Talk:Climate change

Sentence on "affecting oceans, ice, and weather"?

I was looking for a good summary sentence on the effects of climate change (to be used in the lead of effects of climate change). I then came across this sentence in our article which I find odd: The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting oceans, ice, and weather.. I'm assuming that "ice" was added there instead of "cryosphere" but still the sentence is odd. At the very least, it should be introduced with "for example". When you look at the IPCC AR 6 WG I report chapters, I see there:

• CHAPTER 8: Water Cycle Changes
• CHAPTER 9: Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change
• CHAPTER 11: Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate

Therefore, a better summary sentence could be The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting the water cycle, oceans, sea and land ice, sea level, weather and climate extreme events. EMsmile (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to convert that into professional prose (without the very long enumeration). Maybe something like: The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting oceans, ice on land and sea, and weather. Your proposal is a bit duplicative (both water cycle and weather/oceans, both weather and climate extreme events). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I like "ice on land and sea" better than just "ice", thanks. Why is a long-ish enumeration problematic, or let's ask this way: how many items in an enumeration are still acceptable? I am assuming that if the IPCC report has a dedicated chapter on "water cycle changes" (chapter 8) then this is sufficiently distinct from "weather changes" (chapter 11)? Similarly, if they say "weather and climate extreme events" then there must be a reason and they are not duplicating the same thing, or are they? Honest questions, I am a lay person on all this. EMsmile (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't find a style guide, but I've always been taught that more than three items in a enumeration starts to become boring, and people skip over it. I think the reason is that Ch11 is about "weather extreme events" and "climate extreme events". Not sure, and climate extreme events is too ambiguous to be put in a Wikipedia article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

As has been discussed before, be careful using IPCC work as a model for wording. They are a political organization whose role is to provide high level analyses to inform policy makers. They have a level of political responsibility that often requires a nuance in wording that can easily confuse lay readers, and it often doesn't work with WP's value as a provider of information in a readable common language form. Crescent77 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Only the SPM really has that strong policy angle. Most of the IPCC is written by scientists for scientists. Which leads me to the same conclusion; there is often nuance only understood to experts in those reports, making the source difficult for lay people to translate to Wikipedia. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Currently, we have heard of events on the news and on social media, like acid rain in Ohio due to a train derailment, sea levels rising because ice sheets and glaciers are melting in the Arctic, and the amount of pollution we create through gas and trash in the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeleeh574 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that the IPCC is a "political organisation". By the way, we recently updated the Wikipedia article for it, it's much better now than before and well worth a look: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (first two sentences: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations. Its job is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities"). I think the IPCC assessment reports are basically one big fat literature reviews. Yes, by scientists and for scientists. Our job is to translate their language for the general public but not over simplifying things. I am pretty sure that "water cycle changes" is not the same as "extreme weather events" and should thus be listed as two distinct things from each other. The water cycle can change without causing "extreme events" simply by changed precipitation patterns for example. If we are only allowed to list 3 items in that sentence (perhaps 4 would still be alright?), could we say maybe (3 short sentences instead of 1 long one): The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affects oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle. This, in turn, affects other aspects of the climate system, for example the frequency of extreme weather events (or without the third sentence). EMsmile (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

How is "an intergovernmental body of the UN" not political? That's about as political as politics goes, I'd suggested taking a look at the concept of "politics" on WP.

Our job is most definitely not to translate the IPCC's language. Our job is to use the information they, and other sources, provide to further a readers understanding of the topic at hand. In some cases, that may mean the specific wording the IPCC uses is best left in their reports and off WP. Provide the reader the reference information, let them read it for themselves.

