubt all the info can be entered in the table proposed (i.e. the sum of real-life emission reductions obtained though the measures can be found from the Climate Change Performance Index (read their annual pdf, not the wiki page) and Climate Action Tracker website and via List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions I assume, but no info will be available per measure. That's ok, leave that open for now. Projected emission reductions per measure should be in the NDC pdf I assume.

I think that once we're that far, there will already be much more info to build further on. I know some countries have carbon sequestration measures and carbon offsetting through emissions trading put in place in their NDC (which would show up in the article then). Not sure then howcome they're not scaling that up as needed, to level out the missing carbon emission reductions needed to reach the Paris agreement goal, but the minute we get this article going, traffic flow to it will increase and more people will focus on this issue (and perhaps discover bottlenecks that can be solved somehow).

--Genetics4good (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for dropping a message. I am happy to support on this but as this topic is not something I know a lot about am not in a position to lead on it. Will keep an eye on this discussion once specific articles that need work are identified. --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

They are identified, see text here and at the other talk pages linked. Also see my other posts on this page (carbon forests, ...). They're also part of this whole thing. Just dig into it.

It would be appreciated if anybody taking on a particular article proposed or subtopic would indicate this somewhere at this page, so everyone knows who is working on what and no double work is done. --Genetics4good (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @User:Genetics4good, thanks for the message and discussion. I’m very new here but will try to give my two cents: I agree that prominently featuring info on countries’ pledged vs actual emission reductions to fulfill the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals would be important. To start, I think the issue could be expanded on in the PA article (as pointed out by Femke Nijsse), based on e.g. CCPI or CAT which you have already mentioned.

There is already info about that on that page. That's already well known, the point of the NDC by country article is to give more detailed info per measure taken (projected vs achieved emission reductions by measure). By detailing everything out more like in an excel sheet, things become much more transparent and clear and bottlenecks can be found much easier.

--Genetics4good (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As for the issue of emissions trading that you are raising, I think the Paris Agreement’s Article 6 should be considered. It is featured in the section Paris_Agreement#Mitigation_provisions_and_carbon_markets and the dedicated article Cooperative Mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. This is one of the most contentious issues in the climate negotiations, e.g. that a double counting of mitigation efforts in both countries must be avoided, that it must deliver real CO2 cuts instead of merely trading between countries,... Apparently about half of NDCs refer to such initiatives. See for example https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-q-and-a-how-article-6-carbon-markets-could-make-or-break-the-paris-agreement. I think the issue may be too complex with many points of contention for the table that you are proposing, plus that may give it too much weight relative to countries’ required overall efforts? I am not an expert on this though. UKlnn (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree it would be too complex, if anything it would make the NDC (which is a very long pdf) much more insightful. As for the "real C2 cuts": emissions trading is already being used (and works, especially if the reductions come from biosequestration projects, also remember all projects have "additionality" requirement), but rather more it a last resort. That's also the point as it should work as a FAILSAFE so that when the regular NDC measures (tech solutions, emissionless fuels, ...) aren't sufficient, that failsafe can be used. But THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING (else every country would be on track). The Paris agreement itself obviously does work, but as the failsafe doesn't work, the whole only works for say 50-75%. So let's look on whether we can make the whole mechanism and measures more transparent and hopefully locate the bottlenecks so that others can GET IT WORKING, hereby allow country's to get on track to Paris again.

--Genetics4good (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Genetics4good: I am still not understanding what sources you want to put where, but I think you are talking about lists and data. If that is the case, starting in Wikidata is probably ideal, because to manage numbers which change regularly Wikidata is most stable way even though for many languages it has weak and imperfect links with Wikipedia. I followed one of your links and found a sample report which would be difficult to use because it is a WP:PRIMARY source which we are not supposed to interpret. The information it presents seems difficult to understand without interpretation. Can you specifically show what kind of source you want to share, and what fact you would take from that source? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:

