Talk:Climate change/Archive 88

"Induced" is not a common word except maybe in maternity clinics
Sorry to harp on about this but if you asked 100 people on the street what "human-induced" means how many would answer correctly? Probably less than 50 I guess. Whereas if you asked them what "human-made" means they would say "made by humans" or "done by people" or somesuch. I prefer "human-made" but even "human-caused" is better than "human-induced". Chidgk1 (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * human-induced has more Google hits than human-caused. I asked around in the Wikipedia discord server, where more people preferred human-induced over human-caused. Now that the first two paragraphs are merged, and the word contemporary is added to the first sentence, I don't mind deleting it altogether. Femke (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This seems like a more straightforward way to word it: "... includes both global warming caused by humans ..." SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Improving the readability of this article, including key climate change terms
I was listening to a Science Friday podcast last week about how confusing climate change terms can be to the general public. The podcast itself is here, and the research paper being discussed is here. It got me thinking that we should look at this article in light of that research, and try to improve how we are describing some of these key terms, like “mitigation” and “tipping points”.

On a related topic, the research paper led me to look into the general readability of the Climate change article. So I used Readable.com to evaluate it. The “Observed temperature rise” section received a D grade, with a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 12.5, a Gunning fog index of 14.0, and a Flesch reading ease score of 43.5 (scale of 100-higher is better) - indicative of a college level type of text. When I tried other sections, the results were similar, and interestingly enough, the lede paragraphs received some of the lowest scores in terms of readability.

In comparison, NASA’s Climate Change website scored a 9.2 and 9.1 on these same measures, indicating a beginning high school readability level. The Flesch reading ease score for that web site was 48, and the site received an overall grade of B. National Geographic’s Climate change website, the other one that typically scores near the the top of my Google searches for Climate change, gets similar scores on Readable.

I didn’t see any specific WP guidance on what an appropriate level of readability for an article (or target grade/age level) is. The WP:MTAU page does talks about general techniques that can be used when trying to make technical articles more readable. My understanding is that, in the US, we generally shoot for an eighth grade reading level when creating webpages for the public. That’s pretty close to how the NASA and National Geographic sites score.

So I have a couple of general questions for this group of editors. 1-Do you think that we need to improve the readability of the Climate change article, and try to lower the target reading level of the text? 2-More specifically, should we devote some effort to creating more understandable descriptions for some of these critical climate change terms?

I thought about making this an Rfc, but instead I am mentioning, , , , , , , , and. Any thoughts you all have on this would be most appreciated.Dtetta (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't have time to check the links right now, but the specific part of WP:MTAU that applies is WP:ONEDOWN, which for this topic would suggest as low a base as possible. 8th grade sounds a good target. CMD (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes please!! I have always been pushing for improving readability of Wikipedia articles on science type topics. Most of them are quite hard to read, especially also for non-native English speakers. So I am all for it. I have (for example) written about it here under Task 3, linking also with my favourite assistant tools for this (they are just assistants, the work has to be done by a capable editor, of course). EMsmile (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised, as we've put in quite some effort in making it understandable already,but I'm keen to hear suggestions / see bold edits to improve the ease of understanding :). FemkeMilene (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually you are right, Femkemilene, the readability has recently improved a lot - sorry I wasn't quite up to date here! I had last checked it about 6 months ago with this tool: https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/check.php?tab=Test+By+Url&uri=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FClimate_change At that time, it only scored 40.5 for the Flesch score. Now when I use the current version it's 57.5. That's an excellent improvement. (Higher than 60 could be aimed for but is very hard to achieve.) But many of the closely related topics, e.g. effects of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions still need the same kind of improvements. :-) Question to Dtetta, what exactly do you mean with this: "2-More specifically, should we devote some effort to creating more understandable descriptions for some of these critical climate change terms?" Are you referring to sub-articles? EMsmile (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments, sorry I didn’t include you on the original list of mentions! It’s good we’re looking at the readability issue with a couple of different tools. But I’m concerned that the Web FX tool, when evaluating a URL, is not accurate (it does seem to do well when you actually have it read a sample of text, like Bogazicili did)). I believe that 57.5 score is way too high, and it’s based in part on a words per sentence count of less than 6, which is way too low. I compared their URL results with text results (based on inputing text, with citation numbers deleted) for the lead paragraphs. That score shows a much higher reading level, and much lower Reading Ease score. I used the same text on the Readable site, and the Readable score is pretty consistent with what Web FX shows. So I’m pretty sure that in terms of reading level/readability criteria, the article scores somewhere in the 12th grade/college level, again much higher than either the NASA or National Geographic websites, and higher than what I remember as general web guidance for target reading level, which is 8th grade. Dtetta (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And thanks for including that Task 3 link! Nice to now you are already working on this issue. The ideas listed there make good sense to me:) Dtetta (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also checked the January 1st version of the lead before we made changes, using, and there has been a slight improvement in the Flesch Reading Ease score. Feel free to make suggestions. I think the need to summarize lots of information is leading to longer sentences though, which reduces the score.Bogazicili (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We could probably apply some of the recommendations from the paper. Recommendation #1 is "Avoid technical language (i.e. jargon)"; part of our job is to help the reader learn useful terminology so we shouldn't avoid jargon altogether, but we can try to improve the timing of when we introduce it. For instance, "mitigation" is jargon and "reducing emissions" or "limiting climate change" are plainer language. We could use the plainer terms in the lead and in the headings that appear in the TOC. Then in the first paragraph of the section that deals with limiting climate change, say that efforts to limit climate change are technically known as mitigation.
 * Going a level deeper, another suggestion from Make technical articles understandable is to put the least obscure parts of the article up front. The "Drivers of recent temperature rise" section includes a lot of facts that I would consider highly obscure. I'd try to move most of this to the end of this article.
 * Going two levels deeper, I know a lot of progress has been made in terms of triaging how much technical detail to include on the physical science aspects of climate change, but I think we still have too much detail on climatology that isn't relevant to the general reader. For example, I understand all the words in the following sentence (I have a chemistry degree), but I just don't get what it's trying to tell me: "Aerosol removal by precipitation gives tropospheric aerosols an atmospheric lifetime of only about a week, while stratospheric aerosols can remain in the atmosphere for a few years." Rather than trying to improve all the sentences like this one, it's worth considering having fewer of them. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 22:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - those are great suggestions. I agree with all of them, although I have a slightly different take on the “Drivers of recent temperature rise” section. I think that a simplified, less IPCC centric version of that section should remain near the top of the article. The reason I say that is because I think that’s one of the key things people want to understand- what exactly is causing climate change. I am assuming there are four key questions for a reader of this article: 1-How much global warming is happening/will happen? 2- What’s causing it? 3-What are the effects? and 4- What can be done? The “Drivers of recent temperature rise section” addresses that second question, but I think you’re correct in saying it does so at times in an obscure, jargon heavy way.
 * So far I think you and are the ones most in favor of making changes to address the readability issue. I’ll wait a couple more days to see if there’s any other responses, and then propose some more specific follow up ideas, likely along the lines of what you’ve suggested. Dtetta (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To put a more personal note on this, I was listening to another Science Friday episode last week, dealing with how we can “co-exist” with wildfires (that’s how the intro reads). During the discussion, the researcher being interviewed talked about changes that, from my perspective, are ways to “adapt” to increased wildfire risks, such as controlled burns and home hardening (which basically involves creating a zone around your home that is free of highly combustible trees and shrubs). But that person used the term “mitigation” to describe these measures. If we were to describe these actions, would we label them as mitigation or adaptation? Not looking for an answer, but I think it’s a good example of the limits of overly technical terminology when we’re trying to help the reader understand these issues. Dtetta (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the way the term "mitigation" is used in climate change is different from most other contexts. The term "noise mitigation", for example, usually means putting up sound barriers or other stuff to muffle and block noise before it reaches the listener. It doesn't usually mean reducing noise at the source. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 22:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I support any effort to improve readability, but past efforts have caused content to drift away from sources or have led to lazy over generalizations without context, like what happened when we presented extreme numbers on particulate based pollution deaths without any context on indoor vs outdoor, rich vs poor countries, pollution controls vs limiting combustion, etc. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that we don't provide quotes from our sources inline, so the grounding for what we write is unclear and difficult or sometimes impossible to find in the source materials. So I guess my vote is go ahead but be sure to keep context around the grander claims. Efbrazil (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a kind of idiocracy trick question? Complex problems need a detailed and sometimes complex explanation. Regarding Clayoquot's question about the aerosols: Rain washes particles from the lower layers of the atmosphere, the troposhere, where clouds are forming and rain is often falling out of clouds much faster than in the stratosphere. In theses higher levels clouds are rarer and rain is almost non-existent, so aerosols are kept there where they are. --Gunnar (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Clayoquot that the sentence about aerosols doesn't have a clear goal. Mentioning tropospheric aerosols (or simply "most" aerosols)'s short lifetime is probably warranted to explain that stopping emissions may have a slight warming effect in some regions in the very short term, but stratospheric aerosols just aren't that important for our audience.
 * @Gunnar.Kaestle: could you please tone it down a bit? You're not winning people over by calling their questions idiocracy. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Femke, have you watched the the Idiocray movie? They had a food problem because they irrigated their crops with some kind of sugary soft drink: just use water - problem solved. Same for the man-made climate change: stop emitting CO2, don't burn fossil fuels - problem solved. If you want to go into detail then you will need a more complex description of what happens in the different subsystems. To show all the scientific research, in order to gain credibility, I would not reduce neither language nor content on an 8th grader's level. It helps to avoid jargon or at least to explain technical terms - because many other publications are written with those and the reader should be enabled to understand papers which are referenced here or which he may find elsewhere. Thus, the option of playing bullshit bingo with the articles texts should be minimised be just calling a spade a spade. This includes the introduction, as not all page visitors will read the full article, but just the first few lines and they may opt in for interesting sub-chapters. Gunnar (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EXPLAINLEAD, we should avoid jargon in the introduction. The introduction doesn't really have the space available to (implicitly or explicitly) explain jargon. We can be a bit more technical in the main article, aiming for a 15/16-year old audience, which keeps things simple without insulting more educated readers.
 * P.S. not all of our readers are a 'he', and the words 8th grader don't mean much to people outside of your countries' education system FemkeMilene (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that we should not aim at 14 year old (8th grade) readability in the main body - I think that would be an impossible target and would just depress editors when we failed to reach it. But I agree with Femke that 16 year old readability could be a target ("aspirational" I think) for the main text - because many native English speakers have not had formal education beyond 16 - and people who want more technical detail can click through to more detailed articles. And I agree with  that readability needs improving and that "mitigation" and "tipping points" are confusing. And I agree with  that non-vital info should be cut out (perhaps moved to other articles). Re key climate change terms when I google for "climate change words" Glossary of climate change is 4th of non-ad sites. The Google "featured snippet" is out of date e.g. it has INDC instead of NDC. Should I write to a Wiki-Ed and ask if they can persuade some students onto Glossary of climate change?
 * P.S. I am glad that Nat Geo site does not appear on the first page of my Google results as I think their "lead" is misleading. Will take a look at the NASA site. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Dtetta's proposal
Glad to see there has been more discussion on this. Below is a proposed revision to the first two paragraphs of the lede, just as an example of what could be done to improve readability for specific text, based on results from the readable.com and hemingwayapp.com (H/T to EMsmile) sites for those two paragraphs. Again, just trying to show the potential of this technique.

Based on the results I was seeing when I started with those sites, I focused mainly on reducing the number of long sentences, cutting them up into shorter ones. This is what the changes look like in underline/strikeout form:

And this is what the actual text would look like:

As you can probably tell, I made a few other changes along the way that seemed needed (and often improved the readability score). I broadened the description of impacts/effects in the first paragraph to more than just weather patterns. In the second paragraph I specified the types of chemical manufacturing, and changed some of the feedback text to make it a little less technical/jargony. I also deleted the water vapor reference to make the list of feedback examples shorter, although the water vapor effect is an important feedback. This was another instance where an edit caused a significant improvement in the readability score, but maybe water vapor is worth keeping in nonetheless.

Lastly, I think the most significant change I made was to delete the reference to the human cause of CC as not being disputed, as this didn’t seem to me to fit with the rest of the second paragraph, and it’s a somewhat convoluted sentence. I still think it’s important to make this point somewhere in the lead, but I’m just not sure where. One possibility would be to have something like “These ideas have near unanimous scientific consensus behind them” as the last sentence of the first paragraph. I'm sure there are other ways of doing this as well.

These edits brought the Flesch-Kincaid Grade level down from about 15 to about 10, and raised the reading ease score from 35 to 54, both major improvements. The grade level on the Hemmingway site goes from to Post Graduate to Grade 11. Although these measures clearly aren’t the only factors to be thinking about, the text does seem to be more “readable” to me.I think the only loss of detail has been the deletion of the scientific consensus and water vapor references, and I believe there is an alternative way of capturing the scientific consensus concept.

Here is a link to the report from readable.com for the original two paragraphs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fBQUdQHFVBkl9YQeD5oknRRzsr8zwL0S/view?usp=sharing

And here is a link to a report for the revised paragraphs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17gwJ5jaGhMqARXf4L5Bv-aO-1hQyWsXv/view?usp=sharing

If folks think this is worthwhile, I could continue with paragraphs three and four. My sense is that paragraph five is fairly readable as is, but it might benefit from a couple of minor edits as well. Or we could think about making these proposed changes as actual edits.

Notifying, , , , , , , ,,  and  Dtetta (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And based on the first couple of responses to this post today, it seems like I neglected to clarify what I am specifically asking for in terms of feedback. For me it’s clear that using shorter sentences, and striving for less technical wording, improves the readability scores of these paragraphs. Do you think these kinds of changes in general are an improvement? And should we try to do this for the other paragraphs in the lede? Dtetta (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion first paragraph
Let's start with the first sentence. The first sentence is meant to define the scope of the article. Usually it is done by giving a definition. The new definition given is incorrect: most definitions only include atmospheric changes, not impacts on ecosystems. But I believe we should step away from giving a definition entirely. Having a definition has always been finicky for us, as climate change has two overlapping definitions (current / general), so that the prose becomes awkward if you say "Climate change is" or slightly less awkward "climate change includes". I would prefer something along the lines of Human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels, are driving up global temperatures. This is resulting in long-term and large-scale shifts in the climate. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC), adjusted 16:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s a fair point, although this site from NOAA clearly combines the concepts. I think your suggested wording is fine. Are you suggesting that as the first sentence in paragraph? Dtetta (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unorthodox to avoid formally defining the titular concept, but because of the varying and possibly overlapping definitions of CC and GW, it's understandable in our situation. I suggest the following so that GW and CC are defined inferentially (in bold): Human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels, are driving up global temperatures. This global warming is causing long-term and large-scale climate change. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support GW and CC are defined inferentially and RCraig09 sentence in green. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by the second sentence. If the goal is to have bolded text, note that per MOS:BEATLES, second sentences are not allowed to have bolding. It's an obscure rule, so maybe we can get away with it. What about This is causing large-scale and long-term climate change? This steps away from the problem that global warming is part of climate change, so that it cannot really cause it. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Burning fossil fuels, and other human activities, are causing global warming and long-term and large-scale climate change.? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(After edit conflict; not in response to Femke's 16:17 post) Initially, I would tweak Dtetta's text:
 * 1) ... start with " Modern-era climate change..." to distinguish what this article focuses on
 * 2) ... join the second and third sentences as they are so closely intertwined (~never start a sentence with "But").
 * — RCraig09 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So please keep in mind that it is those long, run on sentences that make the text harder to read, according to the professionals in this field, as I understand it. That was the whole purpose of the exercise. As an alternative, we could use “however” rather than “but”, or any other word that would introduce the contrast between the two shorter sentences. Dtetta (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You might also find this reference on whether or not to use “and” or “but” useful. Dtetta (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion will be moot if Femke's major new approach prevails, so I'll merely state that the current 31-word sentence is long by some standards, but it is clear. It distinguishes in one sentence, modern-era CC from earlier CCs. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So I’d like to reboot this discussion of the first paragraph, if folks don’t mind. First, it was clearly a bad choice on my part to try to revise the original “weather patterns” text, particular since it seems to have gotten us focused on details rather than the overall readability issue. In the paragraph above I am reverting that edit, so that “weather patterns” is back to roughly where it originally was. I’ve archived my original proposal here if anyone wants to see it.
 * And just to clarify what I did (and why). In the first sentence I condensed the wording to reduce the word count from 23 to 16. The phrase “the resulting large scale shifts in” has been changed to “its large scale impacts on”, which increased the reading ease score by 0.6 points. At the end of the paragraph, the original 31 word second sentence has become an 11 word sentence and a 22 word sentence. And even that 22 word sentence is consider long from a readability standpoint (it’s one of the pink highlighted sentences in the readable report)
 * Rather than get side tracked on a discussion of whether the article should start with a definition (from what I’ve seen that does in fact seem to be a typical technique in WP articles), I’m hoping additional comments can focus on the changes I’ve described above. For instance, RCraig09 seems to prefer the longer final sentence rather than the two that I have created. My view is that the only reason for having a really long sentence is that the ideas are so intertwined that they can’t be separated without a loss of meaning. But in this case these are two distinct concepts that you can connect with a conjunction type word or phrase. Not saying my perspective is necessarily the correct one. What do others think? Dtetta (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In general short sentences are more readable (my Economist style guide got lost in the post - I wonder if I can buy it on Kobo - but pretty sure it said that in one I had years ago) so they should be the default and it should be up to the person proposing a long sentence to come up with a convincing justification Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we break into two sentences, the "previous periods..." sentence would constitute a sentence in the first paragraph of the lead that does not even pertain to the subject of the article(!) That's why I favored binding it to the "unprecedented impact..." sentence—purely for distinguishing the two. Upon reflection, that distinction sounds "defensive" toward denialism. If our goal is to simplify, then we could omit the "previous periods..." sentence altogether, thus solving two problems at once. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That might work. I like having the two concepts, though. We could borrow some of the tone from the first two paragraphs of this NASA webpage, and have the last sentence read:” The period since the mid-20th century is unique, as humans have had an unprecedented, global-scale impact on our climate.” Dtetta (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The phrase including "...unique" sounds a bit WP:SYNTHish in approach. The term "unprecedented" seems to cover that concept already so I'd still favor the single-phrase approach. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - given the ongoing concerns you still have, I’m ok with keeping that last sentence the way it is, even though it’s long. Other thoughts on this? Dtetta (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the sentence, since it has drifted away from the sourcing. I don't mind it being commented out if we implement something along my first sentences or leave it be for a later discussion. I'm not proposing an alternative before I'm recovered. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have a try simplifying a sentence from the body for the second sentence of the lede (as the status quo isn't entirely supported by the sources). However, the modern observed rise in temperature and concentrations has been so rapid that even abrupt geophysical events that took place in Earth's history do not approach current rates.[38] -> There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current warming is more rapid than any known events in Earth's history. This would allow us to shorten the sentence, get lead-body consistency (a GA/FA criterion), and allow for a previous goal of linking climate variability and change. I've not rechecked the source. Femke (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Don’t see a real consensus around any of the text alternatives that are presented in the poll that was created. So I’m proposing the following revision for the first paragraph. Basically, modifying the first sentence with something close to my original proposal (minus the “ecosystem” faux pas). Then shortening the second sentence by eliminating the reference to historical climate change, which was a suggestion RCraig09 made on 5 October. Grade level improves from 14 to 10.1, and reading ease increases from 43 to 56 for the paragraph. The main content changes are eliminating the reference to greenhouse gases, which is a concept we cover the second paragraph, so it’s eliminating some redundancy. In the first sentence, changing the phrase “the resulting large scale shifts in” to “its large scale impacts on” is a slight readability improvement, and also reinforces the term “impacts”, which is repeatedly used in the article. “Impacts” is used twice in the paragraph, so this might be seen as redundant; some might also find issue with what the word “its” refers to, so feedback on these points would be helpful. Keeping “induced” rather than “caused” or “made” in that first sentence. For the second sentence, I’m using Femke’s 8 October proposal (assuming the sourcing is good), which is also supported by Chidgk1.