I'm with Femke. The meaning of "extreme" events can be quite vague, and is better left off. Keep it simple. Crescent77 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean with "political". When I hear "political", I think of politics, left-wing, right-wing, republicans, democrats, looking for the next elections, short-term thinking etc. Anyway, I wasn't thinking of the IPCC (the organisation) but of the IPCC Assessment Reports. Those are one giant piece of literature reviews. If you want to rather cite those publications which the IPCC reports cite, be my guest. But in general, we are supposed to use secondary and tertiary sources, not have an over-reliance on primary sources (see WP:PST). Do you agree that the IPCC reports are a reliable source for Wikipedia editing? I would say so! See WP:reliable sources. And yes, I think our job is to translate the IPCC's language as well as any publication's language that is rather "academic/scientific/difficult to understand". We are supposed to summarise that kind of content "in our own words". Which aspect of this do you disagree with? EMsmile (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The IPCC is most definitely a reliable source. Couple problems:

1. As discussed above, they are a group of expert scientists/policy advisors reviewing material for expert scientists/policy advisors. The language does not present itself well for the average reader. It can easily lead to confusing passages when a layperson attempts to "translate" it. It should be summarized, in your own words. I challenge you to do so, you've been fighting to hold onto IPCC language, rather than prioritizing clear summaries. Please share the greater understanding you have gleaned from reading the IPCC work.

2. WP is NOT a repository for any and all information. Just because the IPCC included it in their reports, does not mean it needs to be here on WP, if it does not contribute to a general understanding. See #1 above, the IPCC experts include alot of wording in their reports for expert understanding that does not need to be covered in detail on WP, especially on a high level summary article.

Sometimes, these climate change articles look like bad hoarder situations. There's alot of great material from great sources, but it's buried under piles and piles of stuff, and it's hard to move around. They need some cleanup, and the folks inhabiting this page who are holding on to stuff are going to have let things go if they want visitors to be comfortable to learn here.

That is what we're hoping for, I believe? Crescent77 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Haha. bad hoarder situations, I love this wording, and very much agree. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

bad hoarder situations excuse me I feel the need to rant here BAD HOARDER SITUATIONS Turkish Wikipedia is so stupid - maybe 10 times I tried to remove rubbish like paragraphs of decades old fire risk from the electric car article and it was always put back in - those editors are just disrespecting the work of the guys in the factory here who are making the cars - rant over I feel better now thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course I agree with #2. This is why Wikipedia is a tree of information where a high-level article (such as climate change) just touches on things, and then you have sub-articles, like effects of climate change for more detail. - Anyhow, coming back to the specific sentence. The sentence was The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting oceans, ice, and weather. My proposal is to change it to this which I think is actually clearer for lay persons: I am not a fan of gerunds in general (in this case: "affecting") as they are difficult to understand for non native English speakers.: The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affect oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle. This, in turn, affects other aspects of the climate system, for example the frequency of extreme weather events. I think my proposal is also more accurate while only being a little bit longer. If we are only allowed to have 3 items in a listing, then I think the three that I chose make the most sense: oceans, ice and water cycle. The other things (weather extremes) stem from that. EMsmile (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with your Point #1 (I think; more or less). When I said "translate", I meant this to say "summarise in my own words" - more or less. Although not every statement/paragraph/chapter can easily be summarised; often they are already summaries of a lot of sources. Also, why challenge me to this - why don't we work on this as a collaborate effort rather? I have the feeling that overall you don't think the IPCC reports are all that suitable for our work here. I disagree with that. But I think we could just agree to disagree and move on. EMsmile (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I do think the IPCC reports are suitable for our work here. My issue is that there seems to be a tendency to sole source the IPCC reports, specifically related to the use of their nuanced language in alot of the passages here, without appropriate context.

Anyways, as far as disagreement, you failed to address the point twice made related to the specific turn of phrase. "Extreme" can be an ambiguous term, better to avoid it in such sweeping statements.

As a side note, although we may have our disagreements, I do appreciate your work here. Crescent77 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's kind of you to say that! And I can say: likewise. :-) (would you like to add something to your user profile page? It puzzles me a bit why it's still in red). Regarding extreme weather, well I would just add the wiklink to extreme weather so it's less ambiguous, isn't it? Our own Wikipedia article explains it like this "Extreme weather or extreme climate events includes unexpected, unusual, severe, or unseasonal weather; weather at the extremes of the historical distribution—the range that has been seen in the past." (interstingly, they are saying that extreme weather is the same as extreme climate events; as an aside, the Wikipedia article on extreme weather likely also needs some TLC (tender, love and care)... ). - Would it be OK to have the sentence like this then (without the third sentence that mentions extreme weather?): The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affect oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle.. EMsmile (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Examples for adaptation options (lead and main text)