For sources

• https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx (NDC docs). Perhaps difficult to interpret, but at least the measures proposed and perhaps some data and figures should be extractable. See what's possible and create a workaround (ie conversion in between data from total GHG emissions in tonnes to %, ...) if needed to get the data we seek. Perhaps we can simply let wikipedia calculate it using some template (just like in excel) so it's guaranteed to be accurate. It's all about filling in the data we know to see data we don't know (blank spots) and which we seek, and also about increasing transparancy in the whole system as many of the info is on very long pdf's (on UNFCCC sites, ...) which no one reads and which is difficult to interpret. You shouldn't expect the info to be easily extractable like on a ready-made article by a news agency which you can just take over easily. It will be hard (unless perhaps some wikipedian simply contacts the organisation behind the tracker data directly and asks them for their core sources directly (i.e. https://cti.climateworks.org/ ,makers of the Climate Action Tracker, ...)
• Climate Change Performance Index (info per country), use annual pdf which should contain more info then the wiki page
• Climate Action Tracker website
• List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
• The Emissions Gap Report 2016: A UNEP Synthesis Report, https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/file/31710/download?token=hOfXKoN6
• UNFCCC websites probably have more information to be found -you need to go look online for that, don't have any link- (in particular following info: country emissions target or amount of allowed emissions in tonnes of C02 per country (from which the target can then be calculated somehow -compared to 1990 levels ?-). I'm not sure whether the target increases every year or whether they have a particular target by a certain date (which ?) from which you then simply generate a yearly target by dividing target by date/number of years left. This is probably the first data to find and enter in the table, to get a baseline going

For what data to use, again read this section:

"I doubt all the info can be entered in the table proposed (i.e. the sum of real-life emission reductions obtained though the measures can be found from the Climate Change Performance Index (read their annual pdf, not the wiki page) and Climate Action Tracker website and via List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions I assume, but no info will be available per measure. That's ok, leave that open for now. Projected emission reductions per measure should be in the NDC pdf I assume."

there is also data at https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions (global annual emissions, from which you could theoretically generate per country data), but this data is satellite data I believe and needs to be calculated out further (and also doesn't have much relation to Paris agreement goals, so I think UNFCCC data is much better). Only thing I'm not sure is whether UNFCCC data uses satellite data info (and thus includes emissions from forest fires, methane emissions from permafrost warming, ...)

Again, the whole thing will need to be figured out as we go. We can just create the table/info per NDC by country article (start with say Argentina or Viet Nam as these are listed as "critically insufficient" at Climate Action Tracker, also do Morocco, Brazil and Australia -Morocco is listed as "1,5°C compatible" and Brazil and Australia are interesting to see whether forest fire emissions are actually included in dataset used -should show up in the CO2 emission data per year-) on either a draft page, or otherwise get a wikipedia stub going (with just the national measures, without the table for now) and simply use code to hide the text so only visible in edit mode (editors can remove the hide and use "view preview".

--Genetics4good (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Genetics4good: I am going to decline to participate in Wikipedia at this time. However, I can make a counter offer that if you want to come to Wikidata and do some data modeling, then I can join you there. I see d:Wikidata:WikiProject Climate Change as the more likely place for this kind of content, but even still, getting it in would likely take a few iterations of proposal and feedback. Consider checking out what is happening there anyway, it has some good projects already. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Bluerasberry: I sincerely appreciate your proposal, but again, I don't want to tackle this whole thing myself, and rather take more time off from wikipedia instead. The idea I had is to get the wikiproject Climate Change members (of which there are about 40 I believe) do this by having everyone taking on one subtask, dividing the work (after all, protecting nature is everyone's task, not just mine and we all live on the same planet). Wikipedia and its wikiproject Climate Change is the best choice for that.

--Genetics4good (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The suite of "Climate change in country X" articles

I have lately taken an interest in the suite of articles of the type "Climate change in country X". To this end, I have updated today the category "Climate change by country" as I realised there are many more countries with such articles than were connected to that category. I also would like to see all of them converted into the standard heading structure that we have proposed under the tab "Style guide and sources" of this WikiProject. Please see also the discussion to date on that talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide . We (PlanetCare and I) have already applied this standard structure to the climate change articles for Kenya and Brazil. I enjoy doing this kind of "structuring" work but I hope that others might also be interested to help? I actually think this would be a great little task for students, interns or as part of an edit-a-thon. Does anyone have any ideas/suggestions along those lines, i.e. how to recruit helpers. So far, I have just left a notice on the talk pages of some of the articles... And of course linking those articles from the country articles later is also very important, i.e. Linking from Brazil to Climate change in Brazil. But that's a separate discussion. EMsmile (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Rename Intended Nationally Determined Contributions to Nationally Determined Contributions?