In terms of the more significant first sentence revisions that Femke snf RCraig09 have proposed, I would suggest we have that as a completely separate discussion topic, as going with non-definitional first sentences seems different from the current practice on many WP articles. The references to emissions are also redundant with the starting ideas of the second paragraph, so that may need to be edited as well if we want to make changes in the first paragraph along those lines. I would also note, that when we were having one of the earlier debates on the article title, I mentioned that the head of the Yale Program on Climate Communication liked how we distinguished between CC and GW at the start of the article.

So here is the actual proposal:

— Dtetta (talk
 * Green light from me :). Femke (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ° The first sentence starts by asserting an unqualified broad definition: "Climate change includes...". However the rest of the sentence is a definition of only the "Modern-era" climate change that is now the subject of this article. I think the lead sentence should start with " Modern-era CC includes..." to clarify that important distinction.
 * ° If we're abandoning Femke's no-formal-definition approach, though, what you suggest is an improvement over the status quo, and I echo a . Make it so. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that:) I think we are ok with the current wording, though, as Webster’s definition recognizes that nuance in the terminology. —Dtetta (talk
 * I do not think a secondary definition in a general online dictionary "cures" this issue. An encyclopedia's lead definition should not raise red flags of ambiguity, especially when many people think modern-era CC is just another example of historical CC. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m looking at various websites and how they define climate change, and I’m still not seeing the need for the “modern-era” distinction. But if you want to make that change, I’m ok with it. Dtetta (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The concern is not about whether others use "climate change" in the same way; the concern is that the term is overly broad in this context, especially for a lead definition.
 * Hopefully other editors will weigh in here... — RCraig09 (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the word "current" clarify this issue? "There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are more rapid than any known events in Earth's history."? Doesn't this clarify the scope of the article and the term? In wiki terms, current climate change is the Disambiguation. Bogazicili (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be extra clear about the scope of the article, we might consider adding the following part in bold into the disclaimer on top:
 * '"Global warming" redirects here. This article is about the current Climate Change. For climate trends throughout Earth's history, see Climate variability and change. For other uses, see Climate change (disambiguation) and Global warming (disambiguation).' Bogazicili (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Modifying the WP:Hatnote is a great idea! I'd use "modern-era" CC rather than "current" CC because it's almost two centuries old, not merely "current". Since the first sentence defines the subject, I think that definition should be made definite with "Modern-era CC...". — RCraig09 (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's really bad prose to have three hyphenated adjectives in a sentence. I think we need to leave out large-scale if modern-age gets added. Femke (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: — RCraig09 (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I find modern-era to be vague, it could mean starting from 16th century (eg: History_by_period) Bogazicili (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The CC we are talking about occurs within the modern era. The term instantly distinguishes it from past ice age cycles etc. 01:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A just-published consensus survey article mentions contemporary climate change—which avoids hyphenation issues :-). I think "large-scale" can still be omitted. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think contemporary sounds good. Because if you start from 16th century, it includes things like this: Little Ice Age. Bogazicili (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just checked what AR6, SPM pp.5-9 says, and unfortunately I think the end of the last sentence overstates what’s in the latest report. I would suggest changing the wording from “Earths history” to “the past several thousand years.” Dtetta (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also recommend those AR6 pages, and this NY times story on the report, as the two citations at the end of the sentence. The Times story includes coverage of the historical perspective from the report. Dtetta (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence is based on the following SR15: "These global-level rates of human-driven change far exceed the rates of change driven by geophysical or biosphere forces that have altered the Earth System trajectory in the past (e.g., Summerhayes, 2015; Foster et al., 2017); even abrupt geophysical events do not approach current rates of human-driven change". I think it supports the sentence. I propose one tweak to be closer to SR15 and AR6.
 * The problem with saying "over the last few thousands years" is that readers may think that changes did happen more rapidly before, even though there is no evidence for this. With the word "known", we take care of this ambiguity of not knowing the full history of the Earth's climate.
 * There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are more rapid than any known events in Earth's history.
 * Femke (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Great - yes, I see that at Ch1, p54. I’ll use that cite (and quote) rather than AR6. Makes me very uncomfortable, though, that AR6 is so decidedly less emphatic (both in the SPM and the TS) about the unprecedented nature of the current rate of change. Would have thought that the NY Times would have created a similarly strong historical comparison in their story if they thought it was supported by AR6, but they didn’t. Concerned that if I include the AR6 SPM pages in the citation, an observant reader would see a discrepancy. And this is a very important statement in the article. Thoughts? Just use the SR15 citation only? Dtetta (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we go for this, we should include only SR15. AR6 expresses more certainty that drivers (which could be included in changes rather than warming) are unprecedented, and that ocean warming is unprecedented. I think AR6 is relying on more direct evidence, while the statement of SR15 statement also includes evidence of drivers of change + physical understanding. I understand your worry, and will object only weakly to having a statement with something like 'thousands of years'. Femke (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I like your phrasing, and would prefer to use that. Just concerned that it’s not supported well by AR6. It sounds lie you don’t see that as a significant issue, in terms of sourcing, correct? Dtetta (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right. SR15 is still quite recent, and AR6 does not contradict it imo, it just focuses on individual changes separately. Femke (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - Wiil make the edit with the SP15 citation and quote. Dtetta (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been away and haven't read all the points and proposals. But I quite like the current wording.Bogazicili (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion second paragraph
I don't have a strong opinion on the first paragraph, other than agreeing that "on ecosystems" is incorrect. Regarding the second paragraph, the new wording mixes up the sources of emissions a bit. Starting from biggest sources of emissions to smallest, the order is 1) fossil fuel burning, 2) agriculture, 3) deforestation, and 4) chemical reactions in certain industrial processes. Where people often get mixed up is that steel-making and cement-making involve both fossil fuel burning and CO2-generating chemical reactions.

Some types of climate change can even can act as a feedback mechanism also doesn't quite make sense. There aren't different types of climate change. There is more than one possible feedback mechanism. Perhaps "There are different ways that the effects of climate change can generate feedback loops that further accelerate climate change" would be more accurate? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * How about: Some climate changes feedback, either speeding up or slowing down global warming.? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Clayoquot for a couple of reasons: the words "feedback mechanism" are quite odd, scientific literature uses the standalone noun feedback, scicomm typically uses feedback loop. I also think we should tell what is actually happening (the feedbacks amplify global warming), rather than what individual feedbacks may do (most amplify, some dampen). The wording "either speeding up or slowing down" can be interpreted as "we don't know what the net feedback effect is", which is a climate denialist talking point. I can't think of an accurate but simple synonym for amplify, so will compromise at accelerate/speed up which is less informative (amplify gives a different end point to accelerate). To shorten Clayoquots sentence: The effects of global warming generate feedback loops that accelerate warming. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have not checked but I suspect "amplify" may be the same readability as "accelerate". But you don't like "feedback" as a verb Femke? How about Some climate changes feedback, amplifying global warming.?
 * That really doesn't work for me. It's such a deviation from how that word is typically used, that read changes as the verb initially. 08:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most climate change feedback amplifies global warming. or Climate feedbacks are speeding up global warming.? If not maybe we should stick with the existing single sentence rather than splitting in two? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with sticking to one sentence if we can cut back on words in the example clause. The two-sentence proposal does not make clear it's dealing with examples. Dtetta cut out the largest feedback (water vapour), and we also do not mention the second-largest feedback (clouds), but I'm fine with that. I think it's a good idea not to mention the word sink in the lede, as it's jargon. However, 'absorb back' implies it was in the ocean/biosphere before, rather than in geological deposits. What about Temperature rise is amplified by climate feedbacks, such as loss of sunlight-reflecting snow and ice cover, increased water vapour (a greenhouse gas itself) and changes to land and ocean carbon sinks release of methane from permafrost. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me Chidgk1 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Love it. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 13:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * How about Burning oil to move vehicles, and coal and gas to make heat and electricity, emits most as carbon dioxide. Agriculture and forest loss are also significant sources of greenhouse gas; as are chemical reactions making cement and steel. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Chidgk1, Your second sentence looks great to me. The first sentence is a bit of an oversimplification (e.g. oil derivatives are also used for heating and electricity generation). I can't parse emits most as carbon dioxide. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the discussion on how the last two sentences can be further improved. I’m happy to let, , and , figure out the most appropriate wording. My only suggestion is you take the current proposed paragraph, and run your changes through the readable site, and notice the difference your rewording has on the grade level and reading ease scores. Guessing, as Clayoquot has noted, that most of these further changes won’t have a significant impact, but it’s worth checking out. Pretty sure you can do that without a subscription prompt from them as long as you’re not trying to get reports. You’ll see what I mean once you try it.
 * Also want to briefly touch on the issue Clayoquot has brought up regarding the ordering of the GHG sources. I did intentionally change the order a bit. In this case I went for grouping things that were similar in nature, rather a ranked order of level of emissions (although I do think Our World In Data does a great job on their site). I did that in part to help the reader distinguish ag and forestry as different kinds of GHG sources. IPCC does a pretty good job of capturing the dual role of these sectors as both sinks and sources in Chapter 2, section 2.3 of the SRCCL report. I did not want to get into detail in this overview paragraph, but I thought that separation was a useful one.
 * The idea of listing by order of emissions makes some sense. However if we really want to have that as a hard criteria, we need to reconcile it with the sentence in the article itself dealing with significant sources on a production basis, which I wrote a while back using EPA 2019 as a reference. That provides a similar but not quite same list. We could also rank sources from a consumption basis, which was an earlier sentence in that section. So there are a few different ways of ordering these sources that are probably equally valid.  I like keeping ag and forestry separate for the reasons I’ve described above, and the text in this case also uses two sentences rather than one (a readability improvement). But I’m also ok with a different way of ordering these sources. Dtetta (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the different order, but the first sentence contains a minor inaccuracy. It states that fossil fuel burning is done for energy use and cement production. However, the fossil burning for cements emissions is the for energy, whereas the other 60% is chemical and does not depend on fossil fuels.
 * I like your comment because it’s an interesting example of readability and understanding, even in with what appears to be straightforward text. When I read that sentence, I think of fossil fuel burning for energy use as one category, and then GHG emissions from steel and cement as entirely separate categories in their own right. The paragraph I wrote on these sources in the mitigation section in fact talks about the need to decarbonize these production processes. So I was well aware of the nuance you bring up when I wrote the sentence, but nevertheless I thought that I was talking about GHG emissions from steel and cement in their entirety, and did not see any contradiction. In that sense I am glossing over the issue of fossil fuels vs the chemical processes themselves for steel and cement, but to me that’s ok for an overview type of summary in the lede, and I don’t think it’s incorrect. I sill like the way I have proposed it in general, and I’d suggest we try to avoid reading too much into these sentences with an expert’s eye, but rather think about how an average reader might understand them. Dtetta (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On a seperate note, I am happy with deleting the sentence on consensus, which came over as defensive. We will need to write something about the society section in the lede, and I think the misinformation and protest could be fitted in the last paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to GHG sources, we're digressing a bit from readability so perhaps this should be a different Talk page section, but to continue here for now: I agree the lead and the body should be consistent in how they classify sources of emissions. We should pick one framework for classifying emissions and use it consistently as the primary one. Then if we feel a need to present alternative ways of classifying emissions we should tell the reader that we're switching frameworks.
 * We currently use three frameworks for classifying sources of emissions:
 * The lead uses the World Resources Institute framework, which OWID uses here, which says energy is 73% of emissions, AFOLU is 18%, etc.
 * The Climate change section starts out by grouping things by greenhouse gas type (all CO2 emissions followed by all methane emissions and then all nitrous oxide emissions).
 * The Climate change then states "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%).", which reflects EPA 2019.
 * I'm confused by why we use framework #2 at all. What other publications organize emissions this way, and why is it more helpful than framework #1 or #3? If think framework #1 is by far the most informative in terms of informing the general reader about mitigation strategies. Framework #3 obscures the importance of the electricity sector (by combining it with heat) and obscures the importance of energy generally. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)]
 * I would support using the WRI/OWID framework as a general rule, both in this paragraph and in the Drivers of recent temperature rise section. The one caveat for me is that we should highlight the dual role that ag and forestry play as both sinks and sources of GHGs, which again is why I listed them separately. And, of course, we should avoid long lists with poor readabililty, which is why I made my edit to that sentence in the first place. Dtetta (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. As for highlighting the dual role of agriculture and forestry as both sources and sinks for carbon, I did not understand that that was what the revised second paragraph was saying. Is the part about what "the land and oceans can absorb back" referring to the carbon sequestered by trees and soils? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So yes, I was trying to do that in two spots in the paragraph; one by distinguishing them as sources via a separate sentence, and then in that “absorb back” phrase you are referring to. Probably better ways of doing this, but that was my initial attempt at it. Dtetta (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that trees, soils, etc. act as carbon sinks should be stated separately from the fact that loss of these sinks is involved in feedback loops. Also, calling trees, plants, roots, soils, seaweed, etc. "land and oceans" is jargon. The general reader thinks that land is the hard stuff under our feet and that oceans are made up of salt water. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 20:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I never thought about it like that, but you're right. It's not only the word sink that is jargon. Femke (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So at this point, with Femke’s edit of the first sentence, I would suggest we focus on two things for the rest of the paragraph. A couple of sentences on sources. Here there seems to be some support for the WRI/OWID framework for describing them. And then a couple of sentences on feedback, including ways in which it can increase or decrease the rate of future warming. It sounds like we can eliminate the sentence on scientific consensus, at least in this paragraph (although it may still be worth including somewhere in the lead). Dtetta (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

And thanks for hanging in there with this process! I do think we’ll end up with paragraphs that are easier for most readers to understand:) Dtetta (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So here is my proposal for the sentences on sources, based largely on the WRI/OWID characterization of this:” Burning fossil fuels for energy use in industry, transportation, and buildings creates most of these emissions. Agriculture practices, steel making, cement production, and forest loss are also significant sources.” On readable.com the reading grade level for this paragraph drops abut 2 grade levels, and reading ease increases about 8 points, from just this change to what’s currently in the paragraph. Dtetta (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those sentences feel perfectly natural. We can even simplify by dropping the word practices. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it too. I agree with Femke on dropping practices and also suggest dropping " use in industry, transportation, and buildings". Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That sentence has the advantage of being simpler, but personally I like having specific examples, especially if we can later make them jibe with how they are described in the Drivers of recent temperature rise section. I’m ok with the shorter version, though. - Other thoughts? Dtetta (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "energy" is such a widely understood concept that examples are not needed. And actually the term "buildings" is jargon in this context. Most people do not understand that the making of the cement and steel in buildings is not "buildings", but the emissions caused by mining cryptocurrency are "buildings". Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

While the discussion on the “sources” sentence still gets resolved, here is the current final sentence on feedbacks and examples: “Temperature rise can be amplified by climate feedbacks, such as the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover, or limits to land and ocean carbon sinks.”

