Talk:Climate change/Archive 85

Original research in pollution deaths
Regarding the below line in the article:

"For instance, the WHO estimates that ambient air pollution currently causes 4.2 million deaths per year due to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases.[222]"

My original suggestion was 7 million for this per secondary sources, but it seems only included ambient air pollution number  (see talk: )

This is original research, as indoor air pollution is reduced through mitigation efforts too, we need to stick to the numbers in secondary sources. Eg:

"Globally, 3·8 million deaths per year are estimated to be attributable to household air pollution,108 largely arising from use of solid fuels, such as coal, wood, charcoal, and biomass, for cooking. Efforts to provide clean cooking and heating technologies could result in substantial health co-benefits in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and short-lived climate pollutants.108–111" Lancet report p 1856 p 1856

I'm going to put 7 million back per Lancet report and 9 million recent estimate per Bogazicili (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2020 Lancet report also frames both indoor and outdoor pollution reduction as mitigation, so I'm okay with this change, provided we use a secondary source. (We used the 2019 Lancet report before?).
 * Indoor air pollution is of course frequently caused by renewables (traditional biomass), but if the Lancet paper says it's mainly mitigatible, I feel we can trust that. I don't think Efbrazil did any original research, as focussing on ambient air pollution is also commonly done, f.i. in the Lancet report I just cited, which emphasizes ambient air pollution in the introduction (from coal power plants). It's more directly connected to mitigation.
 * As an aside, I cannot find the quote you gave from the Lancet article you linked, which doesn't have a page 1856. Not that relevant, as it's a primary source, which isn't allowed for medical statements. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the pdf version I have, and copy pasted the link from our debates, but it looks like I put the 2016 link here. The correct one is the 2019 one (the one I cited in the article). This is a review article (secondary source), is it not? If not we can just mention 6.5 million here before mentioning 9 million (this is def a review article/secondary source ) Bogazicili (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2020 Lancet report also uses 7 million number (p 3). So I think the current wording is fine. Bogazicili (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * please please let's not cram the text full of numbers, simply use the most recent number from the 2020 Lancet report instead of wanting to pick the biggest number.  Review papers that just summarise instead of argue a point are always preferred. The previous text was better, because the current text actually implies that the 7 million deaths are all from fossil fuel burning, which is simply untrue. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The text says: "total global air pollution annual deaths reach 7 million"
 * The source says: "total global air pollution deaths reaching 7 million"
 * I've also edited the previous sentence in line with Lancet 2019 report and moved the whole part above, as it's not just about clean energy, but also clean transport etc...Bogazicili (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One done. Clean transport uses clean energy. If prefer it in clean energy to balance that more negative paragraph. If people agree that it's better placed in introduction, the massive paragraph needs to be split. 7 and 9 is basically the same number, no need to cram the latter in. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Our Clean Energy subsection discusses power generation only. Things like electric vehicles (cleanER transport) are discussed in Decarbonization Pathways. I'll add more stuff to Clean Energy part to address the balance, such as economic benefits and price of solar (eg: ). 2 million deaths annually is a massive difference. Both are from review articles. This seems to be a personal and extremely subjective preference for you. Bogazicili (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One done. Clean transport uses clean energy. If prefer it in clean energy to balance that more negative paragraph. If people agree that it's better placed in introduction, the massive paragraph needs to be split. 7 and 9 is basically the same number, no need to cram the latter in. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Our Clean Energy subsection discusses power generation only. Things like electric vehicles (cleanER transport) are discussed in Decarbonization Pathways. I'll add more stuff to Clean Energy part to address the balance, such as economic benefits and price of solar (eg: ). 2 million deaths annually is a massive difference. Both are from review articles. This seems to be a personal and extremely subjective preference for you. Bogazicili (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for new inclusions. You don't have that for the 9 million yet, so you need to engage others. Slowing down is the only way to do that. You don't have it for the guesstimates of migration numbers either, which discussion stalled with a ugly temporary compromise. I will reopen a discussion on that when other discussions have finished.
 * The decarbonisation pathways feels like a wrong way to divy thing up, if you compare it to the other headings. Ideally, I'd put transport and heat as a subsection under clean energy. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, but you need a more substantive reason than "I don't like it", I think. I mean we can't have an RFC for every personal preference not backed by sources or Wikipedia policies. Your only argument so far seems to be that you don't like too many numbers. Not including the higher number seems to be against Neutral point of view. I'll wait for others to chip in. Bogazicili (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel that in these discussions, you've constantly tried to pick out the highest number in the literature you can find, breaking WP:NPOV. I would like the number that is quoted by the most highly reliable source. Being well-written and summary style are criteria for FA, which cramming the article full of numbers breaks. Just wait for somebody else to jump in. WP:Third opinion is a less heavy option instead of RfC, but patience first ;). Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also feel that you try to edit articles based on your personal and extremely subjective preferences and biases, which is against bunch of policies. Examples include your personal opinion on how "normal English" defines subsidies. At least I try to stick to sources. I include the higher numbers, but will include the lower numbers as well (and that is neutral), as is the case with my suggestion above. So your opinion about me breaking POV seems to be a projection on your part. Bogazicili (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, let's all be on the same team here, benefit of the doubt, etc. Getting back to the issue of ambient vs indoor pollution, the WHO statements are very clear that only ambient air pollution is related to clean energy. See here- only the ambient air pollution tab links to climate change, the household pollutants tab clearly does not: https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

If you want to fix indoor air pollution, the solutions include running natural gas to them, or having better ventilation, or banning indoor use of cook stoves. In other words, fixes aren't really related to clean energy investments. Having said all the, I don't care if we use general air pollution numbers, since Bogazicili correctly used the 1 million reduction number, which is the number that matters. Just defending my "original research". Efbrazil (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS:, I'm going to add more mitigation benefits, give me some time until I find sources. I think this part can stay in its current location for now? Bogazicili (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

3rd opinion - I haven't really followed all the details of what you are discussing and who wants what but in general I think the number of preventable air pollution deaths written here should be solidly defensible as having a climate change co-benefit. So we should not include, for example, pollution from wood burning stoves as someone could then argue that preventing those deaths has no climate change co-benefit because the wood would otherwise have just rotted, for example. It is true that then the number might thus end up an underestimate - but it will still be a pretty large number so will make it obvious that solving air pollution is a "no regrets option" and will forestall future editors nitpicking. Having said that I suppose it is pretty hard for researchers to distinguish the different pollution (or is it? e.g. can brake dust PM be distinguished from tailpipe PM?) so perhaps what I have written is not possible. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is solidly defensible. Read the above quote "Efforts to provide clean cooking and heating technologies could result in substantial health co-benefits in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and short-lived climate pollutants" Bogazicili (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Nice try. "Could result" applies to any change. There was another connection that I deleted, saying that clean energy "could result" in empowering women- sure it could, just extrapolate that investments in developing economies will help get women out of poverty. You could just as easily argue that building more coal fired power plants "could result" in empowering women. A more real connection is actually made by the dirty fuels industry, which argues that building more coal fired power plants will result in more rapid electrification of homes, reducing indoor air pollution deaths. The point of cobenefits is that the benefit is something intrinsic to the change. Efbrazil (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Reading a bit further in the Lancet report, it seems like the indoor air-pollution includes loads of short-term climate pollutants, such as black soot, and short lived greenhouse gases. Replacing this with modern cookstoves is therefore clearly a step too low-carbon clean energy, even when its swapping one renewable energy for another. It is very common topic in all the reports I've been reading about sustainable energy, which turned talk about the coal power green washing. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * After returning to this issue, secondary source references only one recent study . As such, I actually think Lancet reports might get updated in the future. It's also the number if you include water and soil pollution, using earlier estimates of air pollution . But until then, until other secondary sources get updated or if we find mitigation effects soil and water pollution too, I'm fine with removing 9 million number.Bogazicili (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

IMF Paper
I re-added information that had been removed by. A more comprehensive definition of subsidy is also used in review papers such as Lancet review. From Lancet review:

"Indicator 4.2.5: net value of fossil fuel subsidies and carbon prices—headline finding: 58 of the 75 countries reviewed were operating with a net negative carbon price in 2017. The resulting net loss of revenue was, in many cases, equivalent to substantial proportions of the national health budget"..."In many cases, these subsidies were equivalent to substantial proportions of the national health budget—more than 100% in eight of the 75 countries in 2017."

Original source is this Bogazicili (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please can we use WP:bold, revert, discuss here instead of bold, revert, revert, discuss. The review is sufficiently hectic as is. Will come back with further arguments later Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence reads: Another study found the cost of fossil fuel subsidies (when environmental costs and revenue requirements are also factored in) at $4.7 trillion globally in 2015, while concluding that efficient fossil fuel pricing would have lowered global carbon emissions and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 28% and 46%, respectively, while increasing government revenue by 3.8% of GDP. I have a couple of problems with this sentence and source:
 * It cites a working paper, which is basically the equivalant of a pre-print. Used for eliciting debate, but not a reliable source.
 * It makes the paragraph too long.
 * It starts with 'Another study'. This is a red flag. The results from individual studies should not be included in this top-level article. That breaks summary style.
 * It's not really a policy or measure
 * So many numbers makes the sentence not professional prose. The sentence is too long.
 * Please, undo your edit and find consensus on talk first. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lancet review is a reliable secondary source, and it says fossil fuel subsidies comprise a substantial proportion of health budget in many countries, which is one of the top spending categories, if not the most. That suggests a figure in the range of trillions of dollars, an order of magnitude higher than the number in the previous version of the text. So that low number is the one that is inconsistent with review studies.
 * The IMF paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal as well:
 * "Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%." Bogazicili (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%." Bogazicili (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the 6.5% figure cited to that published paper would be due to add. Adding more numbers to the sentence will only make people skip over it, and comes over as trying to make a point. I don't think people have a feel for absolute numbers on a global scale anyway. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean undue? Your opinion is not supported by Lancet review. I'll find more secondary sources.
 * People also can understand the difference between billion and trillion and "would have lowered global carbon emissions and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 28% and 46%, respectively".Bogazicili (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant due. I think the 6.5% number would be okay, as long as it's not diluted by other numbers, which don't quite fit in that paragraph. To talk about air pollution breaks the flow of that paragraph. The following paragraph is about mortality from air pollution.
 * I've seen quite a bit of scicom research that people have no intuitive idea what billion/trillion is. This is even worse for those speaking English as a second language, where understanding of these numbers is clouded by false friends (f.i. Dutch/French). On the other hand, the previous sentence is in billions, so adding a percentage would break the logic...
 * Could you make a proposal which a) doesn't break the paragraph logic b) preferably doesn't lead to paragraphs of disparate length and c) doesn't use more than one number per sentence to make sure people can actually absorb the information. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you make a proposal which a) doesn't break the paragraph logic b) preferably doesn't lead to paragraphs of disparate length and c) doesn't use more than one number per sentence to make sure people can actually absorb the information. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you make a proposal which a) doesn't break the paragraph logic b) preferably doesn't lead to paragraphs of disparate length and c) doesn't use more than one number per sentence to make sure people can actually absorb the information. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * has originally written this and is excellent with making sure paragraphs are coherent. I'm pretty sure I'm overasking them at the moment, but they might have some time. Please also take into account the FAR comment about the distinction between mitigation (which deals with the technological options) and the politics part, which isn't sufficiently clearly defined now. This entire information may be better fit in the 'other policy' subsection there. I'm not yet sure.., but I do recognize the problem CMD raised. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I can do that. I will revise the sentence in the first para., starting with "Phasing out of fossil fuel", to incorporate the additional IMF reference that has found (which seems like a good update to the estimate), and also address CMD's comments. Dtetta (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI and, this is also a 2017 paper published on a peer-reviewed journal as I said above. But it has also been cited 242 times . So I'd say it's quite notable. I think these parts are also important: " efficient fossil fuel pricing would have lowered global carbon emissions and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 28% and 46%, respectively, while increasing government revenue by 3.8% of GDP". Bogazicili (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dtetta: let's do this with the peer-reviewed paper indeed, not with the IMF working paper. Or if available, a secondary source citing the 2017 paper / a more recent paper. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I found a review article and will be putting the information from there . The current sources also does not seem peer-reviewed (one is a working paper), so I'll be replacing those  Bogazicili (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to your proposal on talk :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the numbers were also in Lancet review. Here's my suggestion:

" Phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, currently estimated at $300 billion globally (about twice the level of renewable energy subsidies),[276] could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%.[277] Global fossil fuel subsidies reached $319 billion in 2017, although this number rises to $5.2 trillion (equivalent to 6.3% of world economy), when the economic value of the unpriced negative externalities (such as air pollution) are priced in. [Lancet Review; p 1866] Lancet 2019 Report, p 1866 Ending these subsidies can cause a 21% reduction in GHG emissions and a 55% reduction in deaths due to fossil fuel air pollution. Book, page V"

Info in the book for above is available through google books preview Bogazicili (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you know my objection is: this doesn't feel well-written, full of numbers. Externalities is a jargon specific to neoclassical economics, which assumes some almost perfect market separate from the real world, and it would be good if we don't choose one economic paradigm over another. You could rewrite as: 'when the economic value of aspects such as air pollution are priced in.' I'm very reluctant to use a primary source this extensively.  Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources are secondary sources (Lancet Report 2019 and a book). We have too many Lancet sources now, so I guess I should be more specific:


 * "These values do not include the economic value of the unpriced negative externalities. If these values were to be included, the IMF estimated that in 2017 global subsidies to fossil fuels increased to US$5·2 trillion—equivalent to 6·3% of Gross World Product.166" Lancet 2019 Report, p 1866


 * And here's a different secondary source:


 * "Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions by 28 percent and deaths due to fossil fuel air pollution by 46 percent in 2015" UN The next frontier Human development and the Anthropocene p 10


 * The numbers from the UN source are a bit different because they used different sources ("Coady and others 2019. Jewell and others (2018) found a smaller impact on emissions than that reported by Coady and others (2017), but Parry (2018) explains the discrepancy in terms of the scope of the consideration of the impact of subsidies in the two studies, with Coady and others (2019) having a broader perspective, and reiterates the large impact of subsidies on emissions"). I think it's better to switch to UN source. So here's the updated suggestion, also adding in your wording suggestion:


 * " Phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, currently estimated at $300 billion globally (about twice the level of renewable energy subsidies),[276] could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%.[277] Global fossil fuel subsidies reached $319 billion in 2017, although this number rises to $5.2 trillion (equivalent to 6.3% of world economy), when the economic value of unpriced negative aspects such as air pollution are priced in. [Lancet 2019 source] Ending these subsidies can cause a 28% reduction in global carbon emissions and a 46% reduction in deaths due to fossil fuel air pollution. [UN source]" Bogazicili (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still too many numbers crammed in. I'm still of the opinion that defining subsidies with negative side-effects is somewhat activistic, as they're ignoring the positive side effects (for instance, on mobility and employability). The 2020 Lancet report doesn't define subsidies in that way, but recognize the effects of air pollution qualitatively. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still all reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. At this point, are you opposing the inclusion of above text? The current text violates Neutral point of view, as it doesn't include the higher estimates. If you are definitely opposing, I'm just wondering the next steps. (RFC or more FAR comments?)Bogazicili (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I made the above changes. Reductions in GHG emissions from phasing out subsidies that are measured without considering unpriced aspects can also be added. The 6% reduction that was in the text looked extremely handpicked. It was for 26 countries only. There are also other number in the report "37% reduction when combined with efficiency improvements by 2040" p.37 Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * With the 6% gone (good catch that it failed verification. I have not verified that it did), and with strict summary style, the logic of the paragraph is not broken anymore, with equally important ideas of non-monetary measures being overshadowed only a bit. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion removal: RCPs
In the FAR, our discussion of RCPs has been questioned for lack of generality (we imply they are general). The RCPs are mostly associated with last generation's climate models (CMIP5), so for up-to-dateness they should either be removed or replaced. In the latest IPCC report (SR15), we instead have shared socio-economic scenarios and a slightly bigger emphasis on Earth System Models, which have the carbon cycle included and are driven by emissions, instead of Global Circulation models, which are driven by concentrations. Both methods are still done next to each other, but the former is more relevant for non-scientists.