I suggest we either delete "through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning" or we come up with better wording. Using those particular two examples to explain what climate change adaptation is all about seems wrong to me (like I explained above). I think we can just stop here: "some communities may partly adapt to climate change". Or otherwise: "some communities may partly adapt to climate change through Infrastructural, institutional, behavioural or nature-based options." (or a shortened version of that). - Regarding sources in the lead, I think they are good to have (more and more), especially for leads that might be transcribed in future through the excerpt tool. EMsmile (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I prefer giving examples, given that climate change adaptation is something people may not understand. The phrasing " Infrastructural, institutional, behavioural or nature-based options." is much too abstract for our audience (jargon) and too difficult (reading level). Note that leads in particular need to be understandable per WP:EXPLAINLEAD. I have similar quibbles with "natural and human systems". Maybe we can say "societies and ecosystems" instead? Second version is good otherwise. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair points but I think if we do give examples we have to select them very carefully to be at least somewhat representative globally. Access to aircon is something that is more achievable for wealthy people but not so much for the masses, who often don't even have access to electricity in rural areas of developing countries. How about instead of talking about aircon we talk about measures to reduce the urban heat island effects? And regarding sea level rise the wording “coastline protection” is also not that clear. Maybe we could say instead “construction of dams, dikes and by improving natural defenses” (I’ve taken this from the adaptation section of sea level rise). Overall the sentence could be: “through efforts like coastal management (for example construction of dams and dikes), or planting more urban trees and building green roofs to reduce the urban heat island effect.” Or if that’s too long make it: “through efforts like building dams or encouraging more urban trees and green roofs in urban areas.” EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Air conditioning is expected to grow to 5.6 billion units in 2050, making it quite a global solution. I'm okay to compromise though, and add information about increasing shade in cities. This can only be added to the lead after it has been added to the article. I must sound like a broken record, but terms like "urban heat island" and "coastal management" are jargon and do not belong in the lead. Furthermore, the urban heat island effect is a separate fact from global climate change, so not quite on topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The current wording of "coastline protection" is equally jargony as coastal management... Building dams and dykes is less jargon, I'd say. Yes, aircon is growing of course but it won't be accessible for a huge chunk of the world population (those without money and access to electricity, see energy poverty). Climate change contributes to hotter cities so measures that help with cooling would be adaptation measures. Interesting that air conditioning is mentioned 3 times in the article but methods for cooling cities are not yet mentioned (as far as I can see). Urban heat island is mentioned once in the article. It seems to me perhaps an over-emphasis on the role of air conditioning and not enough on green roofs etc. I might suggest to User:Richarit - who is currently improving the climate change adaptation article - to also take a little look at the section on "Adapting to a changing climate" in this article if that is OK (knowing that it's a highly optimised article already). EMsmile (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to give air conditioning as an example for CCA. I think the picture gallery as below might be a good option to show readers what this could mean. Richarit (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is what WG2 says, p. 21

Adaptation to water-related risks and impacts make up the majority of all documented adaptation (high confidence). For inland flooding, combinations of non-structural measures like early warning systems and structural measures like levees have reduced loss of lives (medium confidence). Enhancing natural water retention such as by restoring wetlands and rivers, land use planning such as no build zones or upstream forest management, can further reduce flood risk (medium confidence). On-farm water management, water storage, soil moisture conservation and irrigation are some of the most common adaptation responses and provide economic, institutional or ecological benefits and reduce vulnerability (high confidence). Irrigation is effective in reducing drought risk and climate impacts in many regions and has several livelihood benefits, but needs appropriate management to avoid potential adverse outcomes, which can include accelerated depletion of groundwater and other water sources and increased soil salinization (medium confidence). Large scale irrigation can also alter local to regional temperature and precipitation patterns (high confidence), including both alleviating and exacerbating temperature extremes (medium confidence). The effectiveness of most water-related adaptation options to reduce projected risks declines with increasing warming (high confidence).