Just wanting to see if there are other comments on this latest version. It’s clearly a readability improvement. My only strong suggestion is that “land and carbon sinks” is still technical/jargony. Perhaps something like :”how much greenhouse gases forests, soils and oceans can absorb.” I would also prefer that the text clearly state that “future warming can be increased or decreased”, my thought is that we should not modify our best attempt at a scientific summary based on concerns with denialism, which we are in effect doing by limiting the the phrase to just “can amplify feedbacks” but I suspect I am in the minority here. Other general thoughts on the current sentence, particularly on the “land and ocean carbon sinks” phrase? Dtetta (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think both the phrasing "can amplify" and "increased or decreased" imply that feedbacks could decrease the direct effect of, which is not the case (net). I see both sentences as ambiguous (net or individual feedbacks), and if only to avoid ambiguity, we should not write the sentence like that. I think the wording "Temperature is amplified" takes away that ambiguity, describing what is happening now.
 * I believe "how much forest, soils and oceans absorb" (without can), is an improvement on the current text, but it does not explain how it is a feedback (rather than the reference absorption of like 50% of emitted ) Maybe "changes in how much  forests, soils and oceans absorb". That may lengthen the sentence too much. I have a weak preference for giving an example instead. Permafrost, or forests losing carbon due to drought, are both big feedbacks and easy to understand, happy with either of them. Femke (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the first 2/3 of this sentence. I would replace "land and ocean carbon sinks" by a specific example like "deforestation caused by drought". Concrete examples are much easier to understand. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: a feedback that can decrease the direct effect of increased CO2 - AR6 page TS-47: “Since the 1980s, carbon fertilization from rising atmospheric CO2 has increased the strength of the net land CO2 sink (medium confidence).”, For that reason I still prefer Efrazil’s edit that changed the phrase to “can amplify”, although I realize that the over exaggeration of this effect is a CC denialist trope. I like Femke’s “changes in how much…” rephrasing, and I think the inclusion of forests, soils and oceans in the phrase is reasonably specific. Dtetta (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And I can name quite a few more negative feedbacks, it's what I did my PhD on :) . The net effect is amplifying, and the word 'can' implies doubt. Can we rephrase in such a way that this sentence loses its ambiguity? That it's clear whether we're taking about the individual feedbacks or the net effect? Femke (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - I see where on p.TS-59 it states:”The combined effect of all climate feedback processes is to amplify the climate response to forcing.” This amplification effect seems to be mainly due to clouds and increased water vapour. However, on page 46 “ Projections show that while land and ocean sinks absorb more CO2 under high emissions scenarios than low emissions scenarios, the fraction of emissions removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks decreases with higher concentrations (high confidence).” So there are also significant negative feedbacks.
 * Given this, how about “Some climate changes (and impacts) cause the rate of global warming to increase more rapidly. Increased water vapour in the atmosphere, or the loss of snow cover, has this effect. In contrast, CO2 absorption by forests and other vegetation can moderate these increases, to some extent.” Grade level 9.6, Reading ease 53 for those three sentences, compared to scores of 12.6 and 49 for the current last sentence. I think the term feedbacks, and the overall net positive concept, can be described better in the main part of the article. Dtetta (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If folks think it’s truly important to have the “feedbacks” term in the sentence, we could also do that parenthetically: Some climate change and impacts (called feedbacks)…. Dtetta (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I like the creative juices here and I think a sentence without the word feedback can work. I'm not happy with prose quality yet, but that's not my strong suit really. A few thoughts To keep it simple, I would still want to describe the collective effect of feedbacks (CO2-carbon cycle + climate-carbon cycle + climate-radiative forcing), but coming up blank how to do it. I struggle to find a alternative good solution, having to kill my darling. I feel strongly that the proposed text is too long, and puts undue attention on feedbacks. Femke (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're proposing to have a sentence about feedbacks and contrasting that to a sentence about vegetation sinks. You're not talking about how global warming would change those carbon sinks (amplify GW) or how higher concentrations change those sinks (reduce GW, the two together slightly amplify). So you're not talking about a feedback here. I think we need to be consistent, even if we omit the word feedback.
 * I think the structure "cause ... to" is complex, and prefer a more active word order "global warming is sped up by".
 * I really liked your previous proposal of leaving out water vapour, because it's not clear to a lay reader why water vapour would do this, and bracketed explanations make sentences longer.
 * these increases -> warming. Vegetation -> plants.

This should work! "Temperature rise is affected by climate feedbacks, such as the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover and the release of carbon dioxide after forest droughts. Collectively, they amplify global warming." Femke (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that - nice work! I think you mean “Temperature rise is affected…” Dtetta (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would note that changing “amplify” to “increase the rate of” creates a significant improvement in readability. Changing”Temperature rise is” to “Warming is also” improves readability, but to a lesser extent. The use of “also” helps with the transition from two different concepts in the same paragraph - talking about sources of warming, then talking about temperature rise impacts from feedbacks. Dtetta (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it too. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 02:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is a proposed second paragraph based on our discussion to date. I’m using the first sentence that Femke recently posted from my original proposal, with a slight change to avoid using the word “main(ly)” twice. I believe the second sentence reflects the discussion we’ve had, in particular Femke’s and Clayoquot‘s comments. The last two sentences are Femke‘s recent proposal, with a minor change from “they” to “these” in the last sentence. Grade level of 10.7 and reading ease of 43.5 for this paragraph, compared to scores of 15.5 and 32 for what was there last week before we started this work. Changing “amplify” to “increases the rate of” would further reduce the grade level down to 10.4, and increase the reading ease score to 46.6, but I didn’t see strong support for that, so I didn’t include it in this proposal. The “Temperature rise…” sentence is still fairly difficult in terms of readability, but we’ve made some big improvements. Dtetta (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that works really well and is ready to go into the article. One suggestion to take or leave - I'd change "after forest droughts" to "from drought-stricken forests". Thanks for your hard work on this! P.S. I might disappear from this discussion for a while to catch up on other stuff. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion, and it’s a slight improvement in readability. Dtetta (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it. One more tweak? "Of these changes" and "of these emissions" feels a bit repetitive. Can we omit the first? I think it's clear from context that we're talking about climate change. Femke (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest we just eliminate “of these changes” to address that repetitive phrasing, particularly if we are going to combine the paragraphs. Dtetta (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should maintain the current sentence about consensus: "The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[5]" I don't think it comes as defensive. NASA's climate change website is one of the most popular about this subject, and this issue is one of the top 3 questions in FAQ page. ("Do scientists agree on climate change?" ). So I still think this is relevant in the lead. Current wording also does a good job of summarizing the "Scientific consensus and society" section. Bogazicili (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Their prose does not mention it explicitly however. Our FAQ mentions it as well. NASA is probably not representative, given the fact that the US has one of the highest levels of climate denial. The Met Office does not mention consensus in their article. I think we should include the protests and maybe misinformation in the last lead paragraph instead. Femke (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not just a US issue. There seems to be a lack of awareness in Europe too Bogazicili (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So I modified the second paragraph, adding Clayoquot’s suggestion and my attempt at responding to Femke’s suggestion on redundancy. I added the words “as well” following climate feedbacks, as I thought that helped with the transitional nature of those last two sentences. Grade level of 10.2 and reading ease of about 50 for these two paragraphs (and changing "amplify" to"increase the rate of" would be a further readability improvement). Didn't merge the paragraphs - thought there might be further discussion on that. IMO Bogazicili’s suggestion may be worth pursuing with a much simpler type of statement, just not sure where that would go now. Dtetta (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure there was explicit consensus for removing the part about scientific consensus. Only Femkemilene said they are ok with it. I'm thinking about reinserting this into last paragraph if and until a replacement is found. Bogazicili (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Merging the paragraphs?
Now that we've shortened both paragraphs, I think they can be merged. Four paragraphs in the lede is the max in the manual of style, so would be nice if we will have achieved that too :). Femke (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When I see those two paragraphs together, it seems to work as a decent summary of the first four sections of the article. Dtetta (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

About procedure
Hi folks, one other item. I’m glad people are interested in making edits to improve readability. But I think it will be better if we can keep up our past practice of posting proposed changes on the talk page first. I would suggest that if you have a specific change in mind, you post it here (or in the first paragraph section of this discussion), along with a brief statement as to how it’s an improvement, and then we can review them as a set and someone can post a revised paragraph in full. This will also help ensure that we are making readability improvements as we do these edits. Doing this piecemeal is getting confusing, at least from my perspective. Dtetta (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's mainly my fault, sorry. Editing from phone makes it difficult to post the entire paragraph over and over again, but I will stop implementing partial consensus into the article. I think going line-by-line is necessary for the first two paragraphs, but will be less needed when we continue. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

General discussion
I think overall the new version is easier to understand, and the gain in readability can probably be preserved even after we reword things to make them more accurate. Per WP:PRONOUNS, we should avoid the use of first person, e.g. on our climate. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Great work. All of the above versions are so much better than the current text that something should be put in straight away and then further improvements discussed. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is more needed that I realised. The http://www.readabilityofwikipedia.com/ gives us a reading score of 37 for the overall article. Ideally, you want to be above 60 for web content. I'm noticing reading gets more difficult when it's below 50 in a topic I'm not familiar with (I was reviewing Turtle at FAC, and that came out at 49, and I found that difficult). We've probably ended up with complicated sentences as we have had to compromise. Femke (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been going over 1/3(?) of the article for low-hanging fruit in terms of shortening or splitting sentences. This exercise has brought the reading score to a whopping 37. No change. Femke (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One of those days ;) Well, if we're going to be stuck somewhere, 37 is a place with good company. And we get paid regardless of what the score is, right? Oh wait... Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 02:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is challenging, but my experience with the first two paragraphs has me fairly convinced we can make significant improvements. Flawed as they might be, the original revisions I posted showed the the Flesch-Kincaid Grade level going down from about 15 to about 10, and the reading ease score from 35 to 54, compared to the original content. I think a grade level of around 10, and a reading ease of in the 50-55 range, is achievable. And you all have made significant contributions towards that:)
 * And I would strongly advise against doing checks that are based on just URLs. I found that to be a big problem with most of the tools I’ve used so far. Not sure, Femke, if that is what you were doing with the comparison you’ve just described. IMO you really have to be evaluating a specific piece of text to get meaningful results. I took all the lead paragraphs, deleted the citations, and then ran them through readable.com to get my initial baseline data. Plus, using text based entry tools (readable.com or hemingwayapp.com) gives you a much better feel for the process itself - you can see in real time the effect of making sentences shorter, or choosing simpler words, and easily play with alternative phrasing. Dtetta (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that "my website" is not to be trusted; it's still stuck at 37 even though I've split and shortened loads of sentences. It gives a wrong word total. Using Word, I do see improvement in some of the sections I've worked on. Femke (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Had a conversation Professor Bruine de Bruin, who authored the study on climate change terminology that’s referenced at the start of this post. She had some ideas for making webpages, including climate change articles, more readable. In addition to the kind of guidance you get from the readability apps, her main suggestion is to try to minimize the number of 3+ syllable words. It’s not so much of an issue with commonly used words, like “temperature”, but it creates problems with words that aren’t familiar to the average reader, like “reforestation”. Dtetta (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that works. The total score is now 40 (I think the app misses the first 3000 words, explaining why it didn't change before). A lot of these long 3+ syllable words are nouns in summations (X includes Y and Z). I'm trying to explain Y and Z instead. I think I've now put about 1/3 of the entire article through Hemingway. There are a couple of sections I'm barely touching yet as they've been subject to elaborate discussions. Looking forward to tackling the rest of the lede. Femke (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If excess CO2 from human activity is causing global warming, how did an ice sheet 3 1/2 miles thick on top of North America melt before the Industrial Revolution ? 172.114.13.170 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The ice age ended around 11,700 years ago - quite a while before the Industrial Revolution.--Vsmith (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Holocene
I have no intention of arguing for the addition of data from the holocene here. But just to say as someone who stumbled on this page from the front page, is (unverifiably) not a climate change skeptic, but is not very steeped in the debate the first thing I thought when I arrived on the page was "where are the figures for more than 2000 years ago", "why aren't they linked to" and "are people actually trying to hide this", and then after finding the numbers ,n Holocene climatic optimum "I wonder how people contrived to not include those numbers or link to them".

I had a look through some of the discussions and thought some of the arguments were a little weasily. Like a paper talking about the holocene and only mention "rate" and not mentioning the temperature anywhere, even to say that it is unknown.

It's probably for other editors to decide whether it is more legitimizing to fallacious arguments to be seen to hide the data on which they rely, or provide the data that might lead people to seek out or concoct on their own fallacious arguments. I'm in the former camp... but maybe that's more an matter of personality and life experience than anything else. It is particularly unfortunate that you temperature graph staring at 0 BCE does just happen to start at a minimum. Arguably neither argument is a "correct" wikipedia argument for the inclusion of information on the page, but I imagine this is part of what is going on.

I might reference this infographic by xkcd (obviously not a source) as a piece that addresses the fact that temperatures are rising at an unpresedented level *and* temperatures were this high within the last 20k years https://xkcd.com/1732/ (the temperatures here seem to be lower than in the plot in Holocene climatic optimum)

Talpedia (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. The IPCC Ar6 (SPM-7) has solved this rather elegantly, by putting the highest temperature of the last 100,000 years as a reference in their 2,000 Yr graph. I think we could do the same. Current thinking is that it's more likely than not that current temperatures are higher than the mid-Holoceen maximum. Do you think that would work? Our plot of the Holoceen is gravely outdated. Femke (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Temperature
Can the Fahrenheit equivalent please be added in parentheses next to every mention of Celsius, for Americans like myself? CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Each instance needs to have Convert added and configured to the values for the line it's in. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:CONVERSIONS there are two exceptions to the rule of having to convert to US costumary units. But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so. I think there is no special reason to convert the scientific "global mean surface temperature change" to fahrenheit, as people don't typically have a feeling for what it means that the global annually averaged temperature changes. This in contrast to changes in local temperature. The second exemption In some topic areas (for example maritime subjects where nautical miles are the primary units, or American football where yards are primary) it can be excessive to provide a conversion for every quantity also applies, as we were excessively converting the same 1.5 and 2 degrees to degrees Celcius. Hence, a recent consensus to only have an example conversion. Femke (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Record number of page views on Climate change page!
At almost |Climate_change 55,000, yesterday’s page views for the climate change page and GW redirect were the highest they have ever been, at least for the time periods that this tool seems to track. So everyone’s efforts to improve this page are well worth it! Dtetta (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In my twelve years editing Wikipedia, I've never experienced a more intelligent, informed, committed, thoughtful, and respectful group of editors. Kudos to all. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Improving readability of the third paragraph in lede
Here’s the current paragraph:

I think it will be tougher one to make the same level of readability improvement with this paragraph. Not as many long sentences. Some of the complex words may not have easy substitutes. The current grade level is 13.6, readability 29.4, so not as bad as the other paragraphs. Some initial thoughts:
 * Duplicate Farenheit/Centigrade listings - eliminate one of them (looks like a minor improvement)?
 * Intergovernmental Panel > UN’s Climate Change panel
 * Separating out forest preservation as a second sentence, and simplifying the mitigation and adaptation wording.
 * Change “irreversible” to “permanent” in the last sentence.
 * One big question in terms of having the lede reflect the article as a whole - should we include more information from the Policies and politics section here? IMO this is generally a summary of Section 6 right now.
 * Thoughts?
 * Agree with most of these points. The paragraph is now a summary of Section 6, with additions from 5. We seem to be putting too much emphasis on the impacts in the lede, but I'm not quite sure how to avoid that. Maybe
 * Move the observed temperature to the first paragraph
 * Not mention IPCC explicitly.
 * Section 7 is summarised in the last paragraph. If we move some of that to the third paragraph, what would you have in the fourth?
 * I'm not too keen on changing ipcc to UN's climate panel, as that may come across as more political than reality. Maybe leave out the IPCC altogether there? The statement is a fact, and should technically not be attributed. Femke (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those suggestions Femke. Re:moving temperature sentence, not quite sure how that would work, but will try some possible phrasings. Re: IPCC wording, I do think it’s important to mention the IPCC, so I’ll probably just stick with the current description of it, despite the fact that the word “Intergovernmental” is a bit long. Re: putting info from Section 7 in this paragraph, I don’t see much from the the Policy options subsection the current 3rd paragraph, and that info seems to dovetail somewhat with what’s in the current paragraph. But the paragraph already has a lot of information in it, so I’m not really pushing for that addition, just an option I thought worth mentioning to folks. Dtetta (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think briefly explaining what mitigation is in the lead is beneficial. It also saves up space later in the lead, eg: "Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations collectively agreed to keep warming "well under 2.0 °C" (3.6 °F) through mitigation efforts" as opposed to lengthier "through limiting greenhouse gas emissions and removing them from the atmosphere". Bogazicili (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the proposed revision:

And this is what it would look like:

The most significant changes were that I eliminated the tipping points sentence, and added a reference to GHG absorption by soils (which we do mention in the Mitigation>Carbon Sequestration subsection). I edited out tipping points sentence because I just don’t understand what it means. If I go to the reference, I see it, but the words by themselves are not meaningful to me, in that I don’t make a connection when I read them. I suspect there will be opposition to this, and I am ok with putting the sentence back in, but that’s my concern, in addition to the fact that having it in lowers the readability of the paragraph slightly. Regarding the addition of soils, I’m ok with not adding it, but I think we need to better capture the ideas in SRCCL SPM p.18 in this paragraph (and in the body), and that was my attempt.