As such, I believe it's justified to remove the concentration pathways. This opens up space for the extra information that Bogazicili has recently added to Impacts/Humans. The third and last paragraphs of carbon budget section would be merged. The concentration graph would be removed, as we now have a more insightful emissions graph in a later section. This solves some very minor sandwiching. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , do you mean remove the current 3rd paragraph? And merge 4th and 5th paragraphs?
 * By the way the section has a random amount of detail sometimes. Eg:
 * "There are more than two dozen scientific institutions that develop major climate models.[124]" Bogazicili (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences of the 3rd paragraph: Various Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) ... of the carbon cycle. The future warming sentence is quite important, and even used to be in the lede. This future warming sentence would be merged with the paragraph about the carbon budget. This allows all the information about physical models to be together, and the integrated modelling at the end.
 * That sentence could be removed. I find it a useful detail, showing that these results don't depend on a handful of models. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, now that sentence makes sense. This is actually another example of disjointed sentences lol. I hadn't understood the relevance of number of scientific institutions. Maybe the sentence could be modified to say just that: "results don't depend on a handful of models", instead of deleting it.
 * Deleting first two sentences of the 3rd paragraph sounds good to me. Bogazicili (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleting first two sentences of the 3rd paragraph sounds good to me. Bogazicili (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Issue with the slide show
The slide show headed "Some impacts of climate change" has an "interesting" problem. For me, each time I click the ">" for next image, the two boxes holding the images above reduce in size. Specifically – the two divs with the thumbinner class have the width style reduced by 2 pixels each time. I am a Windows 10 laptop using Brave as my browser — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See section above....trying to fix this accessibility problem to no avail as of yet. Hopefully it did not deter you from reading the article.-- Moxy 🍁 15:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI: we were talking about this issue on the London meetup, and somebody has volunteered to try and fix the template (not show for devices it doesn't work). Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This code is being fired on every click: — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Another Deletion Spree
It's hard to keep track of these, can you also mention them in the talk page? Regarding 's removal, negative emissions at scale are one of the main assumptions of a 2 degree warming limit. It should be talked about in the lead and in the body of the article. Bogazicili (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, that seems to be different from Carbon dioxide removal, which we need to talk more. Regarding "climate engineering", the exact term returns 0 hits in IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. How much of a 3rd option is this? The current source seems to be a primary source .Bogazicili (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After looking at where IPCC report put geoengineering, I completely removed this part: "A third option is climate engineering, which refers to direct interventions in the Earth's climate system. Climate engineering techniques, most prominently solar geoengineering, have substantial limitations and carry large uncertainties". We talk about it in Carbon sequestration subsection, which is the correct place.Bogazicili (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding geoengineering- I moved the content back to the responses intro for now only because a primary technique is adding reflectivity, which is unrelated to carbon sequestration. Solar engineering adds particles to the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight. There are also techniques like cloud seeding, or making surfaces more reflective, or adding blankets to protect glaciers. I don't even know if it is mitigation to add reflectivity- it is trying to reduce temperature change, but not by reducing greenhouse gases, so only some effects are reversed. Thoughts on that?
 * The geoengineering technique of building machines to suck carbon out of the air is obviously a method of carbon sequestration. Having said that, it's pretty fringy and academic-only at this time. Maybe it's best to not talk about geoengineering at all, but instead just talk about techniques in specific- it has the advantage of grounding the discussion and avoids talk of a "third way". Efbrazil (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the IPCC doesn't use the term climate engineering or geoengineering in the latest reports any more, and the comments in the featured article review also agreed that we shouldn't frame it as a third way. It's mostly the geoengineering literature that uses this framing, and that literature is small compared to mainstream climate science. Solar radiation management could be put as an extra subsection under mitigation, even if it is usually not really seen as mitigation. Indeed, all details are undue. I think the IPCC now discusses it on the heading of mitigation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is a primary source . And you are going against IPCC. You'll need convincing secondary sources to portray it as a third option.
 * The other source was indeed a secondary source . But it doesn't mention geoengineering as a third alternative: "Based on present knowledge, climate geoengineering techniques cannot be relied on to significantly contribute to meeting the Paris Agreement temperature goals"
 * I'm fine with another subsection such as future approaches or something similar that would cover solar geoengineering, if carbon sequestration is not the place for it, but it should be under mitigation, not as a 3rd option. Bogazicili (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with all that, hopefully the last edit works for y'all. Efbrazil (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Also open for slightly more modern rewording without 'geoengineering'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks good! Bogazicili (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This placement also solves issues identified at FAR. is identified and even better source, and noted that direct air capture is simply expensive, but not really risking the same sense as solar radiation management is. I'm very high on stress, anybody else once the take this on?  Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the ping. I'll take an action item to replace the sentence on climate engineering with IPCC sourcing, and to get consensus around it. Take care of yourself Femke, you deserve it! Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, reworded without "geoengineering" in this edit. Please ping me if you want to discuss or have other requests or suggestions, as I watch this page only sporadically. Take care, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 06:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring
I've now put geo-engineering under mitigation, as I proposed last week, and as the FAR suggested. A further restructuring proposal:
 * 1) Make mitigation it's own section heading
 * 2) Make physical changes it's own section
 * 3) Put human impacts + nature/wildlife in a new section, together with adaptation. This section would be called "Impacts and adaptation".

I think this solves three issues
 * 1) Effects may sound overly euphemistic, as there is a balance to these effects that is mostly negative. We'd follow the IPCC by calling it impacts.
 * 2) We get rid of the vague section title 'responses'
 * 3) We can more easily include information about adaptation, as this is often linked to impacts in the literature. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm I'm not sure, because this reorganization suggests Adaptation is associated with human impacts + nature/wildlife impacts, but Mitigation isn't? Co-benefits of mitigation such as reductions in loss of life and economic benefits etc are very much about Humans.Bogazicili (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything is connected, yes. I think the current structure is unclear however, and following the IPCC structure is the easiest way to imrpove it. Open to other suggestions of course. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure myself, you do have valid points (such as mitigation being really long now). Let me think, hopefully others will comment too.Bogazicili (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon thinking about this, I'm against putting human impacts + nature/wildlife together with adaptation. It gives the suggestion that adaptation is more related with human impacts than mitigation. Successful mitigation would have massive and positive human impacts as well. I think this article needs to emphasize effects on humans more. If you look at Lancet review, that's how it is. Their sections:


 * 1) Climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerability
 * All subsections tie into human health, under nutrition etc
 * 2) Adaptation, planning, and resilience for health
 * Same as above
 * 3) Mitigation actions and health co-benefits
 * About human health again, but this time positive benefits of mitigation
 * 4) Economics and finance
 * 5) Public and political engagement


 * Entire sections are either about human impact or they tie into those (Mitigation actions and health co-benefits, entire section on economics, etc), whereas Wikipedia article focuses a bit too much on mechanics of climate change. For example look at the length ratio of "Physical drivers of recent climate change" with "Humans" in this article. There is literally no section in Lancet review that doesn't tie into human effects.
 * As such, I think the restructuring needs more thinking, and we need to emphasize effects on Humans more.Bogazicili (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And here's an example why the structure of this article is broken. A massively relevant edit (about economics and human impacts) was undone by, partly because a section was "too long". If length is an issue, we need to get rid of parts with excessive details about mechanics of climate change.Bogazicili (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm against any restructuring before we agree on our end goals in line with sources such as Lancet review.Bogazicili (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I am also concerned about the proposed restructuring; I think the recent elimination of the Climate Engineering subsection and the inclusion of its text in the Carbon capture and sequestration subsection has caused the last paragraph to become disjointed and confusing. The segue in the fourth sentence doesn't seem to work well. I also don't read CMD's comments in the FAR as necessitating restructuring., could you propose a more specific outline for this restructuring? It seems like you are suggesting revising the structure of both the Effects and Responses sections, correct? Dtetta (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback!
 * @Dtetta: I agree that the restructuring isn't necessary from the FAR comments. I just think that some of the FAR comments are more easily solved in a restructured article. I'll try with one more comment to convince you guys and if you still disagree I'll come up with different solutions to these FAR comments.
 * I'm proposing restructuring both these sections yes. The responses section is, I believe, highly in need of a restructuring, most of all because the title is too vague. Whose response are we talking about.. Response to what.. (item 1 of FAR). Then we have the three-pronged response introductory paragraph (mitigation, adaptation and geo-engineering), which is a distinction primary made in the geo-engineering literature (see below, item 2 of FAR). The easiest solution is to split this section in two, with adaptation first. I think this would be a good solution, after we've addressed the lack of adaptation coverage in our article.
 * Adaptation and effects are intimately related, whereas the relationship between mitigation and effects is less direct (somebody in the West emits, then via physical mechanisms this leads to some amount of warming in a completely different location). As such, it is only natural to put these two together. I find it difficult to write about adaptation when it's so far away from the effects people and ecosystems are adapting to. I think the easiest way is put them in the same section, following the IPCC structure. This means we can give more attention to human impacts, as we can get more information from sources about impacts. These sources often talk about feasibility to adapt. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing restructuring both these sections yes. The responses section is, I believe, highly in need of a restructuring, most of all because the title is too vague. Whose response are we talking about.. Response to what.. (item 1 of FAR). Then we have the three-pronged response introductory paragraph (mitigation, adaptation and geo-engineering), which is a distinction primary made in the geo-engineering literature (see below, item 2 of FAR). The easiest solution is to split this section in two, with adaptation first. I think this would be a good solution, after we've addressed the lack of adaptation coverage in our article.
 * Adaptation and effects are intimately related, whereas the relationship between mitigation and effects is less direct (somebody in the West emits, then via physical mechanisms this leads to some amount of warming in a completely different location). As such, it is only natural to put these two together. I find it difficult to write about adaptation when it's so far away from the effects people and ecosystems are adapting to. I think the easiest way is put them in the same section, following the IPCC structure. This means we can give more attention to human impacts, as we can get more information from sources about impacts. These sources often talk about feasibility to adapt. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adaptation and effects are intimately related, whereas the relationship between mitigation and effects is less direct (somebody in the West emits, then via physical mechanisms this leads to some amount of warming in a completely different location). As such, it is only natural to put these two together. I find it difficult to write about adaptation when it's so far away from the effects people and ecosystems are adapting to. I think the easiest way is put them in the same section, following the IPCC structure. This means we can give more attention to human impacts, as we can get more information from sources about impacts. These sources often talk about feasibility to adapt. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We can make separate Mitigation, Adaptation, and Humans sections. No need to merge Adaptation and Humans. As you said everything is connected. Physical changes can be its own section too with Nature and wildlife. I disagree with your reasoning that "relationship between mitigation and effects is less direct." Even reducing pollution as part of mitigation efforts has a massive effect. Preventing worse case scenarios has a massive effect. So basically, I'm ok with most of your suggestion, except merging Adaptation and Humans (and Physical changes should be with Nature and wildlife). You can still name Adaptation section as "Adaptation and its impacts" or something too, which would make its scope more clear. I want to expand Humans section a bit more as well, so it can stand as its own main section. So that would be 10 sections before See also section, so that's not a lot I think. Bogazicili (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm okay to having humans and nature impacts together as a section (don't like 'supremacy' of humans, having them that separate from other animals..), in line with IPCC WGII. I'll split off adaptation and mitigation in sections once adaptation is finished (needs a doubling of text at least.., will take me at least a weeks if I have enough time, then time for feedback). Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup that option of humans with nature sounds good to me too.Bogazicili (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been a good discussion., you might want to try proposing the revised overall outline here (in a bulleted form with the new section/subsection titles) as a way of both organizing your efforts and getting feedback. It might help you better focus your efforts when you tackle the Adaptation portion. I'd be happy to help with editing that portion as well, if you would find it useful. Dtetta (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is the proposed overall outline (with main sections only):


 * 1 Terminology
 * 2 Observed temperature rise
 * 3 Drivers of recent climate change
 * 4 Future warming and the carbon budget
 * 5 Effects on Physical environment
 * 6 Effects on Humans, and Nature and wildlife
 * 7 Mitigation
 * 8 Adaptation
 * 9 Society and culture
 * 10 Discovery

Correct? Bogazicili (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We might also move several sentences from "Policies and measures" into "Decarbonization pathways", and rename this into "Policies and decarbonization pathways", while creating a "Co-benefits and risks" mitigation subsection. It'd include rest of the content from Policies subsection with some extra information, per talk on FAR page. Bogazicili (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's about what I was thinking. Three important tweaks
 * 1 Terminology
 * 2 Observed temperature rise
 * 3 Drivers of recent climate change
 * 4 Future warming and the carbon budget
 * 5 Physical changes (not sure about this one)
 * 6 Impacts
 * 7 Adaptation
 * 8 Mitigation
 * 9 Society and culture
 * 10 Discovery


 * Now that the article is called climate change rather than global warming, the physical changes cannot be called effects, as many of them are included in the definition of climate change. This was my main motivation is splitting the effects section: the section naming has become incorrect after the renaming of the article. Effects also feels like a false 'neutrality' to me. Most of the effects are not positive, and are typically described as impacts in the literature.
 * Off-topic for overall restructuring: If we can avoid it (which we might not), we shouldn't have 'and' in a section title. I don't feel that policies and decarbonisation pathways fit logically together, but will wait for to come up with a good solution here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not clear with my suggestion. What I am hoping you can do is provide the complete outline structure for what you are designating as sections 5, 6, 7, and 8. Particularly the extent to which you propose using any of the current structure for Climate change adaptation for Section 7. In addition to Bogazicili, it would also be nice to get ’s, ’s and ’s thoughts on the more detailed outline proposal for those sections. I am assuming our more immediate goal is to figure out the best way to get a more expansive Adaptation section incorporated into the article. Dtetta (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My general perception is that the article is quite long and my initial reaction is to avoid "more expansive" sections. Instead: the present Adaptation subsection seems to be too vaguely ~conceptual, and I suggest that it list some main adaptation approaches (sea walls, building up roadways, migration). Remember: our audience comprises mainly lay persons. . . . Separately: I don't see how a would add anything to an  section. . . . Aside: I favor retaining  and  as indented under . — RCraig09 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dtetta: the future content of the adaptation section is discussed below, where I posted and almost finished proposal. The rest of the sections would not change at all. This would simply be promoting subsections into sections. @RCraig09: I agree that the article should not be made longer. This proposal is not making any sections larger (see my proposals below that expands adaptation by improving/condensing other section). If I understand you correctly, you oppose both changes (splitting up effects and splitting up responses). In the first case, do you not agree that the cannot include climate change itself? The first paragraph of 'physical environment' details effects of warming that are climate change, such as more extreme precipitation. In the second case, I think the split of vague 'responses' is needed because of the vagueness of the section title. Our readers on mobile phone will not see the subheadings of that section immediately (default is not expanded), and may not understand intuitively what this section will contain. The words mitigation and adaptation are clearer. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One technical issue- any change to section headers requires making corresponding changes to the thumbnail gallery called "Some effects of climate change" at the top of the page in desktop view. Make sure the thumbnail is working in preview mode before publishing anything. Regarding the changes overall, I understand the desire to get away from "effects", but I'm having a hard time understanding how the existing content fits under the new TOC. Can somebody do a map of how existing sections are renamed or moved into the new TOC? --Efbrazil (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The mapping; sorry for not being clear earlier.
 * Effects is split into a) Physical changes comprising the first subsection and b) Impacts comprising the later two subsections.
 * Responses is also split into two, self-explanatory. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, so it's sort of 2 proposals then. The effects split into physical changes and impacts seem like a straight forward improvement to me.
 * Responses split into Adaptation and Mitigation is more complicated. First, I think we need to put mitigation first- it's far more important, and it puts the emphasis on how adaptation is really a result of a failure to mitigate- it's the secondary action. I think the "Political response" section should go under mitigation as the last subsection, instead of under "society and culture". All of the political response section covers how we are achieving mitigation. Society and culture can be reserved for just opinions- scientific and popular- which is frankly how I read that title (I wouldn't expect the Paris agreement to show up there- I'd expect it to show up under mitigation). That would then allow adaptation to go between those 2 sections (mitigation and society and culture) without breaking up the flow. I like your adaptation rewrite- it's a bit of a stub right now, but it's going to quickly grow in importance. Efbrazil (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "splitting up effects and splitting up responses" so I have no opinion. I also do not understand the applicability of " cannot include climate change itself", so I have no opinion. Regarding indenting and  under, I understand the problem with expanding sections on mobile devices, so I suggest a simple explanation under : "Human attempts to reduce climate change are called mitigation, and measures to deal with the climate change that cannot be avoided is called adaptation." Again, this is not a strong opinion, and I don't want to interfere with your larger strategy. Thanks to all for your mountains of work. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My explanation is quite bad I see. I've just done the splitting of sections in my sandbox. You can see the disadvantage is that the TOC becomes quite extensive. I really wish we had the time to undo part of the CITEVAR, so that sources doesn't take up that much space in TOC. (citing scientific papers and newspapers directly..)
 * The explanation on the effects section, tried again. Climate change = hotness + changes in rain intensity + more. Therefore: effect of climate change changes in rain intensity. Now we are implying, by putting these climatic changes under the section 'effects', that these aspects of climate change are instead effects of climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Efbrazil: I have been thinking about the same proposal. The only problem I see is that the political response deals with both mitigation and adaptation. If we do this, we may need to duplicate some information (such as the Green Climate Fund, which covers adaptation and mitigation). Adaptation is now a small fraction of political response, so I'm also okay with having that information in slightly the wrong section. I completely agree agree that political response is unexpected in 'society and culture', and so is not easily findable for mobile users. A further problem is that mitigation and adaptation become more out-of-balance, the latter being more than 4x as long as the expanded adaptation. I have a weak preference for keeping adaptation close to impacts, as adapation happens reactively when climate changes, whereas mitigation is a more deliberate step, but with this reshuffling it's not much of a problem anymore. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Efbrazil proposal
 * 1 Terminology
 * 2 Observed temperature rise
 * 3 Drivers of recent climate change
 * 4 Future warming and the carbon budget
 * 5 Physical changes (not sure about this one)
 * 6 Impacts
 * 7 Mitigation
 * 8 Adaptation
 * 9 Society and culture
 * 10 Discovery