so maybe we can say "through efforts like additional flood control measures or farm water management". For the earlier sentence, I'm good with "societies and ecosystems" btw. Bogazicili (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I would find "farm water management" too unclear and niche but the paragraph that you pointed out is very interesting, putting the emphasis on water-related risks. It would be good to included something short on that somehow. And I have now copied here in the talk page the 4-image collage that we used for the lead in the climate change adaptation article. This is quite well balanced, I think (took us a long time to agree on). Is there a possibility to integrate these images, or some of them, into the climate change article in the section on adaptation? Currently the article does not have a single image on adaptation. Maybe they could be added like those image galleries that we have for "impacts on the environment" and "impacts on people"? EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Richarit for joining the conversation! It seems there is consensus to remove air-conditioning from the lead, and to rephrase coastal protection as flood control. I agree with EMsmile that farmed water management is a vague word (management in general is a vague word). I'm okay with adding the word irrigation, after a statement on it is integrated into the main text (see WP:LEAD: significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article). We could use Bogazicili's source to add that. Adaptation is the only section that can still be expanded, so no need to remove anything else when adding info about irrigation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm good with any example here, but I'd prefer to keep it short, because I'd also like to add something short about co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation in the 4th paragraph. I think the preference is for the lead to be less than 500 words. Co-benefits are in WG3. We can discuss this later though. Bogazicili (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Air conditioning is critical for adaptation in countries like India and Pakistan that have not traditionally had it, but for which future survival will increasingly demand it. The fact that AC runs counter to mitigation is a key reason to leave it in- to point out that we are creating a problem that demands even more energy to cope with in the future. Here is a good article on it Efbrazil (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. maybe aircon it is more prevalent than I thought as also mentioned quite a bit in AR6 WGII(ch7 p 1108). I would still worry that readers would not see the drawbacks and how it would be helpful to leave it in Richarit (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with air conditioning, but if people want to drop it and if farm water management is too vague, how about drought-resistant crops? It's in the gallery below. Combining it with suggestion from above, how about:

Climate change threatens people with increased food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[sources] The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[sources] Societies and ecosystems will experience more severe risks in the future without without limiting warming.[Wg2 p 19] Adapting to climate change through efforts like flood control measures or drought-resistant crops reduces climate change risks, although this may not be possible with increasing warming.[WG 2, p.21-26; p.2504]' communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning but some impacts are unavoidable. Poorer Lower-income countries are responsible for a small share of global emissions, yet they have the least ability to adapt and are most vulnerable to climate change [needs source].

Bogazicili (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. I would just suggest a couple of minor things

• increased flooding, extreme heat, increased food and water scarcity, more disease and economic loss (logical to list the hazards before the impacts)
• "without action to limit warning" is clearer
• "Vulnerability differs within communities and across societies, regions and countries, and can change over time. (source: IPCC WG2 TS)" (it is not that relevant to mention historical emissions again in the last sentence)

Richarit (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that there was no further comment on this and the previous proposal was also accepted by Efbrazil and Femke, I'll make the changes after factoring in the comments from above, except the last sentence. Richarit, there was consensus to include something about climate justice in the lead here (Talk:Climate_change/Archive_92#Mention_inequity_between_polluters_and_pollutees_in_the_lead). Can you make a suggestion for the last sentence factoring in that previous consensus? Bogazicili (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I made the changes to the lead, we are at 487 word count now, below the 500 threshold. Bogazicili (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Models are software, they are not reality; and they guess at, rather than define, the future

The current text in the Modelling section of the article says things like:

 Models are used to calculate the degree of warming future emissions will cause...

I tried to fix this to:

 Models are used to predict the degree of warming future emissions might cause

but was instantly reverted by @femke, who said, "Feels less neutral to overemphasize limits to models".

It is not neutral to state that models reflect the actual future. That is clearly false. Most people have no idea how models work or how accurate or inaccurate they are -- which is why the article got wording like that. People think, "The computer said X, therefore X is the truth." But why did it say X? Because of the model's internal programming and the data that was input to that program about the past. Both of those can be, and almost certainly are, inaccurate and incomplete. They create working approximations but they are nowhere near gospel truth. Responsible models calculate "error bars" which are mathematical estimates of the likely range of errors in the predictions, though most laypeople ignore these or don't know how to interpret them. There is a bit more information about how models work at Atmospheric model but @femke deleted the wikilink that I added leading to that article.