It has been proposed to rename Intended Nationally Determined Contributions to Nationally Determined Contributions, please see talk page here. I have no clue if this is sensible, controversial, straight forward or not sensible. Any opinions? I didn't want to open a formal "move" tag before checking here first. EMsmile (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have requested the redirect deleted to make way for the move as uncontroversial. If anyone disagrees just remove the tag from Nationally Determined Contributions Chidgk1 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how long those deletions take. An alternative way of doing it (where you don't have to wait for anyone) is to do round-robin swap, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Page_mover#Round-robin_page_moves (just saying in case you didn't know; I only learnt about this process recently).EMsmile (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done @EMsmile and Chidgk1: -- I am an Admin so if you need deletion of protection feel free to ping me directly, if I don't see a convo. Sadads (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How do the articles "Greenhouse gas emissions in country X" relate/overlap with "Climate change in country X"?

I've just noticed this category on Greenhouse gas emissions by country. Looking at those articles (there are not that many; although sometimes category lists are incomplete), I see they often also include a section on "mitigation". I would argue that the information on mitigation should be moved to the articles "Climate change in country X". What do you think? Also the article "Greenhouse gas emissions by India" could actually be remodeled and renamed to "Climate change in India" - one of the few articles that do not exist yet at country level for a big country (see other articles here in Climate change by country). EMsmile (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Mitigation feels better placed within the topic of emissions, as it applies directly to the emissions of that country. Climate change in general is a bit broader, with emissions from countries often not directly linked with much of the climate change impact on those countries. Tuvalu mitigating its emissions as an extreme example, would have almost no impact on the topic of Climate change in Tuvalu. CMD (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The climate change country articles are not just about impacts but about everything to do with climate change for that country. The way it seems to be heading is that the "Climate change in country X" articles are more popular and more numerous than the "Greenhouse gas emissions in country X" articles. And they do include a section on "mitigation", see style guide here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide . Mitigation and adaptation is currently together in the same section. User:PlanetCare had proposed that on the talk page of that page, where she said "Causes, Impacts, Mitigation and Adaptation are the four IPCC categories, but I didn't see a strong case for treating mitigation and adaptation separately". I agree with her, as I would say a lot of the policies and climate activism looks at them as a combined package, not two separate things. But perhaps this needs further discussion and consensus building? - I don't think we would do ourselves a favour if we split the topic of mitigation over two articles. Except maybe in those cases, where the mitigation section has become so huge that it warrants spin off into a separate article. But such an article should be more likely "Climate change mitigation in Country X", rather than "Greenhouse gas emissions by Country X", shouldn't it? I propose that the article tree structure would look like this in future: Main article is the country (like Brazil). Then sub-article is: "Climate change in Brazil" then (if that one gets too big) we create one sub-article on "Greenhouse gas emissions by Brazil" and one on "Climate change mitigation in Brazil". I think it's important that we have it clear in our mind which is main and which is sub and sub-sub article. E.g. I don't see "Climate change in Brazil" and "Greenhouse gas emissions by Brazil" to be on the same level. To me "Greenhouse gas emissions by Brazil" should be regarded as a sub-article of "Climate change in Brazil" (perhaps the title "Climate change and Brazil" would have been better but then it's harder to make a good first sentence out of the article title...).EMsmile (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Greenhouse gas emissions by X" could definitely work as a subarticle of "Climate change in X", but the topic of greenhouse gas mitigation specifically is a clear subtopic of "Greenhouse gas emissions by X", as it is those emissions being mitigated. Mitigation and adaptation are both responses, but they are very different. Policies implementing both will have to be separate, although they may come in the same package. Activism is generally just for climate change mitigation, not adaptation. On the "Causes, Impacts, Mitigation and Adaptation" separation, "Causes" is generally not the specific emissions of that country. Mitigation has delayed and diffuse global effect, whereas adaptation has direct and localised impacts. Going back to Tuvalu, they will have to do some very serious adaptation, but almost no mitigation. Similarly, if Australia completely mitigated its emissions this year, bringing them to zero, it will still have to deal with (and adapt to) climate change for decades to come. CMD (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, for sure adaptation and mitigation are two different things, but they should both be included as sections in the overview article "Climate change in country X", and if they get too lengthy they can be branched off into sub-articles. I think the current proposed structure where "mitigation and adaptation" occur together in the same section has some merits but also some drawbacks. Please put an alternative suggestion here if you like for further discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide (it's frustrated me a bit that not more people have taken part in the discussion there so far, but I appreciate that people are busy and things get overlooked). Usually, the usage of a standard structure remains a bit theoretical until it gets tested out for a few articles and then we see what works well and what doesn't. - And I just want to point out that I didn't start this in "thin air" but after looking at a range of "climate change in Country X" articles and wondering how they could be improved and streamlined so that it's easier for the readers to follow them and to know what to expect and what to find where. We have done it so far for Climate change in Kenya and Climate change in Brazil. And a discussion about Climate change in Canada here with User:Mottezen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change_in_Canada#Suggested_changes_to_headings_and_structure EMsmile (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look at the style guide talk page as well. I didn't think the framework came out of thin air, and this is a reasonably undeveloped topic. Adaptation as a whole is lacking, even on the Climate change article itself (this is currently under discussion on the talk page there). On the Country-specific articles I agree it is best to keep everything in one page unless they get too big, but even at that point a summary should remain so there shouldn't be too much concern regarding a lack of comprehensiveness. On existing article structures, Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey is a well-developed example of how mitigation fits within the wider greenhouse gas framework. CMD (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm working on implementing the recommended "outline" for existing country articles and find that many of the country-based articles are skimpy on information in the first place. Before spending energy on branch off articles, I'd rather see more work, perhaps by science classes in Universities, on each country. I vote for breadth as the priority.PlanetCare (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's much initiative for any splits right now. On country articles, the most developed appears to be Climate change in New Zealand, although there are a few others with various advantages and disadvantages that might be learnt from. CMD (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