 * @ Femke: Thanks! I see the weaknesses you point out, particularly about weighting top level sections equally. One other way to think about things is that adaptation is really "impact mitigation" rather than a separate idea entirely. That avoids the complication of needing to overthink if everything is a mitigation or adaptation at a top level, such as political response or actions that can go both ways, like cloud seeding. It also avoids the concerns about section weighting. To fix weighting, I think you then have impact mitigation as the last item of the mitigation section, and political response as its own section (so mitigation isn't overstuffed. and to put proper emphasis on political response). So then we'd have:
 * 5 Physical changes
 * 5.1 Tipping points and long-term impacts
 * 6 Impacts
 * 6.1 Nature and wildlife
 * 6.2 Humans
 * 7 Mitigation
 * 7.1 Changing sources of energy
 * 7.2 Carbon sequestration
 * 7.3 Decarbonization pathways
 * 7.4 Impact mitigation
 * 8 Political response
 * 8.1 International negotiations
 * 8.2 Other policy
 * 9 Society and culture
 * 9.1 Scientific consensus
 * 9.2 The public
 * Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A creative solution, but I don't think it'll work. Adaptation will be too difficult to find, especially from mobile phone where there is not a full Table of Contents, and you can't peek into Mitigation, and have to keep on scrolling to find 7.4. I prefer the disadvantages of the previous proposal. The drivers section, even after my condensing, is also very long. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Humans should be moved above, since it has multiple subsections, so you know it stops when you came to Nature and Wildlife.
 * 2) Renaming Impacts into "Impacts on Humans, Nature and Wildlife" would be more descriptive.
 * 3) Since we are working on reorganization now, we should also decide on Co-benefits of mitigation subsection.
 * 4) "Society and culture" should be renamed too "Political and Scientific Response, and Society" or something like that. I agree with the general point that we should make our section names more clear given how the page looks on mobile.
 * 5) Actually we could consider keeping Mitigation and Adaptation together under same section called "Mitigation and Adaptation" since they are complimentary. Per IPCC:
 * "Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change" Bogazicili (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So the first sentences in "Mitigation and Adaptation" should define what those are, and should explain those are complementary. The sentence I suggested below about adaptation not being enough without mitigation could be moved here as well. Bogazicili (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Putting mitigation and adaptation together under one banner works for me. I'm not sure changing the impacts title helps, but I don't have a real objection either. Clarifying what impacts means could be helpful, but I don't think we should just enumerate the subsections. I changed it to "Impacts on life" as that includes everything in the section. I don't agree with moving Humans above Nature and wildlife- nature and wildlife are really more impacted, since adaptation is harder in that realm and changes are more likely to be irreversible, particularly as entire ecosystems collapse. Humans are far more adaptable than the natural world is to the rate of change we are imposing on the planet. I'd rather we sequence items by importance than by whether they have subsections. There should probably be subsections on nature and wildlife instead of subsections on humans. Finally, I think it's clearer to separate out political response into it's own section rather than comingling it with scientific and popular opinion. So the modified proposal would be this, with changes in :

--Efbrazil (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 5 Physical changes
 * 5.1 Tipping points and long-term impacts
 * 6
 * 6.1 Nature and wildlife
 * 6.2 Humans
 * 7
 * 7.1 Changing sources of energy
 * 7.2 Carbon sequestration
 * 7.3 Decarbonization pathways
 * 7.4
 * 8 Political response
 * 8.1 International negotiations
 * 8.2 Other policy
 * 9 Society and culture
 * 9.1 Scientific consensus
 * 9.2 The public


 * 1) I agree with Efbrazil that Humans should stay after nature and wildlife, as changes there impact humans via food security. I don't understand reasoning Bogazicili. Disagree with Efbrazil that nature/wildlife should have subsections, as it's currently only two paragraphs long, and still fine even if we were to decide in some different discussion to expand it twofold. Human's is on the verge of needing a subsections, I'm okay with removing them.
 * 2) Apart from capitalization (we don't capitalize nouns in headings), I don't see the need of having long titles. Impacts on life still feels a bit awkward, but I can live with it if everybody thinks it's okay.
 * 3) About cobenefits; I'm waiting on Dtetta to make a proposal covering a few issues identified at FAR. I don't think an extra subsection heading works, given the size of the current subsections. The very loose advice is 4 paragraphs per subheading iirc. Maybe we can shuffle around and replace a heading
 * 4) I have made 'place' in the TOC by putting notes and sources under one heading, so simply splitting out the political responses from society and culture works for me. Better than having long titles of weakly related topics.
 * 5) I still believe we should split mitigation and adaptation, as mitigation is well important. It doesn't work to put subsections of mitigation on the same level as adaptation. They are complimentary approaches, on equal standing.
 * 6) We already have a sentence about how aspects of adaptation become impossible with severe climate change, but that sentence could use fleshing out. I'm happy to see you proposal to amend the adaptation proposal below. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I was trying to say we should have more content on nature and wildlife than we do on humans, not that we should make structural changes now. I shouldn't have said anything though, because it's not relevant to this discussion.
 * 2) It's a bit awkward, but it does clarify better what the section covers. Otherwise you could assume impacts includes physical things like the ocean getting hotter or the ice caps melting (an impact does sound like a physical thing). Another impact could be to the economy, but again we are putting the focus here on direct impacts to life and livelihoods.
 * 5) There's several reasons to combine though. As Bogazicili said, the approaches are complementary, and often solutions are both mitigation and an adaptation. By putting adaptation out there as a top level topic equal to mitigation, we may be giving it outsized importance and suggesting it is an alternative to mitigation. We also want to make clear that adaptation reflects a failure of mitigation, so that puts it in a secondary role, although putting it second in the TOC helps with that. Finally, like you said, there's just not as much content for adaptation as yet- mitigation is where the primary focus is and should be- if we make adaptation a top level item, it suggests that people should be stuffing in more content there. Efbrazil (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To summarize.
 * a) There are no objections to renaming effects impacts, but physical effects are seen as impacts. That leaves two options a) split it and explicitly have Changes in the physical environment and impacts on life, or simply rename effects to impacts. I weakly prefer the latter for brevity.
 * b) Discussion on how to structure adaptation still ongoing, I'm coming round to Efbrazil's view, see below.
 * c) There seems to be consensus on the political response not fitting under the current heading. I've not heard any objections to simply splitting that section into political response and Society and culture.


 * On adaptation / mitigation, a tally of books & Britannica
 * Romm has adaptation as one of the subsection of 'Avoiding the worst outcomes', along with mitigation options.
 * A very short introduction Also places adaptation on the same level as individual mitigation options such as clean energy
 * Britannica discusses them in one section.
 * NASA's vital signs puts them together (but they're focussed on the physics, so of course they want to save space)
 * As such, I'm now convinced they can be put together. Let's rename to Adaptation and Mitigation? And put Adapation on same level as 'Clean energy / CCS'? To make sure the section doesn't overflow, let's follow the advice at FAR of putting policy instruments (policies and measures) into our new 'political response' section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) I suggest Mitigation and Adaptation, since Mitigation is much more important. With full mitigation and no adaptation (hypothetically), the damages would be low. With full adaptation and no mitigation (again, hypothetically), the damages would still be very severe. Going with the general principle of more descriptive names, I suggest "Reducing Climate Change Risks: Mitigation and Adaptation"? What do you think? Too length? Although I gotta say IPCC Synthesis Report 2014 topic 4 is named "Adaptation and Mitigation"
 * 2) Impacts on Humans is given much more space in reports such as IPCC Synthesis Report 2014. "wildlife" returns 1 result. "nature" returns 4 results for example. Human returns 178 results. Most parts about impacts seem to be about physical changes or human impacts. Therefore impacts on Humans should be longer and placed above nature and wildlife.
 * 3) New suggestion: Now that I'm looking at IPCC Synthesis Report 2014 section names (topic 2 is named "Future Climate Changes, Risk and Impacts), I think we should add "risks" when we say "impacts". So I'd suggest "Impacts and Risks on Humans, Nature and Wildlife".
 * So my suggestion is below:

General principles: Accessible wording, for people who might not know the topic much etc, easier to locate information on mobile phone, similar wording and organization to sources such as IPCC reports:


 * 1 Terminology
 * 2 Observed temperature rise
 * 3 of recent climate change
 * 4 Future warming and the carbon budget
 * 5 Impacts of climate change on physical environment
 * 6 Risks and Impacts on Humans, Nature and Wildlife
 * 6.1 Humans
 * 6.2 Nature and wildlife
 * 7 Reducing risks of climate change: mitigation and adaptation
 * 7.1 Mitigation
 * 7.2 Adaptation
 * 7.3 Co-benefits and Adverse Side effects
 * 8 Society and culture
 * 8.1 Political response
 * 8.2 Scientific consensus
 * 8.3 The public
 * 9 Discovery

I'm also open to splitting Political Response section. I'm also open to NOT splitting Physical changes section. It could be:


 * 5 Risks and Impacts
 * 5.1 Physical environment
 * 5.2 Humans
 * 5.3 Nature and wildlife

I made a preliminary change in my sandbox. I suggest reviewing it on both desktop and mobile. Most people seem to view Wiki on mobile. I'm also open to shorter names "Risks and Impacts" "Mitigation and Adaptation." Bogazicili (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting it in your sandbox, that helps. On my phone, many of these long titles take up three lines, making it more difficult to navigate (having to scroll more). Thanks for confirming you're also happy with the more modest suggested changes.
 * For (3); feedbacks aren't a cause, so drivers is more correct.
 * For (5); Manual_of_Style says we shouldn't repeat the article title in the section heading
 * I feel the word 'impacts' mostly includes risks already. I prefer the shorter title
 * For (7): I think describing co-benifits directly in the relevant location works better. Cobenefits are strongly tied to the technology applied. Also, we don't have that text yet (half a paragraph), so this should really not be discussed now. Box 3.4 doesn't support putting this section on the same footing as the mitigation/adaptation itself. The books I sampled also didn't use this structure.
 * For (7): what do you think of Efbrazil's proposal that puts clean energy on the same level as adaptation? Also, when we move 'policies and measures' to political response, we can switch the order of mitigation and adaption back.
 * P.S. remember, we don't capitalize nouns in headings; Co-benefits and Adverse Side Effects renders Co-benefits and adverse side effects on Wikipedia Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Then it should be "Causes and drivers of recent climate change". I want people who are looking for causes of climate change to be able to locate it easily.
 * 2) IPCC Synthesis Report 2014 topic 2 title is "Future Climate Changes, Risk and Impacts". I feel strongly that the word "risks" be included.
 * 3) I'm definitively against Efbrazil's proposal that puts clean energy on the same level. That section should follow a simpler outline:


 * Mitigation and adaptation
 * Mitigation
 * Clean energy would be here
 * Adaptation


 * "Mitigation and adaptation" could also be "Responses: mitigation and adaptation". Again this is for making it easier for people to locate information (especially on mobile view). People who are not very knowledgeable about this topic may not realize what mitigation and adaptation are. I think that also addresses 's concern. Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll just put what I'm opposed to as I think we need to drive towards consensus here. In order of most opposition:
 * I'm very strongly opposed to putting "humans" before "nature and wildlife". Human impacts are very often secondary impacts, resulting from the collapse of ecosystems. Nature and wildlife are undergoing irreversible collapses, humanity can adapt. We should not prioritize humans before nature and wildlife in our presentation.
 * I would rather have both Mitigation and Adaptation as top level titles than to see them grouped and then immediately split (reverting back to an earlier proposal). That also would allow Political Response to go under Mitigation, if people prefer that to having it be a top level item. "Political Response" should not be under "Society and Culture". We could make it stand alone as a top level item or we could put it under mitigation if mitigation is a top level item.
 * Section titles should not include "climate change" because all of the titles could, like "mitigating climate change" and "adapting to climate change" and so forth. I think it's best to leave the words "climate change" out of all the section titles, so for instance "Causes and drivers of recent climate change" should just be "causes and drivers".Efbrazil (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Humans should be top in that section per sources. Mitigation and Adaptation are complimentary per sources, so should also be grouped together. I agree Political Response with being its own section. "Causes and drivers of recent climate change" should remain since we are mainly talking about Anthropogenic global warming in this article. Society and culture sounds so vague so should be renamed. Plus society includes culture. So my updated suggestion would be below:


 * 1 Terminology
 * 2 Observed temperature rise
 * 3 Causes and drivers of recent climate change {
 * 4 Future warming and the carbon budget
 * 5 Risks and impacts
 * 5.1 Humans
 * 5.2 Physical Environment
 * 5.3 Nature and wildlife
 * 6 Response: mitigation and adaptation
 * 6.1 Mitigation
 * 6.2 Adaptation
 * 7 Political response
 * 7.1 International negotiations
 * 7.2 Other policy
 * 8 Scientific consensus and society
 * 8.1 Scientific consensus
 * 8.2 The public

Bogazicili (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Drivers and causes are near synonyms, so I object to having them both. I've got a weak preference for drivers, but if anybody else agrees with Bogazicili, do change it.
 * I'm weakly against impacts and risks, but again, if there is somebody agreeing with Bogazicili, and no further objections, please change it.
 * There was a rather neat suggestion by CMD on FAR about scientific consensus: making it part of discovery (which could be renamed discovery and consensus). This follows how Britannica does it and how Weart discusses it in his book. The text will need some tweaking to make it about the growing consensus instead of about the current consensus. Society indeed includes culture, and culture only gets a single paragraph. Agree with that tweak.
 * @ Bogazicili: it does not seem that you're getting consensus on putting humans in front of physical environment or nature and wildlife. I find it very weird logically to put them before physical environment as impacts on humans are caused by changes in the physical environment and nature.
 * I had really hoped to make mitigation it's own section, so that it subsections are shown in table of contents (clean energy is pretty important). There are two people objecting, versus two people think it would be an improvement. I would like further input from, , and maybe.
 * ...apologies for not responding sooner....I vote for Mitigation being broken out so the subsections are visible in the TOC. I think the recent mitigation related changes made to the Responses section have been a nice improvement:) The geoengineering-SRM sentences would still benefit by being broken out, to distinguish it from the CCS text.Dtetta (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We might want to rename mitigation into limiting future warming, as I feel it may be jargon? This also allows us to discuss solar radiation management, which is strictly not mitigation.


 * 5 Impacts
 * 5.1 Physical environment
 * 5.2 Nature and wildlife
 * 5.3 Humans
 * 6 Mitigation
 * 6.1 Clean energy
 * 6.2 Carbon sequestration
 * 6.3 Decarbonisation pathways
 * 6.4 Policies and measures
 * 7 Political response
 * 7.1 International negotiations
 * 7.2 Other policy
 * 8 Society
 * 8.1 Climate denial
 * 8.2 Protest and litigation
 * 9 Discovery
 * 9.1 Growing consensus


 * , most of regular Wiki viewers seem to use mobile view, which does not have a table of contents view at all. That was why I supported more clear section titles. The reasons I'm against adaptation as a separate section are: 1) it will be a relatively short section, 2) sources seem to group together with mitigation, 3) adaptation is not an option by itself. Without mitigation, adaptation still leads to severe and irreversible impacts. We could consider increasing the current table of contents limit so more subsections are visible. What do you think? Bogazicili (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) with four well-developed paragraphs, there are two sections shorter than adaptation. 2) some do, the IPCC doesn't 3) I'm trying to upgrade the importance of mitigation, which covers an entire IPCC working group. To me the current structure implies that there are two options, and you can choose whatever. By giving them both a section, we would remove this illusion of choice. Both are necessary and already happening. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally agree both are necessary and are already happening. That's another reason why both should be under a single section, and we should explain that better in the intro part before getting into subsections. If we get two separate sections, I think it'd be more difficult to tie them together in the sense that both are necessary.
 * Also, regarding the jargon comment, if we rename the section to "Responses: mitigation and adaptation", we'd make it more clear that these are responses to the risks of climate change, while also mentioning both mitigation and adaptation in the title to make it easier to locate info on mobile view. Bogazicili (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The improved positioning of solar radiation management has introduced a new problem with putting mitigation and adaptation together: the introductory paragraph is too small., happy you're back! Could you give an opinion on this? We now have three people that would like to emphasize mitigation by making it its own section, and two who prefer the status quo. This change would only happen after we've expanded adaptation per the proposal below. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What about only "Responses" as top section heading? No doubt, "mitigation" the choice in scientific literature. But the term is uncommon to non-native speakers. Adaption would remain on the same sub-level then. But it is a response after all. The two-line intro can be skipped. However, I have no problem with both suggested options. By the way, "carbon sequestration" is very technical, too. Could we replace it with "Negative emissions?" Hedgehoque (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We used to have responses as the top heading, until Bogazicili boldly replaced it with something more concrete, even if it slightly less elegant. I think the word responses is a bit too vague: it could refer to somebody on the street saying: "don't like the heat". That's why I would like to split the section into: "limiting climate change", and "adaptation". I agree that the two line intro can be skipped.
 * Carbon sequestration is indeed quite technical, but negative emission doesn't cover the entire paragraph. One of the more common proposals for carbon capture and storage is in combination with gas or industry, which still has net positive permissions. We could say that CCS is the introductory sentence to that paragraph, and the rest is about negative emission, so I'm okay if other people want to rename it into negative emissions. We could go for a longer name as well: "carbon capture and negative emissions". Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Limiting climate change" is far better than "mitigation". In this case, we could rename the corresponding main article, too. Is it still an option to place adaption aspects as part of the impacts section as Femke suggested? I am responding late, but it sounds plausible to me. I wouldn't object to on an adaption section, though. Good point about CCS. I don't like the 'and'-s either. "Negative emissions" would be fine if we explain the red herring. Hedgehoque (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mitigation is a key term though. It's also a very basic term for climate change issues. This is an encyclopedia, it should be educational a bit I think. That's why we define the term in the lead.Bogazicili (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't drop the term no. I think the first sentence of a potential "limitiing climate change" section would start with "Limiting, or mitigating, cliamte change (...), to make clear they're synonyms. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Once the term is defined, it also reduces length of some of the following sentences.
 * Eg: "Under the Paris Agreement, nations agreed to keep warming "well under 2.0 °C (3.6 °F)" through mitigation efforts" as opposed to "Under the Paris Agreement, nations agreed to keep warming "well under 2.0 °C (3.6 °F)" through reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere".
 * Making sure they are synonyms sounds like a good suggestion too, but titles should be actual terms the sources use. For example we shouldn't say "through limiting efforts" for the above sentence either.Bogazicili (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Making sure they are synonyms sounds like a good suggestion too, but titles should be actual terms the sources use. For example we shouldn't say "through limiting efforts" for the above sentence either.Bogazicili (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Geo-engineering segue
Making this it's own subsection, so that discussion remains focussed above. I agree the segue isn't great, and of course happy for others to play with the text. The section previously used the framing from the geo-engineering literature that there are three types 'responses'. I agree with our reviewer that this framing is giving UNDUE attention to geo-engineering. Given geo-engineering's controversial position within the climate literature, this I feel is breaking neutrality. The current introduction to "responses" is still not neutral in my view, and this is one of the reasons of the above proposal. The structure put the three approaches on equal footing. Furthermore, the geo-engineering literature has fallen into two, with some carbon dioxide removal literature becoming part of the mitigation literature. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting it where it is now is a very good solution. We could link climate engineering as the parent article of solar radiation management, optionally. Hedgehoque (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Need to reevaluate recent edits to first two mitigation paragraphs
could you please undo the edits to the mitigation section you created yesterday, Jan. 16 (maybe putting them in your sandbox), while your proposal is discussed here on the talk page. There have been repeated requests by me and others for editors to not make significant changes to the article without posting them on the talk page first. This was pointed out to you just last week regarding your edits to one of the lead paragraphs. I would again ask you to follow this practice, and to also clarify in your edit comments and describe what is it specifically that you are trying to improve with a given edit (when you say “Reorganize” and “Trying to trim a bit”, that’s pretty vague).