For this paragraph, grade level goes from 13.6 to 11.1 and reading ease increases from 29.4 to almost 44 with this edit. Dtetta (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with this suggestion by Dtetta:
 * 1) Removal of word mitigation per above
 * 2) Removal of tipping points sentence
 * 3) "Societies can adapt to climate change"? Really? Can they? Without mitigation? That sentence is factually inaccurate.
 * 4) "These efforts alone won’t alter the risk of severe, widespread and permanent impacts" sounds vague. What efforts? All aforementioned efforts, which would include mitigation? I do not understand why "Adaptation alone" was dropped. Bogazicili (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RE:1) - Well this is the basic thrust of the research I referenced at the start of the post on this talk page that introduces this effort. The USC researchers found that people often misunderstand this world without good context, and it is long and abstract. I was trying to deal with that issue, but you’re right that I shouldn’t have completely eliminated it. I actually hadn’t in the text I wrote on the Readable app. But in trying to manage the various aspects of proposing this editing and checking it’s readability, I made a mistake. The sentence I had on readable  starts with ”Responding to these impacts involves limiting the amount of warming through mitigation, and adapting to them”.  I’l make that change in the text above. Thanks for pointing that out.  Dtetta (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re:2) -It would be more helpful if, rather than just object, you propose wording that addresses the legitimate concerns I described in my explanation for the edit, as Femke did in her comment below. This sentence has two hard to understand, abstract terms (critical thresholds and tipping points). As written, it’s not comprehensible to most readers, and so does not add any value to this paragraph, IMO. I’ve also asked friends what they think of this setence, and they can’t figure it out either (something anyone who wants to keep this phrase in the paragraph might consider) I appreciate the fact that Femke, in her comment below, at least tries to come up with an alternative. I think that’s how this editing process should work. I like I said, I suspected I was going to get this kind of opposition to removing the sentence, but I’m disappointed that no one has addressed the concerns I have with it, or provided any explanation as to how it adds value to the paragraph as written. And I could not figure out a succinct way to make it more understandable in this kind of summary paragraph. With that said, I’m ok with keeping it in, as I’ve already stated, and I think Femke’s proposed alternative is marginally better. Dtetta (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re:3)-I think this comment comment is a misreading of that sentence and the one immediately following it. The subsequent sentence clearly modifies and limits the clause you are referring to. Government agencies like EPA would not have this adaptation page if there wasn’t a sense that communities can adapt to climate change, even if those efforts have their limits. That said, I would suggest “Communities may be able to” rather than “Societies can”, which is admittedly an overly optimistic phrase. Dtetta (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re:4)-In looking at it again, I agree the phrase is somewhat vague. Regarding your preference for keeping “Adaptation alone”, my concern is that “Adaptation” is an abstract, difficult to read term, which is why I chose the other wording. But I’m ok with going back to the original “Adaptation alone”. Anyone else with thoughts on this issue? Dtetta (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m now thinking “By themselves, these efforts to adapt” is a good substitute phrase. It’s specific, and also more readable. Dtetta (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Dtetta's proposal goes too far, removing valuable information. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't have enough energy for proper answer (bloody long COVID), but I was wondering if we could remove the jargon in the tipping point sentence as a compromise. So simply "Additional warming increases the risk of triggering tipping points". Critical is maths jargon, that even I struggle to define with my brain fog. Ideally, this would be put in the second paragraph, but that is a bit full here. Maybe we can add Current warming is about 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Additional warming increases the risk of triggering irreversible tipping points. to the end of the previous paragraph, to separate the impacts from the action.
 * The new text makes a problem we had worse: we dedicate almost as much space to negative emission technologies as to reducing emissions, even though large-scale NETs are quite uncertain. Solutions in heating (heat pumps) and transport (more active / EVs) are more certain. Femke (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me weigh in on the question whether we should use the word mitigation. I don't mind if it gets scrapped, as it's a bit of ugly jargon. Not too jarring that it definitely has to go either imo. Femke (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And the last paragraph can just omit "through mitigation efforts". I think we should do that anyway independent of the outcome of this discussion. Making some place to discuss consensus and cliamte denial there. Femke (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry you’re still suffering from COVID fog, Femke, but I do appreciate your constructive comments. I think they’ve been quite good! Regarding “tipping points”, I appreciate your attempt at trying to find alternative wording. It doesn’t really address the problem that “tipping points” is  a vague, abstract, poorly defined term that I’m sure most readers don’t understand, and almost certainly don’t have a common understanding of. That said, I think your first suggestion is a slight improvement over what’s there now, so why don’t we go with that, and just make a note here that someone needs to work on a better, succinct way of saying whatever it is that sentence is trying to convey. I just read the WP Tipping points article, and I’m still not clear on exactly what is meant by the term.
 * Re: the forests/soils sentence - I think it’s about more than just NETs, to me it’s also about preserving current sinks. And it’s different than the RE/EE stuff, which is why I broke it into a second sentence (which also improves readability). I can eliminate the soils reference, and just keep forests, which is in the current paragraph. Disappointed, though, that no one has addressed the concern I mentioned in my explanation of this edit, namely that we need to more clearly describe the issues on SRCCL SPM p 18. I think it’s very important for readers to understand how they fit in to overall efforts to address climate change, along with the uncertainties they bring. But maybe the body of the article is a better place for dealing with this first.
 * And thanks for your thoughts on the mitigation issue. Anyone else want to comment on how it’s characterized in either this or the last paragraph? Dtetta (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is an underline/strikeout revision to the October 26 paragraph I had proposed, based on the comments above:


 * Put back in the tipping point phrase in the form Femke suggested.
 * Put back in the term “mitigated” because of the concerns expressed. Femke didn’t mind If it was removed, but the level of opposition seemed strong.
 * Eliminated the “farmland soils” phrase.
 * Changed “Societies can” to “Some communities may”, and changed “These efforts alone” to “By themselves, efforts to adapt” in response to Bogazicili’s concerns. I’m guessing there’s not going to be a lot input from others on this, so I’m proposing this next revision now.

This is what the text would look like now:

Dtetta (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost there.
 * The word also in the tipping point sentence implies that the IPCC does not predict tipping points, or that tipping points aren't impacts. It should be left out.
 * Thanks for keeping the suggestions coming! - but I don’t quite read it that way. To me “also” it’s intended to differentiate between general Iimpacts and tipping points. I would characterize the latter as rapid changes that can occur in certain instances once a given impact is level is reached, and which may be permanent. IMO that’s a somewhat unique subset of impacts that merits the use of the word “also”. Don’t think it implies that the IPCC is not predicting them as well, and the citation at the end of that sentence further clarifies the IPCC’s opinion on this. I also think we should cite AR6 p.TS-71 for this sentence, rather than the AR5 report. And that wording is so nebulous (and uses that “cannot be excluded” type of double negative language) that I still question the value of including the sentence. At any rate, my main points are that if we need to keep that sentence there, 1)the word “also” should be in it, and 2)the citation should be updated.Dtetta (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll give you this one. No point in overdiscussing the word also. Yes to citation. I'm strongly convinced the low-probability high impact tipping points should be included. Especially now that some, like the melting of Greenland, are more in the medium probability range. Femke (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "By themselves, efforts to adapt won't alter the risk of severe, widespread and permanent impacts." That's not quite correct. Adaptation will alter the risks, but not eliminate/avert them.
 * Good good point, will go back to the original “avert” wording.Dtetta (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My wishlist has active transport, EVs and heat pumps in the lede :). Femke (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As a happy EV owner, let me see what I can add after the sentence that already talks about renewable energy and energy efficiency. Not sure what active transport really means, but am thinking we could add something like: “Increasing the use of electricity in transportation (with electric vehicles) and home heating (via heat pumps) will help further limit greenhouse gas emissions.”  Does that sound reasonable? Dtetta (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. What about "Switching to electric vehicles in transport and heat pumps to warm homes will further help limit emissions". That avoids long words such as electricity, transportation, greenhouse. I think electrification is extremely important, but the concept is quite technical, so I wouldn't want to mention it in this nonacademic lede. Femke (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That wording works for me:) Dtetta (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * active transport is walking and cycling. Even more sustainable then EVs. Femke (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I think the first step might be to figure out where they belong in either the clean energy or energy efficiency subsections. Maybe then include a brief mention in the lede. But I don’t think they are on the same order of impact as the other items mentioned there, so that may be an issue. Would you be supportive of including the sentence I wrote on increased use of electricity in transportation? It seems to get at two of the items you were looking to add, even if it doesn’t touch on “active transport”. Dtetta (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They're not in the article yet, you're right! I'm getting confused with sustainable energy. I'm okay with leaving active transport out of the lede. With the structure, it doesn't quite fit in either efficiency and clean energy, but I would put them in the latter as the paragraph on transport is a bit thin. Femke (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

So here is a strikeout/underline of the latest changes:

Changed “won’t alter” to “cannot avert” in the last sentence, and placed the sentence Femke suggested after the sentence on RE/EE. I left out the word “help” in that sentence to avoid redundancy with its use in the sentence on forests, and added “commercial buildings”, as I think that’s more consistent with the NREL reference listed at current footnote 223. Dtetta (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Posted the changes that have been discussed, and I think the fourth sentence “Responding to …” could still be improved. Here is the edit I propose for that sentence:
 * ”Responding to these impacts changes involves taking actions to limit ing the amount of future warming, and adapt ing to them.” Dtetta (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And we might delete “in transport” from the sentence about EVs, as I don’t see them being used in any significant way other than “in transport”. Dtetta (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both work for me :). Femke (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking about how to help readers understand what is meant by “tipping points”, and it seems like an example would help. So I propose that we use one of the examples given in the article, and add the clause ”such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet” at the end of the tipping point sentence. Dtetta (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph looks good to me now, thanks for all the hard work Dtetta and everyone else! Bogazicili (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

And some minor suggestions for the last paragraph
Although the last paragraph scores somewhat low on readability, the only suggestions I would make at this point would be to go ahead with Femke’s 27 October suggestion and eliminate “through mitigation efforts” from the first sentence. Eliminating the adverb “collectively” improves readability as well (fewer adverbs are associated with better readability), but I’m not so sure about that change. I’m also ok with leaving the paragraph as is for now - I think it’s pretty good. I’ll let someone else take the lead on any edits to this paragraph. Dtetta (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Last thoughts on edits to the lede
Thanks to all for your help in editing the lede paragraphs. For the lede as a whole, grade level went down by about 3 grades (roughly 13.5 to 10.5), and reading ease increase 12 points (34 to 46). Major improvements! And particularly nice to see given the increase in daily page views, which for the CC/GW combo have increased to an average of around 15K per day in the past 90 days, compared to an average of about 8k earlier in the year. Dtetta (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

What to do about climate action?
Starting a new section for this, which I have touched on yesterday above. I think it's important. In our articles we often use the words "climate action" (sometimes shorthand for climate change mitigation efforts). But if our reader wants to understand what we mean with "climate action" they ought to be able to click through to a good Wikipedia article. Is it possible that we currently have none? Currently it redirects to Individual action on climate change which is wrong, too limiting (Femke proposed above to take out the redirect which I agree with). My proposal: how about we start a stub on "climate action" where we just say:

"Climate action can include a range of activities and measures, such as: So not a disambiguation page but an overview page, a bit like the one on wastewater. EMsmile (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Climate change mitigation
 * Climate change adaptation
 * Individual action on climate change"


 * We should keep them like that and add the sections to this page+ improve upon hose pages and its publications Devianttheart2 (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me. For future discussions like this, could you post on WT:PROCC? This talk page is already at a length that challenges my brain :). Femke (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done (set up a new article for climate action). Sorry, you're right, should have put it at WT:PROCC, will post there now. - I guess we can now wikilink Climate action in one or two places where it appears in this article. EMsmile (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Scientific consensus discussion topic, I have a suggestion for strengthening how we talk about what actions are being taken on Climate Change. I’m suggesting we move the Protest subsection into the Mitigation section, and discuss the full range of civil society actions in that new subsection, including protests Dtetta (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * More specifically, I think this new subsection in Mitigation could also include individual carbon footprint reduction actions (which I had tried to include earlier this year but were rejected), the range of other actions described in the Individual action on climate change article, as well as information from the Climate movement article. I’m still surprised that they are not in this article already. At a minimum, for the present, I think the Climate movement wikilink should be included in the list above. Dtetta (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The bigger picture - Climate change as a weapon against China
How can this be worked into the page?

The media do not necessarily tell your what to think, but they tell you what to think about, and how to think about it. --The Rise and Fall of Professional Journalism Robert McChesney

The largest polluter in the world up until a few years ago was the United States of America. Now China has surpassed the USA. Now climate change is an issue which president Biden is championing. Climate Change is real. Full Stop. That said, here are some facts: The USA created capitalist China and capitalist Russia. The most violent country internationally is the USA. Climate Change is being used as a weapon against China. China leads the world globally in clean technology. America created this world we live in, the violence, the 6 million dead the US has conservatively since World War 2. 1 million dead Iraqis. Over a million dead since the Berlin Wall Collapsed in 1989 and the USSR collapsed in 1991. If individual poor and middle class Americans want a safer world more sustainable world, they must take down the 1% capitalists in this world, that feed on the 99%. The people who care about nothing more but profits. The epicenter of this is the USA. Stop being manipulated into what to think about.

I can add many more sources for everything I said.

China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter - Tue 19 Jun 2007

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

GT Voice: West can’t use climate issues as weapon against China in Glasgow - Oct 26, 2021 https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202110/1237359.shtml

Why do we ignore the civilians killed in American wars? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-we-ignore-the-civilians-killed-in-american-wars/2011/12/05/gIQALCO4eP_story.html

The US is now involved in 134 wars or none https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-16/us-now-involved-134-wars-or-none-depending-your-definition-war

All told, between 480,000 and 507,000 people have been killed in the United States’ post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. This tally of the counts and estimates of direct deaths caused by war violence does not include the more than 500,000 deaths from the war in Syria, raging since 2011, which the US joined in August 2014.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2018/Human%20Costs%2C%20Nov%208%202018%20CoW.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:810C:B8C0:FC83:A1A2:BE1E:4FA4 (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * US war atrocities are off-topic for this article. Femke (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Public transport market share
"In transport, scenarios envision sharp increases in the market share of ..... public transport ...." still needs a better source I think. Because covid has changed peoples attitudes to public transport thus invalidating pre-covid transport scenarios don't you think?. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobel prize in physics 2021 for modeling of climate change
There has been awarded Nobel prize in physics: Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann ‘for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming’ and Giorgio Parisi ‘for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales’. --Cassiopeia M (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.reviewofreligions.org/35384/2021-nobel-prize-in-physics-a-complex-problem-with-a-complex-solution/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-021-01420-y

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2021/summary/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiopeia M (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Cassiopeia M (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Current pledges
When we said current pledges lead to 2.8 degrees in 2019, UNEP and CAT agreed. Now, CAT says 2.4, whereas UNEP says 2.7 (excluding conditional pledges, but inluding conditional ones). I feel like we should follow UNEP, as that's a slightly better source. Any objections? Femke (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of "global warming would still reach about 2.8 °C" could we say "global warming would still be over 2.4 °C" or "global warming would still reach between 2 °C and 3 °C" as I guess there is a big error range (have not found it in unep report yet)? After any extra pledges next week and when the Climate Trace data narrows down current emissions I guess someone might calculate a figure within plus or minus 0.1? Or is even that impossible as Iran and Libya have not ratified yet? Also I don't know why we say ""well under 2.0 °C" and not ""well under 2 °C". Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have changed lead to 2.7 and added range to body text - no need to reply unless you want to Chidgk1 (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we also add this to the lead, last paragraph? Bogazicili (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. It seems like we have to update this again, more radically after COP26: https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/glasgows-2030-credibility-gap-net-zeros-lip-service-to-climate-action/. This now gives 2.1C if pledges are fulfilled (2.7 with current policy). The 2.7 is already in the lede. There was some overview source I cannot find with more estimates. Femke (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Developements in the Antarctic
See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:3456:1B3F:6864:E0B4 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The link is to a 2015 post. Compare with the constantly-updated data at https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/. Ice mass loss since 2002, as measured by NASA's GRACE and GRACE Follow-On satellite projects... — RCraig09 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Global heating as an alternative term for the introduction
An increasing number of media have recently been using the term global heating instead of global warming. The start was made by the Guardian, who wanted to draw attention to the monumental extent of the climate crisis. Many media have followed suit. I propose to include this alternative term in the introduction. 194.62.169.86 (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me but I expect others will object and/or revert you. Could you write your proposed wording here first please. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I object, because renaming "self-determined women with interest in natural religious rituals" into "witches" also hasn't made the world a better place, as we should have already learned from the middle-ages. If dramatic naming becomes more important than plain facts, it can be an indication that emotional agenda-setting and conflicts of interest tend to cloud the clear view of science. Moreover, constantly renaming things without sane reason is not a good evidence for stable knowledge, and hence, damages the reputation of science. --77.180.154.73 (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Google Trends data today shows "global warming" to be searched 37 to 100 times more than "global heating". The latter term is discussed, in context, in the Climate crisis article, which focuses on terminology. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverting addition of reference to public transport in third paragraph of the lead
Apologies,, but I reverted the editing you initiated (and added to) in the “Switching to…” sentence in the third paragraph. I changed it back to the version that existed on Nov 3. At the top of the lead it clearly requests "Please do not change the content in the lead section without prior discussion", meaning that edits to the lead should be proposed on the talk page first. I don’t thing adding a reference to public transport is necessarily a bad idea, but I have concerns with this edit:


 * In the article, public transport is presented as an energy efficiency measure, and energy efficiency is already mentioned in the previous sentence. Maybe the public transport reference should go there.
 * The use of three separate citations in a row seems excessive, and out of place with the way the rest of the lead text is referenced.
 * The additional text (and those three consecutive references) creates a longer, harder to read sentence, and there was a lot of effort in October to make the lead paragraphs more readable.