I accept that some of the specific changes that I contributed may not be right for the article. And yet, I think it's important to tell people in the section on climate modelling, that these models are software simulations, and not reality. The models used to write the original IPCC reports did not correctly predict what happened over the subsequent 20 years. The models that we have today will not correctly predict what happens over the next 20 years. Responding to climate change means making decisions based on uncertain predictions and only partial understandings. This is obvious to anyone who deals with predictive models, but these obvious attributes of models are not reflected in the current wording of the Climate change article. How can we improve this? Gnuish (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The section is full of descriptions of how accurate or inaccurate models have been. Very little change is needed: I just changed "calculate" to "estimate" because "estimate" is used several times later in the section. This section already forewarns readers that models aren't perfect; but contrary to what some politicians have falsely claimed, the models are not "guesses" and have generally been fairly close to reality. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggested changes for last para of adaptation section

I've just made some small changes to the last para of the adaptation section, shown in bold below. My aim was to make it clearer to our readers that first we give examples of trade-offs, then of synergies:

"There are synergies but also trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation often offer short-term benefits, whereas mitigation has longer-term benefits. Two examples for trade-offs include: Increased use of air conditioning allows people to better cope with heat, but increases energy demand. Compact urban development may lead to reduced emissions from transport and construction. At the same time, this kind of urban development may increase the urban heat island effect, leading to higher temperatures and increased exposure. An example for synergy is increased food productivity which has large benefits for both adaptation and mitigation."

Further points that I think need thinking about:

1. I suggest to delete this sentence which to me seems outdated and simplistic - as if we had to choose between adaptation and mitigation. It makes it sound like mitigation is always better. But we need both (sadly): "Adaptation often offer short-term benefits, whereas mitigation has longer-term benefits." And I don't think the ref used is particularly strong (primary source?). At the adaptation article it's worded like this "Strategies to limit climate change are complementary to efforts to adapt to it."
2. Also I think we should perhaps change it around so that we first talk about synergies (of which there are many), then about trade-offs (which are perhaps not as numerous? Or?). - This is the order used at the adaptation article, see here.
3. Regarding examples for synergies I find the sentence about "increased food productivity" not particularly clear. This sound to me like "we need more intensive agriculture". We should either improve it or use a better example for synergies such as public transport, nature-based solutions and urban trees. Compare with the content at the climate change adaptation article here.

Pinging User:Richarit. EMsmile (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I also think we can delete that sentence "Adaptation often offer short-term benefits, whereas mitigation has longer-term benefits" I don't fully agree with it - I think this is only in terms of reducing risks. There are other immediate benefits from mitigation projects in renewable energy generation for instance in improving energy access and generating income for the supplier. The sentence seems to be based on this paragraph, which casts some doubt on the temporal trade-offs:

"Differences in temporal scale for adaptation and mitigation were also found, although mitigation actions often led to long-term benefits, and adaptation to near-term benefits (Dessai and Hulme 2007).[ ... ] These findings show that, in addition to potential match in terms of spatial scale, the temporal scale of mitigation and adaptation measures also can be similar. Past literature has often emphasised the temporal and spatial mismatch of scales as posing a barrier to the integration of mitigation and adaptation, and the successful evaluation of trade-offs (Tol 2005; Howden et al. 2007). Results from this review, however, suggest that there are many cases in which the scales are comparable, thus providing support for arguments to change this perceived barrier and to integrate adaptation and mitigation (e.g. Preston et al. 2013)." Richarit (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Main image - climate stripes?