I want to thank you for all the work you’re doing in finding excellent references to support this article. They are clearly helping to make it stronger. But I think the major edits you have done often have flaws in how you construct paragraphs, as well as occasional basic grammar problems, and so I think your work would benefit by your posting it here first. For example, below is an underline/strikeout version of the combined edits to the first two mitigation paragraphs that I think you made yesterday.

So first, a question... why was this edit done at all? What was the problem in the January 15 version of the paragraph that you were trying to address?

Secondly, I think the particular edits that you made were a significant step backwards in terms of what this paragraph is intended to do. The first paragraph is meant to be an introduction to the mitigation section, describing the extent of the challenge in terms of the the levels of reduction and what they mean in terms of societal changes. Your new text deprecates some of those introductory ideas, like the sentence beginning with “This will require a far reaching...”, and the sentence “To make progress....”, and instead insert a lot of detail on net negative emissions and SRM techniques that just doesn’t belong in this introductory paragraph. What is the general set of ideas you are trying to convey with this change? The second paragraph was an introduction to the general mitigation techniques detailed in the section. Your edit interrupts this with your move of the "To make progress..." sentence to the end of the paragraph. So, same question as with your first paragraph edits. What were you trying to accomplish? How is it an improvement?

On a minor note, there needs to be an article or quantifier between “generally” and “below” in the third sentence of your edit.

Again, please undo your edits so we can discuss them here first. Dtetta (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , feel free to revert me per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You reverted before. The previous order didn't make sense to me. Now, first paragraph defines what mitigation is. Second gets into detail. To me, "major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with.." follows "require far-reaching, systemic changes on an unprecedented scale in energy, land, cities,..." as examples. Below 1.5 requires carbon removal, so it should be in first paragraph along with net-zero, expanding this sentence in that paragraph "Climate change impacts can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and by enhancing sinks that absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere".
 * Lmk if you can't revert due to technical reasons, then I'd do it. Bogazicili (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just undid them. The reason I asked you to do it (rather than reverting them myself) is that: 1)IMHO, as this page has demonstrated, it seem the Bold, Revert discuss policy can lead to escalation (as you yourself threatened earlier) and confrontative discussions, and 2)I think it’s a better use of our collective limited time (and a more collaborative gesture) to post significant proposals here first, so I am trying to model the actions I am requesting.


 * Side note - I think the net negative emission sentences in the second paragraph belong further down in the section (not sure whose edit that was), but am prioritizing time in order to work on the adaptation language. Dtetta (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes the first paragraph needs to be introductory. That's why I had moved all concept definitions such as negative emissions there. It's one of the main assumptions of 1.5C mitigation. Also, "unprecedented" change sentence sounds too abstract. That's why it needs to be followed by an example, which gives it more context. To me, the example also shows that that goal is attainable. Also I don't think I threatened anyone. Please do not make unfounded accusations. Bogazicili (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Not unfounded at all...I am referring to your 12 November post, which included the statement “But I intend to escalate” regarding the issue of edits on human health impacts in the “Effects on humans with respect to Climate Security/Tipping Points/4C warming” thread in Archive 84. I was trying to avoid this type of action/statement on your part when I posted my request here rather than doing a revert first. Dtetta (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , yes, it is unfounded and that is a very odd choice of word. "But I intend to escalate" means I would have moved to an RFC or something, which is clear from my previous message in that section. This is not a threat. We also did an RFC about the image in the Scientific Consensus section, which did improve the image (looks much better now) and the article itself. It's odd you see this as a threat. For a more productive discussion, please do your part and follow Etiquette. Bogazicili (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving forward: Bogazicili, can you propose any significant changes to the lede here. We're all humans and make mistakes, and we really don't want mistakes in often-read articles lede's. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. By the way the changes Dtetta is talking about in this section wasn't in the lead :) I had just moved several sentences around in the Mitigation section, without adding or removing anything pretty much. Bogazicili (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick opinions needed: condensing drivers
indicated at FAR that they believe our physical drivers section is too long. I have a few tweaks in mind to make it slightly smaller (already did two that don't change meaning). Please let me know if you disagree with any of them. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) rm See also: Illustrative model of greenhouse effect on climate change. We now have four articles we point to from the top of this section, and that's a bit silly. This is a subarticle to greenhouse effect, and with my very limited knowledge of notability criteria, I'm not sure it meets those.
 * ✅. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) rm  (normal pre-industrial levels were ~270ppm): redundant with previous sentence, and with the figure.
 * ✅. I'll go from least to most controversial one per day, making sure there is at least tacit consensus. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) rm about 11 billion tonnes of CO2 annually from the atmosphere, or: the percentage alone suffices
 * ✅: two noncontroversial ones in one day. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) rm (when the land surface presents different obstructions to wind)? I feel that this sentence is either clear without this extra explanation or not at all.. Here the opinion of non-physicists should trump mine.
 * ✅. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) In tropic and temperate areas the net effect is to produce a significant warming, while at latitudes closer to the poles a gain of albedo (as forest is replaced by snow cover) leads to an overall cooling effect ? Not necessary, but may be a candidate if we want to cut back seriously.
 * Too premature for suggestion. I'll review more sources to see how much focus on humans they put. Then we look at reorganization. Then we look at word counts to get a general idea how some sections should be shortened or expanded.Bogazicili (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think all of these changes should happen no matter what. Maybe we'll need more later, but we'll see then. I'm noticing that massive changes that have happened over the last 2 years have had many verification issues, so I prefer a gradual approach. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general principle, I agree that the Drivers section(incl subsections) is too detailed for a top-level article in an encyclopedia directed to lay readers. Consider eliminating some of the quantitative recitations, or placing the quantitative measurements in the footnotes if possible. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll see whether I can make further suggestions, but what do you think of the current ones? Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, I've done the first proposal before, and got reverted. Input would be most appreciated. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) rm and because they re-emit it in all directions: this technical explanation is too difficult for our average reader.
 * ✅ Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) rm In 2013, CO2 readings taken at the world's primary benchmark site in Mauna Loa surpassed 400 ppm for the first time. Single event, not particularly important.  Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) half the explanation of fingerprints for attribution (second paragraph of introduction). It's a more difficult explanation of what we already have under natural forcings. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Space counting in IPCC reports
I'm relieved to see that the IPCC reports give ample space to the drivers of climate change. Of the 14 chapters of WG1, 7 cover topics we discuss in our merged 'Drivers of recent climate change' section, and 5 are completely decidated to it. It's more difficult to assess the percentage of WG3, but our section includes at least information from chapters 1 and 5. I think the moderate proposals implemented and proposed will be enough here (of course, open for more similar proposals!). For larger proposals, we'll need to involve the editors that built this section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we need more input too. Are you ok with a slower FA review process, because not a lot of people seem to be paying attention to talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In my contributions, you can see I'm trying to 'kill' time by editing climate change adaptation (and also gain understanding for a decent proposal here). I'm not sure whether slowing down will lead to additional input (remember all the dialogues between the two of us so far that went slowly..), but well worth a try. Trying to address points that need discussion first, so there are some more noncontroversial edits I'll do while waiting. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then let's leave these sections as they are for now, and concentrate on expansions and restructuring for the article. We'll leave summarizing Drivers section after then, if it's still necessary, depending on the input we get.Bogazicili (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the input is clear; no support from the reviewer I respect most if we make this article obese. I'll continue to slowly tackle this problem in the direction you yourself specified. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , regarding the paragraph below:

"From a consumption standpoint, the dominant sources of global 2010 emissions were: food and human waste (34%), thermal comfort, washing, and lighting (26%); freight, travel, commuting, and communication (25%); and building construction (15%). These emissions take into account the embodied fossil fuel energy in manufacturing materials including metals (e.g. steel, aluminum), concrete, glass, and plastic, which are largely used in buildings, infrastructure, and transportation.[80] From a production standpoint, the primary sources of global greenhouse gas emissions are estimated as: electricity and heat (25%), agriculture and forestry (24%), industry and manufacturing (21%), transport (14%), and buildings (6%).[81]"
 * I think it's too detailed. We can just drop consumption percentages. As long as the production is decarbonized, it doesn't matter how it is consumed. Bogazicili (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have argued to reduce details in the past in this paragraph iirc. I'm on wikibreak, because RSI flared up again. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, I removed the below part:

"From a consumption standpoint, the dominant sources of global 2010 emissions were: food and human waste (34%), thermal comfort, washing, and lighting (26%); freight, travel, commuting, and communication (25%); and building construction (15%). These emissions take into account the embodied fossil fuel energy in manufacturing materials including metals (e.g. steel, aluminum), concrete, glass, and plastic, which are largely used in buildings, infrastructure, and transportation.[80]"
 * Bogazicili (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - I think it makes sense to try and shorten this paragraph, as has done. But we should be aware that eliminating any discussion of the consumption viewpoint eliminates an important aspect of climate change politics. From strictly a production standpoint, China dominate other countries. But from a consumption standpoint, it’s a different picture, as the footprint of countries such as the US include a lot of GHGs that show up on the production ledger as coming from China, but are really driven by first world (ie US) consumption. The consumption based sentence that’s been deleted didn’t do a very good job of bringing out this issue. I had originally edited this paragraph in earl-mid 2020, and the language for this paragraph that existed in late June 2020 attempted to bring this issue out somewhat, but additional edits refocused the sentence to how it existed earlier today. Regardless, that distinction is still an important concept when it comes to figuring out how much each country should fairly reduce it’s emissions, and should be covered somewhere in the article. As an additional future edit for this paragraph, we could also look at reducing some of the details on sources of GHGs to create room in the paragraph for a short mention of this consumption/production distinction. But I think Bogazicili’s edit is a good start for now. Dtetta (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Condensing observed warming
What about moving the global warming hiatus paragraph to some sub-article? It's already present in our subsection about climate denial, and is quickly reducing in importance. The section now has 6 paragraphs. It's really important, and I don't mind giving it more space than the IPCC gives it (2 chapters of WGI), but the discrepancy may be too much.

We will probably need another two paragraphs in the adaptation section, and up to an additional paragraph in the human subsection. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. It seems adaptation will need two/three extra paragraphs. Here information again, in case somebody wants to put this back:

Although record-breaking years attract considerable media attention, individual years are less significant than the longer global temperature trend. An example of a shorter episode is the slower rate of surface temperature increase from 1998 to 2012, which was labeled the "global warming hiatus". Throughout this period, ocean heat storage continued to progress steadily upwards, and in subsequent years, surface temperatures have spiked upwards. The slower pace of warming can be attributed to a combination of natural temperature variability, reduced solar activity, and increased reflection of sunlight by particles from volcanic eruptions.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I also propose we convert the discussion of the pre-industrial temperatures into a note, and move the information to a sub-article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed sentence, further explanatin
I just removed the following sentence:

''Global warming usually refers to human-induced warming of the Earth system, whereas climate change can refer to natural as well as anthropogenic change. ''

At the FAR review page, CMD indicated that he doesn't believe the distinction really helps, as the difference in use is quite subtle. Both terms are used to refer to natural as well as human caused changes, and the only thing we know is that some people the year 2015 thought climate change is more often used in a general sense. I do believe that was true back then, but it becomes less true as time passes, with global warming reverting to its technical sense. I'm okay with putting back, but I do think this is less important than the adaptation paragraphs we want to add. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI, Britannica has 2 different articles. Global Warming and Climate change. I think it's good that we do not have separate articles in Wikipedia. However, it is useful to define and contrast both terms, and state they are often used interchangeably. As such I'm against full removal. I'll re-add this part per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle while we discuss the changes. I think some of it can be shortened but it was also useful. Bogazicili (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I do agree it's useful to define and contrast the terms, but the current sentence doesn't do a good job. We're trying to emphasize the difference in generic (=not human-caused) usage, where there is very little. When the term climate change is used, it happens 1-3% in the generic context (I spent a few hours counting in the renaming discussion on various platforms like Google/Web of Science). With global warming, that's around 0.1-2.0%. This is the reason our sentence is currently awkward.
 * Global warming usually refers to human-induced warming of the Earth system, whereas climate change can refer to natural as well as anthropogenic change
 * Or, rewritten to show the previous sentence is logically weird/flawed. ''Global warming is infrequently used to indicate periods of warming in Earth's history. In constrast, it is possible to use the term climate change in the context of Earth's history.
 * A further point: the scientific literature shows quite large shifts in usage of these terms, with climate change to mean human-induced climate change increasing in popularity. These sources are therefor quite old for the given statement. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm not sure about the current sentences, I just wanted to revert before I forget, so that we can work on this, since there are so many open issues now lol. Bogazicili (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The anthropogenic impact of course matters. Anthropogenic impact accelerates the natural warming process. In nature, there are natural cycles of warming and cooling. The mirror of this process is the fact of fluctuations in the level of the World Ocean. Details in the article "Physics cycles of Global Warming and Cooling" in the collection of articles "Physics of Gravity" by Morebooks. Colnago2253 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Apublica.org article (in Portuguese) about WP's climate change article
A new Portuguese-language article has been published by a Brazilian public interest website, about Wikipedia's climate change articles:
 * https://apublica.org/2021/01/grupo-se-reune-para-proteger-a-wikipedia-do-negacionismo-climatico/ (archive)
 * https://www.bol.uol.com.br/noticias/2021/01/21/grupo-protege-texto-sobre-aquecimento-global-contra-fake-news-na-wikipedia.htm (archive)
 * — RCraig09 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Agência Pública. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

fossil-fuel phase-out in the lede
The lede still appears very vague when it comes to the question how to deal with the situation. "Mitigation methods include" sounds very technical. The "phase-out of coal" (not mentioning natural gas and oil here) is currently listed as one option among many. Would anyone disagree that the rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is the main task? This needs to be emphasized. "Low-carbon energy technologies" can be named as wind and solar power. "Development and deployment" is also very vague. They are already available at low cost. So here is my suggestion for the lede: Hedgehoque (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While we hope net-zero will happen soon, there is also mitigation possible that never reaches net-zero. Net-zero/near-zero is now appropraitely mentioned in the Paris agreement sentence. Same with rapid phase-out; this is a political choice, not part of the definition of mitigation.
 * I think mentioning solar and wind specifically is a good idea; we could cut the Responding to climate change involves mitigation and adaptation. sentence, as it is already implied from all of the sentences below to make space.
 * Requires is too strong. There is mitigation possible that goes mainly via CCS and nuclear. Very unlikely to happen or be affordable, but probs possible.
 * Could you help us reach consensus on previous discussions, there is very little bandwidth here to start new discussions, when so many discussions are still open. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to keep "Responding to climate change involves mitigation and adaptation". A lot of sentences feels disjointed in the article, because of excessive cutting. Don't make assumptions what is implied or not. Eg of disjointed sentence structure:
 * "The geopolitics of climate change is complex and has often been framed as a free-rider problem, in which all countries benefit from mitigation done by other countries, but individual countries would lose from investing in a transition to a low-carbon economy themselves. However, the benefits in terms of public health and local environmental improvements of coal phase out exceed the costs in almost all regions.[260]"
 * Is coal phase out supposed to make up for every claim in the preceding sentence? There should have been an additional sentence followed by "for example, the benefits....."
 * Remember, some people might be reading about this for the first time, or not be well-versed in this subject, so they might not make the reasonable and logical jumps that people who have been editing this article for a long time or people who are well-versed in this subject might make.
 * As for the suggestion, I like the specific mentions to wind, solar. Maybe we can also say something like "phasing out fossil fuels including oil, gas, coal" Bogazicili (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oil, gas and coal are all fossil fuels, so wording shouldn't be including. The current link to peak coal in the article lede is not correct, and we should link to fossil-fuel phase-out no matter the wording. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean with "including", could be "which are". Basically trying to introduce the term "fossil fuel". Could be done in second paragraph in the lead too. Eg: " Burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas for energy consumption is the main source of these emissions." With that term defined, you can just say phasing out fossil fuels in 4th paragraph without spelling out coal, oil and gas again. Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree on the term fossil fuels (without oil, gas, coal). It is already defined in the 2nd paragraph., thank you for keeping track on all the open discussions :-) Admirable work! About #1: Can one really speak of mitigation once that tipping points are exceeded? If I get the carbon budget concept right, which is part of SR15 and explained later in the article, net-zero CO2 will be the only option at some point. This leads to the "require"-ment (#3) of a rapid FF phase-out (You could stretch it over time, but then the initial reduction would practically be a phase-out). Emissions of GHGs with shorter lifetimes and decreasing GWP could still be emitted to some extent, though. So I suggest we leave the "net-zero" away here but keep the "require". Hedgehoque (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ....very glad to see you involved in the mitigation discussion. Thanks for your contribution on this issue! Dtetta (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the word "include", rather than require, because there are so many things that need to be done (eg: changing lots of industrial processes). There are also degrees of mitigation; that's why this part needs to be more general. Mitigation is simply reducing climate change. Specific targets come in 5th paragraph ("Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050")
 * I also don't like "Where emissions cannot be avoided, pathways include the capturing and storing of CO". Even if emissions are avoided, you might still need negative emissions, or capturing and storing emissions could be part of avoiding emissions. Here's my suggestion, which is almost same with the current version:

And in the 5th paragraph, we might consider introducing the concept of negative emissions as it is part of 1.5C target I think. Bogazicili (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't talk about a complete fossil-fuel phase-out in the body (yet), so changes must occur there first. For instance, we now note that renewables would make up over 85% of electricity generation in 2050, not 100%. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Or here's an alternate suggestion, which is only 5 more words after above changes. This makes it more clear that mitigation is simply reducing climate change (feel free to improve wording etc or suggest alternative for fossil fuel phase-out):


 * Bogazicili (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you use underlining and striking? I find it difficult to track changes like this. Two comments: The word however is misused here. There is no contrast with the previous sentence, and however isn't a neutral linking word. which is isn't the most elegant use of language, especially when duplicated. Involves may be a better word? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The whole idea of my approach is to gain some conciseness. Please let me explain my thoughts about the structure: Would you agree on this logical order? Hedgehoque (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First the main task: a rapid fossil-fuel phase-out. None of the scenarios in SR15 have considerable fossil amounts left in 2050, let alone 2100. "mitigation methods include fossil-fuel phase-out" sounds like one option out of many. Compromise: "All mitigation pathways include..." ?
 * Consequence: We need a substitute. It must be huge amounts of carbon neutral energy. Wind and solar are ready to use.
 * Optional for the lede: other contributions (efficiency, prevent deforestation, ...)
 * CO2 Removal: SR15 phrasing is "to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified" (TS 34). That is what I mean with "where emissions cannot be avoided". It is highly speculative if CCS will ever gain the required scale to revert the process. Could be misleading if we place reduction and removal at the same level.
 * After that: Adaption (please no blend) with one or two sentences
 * I mostly agree what you said above here:
 * with the fossil fuel phase-out, semantics are annoying. According to Wikipedia, fossil fuel phase-out means going to 0%, so that is untrue that all mitigation pathways include a phase-out. Maybe the Wikipedia page is wrong, and this wording also valid to say this for a partial phase-out?
 * We either need a substitute, or we don't use the energy at all by making processes more efficient.
 * I like splitting reforestation and forest preservation into a new sentence
 * I understand where you coming from with CO2 removal, but I think this wording can easily be misunderstood and I prefer to keep the more general formulation we have now "removing them from the atmosphere"
 * I agree that we should talk first about mitigation, then about adaptation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We can say "total or near-total fossil fuel phase-out".
 * SR 15 also says this: "All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence)." So it's not just for "where emissions cannot be avoided"
 * Updated suggestion:


 * , you also need to consider the next (5th) paragraph, where we can talk neutrality, 0 emissions, consequences etc.Bogazicili (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the above proposal (of course, using the correct m-dash). Is there a nice way to split the sentence about mitigation? A summation of five pieces is a bit challenging. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Splitting the sentence (and reducing and removal of GHG). Now we can put "require":
 * "Mitigation requires reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as through total or near-total fossil-fuel phase-out, the development and deployment of low-carbon energy technologies like wind and solar, and enhanced energy efficiency. Mitigation also consists of removing greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere, such as through reforestation and forest preservation. Adaptation includes improved coastline protection, better disaster management, and the development of more resistant crops"
 * Bogazicili (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to avoid the encapsulated structure of the last (grey) proposal. So here is another try, including some your suggestions. Key words: „limiting climate change“ (instead of mitigation, as debated in „Restructuring“), „far-reaching phase-out“, and a new approach on CDR. Hedgehoque (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think if we focus on having just mitigation and adaptation as the fifth paragraph, that would make this discussion a little easier. As it is, the recent move of mitigation and adaptation into the fourth paragraph (and the subsequent placement of the sentence starting with “Under the Paris agreement…” as its own, fifth paragraph, has made the current fourth paragraph a bit of a collection of disparate ideas. I would suggest undoing this edit as a first step to being able to clearly focus on how best to characterize mitigation.

I would personally like to see a complete coal/fossil fuel phase out goal highlighted, but am not sure we can credibly do that; most planning scenarios don't seem to share that aspiration. The main references we cite in the article text dealing with this issue, UNEP p xxiii and Teske Fig.5,pxxvii, seem to me to clearly envision some small role for coal and other fossil fuels in 2050. The Bui reference (now footnote 246) puts a finer point on this, noting that fossil fuels+CCS are envisioned to have a significant role in many 2050 scenarios. I think the main article text, in using “nearly phased out” hit on an appropriate way to characterize this idea. The lede should probably also include some sort of similar qualification. Dtetta (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Against Hedgehoque's proposals for reasons outlined above and repeated multiple times. Bogazicili (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current text/Bogazicili's proposal to the Hedgehoque. A couple of problems with the new proposal:
 * a) 'still': climate change can always be limited further, there are different shades of horrible. We'd be perpetuating the myth there is some magical threshold above which climate change is out of control.
 * b) far-reaching, phase-out and large-scale are too many hyphenated words for good prose.
 * c) Nearly phased out, or near phase out are better wording (Dtetta the prose hero!). For Bogazicili, it would improve if we say "total or partial", per Dtetta's sources.
 * d) Most models with loads of BECCS assume it pretty early, before 2050..
 * e) no preference of order fourth/fifth paragraph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , I think we cross-posted yesterday and we are not too far apart. I was referring to your grey text in my post. The one from 12/1/2021 17:32 looks better to me. Can we skip the "such as"? Here it is again with some stylistic and fine-tuning edits. I think it does well with drawing the major frame. Details in the sections. Hedgehoque (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * not repeating what I said above about requiring, far-reaching and hyphens. "Pathways focus" is vague; which pathways? Why do they focus, just because it's interesting scientifically, or because it's necessary economically/technically? The sentence also doesn't quite recognize (BE)CCS as a solution, which the current article text leaves open more. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I kind of like "Mitigation consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere", because they go together. "Climate change can also be limited by removing greenhouse gas emissions...." suggests you can limit it by solely doing that without reducing GHG emissions. Technically you can limit it, but it's not enough to stay within 1.5 or 2 C targets, without lowering GHG emissions. There are lots of "includes" "such as" etc, because we are not giving exhaustive lists but just major examples.
 * In p 14 of SR 15, there are 4 models. One requires 0 Fossil fuel and industry CO2 emissions, the other 3 has relatively minor such emissions. So we are justified in saying "total or near-total" or "completely or almost completely". But partial sounds like it could be a 50% reduction, which doesn't reflect the sources I think. So how about "phasing out fossil fuels completely or almost completely"?
 * So here's my suggestion: dropped "such as", reduced hyphenation, phase out goal highlighted. Only thing is summation of five pieces that Femkemilene didn't like but it is a summary sentence:


 * Bogazicili (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok about the content but concerns about style and structure. It jumps forth and back between mitigation and adaption. In this case I would rather keep the current text and concentrate on the mitigation sentence. I am with Bogazicili that "partial" is not enough to reflect the SR15 scenarios. Femke, conventional CCS is not reflected in the current lede either - as well as energy storage and grids - for brevity reasons I assume. If you would like to add BE-CCS or extend my second sentence, please go ahead. Hedgehoque (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess we couldn't find agreement. I want to add fossil fuel phase-out, however. How about this minimum change?:


 * Bogazicili (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That still implies a wrong definition of mitigation. 5% fossil-fuel reduction is also mitigation. (femke logged out on wikibreak) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.162.153 (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's true. Maybe this can be added into the next paragraph then, after the 1.5C goal part, after finding a proper source. I will get back to this later then. Bogazicili (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-contained paragraph addition to adaptation
One of the big issues we miss in the article is adaptation by ecosystems and ecosystem-based adaptation. I've got a relatively self-contained paragraph proposal. This does not take away the need for more additions to adaptation, but cutting that task up in multiple chunks will make it easier to verify all information. Thoughts?

Full proposal

 * - I think this is a good revision of the “Adaptation in Ecosystems” portion of the Climate change adaptation article. But for me it’s hard to comment without seeing the broader picture. When I look at the Climate change adaptation article, I think the Adaptation section in the main article should include a similar list of topics (one of which would be “Adaptation in Ecosystems"). Here is my proposed list:
 * Types of adaptation -Local adaptation efforts, Enhancing adaptive capacity, Agricultural production, Weather control, Migration, Insurance, Climate services
 * Adaptation in ecosystems
 * Regional/Local Measures
 * Effective Adaptation Policies - Principles for effective policy, Criteria for assessing responses, Differing time scales, traditional coping strategies & local knowledge
 * Adaptation finance strategies - International finance, others?


 * I think this outline could be fleshed out into a four to five paragraph section, as you have proposed elsewhere. What I will try to do over the next week is look at the current references for the Adaptation to climate change article, and identify other reports and articles (like you have done with Morecroft 2019), that could be the literature basis for the text. Does this seem helpful? Dtetta (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And one other thing I would flag here is CMD’s idea that this section should touch on (perhaps in the Regional/Local Measures portion) the idea that a lot of adaptation is already ongoing.Dtetta (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think one of the important issues that's not really present in climate change adaptation article are the limits to adaptation. I've not found any literature yet that is nicely digestible. That section about effective adaptation is very low quality and maybe not really due. Some of it based on opinion of single scientist (?). Finance might fit better in the politics section, but difficult distinction. I wouldn't trust the adaptation article structure without some external secondary source. Would be cool to discover the literature together. I can make 'space' for two maybe three paragraphs from other sections. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * After another think, let me try to construct a broader picture. What do you think of the following structure?
 * Introduction: definition, reactive/pro-active, adaptive capacity, limits to adaptation (similar to current text, paragraphs merged)
 * Adaptation options (possibly two paragraphs): enhancing capacity, agriculture, migration, insurance, flood defense, maybe climate services.
 * Adaptation in ecosystems
 * Policy, interaction with mitigation and maladaptation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've got a proposal here. It roughly follows the outline I sketched above. It doesn't yet include the distinction reactive/pro-active. I haven't talked about agricluture yet nor migration ,. Also maladaptation is missing. It's getting quite fat already, so please also try to identify sentences that have superfluous words/unimportant facts. I'll continue trimming the article elsewhere, but didn't manage to cut 'international negotiations' as I had hoped. I have only given examples of soft limits (people too poor to adapt), and there's only one hard limit (managed retreat). Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * - I think this is a nice improvement over what is currently in the article. I will look at the proposed text and references, along with the material from the main Climate change adaptation article (and think about your outline), and offer more specific comments in a couple of days. Putting my summary of CMD and EMsmile adaptation comments here just for reference. My knowledge of adaptation is pretty limited, so I have some learning to do.
 * CMD-Adaptation is intrinsically national, or even local, in implementation and in effect. International cooperation on adaptation is mostly related to funding, technology and knowledge sharing, capacity, etc. Need to discuss existing vs future adaptation.
 * EMsmile- I would assume that a section on climate change adaptation is mainly a listing of links to sub-articles, pointing people into the right direction where to read more.
 * Dtetta (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * To address CMD's comment about current Vs future adaptation we could use the 2018 adaptation gap report by UNEP; I think it comes out every three years, making it easy to keep up-to-date. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the 2018 UNEP report, replacing an awkward sentence based on the 2014 IPCC report. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We should also make sure to add adaptation has its limits. Without any mitigation efforts, even with adaptation, there are very high risks for multiple issues (eg: see Figure SPM.8 in IPCC Synthesis Report 2014). Bogazicili (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My suggestion: Following sentence should be added into the end of first paragraph
 * 'Even with adaptation, "warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally", without further mitigation efforts beyond those in place today' IPCC Synthesis Report 2014 SPM 3.2 Bogazicili (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That sentence on limits was indeed too short. I've implemented your cite. Having two quotes instead of paraphrases close together may not be acceptable, as it's not professional prose. I've paraphrased the second quote so that we quote only a fraction, but further paraphrasation would be lit. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Great thanks! I have another problem with another sentence:
 * "Adaptation is especially important in developing countries since they are predicted to bear the brunt of the effects of climate change"
 * I think this is an outdated view (similar to part I changed in Humans section)? And the source is from 2008 for that sentence. Many developed countries are also very susceptible, such as Australia, Mediterranean etc. Heavily populated coastal areas in developed countries are also at risk.
 * IPCC Synthesis Report 2014 says the below (p 94):
 * "For example, developing nations with low income levels have the lowest financial, technological and institutional capacities to pursue low-carbon, climate-resilient development pathways. Although developed nations generally have greater relative capacity to manage the risks of climate change, such capacity does not necessarily translate into the implementation of adaptation and mitigation options"
 * I think we can just drop that sentence. The following sentence seems to be enough: "The capacity and potential for humans to adapt, called adaptive capacity, is unevenly distributed across different regions and populations, and developing countries generally have less." Bogazicili (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dropped it. We're talking about inequality a lot already. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Have no more suggestions or objections. Bogazicili (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest the sentence "A good public transport netwerk also increases resilience in case of disasters: evacuation and emergency access becomes easier." is dropped. It jumped out to me as not making sense, and tracing it back to the original paper (Dulal 2017), I believe it is a misinterpretation of "In the event of extreme weather events and other crisis situations, high-density development reduces the area that emergency personnel must cover, making the delivery of emergency assistance more efficient and effective. Free urban road networks is also crucial during extreme climatic events, such as floods and heatwaves, when vulnerable populations need to evacuated or transported to healthcare centres.", which refers to infrastructure and urban planning, not public transport. Buses->Health->Economic resilience feels tenuous as well. The year included in the Dulal citation in the review article is wrong, and that together with some other items makes me generally dubious of it, but the public transport sentence at the very least should go. CMD (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence in its entirety, as I don't want to increase exposure to source with some red flags. The IPCC SR15 is unfortunately very abstract in the discussion of this topic, but I found an example in the land special report which is not overlapping with ecosystem-based adaptation, and concrete. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Still working on specific comments on the proposal, but I wanted to share one thing first. A reference I’ve found to be very helpful in understanding the specifics of climate change adaptation is the report ADAPT NOW: A Global Call For  Leadership on Climate Resilience, by the Global Commission on Adaptation. I think, as a whole, there are many ideas and statements in the report that could be referenced in the adaptation section. Doing so would significantly strengthen the text in this proposal.

And while, for NPOV reasons, we clearly want to avoid the advocacy type language that is in the report, I would strongly encourage the adoption of many of the ideas and examples as a solid way of characterizing the variety of issues involved in adaptation. The report also appears to be impeccably researched, and the statements seem to be well supported by either government reports or scientific journal articles in the instances I have checked. Dtetta (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * seems like a good source. We will definitely be able to use it for the climate adaptation article, to replace other sources in the above text. Awaiting your proposals. I've not managed to carve out enough space in the article to significantly expand the current proposal. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I put a highlighted version of the AdaptNow report on my GoogleDrive (impacts and related adaptation ideas are both highlighted). Overall, I think the report provides one of the best frameworks for developing the Adaptation section. The IPCC’s AR5WGII Part A and Part B reports also have a lot of information, but they seem more generic and are clearly dated. I will work on an outline based on Femke’s above proposal, other information from the reports I’ve mentioned, as well as the material in the Climate change adaptation article, and post a more specific suggestion later this week. Just wanted to let folks know about some good resources and to get reactions on the value of these references, particularly the AdaptNow report.