Would you please present a proposed revision here first (there are several examples of that on this current talk page), and explain in a little more detail why you think what you are proposing is an improvement. Addressing the concerns I noted above would also be helpful. Dtetta (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

New extreme weather figure
I've been trying to come up with suggestions to improve the current extreme weather figure, but figured it was best to start afresh. I tried to solve a few problems
 * There was too much text on the previous figure
 * The colours felt outdated
 * There was weird connecting line between the outlier, and there was no elegant way to include the 50-year event in the graph of 10 year events.
 * There were a few unnecessary elemetns to the graph, like the gray border.
 * Inspired by https://myclimatefuture.info/ Femke (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Formally, I'm open to suggestions re colors, and (to some extent) further reducing text that's not illustrative. Especially with changes I've made a few minutes ago,refresh your browser, by-passing cache I don't think the old graph is cluttered at all. Its legends all serve a purpose.
 * Substantively, I did not want to omit the 50-year heatwave outlier that was presented by the IPCC; it's outliers that are perhaps the most instructive and should not be sacrificed, especially for formal reasons. Also, line graphs show how weather event frequencies are a continuous function of global warming; in contrast, bar charts show unevenly spaced discrete temperature 1°C 2°C 4°C intervals as being evenly spaced columns in a way that's quantitatively misleading.
 * I'm happy to adjust graphics per consensus or other suggestions. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your updates!
 * The fundamental problem remains: like you mentioned yourself before, the line graph underplays the 30% / 70% increase of risk. There are two ways in which the bar graph is superior in this regard:
 * It allows for annotation, so you can actually see the difference between 1x and 2x
 * It allows for the title to be in the graph, so that space is used better, and the lower risk increases can be visualised appropriately.
 * I see you point about the gap between 1-2 and 2-4 being different. I could change the colouring to have more distance. I could also switch to having temperature on the x-axis, and the legend display 'heavy rain, drought, extreme heat'. Would that improve cases.
 * To further improve the line graph:
 * Drop the line to the outlier; it now seems like the risk barely increases outside of the plot because the slope is so low. Make some arrow element instead.
 * Reduce saturation of the colours. It's significantly too bright.
 * Remove more borders and grey.
 * Increase font size / remove more text. Femke (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging the rest of the team, as I hope we can sort this out before our big day tomorrow: Femke (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel honoured to be regarded as part of the team here! Is the idea to potentially replace the line chart with the bar chart? If yes, then I would say: please do. The bar chart is so much easier to read for a lay person than the line chart is. For the line chart I would somehow expect time on the x-axis and was surprised to see it's not time. If the bar chart was created from the same data as the line chart then I would say the bar chart is heaps better. Thank you Femkemilene. EMsmile (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What EMsmile said, exactly. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol same, even though I'm late! Bogazicili (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. Laypersons might find it surprising to see that the risk of heavy rain increases but also drought increases. I think I know how this is meant - some regions will get more heavy rain and some more drought. Or the rain gets concentrated into some few events. But can you think of a way to clarify this or change the wording? Otherwise someone might say "this doesn't make sense, they are predicting higher chance of rain but also higher chance of drought!?". EMsmile (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that the chart is somewhat easier to read, in that you don’t have to cross reference the different axes when looking at a specific data point. Not including the 50 year heat waves is a significant drawback, though, as these are the most deadly ones. I imagine that’s why the IPCC singled them out in their graph on p.SPM-23.
 * I think the confusing situation EMsmile describes is at least partly a function of how the rain bars are named. The IPCC report makes it clear that “heavy rain” is referring to one-day rain events. So I would change “heavy rain” to “heavy one-day rain events”, if that can be fit into the figure. And that apparent dichotomy makes perfectly good sense to me - in the northern SF Bay area we’ve experienced exactly this situation. We are in the midst of an extreme drought that, just this past week, was punctuated by a 100 year one-day rain event, which provided a third of the annual rain in some locations (along with a lot of flooding!). Dtetta (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I've uploaded Version 7, which includes the changes you Femke suggested. Text is reduced in amount but increased in font size, colors are changed, height x width is reduced, border is now transparent, etc. Bottomline: I think the line chart conveys more information, more completely, more "visually" (continuously) than a bar chart, and is truer to the language of the source. Substantively, the '50-year heat event' outlier is particularly important to include, and is emphasized by being "off the chart"—literally. Also, "2021" places us in historical context. The 1°C 2°C 3°C 4°C levels are explicitly labeled "Global warming since pre-industrial era" for lay readers who are still not aware of the meaning of the temperature scale involved. "Cross-referencing different axes" for particular data points (mentioned above) is not something most lay readers will even try to do, and is a tiny 'burden' for those who are the type of person who try to read graphs in detail. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC) To clarify the bar chart, text would have to be added to explain the meaning of the 1°C 2°C 4°C legend (temp change since pre-industrial), and the 1.3x etc. numbers (not clear to new readers what the "x" stands for or with respect to which baseline). The present simplified bar chart omits meaningful context which can only be remedied by adding further text—which has been found objectionable. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! With the updates to he old graph, I'm putting this on slightly lower priority, even if I still think the bar is better. I'll change the following:
 * I'll try to put in a baseline (struggling with python, need some rest.)
 * I'll change the title to "Extreme 10-year events more likely under global warming".
 * When I've got more energy, I'll try to experiment with the 50-year event. I don't think this will be pretty, but I do agree it's importnat. This is one aspect our prose needs updating too.
 * My A/B testing with poor family and friends showed the same about a line graph being interpreted as having time on the x-axis. I was surprised, so didn't mention it, but good to know that that is a common mistake. Femke (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * — On the "50-year" issue: I doubt there is an elegant solution (I considered and rejected a logarithmic vertical scale since it trivializes larger impacts).
 * — I'm not sure if it's correct to shorten "precipitation" to "heavy rain", because precipitation might include snowfall; we'll have to check the reference. —04:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC) . . . If we leave out too much text, the graphic is "dumbed down" to the point where it's substantively inaccurate. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not surprising this is all a challenge - the IPCC takes a full page to graphically present this data, so your efforts to condense it to one smaller figure are admirable. Dtetta (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — In a sense, both the bar graph and the line graph suggest time in the horizontal direction: the frequency of extreme events appears to grow in almost-linear proportion to temperature change, which in turn will almost certainly rise with time. So in rough terms, it's not really a "mistake" to perceive time along the horizontal axis as seems to be of concern to some above. I think the continuous near-linear relationship of extreme event frequency to temperature change is another reason in favor of a line graph over the discrete-temperature representation of the bar chart. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have looked at this earlier but I think the bar chart is better. 50 year heat wave messes up the scale so 10 year droughts look less important than they should under 4C for example. I think the bar chart makes these impacts more clear. What I would suggest is using the bar chart, and only mentioning 50 year heatwaves in text somewhere in the graph. It shouldn't be represented as a bar, so it doesn't mess up the scale. Something like putting just the 39.2x number next to 9.4x number in the graph in a box or something and then just explaining extreme heat refers to 10 year heatwaves, whereas 50 year heatwave risk increases 39.2x in 4C scenario in the source of the graph Bogazicili (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the bar chart is far more clear than the line chart. Since we have near unanimous agreement on that, we should make that switch now.
 * I would also like to see the title of the bar chart change to "Likelihood of extreme weather that used to occur once per decade", which is about the same length as the current title. The reason is it makes the graph self explanatory, instead of requiring you to read the caption to know what you mean by extreme weather. Does that title change work for you Femkemilene?
 * For the 50 year event issue, we could either change the entire bar chart to feature 50 year events, or add a sentence about that issue in the caption. Efbrazil (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you go for a bar chart including the 50-year data, a horizontal bar chart might work better than a vertical bar chart. Reason: long legends of text strings, which now appear to be necessary, must extend horizontally, and would better match the longer 50-year bars so there would be less wasted space and no multi-line explanatory legends. — RCraig09 (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Femke- could you make the image switch now, or would you rather have me or Craig do it? In terms of updating the bar chart for 50 year events, is that something you think is a good idea, and if so do you want to take a crack at it, or should Craig or I do that? Efbrazil (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm on a wikibreak. Feel free to go ahead and change it. I don't think 50 Yr will work. Femke (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it! You want to take a run at updating the bar chart as you see fit, or should I take a crack at it tomorrow? I would like to see the title changed as per above and then explore showing 50 year instead of 10 year events. Efbrazil (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead. I think including all four data series, including the 50-year series, might work if the bars are horizontal. The 50-year 4°C bar would be long, but the graphic might work if the bars are parallel (horizontal) to your long title and the bars begin at the far left margin and text is placed to the right of the bars. PS It would be desirable to show, somehow, where 2021 is, to give context. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: I think it needs to be made explicit what 1°C 2°C 4°C actually mean. In this bar chart, that hasn't been accomplished since there is no "horizontal axis". Remember our readers may be exposed to these concepts for the first time. At least "1°C warming"... or "1°C global warming"... are needed; and at the most verbose, "1°C warmer than pre-industrial era" ... etc. could be the legends. Because the 50-year 4°C bar is so long, there's plenty of room above it for text legends. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I spent some time on this. The graph that the IPCC presents and that Femke came up with is confusing I think, as it creates the impression that the data is increasing exponentially, but that's just an artifact of the X scale going up 1 2 4 (skipping 3, which I want to slap somebody at the IPCC for). When I graphed it out, frequency increase is mostly linear with respect to temperature increase, which you can also see in Craig's graph up above. The same is true for intensity increases- they are generally linear. Graphing intensity vs frequency is similarly not interesting.

In the end, I took a step back and looked at all the data, and I think we should include intensity increases. Take 3 degrees Celcius of temperature change, the pathway we are currently on. It is one thing to say that heat waves will be 7.5 times as frequent at 3 degrees Celcius. It is another when you consider that those heat waves will be, on average, 3.9 degrees Celcius hotter, or something like 7 degrees F. I believe this is the issue that Craig was trying to capture with the 50 year heat wave inclusion, but to me intensity is the more clear measure, plus it's available for drought and heavy rain in addition to heat waves.

Coming back to the pictures, there's no way to convey intensity and frequency at the same time, and I don't think the graph is interesting since all the data trends are essentially linear. What we really want to do is say "this is the world at 1 degree, 2 degrees, etc". I think that sort of data may be best represented as a table, since the text is most important. Another advantage of a table is that we can have it higher up in the article where we first present extreme weather and not have to deal with side bar sandwich issues. Here is what it could look like:

* 3°C values are an average of 2°C and 4°C IPCC values

Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * — True, the IPCC report (archive) does show both frequency and intensity. I chose frequency over intensity of extreme events because changing frequency shows climate change; conversely, intensity does not show what you call "how the world is"... except during those still-rare events.
 * — Separately, on the principle that a picture is worth a thousand words—especially for lay readers—I favor a visual graphic over a table of numbers, especially when the table includes "standard deviations" which aren't even meaningful to probably >~75% of lay readers. I think that comparing rows and columns of numbers is more difficult for most humans than graphic charts; that's why graphic charts exist.
 * — I agree that frequency varies ~linearly with temperature change. The very fact of that linearity should be conveyed to readers even if you find that linearity to be less "interesting" in some way.
 * — The existing line chart, and even a bar chart, have a chance of succeeding in ~instantly conveying what's important about climate change. Any portrayal should definitely include the most extreme (50-year) data series since the whole purpose is to convey the extreme nature of events. I've outlined some graphical suggestions for a horizontal bar chart at 22:20 and 22:56 on 3 Nov, above. — RCraig09 (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree mostly with Craig : a table takes up a lot of space without conveying information quickly. Imo, tables rarely work for quantative information. I think the remaining issues can be solved by changing title, legend and colour (to make the gap between 2 and 4 more clear). I'm willing to entertain a graph with 50-yr heatwave, even though I think it's very unlikely the more realistic 2 degree warming bars will convey information still. Femke (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Couldn't resist and updated it. I don't see it, that exponential growth in the graph. The right-most bar dominates, and that just doesn't look exponential in my eyes. See you guys in two weeks. Femke (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated femke's chart with a new version that is horizontal so it can include intensity, plus I added the 3 degree measure as a simple average of 2 and 4 degrees. Intensity is at least half the story here. If we only show frequency, we are implying that "what we see now once per decade will instead be happening 3 or 5 times per decade". Instead, we will be seeing something much worse 3 to 5 times per decade. I think the 50 year issue is captured by including intensity. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Made a couple more tweaks to remove some text and bump the font. Efbrazil (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, concurrently, I made a rough horizontal bar chart (Dropbox link). I didn't see your update until moments ago, after I completed my horizontal bar chart. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I strongly prefer my graph. The new graph is unnecessary big, which is my biggest objection. It does not contain white space between the bars (which makes it a histogram, even though it's a bar graph). It misses a space between number and unit for temperature. We're at 1.2 degree, which I'm not sure should be rounded down. And finally, we can't make up numbers. Even if they're half reasonable guesses, we just cannot. The intensity / frequency are mostly redundant measures, except that intensity is measured differently for each quantity, making it difficult to display. Femke (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely, Efbrazil, your chart is a new chart, not properly an update to Femke's. Compared to my horizontal bar chart, I now slightly prefer your grouping by event type (heat, drought...) rather than by temperature change (my rough version). I definitely agree that we should not interpolate data ourselves. I appreciate that the 50-year event data "squashes" the more-likely-scenario data bars, but that more-likely-scenario is only more likely during this century and I owe some allegiance to the original source's scope, and to purposely omit the extreme number is borderline cherry-picking. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I still have significant concerns about the graph shown here and on the actual article. To state them again:
 * The rain bars have the legend “heavy rain” associated with them, rather than clarifying it as the frequency of heavy one day events, which is how it’s described in the AR6 SPM page that this graph seems to be derived from. That’s a significant text-source disconnect, and can lead to a confused interpretation of the graph, as EM smile noted.
 * The 50 year heat waves, which are front and center in the graphic depictions on SPM 23, are missing from this graph. It seems like there was some discussion about ways of including them via the new bar chart orientation, but that didn’t seem to make it in to the new version. I think that’s one of the most important features of that SPM page, and to not have it in this graphic, as I mentioned, is a significant flaw.
 * Glad to see both those concerns are addressed in Craig’s dropbox proposal, which is the version I would support. It’s visually clear, and the descriptions are better aligned with the report, although in the interest of understandability for the average reader, maybe drought event could be changed to drought (don’t know if there is a real difference between these terms and how they are understood), and heat event could be changed to heat wave. Dtetta (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the concerns raised are easy to fix, so that's what I just did: The bars are now separated, 3C is clearly labeled as an average, and vertical height is reduced.
 * When I updated Femke's chart, I did not know it was already live on the page- I figured we were just trying to come to consensus on a new bar chart version to replace Craig's chart. Femke said they were out of the picture for a few weeks and I should go ahead with a new version. That's why I felt it was OK to overwrite it, but I can back it out and create a new graphic if femke would prefer that.
 * I do not understand how anyone can say "intensity / frequency are mostly redundant measures". Frequency is how often something happens, intensity is how extreme the thing will be. They must both be presented to capture the severity of extreme weather under climate change. Am I missing something?
 * I like presenting 3C as a clear average, since 3C that is the track we are currently on, and because going "1 2 4" is deceptive as it tricks the viewer into thinking effects increase exponentially. Like I said, I tried to address the concern by making it clear in the key that I did 3C as an average of 2C and 4C. If neither of you want the 3C presented as an average, then I can cut that along with 1C, just showing 2C and 4C. Is that your preference?
 * The current graph is useful for comparing decadal heat waves with decadal droughts and heavy rain. It would be one thing to compare 50 year heat waves with 10 year heat waves, but putting 50 year heat waves on the same graph that has 10 year droughts and 10 year heavy rains is just confusing. There's just too much going on for the user to make sense of it. So I don't think we are cherry picking data, we are just putting data together that makes sense to present together. If we want a separate graphic that covers 50 year heat waves that would be fine by me, but of course we'd have to bump something. Efbrazil (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) I plan to work up a different horizontal bar chart, one that groups by event type rather than by temperature change. The main purpose of both my charts will be to show how much the 50-year-extreme bar "squashes" the shorter bars. If there's significant interest here, one will graduate from Dropbox to WM Commons. :-) — RCraig09 (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think one of the main aspect ignored also in Craig's diagram is just how little time people spend reading a single Wikipedia article. Even with my simple graph, I'm assuming half of our readers that have come this far into the article will immediately skip it. With the attempts to capture almost all information, instead readers lose a lot of information as they will not even attempt to understand. I think one of the compromises we could make is to have two versions: a simple one for this article, and a slightly more complicated for effects of climate change and possibly extreme weather. This could include a 40x for a 50-yr event (of course truncated, so that it does not eliminate other information). Femke (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Earlier rough horizontal bar chart grouped by temperature: Dropbox link #1
 * More recent rough horizontal bar chart grouped by event type: Dropbox link #2 (preferred grouping)
 * I think the horizontal bar charts instantly convey trends; it's not about focusing on "39.2 in particular". Exact numbers are what most readers may overlook, and that's totally ok. The trends are instantly clear from Dropbox #2; and to (arguably) cherry-pick data, especially for formal reasons, should be avoided. (Aside: interpolated 3°C data could be shown as "ghost" or "shadow" bars—not presented as actual data.) — RCraig09 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I took another crack at things, cutting 1 degree (now) and 3 degree (averaged) numbers. That reduces complexity, allows another font bump, and eliminates concerns about averaging. Getting there yet? Efbrazil (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The new Efbrazil graph is very close to getting my thumbs up :). I think showing 2 and 4 could work (even if COP26 is putting is close to the 2C level, making the range 1-2 more relevant). I think it's not easy to interpret that frequency and intensity are not simultaneously increasing. As in, we don't get heat waves that are 10 times as frequent AND all 5C warmer. We get heat waves of the same intensity 10x as frequent OR seen differently, we get heat waves that are 5C warmer. (how I wish I had a whiteboard to explain things). Don't forget the space between the unit and quantity (1 °C rather than 1°C). I can't think of a way to make the drought/heavy rain/heat wave more readable. Not quite sure what our accessibility guidelines say about vertical text. Femke (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, now we are getting to the point! My interpretation of the IPCC graphics is that we will get heat waves that are 10 times as frequent AND ARE, ON AVERAGE, 5C warmer. I'm basing that on the graphics combining frequency and intensity and because the text says over and over again "Frequency and increase in intensity" not "Frequency or increase in intensity". It also makes sense- as heat waves are more frequent, they will also be more intense. Femke- Can you provide a source that backs your interpretation? Efbrazil (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that 1 °C should be included since it's our ~present-day level. (Broken record: 50-year data shouldn't be excluded... in part because it's distinct from decadal data.) Meanwhile, the chart has a large amount of text, practically including a table's worth, which has been regularly criticized in other discussions. I think there should be more substance visually presented—visual presentation being the entire purpose of charts!—and fewer abstract numbers textually presented. Lay readers generally will ignore or be put off by details, but will ~instantly perceive what is presented visually. PS - It's a great idea to place needed text inside bars; it doesn't rob our eyes of pleasant white space. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:56, ←5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wild proposal: an array of rectangles, with the height of each rectangle being increased intensity and the width of each rectangle being increased frequency. Vertical "axis" of the array based on event type, horizontal "axis" based on degree of global warming. It's probably too non-standard to gain traction here, but it's a thought. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm all for cutting text, but not if the substance is lost in the process. We need to have our content educate people and ground discussions, not present content that seems designed to just alarm people. As a bonus in this case, if you read the text, it's much more alarming than just looking at a bar. I agree that the content here is pretty textual, which is why I suggested a table above. I think it's worth noting the confusion I have with Femke above, which to me reinforces the importance of having enough text to ground a graphic in facts.
 * Regarding the cut of 1°C, it's a matter of having space and the importance and conveying information clearly. Neither of you liked showing 3C as an average of data, and I'm opposed to showing numbers going 1 2 4 and skipping 3. Given all the stuff going on in the graphic already, I think cutting 1C is an OK resolution. Efbrazil (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm mainly suggesting ~instantly conveying substance in graphics, rather than abstractly in text. I now suggest showing 0 °C 1 °C 2 °C 3 °C 4 °C — with 3 °C shown in "phantom" or "shadow" (~low opacity). I think it's OK to omit 1.5 °C as an unnecessary intermediate since you're set on going with a bar chart rather than the original line chart which avoids the interpolation problem altogether. The goal is not to alarm but to fairly present what's in the source, and it's odd you say it's the text that's more alarming. Looking at the more recent rough horizontal bar chart grouped by event type: Dropbox link #2, it's the succession of bar lengths that instantly communicates frequency to lay viewers so 'frequency' text isn't needed. I can live with supplemental 'intensity' text if that's consensus. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Graphing both frequency and intensity: Look at my Dropbox link #3 to see an array of rectangles, with the height of each rectangle representing increased intensity (units vary), and the width of each rectangle representing increased frequency. Categories: vertical arrangement in the array is based on event type, and horizontal arrangement in the array is based on degree of global warming. Note how for extreme heat events, the likelihood increases substantially with global warming but the intensity does not. This idea is somewhat like a bubble chart... except with rectangular bubbles! Based on this general concept, there might be a way of graphically consolidating information in the bar chart that's under consideration—such as overlapping bars rather than placing bars above and below each other. — 06:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC) — RCraig09 (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the Dropbox link figures are both overly complicated.
 * I'll try to explain in more detail why showing both frequency and intensity may lead to the wrong conclusion for our readers (again, this is difficult without a whiteboard). There is a distribution of intensities that shifts towards higher intensities under warming. Per the SPM caption, the frequency is defined as events that exceed the old 10-yr threshold. This will include events at the old 10-yr intensity, and events more intense that that. The most extreme new 10-yr event, that's what the increase in intensity is about. I know I'm not allowed to say "I've sat in on loads of seminars and talks about the topic, please believe me"
 * A separate argument about not showing both is the infographic in the TS This only shows the most pertinent variable for each extreme.
 * Small remark: the heat extreme is the hottest day, whereas heat waves are defined as multi-day events. Could be changed into hottest day or heat extreme. Femke (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * — I understand almost all of what you Femke wrote at 08:14; thank you. My Dropbox link #3 was a rough draft demonstration of concept, not a proposal for a figure here.
 * — Question: Does your 08:14 post imply that intensity data text should be excluded from User:Efbrazil's chart? — RCraig09 (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Added: the Efbrazil figure may not comply completely with our accessibility guideline. The background colour for white text to be allowed is somewhat darker.
 * I can't find anything about vertical text in the accessibility documentation, but I'd be surprised if having this much verticle text is allowed. We can't assume people can easily turn their head. Femke (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, for simplicity and for reader comprehension, I strongly favour mentioning only one metric (frequency), rather than two. Femke (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Again as demonstration of concept (not necessarily suggesting use here), see Dropbox link #4 for a chart of the 10-year events only, with rectangles showing both frequency and intensity in an "area" graphic that's cleaner than link #3. I understand there are substantive conceptual issues with regard to intensity, but I find the graphical concept useful. — RCraig09 (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stardate 2021-11-07, supplemental. As I understand it, the issue with respect to event intensity is that the term is ambiguous. If the ambiguity were somehow resolved, would the "correct" figure look visibly different from the new superimposed-rectangle figure (at right)? — RCraig09 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The term intensity is well-defined in the extreme weather literature. This graph seems to exacerbate the problem of the Efbrazils graph, implying what used to be a the 10-yr event becomes more frequent, and simultaneously more intense. That's not quite the case. Let's look at the 4C heat event, and assume the old 10-yr event for a region is 40C. The new most extreme event per 10 years is 5.1C warmer than the old one. It becomes 9x more frequent. The new 9 events will probs be distributed like '40C,40C,40C,41C,41C,42C,43C,44C,45.1C', rather than nine times 45.1C. Femke (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, the way this would change the figure is to have a line connecting the top-left to the bottom-right corner of the graph, with more weight on the left; You'd cut out the top-right of the bars. We don't have the exact distribution, so we have insufficient information to make this graph. Femke (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * — Excellent explanation... I see your point. I've just uploaded a Version 2 which removes the "area" formed by multiplying frequency times intensity. I appreciate that viewers might have drawn a wrong inference.
 * — Version 2 is a combination of a horizontal bar chart (frequency) and a vertical bar chart (intensity). It shows (1) more information (2) visually as a graphic should, with (3) minimal text and (4) distinguishes frequency from intensity and (5) does not suffer the "gap" for 3 °C that a conventional bar chart has. (PS - I actually prefer the idea of a black background with white text (example) but thought consensus would be against it since it's "new and different".) — RCraig09 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Lots of good discussion here. But I think my position was mischaracterized when EF Brazil said there’s near unanimous consensus on using a bar chart. I still think Craig’s original graph is better than what’s on the page now. I realize you are all putting in a lot of work trying to get this right, so I will just suggest that whatever you all come up with, I hope you’ll keep the following in mind:
 * It’s important to accurately distill the entirety of what’s on SPM 23 (not just the 10 year events). That’s the source you reference for the graph.
 * For me the most significant aspect of both SPM 23 and Craig’s original graph was how much more heat waves will increase. And it’s heat waves, not the others, that Lancet, WHO, and others have correlated with mortality ( I imagine that’s particularly true for the 50 yr heat waves, thought I haven’t looked for a source on that). And it’s the really extreme event’s that will see the largest relative increase in frequency. I easily see the significant increase in heat waves when I look at that original graph. I don’t get that same sense from most of the bar charts that I’ve seen so far, with the possible exception being the one in Craig’s dropbox. And just as a note on the 50 year frequency graph, it looks like AR6 does chart that out for 3C on p TS-124. And it looks like p 11-60 talks about that increased frequency for the 50 year events.
 * It’s important to keep the graphic relatively simple, even though there’s several things ideas being summarized. The lastest bar charts have way too much information in them, IMO. If you look at the first couple of charts in this article, they are fairly general and support the ideas of the text. These latest graphs require that reader (at least me) to stop reading the text, in my case zoom in on the page so I can read the text legends in the graph (the bars by themselves don’t do it) and then try to figure out what exactly it’s saying. I don’t find that user-friendly, and I think the final graph should be modified to be easier to read.
 * At this point I defer to your efforts, and I do appreciate all the work you are putting into this. Dtetta (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you Dtetta are referring to my Dropbox link #2. (Regrets for accumulating four such links!)  Your points are well made. I seek maximum information, visually presented, with minimal text. I'll touch up Link 2 and upload to WM Commons to clarify discussion here. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes that’s the link I was referring to. Dtetta (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Conventional bar chart (10- and 50-year datasets) is in Commons now. Dtetta sleuthed out the 3 °C data from the long Technical Summary so I am comfortable including it. The 16x9 aspect ratio makes it easier to appreciate the smaller 10-year-dataset bars but still appreciate the huge bars for the 50-year-dataset. This graphic omits the intensity data that the "L-shaped graphs", above, include. The "L-shaped graphs" chart is more complete but the conventional bar chart is simpler in approach; either is acceptable to me. — RCraig09 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Version 3 of the "L-shaped graphs" graphic has enlarged text for easy reading. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

My intention going into this discussion was to strongly simplify the figure, but we seem to be going in different directions. Some feedback on the Craigs classic bar chart. I think there is way too much information in it, even if I do appreciate that bars are easier to read than text of Efbrazil's bar chart. I'm against including it (still think my graph works best). I won't give feedback on the L-shaped graph, as I don't think Craig proposed we include it (and I think our audience will be even further confused). Things to improve (I can't solve for the information overload, but including loads of info seems to be the goal):

1. I think you meant the Paris Agreement, rather than the Paris Convention.
 * — —RCraig09

2. There is some light blue bar that doesn't seem to convey information and isn't in the legend.
 * — The light blue bar denotes the area between "0x" and "1x" which denotes no true increase (increase being the horizontal axis). —RCraig09

3. There is inconsistency in the raster, and the raster has unnecessary horizontal bits (which implies the information on the y-axis is numerical, rather than categorical).
 * — If I understand what you mean by raster: I purposely introduced a space (gap) between the bars because you had criticized Efbrazil's chart as being like a histogram, when the data was not histogram data. I can remove the gaps, if that's what you mean. —RCraig09

4. I don't know what heat events / rain events are. Heavy rain? Funny rain? Red rain? Let's go for heavy rain / heat extreme or hottest day.
 * — I basically went by the labels in the SPM source, which were mutually consistent. I'm OK with other labels also. —RCraig09

5. I very much dislike that information about most 10-year events have been elimatined. From this graph in the text (not zooming in), I cannot see if heavy rain increases by 0% or 300% in the 2C scenario, and I've got young eyes. If information on the 50 year event is included, it must be truncated. This can be done elegantly with a bar chart (I've not thought of a way to do it neatly in a line chart).
 * — This issue is the important one. This sourced subject matter communicates the following to 80-90% of our readers, who are lay readers: "Global warming causes either big changes, and or huge changes." The 10-year data is not eliminated; it's still visible and, importantly, is contextualized alongside the 50-year data as the source SPM apparently intends. Specialists wanting to know exactly how many percent something increases can—indeed, should—look at the source, or (gasp!) click on the graphic to enlarge. —RCraig09
 * — Separately: by "truncate" I assume you mean something like this. I don't think that bar chart truncation is more elegant than the sloping in the August line chart. Substantively, the visual effect—which is the purpose of graphics—of the 50-year data is lost in both charts if that data is truncated. —RCraig09

6. Drop the grey outline, and the upper and right frame, as they are unnecessary elements to the graph, that make it just a tiny bit larger. Femke (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — In ~2019/2020, I think it was User:Efbrazil and I saw problems with renderings of some "transparent" borders which were rendered as black, thereby blanking out any black text outside the plot area. (The problem hasn't repeated recently that I remember.) Is a white border OK with you, or are you strongly in favor of a transparent border? (I think the gray border makes the white plot area stand out—in a good way.) We still need the chart title, whether it's in a border or inside a plot area; I don't think a change would reduce the size of the displayed graphic because the width/height ratio wouldn't change perceptibly. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Back to numbering, as mobile editor is rather bad. Sorry for being so grumpy all the time since long covid started. As for 2) you seem to be using two elements to indicate the pre-industrial: the light vertical and dark horizontal blue bar. I think neither is necessary, but you should definitely drop one, as I'm sure more people will have the same confusion. 3) The gaps are good, but there are raster lines! 4) The IPCC has the luxery of having four large graphs. They use quite a few words to describe the heat extreme (like hot temperature extreme over land as the caption of their first two graphs). I think 'event' a bit big vague for our less-tuned-in audience. 5) Again, the IPCC has the luxery of having 4 graphs, so they can convey large changes in a separate scale as the huge changes. Yes, that's what I meant with truncate :). 6. I wasn't asking for a transparent figure, don't worry. Making the grey white will make the graph less busy, allowing more (mental) space for actual information. Femke (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * — I hope you are feeling better, over the weeks. We appreciate that you have much work to do.
 * — Formally... I've eliminated the blue "pre-industrial era" data series (= 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0) so the blue bars and blue area are gone. Background is uniformly white though I prefer a light gray "frame" . What you called 'rasters' were actually my purposeful horizontal grid lines, which I have eliminated though I like their 'organizing' influence . Category names are now more colloquial.
 * — Substantively, Dtetta argues (17:50, 9 Nov) in favor of the 50-year dataset. I agree that it's the most extreme heat waves that are most important. The standard horizontal bar chart, without truncation, shows the full range of CC's effects that the drafters of the Summary for Policy Makers chose to include. Meanwhile, the "10-year" effects are still visible, even in thumbnail view—and in context. Again, most readers will never seek to learn or remember that something is exactly "1.3" etc. times as likely; it's the general trends and relationships that are important. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — Version 3 of bar chart reduces vertical gridlines so they don't cross legend text. Is this an improvement? Or keep Version 2? — RCraig09 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — Version 4 includes thin, white vertical gridlines that partially overlay both the colored bars and the wider, black background gridlines, to make it easier to visually quantify how far the bars extend without resorting to text, text, text. I've just substituted this bar chart for Efbrazil's bar chart. The new chart has more information, less text, and—being truer to the SPM source—provides more context and meaningful comparison. Also, the new bar chart makes the range of weather event frequency clearer than the August line graph because the 50-year dataset is not truncated in the bar chart. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for disappearing. Work happens. I like the version Craig has, no objection to the switch over given how ambiguous intensity is (and how complicated the drought measure is). The only thing I have a problem with is that the 1.5C measure creates the false impression that extreme weather is increasing exponentially instead of linearly. Can you either remove the "1.5C" measure or resize it so that 1C and 1.5C are each half the height as the other bars? Efbrazil (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern, but the bars don't appear to me to be curved particularly exponentially as such, possibly because it's a (discontinuous) bar chart and not a (continuous) line chart, and possibly because including the 3° dataset flattens out any perceived "curve". The four sets of bars on the vertical axes are explicitly based on categories specified in the legend (upper right quadrant), so the substance is explicitly communicated and I'm not worried about misleading impressions for readers sophisticated enough to notice such concerns in the first place. I definitely don't want to eliminate the 1.5 °C bar, because of the importance of the Paris Agreement, and halving the height of some bars would add visual complexity and raise its own questions. Others can opine below, as our next deadline may be COP27! — RCraig09 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we also add current pledges onto the graph (2.7 C)? Bogazicili (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding another set of bars for a 2.7° dataset would require interpolation—one that would vertically spread out the chart even further. I might have considered simply adding a bit of text re 2.7°, but that number will constantly change (unlike the 1.5° that will always be the goal for the Paris Agreement, and which is in the source Summary for Policy Makers). — RCraig09 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the 2.7C world raised by Bogazicili, I agree on not including it here for the reasons Craig raised. Craig- Regarding intensity vs 50 year scale, which of these pictures is more clear in your head:
 * At 2C, 10 year heat waves will be 5.6 time more frequent and have 2.6C hotter maximum
 * At 2C, 10 year heat waves will be 5.6 times more frequent and 50 year heat waves will be 14 times more frequent

For me, the first statement paints a clear picture in my head, while the second statement is purely confusing. It leaves me wondering about how probability distributions work rather than understanding that intensity gets worse.