For the example of Turkey it's clear that in the past (or in some examples) the two types of articles were split along different lines to what we have now proposed here. The hat note of Climate change in Turkey says "This article is about the effects of global warming on Turkey and adaptation to it. For gases which contribute to global warming, and their mitigation, see Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey." I can see the logic in that but personally, I prefer the other logic, which I have argued for above. Namely that "Climate change in Turkey" would become the parent article and Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey would become the sub-article. (and the same for other countries). Chidgk1, what do you think? The fact that the number of existing articles on "climate change in country X" now far outweighs the number of existing articles on "Greenhouse gas emissions by country X" makes me feel supported in this approach. EMsmile (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the "Climate change in ...." could be parent articles but if a "Greenhouse gas emissions by .." article exists then I agree with Chipmunkdavis that the details about mitigation should be there. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The Greenhouse gas emissions subarticles pair well with the adaptation subarticle that previously existed for Australia (which would inherently also include impacts). Those would fit under a larger climate change in X framework. CMD (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That adaptation subarticle that existed for Australia was actually very sparse on information. When I integrated it into Climate change in Australia I found that it was a mixture of info on climate change adaption in general (not specific for Australia), some information on emissions and mitigation etc. Sure, at some point later in the future we might branch off "climate change adaptation in country X" articles but I think we are a long way off from that. Let's first get those "climate change in country X" articles into good shape for as many countries as possible and establish them as the parent articles from which sub-articles can branch off. The information about climate change in Australia was actually split across four articles until recently and they all had significant overlap and repetition (probably some were written as student assignments without much regard to already existing articles). Now we are down to two articles for Australia and still need to do a bit more work to ensure they fit together snugly (Climate change in Australia as the parent article, and Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia as a sub-article). EMsmile (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I've continued the discussion here, which is the talk page of the sub-page on "Style guide" for this WikiProject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide EMsmile (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for 100% renewable energy

An article that you have been involved in editing—100% renewable energy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone have connections with the IPCC web team?