 * Note: The impact related highlights identify some impact areas, such as infrastructure, that are not well described in the present Impacts section, so I think some of the information from this report could also be useful for editing some of the Impacts text. As the report makes clear, there is value in having the ideas and concepts about Impacts connect to some extent with Adaptation ideas. Dtetta (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)



Dtetta's proposal
Below is my proposed expansion of ’s earlier outline, based in part on the above text proposal and the current text in the article. Some Notes:
 * Unlike mitigation, adaptation actions are more closely tied to specific categories of impacts, and prose that makes those connections seems more effective and powerful- as the AR5 WGII Part A and GCA-AdaptNowreports demonstrate. This might argue for moving adaptation into the impacts section, which I think was something Femke was thinking about earlier.
 * In addition to the linkage of impacts and adaptation approaches, the organization of AR5WGII Part A has some compelling features. It does a nice job of touching on regional approaches/actions - I have not found a getter general reference that summarizes regional approaches across regions, although there are more recent reports that focus on a given region (Asia, Africa, Europe, Arctic, etc). So I think a brief mention of regional approaches along the lines of this report would give this section a little more life and makes it less generic. Lastly, the concept of building resilience as a goal of adaptation is an idea from the report that would be good to more strongly incorporate into the article. Femke talks about in in the context of ecosystem based adaptation, but there are other examples as well.
 * The GCA’s use of adaptation categories (agriculture, ecosystems, water, cities, and infrastructure) seems like a useful way of expanding on and organizing the ideas in paragraph two of Femke’s text proposal.
 * Below is my attempt at an expanded, more detailed outline. Notes and comments to the outline are indicated in italics. I added some sources/references which are not in either the current text or the above proposal (like the two reports I mentioned), but most of the references are the same as what's in those two texts.
 * Some examples and associated references/citations are still needed.

Thoughts/comments on the above outline are much appreciated. Dtetta (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Have not had any response to the 22 January revised outline I posted, so I fleshed out some of that today, and replaced that proposal with the text in grey box above. Italicized sentences indicate general outlines for the paragraphs, some explanations as to how it now relates to Femke's proposed text, as well as some more specific thoughts/suggestion for additional text. The outline I had posted yesterday is available here in section 5.2, if anyone wants to compare versions. I will do future edits in underline/strikeout to the text above. In particular, I hope to flesh out section two (Current efforts vs future...), and the "Policy/planning" and "Adaptation Gaps and Financing" sections over the next few days. Thoughts/comments on the above outline are still much appreciated.

...you had commented on the FAR page about the discrepancy between mitigation. Interested in your thoughts on the extent to which this proposal addresses those concerns, as well as to the note I made in the text above the grey box regarding the value of linking impacts and adaptation.Dtetta (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Dhetta, thank you for your work on this. I agree that the link between impacts and adaptation means they work well together. I wouldn't put it within the impacts section, as that dilutes the impact (so to speak) of the impacts section, however placing it subsequent may provide the same contrast. On your note of a source needed for social and economic development, is there a reason the AR5 WGII Part A report cannot be used for this? In reactive adaptation, I think something like Water restrictions in Australia would be a better example than one-off actions in a crisis, as it's an entire system designed to react to changes. Another good alternative would be relocation (eg.), although I'm not sure we have an article on it. The clearest examples of proactive adaptation in my opinion would be disaster risk reduction management actions, which you have already included in your next paragraph (although I suppose land purchases are somewhat proactive too). Perhaps it's worth noting somewhere that there can be differential vulnerability and adaptative needs not only between countries, but within them (geographical, demographic, socio-economic, etc.)? See for example this UNFCCC paper. (The LDC group has a couple of publications that might be useful, depending on what you are looking for.) I do feel it is important to make clear that while adaptation is important, it is also limited, and cannot solve the challenges caused by climate change, which is why mitigation is such a critical topic. CMD (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Very helpful comments ...thanks for taking the time to review. Will work to incorporate them. I completely agree that it is important to note that adaptation has its limits. The bullet point starting with "Certain physical and biological features..." was meant to capture some of the subtleties of this concept. I cited AR5WGII Part A pp.919-927 for the statement, as I think that section of the report provides a pretty good treatment of this topic, which does have some nuances to it. The final bullet point of the second section (yet to be fleshed out) also was meant to address your point about the importance of mitigation, and my intent is to provide a strong segue between a sentence on adaptation limits, Femke's sentence on transformative adaptation and it's costs, and an ending sentence on how it all underscores the important of mitigation. Apologies if the sequence of bullied points did not make that clearer. Will be interested in your thoughts on the full language once that's done.Dtetta (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how this proposal ties into Femkemilene's earlier proposals. If it's intended to replace the text above, it's a massive step backwards, as it ignores lots of the previous discussions. I also agree with Chipmunkdavis that it shouldn't be in impact section and that adaptation is limited. That's why we have "Without additional mitigation, adaptation cannot avert the risk of "severe, widespread and irreversible" impacts" sentence in Femkemilene's updated proposal. The sentence "Throughout history, people and societies have adapted to climate variability and its effects" is not intended for anthropogenic climate change. Bogazicili (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't edit for RSI, but stupid.
 * ...I responded to each of your points below.Dtetta (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the proposal either, and how it links to the previous proposal. Is it partially sourced, or did you just forget to copy some cites (for instance on restoration of natural fire regimes)?
 * Apologies for that not being more clear. Between the outline I prepared on January 22, and the italicized notes in the text above, I thought I had done that, but obviously not well enough. I’ve added additional italicized text, which I underlined, to further explain the relationship. Hope that helps. Appreciate that reminder from both you and Bogazicilli. I tried to include all of the cites you had...there might have been one that I thought didn’t support the text you had written, but I thought I included just about all of them. At least that was my intent. I did not see a cite for fire regimes, which is why that was not included...am I missing something?
 * The entire paragraph on adaptation in ecosystems and ecosystem-based adaptation for humans is based on a single reference, including the sentence about fire regimes. Femke
 * I'm a bit worried about total size / size of that impacts paragraph. Big paragraphs are difficult to parse. Ideally, we'd delete some more information elsewhere if we want to include a fifth paragraph, and I'm not sure a sixth paragraph is due. I don't understand what the proposal is exactly in terms of length. 6 paragraphs, right?..
 * Happy to work on condensing it. I wanted to get the various ideas I thought were important out, and get some reaction to those. But when the proposal is finished, I am fine with looking at ways it can be shortened. Six paragraphs is the current proposal.
 * I feel the language has become more 'civil servant'-like, with difficult words like ancillary. Some sentences are close to giving advice to readers Tradeoffs are also a factor to consider, which isn't perfect wikiprose either.
 * Good point on keeping the language simple and avoiding advice. I’ve never understood what you mean when you say wikiprose. Could you give a brief explanation?
 * Here I simply meant that we shouldn't be giving advice. I made the word wikiprose up; I meant having text in line with the manual of style. I don't think I've used the word wiki prose before, but wikivoice refers to having a neutral point of view and making sure that facts are stated as facts and opinions as opinions. Femke
 * Like Bogazicili, I immediately got some negative associations with the historical analogy; this type of framing, while completely accurate here, is often used in denialist sourcing.
 * I was trying to address CMDs comment regarding the idea that adaptation is already happening. I also thought the strictly definitional sentence you started with “Adaptation is...” could be substituted with something a little more engaging to a reader. But clearly my choice is seen as problematic. I can take another stab at it, or if anyone has other suggestions for an introductory sentence, please post them.
 * I agree that giving a definition for this term is ugly prose. Maybe you can put the sentence more in context, given the comments from Bogazicili. Femke
 * I don't think the first two bullet points of policy are due for this article.. Too technical. Prefer old placement of finance gap in introduction. Should not be entire paragrpah. (femke, logged out with wikibreak enforcer) 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what bullet points you mean. Is it the ones starting with “Especially important in...” and “They generally have less...” And could you explain what you mean by “undue” in terms of these concepts?
 * I meant the fifth paragraph here, where you talk about principles of effective policy, which I don't expect emphasised in an encyclopaedia, but rather in a policy document. The term undue refers to it's not being important compared to other stuff in this article. We have a lot of concrete examples about what type of adaptation is possible, and I don't think that we need to have an example of one specific agent (public sector planning), especially considering it's difficult to have a concrete sentence about this. I've tried. Femke
 * on the note of the first bullet points of the second paragraph, it seems that this is now an outdated idea, modern literature is talking about people vulnerable in all countries. I may be mistaken about this, but I think the deletion of this sentence by Bogazicili was an improvement.
 * Not to mention the source actually says this: "Throughout history, people and societies have adjusted to and coped with climate, climate variability, and extremes, with varying degrees of success" p.8 And also this: "Without mitigation, a magnitude of climate change is likely to be reached that makes adaptation impossible for some natural systems,while for most human systems it would involve very high social and economic costs." p. 184
 * Rewriting the adaptation section is a very ambitious project by the way. I suspect it can wait several weeks until everyone is back to full editing. Bogazicili (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is smart for me to do hands-free editing on Wikipedia for the next few months. This means that I will not check sources as much is usually, as that is a very slow process with my software. , it seems you to have the eye for detail. Could you be the second pair of eyes for new sources? Femke


 * Sure I can check the sources when I'm around. I suggest a step by step approach though. I think the version you created is ready to be put into the article article? Is there any objections to that? (?) And we can do expansions as necessary after that depending on the article length, as opposed to trying to put everything into the article all at once?
 * By the way, I was doing the word counts manually in Word, but I figured out you can see them in Wiki page stats. We are currently at 8,590 words. Bogazicili (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

and - after rereading your comments, I think I will take a two week break from work on the Adaptation section. The proposal I made took a lot of time to prepare, and I have lost enthusiasm for continuing on it, hopefully it will return in a couple of weeks. Whatever form the final lannguage takes, my thoughts are that: 1) AR5 WGII provides a good guide for how to frame much of this section, supplemented by the GCA report, and, to a lesser extent, the UNEP Adpatation Gap report. I think we want to focus on the principles and main ideas of adaptiation that have been put forward by well regarded organizations such as these.  Although I think Femke’s text is an improvement on the current version, I’m not sure how helpful it is to put that on the web site in it’s current form without the overall framing that I mentioned, and the introduction approach I was proposing. I actually think a good interim approach would be for someone to just give a reader’s digest version of AR5WGII Part A, and you could even just focus on the SPM or TS portions. For me that would be a more helpful presentation for the average reader. From the reading I have done, I don’t think there has been significant improvement since then in how these ideas are expressed in the general literature.

I would also commend to each of you the Etiquette page that Bogazicili has referenced previously. More specifically, CMD’s comments above seem like a good model for how to helpfully respond to a proposal by another editor.Dtetta (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , I had only two issues with your outline. The sentence I mentioned and length. As for me, personally, I'm not that interested in adaptation, as it's not as important as mitigation. That's why I had kind of suggested to wait until Femkemilene comes back, so you two could have figured it out. So, my comments were not meant to be unhelpful or dismissive. I'm also still willing to help - if I can - with sources etc, and when the new UN report comes out.
 * Our current word count is 8,590 words (in Wiki page stats). Current adaptation section is 161 words (in MS Word, which is a bit different I think, probably includes source numbers). Mitigation is 1,130 words (in MS Word). So, any final form of adaptation section should probably be less than mitigation section in terms of word count I think. I know your outline is preliminary and you were looking for some preliminary comments, but it's very hard to guess how long your proposal will end up being.
 * I also think a lot of your proposals will end up being in the adaptation section. And you can also use the outline you created to expand Climate change adaptation, so I don't think the amount of time you put will be wasted.
 * As I mentioned, I also suggest the opening sentences remain same as Femkemilene's proposal above (first four sentences excluding the strike-through one). Bogazicili (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry my response was curt and thereby not sufficiently constructive. To be fair, I'm not that interested in this topic and just want to get it over with. Always appreciate your work! ~ Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Migration
Here's a secondary source. I think we can replace Brown 2008 with this and drop the 1 billion number in Humans section:

"The most commonly cited number, 200 million, is based on projections conducted by Norman Myers in 1995 and 2000 [31,32,33]. This projection has not been rigorously tested, but is generally agreed upon as consistent with conservative estimates of climate impacts [28,34]"

There are additional qualifiers after that quote as well. Bogazicili (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that journal is published by MDPI, a academic publisher which has iffy peer review. As such, it most likely doesn't meet the criteria for HQRS (high quality reliable source) expected on featured articles. Which is really annoying, because sometimes those papers do have just the fact you need..
 * The IOM in their 2014 report, p38 indicates that quoted numbers, ranging from 25 million to 1 billion of all types of environmental migrant, are highly uncertain and therefore they do not advance a number themselves. On the same page, they emphasised that climate change may prevent migration instead of simulating it.
 * The 2020 review paper we cite also indicates that the confidence in these numbers is low. I maintain that if confidence is low, they should not be mentioned in this article. Instead we should have a qualitative statement.
 * What about:
 * Migration is likely to increase as a consequence of more frequent extreme weather, sea level rise, and the conflict arising from increased competition over natural resources. On the other hand, climate change may also increase vulnerabilities, making more difficult for people to migrate. (cite IOM 2014 p38 + 2020 review)
 * Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Migration is likely to increase as a consequence of more frequent extreme weather, sea level rise, and the conflict arising from increased competition over natural resources. On the other hand, climate change may also increase vulnerabilities, making more difficult for people to migrate" does not seem like a good representation of the source, since they have 4 points in p38, and the quoted part only summarizes the first 2. The other 2:
 * "3.Rising sea levels may make coastal areas and low-lying islands uninhabitable.
 * "4.Competition over shrinking natural resources may exacerbate tensions and potentially lead to conflict and, in turn, to displacement"
 * Also that summary is not in line with IPCC I think:
 * "Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement). Populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, particularly in developing countries with low income. Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence)." p.16, IPCC AR5 SYR (2014)
 * However, IOM 2014 also repeats the part about great uncertainty about numbers. So maybe we should drop all the numbers in the text in Humans section. Bogazicili (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yay, we finally agree on not having numbers :).
 * Another attempt:  Displacement of people is expected to increase as a consequence of more frequent extreme weather, sea level rise, and ~conflict arising from increased competition over natural resources. On the other hand, climate change may also increase vulnerabilities, making it more difficult for people to migrate. (cite IOM 2014 p38 + 2020 review)
 * Note that item 3 and 4 were mentioned in the first sentence. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol about not having numbers :)
 * As for the wording, it says " in some places, result in lower levels of outmigration" in the source. How about the following? Specifying "lack of resources" makes the second sentence more clear.
 * "Displacement of people is expected to increase as a consequence of more frequent extreme weather, sea level rise, and conflict arising from increased competition over natural resources. In some places, climate change may also increase vulnerabilities, leading to "trapped populations" who are not able to move due to lack of resources." Bogazicili (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the in some places refers to the second part of the sentence. Shall we move it to the end of that sentence, and change it to in some areas, to avoid close paraphrasing. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! Bogazicili (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you want me to make the change? I hadn't because most of the suggestion was yours. Bogazicili (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes please; I cannot insert reports with my software. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, this concludes migration stuff I think, now that the sourcing is up to date. Bogazicili (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes please; I cannot insert reports with my software. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, this concludes migration stuff I think, now that the sourcing is up to date. Bogazicili (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation standards
Over the last year, many of you (and me) have complained about the citation standards: most articles have the citations directly in the text, whereas we have spread them in two locations. I'm constantly cleaning up after other people making honest mistakes. I'm also seeing more errors popping up on other climate change articles, where people have copied only the short reference from the current article without the full citation, leading to errors. As such, I'm proposing a simplification of our citation standard.


 * For books and reports, nothing changes
 * For news articles and journal articles, we use in-text full citations. We keep bundling citations. Short cites don't provide many benefits for these type of sources as they typically don't require page numbers, nor are they used many times.

I'm afraid that I won't be much help doing this if we agree, as this is surely going to trigger my RSI, and it's something I can't really do with my voice recognition software.