So there are 2 problems with the current graphic as I see it- at a glance it presents a false impression of hockey stick growth by oversizing 1.5C, and if you really just want to understand what's going on it makes it really hard to envision that too.

(edit: new crack at things on the right...)Efbrazil (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * — We're doing a chart for a general-audience encyclopedia, not defending a doctoral dissertation. The level of analysis in your two "2C..." options(6-7 lines previous) will simply never occur to the non-techies who are ~80% of our audience, and will be easy to resolve for those ~20% who are sophisticated enough to understand what you are talking about in the first place.
 * — The thrust of your analysis seems to be psychological, hypothesizing how "someone" "might" misinterpret or be confused. What the "Nov. 7" frequency-intensity chart (at right) and the Nov. 9 frequency-only bar chart (at right) do, is faithfully reproduce the content and scope of what the source discloses (with the exception of adding a 3 °C dataset because of your hypothesis that someone might attribute an exponential relationship while looking at a categorical bar chart).
 * — Your new chart re-introduces intensity, while my impression was that most here wanted to simplify to frequency-only. My earlier frequency+intensity chart was deemed too complex so we've gone with a simpler frequency-only bar chart (Nov. 9). Also, your new chart adds textual commentary re 3 °C data, especially an intensity datum, that's not in the main (Summary for Policy Makers) source. I'm OK with either the Nov. 7 chart or the Nov. 9 chart, but my impression of consensus was to go with the (simpler) Nov. 9 chart.
 * — My impression was that most here seem to favor bar charts over line charts. I now tend to agree, as the colored bars are more illustrative and demonstrative for the general public than skinny lines on a plot area. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I added your Nov 9 image beneath mine at the same width, for ease of comparison. Note your fonts are more squinty. In your SVGs, I'd change font-family="sans-serif" to font-family="Liberation Sans,sans-serif" everywhere. That's what I was told to do by wiki-gods, and it does seem to render better. I'd also see if you can bump font sizes. —Efbrazil
 * — Any small advantage in font size is made at the sacrifice of space occupied in article bodies: The difference in aspect ratios makes your chart take up more space vertically (same space horizontally because of ). —RCraig09 . . . Now switched to "Liberation Sans,sans-serif"  ✔
 * I like some of your wording better, so I stole it. Frequency multiplier --> Times more frequent, and Hotter max intensity --> Hotter at the extreme. My image updated.—Efbrazil
 * For 3C data, did you just suss that out by looking at the pictures in that PDF file dtetta found, or did you find the data source somewhere? I couldn't find the data source.—Efbrazil
 * — I'm not sure what you're asking. *Data for 3 °C, not specifically in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), is based on Fig. TS.12 on page TS-124 of the longer Technical Summary document (archive). Separately, in your chart, I read the "Heat waves. At 3 °C:" text. I think it (and the two lines of text immediately below it in the chart) stand out as being incongruous with the visual nature of charts. —RCraig09
 * For your Nov 7 chart, can you change the starting number to be 1X? Starting a 0X really doesn't make sense for a multiplier where 1X is pre-industrial. —Efbrazil
 * — Oops, I made that change in the Nov. 9 bar chart but not in the Nov. 7 "L" chart. —RCraig09 Now done ✔
 * For your Nov 9 chart, I'd remove "present-day", because we're already at 1.1C and rising. I think this is the best of the 3 charts you've come up with. I like how 50 year events create a visual message around intensity, and it looks simple. —Efbrazil
 * — Maybe I'll change to "(Present day=1.1 °C)". —RCraig09 Now done ✔
 * In terms of ease of reading for a lay audience, I don't see a big net difference between my line chart and your bar chart. Each have strengths. The bar chart does a better job of showing intensity visually by including the 50 year measures. The line chart is more economical with space and is more explicit, saying exactly what a "10-year" event is and spelling out the intensity increase in the 10-year context. —Efbrazil
 * — Communicating content visually is a substantive issue, and spatial economy is a formal issue. I can expand the wording, at the expense of a bit of space, though it's already clear we're talking about extreme weather events. —RCraig09
 * In terms of including intensity, the issue is around adding complexity, especially including measures like standard deviations of dryness. I tried to finesse that by only calling out intensity for a single data point related to heat. That lets people know the issue exists without it becoming a distraction. —Efbrazil
 * — The Nov. 7 "L" chart handles both frequency and intensity in respective horizontal and vertical bars. I think the meaning is clear, but there is resistance to anything "new and different". In your line chart, adding a spritz of intensity to a frequency chart, is to complicate things with little resolution (merely "lets people know the issue exists"). —RCraig09
 * I have no strong preference between line and bar charts at this point. I think they each have clear advantages over the other, so maybe there's a third version that includes the advantages of each. Efbrazil (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — The important measure is how visually illustrative and demonstrative a chart is, for the lay reader—for which bar charts have a distinct advantage, at least in this case. The line chart relies more on text, at least in this case. —RCraig09
 * Responses inline above. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've performed some of the items above. Marked with ✔ . — RCraig09 (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mean an extra bar for 2.7C but just mentioning it in text on top right. Currently it says 1.5 (Paris Agreement) for example, but that's just inspirational. It's not actual commitment. More like a wish list. Bogazicili (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For even more clarity, I added your frequency chart at the same width in third place, eliminating the multiple image template. Note that the multiple image template is not accessible and should never be used in an article.
 * Best practice is to make widths based on thumb sizing (for accessibility) and no larger than a 1.2 multiplier for upright. So, so what you see on the right here is the max recommended size. Text should be sized so it is comparable to article text when in thumbnail at that size. You have the white space to bump font sizes, so please do that. Efbrazil (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — FYI, 21 of 22 designations in this article are currently  . I have just increased the font size in the 9 Nov bar chart. I've been leery about larger text because I've been confounded over almost two years by unpredictably too-large renderings of text in thumbnail view (maybe that was because of "sans-serif" and not "Liberation Sans"). Even with Liberation Sans today there is still difference in text renderings between these two SVG checkers::
 * wmf tools SVG check
 * Commons SVG Checker
 * — I'm not sure how the "multiple image" template is not accessible (overall accessibility isn't mentioned at Template:Multiple image). They display fine on my iMac and iPhone for other articles. Is your impressive  entry considered accessible?
 * — The horizontal bar chart occupies less "white space" than either line chart but still isn't 'crowded'.
 * — Adding text re "Current pledges: 2.7 °C" would fit, but would require two lines and looked awkward and unbalanced. I don't see a graceful way to add this number (which may change monthly!) — RCraig09 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me- some people told me max size 1.35, some said 1.2. I guess 1.35 is where we settled as max sizing. That sizing was decided during featured article review. It looks like you bumped font sizes, at least to me it looks better now. I'd go further and make the image taller, but that's just me. I'm happy with the image as is now.
 * SVG Checker is not reliable for font rendering. The only reliable way to check font renderings is to actually upload the image and then look at how it renders at different pixel sizings (which are linked to on the wikimedia page for the image).
 * Guidance on images is to never use px, which multiple image requires. Extended_image_syntax quote: The default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so specifying in PX is not recommended in order to respect the users' preferences, which may be important for accessibility. Template:Multiple image also says right at the top: Be aware that this template does not respect users' default image size preferences. (Wikipedia:Image use policy states: "Except with very good reason, do not use px"... "which forces a fixed image width." MOS:IMGSIZE states that a fixed width in pixels may only be specified, "Where absolutely necessary.") Efbrazil (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Efbrazil, I've added those three links to my own list of useful links (on my user talk page). PS: There are also the Commons files File:Test.svg and File: JPG Test.jpg which can be used as temporary test sites. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , then I suggest removing "Paris agreement" text next to 1.5 C. I think without mentioning current actual commitments, writing Paris agreement there gives out the wrong impression that the world is on track for limiting warming to 1.5 C, which is not the case. Bogazicili (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bogazicilili, I don't see how linking 1.5 to Paris Agreement, implies we're on track. The very presence of bars for 2 and 3 and 4 °C suggests the opposite, and the lead states the opposite. I have been considering adding 'pledge' text... somehow. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , the change you made addresses all my concerns, thanks! :) Bogazicili (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Drastic fall in pages views for Global warming term
On November 1, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change/Archive_88#Record_number_of_page_views_on_Climate_change_page! posted] that the CC article was getting a record number of page views. Right after that, the number of page views associated with the Global warming term dropped by more than an order of magnitude, and has stayed  at that level since. Does anyone have any idea as to why that happened? Dtetta (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Just guessing - no special knowledge - maybe Google tweaked their algorithm. Now when I search "global warming" apart from one ad I get climate change as top results. But I don't know what that search used to result in. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks - The thing that’s confusing for me is that the source code for the google search result has consistently linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change for months. No difference there. I was assuming that a lot of the pageview hits might have just been old bookmarks that people were clicking on, or people going to the Wikipedia home page and typing “global warming” in the search box.  Not sure what had been causing all those global warming pageviews over the past year, or why that suddenly changed in November, right after I posted my comments. Dtetta (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * One thing which is new for me is that the "global warming" result now has "Climate change" in large type at the top with ovals to the top right containing "overview", "causes", "effects", "actions", "videos". Have not looked at these much but there seem to be quite a lot of results from UN. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Image shuffle to promote visual impacts to the summary
Currently, our first 9 images in the article are all charts and graphs. I'm thinking we should have the 3rd image in the summary section be a composite of pictures showing impacts, similar to the new lead graphic of Effects of climate change.

To make room, we could do this shuffle:
 * The CO2 concentration graphic (last in summary) moves to top of Greenhouse gases topic
 * We move the Oceans absorb over 90% of excess heat graphic to a sub-article (the concept is important, the graphic not so much)

Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree about the ocean, with the CO2 graphic it should be tested for WP:SANDWICH on larger screen sizes. Femke (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks horrible ...kids picture book....much less authoritative.....6 pictures is a great example of lead spam. We now have 2 articles with the same small image spam in their leads....bad just bad. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most readers are quite font of images (more than us editors). As long as it does not interfere with accessibility, I don't see a problem of having more lede images. That said, I think the second and third images clockwise are not clear without reading the caption. Furthermore, the second and fourth are quite similar in colour, making it less aesthetically pleasing.
 * I've fixed the sandwiching issues in the GHG section by shortening the caption and by moving two images further down. Femke (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved the composite image down in the summary a bit to prevent bunching in mobile view. My criteria for images was having them be recent, events attributed to climate change, no lead images from "Effects of climate change", and not already in the climate change article itself. If anyone wants to take a crack at better images, go for it. Efbrazil (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Redundant sentence
The second sentence in part Climate change looks like redundant and not very clear. I think that it can be fully deleted. Jirka Dl (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Jirka Dl. I'm afraid it's not redundancy, but two sources (IPCC and WMO) reciting different temperatures for 2020. Error ranges add complexity, also. Maybe a subject matter expert here could resolve which source to rely on. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, User:RCraig09, I will try to discuss the problem with our national representative to IPCC.Jirka Dl (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Started to write email, I found where is the difference - both senteces are correct - IPCC is talking about "avarage" temperature of the period 2011-2020, while WHO is talking about the only one year 2020. For me it is question why we should mention in this "compact" text explicitly 3rd warmest year.Jirka Dl (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've amended the language to distinguish between the decade and the year 2020. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Informal Request for Comment: Talk:Climate change in the United States
I'm requesting opinions of climate science-literate editors on a narrow question concerning a former lead sentence of Climate change in the United States. Click here to weigh in. It shouldn't take much of your time; feel free to bring some egg nog to share. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No more comments necessary, thanks. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding sentence to lede, refuting misinformation/misconceptions
(continued from previous section re "aggregated contributions figure") I agree with adding a sentence to the lead to proactively refute common misunderstandings about causation. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of having a sentence added about misinformation in the public debate in the last paragraph. I'm against having a sentence that is explicitly refuting misinformation (in first paragraph, as it's repetitive and possibly defensive / not 100% NPOV). Femke (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be neutral and non-defensive to proactively state: "" Our language does not need to imply that we are refuting misconceptions, and NCA4 Fig. 3.3's focus on this very issue indicates we do have a NPOV. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think it’s neutral and non defensive to make that kind of a statement. I think the issue here is really what parts of the article we want to emphasize in the lead. Given the amount of people that think natural causes explain global warming, it seems pretty reasonable to include an affirmative statement about natural causes having a minimal impact in the lead. We already state that in the caption of the second graphic at the top of the article (Global surface Temperature), and reference the relevant page from SPM-7. We describe the concept as well in the Drivers subsection on Solar and Volcanic activity. I might phrase the sentence as “Natural sources, such as solar and volcanic activity, currently play a minimal role”, with Figure (b), SPM 7, as the reference.
 * Another change we could make to address this would be so change the title of that second graphic at the top of the article to “Drivers of Present Day Warming”, or something like that. That would clarify for the reader, and draw attention to the idea, that the information in that graphic shows both the amount of temperature rise, as well as the causes of that rise.Dtetta (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year! It looks like there isn’t a lot of support (other than myself and RCraig09) for adding the sentence we are proposing to the first paragraph. So I’d like to rephrase my request at this time to ask: are there any concerns with changing the title of the second graphic at the top of the article to “Drivers of Global Warming”? That at least would help make the point in a visual way.
 * I would also note that the NASA page on causes of climate change describes it this way in their one paragraph summary of the issue. “Human activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels) have fundamentally increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, warming the planet. Natural drivers, without human intervention, would push our planet toward a cooling period.” What we are suggesting seems pretty consistent with this.
 * Lastly, I would ask folks to look at the article and the outline, and put yourself in the position of a reader who reads the lede, the table of contents, and then starts into the article and finds it a little too advanced. With the mention of solar and volcanic activity in the section on drivers of climate change, wouldn’t these readers come away thinking that these factors are in fact a cause of current climate changes? Dtetta (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientific consensus
There is a new study on the scientific consensus, well published in Environmental Research Letters. Based on the analysis of >88,000 papers, the authors find: "We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature." This might be interesting for this or other articles. It is my impression that outside of academia the percentage of academic skeptics is usually considerably overestimated. 194.62.169.86 (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I believe this source will allow us to improve the article. We now say that consensus may be as low as 90% among climate scientists, which I believe is a bit of a ridiculous statement, and only true if you include climate-adjacent scientists / old studies. I'll update the article later + propose some more structural changes. Femke (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to explain why the number has been lower sometimes: (this part currently in article "depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology"). Also the scientific consensus itself has increased in the past 30 years? Bogazicili (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While necessary to state I think the scientific consensus info should be kept really really extremely short here. So I think the current section is too long. Because there are so many other aspects to climate change which must be in this article. For example could the existing quotes from AR5 and SR15 be replaced by a single quote from AR6 if there is a suitable one? After all there is a whole article for details of Scientific consensus on climate change Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Within a day or two, I plan to update the graphic on consensus. —14:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC) It will take longer... — RCraig09 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant :). I'm still against having this image here, because I think it's very easy to misinterpret for people not intricately familiar with those studies. If you update it, can you also make sure it's more uniform (why do consensus scientist get ovals, but the denier + "I don't know" category squares?). Femke (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What does everyone think of me making a column chart (bar chart), with time along the horizontal axis and consensus on the vertical axis? That chart would show growing consensus more clearly—though the studies aren't uniformly conducted as Femke points out. P.S. Femke, I used ovals versus rectangles to distinguish the two groups. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference in methodology is significantly larger than the change in consensus over time. The Cook study, which is old, has a graph of increasing consensus over time iirc, showing only mild variation. I don't know how we can create a graph that is somewhat scientifically sound.
 * The current wisdom in graph design is to keep it simple. You used multiple differences between the two groups (shape, colour + filled-in-ness), which makes it a bit more complicated. Femke (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I was thinking... of a graphic showing consensus with different-area paired circles, with large circles representing consensus and small circles representing the minority. This approach would make use of graphic space that's now occupied with hundreds of ovals. I could insert explanatory comments inside the larger circle describing methodology ("2019 articles", "random 3000 of 88,125 articles 2012—", etc.), with the date and maybe researcher's name below it. You Femke could undoubtedly improve on my descriptions. What do you (and others) think? — RCraig09 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've experimented with big/small circles to show consensus/contra. That graphic (Dropbox link of draft) actually makes the contra views (maximum 9%) visually appear more common than they are. Also, summarizing methodologies requires more words than are desirable in a graphic. I now prefer the existing arrays of ovals. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a draft column chart to Dropbox (link). It's better imo than the paired circles approach, but like all such charts it has the scientific issues that Femke has pointed out. I'll follow up in the following "Proposed new text" subsection. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I like the bar chart! I think the simpler the better (so maybe red portions could be on top, making sure the bar starts from 0 and adds up to 100). There was a consensus in the previous RFC for scientific consensus image, we just have to figure out how it's going to be. The more intuitive and easier to read the graphic, the better! Bogazicili (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * . . . et al., I've added the 2021 Lynas study to the graphic (you may need to by-pass your browser cache to see new version). I replaced bordered gray rectangles with unbordered gray ovals per Femke's suggestion. When a clearer consensus emerges on whether to switch to a bar chart or other representation, I'll generate a graphic. Other options:
 * * Bubble diagram example: Dropbox link of crude draft
 * * Bar chart example: Dropbox link of crude draft
 * Given the still-wide gap between public perception and scientific consensus, I continue to think a consensus graphic is needed despite difficulties in representing different survey methodologies. Please comment! — RCraig09 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need more opinions about inclusion, and will start an RfC if consensus doesn't become clear.
 * Quick question, why did you round Lynas' 99.8% to 99?
 * You could put Powell / Lynas separate from the rest (rather than only Lynas), as they were published after Cook's survey.
 * You could make it grey rather than green to be less obtrusive. Femke (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The chart says ">99%" (greater than 99%) to match the Abstract in the Lynas reference. In the Lynas text there are various 99.xx recitations, and it wasn't clear which was most appropriate... so I chose ">99%".
 * I'm definitely open to graphical re-arrangements of my crude draft(s).
 * I'm not sure where I could put "grey rather than green"... since the existing 'oval' chart already has grey and green. — RCraig09 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the bar graph could work, but with less screaming colours, and the "not consensus" on top of consensus. Femke (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify about screaming/ overly bright colours. Modern graphs have lower saturation. This could be by using dark grey rather than bright green, but also by choosing a more moderate shade of green. Femke (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Bogazicili's and Femke's preference to have a "standard" bar chart (with minority "stacked" atop "consensus" in neat columns that total 100%). I experimented with the short red columns descending from zero, to show how isolated the contrary opinion is. Of course, I will follow consensus. 05:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm good with 28 Oct 2021 image or a simple bar chart. I think the numbers speak for themselves, so no need to show how isolated the contrary opinion is. So given how the numbers speak for themselves, I suggest simple and easy to read visual representation. A simple bar chart, with one or two colours will do. Bubble diagram does not look intuitive to me as it kinda does not add up to 100. Like a pie chart that adds up to 100 is intuitive, but not the bubble chart. I'm good with the current image as well, thanks for all the work! Bogazicili (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — (...edit conflict) Actually the bubble diagram does have top-and-bottom pairs that total 100%; it's just that my crude diagram's separate bubbles don't clearly reflect that sum. Consensus is against bubbles in any event.— RCraig09 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — (...edit conflict) Actually the bubble diagram does have top-and-bottom pairs that total 100%; it's just that my crude diagram's separate bubbles don't clearly reflect that sum. Consensus is against bubbles in any event.— RCraig09 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