Citing IPCC reports would be easier and more reader-friendly if we could link directly to a specific section in the web version of the report. E.g. say I want to cite the following section:

• Special Report on Climate Change and Land
• Chapter 5
• Section 5.2, "Impact of climate change on food systems"

The best I can do in a hyperlink is https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/ , which goes to the right report and chapter but not to a specific section. I would much prefer to be able to send the reader to the exact section. Does anyone know how to communicate with the web team at the IPCC to ask them to make section-specific page anchors available?

In the Climate change article, our citations refer to page numbers in the PDF version of the report. I'm not suggesting we change all of them retroactively, but going forward I would at least like the option to use section numbers and hyperlinks instead of page numbers, as the former are more reader-friendly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried twitter? These kinds of things tend to get resolved well by webteams in that way, Sadads (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Concerns_about_editing_of_Milankovitch_cycles_related_articles

Posting a notice about a discussion over at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard that may be of interest. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

New Here, any advice?

Hi everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia and just joined this project. For my first contribution I was thinking of writing about climate change in my city (Austin), as suggested. I was wondering if anyone had any advice about sources to look at, how to structure things, etc? Also how can I have my contributions reviewed for feedback?

Thanks!

Rpaul98 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Rpaul98, and welcome :). Great you want to help out! The article about Austin mentions a warming climate already, and often non-climate editors don't want much more than one or two sentences of climate change in an article, so keep additions small and simple. I've watchlisted the page, so I can give immediate feedback. I don't know much about local sources unfortunately. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that Climate change in Texas on climate change can use a lot of love! It's first sentence According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the climate in Texas is already changing due to anthropogenic climate change does something we're not supposed to do: attribute a fact (climate change is happening) to an organisation. If it's a fact, we shouldn't hide behind some other organisation saying it, that implies it may be an opinion. Instead, we should say something like Climate change in Texas, caused by a rise in greenhouse gas concentrations, is impacting X and Y. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks FemkeMilene for that advice! I'll look into contributing to the Climate change in Texas page then. Would you mind watchlisting that page as well for feedback? Rpaul98 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rpaul98: There are several of us on that article :) Your being watched, Sadads (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rpaul98: And please use the standard headings that we have proposed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide#Outline_for_articles_about_specific_countries_or_geographies while working on Climate change in Texas or any country or state level articles for climate change. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Huaynaputina FAC

Greetings,

is anyone interested in reviewing this discussion which deals with volcanoes, Peru and climate change? It's in danger of being archived for lack of input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say anything about climate change on that page, Jo-Jo Eumerus? EMsmile (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile:I was going off The WikiProject Climate change (shortcut WP:PROCC ) is a collaborative effort to improve our articles related to human-caused climate change, as well as to climate change throughout Earth's history. For more information about WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices. the part climate change throughout Earth's history. specifically since Huaynaputina caused a volcanic winter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Unexpected pageview increase for Climate change in South Africa