FemkeMilene (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it's kinda annoying. I'll use that style going forward. You can add a comment into the article as well if there is agreement. Bogazicili (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that every time you edit the article, a link to our citation style guide is presented? A comment in addition may be superfluous. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The only drawback is when bundling sources though, if part of the bundle is a named reference you want to use again. So you might end up with lots of [1][2][3] if 2 is used elsewhere without 1 and 3. Or you are going to end up with multiple unique references that cite same article. Bogazicili (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why named references are discouraged in this article. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It'd increase the article size in bytes though, if the same journal article is repeated many times with the lengthy cite journal template. There might actually be a tool for the initial problem actually. Bogazicili (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits in the lead; impacts
has made some bold comments in the lede. In the past, we agreed that significant changes in the lead should always go via talk first, to make sure there aren't any mistakes. I think the edits were fine overall, but there are a couple of remarks I'd like to make. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We now mention agriculture twice; the old cite doesn't quite cover the entire preceding sentence, so I propose we refocus that sentence only on extreme weather, with a new cite.
 * ✅. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead now talks about future warming when discussing impacts. If I recall right, we have agreed that for conciseness, we should group current and future impacts together. Furthermore, the framing of climate change as a future thing has been largely fallen out of favour.
 * I have a great distaste of midsentence cites. They frustrate readability. In the past I have compromised on having citations in the lead at all, but we should still try to keep them to minimum and only use them if necessary for controversial statements.
 * When we have the adaptation section up and running, we should put migration there, as framing it as being caused by climate change is somewhat controversial.
 * We should follow the sentence order reflecting the article. Physical effects first, then ecosystems, then humans. Currently there is no logic, and the article starts and ends with physical effects, underplaying the human impacts (the first and the last sentence of the paragraph draw the most eyes).
 * I've also removed the feedbacks from the impacts paragraph, as they got disproportiate attention in the lede compared to the article, as are already discussed in the drivers paragraph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should leave out the more speculative effects, to make the sentence more manageable. Specifically, armed conflict, which is considered to be barely affected by climate change up to the present. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also removed the feedbacks from the impacts paragraph, as they got disproportiate attention in the lede compared to the article, as are already discussed in the drivers paragraph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should leave out the more speculative effects, to make the sentence more manageable. Specifically, armed conflict, which is considered to be barely affected by climate change up to the present. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should leave out the more speculative effects, to make the sentence more manageable. Specifically, armed conflict, which is considered to be barely affected by climate change up to the present. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: mid-sentence cites: the other alternative is like having 15 sources at the end of the sentence which is not nice I think, and makes it harder for readers to verify claims. I just tried to come up with a summary sentence that covers multiple topics.
 * Re: "more speculative effects": There's an entire chapter here for armed conflict (Chapter 12 IPCC 5th Assessment Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability). Eg:
 * "Some of the factors that increase the risk of violent conflict within states are sensitive to climate change (medium evidence,medium agreement)."
 * "Climate change will lead to new challenges to states and will increasingly shape both conditions of security and national security policies (medium evidence, medium agreement)."
 * Given above, I don't think 5 words in the lead is undue ("increasing risk of armed conflict"), especially considering the sentence starts with "Warming may also cause"
 * Re: migration: we can try to find more secondary sources, and see what fits best.
 * Good call with paragraph reorganization (reflecting order of the article), I was going to do the same.Bogazicili (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That section (12.5 is about armed conflict, not the entire chapter) was written before a review-type article showed systematic errors in this type of research: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0068-2. We should (and do) use review-type articles that came out afterwards, showing weakened support for the armed conflict-climate change link. If others do show support, I'm okay with having it re-inserted. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems to be categorized under "Letters". Doesn't look like a secondary source. Please find up-to-date secondary sources if you want to go against IPCC. Even then we'll have to be neutral.Bogazicili (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically all articles in Nature (Climate Change) are letters, they just have a weird name for it. It does review other articles, like the 100% article we talked about earlier: it's a systematic review. We don't use this directly even, but use a paper that came out afterwards, which is an expert elicitation, a method also used by IPCC. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll look at other secondary sources and see what happens (along with migration). Bogazicili (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The ordering of sentences is now somewhat disjointed, and conflates present and future impacts. Like Femke, I suggest that the citations be combined into a grouped citation at the end of the a given sentence. I also want to reinforce Femke’s point about the importance of proposing language here before it is posted, particularly with changes to the lede paragraphs. Right now it is difficult enough to address changes that have been suggested in the FAR review page, such as modifying the adaptation section, without having to also monitor and respond to significant changes in the article that are not vetted here first. Significant edits to the lede that have not been posted here first should be reverted.

I propose this text for the paragraph. I put the tipping point sentence further down, to better focus the statements on ecosystem and human health impacts. I also made some other changes to clarify existing and future effects. Lastly, I put the sentence on climate inertia at the end of the paragraph, where it originally was, as it is more of a parenthetical idea in the context of this paragraph.Dtetta (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Just converted the above proposed edit to underline/strikeout format per Femke's suggestion below.Dtetta (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You are repeating some of the things like undernutrition (agricultural yields and WHO declaration). The order doesn't follow the article layout (physical changes, ecosystems, humans). You are going back to physical effects after humans (which I find is less organized). Did you delete anything or is it just reordering? I find the format of these talk pages discussions difficult to follow without something like Microsoft Word track changes. I like the part "Human health impacts include", could be "human impacts include." We also need "physical impacts include" so we know where that part starts and ends (it starts at the beginning). But I'm also fine with the current version.
 * This is more organized to me, following article structure: "Physical impacts include.....Ecosystem impacts include....Impacts on humans include...." Bogazicili (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am ok with changing the start of The WHO sentence to a more generic "Current and anticipated human health effects" as a way of addressing your first concern. I think if you read the paragraph carefully you will see that it does generally follow the 1)physical, 2)ecosystem, 3)human order in the main part of the article. Adhering to a more rigid "Physical impacts include.....Ecosystem impacts include....Impacts on humans include...." approach seems to me to lead to a boring writing style. Agree about the need to do things in track change type formatting. Hope you can follow the underline/strikeout approach I switched to.Dtetta (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I'm okay with reverting to old version, or boldly changing as is. There are improvements to old text. For future; and from now on, let's keep to talk first. We track changes using strike-through and underlining (see adaptation). Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand the sentence order before, it seemed really jambled, but I see it's about the distinction of (current + future) and (potential future). There are some problems with that, as that a continuously changing and grey distinction. This proposal wrongly implies that climate change hasn't yet increased inequality, and that there haven't been an increasing number of people living in an uninhabitable climate. Tipping points, for instance in Greenland, may have been passed already (current wording only slightly implies they haven't).
 * I think it is crucial that we try to make a distinction between current and future impacts, even if we do it imperfectly. It's important for the reader to understand how much impacts have already occurred (just like we describe how much warming has already occurred). The current lede paragraph (and some the the main article text) confuses this important concept. I agree that we could describe inequality and uninhabitability in present terms, and then briefly mention that these will be exacerbated in the future. I did not change the wording in the tipping point sentence,but agree that it should also recognize already identified tipping points.Dtetta (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't have an opinion, but why single out infectuous disease? Vector-borne seems the more important one?
 * Good point - vector borne is the correct way to say this.Dtetta (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We cite our migration number guesstimates to outdated source, so prefer Bogazicili's wording, as temporary before we have adaptation up. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't understand this comment.Dtetta (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I should also say each subsection discusses both current and future/potential impacts. The article doesn't have a section for current effects and a different section for future effects and a different section for potential impacts. The lead should summarize the article, and not follow a different structure, that's confusing. Bogazicili (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's an argument for making that distinction in the article, not removing it from the lede. I had tried to do that in my earlier rewrite of the Humans subsection.Dtetta (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason that idea didn't gain consensus last time it was proposed was (a) that would lead to repetitive prose, as most impacts have been felt already to some extent (b) English has the present perfect tense, which covers both past and present (and by logical extension often the future), so we can elegantly combine past and future changes. Because it didn't gain consensus for the body, we shouldn't change to that ordering in the lead. Of course, consensus can change, but there's so many discussions were having currently that I'm overwhelmed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

and, I made some further revisions to the paragraph to try and address your comments. I also added AR5WGII Ch 10 to the sentence on temperature rise, and eliminated a couple of references in the human impacts sentence, such as SRCCL Ch5, as I think the amount of referencing for this lede sentence is way overdone. I also moved all of these human impacts references to the end of the sentence, where they would exist as a combined citation in the actual article. Please let me know if you still have concerns with this proposal. Dtetta (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I really don't like it if we split glacial melt from sea level rise. By starting and ending the paragraph with physical effects, readers that skim the text may get the impression this entire paragraph is about physical effects.
 * Completely confused by this comment. This wording is the exact same that’s currently in the article, which I believe you left there after your earlier edits. Have you changed your mind about this wording? Do you have suggestions for new wording? Dtetta (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentences about glacial melt, tipping points and sea level rise follow logically in the current lead. In your suggested lead, half of the idea is in the beginning of the paragraph and the other half of this idea is at the end. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See you point, as you specify further in a comment below...still think the "Even if.." sentence is parenthetical, but will look at which approach reads better. Dtetta (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * At the featured article review page, you gave large page range to quote the sentence about infrastructure from an IPCC report. Considering the IPCC is written really densely, verification is sometimes already difficult when it's only one page cited. It defeats the point to use such citations in the lead, where citations are optional. Infrastructure damage from extreme weather is still not mentioned in the body of the article, and cannot be mentioned in the lead until it is.
 * ?????? Again, don’t understand some of this comment. What is it I did on the Featured review page? And how is it relevant to this proposed edit? My intent in this proposal was only to eliminate some citations. The only one I added was related to infrastructure, and of course I will add the appropriate page number in the citation when I actually make the edit. Totally agree with your point about citations in the lead being optional....I would prefer if we did not use any at all, but since we have an overabundance in the current version of this paragraph, I used one about infrastructure for consistency. I will add a sentence on infrastructure impacts to the main article when I make this edit. Is that all that you are suggesting be done? Dtetta (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the featured article review, you proposed a citation to support the sentence about infrastructure. That citation had a 10-page page range, which my limited brain cells find too difficult to verify. This point is moot anyway, as we need to mention infrastructure in the body before we can add it to the lead. Infrastructure used to be in the body, but was deleted as the context was outdated and we were citing the third assessment report. Feel free to add it boldly. As a personal preference, I think we shouldn't mix up physical, nature, and human impacts on this paragraph, so we should the sentence about extreme weather simple. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - will keep that sentence simple Dtetta (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, U.S. Global Change Research Program's chapter on extreme storms is focused on a single country. A quick look at that source indicates there are only few sentences that are global, none of which really cover the sentence you're citing. The source doesn't mention infrastructure for instance. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Another ????...For the first part of the sentence I am just using the same reference that is currently in this paragraph. I added an additional reference on infrastructure. Please clarify. Dtetta (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This was mostly about the second half of the sentence if I understand myself what I was saying.. Let's disregard that.
 * We now use a citation about the most intense subcategory of storms (tropical cyclones), which if we really want to be accurate should be replaced by a more general source, but I'm okay with discussing that later (even though I very very much need a wiki break), as this was the text before. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - will leave as is for the time being. Dtetta (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - will leave as is for the time being. Dtetta (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion around migration is difficult, with climate change also functioning as a break because people become too poor to migrate. I prefer Bogazicili's more neutral wording of an environmental migration over large-scale migration. We currently quote scary numbers in the body, but that sourcing is outdated, and will be replaced once we all have to time to discuss what to replace it with.
 * I have no idea what is meant by “environmental migration” ... birds? insects? large primates? humans?  Both the Brown reference and Balsari (which immediately precedes it in the sentence) are about human migration, not birds or other animals..that is why I edited it to include humans. I can change “large scale” to “increased”, if that is preferable wording. We could also just cite Balsari for this sentence, since that is more current. Dtetta (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your proposed change now. This is probably an example of professional brain deformation, were I don't recognise jargon. Increased migration works for me. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I like how the sentence about health has gotten less long, it felt a bit undue before.
 * I like the bundling of citations.
 * vector-borne diseases* Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Got it. Dtetta (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Today it looks like you changed the wording back to infectuous (sp?), which was how I originally wrote it, but then changed to vector borne at your request. Can you please explain your change. Dtetta (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I was wrong. I'm now following the WHO source we cite. Sorry for confusion. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't like "damaging infrastructure and causing a variety of ecosystem and human health impacts". Why are we specifying only "intense storms and weather extremes" for this effect? A lot of climate change impacts may damage infrastructure and cause "a variety of ecosystem and human health impacts".
 * Understand - will look at a new way of saying this Dtetta (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like putting this sentence at the end, these are physical effects: "Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.", if you have proposals about the structure of the article, you have to do those first before trying to change the structure of the lead.
 * I am ok with putting tipping points back with the sentences on other physical effects, as you are requesting, but disagree completely with your assessment of the sentence on climate change inertia (the one starting with “Even if...”. To me the main message of this sentence is that GW/CC will continue even once emissions are brought to zero. We happen to cite physical effects here, but that is not the more powerful idea in the sentence.  You’re correct in that the article itself groups these effects with tipping points, but I think that is a flaw in the article. It is also a more powerful sentence if put at the end of the paragraph, basically saying that all of the above effects can be expected to continue, since the warming itself will continue. Admittedly, it is a nuanced issue. Dtetta (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like this sentence: "Human health impacts include: undernutrition from reduced agricultural yields; declines in fish stocks; and increases in infectious disease." We can also add hunger in addition to undernutrition (there's an additional sentence for that in humans section).
 * Good idea - Will add that. Dtetta (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a common myth that warming will continue after emissions have been brought to net-zero. Even the NASA website made this mistake at some point. It is however well-established that the uptake of carbon by the carbon cycle compensates for inertia elsewhere in the climate system. See page 65 of the SR1.5 IPCC report; the blue and the yellow line. The temperature stays mostly flat, whereas sea level rise and ocean acidification will get worse. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Understand your point...still think the "Even if..." sentence is parenthetical to the main ideas in the paragraph, but will looks at which approach reads better. Dtetta (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like environmental migration better, there are already large-scale migrations in this world. If you want, we can say "large-scale environmental migration".
 * As I mentioned in my earlier response to Femke, for me the term “envionmental migration” could also refer to birds, insects, or other animals. The references specifically refer to humans, so that is why I changed the wording. Dtetta (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like bundled sources. Some claims may have multiple sources, so you might lose the order of which source backs up which claim. Makes harder for readers to verify claims.Bogazicili (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK..I will leave the citations unbundled, and let Femke bundle them if she feels strongly that they should be. Dtetta (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel strongly about accessibility, and I believe readability decreases when there are too many citations in the text. It is true that this is a trade-off between verifiability and readability. Ideally, we want to find a summary source that covers all these effects, but is peer-reviewed (a short peer-reviewed report is probably our best hope; can't imagine scientific articles will help us here). I don't have the energy for this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In looking at this again, I am concerned about too many citations bundled at the end of the sentence, which I would find even more confusing. Agree that a more comprehensive citation would be the best approach, but until we identify that, I think having the cites at the end of each sentence clause is the lesser of two evils. Dtetta (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and, not bundling sources was a soft suggestion. So feel free to bundle (and be prepared for 10+ sources at the end lol). But it might also appear as the most important sentence in the article since it has so many sources. Dtetta, your point about environmental migration makes sense. I think we also agreed with "Human health impacts include" sentence. Not sure where the rest of the issues are. Bogazicili (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that perspective on source bundling. At this point I think I have a pretty good idea of how to incorporate your and Femke’s concerns with the two draft versions I have posted when I make the edits. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I will also add a sentence on infrastructure to the main article when I do the edit. Dtetta (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and ...made the changes that we have discussed. Also changed the first sentence, as I don’t think it follows that deserts are expanding because the land surfaces are heating faster than the ocean, they would probably be expanding even if the rates were the same, just at a slower rate. Also that 2:1 ratio is important to point out...it's a pretty big difference (and it's what is in the cite that was already there). Left out infrastructure (seems like it's loosely covered by the economic impacts clause), though I still plan to add a sentence on that in the main article. Realized that another advantage of having the "Even if...." sentence at the end is that although the effects listed are physical, they in turn have subsequent human and environmental impacts. It’s not just a question of these physical systems continuing in their warming-induced paths. Dtetta (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there was agreement about adding "hunger" above, but it wasn't added. Made the change. Bogazicili (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NYT has a nice recent visualization about risks of climate change . Flooding is shown as one of the major risks. I think we should also add flooding into the lead, into "human impacts include" sentence. It's already in the body of the article. Bogazicili (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Bogazicili (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that sentence is now too long and needs to be split. Also, why are we mentioning both undernutrition and the almost synonymous hunger? Let's drop the latter. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the text we have separate sentences and sources for hunger and undernutrition. Hunger is a subset, but they are not synonymous. But go ahead if you think it's redundant. We can say (adding "heat stress" is also optional):
 * "Human impacts include undernutrition and hunger from reduced crop yields,[11] declining fish stocks,[12] increases in vector-borne diseases,[13] and heat stress . Effects such as these have led the World Health Organization to declare climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[19] Other impacts include flooding,[14] potentially severe economic impacts,[15] increased global economic inequality,[16] more people living in uninhabitable climate zones,[17] and increased migration.[18]"
 * Bogazicili (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Going back to this, this is the WHO quote: "Health professionals have a duty of care to current and future generations. You are on the front line in protecting people from climate impacts - from more heat-waves and other extreme weather events; from outbreaks of infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue and cholera; from the effects of malnutrition; as well as treating people that are affected by cancer, respiratory, cardiovascular and other non-communicable diseases caused by environmental pollution."