Should we change the main picture to the climate stripes? https://www.reading.ac.uk/planet/climate-resources/climate-stripes Our2050World (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It has too much of an appearance of advocacy for the main climate change page, but I do think it would be appropriate for some of the sub pages. Crescent77 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point and agree Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• With wistful sadness, oppose for now. I'm the main editor of the Warming stripes article, and in ~2019 tried to give the diagrams some prominence here. Though stripe graphics have a definite place in science communication to public audiences, consensus was generally against featuring them prominently in this high level article where article space is at a premium. The reasoning, at least in part, was that they were "new"—non-"standard" and therefore requiring some explanation with each presentation—and by design don't portray quantitative data in the way many conventional line charts do. See, e.g., Talk:Climate change/Archive 77#Warming stripes: prominence, mobile compatibility and citations. Stripe graphics are in the IPCC's AR6 publication (see this figure and archive), so maybe their time will come here, as they are increasingly common in the literature. PS: they're not "advocacy" any more than any other graphic. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  hashtag showyourstripes : "Infiltrating popular culture is a means of triggering a change of attitude that will lead to mass action." Crescent77 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Again: stripe graphics are not inherently more "advocacy" than any other graphic—just perhaps more effective for portraying data to non-techies. The motives/goals of the people/organizations that use a graphic (stripes or line charts or bar charts ...) are distinct from the graphic itself. Line charts can just as easily be seen as alarmist. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Existing graphics at Commons (not a good sampling of graphics that are in the literature): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Warming_stripes —RCraig09 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Climate stripes tell you absolutely nothing about how much warmer things have gotten or where, they are just designed to elicit alarmism. They don't belong in any scientific or educational materials. Efbrazil (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, they in fact do portray how much warmer things have gotten—they're just not indexed numerically (and purposely so: a public audience has little conception of what numerical indications like "+1.5 °C" would imply anyway). The stripes are presented alongside some context that explains location, time period, etc. The IPCC apparently finds them acceptable for use in prominent publications. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I trust the IPCC on the science, but not on graphic design. The best graphics work for everyone- they can be interpreted visually by newbies and have interesting data for people that know more. The IPCC regularly misses on both counts. Warming stripes would look exactly the same if the Earth was 50 degrees warmer or 0.5 degrees warmer. They are simplified to the point of being stupid (imho). Efbrazil (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

— Aw, c'mon, don't be a Graphics Grinch! The graphical distinction between stripe graphics and line charts etc., is that stripe graphics have less granularity in the dependent variable: ranges of the dependent variable are assigned to discrete colors. For global warming, warming stripes convey accelerated change the same way as the slope of a line chart. Stripe graphics are arguably a simple case of heat maps (consider File:Change in Average Temperature With Fahrenheit.svg as being "alarmist").

— Separately, I don't understand the relevance of saying warming stripes would look exactly the same for 50° vs. 0.5°: the assignment of temperature ranges to stripe colors would be different, in the same way that the vertical axes of line charts would be more squished for 50° than for 0.5°... but the shape of the line chart itself would be exactly the same (if I understand your scenario). —RCraig09 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Bah, humbug, graphics grinch I am. I grant you that a chart with an unlabeled vertical axis would also be stupid, similarly stupid to warming stripes. Both get a clear failing grade. The only way to make warming stripes clear is with a run on sentence for a title or a separate key, both of which are ugly and awkward. Without that, 0.5 degrees and 50 degrees of warming are the same thing.

As a rule color should be the last information dimension to go in when designing an informative graphic. It doesn't work for the color blind and is imprecise in interpretation. Colored heat maps or colored geographical maps make sense because they're falling back on color as the least worst option for displaying a third dimension of data. Warming stripes, on the other hand, are an abomination that should only be used as a case study in bad graphic design. Efbrazil (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Aye, multicolor warming stripes don't help the colorblind any more than multi-color heat maps (though multitone graphics do work for the colorblind). A main advantage of stripe graphics is for audiences for whom precise quantitative indexing is counter-productive—which is a substantial portion of the population, the portion whose eyes glaze over at the sight of this. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If the 2020 is removed, and possibly the word year, it becomes slightly less glazeworthy. Agree that warming stripes have a mild activist association which make them unsuitable for the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed "Year" as it really isn't necessary, like you say. I think 2020 is important to show so I left that in for now. When refreshing the chart with new data (which is blocked because there's no new estimates data) I can revisit the X axis labels. Efbrazil (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

I want to add one new reference to the following sentence: "Arctic amplification is also melting permafrost, which releases methane and CO2 into the atmosphere."

It is new and relevant research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JG006956

Galera, L. A., Eckhardt, T., Beer, C., Pfeiffer, E.-M., & Knoblauch, C. (2023). Ratio of in situ CO2 to CH4 production and its environmental controls in polygonal tundra soils of Samoylov Island, Northeastern Siberia. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 128, e2022JG006956. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JG006956 A345678B (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No explanation of what this adds. CMD (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes in the lead

AR6 SYR is out for the most part, although the full report is not available yet. Given what the SPM says about adaptation, I adjusted the wording in the relevant sentence in the lead.[1]

SYR SPM also has relevant content for the climate justice sentence in the lead, which does not currently have a source.

Vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected (high confidence) ... Approximately 3.3–3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change. Human and ecosystem vulnerability are interdependent. Regions and people with considerable development constraints have high vulnerability to climatic hazards. Increasing weather and climate extreme events have exposed millions of people to acute food insecurity12 and reduced water security, with the largest adverse impacts observed in many locations and/or communities in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, LDCs, Small Islands and the Arctic, and globally for Indigenous Peoples, small-scale food producers and low-income households. Between 2010 and 2020, human mortality from floods, droughts and storms was 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions, compared to regions with very low vulnerability. (high confidence) (p.5)

I suggest changing the current sentence "Poorer countries are responsible for a small share of global emissions, yet they have the least ability to adapt and are most vulnerable to climate change." to "Communities with the least contribution to current climate change are affected disproportionately, and large part of the world population is highly vulnerable" Bogazicili (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The readability of the current sentence is much better, but the information conveyed seems quite similar. Why do you think your new sentence is better? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Enhancing carbon sinks" wording

I recently started a discussion at WT:Climate regarding the term "enhancing carbon sinks". In the discussion, people were comfortable using the term "removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" instead. I would like to use that wording in the first sentence of the Mitigation section to make it more understandable to the general reader. It currently says:

Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing sinks that absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

I propose changing this to:

Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

Thoughts? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As used here, the word "sink" is jargon. At Dictionary.com, it's the last of eight definitions of the noun. If it's used at all, it should only be used if it's immediately explained in text. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine removing "sinks", but I don't like "removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" because it conjures up the idea of giant machines doing the task. Maybe this wording instead? It's also more accurate since it's carbon dioxide specific.

Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and by increasing the rate that the land and ocean absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Efbrazil (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I see the challenge of making the statement inclusive of both the giant machines and the more nature-based methods. Mitigation encompasses both of these categories. In the literature on carbon dioxide removal, the term "land" tends to have a specific meaning. "Absorbing carbon dioxide on land" tends to refer to vegetation and soils, and not to subsurface geologic storage.[2] I like the idea of making the wording carbon dioxide specific. How about:

Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and by increasing the rate at which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest wording that presents emissions and removal as opposites? Climate change can be mitigated by reducing the rate at which greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, and by increasing the rate at which greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere. This wording provides (somewhat of) a foundation for the unifying concept of a carbon budget. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there was consensus to specifically say carbon dioxide removal, not greenhouse gas removal. So the wording would be this, which I'm fine with:

Climate change can be mitigated by reducing the rate at which greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, and by increasing the rate at which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. Efbrazil (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you mean to say GHG in the first phrase but CO2 in the second phrase? I'm OK with either if used consistently, but it seems odd to have the two phrases be slightly inconsistent—they're not mirror images of each other any more. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ). https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-and-temperature-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046 During the Carboniferous oxygen tension was 35% of the atmosphere (today it's 21%), and people (who did not exist at that time) would likely develop oxygen toxicity at sea level, 2000-3000 meters elevation would likely be better for breathing. Mostly, the Earth has been a lot hotter, historically speaking, and the major greenhouse gas, by far, is water vapor. We know that the oceans have warmed up slightly over the last 100 y, that is enough to, by itself, increase the CO2 level slightly, and the changes are slight by historical standards. If you want to do something about it, I would suggest capturing as much natural gas as possible and burning it because methane is many times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, methane is no where near as soluble in ocean water as CO2, and warming water releases a lot more CO2. Most of the Earth is ocean, i.e., uninhabited by CO2 producing people. I do not see good evidence that CO2 is causing climate change, it looks more like climate change is increasing CO2 levels, and that the CO2 levels are harmless as they have been 10 times higher in the remote past. Right now, the Earth is still in the snowball state, and more typically there were no ice caps for the multicellular organisms living over the last 540 million years. Frankly, until we discuss what the Earth's ideal temperature is, we are just assuming that the climate in the year 1850 was ideal. A climate Luddite approach to climate change is irrelevant. There are things that can be done to improve the air we breath, but frankly worrying about CO2, which absorbs a tiny fraction of the infrared that water vapor does is not likely one of them. 216.197.221.91 (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)