So the article for Climate change in South Africa has seen a rather dramatic increase in pageviews in the past few weeks: from our normal country-article 100s per month to >12000. Anyone have insight on why this might have happened? Seems to be around when @EMsmile: did her first pass on structuring the article. I am not seeing a rise in any of the comparable country articles i.e climate change in Kenya Sadads (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think my restructuring efforts can take much/any credit, although I am happy that if more people are now clicking through to the article, they now find something that is easier to read and better than before! I think there are two possible explanations for the beautiful increase. One is likely your edit to the article on South Africa where you added the link to Climate change in South Africa, see here here. Well done on getting that change done in the main country article's lead and for it to stick!! I have tried on many other country articles and am often met with great hostility. People are arguing that the country articles should just be about history and politics but not about "the future", even if climate change impacts are HERE and NOW! Please help me to get agreement to include this in other country articles, too - please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#How_much_content_about_climate_change_is_warranted_in_country_articles? . The second aspect might be that there was something in the news in South Africa about climate change. Although that might lead to a more pronounced sharp peak in an article, not a gradual sustained increase. I know that in Australia, at the end of 2019 when we had the terrible bushfires, there was a peak in view rates for climate change in Australia, see here. The page views for climate change in Australia peaked at nearly 3000 views per day in December 2019, up from the daily average of 128 views per day (I much prefer daily view rates than monthly ones because those peaks can sometimes occur for just a few days. See e.g. the World Toilet Day view rate peaks every year around 19 November on World Toilet Day). EMsmile (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Discott: Any insight? I am not fully convinced that its just the adding of the link (though it could be considering how many readers of the page their are. Sadads (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sadads, the only theory I can come up with is that it coincides with a Fridays for Future campaign to rise awareness of climate change. Apparently last Friday (19 March) was a special day of protest that they organised. Their South African chapter apparently organised extensively for the event. Other than that there does seem to be a very slowly growing awareness of climate change of an issue within government. I don't know if any of that adequately explains the ten fold increase in page views, I suspect not, but it is the best I can currently think of.--Discott (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC in Climate Change article

There's an RFC about if we should mention large scale deployment of CDR methods is unproven. Please comment here: Talk:Climate_change#Request_for_comment:_mention_of_Carbon_dioxide_removal_in_Climate_change#Mitigation_section Bogazicili (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Bogazicili: I don't think that RFC is going to be very helpful:

• Its not clear what the proposal is to change, or if there are multiple options.
• It doesn't summarize why folks are objecting to the change.
• It doesn't summarize why the change is important.

As someone who is fairly literate in these issues, but doesn't want to read the long thread on the topic -- I don't know how to comment effectively. By creating an RFC you are inviting people who are less literate about the topic to participate -- they need more structured information to reasonably participate in the conversation, Sadads (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sadads. Thanks for the feedback! I had tried to keep the explanation of the issue brief per RFC instructions. I added some specific quotes and a specific suggested text after the RFC explanation part. Only objections were that it's too detailed or that it doesn't fit the paragraph as far as I remember. Let me know if you have further suggestions. Bogazicili (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Start a Telegram group for this project?

I am thinking of starting a Telegram group for the participants of WikiProject Climate Change. Similar to the Telegram group that is used for Wikimedians for Sustainable Development. Just wondering if anyone else thinks this would be useful? Its purpose would be for quick and easy and personal communication about all things related to this project, including editing of articles (for stuff that goes beyond talk page discussions, or to alert people to talk page discussions etc.). I am thinking it could also help with onboarding of newbies, as it will have a more personal touch. Alternatively, we could use the Wiki4Climate Slack channel which already exists (but doesn't seem very popular). Or not have an off-wiki group at all. (when you answer, please put yourself in the shoes of newbies, as well, not just whether you - as an experienced Wikipedian - would find it useful or not) EMsmile (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

an alternative is to have a channel in the wikipedia discord. That way, we can also ask outsiders in the other channels to have a look if such an outside perspective is needed. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting alternative. Do you have experience with Wikipedia Discord? When I briefly looked at it in the past it felt a bit geeky, and only for people who are already part of the Wikipedia community (?). I feel that the advantage of using a "standard" tool such as Telegram or Slack is that people already know it and feel comfortable with it, thereby maybe lowering the barriers to participation (for newbies). - But maybe I should try Discord out more. Is there a specific Wikipedia discord channel that you recommend that I join to get a feel for how it's used? EMsmile (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Telegram (or Signal, which is superior), Discord and Slack are all apps that most people won't have before joining. It may be moore geeky, but Discord is rebranding itself as general-purpose. I have seen new people join the group, but most people have been active for a while. As we can start our own channel in the wider group, we can still be super welcomy. More info: Wikipedia:Discord. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What did you mean with "start our own channel in the wider group"? I am a little bit confused about that. Also, should we give it a go or wait a bit longer to see if Discord becomes more popular? EMsmile (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm new here and I think a Telegram or a channel in Discord would be very useful! I think I personally would prefer a channel on Discord though, just because I already have Discord but I don't have Telegram Rpaul98 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I am open to either -- but prefer Telegram -- discord is yet one more channel that I have not been on :P Yet one more install, Sadads (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion: Should "Greenhouse gas emissions" become a stand-alone article?