This is what IPCC says, IPCC AR5 SYR 2014, p. 15, SPM 2.3: "In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2}"

Based on above I think we should add pollution into impacts, not just mention reduction of pollution as a co-benefit of mitigation (that is not in the lead anyways). Similar wording is already within the Humans section. So here's my suggestion. I dropped "hunger". This is only 7 words more than the current text:

Bogazicili (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If there are still length concerns, we can shorten this part "Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.[20]" by adding only "rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification" into an earlier part of the paragraph. "Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries" part is rather vague and without context, or not quantified. For example those effects could be minimal or easily adaptable, after going to net zero and deploying negative emissions technologies. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You predicted my reaction. Ideally, we cut about 30% of the third paragraph. I rather like that sentence about long-term effects, but I think rising ocean temperatures are undue, and should be removed. If we simply enumerate too many impacts, our readers will likely be bored, so let's keep this separated. I think fish stocks are also undue (didn't we already agree to drop them all together?)
 * I have argued and provided sources in the past for not including air pollution as a consequence of climate change, as air pollution due to fossil fuels instead of temperature is an order of magnitude larger. you seem to have dropped some words before World Health Organisation . Maybe we can drop the word global before economic as well. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol yes, I dropped some words when I was copy pasting and didn't notice. I think given the above quotes we are justified in adding pollution (especially per IPCC), especially given that it is not mentioned elsewhere in the lead. What do you think about the following? This is actually 2 words shorter than the current text:


 * Since we are mentioning undernutrition, we do not have to specifically say crops or fish stocks. Bogazicili (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not convinced and not going to be convinced that we add four words to this already bloated paragraph with a logical blurp. I'm also proposing removing a couple of sentences that were clumsily worded and not very prominent in summary sources. We really should cut this paragraph down. The lede is too long and not sufficiently engaging.
 * In terms of order, let's do most logical one first (heat stress), change vector-borne to infectuous per WHO and making article understandable to broad public.
 * "Human impacts such as heat stress, malnutrition and infectuous diseases have led the World Health Organization to declare climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[19] Further impacts include flooding,[14] increased economic inequality,[16] and increased migration.[18]"
 * We now agree on: dropping fishing, dropping rising ocean temperatures?
 * We disagree on: adding sentence about environmental pollution (which type??)
 * We might agree on: dropping results from studies that aren't prominent in summary sources (second element of economic damage, second element of heat stress (the uninhabitalbe zone one)). Changing order. Changing to infectuous diseases. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, the lead is not long per the discussion during FAR process. We are below 600 words. CMD had said there is flexibility with number of paragraphs and we can also just merge first and second ones. You just prefer shorter articles (your goal was 8k). In this case, this is detrimental as the lead needs to provide a good summary per Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
 * We disagree on: adding sentence about environmental pollution (which type??)
 * We might agree on: dropping results from studies that aren't prominent in summary sources (second element of economic damage, second element of heat stress (the uninhabitalbe zone one)). Changing order. Changing to infectuous diseases. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, the lead is not long per the discussion during FAR process. We are below 600 words. CMD had said there is flexibility with number of paragraphs and we can also just merge first and second ones. You just prefer shorter articles (your goal was 8k). In this case, this is detrimental as the lead needs to provide a good summary per Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
 * We might agree on: dropping results from studies that aren't prominent in summary sources (second element of economic damage, second element of heat stress (the uninhabitalbe zone one)). Changing order. Changing to infectuous diseases. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, the lead is not long per the discussion during FAR process. We are below 600 words. CMD had said there is flexibility with number of paragraphs and we can also just merge first and second ones. You just prefer shorter articles (your goal was 8k). In this case, this is detrimental as the lead needs to provide a good summary per Manual_of_Style/Lead_section


 * I also did not say anything about dropping rising ocean temperatures. So no agreement there. I agree with simplifying the language ("infectious diseases") though. Also no agreement on dropping economic damage and the uninhabitable zone. It doesn't make much difference in terms of conciseness, as it's just few words, but dropping those would reduce how the lead summarizes the Humans section.


 * You suggested highlighting things prominent in summary sources. Then we definitely need to add pollution as it's in the WHO quote. The relationship between air pollution and climate change seems to be circular (air pollution causes climate change which, in turn, exacerbates air pollution):


 * "Climate change might also affect human health by making our air less healthy to breathe. Higher temperatures lead to an increase in allergens and harmful air pollutants. For instance, longer warm seasons can mean longer pollen seasons – which can increase allergic sensitizations and asthma episodes and diminish productive work and school days. Higher temperatures associated with climate change can also lead to an increase in ozone, a harmful air pollutant." CDC
 * "In urban areas, climate change is likely to influence outdoor air pollution levels because the generation and dispersion of air pollutants, such as ozone and particulate matter, depend in part on local patterns of temperature, wind, solar radiation and precipitation [4]. In some regions, air quality is projected to further worsen due to the increased frequency of wildfires that cause the release of gaseous and particulate pollutants into the atmosphere. In addition, changes in wind patterns and desertification will modify the long-range transport of pollutants emitted by human activities and biomass burning [4]. Changing patterns of disease are occurring in response to changing environmental conditions. It is widely recognised that air pollution has a significant impact on human health, with a great burden on respiratory diseases, particularly asthma, rhinosinusitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory tract infections [5]. Changes in climate are expected to further aggravate the effect of air pollution on these diseases." review article
 * I think this circular relationship can be explained better with a sentence in Humans section, perhaps replacing "Other major health risks associated with climate change include air and water quality." But for the lead, not including air pollution seems like a big omission. It needs to be either in the impacts sentence per WHO or in a new sentence about cobenefits of mitigation. Bogazicili (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're still not providing summaries sources about climate change, but only about a subtopic of climate change (health). At 577 words and one paragraph too many the lede is very long, compared to featured articles that have recently been promoted. Pre-FAR, we got the comment that 600 is suboptimally long. And we're back at that approximate length. I'm not too worried about having a paragraph too many; shorter paragraphs help make the article easier to understand. Our third paragraph is too long to digest. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually got back to this, because I noticed it was directly mentioned in the WHO source, which is a very top-line source . I also don't understand why you are so against this? What about a short sentence about cobenefits of mitigation, something like "mitigation and adaptation have also cobenefits such as reduced air pollution, ..., ...?" in 4th paragraph? Also the lead length was only mentioned once in the previous FAR (except your and my comments) cases can be made for deviations. and, would you have any advice about lead length in terms of word count? Bogazicili (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, WHO source could be repurposed to support cobenefits of mitigation: "Actions that both reduce climate change and improve health, including reducing the number of deaths from cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases that are caused by air pollution (currently over 7 million each year)."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogazicili (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinged to this discussion. I have not read this full discussion, which is daunting even for regular times, but particularly considering I have been enduring considerable back pain for a week.  So, in general terms, I agree with MOS:LEADLENGTH in that this lead (per the size of the article) is optimal at four paragraphs, and "The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic ... a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." On that scale, this lead (this version) is veering already on the long side and also contains a lot of detail.  I suggest focusing less on word count and number of paragraphs, though, and making sure the lead is simply a summary, minimizing the excess detail that may only be of interest to specialists.  The idea is an easily digestible overview.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice SandyGeorgia, really appreciated! Bogazicili (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for outside perspective, SG.

I'm not per se against inclusion of air pollution. I'm against the inclusion of more topics, especially in a paragraph already difficult to digest. Air pollution is more important than having a second element about heat stress, and a second element of economic damage. Having a summary source about CC (not about health&CC), helps us bundle the ideas. The NCA for the human effects in US would have been wonderful if it were global (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/). SYR IPCC AR5 works better (https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf, p13-15). The paragraph will feel less bloated when we bin those mid-sentence citations, just using a summary source for all human effects.

We can say food security instead of undernutrition, making the link to CC more direct.

(Instead.. of human impacts, just start with 'Climate change threatens food security, impacts health via infectious disease and heat stress. It further increases risks via flooding and blah blah...'.

We can also leave out the idea of the WHO, as it's not a fact repeated by IPCC, nor by NCA. Femke logged out.


 * Air pollution is in SYR IPCC AR5, in the very pages you specified. page 15:
 * "In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scar-city, sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2}" Climate Change 2014Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers p15 68% of the world population will be urban by 2050 . We need to provide a good summary in the lead, not do giant omissions. But going back to your response, we can drop some secondary elements (while adding some more topics compared to current text), I'll come up with a suggestion later. Bogazicili (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If I can get consensus for better prose by including air pollution, let's do it.


 * Advantages of the new proposal:
 * Maximum of four impacts per sentence, to not overwhelm the readers
 * Not relying on very specific papers instead of summary sources; uninhabitable is not (yet) mainstream wording and should not be in our lede.
 * No repetition of the word include
 * No mid-sentence citations!!
 * No inference of what the WHO thought when doing the declaring. Maybe the lizard people made them declare CC as the greatest threat.
 * Air pollution is in there!
 * More consistent paragraph length in lede (at least 2,3,4)


 * This is good! Can we just add economic impacts too, per the IPCC quote above for urban areas and for this: "Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement), but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate." p.16

OR


 * It seems difficult to quantify, but there is high agreement with economic losses, so i think it should be added. Also a lot of people take economy very seriously, so it's good for our engaging prose. Also poverty reduction could be secondary to economic activity; economic losses to me imply increasing poverty. Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've implemented your second proposal for brevity. Considering we talk about both food security and access to water, having another topic framed in a way more common to the global North is fine. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

and - I think a lot of good research and effort has gone into discussing these human health issues and the research/reporting around them, but I think the two current sentences on human health impacts need to be revised to address a variety of concerns:
 * Although the first sentence reads well, the second sentence doesn’t make sense grammatically. Do you mean climate change induced flooding, infectious disease, etc? And what is the “it” the WHO is now referring to - Flooding? Disease? Or Climate change itself? The sentence needs to be rewritten to make these things clearer. Originally, the sentences focused on a few specific effects, and then said that “effects such as these” were what led the WHO to make its designation. I still think that phrasing is a simpler, more effective way of describing human health impacts and highlighting their importance.
 * The two human health sentences a whole are overly detailed, and don’t address the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia in her reference to the MOS:LEADLENGTH policy, specifically the idea that “The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic ... a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway" I think that overall guidance is relevant for individual lede sentences/paragraphs as well, particularly in terms of the amount of detail they contain.
 * The two human health impacts sentences as a whole now exaggerate the relative importance of human impacts versus ecosystem impacts, in as much as those are currently described in a more brief, earlier sentence in the paragraph. One option might be to include a bit more detail in the ecosystem impacts sentence. Or simplify the human health impacts sentences.
 * The reference to air pollution as being, in and of itself, one of the human health climate change impacts seems weak, and does not merit inclusion in the lede. The more detailed portions of AR5WGII Part A indicate to me that it’s unclear as to whether or not climate change increases overall air pollution and it’s resulting health effects in a significant way. The phrase starting with “In urban areas....”that is quoted from the AR5 report is repeated a number of times in that document, but the topic seems to be covered best in Chapter 8.2.3 of AR5WGII Part A. Section 8.2.3.5, age 556 of that report highlights the large uncertainties in predicting the effect of climate change on air pollution per se. This uncertainty/variability is also consistent with more research, such as [Nolte 2018]. The CDC web page is interesting, but it doesn’t provide much in the way of specifics, and I could not find any mention of air pollution in the executive summary of the NCA report it appears to refers to, which says a lot to me on the importance the NCA report places on climate change induced air pollution impacts. In think the more detailed treatments in the IPCC AR5WGII report Chapter 8.3, as well as more recent research such as Nolte 2018, are more reliable sources, and these seem to paint a mixed picture. An exception to this might be a reference to increased wildfire smoke, but I don’t think that wildfire smoke’s overall importance warrants inclusion in the lede. Note that this is an entirely different issue from the idea that reducing fossil fuel use to combat climate change will also improve air pollution. The idea that the fossil fuels sources of climate change are also sources of air pollution does not at all mean that climate change itself aggravates air pollution. On that latter topic the predicted impacts globally appear fairly inconclusive. Femke, you are the climate change researcher, so your thoughts on this specific issue would be very helpful.

Again, I don’t mean to be overly critical, and I think there has been good research and discussion on these issues. But the way this has been captured in the two human health sentences in the article still needs improvement. Curious as to other perspectives on this, perhaps from, , or Dtetta (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for chiming in!
 * As there isn't yet consensus on adding air pollution (I agree with Dtetta as stated above), I've reverted to leave it out for now.
 * Not a chemical scientist, and not a health person. I trust Dtetta's reading of the sources for air pollution.
 * The two sentences on human impacts (I only count one sentence mostly about human health) are in proportion to the body (human impacts vs ecological). I welcome a small expansion of the ecological section in the body, but the lede should follow. Overall, the lede has shortened, and I welcome further suggestions to further shorten it.
 * I agree with your point that the Nature and Wildlife/humans treatment in the paragraph are in proportion to the current body. I do think some consideration should be given to a slight expansion of nature/wildlife effects in the body, and then a minor augmentation of the sentence in the lede.Dtetta (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed 'it' to climate change. I don't like repeating stuff, but unclear prose is worse. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your edit today is an improvement. I also like the cleaner look of the sentences without all of the mid sentence citations, just as you had suggested earlier.Dtetta (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Dtetta cited a 2018 primary source which goes against IPCC. We had a similar discussion before, in Talk:Climate_change/Archive_84. I don't like ignoring secondary sources like IPCC (or WHO or ) based on personal interpretations.
 * It seems I wasn’t clear about my purpose for including the Nolte source - I actually cited it because I thought it was a piece of more recent research that supported the ozone and PM impacts summarized in AR5WGII Part A p.566. I was not proposing that the IPCC report citation be replaced with Nolte - I think the IPCC does a better job of summarizing the issue in general, I cited Nolte just as a way of indicating that the IPCC statements are consistent with more recent research.Dtetta (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I had also quoted secondary sources how "climate change itself aggravates air pollution" above. Perhaps did not read it. Bogazicili (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the European Respiratory Journal report? When I read that, I come to the conclusion that there is evidence of a pollution/temperature relationship, particularly for ozone, but that the overall conclusion is that more research is needed. The level of effects mentioned in the articles I have read don’t seem to be on the same scale and of the same certainty level as the other human health impacts we mention in the article; I don’t see any quantifiable epidemiological data like that which exists for malnutrition and disease, which is why I think these air pollution impacts are not yet ready to be included in the article. But I could be misinterpreting the research, and would welcome any other interpretations of these articles.Dtetta (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He cited the IPCC as well, actually reading into their overall assessment instead of summary. The SYR spends very little attention to it (2 words out of three pages), whereas other issues we point out typically have at least an entire sentence dedicated to them. So we're summarizing IPCC better now. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again you two are displaying the same type of behaviour in Talk:Climate_change/Archive_84, using your subjective opinions to disregard sources. Pollution is mentioned in a sentence that summarizes overall impacts in IPCC source and it's mentioned very prominently in WHO source. Those are the 2 sources that are cited for that sentence in the lead. At the very minimum the sentence should include everything that is mentioned in BOTH sources. As such, I don't think the current version provides a good summary of both sources. Also here's another secondary source . And another . It's also getting annoying to discuss same things over and over. Maybe we can revert to last stable version before Femkemilene's changes. Bogazicili (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again you're not providing overview sources. With the edits in line with SandyGeorgia's comment, and considered an improvement by Dtetta and me, I think there is rough consensus for the current text. Ideally, more people would respond, but I'm assuming they're intimidated by the length of our discussion which is indeed repetitive. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: air pollution as co-benefit

 * WHO is an overview source. Those two last sources were examples how Dtetta was misinterpreting the research. Also "pollution" has 382 hits here Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change. As I said many times, which is repetitive as you said, not including this either in impacts or in a cobenefits sentence is a big omission. Bogazicili (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Including air pollution as co-benefit makes 10x more sense. I welcome any proposal that doesn't expand the lede. I think the paragraph on mitigation and adaptation has potential for condensing. For instance the abstract definition of mitigation can be removed, as we're already providing concrete examples. Ideally, we'd not include the word cobenefit, as it's jargonny/not engaging. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia though. It should explain basic concepts before giving examples. You are assuming an a priori knowledge if you jump directly to examples. There could be secondary or high school students reading this for example. Are you ok with a short benefits sentence without removing anything 4th paragraph? Bogazicili (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Jesse Jenkins study
I just removed a singe review study by Jesse Jenkins, which I don't think we should use as a source. For one the paragraph was too detailed, delving deep into the debate of the percentage of dispatchable energy / nuclear / CCS, which isn't quite the topic of this article. The section on clean energy is long enough imo; this article is on the long side, which makes the threshold for adding more details quite high.

Furthermore, the paper came out in 2018 and mostly reviews optimisation models. The thing is that those type of models have not been able to model the price declines of wind, solar and batteries that took place over the last five years. Mathematically, the empirical learning curve is extremely difficult to implement in these type of models, and they revert to exogenous price declines, which consistently underestimate younger techniques such as solar and wind. Considering that a) evolutionary models have vastly different outcomes Estimating the costs of energy transition scenarios using probabilistic forecasting methods) b) these more conservative model studies have reached a tipping point, with the IEA's 2020 forecast now indicating that solar is going to play a massive role, we should not be using an this old review. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this even peer-reviewed? It's filed under "commentary". Bogazicili (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From the Joule website, it says "Commentary articles may not be subject to peer review, at the discretion of the editorial team." The cost estimates seem largely to have been based on the cost of Li batteries, for which they assume a three-fold reduction. To be clear, the article is not anti-renewables. Jesse Jenkins has many times written that renewables should take center stage in deep decarbonization of the electricity grid. The article review 40 studies which show why it is very different (primarily variability on seasonal scales and weather fronts) making a grid 80% VRE versus 100% VRE. The variability can be supported by clean firm sources such as nuclear, or non-variable renewables. Please see the quote in the citation for more info on the costs or the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurrayScience (talk • contribs) 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion piece (click Commentary tab), not a proper review article. Bogazicili (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The wording firm for baseload + dispatchable is one I've never seen before, so I don't feel it's due. The cost declines are not only exogenous for storage, but also seen to be outdated, with lithium ion projected to reach that level in three years. More importantly, this discussion is too detailed for the current article. And I agree with bogazicili that commentaries shouldn't be in here. Not saying we can't cite Jenkins at all, but I think most of his work goes in more detail than warranted for the current article. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)