— Separately: I'm thinking of somehow consolidating the Cook et al. 2016 "Consensus on consensus" study into one grouping that somehow lists/indicates/summarizes the various preceding surveys and also shows its own "97%" conclusion... and then supplementing with the 2019 and 2021 surveys. This arrangement would yield essentially three major sections to the graphic: 97% (Cook 2016), 100% (Powell 2019), >99% (Tynas 2021). What does everyone think? — RCraig09 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Or you can have black lines separating 3 sources. You have 7 numbers coming from 3 sources. So it'd be 3 sections, with 5 numbers from Cook in 1 section. I don't mind maintaining separate numbers from Cook et al. Bogazicili (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Proposed bar chart is now available:
 * Dropbox link (version 2 Nov 2021).
 * I think it responds to many concerns raised recently. If it meets with approval, I'll upload to Commons. Please comment! — RCraig09 (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — Contain your excitement! The bar chart is uploaded to Commons. I've emphasized Cook's well-known 2016 "Consensus on Consensus" analysis while representing specific early-2010s studies in light gray; recent 2019 and 2021 studies are shown in standalone columns.
 * — State your preference for which graphic should be used. — RCraig09 (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

With mild or implicit agreement that the bar chart is preferable to the oval-array chart, I've boldly substituted the bar chart. The graphic has larger dominant text, simplifies the graphical representation, focuses on more recent surveys, consolidates the earlier consensus studies surveyed in Cook's 2016 "Consensus on consensus", and tones down the saturation level of the green. Looking at the charts at the top of Public opinion on climate change, millions in the public have grave misconceptions, so I think a consensus graph in the present article is critical (I don't see how such a chart is defensive). — RCraig09 (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the new graph (on the left and now in the article) looks great! You might just consider getting rid of 97%. I think it's justified from the study but the conclusion in the study also says 90-100%. Also the non-weighted mean of 5 studies in the graph for Consensus on consensus study is less than 97%. This is just a soft suggestion though. Consensus on consensus study still says "We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies". So I don't mind keeping the graph as it is now. Great work! Bogazicili (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My perception has become that editors here generally tend to favor bar charts.
 * I based the "———97%———" on the conclusion in Cook's abstract, not on the introductory sentence which is vague in reciting only a range that is not fully reflected in the recent studies in his Table 1. I think the "97%" should remain. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup there is indeed rationale for keeping 97%. But Cook's conclusion says this: "We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology." So my suggestion was just a soft suggestion. And yeah the new graph looks great :) Bogazicili (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed new text (Scientific consensus)
This new text brings the readability from 33 to 43, and grade down from post-graduate to 12 (It seems I'm stuck at 12 for most text..) In my view, the previous text curiously suffered from two opposing NPOV issues.
 * There was too much text. Per comments at the FAR, putting too much emphasis on the consensus "feels like belabouring the point". Since then, the section has expanded and a subtle image has been replaced with a bright-coloured image.
 * Conversely, we're implying the consensus could be as low as 90%. This is a) at odds with out description of overwhelming consensus b) stretches the definition of climate scientist quite far, and includes people in the humanities that would never dare to say anything about the cause of climate change in peer-reviewed papers. They may express opinions in surveys though. I believe one of these surveys even specifically selected people suspected of being skeptical. We should go back to a qualitative description. With the latest two studies indicating a basically 100% support, we should drop mention of these old studies.
 * I've removed the warning to humanities, because I still don't see how they fit in this section.
 * I've kept in both statements of the IPCC, as they show how consensus has evolved and they are frequently cited by secondary sources on consensus. I propose not cited the IPCC directly, but the study on consensus to show how these statements are relevant to consensus, rather than quotes we pulled out of the IPCC reports. Femke (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree it was too long or "belabouring". I think what you are doing might seem more defensive and even dismissive. It might feel like you are trying to hide lower numbers. Also what does overwhelming mean? I'd consider 85% overwhelming. Whereas it is actually greater than a whopping 99% per Lynas. I think you sometimes underestimate the impact of quantification. From the Lynas article:
 * "The most recent well-known effort to quantify the consensus was published in 2013, encompassing papers appearing in the peer-reviewed literature between 1991 and 2012, and sparked the famous headline that 97% of the world's science supported the climate change consensus [9]. The '97% consensus' view (published by Cook et al 2013, referred to hereafter as C13) had a big impact on global awareness of the scientific consensus on the role of greenhouse gases in causing climate change and was extensively covered in the media."
 * You previously said climate denialism was a US issue. It isn't. That's why I think a more open approach is more beneficial. People seeing numbers lower than 100% or different numbers should be easily able to reach an overview of that information and explanation here. That's why I'd like this section to have at least these 3 points:
 * 1) latest consensus of 99-100%
 * 2) previous numbers. NASA says 97% and references Cook et al. Cook et al. says 90-100%
 * 3) explanation of lower numbers ("depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology"). You can add a note that sometimes people from other disciplines such as humanities were included in that polls if you want. Here's my suggestion, using your proposed text and added parts in bold:


 * I'm also not sure about dropping warnings from scientist, but I want to hear what others think. Talking about defensive, I also sometimes think qualitative adjectives like "overwhelming" and "unequivocal" come across as defensive, in addition to being vague. It sounds more precise when you let the numbers talk, eg: 99-100%.Bogazicili (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than overwhelming, we can say near-complete? I think that word is less emotional than 'overwhelming'. I don't see unequivocal as vague. We can't really quote the 2013 report, without the 2021 report.
 * We disagree on the value of numbers, and I don't think we can convince each other. So let's wait for others to weigh in.
 * I don't think that depending on exact question, timing and sampling methodology gives a good explanation of those very low values of consensus. If 10% of scientists disagree with the human cause of climate change, the IPCC wouldn't state this as fact.
 * I admit I underestimated climate denial in the EU. Hence my proposal to include consensus in the fourth paragraph of the lede and to expand the public awareness section on the gap of consensus and perception of consensus by the public. Femke (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We do disagree about the importance of quantification, but you also seem to disagree with the authors of Lynas et al:
 * "Hence, quantifying the scientific consensus clarifies the extent of any dissent in the scientific community in the process of disproval, and the plausible validity of alternative hypotheses in the face of scientific scrutiny, observations, and testing over time."
 * Also to put it bluntly, I find it annoying when someone else tries to interpret the numbers for me. It's much less defensive to say "more than 99%", compared to "unequivocal". From a readability perspective, percentages shouldn't be an issue, as they are taught in 4th-6th grade. My suggestion cites 2021 report in the very first sentence btw. I thought you meant Lynas when you said report (since it's also 2021). Maybe we can combine IPCC reports into a single sentence or something. I actually dropped that sentence because you prefer shorter length. Bogazicili (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, "with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology." is almost the same wording as the Cook study. As a rule of thumb, copying more than 5 words in a row literally would be at odds with our copyright policy. Femke (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think it's too close even currently ("depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology"), which I believe I had added and should have used quotes. I amended my proposal Bogazicili (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, one of the reasons I insist on adding numbers is this: . I would say most people are unaware of the degree of consensus. Bogazicili (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how relevant what I have to say is to this conversation. But I have a much different take on what should be in this subsection. I looked for the word “consensus” in AR6, and didn’t find it until well into the TS section(TS-79). And there it wasn’t talking about it in the way that it’s being discussed here, it had to do with consensus regarding the effects of ENSO. What I get out of AR6 is more of an assumption that there is scientific consensus, however you want it characterize the degree of it. The report begins with Finding A1, saying that “ it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.” Then goes into more detailed issues around where there is consensus. To me that’s a more useful and interesting “scientific consensus” type discussion than any sort of historical treatment about consensus in the scientific literature (although I think a general sentence about how scientific consensus has changed over time would be useful). I think the Consensus points section in the Scientific consensus on climate change article tries to get at this, but it’s fairly disorganized, and not as well referenced as it could be. I think the idea that the reputable scientific organizations that have openly opposed the human connection idea have dropped out over time (to the point where there no longer are any) might also be worth mentioning.
 * So if it was me, I wouldn’t even cover more than a sentence or so on the issue of levels of scientific consensus in this article, but rather talk about the areas where there is consensus about specific aspects. Like the extent to which recent extreme weather events are caused by global warming, as an example. If is able to capture it graphically, I think that in itself would be an adequate presentation of the historical aspects and level of consensus. And I don’t think the second paragraph is necessary at all in this top level article. Dtetta (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * More and more, I'm seeing that conceptual issues are overshadowing details of graphic implementation (ovals, circles, columns...). Much of the consensus "debate" is indeed now historical. However, my head is swimming in the details of which consensus data "could" be graphed, and none are leaping out as clearly illuminating for readers. Unfortunately, as the two lead charts at Public opinion on climate change and Bogazicili's 10:49 post show, massive numbers of people still aren't aware of the facts or of the scientific consensus, and I think some type of graphic is needed. I'm eager to portray whatever data this learned group concludes is best. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I should qualify my comment on the second paragraph. I do think it’s important to briefly mention the role of the IPCC in developing international scientific consensus. And tt might be helpful for someone to contact Jonathan Lynn (ipcc-media@wmo.int) at the IPCC press office to get his perpective on why the AR6 report treats the consensus issue the way it does. It’s probably also helpful to clarify (or at least keep in mind) the distinction between changes in scientific consensus and improvements in attribution science when talking about some of this. Dtetta (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This Union of Concerned Scientists article, about the human cause of GW, does a good job, IMO, of capturing the interplay between these two ideas. Dtetta (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think discussing the scientific consensus is very appropriate. This is what some sources like NASA does at length: Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming. NASA's website is also very popular; this was a point brought up in Talk:Climate_change/Archive_86. So I see it as a good example. Bogazicili (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I see that page as a good example of both the current level of consensus, as well as the culmination of what I was mentioning from the Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing subsection of the Scientific consensus on climate change article. If you look through the timeline there, you can see that by 2010 one of the last holdouts to change their stance was the Geologic Society of America.
 * In terms of the scientific consensus and society section as a whole, I think there are several points worth highlighting and connecting, to the extent we can (and perhaps they should each get about the same level of detail):
 * There is a near universal scientific consensus that humans have caused CC/GW
 * At the same time our ability to assosciate specific events and weather patterns with climate change has improved, and both aspects have allowed for more confident statements about the causes of climate change in general, as well as specific changes in weather patterns.
 * For the past 20 years or so there has been a strong climate change denial movement.
 * As stated in the public awareness subsection, today there is a wide variety of levels of concern for, as well as understanding of, climate change and its causes.
 * In line with this sequence of thought, I would move the “Denial and misinformation” subsection above the “Public awareness” subsection, since the issues being discussed in “Scientific consensus” and “Denial and misinformation” seem more closely related, and the combination of them has probably influenced the results described in the “Public awareness” subsection.
 * I think we should also consider moving the “Protests and lawsuits” subsection to the end of the mitigation section, and retitle it something like “Civil society actions”. Then revise it to include all of the ideas that legitimately belong in this aspect of climate change coverage. It would also help address the concerns raised in the “What to do about climate change” topic on this page.
 * On a side note - There needs to be a reliable source for the first sentence of the “Denial and misinformation” subsection. The claim made in that sentence needs to be documented. Dtetta (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good thinking. I've always been unsure what the best way is to structure that part of the article. Agree with moving denial & misinformation up.
 * About protests & lawsuits
 * While civil society actions may be more apt, is also a bit more difficult.
 * Are shareholders and investors civil society? (they were recently removed from the text, but I think that oversimplifies the matter).
 * Adaptation may form a minority of lawsuits and protests, but not insignificant. I think the section fits better with policies and politics, as protest is politics. Or just stay here? Femke (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two HQRS sources given for the first sentence of denial and misinformation. Remember that references must support all text preceding them in the paragraph, not just the last sentence. I just checked them, and they seem to align closely to the text (maybe we should mention the UK in addition to Canada/Australia). Femke (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've implemented something close to Bogazicili's proposal. That one was closer to the current text, and I can't digest this much text now to see whether there is consensus for more radical change. Dtetta: is it possible for you to try to write more concisely? I can't process this much info. Femke (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for all the work, . I think it looks good! I know you like concise text, but numbers do add value in this case I think. Bogazicili (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are people OK if I move the Denial and misinformation subsection up above the Public awareness subsection? I think the flow of information works better that way. Dtetta (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Sandwiching


The current figure causes WP:SANDWICHING, which is an accessibility issue, and therefore must be solved. (Local consensus cannot overrule this). I think it fails the previous compromise of having a more inconspicuous figure. I would still like there to be no figure at all, but I'm open to having a figure that is smaller, more horizontal, and therefore less "In your face, here is a collection of primary sources that we've synthesised for you".


 * I've reduced the size of 'Consensus', moved it up, and shortened its caption; and moved 'cherry-picking' to the right margin. (I thought sandwiching was a formal guideline, not an overriding requirement.) With major portions of at least the U.S. and Australia (majority of our reading audience) still denying or ignorant of GW and CC (see two charts leading Public opinion on climate change), I think a consensus figure is desperately needed. I hope the present arrangement is better from a formal perspective. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Happy with compromise.
 * While the link I gave is more like advice, the guideline at MOS:ACCIM is more strong is it's wording. The US makes up about 40% of our audience, that graph ignores our masses of readers from non-English countries. Femke (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * & others: I've just made all colors neutral. (Is it too dull now?) FYI: I had to by-pass my cache when refreshing, to see the new version.
 * The graphs at Public opinion on climate change show substantial lack of awareness around the world. +I don't see how presenting consensus objectively is 'defensive'. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Correcting the second sentence in the lede
The current second sentence is highlighted here in context:

Contemporary climate change includes both the global warming caused by humans, and its impacts on Earth's weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are more rapid than any known events in Earth's history. The main cause is the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide and methane. Burning fossil fuels for energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steelmaking, cement production, and forest loss are additional sources. Temperature rise is also affected by climate feedbacks such as the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover, and the release of carbon dioxide from drought-stricken forests. Collectively, these amplify global warming.

Proposed rewrite is this:

There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are distinctly rapid and are not due to natural causes.

Here is the reasoning for the above edit:
 * The original statement is just inaccurate. Both asteroids and supervolcanos have produced much larger temperature swings than 3C and in very short periods of time. The most recent supervolcano, Toba, produced a global temperature drop of between 3.5C and 9C in a very short time, all while humans were around: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00141-7
 * The new statement succinctly incorporates the idea that natural causes are not responsible for climate change without belaboring the issue.

If you want further tweaks, please suggest them below along with reasoning. Efbrazil (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this almost works for me. Your interpretation of the word event might be common (any event, instead of any climate change event).
 * If we say it's not due to natural causes in the second sentence, we can skip the awkward "caused by humans" in the first sentence. The third, fourth and fifth sentences are also about how humans cause climate change. Femke (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good! I like removing "caused by humans" from the first sentence, so we should plan to cut that too as part of this change, unless someone else complains about that tweak. Efbrazil (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)