Please add your thoughts to the discussion on whether "Greenhouse gas emissions" should become a stand-alone article. Currently it is part of Greenhouse gas. Join the discussion here. EMsmile (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have created a spin-off article for Greenhouse gas emissions today. Both articles would benefit from more eyes and brain power to get them right, in case anyone has time/interest to help. :-) EMsmile (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I fixed a bunch of redirects, and links -- most of the "Greenhouse gas" links that should be pointing at "Greenhouse gas emissions]] have been fixed -- but there is still a fair amount of work to do on other redirects. Sadads (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

GAR of solar energy

Solar energy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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.

Big article to update :). FemkeMilene (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Update needed to Union of Concerned Scientists article's reference to consensus on climate change?

I feel that experienced climate change editors could handle this better than I, so I'd like to pass the buck to some of you :). I don't know how exactly Wikipedia should refer to late-1990s disagreements over the Scientific consensus on climate change, but, given the state of consensus today, I'm pretty sure that Union of Concerned Scientists § Media coverage's highly MOS:DOUBTful reference to this so-called "consensus" is... not it. —2d37 (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've changed that one sentence, not looked for further problems. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reporter working on a story about climate change on Wikipedia

Hi all,

I'm Alex Lubben, a reporter currently at Columbia's graduate school of journalism. (You can find some of my work at my website: http://alexlubben.com.) I'd love to talk you all about your contributions to the climate change pages on Wikipedia, and to get a sense for what motivates you to do this work. I've spoken to some of you already but if we haven't been in touch and you'd like to chat, please feel free to email me at alex.lubben@columbia.edu.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

(I'm not a Wikipedian myself -- if this post doesn't belong here, apologies!)

Alex Lubben (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Totally the right place, and here to verify that Alex is legit and worth talking with :) Sadads (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Assessment

Hi everyone. I have been working on the article Veena Sahajwalla and have added 5 new sections. I believe it needs a reassessment as it was initially classified as start class. I believe it is currently at least a C Class Article. I would really appreciate this as I have been working on this article for a class. Thank you in advance. (Mui3772 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC))

Join WikiForHumanRights to celebrate earth day

Hello all, you may know me in my volunteer capacity as User:Sadads.

I wanted to reach out to you professinally to invite you to meta:WikiForHumanRights which is focusing this month on "right to a healthy environment" which includes climate change and other environmental action. Please join us for:

• There is a writing Challenge for Experienced Editors: meta:WikiForHumanRights_Challenge.
• A live event on April 15 at 3PM UTC to launch the campaign: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/04/02/live-event-join-us-for-the-launch-of-wikiforhumanrights-right-to-a-healthy-environment/
• Community lead events that you may want to join community lead events.

Here all the pings of active users on the WikiProject:

I hope you get a chance to join us, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

How to make a gif of climate maps for a country?

Anyone know how to do one for an individual country?

Chidgk1 (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Online floodmaps

If anyone comes across global floodmaps that take the benefits of the planned/executed sea level defenses into account (lower sea levels), be sure to add them to the sea level rise article. --Genetics4good (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Core Contest

In a months time, the Core Contest will be launched in its ninth iteration. It's an exciting contest, running over a period of six weeks, with £250 of prize money for the articles that are most improved.

Quite a few of these core articles fit within our project, from our most-read articles, I can list

• Car
• Drought
• Atmosphere of Earth
• Renewable energy
• Petroleum
• Fossil fuel

I hope we can have at least one representative of this WikiProject competing. You can list your article at Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Entries. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Retreat of glaciers since 1850#Requested move 7 May 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Retreat of glaciers since 1850#Requested move 7 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Add a to-do about translations to English?

Do project members agree to add in the to-do list the task of translating content from other language articles to English? If so, we could provide these CCC articles in Spanish as an example. EMsmile (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the challenge is that we don't have a good interface for everyone to translate all the articles into all the languages -- so its not an easy task for newcomers -- but totally worth adding for spaces where we expected experienced multilingual editors to land. Sadads (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking just from other languages to English. And it's not a newcomer task, very true. Is our WikiProject clearly showing tasks for newbies versus tasks for anyone? E.g. this section here (under "To dos") would be tasks for experienced people, right? EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there any more "Climate change in X" articles in native language but not English?

I am reluctant to do Climate change in Brazil as I already did 5 DYK and after that you have to review other peoples as a "quid pro quo". If anyone has not done 5 DYK and wants to do then you have a couple of days left while this article would be eligible - deadline 25th Jan I think. Details at Wikipedia:Did you know Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chidgk1, if no-one else wants to do this and you feel unsure about QPQ I am happy to nominate it if you can suggest the hooks. Very important topic. CMD (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I nominated it myself just before reading your offer. It seems pretty unusual to have an important article like that written in the native language of the country but not in English. The translation tool was pretty fiddly but now I understand how to do it if you or anyone else comes across another "Climate change in X" which is in another language but not English let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I just found out that there are "climate change in country" (CCC) articles in Spanish for Spain and Uruguay which we don't have in English yet. To be translated to English at some point in future (but check with Scann first) EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey folks! We'll be running an event from April 19-25 for Earth Day and I hope that we'll be creating some of these new articles in Spanish, but I'd suggest we wait before translating those after the event since they might not be yet ready. Maybe we could do a special "translation sprint" event sometime before the year ends. --Scann (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: there are now also these new CCC (climate change in country X) articles available in Spanish (see here):

• Cambio climático en América Latina
• Cambio climático en Chile
• Cambio climático en Paraguay
• Cambio climático en Perú
• Cambio climático en Israel
• Problemas ambientales de Paraguay

If anyone is keen to translate, go ahead (unless there are further improvements in the pipeline, Scann?). If I am not mistaken, Chidgk1 translated the article for CC in Brazil from Portuguese to English without knowing Portuguese. So it seems to be possible to do so! As an aside: The English version of the climate change in Brazil is now "more advanced" than the Portuguese version, so it's always a bit of a catch-up game with those translations. EMsmile (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to do these myself but can give a few tips if anyone else wants to. You should be a native English speaker or C2 level (professional working proficiency). Suggest using the tool especially if article has lots of pics because it makes it easy to take pics across. Suggest go first to "Simple English" and set to output to your sandbox in Simple English Wikipedia. Because Simple English allows machine translation and you don't have to change so much text within the tool before it allows output. Then copy and paste from your Simple English sandbox to your English sandbox and do the editing there which is easier. Contact me if you get stuck. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a note of caution, while machine translations can save work in the translation process, the English Wikipedia has had some problems in the past with their quality - see Help:Translation#Avoid_machine_translations and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive258#Laura_Hale_topic_ban. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Nori

Can anyone cover the benefit of tokens on the Carbon credit page ? Seems quite important. Already made a NORI token redirect, but that's not enough, benefits need to be covered on the carbon credit page. In particular see these article which describes on how it helps (mainly the trading thereof is made easier):

• Blockchain Coalition Launches Tradable Carbon Credit Token
• US Securities and exchange
• Why nori needs its own cryptocurrency token
• NORI faq

In addition to that info, perhaps the NORI article needs to be developed too (rather then being a redirect). I read the white paper some time ago, and it appeared to me that it actually also helps the user for setting up carbon sequestration/offsetting projects (maybe there's some sort of platform the user can log into and allow the carbon that is measured to be offset to be easily inputted or perhaps digitally send -ie from an electronic tool like a lidar drone or something through wifi- ?) Don't know, never used it, but if so it needs to be explained in full on the article. --Genetics4good (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Not my area, but IIRC the IBM/Stellar (payment network) duo recently found a partner to implement a carbon trading token. That would fit your idea, I guess. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with lead image for climate change adaptation

Can anyone help with brainstorming the new lead image for climate change adaptation? See my proposal on the talk page here. The current image is a complicated schematic that is not really great for the lead but will be nice in the main body of the article. EMsmile (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)